Is the KJV "only" Sect truly Liberal?

[Dr. Bob]

Many who espouse various paramutations of the "only" sect parade around as if very CONSERVATIVE in their view.

In reality, since they deny the historic fundamental tenets of inspiration, are they not also as liberal as the modernist crowd?

Would like to hear YOUR views - KJVO = liberal or conservative? Thanks

(I will step aside on this thread and not post again, simply moderating it)

 

[BrianT]

I wouldn't use the term "liberal" because of the connotations of that term that I don't think apply to KJV-onlyists. However, KJV-onlyism certainly isn't conservative, historical, orthodox nor fundamental.

 

[robycop3]

Most Onlyists are liberal when it suits their purpose, conservative when THAT serves their purpose, fundamental when it serves their purpose, or "progressive" when THAT serves their purpose. They waffle more often than a trainload of Bisquick.

Why do they do that? To attempt to make up for their lack of evidence to support their myth. That's evident in this very board; do you see any Onlyists answering any requests for PROOF for their assertions?

I've been dealing with Onlyists & Onlyism for over 20 years, and what amazes me most about them is that they keep claiming to believe a false, man-made doctrine that's been proven wrong in every point. The closest thing this mindset reminds me of is the "Flat-Earth Society", which claims to seriously believe the earth is flat, in the face of the overwhelming evidence proving the earth is a sphere.

To me, ACCURATELY answering the questions of a new believer, or an unsaved person wishing to be saved is far more important than "winning" any debate with other believers, and if I actually thought there was any substance to KJVO, I'd never say a word about. However, seeing the KJVOs' complete lack of evidence supporting their myth, and seeing the great double standard by which they operate, I KNOW KJVO is simply another false "ism" that the devil has been able to work into the Baptist faith & into Christianity in general.

In short, the Onlyist cuts his/her cloth according to the pattern of their audience at any given time, be that audience liberal or conservative. The only thing they don't waffle on is their professed belief in Onlyism, no matter how far they must stretch anything else to make it fit the Onlyist myth.

 

[Keith M]

I personally feel the KJVO crowd is making a god out of the KJV -something that is forbidden in the Commandments:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3 KJV)

By lifting the KJV above any other versions, the KJVO crowd is making the good old KJV something it is not - perfect. I am not saying other versions are perfect either...just that God has perfectly preserved the truths that are found in His Word.

 

[HankD]

IMO. they are neither conservative or liberal but radical in that they hold to a system that goes beyond orthodox faith and provable fact.

History also proves their folly with the example of the Latin Vulgate. But they have not learned from the past and are destined to repeat the error, taking whomsoever will go with them.

Strange, they not only repeat the general error of the Latin Vulgate Onlies but use their (LVO) specific method of double-think/double-speak to "prove" their premise while viewing themselves as God's spokesmen and the final authority in the matter.

HankD

 

[TomVols]

I have always maintained that since KJVO denies the Bible doctrine of inspiration and its corollaries, they are in fact liberals. They share many of the same arguments to make the same points.

 

[gb93433]

The test is like the old man said, "Your actions speak so loud I can't even hear your words." Some KJVO's do the work of ministry and others do not. Anyone who does not is a false teacher because their actions are not in accordance with what the Bible teaches.

 

[Cope]

>>>>>
they are neither conservative or liberal but radical in that they hold to a system that goes beyond orthodox faith and provable fact.
>>>>>

First, when did orthodoxy become the standard of truth? The standard of truth is scripture, not what has been accepted or established. The scriptures are profitable for doctrine (II Tim. 3:16), not orthodoxy. Doctrine is learned by setting God's precepts upon God's precepts (Is. 28:9-11), and comparing spiritual things with spritiual (II Cor. 2:11-14), not counting the number of men who have believed what and for how long. Why did David have more understanding than all his teachers? Why did he understand more than the ancients?

Ps. 119:99-100

[99] I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
[100] I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.

By your own admittance, you've got the wrong standard.

