Which is more common?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Refreshed, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was having a discussion about this with my brother the other day. Which is more common, a KJVo Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, or a non-KJVo Independent Fundamental Baptist Church?

    I contend that the non-KJVo would be more common, what do you think?

    Jason
     
  2. Emily

    Emily
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good question.

    My search for an IFB church has led me mostly to churches that are KJV only.. so, in my opinion, it would seem like they are more common..(but, this was surprising to me.. I expected KJV only churches to be very rare.. almost like a cult)

    I dont think everyone is a ruckman though.

    The church I am attending now is KJV only, but I've had a couple conversations with the Pastor about it, and he knows I dont buy into it. It doesnt seem to be a problem, where if I went to a Ruckman church, Im sure they would be praying for my soul since I read a NKJV or NIV at home.
     
  3. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for your answer, Emily. I doubt a majority of KJVo churches would be Ruckmanite churches. I currently attend a KJVo church, but it is the only Independent Fundamental Church in the area, not Ruckmanite but with a couple of Ruckmanites in it. Maybe the KJVo churches are more common after all?
     
  4. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are probably a number that stick with the KJV to avoid needless controvery and out of concern for their weaker brothers (from their perspective, of course :D ). And there's plenty of practical, non-theological reasons for sticking with the KJV, including the many advantages of everyone using the same bible, no matter what that bible is.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    My unstudied, unscientific impression of churches I am familiar with leads me to believe that the majority of IFB churches are not KJVO. There are a number who use the KJV for political reasons (and I wish they wouldn't ... but I will defer to the weaker brethren ;) :D ). I would think true KJVO churches in IFB-dom are in the minority.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since one cannot be KJVO and be a fundamentalist, there's no such thing as a real KJVO IFB.
     
  7. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since one cannot be KJVO and be a fundamentalist, there's no such thing as a real KJVO IFB. </font>[/QUOTE]As someone recently pointed out, fundamentalism is an ecumenical movement so I'm glad not to be a part of it ;)
     
  8. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since one cannot be KJVO and be a fundamentalist, there's no such thing as a real KJVO IFB. </font>[/QUOTE]That is an opinion. A wrong one, but an opinion nonetheless. Adding to the fundamentals never took someone from being a fundamentalist. If the five fundamentals is all its about, then we indeed have much in common with the RCC!
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoever pointed this out either was wrong or meant something by "ecumenical" that is not typically meant. Fundamentalism was a cross denominational movement. It was not an ecumenical one. Don't get carried away with the rhetoric here. Ecumenical is used generally to refer to a mixing of faiths, i.e, those who believe orthodox doctrine with those who do not. Fundamentalism explicitly repudiated modern ecumenism.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is actually a correct opinion. KJVOs have not merely added a biblical doctrine to the fundamentals. They have contradicted a fundamental doctrine. Therefore, they are not true fundamentalists. As for the RCC, they as well have contradicted fundamental doctriens by their soteriology.

    I have long contended that "Five fundamentals" is too reductionistic to be accurate.
     
  11. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    Which of the fundamentals does the KJVO stance contradict?

    Jason
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The doctrine of inspiration.
     
  13. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoever pointed this out either was wrong or meant something by "ecumenical" that is not typically meant. Fundamentalism was a cross denominational movement. It was not an ecumenical one. Don't get carried away with the rhetoric here. Ecumenical is used generally to refer to a mixing of faiths, i.e, those who believe orthodox doctrine with those who do not. Fundamentalism explicitly repudiated modern ecumenism. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, Let's all come together based on the few doctrines that are "really" important. Sounds ecumenical to me! Every doctrine of the Bible is precious.

    The Fundamentals:

    1) Inerrancy of the Bible
    2) The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
    3) The doctrine of atonement
    4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
    5) The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

    I believe these things, but this seems logically sloppy. 2-4 are required by 1, as are many, many other things. Are they saying apostasy is fine in all other Biblical, but "lesser" doctrines? Very, very ecumenical.

