Are you KJV-Only guys fundamentalists?

[bibleprotector]

Depends on what "fundamentalist" means. For example, I could say I am all kinds of things, but various words have various meanings for different people. Even "Christian" means, to the unlearned, "Catholic", yet the true Church is catholic, though not Romanist/Papist.

[bibleprotector]

According to the Niagara Creed,

provided such word is found in the original manuscripts

Seeing that we do not have the autographs, we must trust that the KJB is the exact representation of them.

while there will be a fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body

Which must include those who think that we do not have an exact knowledge of the original manuscripts, that is, those who have made a decision not believe the KJB is pure and perfect.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The Niagara Bible Conference (1878) was actually a turning point towards textual apostasy and away from the true Reformation 'fundamentalist' view of the Bible.

Ed Pfenninger describes this dynamic well, note he adds a bit of emphasis, and commentary in parenthesis, within the Westminster Confession:

===========================================

http://home.houston.rr.com/pfenninger/ins-web2.htm
INSPIRATION: TRUE AND FALSE

As the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 states:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which is the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are therefore authentical .”

Thus, the idea that the Scriptures were not perfectly preserved by the Providence of God would have been thought ridiculous to Christians before the 19th century. It wasn’t until the 1880’s that the “Autographs Only” idea began to gain adherents among scholars.

As Dr. James H. Sightler notes in A Testimony Founded For Ever:

“The Princeton Theologians Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, in 1881, were the first to claim inspiration for the original autographs only and to exchange the doctrine of providential preservation for restoration of the text by critics…Actually it was Warfield’s teacher and predecessor at Princeton, Charles Hodge, …who was the first to take up naturalistic text criticism and abandon the doctrine of providential preservation. It (was) the Niagara Creed of 1878 adopted at the Niagara Conference on Prophecy, which was dominated by a coalition of Princeton graduates and followers of J. N. Darby, (that) may well have been the first document to claim inspiration for every word of scripture provided such word is found in the original manuscripts.”

Yet, as we shall see, the “Autograph Only” school’s only purpose was to undermine confidence in the King James Bible.

“Original autographs has proved itself to be a term with a mission and that mission is the destruction of the Textus Receptus which after more than a century of attack still carries majestically on far superior to any of its rivals”

================================================== ========

There is more on the web-page. This is a fundamental issue, and Ed Pfenninger, quoting James Sightler, describes the situation with historical precision, combined with simplicity and flair.

One minor point of study, I am not so sure that Charles Hodge, father of Alexander Hodge, was particularly supportive of naturalistic textual criticism (based on my limited studies).

And there was a widespread rebellious counter-Reformation textual movement that involved a number of men whose names will be pleasantly forgotten for the moment. They were busily looking for angles against the pure Bible and moving towards the alexandrian cult errant text (the skeptics duckshoot text). The fabricated new text was so error-laden and corrupt that the faulty text itself impelled the 'original autographs' surrender, the route disguised as a victory led by Warfield and Hodge.

(Warfield, incidentally, did not really believe in the purity and perfection of the 'original autographs' despite that being the common claim, he left plenty of room for errors there as well with crafty wording and maneuvering.)

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by MDOC

Are you KJV-Only guys fundamentalists?

The term fundamentalist, or "fundy" is often used in a derogitory sense to identify a Christian that believes they have a copy of the pure,preserved and inspired word of God, generally by a Christian that prefers to point to the "original autographs" as the only inspired and preserved writings that ever existed.

This position by the "OAO" ( original autographs only) Christian forces them to, correctly, admit that their chosen non- KJB bible contains errors and mistakes. This in turn leads them to sneer at those Christians KJBO Christains and call them "fundamentalists".

It appearsto me, though, if you use the argument presented by the OAO people themselves,that even these precious original autographs were no more reliable than the copies we have today.That being, as copies were made, mistakes HAD to have crept into the text.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Anyone reading their Bible will soon see that much of time the prophets SPOKE the words given by God, and a scribe wrote them down, making even the very first WRITTEN copies of scripture a work of regular mistake prone men.

So using the "copies are not reliable because men copied them down" argument also has to be applied to the "original autographs" as well. Oh well, I guess they can always take the "inspiration of the original spoken word" position....shame no one alive today was there to hear them...

Talk about building a house upon the sand!

Just call me a fundamentalist, I take it as a compliment

[PeterAV]

Good post there Steven about the Westminster Confession.
Apostacy with Autographs only...

[Steven Avery]

Thanks Peter.

Sometimes the best posts are simply finding the well-expressed words of brethren and sharing them to others in proper context.

However I am astonished that I added an "e' to the historic original autographs rout, since the 'original autographs' is only a route to confusion and unbelief.

Shalom,
Steven

As with many words used today, the term "Fundamentalist" has taken on many different forms. But let us look at this from the merriam-webster:

Fundamentalist
One entry found.

fundamentalism

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1922
a:1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

As a fundamentalist Chirstian, I believe in the inerrancy and final authority of the King James Bible and the doctrines taught therein. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now what "Fundamentalist Christian" means to someone else may be something different entirely, and to a great many, I am afraid, it would not be a positive description.

[Brother Tim]

And here I thought it was that we were having so much fun that the non-KJB's thought that we were demented.