KJB Defense Is Not Heresy

While having neither the stomach nor the time to listen to Waite, I have just preached through Titus. I can assure you that in no sense does Paul tell Titus to tolerate those who add to the doctrine of Scripture, who assert their own opinions as fact without scriptural proof, or who divide the brethren about something God has not revealed. The KJVOs are guilty of all three of those. Titus 3 would apply directly to a KJVO.

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

1. KJVO is a foolish controversy. It has no basis in Scripture. It serves no purpose for the furthering of followers of Christ. It is an assembly of man made ideas and badly interpretted doctrine.

2. It is used by men to divide brothers over something God has not revealed. The word translated "heretick" means "divisive." The MVs are much clearer since "heretick" in modern language means one who is doctrinally deviant. Paul was referring to those who are divisive. Therefore, one who practices divisive KJVOnlyism is a "factious" man, a heretick in the KJV. BTW, did you know that "heretick" is not found in many dictionaries. YOu know why??? Because it is a misspelling for modern English. Should we really have a word from God that is not even grammatically right??? You wouldn't accept that from your children in school. Why accept it from God?? But back to the point ... KJVOs are usually divisive.

3. They are to be separated from after two warnings because they are "perverted" and "sinning, and are "self-condemned." Their own doctrine and practice condemns them.

What we need to understand is that using a KJV, preferring a KJV, or even preferring teh text type underlying the KJV is a legitimate position. That can be supported from Scripture and history. On the other hand, asserting that the KJV is the only word of God is supportable neither from Scripture or history. Asserting that the TR is a perfect text is supportable from nothing other than the ideas of man.

We need a revival of respect for the Scriptures. It needs to be rescued from the hands of men like Waite who would attack it at every turn. These are divisive factious people who are chasing after foolish controversies.

 

If someone believes and uses only the KJV, this is not heresy. But it does become divisive when some develop the posture of Bro Waite! I have a pamphlet that a KJVO Pastor friend gave me (I do not know where it is presently), that is very sad. The pamphlet rants and raves left and right about the "inconsistent" position of Bob Jones III, of BJU. Very sad article indeed.
(KJVO can become heresy when you take it to the extreme, i.e. "correcting the Orig", or the infamous "Incorruptible Seed Doctrine").
Dr Bob, trust I didn't violate the forum guidelines...did I?

 

First of all, let me apologize for starting a thread that was against BB rules. It was late and when I read the question in another forum, I thought it would be a good question for us to tackle. Sorry.

Next, I believe that in any case a person stands on a extra-biblical doctrine so strong that he dissents or deviates from the orthodox teachings of traditional Baptists he or she has a "Sinful doctrine."

Of course, a person that only uses the KJV should NOT be considered "Sinful." They should be considered blessed, as the KJV is wonderful.

Again, I'm sorry for any confusion.

 

Defending the KJV is not heresy. However, taking a KJVO stance borders on heresy and idolatry.

 

I think most of us here, if not all of us, agree. However, Waite has gone past this. He has asserted some extra biblical things about the KJV and raised it to a level of divisiveness by questioning the orthodoxy of those of us who hold firmly to the biblical doctrine of inspiration that God revealed in his word. That is the problem with Waite.

One can certainly use the KJV and can even question readings or translational choices of MVs while being orthodox. Just as people can prefer an MV and question readings and translational choices of hte KJV while being orthodox.

 

Dr. Waite follows, to a large degree, the modern KJVO hooey started by Ben Wilkinson in 1930. That's what many a KJVO author does-dig up the same ol' garbage, put it into a new "container",& tries to peddle to as something new. Sorry, Charley, the same ol' odor is still there. Now, is that heretical or not?

 

Just like you keep digging up the same ol' garbage, and putting it into a new container. It was pointed out to you, with supporting quotes, that KJVOism did not start with SDA Wilkinson, but predated him by several decades, but you keep "digging up the same ol' garbage and putting it into a new post, er, I mean "container." Now, is that heretical or not?

 

Defending the KJB is most certainly NOT heretical.

Claiming that "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities) from Papal mss.(Rev 17) and/or land-fill mss.(Sinaiticus;Galatians 4:24-25)are somehow equal to Bibles from the Graeco/Syrian mss.(the KJB being the outstanding repesentaion of those Bibles/mss.) of the reformation is heretical;bordering on lunacy.

