Using the KJV only in a church

The sermons can be longer that way too. Also he won't have to say so much in the same amount of time. Because he will have to spend so much time defining the words in the KJV. What a way to go to use another translation to explain an archaic transaltion so people who prefer it can understand it. Why don't they go back to the Latin of the RCC? But I would bet that when he defines or explains the words he ends up with what is written in the modern translation.

 

gb that is exactly what happens. He actually spends more time explaining the verses than if he would just read them from the newer translation.

Funny, I asked him about the end of Mark and his remark was that no matter how you explain Mark's ending, somebody will be mad at you. Either you explain it may not be there and somebody will complain that you are attacking the "Perfect" word and if you say it is correct, then you have to explain how it applies to people. Catch-22

I think he knows the problem, but we have a lot of old folks in the church (small church) and although none of them will complain about a newer translation, they just prefer the KJV because they grew up with it. I can live with that, but then again, like you said, the side effect is the time wasted in translating it.

 

For a church to adopt a doctrinal stance, it must be scripturally supportable. The statement here is not scripturally supportable, hence, it is false doctrine. However, if a church wants to use a sole translation in the course of worship, this is perfectly acceptible.

Also, it should be noted that, as Baptists, we adhere to core Christian doctrines and Baptist Distinctives (which are doctrinal matters for the Baptist). We can adopt additionaly on-doctrinal practices (as covered by the distinctive of local autonomy), but we are not permitted to add to Christian doctrines and baptist distinctives. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, it may be the case that 'KJVO' is not a baptist distinctive, and many baptists may take issue with being identified with it. However, that is their problem and not mine. I am a baptist by reason of everything else being not what I am. We live in a world that has a label for everything. We used to be a 'Bible Church' but it turned out that Bible Church is as denominational as Baptist, and people started showing up with wierd beliefs that didn't really have anything to do with the Bible. So we realized that our doctrines were in line with Baptists more than anyone else, and we decided to change the name of our church to include the word, 'Baptist'. This is more for the world's benefit than our own.

 

I don't see anything about doctrine in the question - of course there is nothing wrong with a local church doing that.

Now, as to whether or not I would go there - that is a different story.

 

"Why don't they go back to the Latin of the RCC?"
"
Because even inside the RCC the Vulgate isn't used for sermons anymore?

There are benefits to adopting 1 particular translation of the Bible as the official Bible of a church, making it for practical purposes something of a final authority, and the KJV can be a good choiche to be that Bible.

 

Yes.

 

I agree - elaborate?

How can it be wrong for an independant Baptist Church to decide to use this version as their sole authority. I am not agree with them, but it is certainly their right.

 

No, I'm NOT kidding, Terry. If a congregation decides upon a certain BV by mutual consent, fine. But when a church declares that their one version is the ONLY valid version there is, then that church has strayed from Scripture and has accepted a FALSE DOCTRINE. A little leaven has tainted the whole lump.

 

Terry, how has your church chosen to express their preference for the KJV? Has your church put something in their doctrinal statement? Does the pastor ever treat it like a doctrine from the pulpit? Or is it just a general preference that is known by word-of-mouth only?

 

This may not be his thoughts, but here is my statement regarding this. There is technically
"nothing wrong" with an autonomous or independant Baptist Church in doing anything they want to. . . I don't guess. BUT, even if it is not wrong according to the law, it may be Biblically wrong.

Now if a church were to state that it would only use the KJV and that all members would use KJV and it was voted in to do this. Possibly nothing wrong. However, if it was also stated that the KJV was the only TRUE version, then we have a Biblical variance.

So, IMHO it all boils down to whether or not that church makes a statement regarding the KJV being the ONLY translation that is correct, or whether it will just be the one used throughout the church. Then again, I also think it would be wrong for the church to demand that the members cannot use any version they choose (as long as it is not a cult version, etc.).

For instance, if it is used in all Sunday school classes for teaching and the pastor preaches from it, etc. Nothing wrong.

There is something wrong if that pastor or the Sunday school tells another member that they are not allowed to follow along in their MV because it is not accurate. Even with a vote, because it is non-Biblical. We should never vote anything into a Baptist church that is not Biblical. (Although this probably happens on other subjects more than it should.)

I ask this question, not to take the thread off-track but to make an illustration: "Is it okay for an Independant Baptist church to have a homosexual, pedaphile as their preacher, if they vote him in"?

