When did statements on Bible versions first begin to appear in 'Statements of Faith'?

Many preachers used the 1901 ASV -- there wasn't a revolt in the pews.

[response to deleted off topic posting]

 

I am a bit surprised that this addition was ever made. I have been involved in developing a couple of statements of faith and this was never a consideration even in churches that greatly favoured the KJT of the scriptures. Our consideration was always that in the statement of faith we had to have scriptural basis for each statement.

I would guess that this addition to statements to faith is relatively new. Having the stand as a part of policy statements or constitutions might go back a little farther.

 

Do you have any examples of where churches in other countries had translation statements in their statements of faith?

 

question -- C4K?

I have a question for you, C4K. I noticed at the first of this thread that you mentioned having it listed in one of two places. The first would be the bylaws or some other documents which I would assume in America would be the papers and documents used to incorporate a not-for-profit-association. (I'm not sure if the term "bylaws" was yours, but I don't have time to go search through it. But, I think I am close--please correct me if not.)

The other was a statement of faith which would then make it "doctrine".

Wouldn't most people who attend a new church and read the bylaws consider that if the bylaws say "You shall only use a King James Version dated: zzz" consider that to be a doctrine of that church if they were to visit?

My only point is that different churches do things somewhat differently. Point in case: The SBC church down the street probably has its bylaws to satisfy state and government regulations, but they use the SBC doctrine statement as their basis of worship. It would seem to me that unless other countries are quite different, a church must be careful what they write in ANY document whether it is a "bylaw", "Statement of faith" or just a "Wednesday night Bible Study Handout" because visitors or new people (in particular) are going to assume that the church believes what it prints on almost anything and that includes the scrolling sign in front of the church on the highway telling the temperature along with a religious statement which may or may not be accurate.

Don't you think that any publications can be construed as "doctrine" when it is printed in any church document that is passed around or held up as an official document?

Please understand I am NOT trying to derail or change anything, but clarify your statement so that we are all on the same page. Have a great day!

 

I personally would not have a statement on translations anywhere in our church paper work. I would surely leave it out of a statement of faith because that is, well, a statement of faith which must be based on the word of God alone.

I am not sure about a constitution, by-laws, principles and policies, or whatever. I would leave it out of them as well, but I can see a church who has an official policy on translations putting it in there some place.

In my mind I see a difference between a church's doctrine and it's extra policies.

Fair questions by the way.

I wonder how many have moved the statement on translations from some other statement into a statement of faith in recent years.

 

Well, it is a statement of "faith". It is what the members of that church jointly believe. It is important to put that statement out there to maintain the unity of that church. If you don't agree, go somewhere else.

It is saying if you don't agree, then don't come here and start trouble. There is nothing wrong with that, there are other churches that will accomodate that person's differing view.

 

I just contend that the believer has one place to put his faith - in the word of God alone.

If God's word does not cover it it is opinion, right or wrong. On this issue I would certainly agree that God has preserved His word, the Bible tells us that and that belongs in a statement of faith.

How a church puts that into practice is another matter.

Hey, this is all my opinion on the matter anyway. Like you said WM, if a person doesn't like it they can go elsewhere. The question, we need to remind ourselves, is not whether or not it should be there, but when it started.

I would be interested in when statements of faith started including a statement on a particular translation. I have been a member of independent Baptist churches since 1974 and none of them have said anything about a translation in the SoF and all have favoured the KJT of the scriptures.

 

Well, those like myself who believe only the KJB is the preserved word of God in English, we believe we have many scriptures to support this view, and I think everyone here is very familiar with these particular verses. There are dozens.

We do not consider it an opinion, we consider it a belief with full scriptural support.

I have been saved since 1965 and every single Baptist church I have ever attended has used only the KJB and rejects all other versions. And the funny part is, it is not that I have sought out these particular Baptist churches. I have moved many times, and each time found a Baptist church near home, and without exception they believed in only the KJB and said so in their statement of faith.