 

Can you link to this thread? I must have missed it while away.

I hope you aren't using the circumstantial arguments that Dr Cassidy used to try. Saying that anonomous 'someones' were KJVO is a far cry from a formulized doctrinal position.

 

How about those who maintain that all of our generally accepted protestant canon is inspired and/or that all other early Christian writings are not? How about those that maintain the NT originals were in Greek?

Neither of these can be proved from scripture. Are Bible defenders that hold to these points heretics?

 

See Baptist Board Link

I am not aware of Dr. Cassidy, who is my Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence teacher, ever citing an anonymous someone. He is very careful in his cites. The two mentioned are actually a primary and secondary cite of the same source, but they reflect the experience of one of the founders of Baptist Fundamentalism regarding those who believed what Dr. Riley called "the old conception" meaning they believed the KJV was "handed down from heaven" and was the sole "inspired word of God in English" or words to that effect.

 

I'll agree that its not heresy to defend the King James Version of the Bible and I expect folks to also agree its not heresy to defend the New American Standard translation . . . .

 

A point worth mentioning is that not all KJVO's are heretics. One of my closest and dearest friends is a KJVO. Simply believing the 1611 Authorised Version or the subjacent 1769 Revision are the Word of God is not even remotely heresy. Hey, if you love the King James Bible, then good for you. I would urge you to obtain a copy of the 1611 Authorised Version (the REAL King James Bible!) to enhance your enjoyment.

However,

Some people on this list claim that Psalm 12:6-7 is Biblical support for KJVO. I have seen some who state that anyone led to Christ by any Bible other than a KJV is not truly born again. Others believe that any other Version of God's Holy Word in the English language is not the Word of God, making very irresponsible and quite disturbing statements about these other Versions of God's Holy Word. There are some on the board who identify themselves as "King James Bible Christians." Someone on the list actually claimed that the Bible specifically mentions King James in the Bible! [This person obviously shares King James' belief in the "divine right of kings!"] These statements are egregious at best, blasphemous at worst.

Remember:
1. There were several Versions of God's Holy Word before the 1611 Authorised Version
2. Jesus didn't use the King James Version. I imagine the "Bible of choice" was the Septuagint - perhaps even containing the Apocrypha!
3. King James was not exactly "pure" in his motivation for commissioning the 1611 Authorised Version
4. King James is not somebody whose behavior would be tolerated in many of the "Independent Fundamental King James Bible" Baptist churches I have seen that boldly identify themselves with him.
5. The Puritans would not use the 1611 Authorised Version if you gave it to them for free.
6. The Anabaptists would not use the 1611 Authorised Version if you gave it to them for free.
7. As a Purist with respect to our language, I love William Shakespeare, and must point out that he didn't use the King James Bible.
8. John Calvin was a better man than King James ever was, and his Bible, the Geneva Bible, is also God's Holy Word in the English language. Hey wait: that fact alone refutes KJV-Onlyism.

If you love the King James Version, then good for you. Just remember that nobody can justify WITH SCRIPTURE the total rejection of all other English Versions of God's Holy Word.

 

Uh, well, I hate to have to admit it, but I do! Proverbs 8:15 "By me kings reign, and princes decree justice."

I "imagine" it was more likely the Vorlage text, without, of course, the Apocrypha.

Well, it is quite possible that he was a style consultant on the Psalms.

 

KJV preference is not heresy but a divisive spirit is. Anyone who is divisive is against what scripture teaches and ought to be dealt with according to scripture.

 

God's Word needs no defense, but it saddens me so much to see the leftist KJVOs attack God's Word.

 

i agree. defending God's Word in whichever version is a Christian duty.

but this low view of God's Word, calling it "landfill" when one's preference of text-type is passed over, is heretical.

 

What about them??? The church at large has never accepted that position, just as the church at large has never accepted the KJVO position ... both with good reason.

There is no solid evidence that disputes this. There are a few wackos in search of the new and unusual that suggest it. There is no reason to believe it. But furthermore, I haven't seen anyone decrying the faith or salvation of those who believe that the NT was written in Greek. Bad analogy here. You were closer on your first one.

If they cause division over it they are. That is what "heretick" in teh KJV (better translated "factious man" since that is what Paul is referring to) means: someone who divides the people of God over foolish controversies. That is what KJVOnlyism is ... a foolish controversy.