Are all KJVOs arminians?

This time the coin was wrong. This forum is for the purpose of "Comparing & Contrasting Bible Versions & Translations." Your question does neither.

Therefore, I am moving it to the C/A Forum.

 

There was a guy who came through the Versions Forum awhile back who was KJVO and claimed to be Calvinistic. I can't remember his name but he claimed that the KJV was the only version that rightly supported the truth of calvinism... go figure.

Many if not most of the hyper-calvinists that I have seen here have been KJVO although notably less caustic.

 

Being Reformed myself...I've wondered the same thing. I have come across a few borderline KJVO
(perhaps KJV-prefered is more apt a description) that are Calivinistic/Reformed.

E.F. Hills might be one candidate.

Another is Dr. Ian Paisley (Presbyterian)..here is a quote and link to his book:


I believe the Authorised Version preserves the Word of God for me in the English tongue and that it contains no errors. -- Dr. Paisley

Here is a link to his book on the AV1611:

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=plea0

-kman

 

Jay P. Green (Sovereign Grace Trust). He is considered KJVO and treated as such in White's King James Only Controversy though he does make his own new KJV based translations (Such as the MKJV, which is my favorite).

 

Oh yes, there are lots of KJVO calvinist. The poster Scott J is refering too was named William McKinly or something like that, I have read him on other forums too. The King James Bible Authorized Version 1611 forum is run by a guy named Kyle (login: canthappen) and he is a strong Calvinist. Also, if you go to Keith's Authorized Version (login: "Sword of the Word") or something like that, you could find an on going debate between KJVO on calvinism. Frustrating for them to say the least for many of the allagations of satan consipacy, swallow bible reading, comprimise, man following, etc that are usually reserved for bible correctors was turned on each other. Then they started banning each other from their sites (there are quite a few KJVO forum sites) and things got messy.

Watching this take place I discovered that Calvinism is the one subject that doesn't seem to easily equate alongside other beliefs. I have seen people who were KJVO who argued both sides, IBF, fundlemental Christmas-shunning-women-no pants on both sides, landmark baptists on both sides, dispensational on boths sides, pre and post trib, etc.

 

Since we are on the subject of KJVO. Are there any educated, thinking people who know the Greek language who are dogmatically KJVO?

Just wondering?

 

First of all I am no greek scholar in case any were interested... I am strict KJVO and that is only for myself... I feel why add confusion to confusion... Too many versions in my book spoil the broth... Besides I will NEVER understand fully the KJV in my lifetime... Lord if you give me another life I will try another version ... The rest as they say... IS GREEK TO ME!... Examine this question... Do all version other than the KJV inhance or destroy doctrine?... Why change? ... Brother Glen

 

I have known several people who were KJVO and calvinist. It is actually rather common in some rural areas, and not just among the Hardshell (primitive) groups.

 

I am a reformer and I *prefer* the KJV, i would pick up other versions, i would squeem if i picked up a NIV, but i would pick it up if i had to.
Verions like, The New Living Translation and New Jerusalem Translation i would burn on sight.

 

I have no idea what an arminian is, and what little I know of Calvanisum I can't stand. I am KJBO, though, and that I do a little about.

I don't have to be educated to know that. I am a soon to be tenth grader, know abosolutly no Greek or Hebrew {though I wish I did} but I do know what I stand for. And I know by God's grace I'll never compromise it.
"Study to shew thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth." I don't need any man's aproval on my beleifs. I've studied to be aproved by God and no other. If someone dosn't like what I beleive, and can't find anything biblical agaisnt it without twisting scripture, then I ain't about to change.
I'm not brillian. I'm no scholar. I've never been to seminary or Bible college {although I do plan on attending one} and I've never been formaly schooled in theology. Some might go so far as to call me an unlearned contry hillbilly. But I don't need facny learning to know common sense. I've got a perfect Bible. You honestly study it. You look at Dr.s Wescott and Hort and see their wacked theology, you look at manuscript lines and you'll see two distinct ones. The King James Bible was a book bathed in the blood of marters who loved Christ with their whole beings. The King James Bible saw thousands of millions converted under it's preaching. I could go on.
And I don't need fancy teaching for anything else I beleive either. All I need is my Bible, and to be under the preaching and teaching of men of God. And you all don't need it either for that matter.
NOW! If someone could just clear up what a Calvanist and Arminian are, prehaps I can figure out if I'm arminian. I know I ain't Calvanist! But I ain't sure about the other one. Who knows? I'm probably not either!
~Abby

 

Abby... Calvinism as I understand it in a nutshell is this... By the sovereign act of Almighty God you are saved without your intervention... God saves you Eternally... You have no ability to save yourself.

Arminianism is the opposite... God has given you the ability to call on him and save yourself.

That is the way I understand it in a nutshell... If others want to elaborate further they may... Brother Glen

 

Abby, This nutshell has not given you sufficient information.

The Docrine of Calvin is that God does the choosing of whom he will save, and has done that before he created the world. But that for any who seek God, which "none can", they too can be saved. All of which is the doctrine of election.

