Is KJVO fundemental?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by EaglewingIS4031, Aug 19, 2004.

?

Which one of these things does not belong?

  1. Triune God

    2.9%
  2. Sinless savior (saviour)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. the virgin birth and the resuresction of Christ

    2.9%
  4. the bodily resurection of the saints

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. sacrificial atonement

    2.9%
  6. Baptism

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Scripture alone, Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Eternal security

    91.2%
  9. KJVO

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is my understanding that fundementalism refers to the belief in the basic fundemental doctrines of the Christian faith. Many KJVO's describe them selves as Fundementalist, and MV users as Non-Fundementalist.
    When I was a kid in the 70's Sessame Street had a segment where they would devide the screen into 4 parts and show a, bnanna, some grapes, and apple and a dog. Then ask "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things does not belong."
    This poll contains a list of fundemental Christian doctrines see if you can decide which One of these things is not like the others, which one of these things does not belong?"
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVOism is liberal modernism.

    KJVOism consist of:

    1. Dishonesty
    2. Distortions
    3. Built upon lies and myths
    4. Pride and arrogance
    5. Unscriptural reasoning
    6. Strife and division

    KJVOism is not fundementalism.
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    KJVO is NOT Fundamentalism!
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother David J -- Preach it!! [​IMG]

    Here is my spiel:
    ----------------------
    The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

    1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
    2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
    3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
    4. the literal resurrrection of Christ from the dead
    5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

    The fundamentals of ne-wage-fundamentalism:

    1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
    2. Anti-education
    3. Anti-success
    4. Anti-female
    5. Anti-alien

    Typical statements of the ne-wage-fundamentalist called
    by the world "fundies":

    1. The KJB replaces the origial language manuscripts
    as being God's word
    2. Calling "seminary": "cemetery"
    3. Billy Grahmn sold out to the Devil
    4. kneel for your man
    5. Jews killed Christ
     
  5. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K said
    I don't know if you mean to imply that I said that, I DIDN'T.
    What I said was
    The poll question is intended to ask if KJVO a fundemental of Christianity, not if it is fundementalism.

    BTW I only listed some of the basic fundementals not all of them.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Sorry - didn't mean it to sound liek an attack on you [​IMG]

    No - KJVO has never been a fundamental of the faith
     
  7. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apology accepted! [​IMG]
     
  8. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is Fundamental, to teach that Jesus is "the Word" or that the 1611 KJV is "the Word". One of these is correct doctrine to the Fundamentalist Church, the other a Heresy.
     
  9. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no "all of the above" or "none of the above" because;
    Choose this day whom ye shall serve, whether it be the Bible of th 17th century or the God of classic Christianity, as for me and my house we will serve the LORD.

    Romans 16:17-18 (KJV)
    Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. [18] For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
     
  10. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is it that you all desire to separate the Lord from his word?

    John 5

    37. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
    38. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
    39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
    40. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sorry, Michelle...Jesus was NOT KJVO, isn't now, and NEVER WILL BE.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Maybe JESUS wasn't Anglican Version only, but PAUL sure was. :eek: :eek:

    Heard Grandpa say, "If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me"

    We laughed at his ignorant comment. As we do at the lunacy today. [​IMG]
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're not. We are separating the word choices of Anglican scholars from the divinely inspired words of the originals.

    Pertaining to the phrase above, did Jesus ever say these particular words? I am not talking about Greek or Aramaic words that meant the same thing- but rather these exact words.

    If not, how can you claim that these are the "very words of God"?

    This goes to the basis of my position and argument. These words were never spoken by Jesus. However, this is the "word" of Jesus... the same meaning, saying, revelation, etc.

    That's exactly how MV's and the KJV can say the same thing using different words and even without having every passage the same.
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, who's the nitwit who voted that a sinless saviour is not a fundamental?
     
  15. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Well, you could also have a good case for saying Eternal Security isn't a fundamental of the faith if by the term you mean OSAS.

    Even though I believe it, I've never considered it to be a fundamental. :confused:

    I had to vote KJVO because that position is LIGHTYEARS from the fundamentals. :D
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is KJVO fundemental?

    Fundamentalism requires strict adherence to basic scriptural fundamentals. KJVOism (or, for that matter, any translation-onlyism) adds to scriptural fundamentals. Hence, by definition, KJVOism is not fundamentalism, and a KJVOist cannot be a fundamentalist.
     
  17. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV onlyism is not only non-fundamental, it is gnostic. The only way one can accept KJV-onlyism is to "know" that it is true - there is no other evidence.
     
  18. Cix

    Cix
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the KJV is the word of God, after all isn't that the version Jesus used? :rolleyes:
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is perhaps the most comprehensive, succinct refutation of the whole KJVO idea that I have seen.

    Amen and Amen.
     
  20. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    StefanM said:
    No eternal security and for that mater Baptism are probably not the essential fundementals for salvation. But this board is for baptist only and as baptist we hold these doctrines as being pretty important.
    Personaly I belive that "eternal security" refers to "perserverance of the saints."

    BTW who is the nit-wit that voted for sinless savior, and what are your ACT/SAT scores! :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...