" />
" />
" />
" />
" />| Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
| Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |  |
Is the King James Bible Infallible?
This is an important video and article. It could also be called, King James Onlyism Exposed. It covers the group of Protestants who believe that the 1611 'Authorized Version' of the King James Bible was perfect and infallible. The points covered in this video also have great relevance to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
KING JAMES ONLYISM EXPOSED
Bro. Peter Dimond
I recently studied numerous books on the King James Bible, its history, and the controversy surrounding it. There are many facts we need to consider. Knowing these facts sheds necessary light on the so-called ‘Christians’ who believe that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is infallible (the KJV-Onlyists), the false doctrine of sola scriptura, and Protestantism in general. There is a group of Protestants who believe that a particular version of the King James Bible (the 1611 AV or ‘Authorized Version’) is alone the perfect word of God on Earth. These people are sometimes called ‘King James Onlyists.’ Their ranks include individuals such as ‘Pastor’ Steven Anderson, Sam Gipp, Kent Hovind, Texe Marrs, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, as well as many independent Protestant ‘pastors’ and ‘churches’, especially those identifying as ‘Baptist.’Title Page of the ‘Authorized Version’ or 1611 King James Bible
Adherents of the ‘King James Bible Only’ position hold that the 1611 ‘Authorized Version’ of the King James Bible is infallible. As you search their materials for an explanation of why one particular Bible translation, authorized by a 17th century English King named James, produced by a committee of Anglicans and Puritans, would alone be infallible, you find one – and only one – answer. The only answer they can offer for why one particular bible translation in 17th century England would be perfect and infallible is the following: THE KJV IS PERFECT BECAUSE GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD (PSALM 12:6-7); AND IF THE KJV IS NOT INFALLIBLE THERE ISN’T AN INFALLIBLE VERSION ANYWHERE, FOR WE NO LONGER HAVE THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS, BUT ONLY COPIES MADE BY HAND THAT ARE LESS THAN PERFECT; AND SINCE GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD (PSALM 12:6-7) HE WOULD NATURALLY DO THIS FOR THE MASSES IN A COMMON TONGUE. THEREFORE THE 1611 KJV, WHICH EVENTUALLY BECAME THE DOMINANT ENGLISH VERSION, MUST BE INFALLIBLE. To put it more concisely, their answer is: there must be an infallible Bible version and it’s therefore the 1611 KJV. If this doesn’t strike you as circular and illogical reasoning – presuming exactly what they would need to prove – then you really need to pray for the grace of God. However, let’s consider numerous facts which show why their position is biblically, historically, and logically false.WHICH ‘AUTHORIZED VERSION’?
KJV-Onlyists hold that the 1611 King James is infallible and perfect. They emphasize that the 1611 King James is the ‘Authorized Version,’ i.e. authorized by King James I. This raises a number of questions: 1) Why would the ‘authorization’ of an English king (more than 1,500 years after Christ) make a translation of the Bible infallible? Obviously it wouldn’t. God never promised that English kings centuries after Christ, let alone King James I, speak infallibly or authorize without error for all of Christ’s faithful.King James I of England
2) Moreover, was the ‘authorization’ given to the 1611 KJV even unique, or had other versions of the Bible been given a similar ‘authorization’? As we will see, other versions had received similar authorization; and therefore, if the 1611 KJV is held to be infallible because it is the ‘Authorized Version,’ then other versions authorized by English sovereigns must also be considered infallible. Yet, KJV-Onlyists illogically and inconsistently apply infallibility to the KJV alone. 3) Did King James I even ‘authorize’ the text/content of the 1611 KJV, or just that it would be permissible to print whatever was translated? Christopher De Hamel served for a quarter century as the head of the Western Manuscripts department at Sotheby's in London. He authored and compiled a large work entitled, The Book, A History of the Bible. He explains: De Hamel explains that while King James I initiated the translation, and allowed it to be printed, he gave no royal endorsement or special ‘authorization’ to the content or the text itself. The ‘authorization’ was for the printers, rendering it lawful for them to proceed with whatever the translators put together. However, let’s suppose King James I’s ‘authorization’ of the King James translation did apply to the final text/content of the 1611 KJV. Even in that case, the ‘authorization’ was not qualitatively different from the ‘authorization’ that had previously been given to earlier English bibles, such as The Great Bible under King Henry VIII or The Bishops’ Bible under Queen Elizabeth.BIBLES WERE ‘AUTHORIZED’ BY ENGLISH SOVEREIGNS BEFORE THE 1611 KING JAMES VERSION