The Doctrine of Armenius, is that God established the means whereby man must be saved. He established universal atonement through the sacrificial death of His only begotten Son Jesus that covers (pays for) the sins of the whole world from its foundation to its end. Thus sins are no longer held to the account of the individual for payment. That is Justification. Jesus death justifies us.

God also established the standard for individual human salvation so high, completely out of the reach of the individual human, that man can do nothing to earn his own salvation. So Works cannot save you.

That leaves only one thing that can save you and Jesus said it best in John 3:16-20. "Whosoever believeth" is all inclusive of all mankind, but it is individual human belief in Jesus that saves the individual. Faith is sustained, continuous, believing, and one who has faith is sanctified (set apart from unbelievers) by that faith.

So under Armenius, with sins paid for, and Works incapable of saving, it is FAITH in God, Jesus is God, and FAITH ALONE whereby any, out of ALL, men may be saved. There it is by Jesus..."there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved".

Keep on believing in Jesus, you are saved!

 

Romans 8.16 defines what man cannot.
Galatians 4.6 stands in line with it.

So much of Scripture teaches the Doctrines of Grace for the Praise of the Glory of His Name and that He will not give His Glory to man.

There is no limitation erected by Calvin, but in the Arminian view there is a limitation, I must declare to the brethren that I believe or else they know not that which is in my heart and they consign me to everlasting torment.

Even among Calvinists it is thought necessary that in order for salvation to be true that man will declare it; I can hardly accept this. I believe salvation is witnessed in the heart of the elect; and I believe the emphasis being placed on profession by the mouth has led many good men down the Roman Road where they by-pass the clear teaching of God concerning the order. Men desire for what ever reason to justify their works both before man and God and unfortunately before man most readily as it is man who we must convince we are 'getting' souls saved in order that they will support our minsterial endeavors, if this in practice denies our confession in the doctrine of Grace, we simply explain it away by saying that no man can sufficiently explain these things.

I am Calvinistic and I am KJVO; though I do have other versions, these were not purchased by myself and I believe that to use them adds to the confusion of sinful man in attempting to understand the things of the Spirit which he cannot understand.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Yelsew... I just talked to the squirrel and he said... Isn't Election according to the Sovereignity of Almighty God... Another continuing tough nut for Arminians to crack... In a nutshell!... Brother Glen

 

Tyndale1946, "election", as I understand it from scripture is not exclusive as Calvinism chooses to define it, but rather inclusive because it allows God to "add unto" the saved as He sees fit. His Word says that those who believe in His son, even on his name shall have everlasting life. Now that is 'exclusive' of those who do not believe, while being 'inclusive' of those who do. His word also says that any who are willing may be saved. His 'eyes' seek out the willing heart. I find nothing in his scriptures that says he forces hearts to be willing. He does things to whole groups of people that cause them to harden their hearts toward Him. He also does things that cause peoples hearts to soften toward Him. I don't find where God actually remakes a human's heart, but he does set circumstances such that man must face the circumstances and make choices. His Holy Spirit draws our own human spirit's attention to circumstances so that our spirit "sees" for itself how hopeless it is without the Spirit of God dwelling within. Then our human spirit must choose to remain where it is or to move with the Holy Spirit's guidance to a new relationship with deity.

We actually do nothing to change our circumstances as much as receiving God's perspective of our circumstances and asking for His help to be reborn into Him. We are powerless to do more than that, and there is no need for us to do anything because God has already done it ALL. We can only have faith that His word is true, and that the Holy Spirit is real within us. Once we come to faith then the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins in a manner that we believe we recognize how we sin and we confess, receive forgiveness and turn away in repentance from that sin. Then the Holy Spirit convicts us of another and cycle starts again, then the next...all in God's time. Even so, our sins were paid for by the Son of God 2000+ years ago, so we don't have to pay the penalty, but we still face the consequenses of our own sins. Smoking tobacco for example has consequences. Being reborn in the spirit does not eliminate the consequences, but repentance may reduce the effects.

I could go on with many other aspect of faith that are taught in the Holy Scriptures that the exclusivity of calvinism denies.

My nutshell is bigger than yours.

 

The real question is do you believe that the greek manuscripts were inspired by God or was the translation of those texts inspired. Some say both the original text and the translation of that text is inspired by God, but that creates a huge problem because there are some contradictions in some of the ancient intepretations. I have no problem with this because I believe God inspired the people writing the scripture not those who copied it down years later. The fact is we have better interpretive tools and more complete information now than they did when the KJV was interpreted. We now have more reliable more ancient texts that have been uncovered that were not available for the interpretors of the KJV. (i.e. the Dead Sea Scolls). To think that the KJV is the ONLY version that carries authority is at best near sighted and only limits you understanding of God's inspired revelation of Himself to us.

Ask yourself, "What if we uncovered the original manuscripts of Paul's letters or the gospels?" Would you think they were in error if they differred from the KJV on some points? What about all those points in the text that say in your KJV footnotes "some manuscripts say this or that"? Which is inspired? The "this" or the "that"?

 

ALLRIGHT!!!! We are argueing Calvinism and KJVO in one thread! This one should be shrined. Let's see if I can throw in Alcohol and cover all the Baptist Board heat.

Alcohol is of the devil! . . . any takers?

 

Surely ye jest?