Using the KJV only in a church

No. Where has anyone here said otherwise?

 

Depends. Do they make a "doctrine" out of it? Do they put it in their doctrinal statement?

If so, then yes. Even if they don't, it still may be wrong, because such a choice still sounds like a doctrine because it is a "matter of faith and practice".

If the church prefers to use only the KJV (or any version) in services, etc., I think that's fine - but once they declare it the "sole authority", they have used their own authority to declare a sole authority (and have implied that others are wrong for not doing so), whether or not they specifically use the word "doctrine".

 

Where is it implied that a church has to concede to your authority and not the King James bible? If a body (and I think that the case for church usually referring to a local body is easily made from the Bible) decides that they will use one bible, even putting it in their doctrinal statement, what authority do you have to say they are wrong?

 

James asked "Where is it implied that a church has to concede to your authority and not the King James bible?"

I am not making a doctrine out of not using the KJV. I'm not even against using the KJV.

James asked "If a body (and I think that the case for church usually referring to a local body is easily made from the Bible) decides that they will use one bible, even putting it in their doctrinal statement, what authority do you have to say they are wrong?"

I have no authority in the matter, nor do I need one for I am not making a doctrine that says "that church is wrong". But I am still free to point out that their position is unbiblical and self-contradicting: 1. they say doctrines must come from scripture, and yet they make a doctrine out of something that is not taught in scripture, and 2. a second authority is needed declare there is only one authority.

 

OK, so if a local body says 'we believe that God promised to preserve His words, as stated several times in scripture, and we believe He has done so in the King James bible' what makes that wrong? Why must we concede to your 'doctrine' that He only preserves His words in idea, and the actual words are lost to us in these last days?

 

James said "OK, so if a local body says 'we believe that God promised to preserve His words, as stated several times in scripture, and we believe He has done so in the King James bible' what makes that wrong?"

If they put that in their doctrinal statement, it is wrong because the doctrine that "He has done so in the King James bible" is not taught in scripture - so where does this doctrine come from, and by what authority?

James said "Why must we concede to your 'doctrine' that He only preserves His words in idea, and the actual words are lost to us in these last days?"

That is not what I believe, nor have I made it into a doctrine. Even if I did believe that, you would not have to "concede" to it for I have no authority to make such a belief or preference into a doctrine.

 

The OP did not say anything about a doctrinal statement or telling anyone else what to do. It simply asked if a local church could vote to use only the KJV. The answer, of course, is yes. Especially if you believe in the autonomy of the local church.

Now, if they try to force that decision on other churches, then that is wrong.

 

I believe it is compleatly in keeping with scripture that a church can decide this themselves. It is compleatly fine for a local church to put this in their bilaws. It is just like baptism as a requirement for local church membership. Most Baptist churches will require this for membership, but it is not a biblical issue. You will even have a tough time proving the need for local church "membership" from Scripture. My answer is yes it is fine, and yes they can put it in their constitiution, and if you don't like it, it doesn't make it wrong.

 

TC, I realize the OP didn't say anything about a doctrinal statement, but that's how many churches choose to state this belief.

TC said "The answer, of course, is yes. Especially if you believe in the autonomy of the local church."

Yes, of course they could vote. But what exactly are they voting on? If they are voting on creating a new doctrine, they are in the wrong. If they are voting on simply expressing a preference and not portraying it or enforcing it as a doctrine, that is alright.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with a church using a specific translation continually for the purpose of worship texts. However, if the church forbids its members from using any other translation outside of worship texts, then that would be wrong. If, for example, my church uses the NIV for Sunday readings, but I choose to use a KJV for my own study, it would be wrong for th echurch to tell me I may only use an NIV outside of church.

 

For a church to adopt a doctrinal stance, it must be scripturally supportable. The statement here is not scripturally supportable, hence, it is false doctrine. However, if a church wants to use a sole translation in the course of worship, this is perfectly acceptible.

Also, it should be noted that, as Baptists, we adhere to core Christian doctrines and Baptist Distinctives (which are doctrinal matters for the Baptist). We can adopt additionaly on-doctrinal practices (as covered by the distinctive of local autonomy), but we are not permitted to add to Christian doctrines and baptist distinctives.

 

Nothing wrong with being KJV preferred. Nothing wrong with a church using the KJV as it's official translation. I have a problem when the KJV is forced on people. Even if the KJV is the version used by the pastor, each member should be allowed to use a faithful translation like the NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc...

My pastor preaches from a NKJV. I use a NASB(1995) and many members use the NIV.

As long as it is not the false doctrine of KJVOism ruling the church then I will not open my mouth. The KJV is a fine translation.

 

When a church says, " we believe that God promised to preserve His words, as stated several times in scripture, and we believe He has done so ONLY in the King James bible", that's wrong because it's a false doctrine to begin with. Time to find another church.

 

In my professsion I have seen a few KJVO's lie, cheat and steal. The KJV is never a final authority but God is. He always has the last word. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please Him. It does not say without a KJV it is impossible to please Him.

I would never use any translation as the final authority for a Bible. All things should be checked against God's word which is the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. You cannot transalte anything without a certain amount of interpretation. That is true with any document in any language. Not all words translate directly across> Some words do not translate at all.

 

Robycop and Natters, you are both right. If it is "doctrine" then the church is using non-scriptural doctrine. If it is preference only, then, no problem.

For instance, we picked Pew Bibles and the church voted KJV. Funny, though the pastor has to explain phrases out of the KJV with either his NKJV and NIV, so that people can understand them. Nobody complains, they like it because it gives them some understanding they may not have realized before.

In our case, it was not a doctrine or rule, it was simply a choice. So many people are using the NASB or NKJV that the vote may go different today.

 

Come on guys. The question and thread was a simple question. Can we stay on track? Before the moderators cut this off? It would be nice to get some questions answered without the KJVO - non-KJVO fight.

 

You really have a problem with accepting any KJVO believer. Here you make derogatory statements that imply that KJVOs are immoral. I guess that someone who uses the NASB or the NIV could never have a problem with lying, cheating, or stealing. </font>[/QUOTE]You are wrong. I have even gone to churches where the pastor prefered the KJV. The fact is that I have some good friends who prefer the KJV. Some of them have preached in the churches I was pastored too.

It seems that the KJVO folks talk a lot about how all the problems are centered around the people not using the KJV. I have seem plenty KJVO's that deviate a lot from God's plan. I am sure you have too. It is not the version they use but the God or god they serve.

I have yet to see any KJVO person come into a chruch I pastored that did not try to create a problem. I cannot think of one of them who were winning people to Christ and discipling them. NOT ONE! It's the attitude not the preference that is critical.