Dr. Laurence M. Vance, who is actually a strong supporter of the KJV, wrote a book called King James, His Bible And Its Translators. On pp. 87-88, he acknowledges facts which demolish the claim, made by KJV-Onlyists, that the 1611 KJV alone was the ‘Authorized Version.’ THE GREAT BIBLE WAS ‘AUTHORIZED’ BY KING HENRY VIII:King Henry VIII
THE BISHOPS’ BIBLE WAS AUTHORIZED BY QUEEN ELIZABETH:Queen Elizabeth
As these facts show, at the very least the 1611 King James Version was the third ‘Authorized Version’ of the English Bible. I say at the very least because one could argue that the Coverdale Bible (1535) and The Matthew Bible (1537) had also been ‘authorized.’ Yet, KJV-Onlyists wrongly contend that the 1611 Version was not only uniquely authorized, but that such ‘authorization’ by an English sovereign would for some reason contribute to its perfection and infallibility! It’s a position so illogical that it really deserves to be categorized with the position of Mormons and other cult followers.Joseph Smith, ‘prophet’ of the Mormon sect
Mormons simply assume that their (false) ‘prophet’ Joseph Smith, whom they consider to be the greatest person besides Jesus, was given new revelations by God and divinely authorized to ‘restore the Church.’ They simply declare him to be their authority perhaps because it gives them a level of comfort and a (false) sense of security. In the same way, since KJV-Onlyists feel they must have a translation they can follow unhesitatingly, they likewise declare that the 1611 KJV must be infallible. Notice how this cult mentality is captured in the following quote from well-known KJV-Onlyist, Samuel Gipp. Notice the comfort he finds in being able to point to a version of the Bible into which he can put his ‘faith.’ That’s what reassures and relieves him, even if there is no logical or historical reason to conclude that this particular version has been infallibly protected by Christ. The fact that he has some Bible version to ‘believe in’ is his main concern. In the same way, it provides Mormons or other cultists comfort to have a ‘prophet’ to follow, no matter how unsubstantiated or illogical that ‘prophet’s’ claim to a divine commission might be. Both groups (KJV-Onlyists and Mormons) operate under their respective assumptions without any proof for them and contrary to logical consistency with the revelation of Christ, which of course said nothing about Joseph Smith, King James or a King James Bible translation. In fact, in anointing, on their own authority, King James’ Bible to the status of divinely protected and even binding, the King James Onlyists actually make King James their ultimate authority and a new false Christ. The illogical, idolatrous, and anti-Christian cult-like assumptions built in to the KJV-Only position are well illustrated by the following quotes. He says that the KJV is not infallible on the basis of the authority of the translators or the king or the underlying Greek text, but on the authority of God. That begs the question, of course: on what basis have you concluded that God gave His authority to, and infallibly protected, the 1611 King James Version? Where did God ever guarantee that? The answer is He never said anything about the 1611 King James Version. Hence, the conclusion that He infallibly protected this particular bible translation is nothing more than a blind faith assumption with no basis in Scripture and no consistency with history; for why is the 1611 KJV infallible and not another translation? The position is patently absurd, idolatrous, and evil. It’s equivalent to the modus operandi of Mormons or other cultists, who simply erect an authority for themselves (Joseph Smith) and ascribe infallibility to that authority, despite the fact that the infallibility or divine authority they ascribe to it has no link with Christ’s establishment or what is taught in Scripture.WAS KING JAMES I A HOMOSEXUAL?