    Note many Catholics could affirm these statements with no problem.

    So I admit it - I am NOT a fundamentalist, not in this sense. It's wrong to downplay the importance of ANY Biblical doctrine by singling out 4 as the "really, really important" ones.
     
  14. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    The doctrine of inspiration. </font>[/QUOTE]I am KJVO, and I affirm the Bible to be inspired AND preserved.
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But not all doctrines are equally clear. To deny some things is not to be an apostate. To deny others is. For instance, to deny that Jesus is God is apostasy. To deny that angels are in the image of God is not. Clearly there are differing levels of things. There are theological doctrines we can differ on and still be fellowshipping believers. That is not ecumenism.


    I agree, which I was I constantly say the five fundamentals are insufficient. In addition, you have the issue of separation.

    No, I don't think they are saying that at all. I think they are acknowledging that some things are of greater theological weight and clarity than others. Surely we can all agree on that can't we??? That doesn't make on ecumenical.

    A Catholic will not agree on the doctrine of the atonement, unless he violates his church's teaching.

    I agree, but that is not what is being done.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is simplistic though. The doctrine of bibliology is not just about affirming inspiration and preservation. If you, as a KJVO maintain that affirmation for only one text or one translation, then you are outside the doctrine of bibliology and have denied a fundamental of the faith.

    If you prefer the KJV, the MajT, or the TR, but realize that none of those is perfect, and that other manuscripts and translations are also the word of God, then you have probably not denied bibliology because you have not added to God's word. You have instead affirmed the pattern and evidence of God's word.
     
  17. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    tim: Hey, Let's all come together based on the few doctrines that are "really" important. Sounds ecumenical to me! Every doctrine of the Bible is precious.

    pastor: But not all doctrines are equally clear. To deny some things is not to be an apostate. To deny others is. For instance, to deny that Jesus is God is apostasy. To deny that angels are in the image of God is not. Clearly there are differing levels of things.


    I see that, but there's whole lot of perfectly clear doctrine not reflected in those 4. This small list comes off to me as more new evangelical than what most mean today by fundamentalist.
     
  18. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    tim: I am KJVO, and I affirm the Bible to be inspired AND preserved.

    pastor larry: That is simplistic though.


    You're right - God said it, I believe it. Pretty simple.

    The doctrine of bibliology is not just about affirming inspiration and preservation.

    Earlier you stated the KJVO position contradicts the doctrine of inspiration. That's patently false. Produce one scripture from the Bible that I, a KJVO, would deny concerning inspiration. If you can't, understand that proves your doctrine of inspiration is extra-biblical, i.e. man-made.

    If you, as a KJVO maintain that affirmation for only one text or one translation, then you are outside the doctrine of bibliology and have denied a fundamental of the faith.

    I don't see that listed among the "fundamentals". I hold the bible was inspired, is inerrant, and is preserved. In any event I don't really care if I'm outside of anyone's "doctrine of bibliology", show me the specific scriptures I've denied.

    If you prefer the KJV, the MajT, or the TR, but realize that none of those is perfect, and that other manuscripts and translations are also the word of God, then you have probably not denied bibliology because you have not added to God's word.

    Where does God's word state that it will become corrupted and imperfect? In fact it seems to claim the exact opposite. Who's doing the adding here?

    You have instead affirmed the pattern and evidence of God's word.

    I'll take what God promises over how things look any day. Regardless, to me it looks like God has preserved his word just like He said He would.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    God NEVER said that He would prserve the Bible in one specific version or translation. Hence, to assert such a position sould be a non-fundamentalist view.
     
  20. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    God NEVER said that He would prserve the Bible in one specific version or translation. Hence, to assert such a position sould be a non-fundamentalist view. </font>[/QUOTE]He never said He wouldn't. What we DO know is that He'll preserve it, perfectly, somewhere. I don't deny that, hence I'm not contradicting scriptural teaching.

    People who deny perfect preservation, however, do contradict the Word of God.

    1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
    1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

    Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
     

Share This Page

Loading...