[sarcasm]Lack of scriptural support [/sarcasm]

I agree. "Autograph-onlyism" should not be a doctrine. If someone were to be of that opinion, I would disagree but respect that.

Scriptural support needs to be provided for doctrines.

 

It depends on how it is held by the person claiming it. If it is held like a doctrine (or explicitly or implicitly imposed on others as God's truth), it has to be defended like a doctrine (i.e. scripturally). If it is held as a personal preference, no problem.

 

In my opinion it is a quite different issue. First, I don't really think canon should be considered doctrine in the pure sense of the word, for two reasons: 1. different branches of the church (and in different time periods) have different canons, and 2. authority is required to establish doctrine. For Protestants, it is more of a general consensus, and recognized corporate "preference" and not and infallible assertion.

For most Protestants (I include Baptists in this group for the sake of discussion), the only authority in matters of doctrine is scripture. Thus things like canon should not be considered doctrine. For other groups, like the Catholics or Orthodox who view the church itself as also authoritative, they can logically define and defend their canon as a doctrine - for doctrine requires authority to back it up.

For a Protestant to make canon or KJV-onlyism or saying grace before meals or no pants on women or no swimming on a Sunday into a doctrine, they have to be able to demonstrate clearly the legitimate, recognized authority that teaches that. Since the scriptures are the only authority for most here, then scripture needs to be produced when doctrine is asserted and challenged.

 

At least Bro Lacy has the courage to tell us exactly which KJV edition he holds as perfect. I can almost understand that point of view and it is not duplicious.

 

Sorry, but I have posted 55 previous times that I would like to see scriptural support for KJVOism. No one has ever posted such support. You'd think that someone would have been able to help me out here.

 

The general approach is simply consensus. The church is the "pillar and ground of the truth", so if the church in general or a specific branch of the church holds strongly to a position such as canon, one should accept it or have very defendable reason to disagree.

Scripture tells us how.

Faith. But personal faith is not corporately authoritative, nor enough to establish/proclaim universal doctrine.

Then it would be wrong to authoritatively establish/proclaim these as doctrines, for you have no authority to establish/proclaim extra-Biblical doctrine in the first place.

That is correct. That is why I do not hold that idea as a doctrine (even if held that opinion in the first place, which I also do not).

First you need to find someone that holds to that as a doctrine. Maybe someone else here holds to that as doctrine (I do not, not even as a preference/opinion).

 

I am AO.

Why? BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENT!



HankD

 

First, I don't know of anyone who has adopted the "Autograph Only" position if you are referring to the Word of God.

If you are referring to the "words" inspired by God then there is specific scriptural support.

First, the penmen of scripture are specifically qualified by scripture. The last qualified individual to receive direct inspiration was John, who died 1900 years ago... unless of course you believe in modern day prophest and apostles in which case we can throw the Bible out altogether. Maybe let Benny Hinn tell us what God says.

Second, all scripture is God breathed through those specific writers. This gives those particular original words a level of perfection unique to them. They are actually words spoken by God through a writer.

He did not choose to speak through the copyists. He did not choose to speak through the translators. No individual in either group is qualified to receive inspiration. The works of these people have variation in wording.

If they were operating under any kind of divine/providential guidance, it is evident that God's intent was not to produce/preserve a single set of "perfect" words.

If it were, He could have just as easily had the originals chiseled into stone and preserved in a shrine.

As important as those original words obviously are, it is the message communicated by those words that God has chosen to perfectly preserve- not that single set of words.

 

It is all scripture. It is the originals. It is the scripture that Timothy read as a child (probably something akin to the Septuagint, in my opinion), it is the Vulgate, it is the Textus Receptus, it is Wycliffe's, the Geneva, the KJV, Young's, the ASV, the NIV, etc. It is the French translation, the German translations, the Japanese translations, etc. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. However, note that the verse does NOT say that that all scripture is copied or translated or printed by the inspiration of God.

I disagree. The canon is universally recognized and accepted by the church in general. KJV-onlyism is not, it is a fringe extreme position, far from the norm and general acceptance. Canon is accepted by virtually everyone in the Protestant church. KJV-onlyism is not held by virtually everyone in the Protestant church. If anything, the rejection of KJV-onlyism is what should be compared to when looking for support from the canon argument.

 

The canon of scripture was also qualified. One of those qualifications was apostolic authority.

Scripture does not define the canon. But that doesn't mean that the canon was arbitrarily determined or separated from scriptural principles.

 

Some translated Scripture is inspired. The NT translates OT Scripture from Hebrew to Greek. But they differ in the KJV English with additions/deletions of words, differences in grammar and number, etc.

And this raises a very relevant question.

If the KJV (or object of any Onlyism) is the reinspiration of God into a Bible of unified language (such as 17th century English) why aren't the quotes (OT vs NT) word-for-word the same?

HankD