And anyhow, I could get quite on board with a “usefulism” teaching. Now that has the charity in it (as expanded in meaning to embrace the dimensions of agape, which isn’t just like tossing alms to a beggar, but a personal investment).
“Onlyism” — nope. That cuts against charity.
I disagree with that last statement and yet charity, “love in action,” can still be had. Do I hate my brethren for using a plethora of versions, all of which disagree? Of course not. My love for the scriptures and desire to know God’s words is what drives me to “onlyism.” When versions disagree, both cannot be true. And yet, I can still exercise charity toward my brethren.
Is KJV-onlyism divisive? Most of the time because it is an argument of authority. Do we have the authority to pick and choose what God said or has He said it and we are to follow it? Why would it be that Satan’s first action amongst mankind was to pervert God’s very words and his last to leave them alone? Of course he would do his best to muddy the waters.
All of that said to come full circle. According to scripture, we are defined by our love for the brethren. Even that which is correct can be used a weapon to wound someone. If we are people of the book, we will reflect grace and mercy and charity (love in action), even in the stuff we disagree about. There are some bridges too far, however, i.e. teaching a false gospel. Let them be accursed.
By the way, the KJVO position has taken its fair share of snobbery from the other side.