Is KJVonly a Cult?

I would tend to agree with #1, 2, 4, and 8.
3 is, of course, not apropos to this discussion, as you indicated by not applying it to KJVOs.

5 may be a bit of a stretch, although I know some who will obsess over "shew" verses "show" and "thoroughly" verses "throughly."

6 is, in my opinion, a straw man often thrown out to demean those who take a different position on the KJV than we do. I don't know of any KJVO, no matter how radical his position, who worships the KJV as opposed to worshipping God.

7 is troubling to me, for I believe that preservation is a biblical doctrine. God has promised to preserve His word. I will agree that promise does not extend to the English (or any other language) but I do believe it extends to the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.

9 is, unfortunately, rampant in many (perhaps even most) Baptist churches today, not just those of the KJVO persusasion. I do not think it is a function of versionism as much as the ecumenical compromise brought into Baptist circles by new-evangelicalism and the politically correct "gospel" which does not want to offend anyone by suggesting their religion cannot save them.

Anybody else we can beat up on?

 

How about Tim Lehayites?

Joseph

 

While I do not thing there is a cause effect relationship between radical KJVO and easy believism, I do see a common cause relationship. They both rely on emotion/feeling overriding facts and reason. Anyone who reasons or applies intellect is accused of being unspiritual. I live in an area where many of the ifb churches are influenced by Hyles on both topics. When someone disagrees with them on either issue, the can expect a not-very-Christlike response. Anyone objecting to easy believism are said to not want to see people saved.

 

Anyone who follows specific teachings is called a cult. Baptists are defined as a cult in books on cults written by non-Baptists. Any religion other than the one you believe in can be classified as a cult, according to it's definition. So now I'm hearing cult within a cult? How peculiar!

 

LOL! Well put, Gina! What also strikes me funny about this is that the one thing the proponents of the Critical Text, and the Modern versions based on them, object most strenuously to is being called members of the "Alexandrian Cult." Now, for some odd reason, they are being called cultish themselves. Now for the big question. If it is wrong to call the CT crowd members of the "Alexandrian Cult" is it then okay to call the KJVO members of a "KJVO Cult?"

 

I've been told several times by KJVO's on the internet that I wasn't a christian based only on the fact that I don't believe that KJV is the only Bible. This seems to be one of their main ways of deciding someone elses salvation and relationship with God, weither they will admit to it or not.
Because of them being so exclusive on who can be a part of their churches(based on which Bible you use, and not solely on being a christian, haveing repented and trusting Jesus as Lord and Savior), then they fit the bill of cult for me. I would never be a part of any church that makes demands on which Bible I can use.

 

Sure, go ahead and call KJVo's a cult. I'll start it off.
Hello-my name is Gina and I'm a KJVO.
Hey-I've been called worse. If I'm going to be involved in a cult, let it be the one that gets me the closest to Jesus.
Gina

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
If I'm going to be involved in a cult, let it be the one that gets me the closest to Jesus.
Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gina,

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for Christ, I don't see how being part of the "KJVO cult" (or "Alexandrian cult" for that matter) brings you closer to Jesus. Indeed, this issue is one of the most damaging and divisive issues in Christianity today. I would hardly say that any version or 'preference mentality' in and of itself would bring anyone closer to Jesus.

Sincerely,

 

There is the broad sense that members of people joined by a common belief system is properly labelled a "cultus", however when focusing on the assumption that biblical Christianity is the norm, then deviations from that norm as detailed by Dr. Bob, are properly termed "cults." I see no reason to use the term in this narrow sense against anyone with humble opinions on ANY side of the text issue, or underlying Hebrew/Greek text issue. When the humble opinions give way to an organized effort to execute the items listed by Dr. Bob, then deviation from the norm has taken place, and the label may apply. The key is obviously establishing the norm. Without an ounce of Scripture to tell us how and even if (sorry Thomas) God has preserved His perfect original manuscripts, the standard position would seem to allow for much Christian liberty on this issue. Failure to extend such liberty to other believers opens the door to becoming a cult.

Chick

 

So far it's worked for me.
Unless I take the most liberal stance possible and only generally believe in anything, with utter and complete tolerance for anyone and anything that disagrees, someone will label me a cultist.
It just doesn't bother me.
I know a guy who fits the description of a cultist better than anyone else I've ever heard of. He believed in one thing, preached that one thing, taught it to all who would listen, had it carved in stone, had it written on paper, claimed that his was the one and only truth, and obeyed to the letter everything his leader told him to do, even though he was mocked, persecuted, and reviled for his teachings. Eventually his obedience caused him to willingly go to his own cruel death on the cross.
There is today's perfect drfinition of a cultist.
Once again, it doesn't bother me to be one.

