Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOwen007  Yes, I can see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work. One could find ESVers and KJVers who both sign the WCF. Hence they both agree that the church is founded on the Word, and the basic doctrines (the content of the word) they believe are substantially the same.
Unless you can point to specific doctrines that change then there is no substantial difference in ecclesiology.
This is the classic fallacy of post hoc non propter hoc. That is, what comes after must be the cause. In other words, the church takes on the NIV and then afterwards goes into error means it must be the NIV to blame. Not so. It could be the elders, teaching pastor, congregation who were the cause and the NIV is simply an arbitary change made along the way.
Then there's the empirical evidence from the other side that could be adduced: I could point out many reformed churches (in my neck of the woods) that are strong and growing who use the NIV. Moreover, I could also point out a whole raft of KJV / TR / Byzantine churches that are dead, dying, and unnecessarily argumentative.
Empirical arguments are very difficult to establish, and one church example is hardly enough to establish a point. It has to be a clear trend using a robust sample under right conditions.
So again I ask, if there's 20% difference, what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness? For example both ESVers and KJVers can sign the WCF. That's a lot in common. |
Greetings:
Touche' I stand chastised and cover my head in ashes.
A person who signs the WCF may not actually mean it. The PCA subscribes to the WCF, and, yet, they trample all over the Regulative Principle of Worship as it is taught in chapter 21. I had a PCA pastor tell me that it was ok to go to a restaurant every week on Sunday, c.f. WCF 21:7,8. Yet, he professed to subscribe to the WCF.
Using a different Greek Text is contrary to WCF 1:8 in which the context is that of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine mss. The vast majority of those who hold to the Critical Text deny this statement in 1:8, "and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."
The arbitrary omitting of good and holy words from the Greek Text is against the Word of God, Rev. 22:19. Consider, for example, the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 in the KJV and the ESV - only one of these can be what God actually inspired.
I will not completely abandon what I wrote prior, but I will modify it a bit. It may be that the baptist church had liberalizing tendencies prior it its acceptance of the NIV. However, its acceptance of an "80% Bible" (if I can use that term) may be indicative of its slide into the gutter. A symptom, if you will, of a greater disease. Since it took years for this to happen one could talk all about its "strength in numbers," and, "the strong preaching."
Also, I think it right and sound to point out that the many defections from sound doctrine concerning worship, the Church, etc... can be laid at the feet of those who hold to the Critical Text. This is a matter of degree. Those churches that hold to the King James Version are far more likely to be sound in their theology than those who do not.
I am personally grieved when I hear about the arguments of the King James Only crowd - like Riplinger and Waite. Such people may (partially) speak the truth, but in an obnoxious and irreligious fashion, and they may turn people, like Shelly here, away from the truth. Paul dealt with such a person in Acts 16:16-18.
Hope this, at least in part, answers your questions.
Blessings,
-CH