THE COMMON MAN’S DEFENSE OF KJV ONLYISM – Chapter 5 – 66 Book Onlyism

Canon: “The collection or list of books of the Bible, accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired.”
-Oxford Dictionary

“…the sixty-six books that make up the canonical Scriptures stand at the heart of Christian faith and practice.”1
-D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate

Conservative scholars rightly believe that God allowed some Christians who went before us to discover which books belong in the Bible. Their findings were absolutely correct. They did not miss a book. The true canon is made up of only 66 Books. Does the KJV critic believe that there should be only 66 Books in the Bible canon? If he will not be a liberal or a heretic, he must believe such. But why does the modern KJV critic believe that only 66 Books belong in the canon? He must believe that God worked through men to discover the exact 66 Books, no more, no less, based on the inspiration of those Books. (One might ask here how such would be possible if only the original manuscripts are the inspired Word of God!) He must also confess that many sincere, devoted men did not recognize the exact list of Books that we fundamental Christians recognize today. Some were very close to the exact 66. Yet, they deleted or added a Book or two, here and there. On the other hand, the KJV critic must confess that God allowed other Christian men to discover an exact list of Books. These men were not perfect in all they did. Nevertheless, they were perfect in knowing the right Books of the Bible. Robert L. Saucy writes:

“It is true that human judgment was involved in the process. But to say that human judgment is the key element in the establishment of the canon overlooks several truths.”2

Why does the modern KJV critic hold to an exact 66? Why doesn’t he teach that we only have a reliable number of Books in the Bible canon? Why doesn’t he teach that there is no way any group of men could ever know for sure which Books belong in the canon without some degree of error? Isn’t this what he teaches in regard to the very words that make up those Books? If a group of men in history can leave later generations with an exact list of Books, then there is no valid reason why a group of men cannot leave later generations with the exact words that make up those Books!
Is it somehow a denial of each Christian’s individual responsibility to claim that some believers before us were blessed by God to discover the exact Bible canon? Surely, it is not. It is the individual Christian that must use his or her own judgment to affirm that their discoveries were indeed correct. Yet, if it is not a “return to Rome” to hold that some Christians in history were blessed to discover the absolute standard in regard to the canon of Scripture, why do KJV critics attempt to argue that it is a denial of the priesthood of the believer to believe that the KJV translators were blessed to discover the perfect words that make up those Books? James R. White writes:

“Protestants, however, should be quick to question any such notion of absolute certainty. The concept of the individual’s responsibility before God is deeply ingrained in Protestant theology. We cannot hand off our responsibility in religious matters to someone else.”3

James White is attempting to argue that KJV Onlyism is a denial of the priesthood of the believer since it claims that the KJV translators have been blessed to discover the perfect words of God. This is interesting since KJV Onlyism is the very thing that frees the majority of Christians from the dictatorial, popish confines of subjective scholarship. The Dublin Review was a Roman Catholic newspaper co-founded by Nicholas Patrick Cardinal Wiseman in 1836. It states:

“In the length and breadth of the land, there is not a Protestant with one spark of righteousness about him, whose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible (i.e. KJV).”4

It is therefore ridiculous to maintain that KJV Onlyism is Romish is any sense! In regard to the KJV translators, Gustavus S. Paine writes:

“All were staunchly against the Papists.”5

Would James White dare to claim that the translators of the RV, NAS or NIV were all “staunchly against the Papists”? Of course not. Wescott and Hort repudiated the Reformation.
Nevertheless, notice White’s statement in regard to certainty. If such a statement has any weight, would White also doubt which Books should be in the Bible? Does he hold to an absolute 66 with no apocryphal additions in Jeremiah or Daniel? Does he believe Esther and Ruth are inspired? On what basis? Does he believe that any other Christians have discovered the exact canon? Obviously he does. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647 listed the exact 66 Books fundamental Christians recognize today (with no apocryphal additions hidden in Daniel or Jeremiah). Does James White believe the Westminster Confession of Faith is correct in this regard? Is he certain? It is obvious that James White can hold that the Westminster Confession of Faith is absolutely correct in regard to the canon without surrendering his responsibility. Why then does he argue that KJV Onlyists surrender their responsibility for holding that the KJV translators were absolutely correct when they chose which words to translate and how to translate them? If it is wrong to be certain about the words of God themselves, then it is wrong to be certain about the canon, which is made up of individual Books formed by those very words!

The majority of KJV critics do not believe there is a perfect Bible anywhere on the face of the earth. They believe God only preserved His Word partially; that is, less than absolutely perfect. But why then don’t they apply the same logic to the exact number of Books that make up the Bible? They deride “One Bible Onlyism,” yet they themselves advocate “66 Book Onlyism.” How is it that they believe God worked through some men throughout history to preserve the knowledge of the exact, absolute number of Books for us today, yet God did not, at any time, work through men to preserve the exact, absolute words that make up those very Books? If God can work through men to know the right Books with perfection, then why is it so hard for the modern KJV critic to believe that God has worked through the KJV translators to find the right words that make up those Books?

Perhaps it might be argued that no one in history has worked alone; that those who discovered the right Books had much help from those who went before. Yet, the same thing can be said about the KJV translators. They had much help from those who went before them (Tyndale, etc.). But if men in history can find the proper Books with absolute perfection, then men in history can find the proper words that make up those Books with absolute perfection. God is not bound.

