Why do fundamentalists tend to use the KJV

KJVO is a Johnny-come-lately to the IFB world. It was not until the late 70's or early 80's that the KJVO position became a real issue in IFB ranks.

 

Regardless of when it came about, many, many IFB churches are KJVO.

 

I think it's only half facetious to answer 'Because that's how they think God talks.' Churches which cling to traditions don't usually do so in one way only. So IFB churches do TEND (the poster who said "They don't" needs to note that word) to keep the appearance and order of what has long been established... the 'right' clothes, traditional hymns. blanket condemnation of certain activities, and the King James language in scripture, in prayer and readings. They have their excuses for these things-- there must be a perfect translation (and it must be what they have long used), "If you wouldn't you attend the governor's banquet without dressing your best, why approach God's table without that?", the appearance of evil in dancing, dining were liquor is served, women wearing pants/clothes that show their shape-- but it comes down to their grounding, which is tradition, rigid and exclusive.

 

I'd agree. Most KJVO or KJVP churches I know of are not fundamental, especially KJVO. Most fundamental churches I know of use the NKJV or NASB, with ESV next then NIV.

 

Agreed, but most IFB churches that I know of are not fundamental.

 

You are correct. I prefer the KJV, but I am anything but KJO. I will say most KJO churches that I know of are IFB churches are that is what they call themselves.

Smith at the Sword of the Lord pushes KJO, while John R. Rice wasn't KJO.

 

Simplest and I think most obvious answer is tradition.

They use it because they have always used it. That is becoming less the case as more and more follow the courage of convictions about the truth and modern life and communication, but a large number will continue to use the KJV just out of habit and a desire not to offend the older group of the church.

 

Well said, Doc!

 

I consider myself a fundamentalist, yet not a legalist. Maybe I define the term incorrectly.

I am a KJV stongly prefered and read only a KJ from the pulpit. I can't answer for others, but I have several reasons why. Many of the older folks own only the KJ and most would find it confussing to hear something else. Secondly, I do not see a reason to change, if the Holy Spirit lead me to do so I would.

I do not beleive in "second-inspiration".
I do not believe that other versions are "The Devils Bible"
I do beleive that there are other acurate translations.

I use the KJ because I believe it is an acurate translation that has stood the test of time and it is what my congregation is familiar with.

 

I have absolutly no issues if someone uses another version. Although there are some that I would discourage, not becuse they are not KJ but because of other issues.

 

In my circles, the KJVO churches tend to jettison solid bibliology, sound doctrines on the atonement and human sin, among others. Verbal plenary inspiration is gone. Total depravity is jettisoned. And there are various ways the shed blood of Christ is swiped at in these churches. These are just a few areas.

Again, in these parts, KJVO is rooted in the fabric of churches claiming to be IFB as well as many SBC churches. But, among the churches I know of who claim to be IFB (if I can steal the phrase) they aren't independant, aren't fundmamental, and aren't really Baptist :tonofbricks:

 

I don't believe I am redefining them. You yourself admit that they:

This is not orthodox.

Total depravity does relate to the atonement of Christ, for if we are not in need of substitutionary atonement, how is the atonement an atonement?

I can take you to IFB churches in TN, KY, Ohio, VA, etc., that will preach one or more of the above and one or more of the following:

No trinity;
subservience of Christ (No deity as historically understood as orthodox);
denial of substitutionary atonement;
denial of eternal security;
Other errors already mentioned.

I hardly see how a church that believes any of these, let alone multiples, can call itself fundamental. I'm sorry to say I've been a member or staffer at these churches. I'm even sorrier to say these churches exist in the first place.

To be sure, you'll find churches in the SBC, etc., that would also fall into one or more of the above doctrinal malaises. But that doesn't excuse or mitigate their lack of fundamentalism either.

I fully realize we may have run in different IFB circles. I am not trying to be monolithic or paint with a broad brush. That's why I said "most IFB churches I know of...."

Doctrinal apathy and error is a blight on the church, for if we compromise our footing, we will not stand.

Anyway, I suspect this is off topic.