Fairness to KJVOs

Dogsbody said "Whoa, put on the breaks there, fella. [] Any Baptist statement of faith and practice I've ever seen holds dogmatically to the 66 book canon. Usually in the very first pragraph."

This is the one from our church. No mention of "66" books, nor "KJV". Technically, it doesn't even say "only authority" either:

We believe the Bible is God’s Word given by divine inspiration, the record of God’s
revelation of Himself to humanity (II Timothy 3:16). It is trustworthy, sufficient, without
error—the supreme authority and guide for all doctrine and conduct (I Peter 1:23-25; John 17:17;
II Timothy 3:16-17.) It is the truth by which God brings people into a saving relationship with
Himself and leads them to Christian maturity (John 20:31, I John 5:9-12; Matthew 4:4; I Peter
2:2).

 

Same as the one from several of our churches, natters.

 

So why can't I have a copy of this bible your church talks about in it's statement of faith? It says that the bible is trustworthy, sufficient and error-free. What version does your church say fits this bill?

 

James, don't you get it? If it named a specific version in the doctrinal statement, it would be making that into a doctrine - a doctrine that is not found in scripture (i.e. an extra-Biblical doctrine), and thus creating a contradiction. It says what scripture says, and goes no further. That's the whole point.

 

So your church believes that whatever I want to believe is what they believe??? I believe? they believe...

 

Is this inspired scripture?


What about this?

 

James, now you're just being ridiculous!

 

"We believe the Bible..."
"It is trustworthy..."
"It is the truth..."
All of these statements, 'The', 'It', 'It', refer to a singular thing.
The difference between your position and ours is that we can see that this statement doesn't go far enough.
For a couple of resons that I can think of off hand.i.e.
The catholic 'bible' has more than 66 books as do other churches in other parts of the world.
The LDS bible has a disclaimer stating it is the KJV, when correctly translated.
Some churches have even more books included than the RCC.
And there a numerous other groups out there who also put stipluations on it to clarify what they mean when they say "the Bible..."

Your crowd says we are wrong in clarifying which Bible we are talking about in our statement of faith. We say that your statement is not clear enough.
In using 2 Timothy 3:16 we ask, "What are the Scriptures?" Was it only what Timothy had? Was it only the Hebrew Old Testament originally written? Which time? (See Jeremiah) Or was it the copies? Which copies? Does "Scripture" also include the Greek New Testament? Or does it also include the Latin? The Coptic? The Syriac? The German? The Russian? The French? The Spanish? The English? (You get my drift.)


To me, this is the "whole enchilada".
In His service;
Jim

 

James said "So your church believes that whatever I want to believe is what they believe??? I believe? they believe...

Is this inspired scripture?

What about this?"

What? No.

They simply didn't put in the doctrinal statement things that couldn't be backed up with scripture. In other words: if they did put something in the doctrinal statement that wasn't found in scripture, one could rightly ask "by what authority do you hold that as doctrinal, if it is not found in scripture?" - which is exactly what I've been asking you and others about the doctrine of KJV-onlyism for years (without getting a non-contradictory response), and which is exactly what this thread is about.

Are you saying churches should put extra-Biblical doctrines in their doctrinal statements? Like the assumption of Mary, Jesus preaching to the Nephites in North America after his resurrection, KJV-onlyism, etc.?

 

ROFLOL
James I love you bro!
In my current CBD catalogue they actually have a "Biblezine" for girl teens and one for boy teens. In a glossy teen magazine format. Complete with articles of interest to kids like, beauty, men, fitness, career, money. You know; all those theological things kids are wrestling with.

In His service;
Jim

 

av1611jim said "We say that your statement is not clear enough."

Then not even the Bible (whichever version you prefer) is clear enough for you, and you need to add to it to take your doctrinal position about it being sufficient - which is inherently self-contradicting.

 

uh....where did the links go?
In His service;
Jim

 

All I'm asking is where did you get the 'doctrine' for your doctrinal statement?

 

Natters;
Your comment is out of context. And you completely ignored the remainder of my comments to offer up your rebuttal. Your rebuttal has no weight to it since it is answered in the remainder of my comments.