Is it unreasonable to think that Christians need an absolutely perfect Bible today? Isn’t the last age of history the time of the greatest deception (2Tim.3:13)? Would not such a perfect Bible be needed? No conservative scholar believes it is unreasonable to think that God has given to us a locked canon. Why then is it unreasonable to believe God worked through men to give us the exact words that make up those 66 Books? D.A. Carson calls his anti-KJV-Only book, “A Plea for Realism.” Norman Geisler endorses James White’s anti-KJV-Only book by stating, “This is the best book in print on a topic too often riddled with emotion and ignorance.” These same men, out of the other side of their mouths, will be found arguing that God has worked through men to recognize the exact number of inspired Books that make up the Bible canon. Atheists will mock such an idea with the same ridicule that these scholars mock the idea that God has worked through the KJV translators to recognize which words should be translated.
Most KJV critics would agree that God is able to preserve His words through man. For some reason, they would simply doubt that He would do it. Why then don’t they doubt that God would give fallible man the ability to know absolutely which Books are to be in the Bible? Man is weak. Man is sinful. “To err is human.” Yet, if Christians can give future generations a list of Books that is absolutely correct, then why can’t they give future generations the correct words that make up those Books? Is it because the latter is harder for God than the former?

If the KJV critic objects to the 17th century being the time when God allowed men to discover the proper words that make up the Bible, then let the KJV critic realize that it was the 17th century that gives us the first public record of the exact 66 Books fundamentalists hold to today. Certainly there were Christians that knew the right Books before. However, the 17th century revived this truth in the mainstream.

Modern scholars often attempt to show historic, public pronouncements (before the 17th century) where our present Bible canon is given. Yet, they do this by dealing with the OT and NT separately. Those men who listed the correct NT Books, had erroneous additions in the OT (and visa versa). Certainly, many Bible-believing Christians throughout history knew the correct Books; yet the exact number was discovered in the mainstream only in the 17th century. It is the same with the words of the Bible themselves.
Notice the errors that were made in the past in regard to the Bible canon. None of the following professing Christian sources had the knowledge of the exact 66 canonical Books recognized by conservative Christians today:

Irenaeus (125-192):
Accepts the “Shepherd of Hermas”, quotes “Wisdom”, etc.

Origen (185-253):
Included “Epistle of Jeremiah”, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas.

Clement of Alexandria:
Included Revelation of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Letter of Clement of Rome, “Preaching of Peter”, and the “Teaching of the Apostles”

Muratorian Fragment (Lists Books accepted in Rome, A.D. 200): Includes Apocalypse of Peter

Cyprian:
No Hebrews, 2Peter, James or Jude

Eusebius (260-340):
Disputed 2 Peter, James, Jude, Revelation, 2nd & 3rd John, Hebrews, (and no Esther); He recognized 1 Clement

Athanasius Canon (298-373):
Listed Baruch as Jeremiah, along with the Epistle of Jeremiah. (Greek additions to Daniel). He had no Esther.

Council of Nicea (325 A.D.):
Included Book of Judith (see Jerome)

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389):
No Revelation

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (348-386):
Included Baruch in Jeremiah.

Chrysostom:
No Revelation, 2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude

Augustine (354-430):
Included Apocrypha.

Council of Laodicea (363):
No Book of Revelation. Baruch in the Canon.

Codex Sinaitic Manuscript (4th century):
Includes Barnabas & Shepherd of Hermas

Amphilochius of Iconium (d. 394):
“The Revelation of John some accept, but the majority call it uncanonical”

3rd Council of Carthage (397):
Included O.T. Apocrypha

Wycliffe’s Bible (1382-1388):
Apocrypha scattered through it.

Luther (1483-1546):
No Esther; doubted James. F.F. Bruce claims he also doubted Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, giving them a secondary status.

Alexandrian Manuscript (5th century):
Includes Letters of Clement

Obviously, (as can be seen from the preceding list) a revival took place in the mainstream in the 17th century. As already noted, in 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith listed the exact 66 Books (with no additions in Daniel or Jeremiah) now recognized by conservative, fundamental Christians. Certainly there were Christians who understood this truth before this date. For example, the KJV translators had no additions in Daniel and Jeremiah, etc. They placed the Apocrypha between the inspired Testaments (even Luther had placed it at the end of his version). By 1629, the later editions of the KJV completely removed it to avoid confusion. It is therefore in the 17th century that we see this truth of the exact 66 Books made public in the mainstream. Why is it then so hard for the KJV critic to believe that the 17th century would also see a revival of the very words that make up those 66 Books?
2Ki 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

God obviously worked through fallible men, to examine all that has gone before, and to correctly identify which Books belong in the Bible. After the publication of the King James Bible, we begin to see these public statements identifying the exact 66 Books. The same God that can work through men to discover the exact Books of the Bible, can also work through men to find the exact words that make up those Books.

It appears that the KJV critic must confess to a revival of “absolutes” in the 17th century in regard to the 66 Books! Yet, he is very inconsistent, since he will not allow the words of the Bible to be absolutely found in the mainstream in that same time period.