A little help

Of course I realize this. Where did I imply that they were?

I am all in favor of education. I have pursued a higher degree of education all of my life.

The expectations of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum mean little or nothing to me.

 

Which is precisely why I would never do such a thing. An educated man would know the difference between "dis-ing" an education and "dis-ing" the philosophy that the education is more important than a walk with God. Given the choice, I'll take the man who walks with God.

I disagree. I do not think a man ever arrives at the place where he no longer needs to learn.

Nor would I. However, I would not sit day one under the in-depth teaching of a man so arrogant as to think that his seminary, Greek, Hebrew, etc. are a substitute for the power of the Holy Spirit.
1Co 8:1b ...Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. (KJV)

Not so, my friend. I can list many men who have a diploma who are still incapable of expounding the Word of God. In fact, I have had the pleasure of knowing Sunday school teachers with nothing more than a high school education that can very adequately expound the Word of God.

 

We have totally departed from the topic of the thread

Please feel free to discuss the topic of the importance of education on a new thread. Further discussion here will be deleted.

 

annsi, your response following the quotation of part of my post makes it appear like I suggested that the Gospel should not be preached to avoid offense. Did you really see anything like that in my original post? Do you think that is something I would propose?

 

annsni, so you agree that I didn't write that the Gospel should not be preached. I felt like I was being accused of saying something which was untrue. This what I said concerning 'offense' (it is in the context of discussing the 'version issue' with her) --

Actually, what I wrote was that he should "be prepared" to change his version. No, not on a "whim". But, depending upon the intensity of the situation it might be best for the pastor to read his sermon text from the KJV. Surely, you would agree that there is nothing wrong with reading the KJV in church. About 95% of the time this would make no difference textually. It was my thinking (although unstated) that he may only want to give up his right to preach from another version for a brief time while he is dealing with this woman; a small consolation until the issue has been discussed thoroughly. If she is alone in this conviction, maybe she should leave; but perhaps there other that feel this way also. I was advising caution.

At my church all preaching and teaching is done from the KJV (but not because we're KJVO). It is choice made for consistency and unity. This does not mean that occassionally other versions aren't briefly mentioned; or that an alternate translation (discussion of Greek word meaning, for example) of the text isn't explored. Members bring whatever version they want to church. No one is told what version to read or study for themseves.

Yes, and I base my answer upon 1 Corinthians Chapter 8. I believe Paul would read from the KJV if he thought it would help a weaker brother (or sister). Is it better to be 'right', or to be loving? (in a non-moral situation)

Whose church is it: the members' or the pastor's?

 

Actually, it belongs to neither one. The church belongs to Jesus. And, no, I am not being cute... everything should focus on and revolve around Him.

Is reading from and preaching from the KJV a big deal? Not really... unless the reason behind it is a big deal. If this lady wants the pastor to use it because she has elevated it into the position of an idol, he should BY NO MEANS give in to her idolatry. If she is asking because that's what she likes or is comfortable with, he must look at the big picture regarding the rest of the congregation; would making this move FOR ONE PERSON be beneficial for the rest of the congregation? In other words, is most of the congregation "old salt" Christians who would be able to understand the KJV's language without the pastor having to re-translate it?

Today's world is too full of squeaky wheels who scream loud enough to get their way. The ACLU (Anti-Christian Legislation Union) has called the shots for so long we just fall into goose-step with it. just because one person is offended, or upset, or doesn't like something, everyone else must forfeit their own choices and kiss that person/parties backside. The church is no place for that... never was, never will be.

EDIT: Gee, you're fast, Ann.

 

Although the OP was about one dear lady in the church, my reponse was addressing the plural ("members" and "precious ones") because she unlikely to be the only one. She may have church friends and family that hold the same convictions. I agree that one person does not require a change; but one person does require consideration. I totally agree he should discuss with her why he uses another version; but we both know the chances of a KJV person changing their mind. (we don't know if she is just 'preferred')

Wait a minute; we don't know what this 'church' believes. We only know what the pastor prefers. As long as you're playing 'what ifs': what if the entire (100%) congregation wants the sermon from the KJV? Now, should the pastor "fold"? What if more than half (51%) demand the KJV? What if a 45% insist on the KJV (and another 25% are indifferent)?

Here's an emotional spin: what if this is an older member who grew up in this church (say, for over 50 years) and the preaching had always been from the KJV. Now this 'new' pastor comes along with his NASB. Should this dear old lady have to leave 'her' church? If it helps, imagine if your pastor suddenly decided he would be preaching out of the Douay-Rheims (and no one else in the church objected)?

Believe me, I understand that not every one will be perfectly happy with everything all of the time.

One more: Would you give up your right to any other version but the KJV for one year if it meant that one person would certainly be eternally saved because of your temporary forfeiture?

 

Correct.

Right.

I agree.

True.

 

As a pastor if I tried to avoid offending every "one" person I'd be one miserable person. Seems that there's always at least one person that's offended about something. And, I'm certainly not going to let the offended sensibilities of one person cause me to change what version of the Bible I use. She can get over it or go to a KJVO church or find some sucker pastor who wants to be controlled by every wind that blows through the congregation.

 

Is that really a "pastor's heart"? I don't believe my pastor would ever say anything like that. If I knew he did, I'd look for another church, no matter what the issue was, just because of that attitude. Sorry.
We had a gentleman in our church who was upset with something that was being taught in his Sunday School class. Our pastor called him, they sat down in his office and worked it out. To me, that is a "pastor's heart", each member he is a "sheperd" over is important. I surely don't consider him a "sucker pastor".

 

"One woman" is what you seem to be addressing. I offered (per his request) my advise, which was not required to be limited to just the one person. That was the second misrepresentation of my original post. The first was the misrepresentation of the word "offended" (from the context of discussing the 'versions issue') by implying that the Gospel should not be preached or even that the preaching should be in some way altered.

I've already stated that my position would likely be the same as yours if it were just one member. But I'm still curious (since you conspicuously did not answer any of the earlier questions raised): At your church, how many members would it take before your pastor should at least consider something (that is a non-moral issue)? Two? Ten?

 

So, it is OK to genuinely offend one person, just not a bunch of people? How many people is too many to offend?

 

Please enlighten us; what untrue, unbiblical, unhealthy change did franklinmonroe suggest?

 

You're skirting the reason for my post. It has NOTHING to do with a particular problem. It has to do with sag38's way of dealing with a member of his congregation. I would not want a pastor like him. I'm sorry. Go read his post again.