Fundamentalist & KJVO Mutually Exclusive?

Okay, here are a couple of reasons off the top of my head:

1. KJVOs replace the biblical truth of inspiration and inerrancy for their mythical, mystical, warped view of preservation.

2. The fundamentalists rejected the KJV in favor of the American Standard Version. Imagine that.

 

Apart from the history which Daniel David mentioned, the reason that the fundamentalist stance simply cannot be in agreement with KJV-onlyism is very simple: Fundamentalism holds that only scripture can be the source of doctrine. Yet the doctrine of KJV-onlyism is not taught in scripture. It comes from outside of scripture.

To assert the doctrine of KJV-onlyism is to say that one can establish doctrine apart from scripture, and that is entirely at odds with fundamentalism.

 

Once again I will state my position that if a person that is KJVO, is so to the extent that he/she believes the KJV is more trustworthy and reliable than even the Greek that underlies it, that is heresy and they certainly are not funamentalists.
However, if as "KJVOers" they mean that they simply PREFER the KJV to any other English version, they could certainly be fundamentalists.
This is just as true to those who PREFER the NIV, NASB, ESV or any other version.

 

Would hate to be the one to dispel any myths, but here are well over 1000 IFB KJV sites in one spot. LOL.

http://fundamentaltop500.com/

What kind of Baptist churches do you go to?

All the IFB churches I know of use the KJV or maybe the NKJV. Let's see, that would include IFB churches in W.Va, PA, Ohio, TN, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri & probably a few states I forgot....and missionaries, evangelists, and lay preachers, too.

 

Sheeagle, thanks for pointing out to everyone that so many people are either gullible to the truth, reject it outright, or simply don't care what it is. How sad that any of that can be said of baptist churches.

 

Well, DD, you are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not necessarily the gospel truth.

And there are many, many people who would disagree (like the 1000+ over there) who would say that you are the one who is "gullible to the truth, reject it outright, or simply don't care what it is."

The fact is IFB and KJV go hand in hand in most Baptist circles, no matter what any body on this particular board says and no matter what any other stripe of Baptist says.

 

Some are gullible enough to believe that the addition of 1 John 5:7,8 is scripture too. So if your Bible claims it as scripture when it is not, then it is misleading. Those verses are not quoted by any early Church Fathers or are in any manuscripts before the 16th century (1500 A.D.). If your Bible contains those verses it contains text that is not scripture.

 

That must be why the fundamentalists rejected the KJV? Right...

Bottom line is that the name fundamentalist has been hijacked by KJV users. That doesn't make them fundamentalists ya know.

It reminds me of the clowns like Clarence Larkin of yesteryear who tried to impersonate dispensationalists. Thankfully that isn't a problem anymore.

 

BrianT: "Apart from the history which Daniel David mentioned, the reason that the fundamentalist stance simply cannot be in agreement with KJV-onlyism is very simple: Fundamentalism holds that only scripture can be the source of doctrine. Yet the doctrine of KJV-onlyism is not taught in scripture. It comes from outside of scripture.

To assert the doctrine of KJV-onlyism is to say that one can establish doctrine apart from scripture, and that is entirely at odds with fundamentalism."

Does scripture teach that it is the only acceptable source of doctrine? If not, fundamentalism (by your definition) is entirely at odds with itself.

 

And KJV fundamentalists would say fundamentalism has been hijacked by "modernists" who are "fundamentalists in name only" who embrace the newer versions. Throwing in the Clarence Larkin dig is only a red herring, PTW.

 

Actually, I somewhat agree with that conclusion, but that's another subject.

What other authoritative sources of *doctrine* do KJV-only fundamentalists claim? Take a look at the *doctrinal* statement of any KJV-only fundamental Baptist church - they usually put something about the KJV in the first *doctrine* listed. Remember, these are not "preference statements", these are "doctrinal statements". Most say something like: the Bible, in only the form of the KJV, is the "sole authority for faith and practice" or the "final authority for matters of doctrine" or similar. Where did *this* doctrine of "only the KJV" come from of, if it itself is not in that "final authority"? They claim that the Bible (KJV) is the only source of doctrine, and then in the very same paragraph they turn around and make a *doctrinal* statement that only the KJV is to be used - when that doctrine isn't in the very Bible they claim to be the only source of doctrine. They define a fundamental doctrine, and then immediately contradict themselves - thus KJV-onlyism and fundamentalism cannot be truly in agreement.

