Is KJVO Compatible with Classic Fundamentalism?

As for the link between liberalism and KJVO, note the following:

1. Who questions the existence of original autographa for their case? Liberals and KJVOs.

2. Who derides the so-called "lack of a perfect Bible"? Liberals and KJVOs.

3. Who is it that questions and attacks the fundamental doctrines of authority, inerrancy, inspiration, and infallability? Liberals and KJVOs.

4. Who is it that uses an appeal to subjectivism as their end? Liberals and KJVOs.

There are more, but these are certainly the most indicting of the similarities between KJVO and liberalism which makes KJVO fall squarely into the lap of liberalism.

 

Pastor Bob 63, thanks for taking the time to create your post. I appreciate your reasoned manner in approaching the subject. Let me point out a couple of statements in your post which I question.

I think you are confusing Textual criticism and higher criticism. They are not the same thing. Higher criticism DID spring from german rationalism and it DOES attack the Bible. From this movement came theological liberalism which attacked the Bible and denied the supernatural. Against this movement, early fundamentalism began. Textual criticism is not an attack on the scriptures. Textual critics are engaged in a process of looking at the many manuscripts which exist, evaluating their differences, and trying to decipher from the copies, the exact wording of the originals. Though there are, no doubt, liberals in this field, there are also many conservatives. Indicative of the difference in the two is the fact that textual critics often refer to their science as "lower criticism" as they want to differentiate themselves from higher critics.

Aland and Metzger are not theological liberals. Nida is not a liberal either to my knowledge. And a RCC cardinal is not a theological liberal, Pastor Bob 63. While I disagree with RCC theology, it is not the same as liberal theology. So the guilt-by-association strategy you are using here is not coherent, not that it would be valid anyway. Textual criticism is not a theological field. It is an historical field and if a person is honest in evaluating the historical evidence, their theology does not matter. Frankly, it does not matter if they are even saved, as long as they are honest with the evidence.

More of the same here. Guilt-by-association and confusing higher and lower criticism.

No, fundamentalists do not separate from that which is associated with apostasy, we separate from apostasy. Taking separation to this second degree is unbiblical, and is impossible in a practical sense.

Now, let me ask you a question. What is your evaluation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you think that they are valuable? Do you think that they should be evaluated? Do you think that they can contribute to our knowledge of the reading of the OT text? Be careful when you answer this--it's a trap!!!

 

What does "Bible-believing" mean? Doesn't that change with the generations, too? What about "child of God"? doesn't that change in terms of a label? And aren't you putting yourself into a "camp" of some kind when you say you're a "Bible believer" or "a child of God" and especially "and Independant Baptist"?

 

Pastor Bob,

You err on a number of points.

1. Textual criticism has not much to do with the German rationalism, or higher criticism. Textual criticism is lower criticism, something that is absolutely necessary no matter what position you hold to. Erasmuc practiced lower criticism, as did Scrivener, Westcott and Hort, Aland and Nestle, and whoever else that does anything with the text. Even the KJVOs practice lower criticism (from a somewhat unstudied and unthinking end).

2. KJVO is incompatible with fundamentalism as outlined by James M Gray in the fundamentals. When you read his article, you will see just how incompatible it is, and he is the first (to my knowledge) to point out the facts that lead to the glaring similarity between liberalism and the KJVOnlyism.

3. The use of a particular text does not imply involvement with apostates. Your own preference for the KJV would be ruled out on this regard. The existence of a text is just that -- the existence of a text. It is not about the theology or practices of those who sit down with evidence and work through it. That is an attempt at guilt by association and it is an improper approach to this topic. You have greatly confused the issues by saying that fundamentalism must separate from those things associated with apostasy. That is not really true at all as it regards this issue.

4. A great many fundamentalists uses MVs almost exclusively because of their commitment to fundamentalism. IT is historical revision to suggest that KJVOnly people are fundamentalism. If David Sorenson used this material as you have, I would suggest it falls short of the mark by ignoring the historical realities of fundamentalism.

IMO, you have taken the easy road in this matter (which is fine). It is certainly easier in many respects to hold the position of KJVOnly (which you do not technically speaking) because it erases the need for the learning and knowledge that fundamentalists should be known for. It erases the need for serious intellectual interaction and serious interaction with the text. I think that ultimately proves to be a weakening of fundamentalism, not a strengthening of it. I hope that it soon changes as more and more begin to see the fallacies involved in teh KJVO movement, as we become a people better taught in the precious doctrines of Scripture, especially the doctrine of Scripture itself. Of course, for many, that is simply wishful thinking. But as long as I have a voice, I will teach my people these precious doctrines and expect them to conform their belief to them.

 

Yes, but let me emphasize that he was not addressing KJVOnlyism (since that would have be anachronistic to him). He made a comment about an argument of the liberals which is identical to an argument made by the KJVOs, to wit (for those of you KJV people):

The words in bold are the very argument that we have seen countless times by the KJVOs that the inspiration and perfection of the originals is of no value since we don't have them.

Notice also in his first paragraph how he explicitly denies the "fundamentalism" of contending for the perfection of a particular translation. Those who do so are not fundamentalists in the historic sense. Gray explicitly refutes the "fundamentalism" of such an idea. Those who claim perfection for a translation may well be right (for the sake of argument), but they most certainly do not stand in the tradition of historic and true fundamentalism. This document was among the recognized papers and stand of the fundamentalists and it contains an explicit denial of hte KJVOnly position.