That said, if they had started preaching from another version, I would have left and not come back.

 

You miss the point. A "Statement of Faith" is another way of saying "This is what we believe, teach, and preach." As C4K has said, everything in this should have a biblical basis (see The Baptist Faith and Message for an example). Each point of the statement should have scriptural backing that actually backs up the point.

Putting anything about any translation in the Statement of Faith goes outside of this, becomes abiblical as Roger put it. Since there is nothing in the bible to uphold any specific translation any mention of one moves to the realm of man-made doctrine and supposition.

Yes, God promised to preserve His word and He has. He has not, however, said exactly how He was doing it, nor has He said in which manuscript family (if any). No man can point to one manuscript or even one body of them and say, "This is it." If God thought it was worthy of mention He would have told us. Since He didn't it isn't worth any bother. Of course there will be some like yourself who will continue to harp on it, trying to make out how this one is THE ONE, arguing from your own thoughts instead of from what God has said.

It is sad enough when an individual bows and worships a translation, but when churches put it in as a part of their doctrine... If there could be tears in heaven, it would be those shed by God Himself over such garbage as this.

 

Okay, we have a date - did the church you joined in 1965 have a clause on the KJT in its Statement of Faith? That would be a starting point.

 

The Bible

We believe the Bible to be the complete Word of God; that the sixty-six books, as originally written, comprising the Old and New Testaments were verbally inspired by the Spirit of God and were entirely free from error; that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice and the true basis of Christian union.
---------------------------------------------

This is the Bible statement we make in our group; The Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That I don't know. I was about 10 or 11 years old, and my family moved to another town shortly thereafter. I am fairly certain the pastor was Hugh Pyle, this was in Panama City, Florida. He was absolutely KJB only and wrote a book on the subject, "The One Book That Covers It All". He started pastoring Central Baptist Church in 1957, so while I cannot say they included a statement about the KJB in their statement of faith, it was absolutely a KJB only church from the moment he took over and is to this day.

Do you know who lead Peter Ruckman to the Lord? Hugh Pyle.

Now, I am not a Ruckmanite nor do I support some of his extreme views, but that is some interesting information to know.

 

They don't have it in their doctrinal statement.

We believe the Old and New Testaments to be verbally inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.​

http://centralbaptistpanamacity.org/about/what-we-believe/

 

I notice that statement of faith was written in 2006, Hugh Pyle went back to full time evangelism in 1974 and they have had several different pastors since then.

 

You know, the OP is almost impossible to answer, you would have to contact each and every church (there are hundreds) and ask them when they first made Bible translation statements in their SoF.

I don't know if this counts, but there are hundreds of Baptist churches that identify themselves as King James only.

http://fundamental.org/fundamental/...ncountry&countryname=United States of America

This is just a listing for Baptist churches in the USA, there are also hundreds of Baptist churches listed in many other countries at this site.

 

Early in my Christian life I attended several KJVO churches. If you had asked the pastor what we believed, he would have handed you his KJV bible and said this is what we believe.

If you had then told him you didn't understand why they were KJVO or if they would allow other translations to be used, he would have told you that he didn't care what translation you read or even brought to church. But, if you were going to preach or teach, you would use the KJV. If you were contentious about it you would have been advised that there were plenty of other Baptist churches you could attend.

Although I don't hold to the KJVO position now, I do sometimes miss the unity it fostered. Also, these people were some of the most godly people I have ever known, so I will not stand in judgment concerning what translation they freely choose to use.

 

My opinion is that Arminian being right on 2 points and Calvin being right on 3 points means "Once Saved; Always Saved". Check the meaning of "saved" as in John 3:16!

John 3:16-17 (KJV1769ish edition, crosswalk.com edition):
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Looks like the Bible is saying

not perish = have everlasting life = be saved

but, of course, that is only the common, ordinary meaning in the market place of the words both in 1769 and 2010.