In His service;
Jim

 

I wouldn't put adherence to the 66 books of the canon in a dogmatic statement of faith. My church's statement of faith doesn't have it. And I think the fact that good Christians down through the ages have on occasion questioned the canonicity of various books without being declared heretical is evidence that historically the cannon has not been held as dogmatic truth as the same level that other truths have.

If someone is wise, I think they will accept the 66 book cannon. We have no reason not to accept the consensus of the church on this one, since the consensus of the church doesn't go against scripture, and in fact, lines up with what scriptural evidence we do have. For instance, we can state directly from scripture that all the OT books accepted as canonical by the Jews are scripture. We can also state that the letters we have of Paul are scripture. We also know that we can eliminate any works that directly contradict the works that are directly attested to in scripture.

Extrabiblical doesn't mean automatically wrong--or even that we can't make a good argument from things outside scripture that it is so--it just means that we can't hold to it with the same sort of tenaciousness that we do biblical truth, because there is always the possibility that a little bit of error has seeped in.

Let me give examples:

If a manuscript of 3rd Corinthians was found (and this assumes that it can be absolutely authenticated), I'm not sure it wouldn't have to be included as scripture, since Peter calls Paul's letters scripture. I'd certainly have to carefully consider it. The cannon of scripture (in my mind, anyway) is not absolutely unchangeable by any circumstances whatsoever. I highly doubt that it will ever be added to. But I can't be absolutely positive. The absolute correctness of the canon as it stands right now doesn't belong in my "doctrinal statement".

However, if someone came along and claimed to be God's second son, and to be another way to God, I would dismiss them automatically without any consideration whatsoever, because scripture makes positive statements about Christ's "onliness". The absolute correctness of Christ as the unique son of God and the only way to God belongs in my "doctrinal statement".

If a KJVO holds to the statement that the KJV is the only true word of God in English, preserved by inspiration in the very same way that the original writings were inspired, with the same tenaciousness that they hold to Christ as the one and only Son of God and the one and only way to God--and many do--then they need to be able to defend it by something other than tradition or "special revelation". They need scriptural support.

 

James said "All I'm asking is where did you get the 'doctrine' for your doctrinal statement?"

Uh, the Bible?

av1611jim said "Your comment is out of context. And you completely ignored the remainder of my comments to offer up your rebuttal. Your rebuttal has no weight to it since it is answered in the remainder of my comments."

How is my comment out of context. It is perfectly IN context. I didn't ignore the remainder of your comments, I thought my comments summed everything up - doctrinal statements should not go beyond what the Bible itself says. The Bible doesn't specify a version, so neither should a doctrinal statement from a church that claims to hold to sola scriptura. The Bible doesn't specify a language, so neither should a doctrinal statement from a church that claims to hold to sola scriptura. Your church can have beliefs and a consensus about these things, but they should not be doctrinal, because once you make them a doctrine, you've contradicted yourself about doctrines only coming from scripture.

 

Absolutely!

 

Maybe he was, But it had me rolling!
James,

 

russell55 said "Extrabiblical doesn't mean automatically wrong--or even that we can't make a good argument from things outside scripture that it is so--it just means that we can't hold to it with the same sort of tenaciousness that we do biblical truth, because there is always the possibility that a little bit of error has seeped in."

EXACTLY. It's about AUTHORITY. The Bible doesn't say "KJV" or "66 books" or "Christmas pudding", so it would be going beyond the authority of scripture to make those things into outright doctrines, even if the general consensus is that they are good and correct things.

 

Russell;
You have stated your position very well.
I have always understood that position.
It is not my position however.
What I think is misunderstood by your crowd is our position that if "all scripture is given by inspiration of God..." then what is that Scripture? Is it all of the MSS we have today, in total?
This is where the heated contention arises isn't it?
Some appeal to certain textual critcisms to determine what that "Scripture" is, don't they?
While some recognize some MSS, others do not, while still others think they can determine what is the exact words of God.
This, IMHO is the dividing line.

You may appeal to your 'authorities' we may appeal to ours. We simply do not agree on what are the determing factors as to which MSS are authoritative and which have been corrupted.

AISI; there are errors on both sides, leaving us to exercise a little faith and a little caution in the leading of God on this issue.
But once "fully persuaded in his own mind..." we should stand!
In His service;
Jim