 

no

 

no </font>[/QUOTE]You have to also clarify that the church will not teach its members that the KJV is the ONLY English translation. That goes against Biblical authority. If there is no teaching that it is the "only" translation, then I would agree that it would be okay.

 

My point was that the Vulgate is much older.

Why teach the KJVO position when it is not in accordance with scripture. If you want to teach KJKV prefernce as a convenience fine. But just rememember what you wil do with those who are new believers if there are any.

A freind of mine grew up in a KJVO church and thought evrything was right until he went to another chruch and realized that the KJVO was not an issue and in fact more time in the sermon was spent on the actual text. What he also saw was people who were walking with God. What really grabbed his attention was when a new pastor came in at the KJVO church and placed the responsibility of evangelism on the shoulders of the people. He told them it was their everyday responsibility. They did not like that so well. They thought it should be only his responsibility to do that. They were not only KJVO but also PRO Pastor's Responsibility Only. They had been used to being pros at PRO. Maybe its EBPO today, Evangelism By Pastor Only

 

Amen! When there is voting there are winners and losers. Is that what the church is all about? The church's work is about pointing people to God.

God's work is not a democracy but a theocracy. There is only one vote, God's. All the rest are nonsense and politics.

 

But according to you, the bible is full of errors. Would this not be considered 'leaven'? If there is a little bit of error in the word of God, which parts can be trusted?

Where do we get our doctrines from? The bible, right? So what gives us the authority to tell another person that something is good, or something is wrong. Is it our own authority? Or is it the bible? Ok, so how do I know that when I tell someone the bible says something, that the version they prefer says the same thing? Do I have to take them to the autographs?

Average Joe Sinner on the street, doesn't know what the bible says. He probably doesn't even realize that there are so many different versions, and that there is any controversy. Average Christian can look him in the eye and say 'the bible says your a sinner, you need a saviour' and Joe Sinner may just take his word for it, or he may just walk on by. The bible version issue is not in play.

Young Christian may also be unaware that there is a controversy over what the word of God actually says. He will go along happily reading whatever version he was given until he realizes that his pew-buddy has a different version that says something else. At first, this may confuse Young Christian and cause him to worry that his bible is defective. He may start to look into this, and possibly come to his own conclusions. But if someone gets to him quickly enough, he can probably be calmed down and convinced that while there is no absolute agreement on what the original autographs said, there is general agreement among most manuscripts and that any 'faithful' translation will suffice, and in fact it is best to read as many as you can.

Average Apostate Christian, however, is another story. He has fallen in love with the idea that there is no true word of God today. This allows him to get drunk 'in moderation', or have church in a strip club, or ordain homosexuals, or whatever his filthy heart has decided is God's will for him. He can do this because we have no authority to tell him he is wrong. He is free to believe whatever he wants in the bible. In fact, as we get closer and closer to Christ's return, and the falling away gets farther and farther, we start seeing people produce bibles to support any kind of foolishness. We will soon have a bible that removes the prohibitions of homosexuality, and by what authority will we say that it is wrong? We have no authority. Our legs have been shot out from under us because we have no word of God in these last days.

 

Our church has NKJV as its pew Bible, and all preaching is from the NKJV.

No one complains, although many if not most tend to follow along in various translations other than the NKJV.

No dogma or doctrine involved in this decision, just a preference decided by the church long before I came. So long as they don't attempt to force a NKJVO position (which they won't), I am perfectly comfortable with matters as they stand.

 

Speak for yourself.

HankD

 

I certainly have the Word of God.

 

Even Charles Spurgeon said the AV was inferior but it was the best they had. Apparently you do not know the difference between a translation and the inspired version. The KJV or any other English is nothing more than a translation. All of them are good. We want to get the people reading not arguing over versions and differences. When people ask me what they shoul;d buy I just tel them to buy one they like and can read and understand.

The answer to your question is easy . Just tell the people the truth. Why evade the issues. Year after year I have seen people who are shackled. They have stopped sharing their faith and most of the time it s because they have heard enough nonsense to get them confused. So they go down the path of confusion. It’s about time people teach the truth instead of a snow storm with so little visibility that people can’t make out the truth from the fiction.

Why spend your time studying the English if you have learned Hebrew and Greek? The only people who do that are those who have been lazy and have not kept up since graduating.