>>>>>
they are neither conservative or liberal but radical in that they hold to a system that goes beyond orthodox faith and provable fact.
>>>>>

Second, what do you mean by the KJVO's position is not provable fact? Do you mean that you can demonstrate an error within the KJV? Or that you can demonstrate that the KJV does not agree with any particular Hebrew/Greek manuscripts? Do you mean that the Bible does not teach inerrant preservation of copies and translation?

I would guess that you have a great many beliefs that are not provable fact:

1. Sarah conceived when she was old
2. Moses crossed the Red Sea
3. Jacob wrestled with an angel
4. Jesus turned water into wine
5. Jesus was born of a virgin

Please clarify.

Cope

 

[TomVols]

1. Trying to put orthodoxy and truth in opposition to each other isn't going to fly. We're not going to fall for that liberal trap.

2. All the things you listed are Biblical. KJVO is not Scriptural. So your logic is turned on its ear.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

The word "liberal" to me denotes first of all generosity, and lavishness in providing.

This is a good thing. We should all be generous, shouldn't we?

The right wing conservatives have made this word a perjorative, because they equate giving to others with taking from me. Hence the opposition to things like government provided medical care, which would be a truly liberal thing to have around.

liberal in theological terms I see as generally being more accomodating, more willing to accept alternatives; the more variation in doctrine in the brethren you are willing to tolerate, the more liberal you are.

Perhaps the original liberal was Paul of Tarsus, who was even willing to get along with fellow christians that believed one could not eat meat that had once been offered to an idol, while holding that he could certainly eat such meat.

Certainly, the "no idol meat" crowd would use the word "liberal" to describe Paul's position on this issue, if they were speaking english today.

The power of the word "liberal" as an insult has caused it to be attached to almost anything that varies from what the user approves. I think such a broad use of the word takes away its distinctiveness and makes it useless. Call a man liberal in this new sense and you don't have a clues what you meant by that without further clarification.

King James Only folks are not "liberal" in that they are not amplifying or broadning anything; instead, they are restricting, and restraining. Therefore the word "liberal" should not be used for them, in my judgement.

Yes, you can be wrong and not be a liberal.

I would use phrases such as "hyper-conservative" and "radical" and even "odd" to describe the King James Only crowd. The Lord still loves them even as he loves me with all my faults.

 

[HankD]

Dear Cope,

I have no problem with most of what you say with the following exceptions:

The King James Version of the Bible is not the Only Word of God in English (or any other language) and is the Word of God by Derivation not Inspiration.

The Scriptural definition of Orthodoxy :

1 Timothy 3:15 ... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The collective teaching of the Apostolic churches of Asia Minor and Europe before the apostasy of Rome (see the names of the geographical locations of the epistles (Thessolonica, Ephesus, Rome).

It was out of these Churches that the NT Scripture was given by the apostles through the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not the sacramental paedo-baptist priesthood of the Church of England.

The Apostles used several Hebrew-Greek translation versions of the OT Scriptures which varied from the Hebrew Masora.

They were moved by the Holy Spirit to write in koine the language of the comman mass of humanity not classical Greek, so also with the early translations.

The KJVO have radically departed from these apostolic orthodox foundational truths.

HankD

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
The word "liberal" to me denotes first of all generosity, and lavishness in providing.

That is one valid meaning among several.

This is a good thing. We should all be generous, shouldn't we?

Yes but in context, this isn't what's being discussed here.

The right wing conservatives have made this word a perjorative,

No. They have simply, and unfortunately, accepted left wing progressive/socialistic types' co-opting of the word. Folks who favor big government and centrally controlled social programs love to think of themselves as more generous and caring than conservatives.

If I am not mistaken however self-identified conservatives give much more to charity each year than self-identified liberals. So much for definitions.

because they equate giving to others with taking from me.

No. We equate government's taxation of "me" to pay bureaucrats to give to others without appreciation on the part of the bureaucrat or recipient for the taxed as "taking from me"... which of course is exactly what it is.

Besides that, charitable organizations are required by law to ensure that 80%+ goes to the object of the charity. Government social programs seldom if ever do better than 50%.

Hence the opposition to things like government provided medical care, which would be a truly liberal thing to have around.

