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?"
Is KJVO fundemental?
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by EaglewingIS4031, Aug 19, 2004.
?
-
Triune God
2.9% -
Sinless savior (saviour)
0 vote(s)0.0% -
the virgin birth and the resuresction of Christ
2.9% -
the bodily resurection of the saints
0 vote(s)0.0% -
sacrificial atonement
2.9% -
Baptism
0 vote(s)0.0% -
Scripture alone, Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone
0 vote(s)0.0% -
Eternal security
91.2% -
KJVO
0 vote(s)0.0%
Page 1 of 2
-
-
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. -
KJVO is NOT Fundamentalism!
-
Amen, Brother David J -- Preach it!!
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 -
C4K said
What I said was
BTW I only listed some of the basic fundementals not all of them. -
Sorry - didn't mean it to sound liek an attack on you
No - KJVO has never been a fundamental of the faith -
Apology accepted!
-
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.
-
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. -
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 -
Sorry, Michelle...Jesus was NOT KJVO, isn't now, and NEVER WILL BE.
-
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. -
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. -
OK, who's the nitwit who voted that a sinless saviour is not a fundamental?
-
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 -
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. -
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.
-
I know the KJV is the word of God, after all isn't that the version Jesus used? :rolleyes:
-
Amen and Amen. -
StefanM said:
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
Page 1 of 2