The purpose of this blog refuting doctrines like KJV-Onlyism, Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), or "Perfect TR" (Textus Receptus) is not inherently unChristian or quarrelsome—if our motivation, method, and message align with biblical principles.
1. The Purpose of this Blog
To Uphold Truth: Scripture commands guarding sound doctrine (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Titus 1:9) and correcting error gently (2 Tim. 2:24–26). False teachings can distort the gospel, breed pride, and fracture unity (e.g., elevating a translation over Christ).
To Protect the Vulnerable: Many are misled by claims that salvation hinges on a specific Bible version or that other Christians are "apostate" for using modern translations. A blog can offer clarity, historical context, and scriptural rebuttals.
To Promote Humility: Refuting dogmatic claims (e.g., "KJV is perfect") counters the "holier-than-thou" attitude some observed. It reminds us that God’s truth transcends human traditions (Mark 7:8–9).
2. Is It "Just Personal Views"?
No—if grounded in Scripture, history, and sound hermeneutics. For example:
KJV-Onlyism ignores textual scholarship (e.g., older manuscripts discovered since 1611).
VPP/TR doctrines often rely on circular logic (e.g., "God preserved His Word perfectly in the TR—because the TR says so").
A faithful blog cites evidence: manuscript history, translation principles, and biblical warnings against adding to God’s Word (Rev. 22:18).
3. Is It UnChristian or Quarrelsome?
This blog can be—if done sinfully. But biblical correction is not quarrelsome by default. Consider:
Jesus and Paul refuted error (Matt. 23; Gal. 1:6–9; 2 Tim. 2:17–18)—yet with love for truth and people.
Danger signs to avoid:
Pride: Mocking opponents, boasting in knowledge (1 Cor. 8:1).
Division: Attacking people, not ideas (Proverbs 11:9). We do our utmost not to attack personally.
Neglecting love: Failing to grieve the harm false teachings cause (Phil. 1:15–18).
Godly refutation:
Grounded in "truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).
Aims to restore, not destroy (Gal. 6:1).
Prioritizes the gospel over secondary issues (1 Cor. 15:3–4).
4. Should we Stop for the Sake of "Unity and Peace"?
No—but recalibrate our approach:
True unity is founded on truth (Eph. 4:13). Forced silence enables false teachings to spread, harming more people (Acts 20:29–30).
Peace ≠ absence of conflict: Godly confrontation brings lasting peace (Heb. 12:11). Avoiding hard truths creates superficial unity (Jer. 6:14).
Practical wisdom:
Focus on essentials: Does this teaching undermine the gospel, or is it a secondary disagreement?
Check our heart: Write to rescue, not to "win." Pray for those we disagree with (Matt. 5:44).
Elevate Christ: Point readers to Jesus—not just textual debates.
5. When to Continue—and When to Step Back
Continue if:
Our goal is to protect the spiritually vulnerable.
We offer grace-filled alternatives (e.g., explaining reliable modern translations).
We see fruit (readers freed from legalism, pursuing Christ-centered faith).
Pause/reflect if:
Anger or pride drives us (James 1:19–20).
Comments become toxic or divisive.
It consumes time meant for worship, service, or loving others.
Final Thought
A blog refuting error is Christian if it mirrors Christ: truth without compromise, grace without compromise. As J.C. Ryle said, "There is no such thing as peace at any price." Continue—but let every word pass through the filters of truth, humility, and love (Col. 4:6). The goal isn’t to "defeat" opponents but to liberate captives and glorify Christ.
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."
— 2 Timothy 2:15
No comments:
Post a Comment