Jun 25, 2026

Doctrine of preservation in Roman Catholic Church

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Latin Vulgate was God’s preserved Word.[1] This position mirrors KJV-onlyism in its fundamental claim: that God supernaturally guaranteed the perfection of a particular translation.

The comparison becomes even more explicit when examining the logical endpoint of both positions. Those who argue that God perfectly preserved His Word in copies and translations reason that He would prevent misunderstanding through interpretation—a rationale that led the Catholic Church to declare that the Pope and Church Councils were infallible when speaking authoritatively, since human fallibility at the interpretive stage would compromise the preservation of the Word.[1]

What’s particularly revealing is how defenders of the infallible King James Bible find their reasoning leading back toward Roman Catholicism[1]—the very tradition Protestants rejected. Both systems attempt to eliminate human fallibility from the chain of communication by investing infallibility in an institution or text rather than trusting God’s Word to accomplish its purpose despite human limitations.

Some KJV advocates, like Peter Ruckman, teach what amounts to a doctrine of double inspiration—claiming God supernaturally guided the KJV translators to “correct the Greek”—similar to Augustine’s error regarding the Septuagint.[1] This doctrine parallels Rome’s claim that the Church itself becomes an infallible interpreter and preserver of Scripture.

The fundamental problem both share is an overextension of the doctrine of preservation. Rather than trusting that God’s Word accomplishes its redemptive purpose through imperfect human vessels, both systems demand absolute textual or institutional perfection—a demand that Scripture itself never makes and that ultimately undermines the accessibility and clarity of God’s Word to ordinary believers.

[1] James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds., God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 373–374.








No comments:

Post a Comment

Some advices to the proponents of the Textus Receptus and KJV-Only position

Proponents of the Textus Receptus and KJV-Only position deserve respectful engagement, but several important clarifications deserve consider...