King James I, at age 20
While it’s not necessary to prove that the King James Only position is false, it should be mentioned that many historians believe King James I was a homosexual. Non-Catholic theological historian Alister McGrath wrote a book that’s quite laudatory of the King James Bible. On the issue of King James I’s homosexuality, he states: McGrath’s work also contains the following interesting quote, which illustrates how emotion and man-made tradition moved people to (wrongly) equate the King James translation with the infallible originals of the Bible.KING JAMES ONLYISTS CONTRADICT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS
Since they consider the KJV to be infallible, KJV-Onlyists reject the use of other Bible versions. Yet, the very translators of the 1611 King James Bible recommended using a variety of translations. That completely contradicts modern KJV-Onlyists, who place the KJV in an infallible category by itself and reject the use of other versions.Richard Bancroft, ‘chief overseer’ of the King James Bible translation
In their preface to the 1611 King James Bible, the translators also praise St. Augustine and St. Jerome, even though Augustine and Jerome were Catholic saints whose views would be condemned as non-Christian by KJV-Onlyists in our day.MANY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATORS WERE ANGLICANS AND BELIEVED IN INFANT BAPTISM
Many of the KJV translators were also Anglicans who believed in infant baptism – a position that would be rejected by many, if not most, KJV-Onlyists today.A Protestant baptizing an infant
THE TRANSLATORS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE ACKNOWLEDGED THE SEPTUAGINT
The translators of the KJV also acknowledged the existence and significance of the Septuagint (the Greek Translation of the Old Testament). Many KJV-Onlyists hold that the Septuagint was a myth. They claim this Greek translation of the OT never existed before the time of Christ. As we see, KJV-Onlyist Gipp says that the Septuagint was a myth. In the quotation below, note that the very men who translated the King James Bible (the Bible which Gipp worships) contradict him. The King James translators acknowledged that the Apostles used the LXX (the Septuagint), and that it was ‘the word of God.’A part of the Septuagint, from the Greek manuscript Vaticanus
NO COPYRIGHT ON THE 1611 KJV?
Some KJV-Onlyists argue that the KJV is infallible because it has or had no copyright?! Their claim in this regard is both incoherent and illogical; for, on the one hand, they seem to acknowledge that the KJV originally carried some form of a copyright, but they contend it didn’t matter; and then they illogically conclude that a work without a copyright is for some reason protected by God?! Obviously there’s nothing in Christ’s teaching or the Bible about a translation being guaranteed infallibility because it has no copyright. Moreover, the claim of KJV-Onlyists on this point is false. The original KJV did have a copyright. As we see, the King James Bible was protected by copyright. De Hamel explains how the non-privileged publishers even attempted to circumvent the copyright on printing the ‘Authorized Version’ by disguising the text within biblical commentaries, for the commentaries were not protected by the same copyright. So, yes, the KJV did carry a copyright. Once the American colonies revolted against the British, obviously the British copyright of printing the Authorized Version was of no concern to them; but in Britain itself the KJV remained under copyright for hundreds of years after 1611. Even to this day, there are some copyright restrictions on printing it in England. Moreover, in the U.S. many works lapse into the public domain approximately 50 or 70 years after the work was created or its creator has passed away. This includes many works of history, literature and art, not just the King James Bible. The argument of KJV-Onlyists, that the KJV was infallible because it lacked a copyright, is false, absurd, and once again smacks of irrational cultism.THERE WERE MANY DOCUMENTED PRINTING ERRORS IN THE 1611 KING JAMES VERSION
King James Onlyists admit that the KJV contained many printing errors. They attempt to explain all of the printing errors and textual differences away, however. Alister McGrath expands upon some of the notable printing errors in early editions of the King James Bible. Yet, for the dedicated follower of the King James Only cult, none of this impacts the alleged ‘perfection’ of the King James Version.KING JAMES ONLYISTS FALSELY CALL THE ‘TEXTUS RECEPTUS’ THE ‘MAJORITY TEXT’
The Textus Receptus is the name for the Greek New Testament text from which the 1611 King James Version was translated. It’s typical for KJV Onlyists to describe this Greek text, the Textus Receptus, as the ‘Majority Text.’ Here are two quotes from KJV Onlyists in which they falsely refer to the Textus Receptus as the ‘Majority Text.’ Although they are closely related, the Textus Receptus is not the Majority Text. In fact, the Textus Receptus is different from the Majority Text in over 1000 passages. Some would number the total differences between the two at approximately 10,000. A number of these differences are significant, with portions of verses and whole phrases, for example, which appear in the Textus Receptus being omitted in the Majority Text. One example of a difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text is Rev. 22:19. The Textus Receptus (as reflected in the KJV translation) has “book of life”; the Majority Text has “tree of life.”Revelation 22:19