No. It would be a truly socialistic thing to have around having nothing at all to do with "generosity".

liberal in theological terms I see as generally being more accomodating, more willing to accept alternatives; the more variation in doctrine in the brethren you are willing to tolerate, the more liberal you are.

No. By and large, "liberal in theological terms" is generally the willingness to deny or depart from what is biblical. KJVOnlyism is both philosophically modernistic and theologically liberal.

Perhaps the original liberal was Paul of Tarsus, ...Certainly, the "no idol meat" crowd would use the word "liberal" to describe Paul's position on this issue, if they were speaking english today.

Only if you are operating under the false notion that "liberals" are more tolerant than conservatives. They aren't. They simply have a different object for their tolerance, those who depart from biblical principles.

King James Only folks are not "liberal" in that they are not amplifying or broadning anything; instead, they are restricting, and restraining. Therefore the word "liberal" should not be used for them, in my judgement.

Yes they are. They are taking what the Bible says about itself and adding their own extra-biblical twists to it.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Liberal!!?? Nah... If that is what a person calls another when they believe that God preserved His word in Antiochan manuscripts as per Acts 13,and in the Bibles that come from said manuscripts,then so be it...I have been called worse by better.... Just them grasping at straws,and nothing more...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Cope:
First, when did orthodoxy become the standard of truth?

Did you read this??? HELLOOO!!! Orthdoxy is truth ... It is soundness of faith, and its opposite is heterodoxy ... This is what happens when people aren't taught properly. Come on folks ... let's study before we start writing ... Many people are believing and repeating things that aren't true, simply because they sound educated and pious. It simply is not so.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Liberal!!?? Nah... If that is what a person calls another when they believe that God preserved His word in Antiochan manuscripts as per Acts 13,and in the Bibles that come from said manuscripts,then so be it...I have been called worse by better.... Just them grasping at straws,and nothing more...

Actually no; we all believe that to be the case. However we, following the Scriptures, do not limit it to such.

And as we have pointed out many times, Acts 13 says nothing about texts or translations. You need to stop misusing Scripture to support your manmade doctrine.

 

[swaimj]

I have seen this charge, that KJVOs are liberal several times. I see your point, but I don't think it is proper to call them liberals.

Liberals are marked by the things which they do not believe. Things like the virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles, etc. They suffer from a lack of faith. They reject the essentials of the faith given to us by the apostles.

The problem with KJVOs is not a lack of faith. Their problem is a false faith. They believe things for which there is no evidence. They elevate to a position of necessity things that are not essential, then they require others to hold them.

KJVOs are not liberals, they are the polar opposite of liberals. But consider this: The polar opposite of fascism is communism. One is the extreme left and the other the extreme right. However, there are great similarities in the way these polar opposites operate and there are similarities in their effect. Still, one is not the other and they should not to be confused.

I don't think KJVOs are liberals, but some of what they say in regard to the scriptures does mirror the position of liberals. So, I see why you are calling them liberals, but I don't think they, in fact, are.

Also, we must realize that many KJVOs are believers. They believe the same gospel I believe. We might have more doubt about liberals as to whether they really trust Christ. However, KJVOs are veering off into a heresy. Will that heresy cause them to corrupt other doctrines in the future? It is unavoidable.

 

[swordsman]

This is one of the most PATHETIC threads that I have seen here.
You "any bible will do" "christians" really do need to spend more time actually reading the Bible for a change.
Goodbye and good riddance
Swordsman

WEBMASTER, please remove my name from membership on this board, you "christians"( and I use the term loosely) embarrass me.

 

[HankD]

swordsman,

Get a grip and stick around.

"when the going gets tough, the tough get going".

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

I'd be happy to remove your name. This is a DEBATE forum, and if one does not desire to be confronted in such a manner, it is best to drop out gracefully.

Pathetic would not be the word I'd use for this thread. Insightful, actually, seeing the responses thus far.

 

[swaimj]

WEBMASTER, please remove my name from membership on this board, you "christians"( and I use the term loosely) embarrass me.

Was it something somebody said???

???