Thanks for your responses to my question. I've found them fascinating to read. As yet I remain unconvinced that substantial doctrinal changes are at stake depending on which position one takes. Godly reformed believers can be found on both sides.
To appeal to a change in the doctrine of God's preservation of the text is something of a dead end. This is because both sides in the debate believe that God has been provident in keeping the text; they simply disagree on how. And the difference would be critical if other substantial doctrines derived from Scripture change; which as yet no one has established. Again, there is no clear evidence that one side of the debate leads to a greater godliness depending on the conclusion they draw.
For example, in my neck of the woods the dead / dying churches are those that are KJVO / NKJVO types. However, I'm not then going to argue that their adherence to the TR / Ecclesiastical text etc. is necessarily the cause. To prove that empirically would be very difficult.
I was appreciative of Steve's testimony in coming out of the '60s darkness and his desire to know God's word. But again, I have plenty of friends that have come out of demonic backgrounds (not least ex-Hindus) and their use of the non-KJVO/NKJVO text has not been an obstacle to their deliverance from Satan. They have memorized lots of Scripture that has been a help. They are godly loving people to this day.
However, my eyebrows were raised when I read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK  When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark. |
This is, in fact, a Roman Catholic view of the canon. Because Protestants don't believe that books in the Bible (say Mark) were canonized. If Mark is inspired it doesn't need canonizing, it's already canon precisely because it's inspired; it simply needs recognizing. Mark was inspired Scripture (and hence canonical) before the ink had even dried.
Thus, the great issue is which text came from Mark's pen, not which text was "canonized".
I am sympathetic to both sides of the debate. However, I'm not so sympathetic to blowing the debate out of proportion and particularly accusing one side of being innately ungodly because of the position they (in good conscience) take. Both sides in the debate have their terrible representatives, but we don't judge a position by it's worst representatives.
God bless.