Majority Text
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS DERIVES FROM ERASMUS, STEPHANUS, AND BEZA
The Textus Receptus was the Greek text of the NT from which the KJV was translated. The Textus Receptus was a Greek NT closely related to the Majority Text, but it was based on the combination of manuscript/textual choices made by Desiderius Erasmus, Stephanus, and Theodore Beza. Please consider this logically: if the 1611 KJV is infallible, that would suggest that the Greek text of the NT from which the KJV was translated (the Textus Receptus) was also infallible. Well, the Textus Receptus was itself based on the Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, and not all their editions agree. In fact, some of the readings in their Greek editions of the NT have little Greek manuscript support. And, in at least one case, a reading that found its way into the Textus Receptus has no Greek manuscript support at all.KING JAMES ONLYISTS’ LOVE FOR DESIDERIUS ERASMUS
It’s interesting to consider King James Onlyists’ admiration for Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). Desiderius Erasmus was a priest, a humanist, and a bible scholar who translated directly from Greek manuscripts. His emphasis on certain Greek manuscripts and his de-emphasis of the Latin Vulgate was not typical in the period. His manuscript choices and his Greek editions of the NT were largely responsible for the Textus Receptus, the Greek text used to translate the King James Version. The following quote is typical of how King James Onlyists describe Erasmus. They essentially consider him to be a type of hero who saved the Bible during the dominant period of the ‘wicked’ Catholic Church. They think that Erasmus was tremendous. In addition to the insuperable problems we’ve been covering, the problem for King James Onlyists is that throughout his life Erasmus claimed to be a Catholic and dedicated to the Church. He said Mass (though not frequently); he believed in the Eucharist, as well as some other Catholic teachings. (I don’t believe Erasmus was a true Catholic, but it’s a fact that he purported to be a Catholic throughout his life.) King James Onlyists typically consider the Catholic Church to be a false anti-Christ sect, even the Whore of Babylon. According to them, the Catholic Church teaches paganism, heresy, and an idolatrous false gospel of the Devil. Does it make sense that God would ‘save the Bible’ through a ‘false anti-Christian sect’ of the Devil (the Whore of Babylon) and ‘an idolatrous pagan’ like Erasmus, who was a member of such a ‘sect’? Let’s read the KJV: Their own bible records that a corrupt tree does not bring forth good fruit. Obviously God would not save the Bible through a devilish false Church and a pagan or heretic who adhered to it. Their admiration for Erasmus, and the role they believe he played in saving the Bible, is inconsistent with their anti-Catholic rhetoric. Indeed, the fact that they must appeal to alleged ‘Catholics’ like Erasmus in documenting their Bible history reminds us again that the Catholic Church was the original and only Church of Christ, and that all Protestant denominations (including those of the King James Onlyists) are man-made sects.ERASMUS’ CONDEMNATION OF PROTESTANTS
While KJV-Onlyists are generally effusive in their praise for Erasmus, Erasmus himself condemned those of their ilk. Here’s what he said about Protestants: the followers of Luther, ‘Evangelicals,’ etc. Concerning the Protestants, who reject Mass, the Church, holy images, etc., Erasmus says they are separated from the Church. He calls them pseudo-evangelicals. He says that it’s as if they were “inspired by an evil spirit.” It of course makes no sense for King James Onlyists to hold that such an individual, who condemned their sects as devilish and adhered to what they themselves consider a devilish sect, was God’s chosen vessel to protect and transmit His sacred word.THE KING JAMES VERSION’S ERROR IN REVELATION 16:5
Protestant James White, who adheres to sola scriptura but opposes King James Onlyism, pointed out that in Revelation 16:5, the King James Bible has a reading that was completely novel in Christian Tradition. It was based on no Greek manuscript support whatsoever. This is extremely significant because, as we saw earlier, King James Onlyists hold that the 1611 KJV is ‘perfect.’ If even one error is documented in the ‘Authorized Version,’ the ‘King James Only’ sect crumbles. Notice that he also says: “EXPLANATION: None.” Since his adherence to King James Onlyism is not rooted in Christ’s teaching or logical consistency, but rather in blind faith and subservience to the false gods he has chosen for himself (namely: King James I, his bible and its translators), he feels no need to even offer an explanation for why the KJV is without error.Revelation 16:5
The New American Standard Bible
(and other translations)
A FALSE CHRIST AND A SECOND PENTECOST