 

Another point about why KJV-onlyism and fundamentalism is mutually exclusive is because of the KJVO misunderstanding regarding the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. The KJVO view of 'providential preservation' is another point that deserves attention since they are assuming that God somehow 'preserved' the KJV and make it equal to the original manuscripts (despite the FACT that the KJV has errors in it, thus, it is not inerrant or inspired). BrianT made the point that KJVO IFB churches regularly put these items in their doctrinal statement to the effect that their 'final authority' is the KJV, and that because God had 'providentially preserved' the Word of God in the TR/KJV, then it is an inspired and inerrant Bible. Such statements do not deserve being in a doctrinal statement, but rather should be in the by-laws of the church constitution. This puts KJVOnlyism at odds against the fundamentals of the historic Christian faith: only the original autographs are inspired and inerrant, and our Bible(s) today are infallible so long as they reflect the meaning of the faithful translation from the original languages of the text of the Bible (either Hebrew or Greek). The KJV-onlyist will not admit that the extant Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts in existence as they have been discovered have errors in them because their view of 'providential preservation' demands that the TR/Received text has no errors in it. The copying of the manuscripts through the ages have copying errors in them, including the few manuscripts that were used in compiling the 1598 Theodore Beza Greek NT; this alone also puts the KJVO myth of 'providential preservation' at odds against the historical view of preservation being that despite copying errors, the text of the OT/NT is with us even today. Churches that state they are KJVO and fundamental have a serious problem with being biblical and are merely deluding themselves about being 'true to the Bible'.

 

Where does the Bible teach that only the originals are inspired? Where does it teach imperfect preservation?

Do these opinions deserve a place in fundamentalist doctrinal statements?

Pot, kettle, black.

 

Fundamentalism without ultimate, real, hold it in your hands biblical authority is meaningless. What does it mean to be sola scriptura without any reliable scripture?!? In such a situation honesty requires putting "we think" and "it sure looks like" in front of every statement of doctrine.

All it takes to change or remove any verse of scripture in the critical text is the discovery of one older conflicting manuscript. For any give verse, how can you know such a manuscript won't be found tomorrow? You can't. Hence the entire critical text bible, every verse of it, is provisional.

 

The burden of proof is yours, my friend!

Inspiration: 1 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. See specifically in 2 Peter 1:21 that "men spoke from God being carried along by the Holy Spirit". Only the authors had the authority and 'theopneustos' (God-breathed) inspiration from God to write down the very Word of God.
1 Corinthians 13:8-10 states that the canon of the Bible was 'the complete and perfect thing' (Greek: teleion), and that the use of tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge would cease when 'that which is perfect' (KJV, the best translation of the Greek word 'teleion') is come. When the Bible was in its complete form would the imperfect 'revelatory gifts' cease. If you deny this, then the Charismaniacs are correct to say that God is still speaking to us in tongues! Thus, the original autographs are the only 'pefect and complete' revelation from God, and only the original autographs are the perfect, inerrant, and inspired document(s) that were given to man by God.

Secondly, the Bible is completely silent regarding the 'preservation' of the Bible text. God made no promise to preserve the Bible text, nor did He state that the KJV would be 'inspired'. The Bible is preserved because scribes (Antiochian, Alexandrian, Catholic and Greek Eastern Orthodox, I might add!) had faithfully copied the manuscripts through the ages, but God did not 'protect' them from copying errors. Thus, if God 'providentially preserved' the Bible, why are there errors in the copied manuscripts??

Thirdly, many doctrinal statements by Reformed and Baptist theologians through years past referred to the 'original autographs' as being the only 'inspired' product, and that our Bible today is infallible.

Again, you have the burden of proof to state that KJV-onlyism is correct regarding inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation. This is why KJV-onlyism does not stand the test, and thus is a recent heresy that continues to cripple true and historic fundamentalism.

 

Hence, fundamentalism - based 100% on the Word and with hundreds of verses to back up each point - is at loggerheads with the "only" sect and its lack of a single verse to support it.

Problem is the Word was lost and we don't really know what it said. It likely matches up quite a bit with what we have, but that's not really a great foundation to build on, certainly not to establish absolute Truth in doctrine.

 

Dr. Bob, I don't mind you telling me I'm wrong.

But when you are telling me I'm wrong, then you're also telling me all the Independant Fundamental Baptists I've known for over 50 years, plus my independant fundamental Baptist father/pastor/missionary, and all the IFB pastors/missionaries/evangelists he fellowshipped with (and he lived to be 76 and would be in his 80s now if the Lord hadn't taken him home) through decades, including his education at BBI under Doc Ketchum, (before it became Cedarville College) and all the IFB missionaries, evangelists, and thousands upon thousands of members of their congregations are wrong too. That is quite amazing.

[ February 01, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

There is nothing about "originals" or "imperfect preservation" at all in our doctrinal statement. So am I a pot, kettle, or coffee-maker? Although I guess some wouldn't consider us "fundamental", while others would.

Who's questioning Biblical authority or reliability of scripture? This is about *narrowing* that so that only enough room exists for the KJV exclusively.

Not that I agree, what does any of that have to do with KJV-only doctrine vs. fundamentalism?