Why side with the KJV

[Reformed Roman]

Your zeal for truth is causing you to talk to your brothers in such a way that is hurtful. When your brother brought it to your attention in love you told him he was too sensitive and basically that if he was going to be that sensitive not to debate. There are ways to debate in love but when a brother lovingly brings something like that to your attention you should listen. Knowledge puffs up and one of the biggest problems with reformed circles is zeal for knowledge and truth but a lack of application in that truth. Simply being kind and respectful to your brother who wanted to debate in love.

Also maybe arrogance was a little too strong of a word. I can't judge your intents here. Just simply saying your posts were coming off a little strong and were coming off as unloving

 

[MW]

Your zeal for truth is causing you to talk to your brothers in such a way that is hurtful.

It doesn't seem to bother you how a derogatory word like "arrogance" might be hurtful to your brother.

I haven't said anything about my brother apart from confirming his suggestion that he was being too sensitive. It is regrettable that anyone should take offence at my method of sticking to the facts and requiring others to do so.

 

[Reformed Roman]

I actually edited my post before you even posted that confirming that I may have used too strong of a word

 

[MW]

I actually edited my post before you even posted that confirming that I may have used too strong of a word

I personally don't care what you call me. I've been called worse. I happily accept it as a part of my joy in bearing the cross. But so far as your own standards are concerned, in addressing one who is supposed to have "hurt" his brother, you have done "hurt" to your brother. I think you should quit while you are behind. It would be better if you did not make such derogatory judgements on others which suppose you have an ability to look into the heart, and simply leave brethren alone to discuss the issues at hand.

 

[Reformed Roman]

Brother, I was not trying to make a judgment on your heart. And I am sorry if I came off as offensive as well. That definitely was not the way I wanted to handle bringing that up to you.

Sometimes though, you can come off very offensively even when you don't mean to, and you can hurt people in debates. Zeal for truth should never cause you to devalue people. I am by no means saying you were purposely devaluing anyone. Just try to consider people and how you are coming across.

Much love brother, I will leave you all to your discussion

 

[chuckd]

That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?

It might help to liken it to the truth of the gospel in the church. The church had it, but it took a Luther with the help of others to bring it out into the open. Once brought out it caused a division. The reformation churches held to the truth and the Romanist church opposed it. In the same way, the church has always had the preserved Word, but it took the agency of some men to bring it out into the open. At that point the Reformed embraced it and the Romanists opposed it.

Just to clarify, the received text position does not deny there are variants and difficulties. But these are addressed from the point of view that the word has been preserved for the church. This is in direct contrast to those who engage in criticism with the thought that the word has been corrupted and must be restored to a tolerable approximation to the original.

I like the analogy. How are (were) the variants addressed from the TR point of view? It seems variants of a singularity would be a contradiction.

 

[MW]

I like the analogy. How are (were) the variants addressed from the TR point of view? It seems variants of a singularity would be a contradiction.

To continue the analogy, we might think of Calvin coming after Luther and systematically clearing up some of the truths relative to the grace of the gospel. The Lutherans adhered to their interpretation of Luther while the Reformed regarded themselves as following a more consistent Luther. Likewise, there is the preserved word, but different views on what that looks like when it comes to some specifics. The criticism and discussion, however, proceeds on the basis of the text which has come down from former ages. The fundamental belief is ad fontes, and that the fountains have been preserved. Whereas the fundamental belief of Romanists was that the fountains were corrupted.