Here are a few quotes from King James Onlyists in which they express their worship of this bible version, the men who put it together, and the King who commissioned it. Where exactly did God say that the King James Version, commissioned under an English sovereign more than a millennium after Christ, would be perfect? Nowhere, of course. To place blind faith in someone or something which Christ has not given any indication He will protect is to put that person or thing on a level with God – period. It is to worship that entity as another Christ: as something or someone constituting divine revelation on its OWN AUTHORITY or on the authority arbitrarily accorded to it by men. That’s exactly what we see in King James Onlyism: the elevation of the King James Bible and those involved with it to divine status. It is THEIR FALSE CHRIST. In fact, all men who found their own ‘Churches’ are false Christs. All of the founders of Protestant sects were and are false Christs; for they have arrogated to themselves authority which only Christ had: only Jesus Christ can establish the Christian Church and reveal its teachings. While it’s true that all Protestants are following what has been established by a false Christ, this truth is exemplified in a special way in certain Protestant sects or movements, such as King James Onlyism. With no basis in Christ’s teaching for their conclusion, KJV Onlyists illogically presume that the King James is God’s ‘perfect’ version. Without question this is to initiate a second false Pentecost, to pretend that the Church was established anew during the reign of King James I, with the Holy Spirit giving a special new commission to King James I. Undoubtedly it’s a new and false Church of man, based on their false Christ: King James I of England and the Bible translation He commissioned – just as Joseph Smith is a false Christ to Mormons, having founded a new Church and revealed new doctrines not contained in the teaching of Christ. Here are a few more quotes illustrating the KJV Onlyists’ false-Christ/new-Pentecost mentality. After explaining that this statement has been made sarcastically, Gipp repeats it seriously. He acts as if the King James Version of the Bible was eternal, floating around during the apostolic period, serving as St. Paul’s faithful companion, existing before it was even translated in 1611. The argument is similar to how someone might say that Jesus Christ (the Son of God) was present at Old Testament events prior to His incarnation. The King James Bible is their false Christ.CONCLUSION
The facts that we’ve considered prove without any doubt that ‘King James Onlyism’ is false. It is the disastrous and bad fruit of a heretical religious system (Protestantism) and the false doctrine of sola scriptura. Yet, what about their primary argument: if the KJV isn’t God’s perfectly preserved Bible, then where is God’s perfectly preserved Bible?REFUTING THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT AND CONCERN OF KJV-ONLYISTS – THEY MISIDENTIFY THE MEANING OF GOD’S “WORD” IN PSALM 12 AND MATTHEW 24
As stated above, the primary argument made by KJV-Onlyists is one of necessity. People on both sides of this issue generally agree that the original writings of the Bible were inspired and infallible. But we no longer have the original writings. We have copies which were made by hand before printing technology existed. In the process of hand-copying the texts, some mistakes were made. The NT manuscripts that we have supply abundant evidence for what Scripture contained in the vast majority of verses. The NT manuscript evidence we have also far exceeds the manuscript evidence we have for other celebrated and unquestioned works of antiquity. However, the manuscripts of the NT which we have are not perfect. They contain what are called ‘textual variants.’ A ‘variant’ could be a small mistake, a difference in spelling, a repeated phrase, an omission, an addition, a slightly different reading, etc.TODAY WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 5000 NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS – MOST ARE FRAGMENTARY AND NONE OF THEM AGREE IN EVERY DETAIL
As Protestant biblical scholar D.A. Carson explained: He also explains that no two manuscripts agree in every detail. Now it’s crucial to realize that working from the assumption of sola scriptura (i.e. the position that a book is the ONLY infallible rule of faith and practice for a Christian), King James Onlyism is launched in direct reaction to the aforementioned fact about the imperfection of extant biblical manuscripts. It is a frustrated and emotional response to the realization that since we no longer have the original writings, the copies of Scripture that we have are not ‘perfect’ in every way that the original writings were. Thus, while KJV-Onlyism (in light of the facts we’ve been covering) is clearly untenable, false and ridiculous, it also points us to a larger issue: namely, the error of sola scriptura. The KJV-Onlyists reason that since the Bible is the ONLY infallible rule of faith (sola scriptura), and God promised to preserve His word forever (Psalm 12:6-7; Mt. 24:35), there must be a perfect and infallible bible version somewhere for people to use. KJV-Onlyists are quick to mention that Psalm 12 and Matthew 24 tell us that God will preserve His word forever. They quote these passages all the time. For example, they argue thus: It’s crucial to understand that the KJV-Only position is inextricably connected with the doctrine of sola scriptura. Since, they argue, the Bible is all we’ve got, God must have perfectly protected one of these Bible versions AND IT’S THE KJV! If not, FIND THE BOOK! The error in their argument, however, is contained in the premise: they wrongly assume that the “words of the Lord” and “God’s words” (mentioned in Psalm 12 and Mt. 24) are limited to a book; but God’s promise in Psalm 12 and Matthew 24 does not mention a “book.” It mentions God’s “words.”THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT THE SPOKEN WORD IS “THE WORD OF GOD,” IN ADDITION TO THE WRITTEN WORD