Gina

 

I'm not being a martyr. It really doesn't bother me. Baptists in general have been called cultists. And all religions fit in that generic description.
I didn't realize I'd been attacked.
I do stand on the KJV. I used to use other translations also to get a better understanding, but ending up finding that some things just didn't fit together.
Who that is KJVo will get up here and say it should be called a cult? And who that is not will say it isn't at least a bit cultish?
I refer you back to your Quaker Friends comment.
Gina

 

What do you think of this one? There is an IFB church here in Maryland which is not only KJV-only, but requires that the Bible must have a black leather cover! Anyone else encounter anything like that?

 

Gina, The definition of a cult does vary widely depending on the source. The world labels all devout believers as cultic. However, the McDowell definition given above is fairly specific and would probably be agreeable to most Christian theologians even if the disagreed as to whom it applies.

What you said in your last post does not make you a member of a cult. I think it is a mistake to use any single English translation without other resources (especially one that uses terms and phrases that have changed or lost their meaning). Greek and Hebrew do not always lend themselves to a translation that is precise and direct while retaining its complete meaning. In spite of this, if someone wants to choose a single English version to use, I think the KJV would be a very good choice.

However, when a preference becomes a formalized, extra-biblical doctrine, scripture is twisted to promote this new doctrine, facts are summararily dismissed, the original writings are subordinated to a late translation, and those who disagree are attacked in a personal, non-Christlike manner...the markings of a cult can be seen.

I would not consider Thomas Cassidy to be cultic. He appears to take evidence as it is, weigh it, and formulate conclusions. His predisposition to favor the KJV is not a problem either since all of us start out from some point of bias. I do not agree with all of his conclusions but he does not seem to ignore the facts nor the problems with the KJV.

There are others on this board however who fall into the extremist KJVO camp. The reasoning of one of the writers seems to have been: God could preserve His Word in the form of the KJV=&gt; I want to believe that He did=&gt; therefore He did=&gt; therefore any evidence to the contrary is a plot of Satan himself=&gt; therefore anyone with a differing opinion is wrong at best or minions of Satan at worst. To this I answer, God could have: given us the printing press in 100 AD, inspired someone to engrave stone/metal tablets with the New Testament to preserve the originals in perfection, prevented all scribes from error, inspired the Bible in English originally, etc...but He didn't. He gave us manuscripts uniform enough to preserve His Word but different enough to prevent them from becoming brazen serpent-like idols.

One of the odd and interesting things to me is that the KJVO position finds such zeal in Baptists. The Baptists were persecuted by the Anglicans in both England and America. This persecution occurred during the same period (and by some of the same men) that the KJV was being translated, revised, and imposed as the Authorized Version. Dissenters from the Church of England preferred the Geneva Bible and other earlier translations. They claimed that the KJV favored Anglican doctrine. One accusation concerned the prelacy and another the transliteration of "baptize" as opposed to the translation to "immerse." In less than 400 years, Baptist have gone from resisting the AV to using it to honoring it to the KJVO movement.

 

Thank you for your reply- and for giving it in a non-accusatory manner. I'm learning more from these posts every day!
Gina

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I know a guy who fits the description of a cultist better than anyone else I've ever heard of. He believed in one thing, preached that one thing, taught it to all who would listen, had it carved in stone, had it written on paper, claimed that his was the one and only truth, and obeyed to the letter everything his leader told him to do, even though he was mocked, persecuted, and reviled for his teachings. Eventually his obedience caused him to willingly go to his own cruel death on the cross.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Gina:

I would think twice before using the Sovereign Lord as an example of a "cultist". Actually, holding strong conviction alone does not qualify anyone to be a cultist - be it Baptist or Jesus. A cult always has a false locus of truth at its core, which it holds to beyond evidence or reason. It also follows one charismatic leader who is inerrant in all he speaks - be it the pope in Rome or Peter Ruckman in KJVO circles. Thirdly, a cult is mind-controlling, not allowing its members to hear or experience any other opinions.

One can easily see (I hope) that Jesus did not qualify under any condition.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
I would think twice before using the Sovereign Lord as an example of a "cultist". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chris, I think you may have missed Gina's point. Several posts back she indicated, correctly, that "cult" can simply mean "a belief system."

Cult A system or community of religious worship and ritual. American Heritage Dictionary.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
[QB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chris, I think you may have missed Gina's point. Several posts back she indicated, correctly, that "cult" can simply mean "a belief system."

Cult A system or community of religious worship and ritual. American Heritage Dictionary.[/QB][/QUOTE]

But Dr. Bob:

That is certainly not the current popular definition, nor is it the definition that anti-cult organizations use.

Perhaps that is the archaic definition as used in 1611?