 

Right ... I tried to make that clear in my original statement that Gray pointed out what was a similarity between the two. Of course Gray didn't answer KJVOnlyism -- it wasn't even around and wouldn't be for another 40-50 years.

The KJVOs are fond of saying that our claim that the originals are inspired is a ridiculous and useless claim since we no longer have them. It has been said many times here in a variety of ways from a variety of people, even in the last few weeks. This is one of their big issues. The statement usually goes something to the effect that "God promised us his perfect word and you don't believe we have it." Or "God promised to preserve his word perfectly and you don't think he did." Or one of several other ways of saying it.

The value of Gray's article for this discussion is that he answered this question years before there was a real KJVOnly contigent. He answered it decisively for the fundamentalists, IMO.

So again, my point doesn't really deal with who is right and who is wrong about the perfection of the KJV. Put that aside for the moment. Focus merely on the question KJVOnlyism and fundamentalism. Whether KJVOs are right or wrong, Gray said their position is not the position of the Fundamentals.

 

Many KJVOS, particularly in the Ruckmanite and Riplingeresque strain, deny the existence of and/or infallability of originals because of their misguided belief about the KJV and the fact that the KJV corrected any such originals, if they existed. So both really arrive at the same place, albeit from two different paths.

Again, many KJVOS deny that the originals were perfect.

The opinion that KJVOs don't question these doctrines because they may do so out of ignorance is a poor argument. The conclusion is the same. I hope they'd repent as you do, but they end up at the same place as the liberals do.

They do this by ripping apart the objective standard, the Word of God. Liberals appeal to their reason, conscience, and experience. KJVOs appeal to their reason, conscience, and experience also to confirm that the KJV is what they claim it is. This is different from orthodoxy in that the proper order is maintained and that objectivism leads to the experience, not the experience leading to the truth claim (The practice of Liberals and KJVOs).

 

KJVOs do not believe that the KJV corrects the originals, you would have to be stupid to believe that.
But the KJV is better than the originals because:
The originals you CAN NOT...
read
touch
study
share
show the plan of salvation
or look upon from afar


But you can with the KJV Bible.
In that aspect the KJV is better than the non-existant originals
IF THE ORIGINALS EXISTED...


The KJV would be better because it is as far as
I am concerned it's the "originals" in the English language.


If a was Greek the "originals" would be fine and I would not need the KJV.


( I am not trying to start a version debate, but I just wanted to answer back on Tom's post)

[ April 05, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

Interestingly enough, there are a number who do believe this, such as Ruckman.

As you can with the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV, and a host of others. But "better" is not used in that sense at all in this discussion.

 

From "The Fundamentals" Volume I, page 225-226:

According to the Fundamentalists, KJVO's do not qualify as fundamentalists.

 

I agree that it is stupid, but many KJVOS have argued that the KJV corrects and improves on the originals. That goes beyond your argument that the KJV (An english Bible) is better than the Greek/Hebrew for you because you can't read Greek or Hebrew or a Russian Bible or what have you. But the originals did/do have the plan of salvation, and all that you mentioned at the top.

I appreciate your reply and know that you're not trying to be start a riot. Neither am I for the record

 

I have quotes that would shore up my contention, but I'll have to track them down.

KJVOS give lip service to an authoritative Bible. So do Liberals. However, in practice, the inerrancy of the Bible is where the two go off the edge of the table. Liberals deny inerrancy and inspiration due to a lack of trust in the supernatural, so-called 'lack' of originals, a problem with the doctrine of God, presence of human authorship, what have you. KJVOs deny inerrancy and the corrollary of inspiration for some of the same reasons (human authorship, so-called "lack of originals"). Remember, we're not talking about just claims. We're talking about the end result of their idealogies. Classic fundamentalism has maintained that inerrancy, inspiration, et.al., extend to the originals and the translations insofar as they are faithful to the same. KJVOs and liberals walk hand-in-hand in falling away from this tenet. See David Dockery's The Doctrine of The Bible.

This is not logically applicable. I am not talking about "guilt by association," nor am I speaking of "I am right. You are not like me, therefore you are wrong." We're talking about embracing a position that is outside the sphere of orthodox fundamentalism.

 

..... edited out the remainder of this poster's post due to its length!

Ok, where's Pastor Bob to answer these questions by the honorable SwaimJ (and also Pastor Larry)??
Hmmmmmm....... I think that their posts refute the arguments made by Pastor Bob63.

At any rate, the KJVOnly/TROnly/"PerfectPreservationist" position is NOT in harmony with classic fundamentalism. All variations of these positions should be viewed as heresy and an aberration of the Historic Christian faith.

 

The Historic Christian Faith is to be found in the New Testament, and among all who adhere to apostolic NT Gospel order. Classic Fundamentalism so called was born much later to my knowledge. Classic Fundamentalism and all other aspirers to the Historic Christian Faith must be assessed in the light of the word of God. If it does not match with the teaching of Christ (2John 9) as found in the Bible then it is something else than Historic Christian Faith.

Harald