A common misconception among Protestants is that the “word of God” refers exclusively to the Bible. The truth is that the Bible itself teaches that the spoken word is “the word of God,” in addition to the written word. The Bible repeatedly calls the oral (spoken) tradition “the word of God.” (Jesus Christ Himself is also called the “Word of God” in John 1 and Hebrews 11:3.) As we see, St. Paul is referring to the oral (spoken) tradition as the word of God. By describing the oral tradition as “the word of God,” the Bible is indicating that the apostolic oral tradition is infallible, and that it represents, along with Scripture, one of the sources of Jesus Christ’s revelation which must be accepted.MORE VERSES ON THE NECESSITY OF ACCEPTING CHRISTIAN “TRADITION” AND HOW “THE WORD OF GOD” IS ALSO CONTAINED IN THE ORAL OR SPOKEN WORD
In 2 Thess. 2:15, the Bible clearly teaches that one must accept both Scripture and Tradition; it even says that the Bible itself is a Tradition. The following verses also prove that the spoken word was the “word of God” which must be preserved and handed down, and it was preserved and handed down for all generations in the teaching of the Church Christ established. Therefore, even though we no longer have the original New Testament writings (‘THE AUTOGRAPHS’), but only manuscript copies which are not perfect in every detail as the originals were, God’s words are still preserved, just as He promised in Psalm 12 and Mt. 24, in the apostolic Tradition, the teaching of His Church, and what we do know about the written word from the copies that have been passed down to us. With this realization, the entire argument of King James Onlyists is crushed. There need not be any modern book that is a perfect translation or representation of the original writings because God never promised that He would preserve His words in every generation in a book. He promised to preserve His “words,” and He does so in the teaching of His one Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and in what we do know about the original writings.MORE QUOTES ON HOW THE SPOKEN WORD IS “THE WORD OF GOD”
The spoken word is described as “the word of truth” and the Gospel. The reference to the “word” having come into the whole world confirms that this passage is referring to the spoken word and not the Bible; for this could not have been said of the Bible at the time. Jesus prays for those who will believe through the “word” of His apostles. But only a few of His Apostles wrote words in the Bible. Most of them did not. “Their word,” through which people will believe, must therefore be their preaching and the communication of oral tradition, not their writing. This clearly describes the spoken word as “the word of God.” This refers to a revelation given to St. John the Baptist.PROTESTANTS WHO REJECT KING JAMES ONLYISM ARE UNABLE TO COMPLETELY REFUTE KING JAMES ONLYISTS BECAUSE THEY ACCEPT SOLA SCRIPTURA
As mentioned above, there are many Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura but reject King James Onlyism. They can of course point to problems with King James Onlyism. Yet, they remain unable to respond to the main argument King James Onlyists bring forward. The KJV-Onlyists will say that if Scripture is the only infallible rule, “Then it’s up to you to find the Book that God was talking about in Psalm 12:6,7 and Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:35.” The Protestant non-KJV-Onlyists are unable to refute this objection, for they hold to the unbiblical and unhistorical heresy of sola scriptura. They have no response to KJV-Onlyists on this point because they fail to recognize, as stated above, that the “words of God” are preserved in Tradition and the Church’s teaching, in addition to Scripture. Only true Christians, that is, Catholics, can fully respond to and refute King James Onlyism.KING JAMES ONLYISM IS A HERETICAL, ANTI-CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT WHICH EXPOSES THE PROTESTANT HERESY OF SOLA SCRIPTURA
A careful and honest consideration of these facts not only demonstrates that King James Onlyism is false, but that sola scriptura – and therefore Protestantism itself, which is inextricably bound to sola scriptura – is implausible, unreasonable, and false. God did not, and never would have, intended that the ONLY infallible source of revelation and rule of faith and practice would be a book or a collection of books. See our book, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, the ‘Refuting Protestantism’ section of our website, and our other videos for more on the biblical proof for the traditional Catholic faith, the one true faith of Christ outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.www.vaticancatholic.com
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^