1. Why the Writer Became So Extreme
The writer’s extremism stems from a conviction that God not only inspired the original autographs of Scripture but also perfectly preserved every word in one specific textual tradition (the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Version). From this belief, he concludes that only the KJV (or its underlying Greek/Hebrew texts) is the true Word of God. Any deviation—such as the use of modern versions (NIV, ESV, etc.)—is seen as a direct attack on God’s Word.
This absolutist stance naturally fosters division. Once a person equates loyalty to God with loyalty to a particular Bible version, any disagreement becomes tantamount to heresy, which explains why the writer divided churches over Bible versions.
2. Relationship Between His Thinking and Verbal Plenary Preservation Extremism
Historic Christianity, including the Reformed tradition, affirms Verbal Plenary Inspiration (that every word of the Bible is inspired). However, the writer pushes this further into Verbal Plenary Preservation—the belief that God has miraculously preserved every single word without error in a specific textual line.
This is not the historic Reformed doctrine.
The Reformers (Calvin, Luther, etc.) believed in God’s preservation of Scripture in the sense that His Word would not be lost and would remain accessible to His people.
They did not insist on a single version or textual tradition being “perfect.”
Thus, the writer’s extremism comes from confusing inspiration (God’s act in the original writings) with a kind of mystical preservation that makes one translation/version flawless.
3. Why He Is Harsh Toward NIV Users
The harshness toward the NIV (and similar translations) flows from the logic above:
If only the KJV (or its textual base) is the perfect Bible, then the NIV must be seen as corrupt, dangerous, and even satanic.
Users of the NIV are therefore treated not as fellow Christians who prefer another translation, but as compromisers or even enemies of God’s Word.
This rhetoric breeds an unhealthy “us versus them” spirit that fractures fellowship rather than building up the body of Christ.
4. Why His Doctrines Are Extreme
His doctrines are extreme because they:
Add requirements to the faith not demanded in Scripture (loyalty to one Bible version).
Dismiss centuries of faithful scholarship in textual criticism and translation.
Contradict the catholicity of the Church by isolating believers who use other versions.
Transform a secondary matter (Bible versions) into a test of orthodoxy and salvation.
This shifts Christianity away from the gospel of grace into sectarianism.
5. Why His Reformed Views Differ from Others
Mainstream Reformed theology affirms:
Scripture is inspired, authoritative, and sufficient.
God preserves His Word so that it remains reliable and trustworthy across faithful manuscripts and translations.
No single translation is perfect, but God’s truth is preserved in the whole witness of Scripture.
The writer departs from this by insisting on a rigid and exclusive view of preservation, essentially creating a new doctrine that goes beyond the Reformers. His view is closer to a 20th-century fundamentalist innovation than to 16th-century Calvinism.
6. Are These Teachings from John Calvin?
No. John Calvin never taught that one translation (like the KJV, which was published decades after his death) is the only Word of God.
Calvin used various textual sources and valued fresh translations into the vernacular.
His concern was that God’s people could hear and understand God’s Word clearly—not that they be bound to one version.
Thus, these extreme teachings are misinterpretations and distortions of Calvin, often fueled by later polemics rather than by the Reformers themselves.
Conclusion:
The writer’s extremism arises from confusing inspiration with an absolute, exclusive preservation in one translation (KJV). This leads him to condemn other versions, divide churches, and misrepresent the Reformed heritage. His doctrines are not faithful to John Calvin but reflect a later, sectarian innovation that damages the unity of the Church and the clarity of the gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment