Why We Use The KJV

Just remember that salvation is more than just justification/regeneration. We are saved(justification) being saved (sanctification) and will be saved (glorification). This doesn't mean we can't say that we are saved. When we say "I'm saved" we are referring to justification. We are saved from the penalty and bondage of sin. We are being saved from the power of sin, and we will be saved from the presence of sin.

 

Yes! I understand now. Thanks.

 

For as long as I can remember, we always spoke of salvation in the sense that we are saved, we are being saved and we will be ultimately saved. It didn't mean that there were different salvations, just various experiences as we journey along life's path. All part of the perseverance of the saints.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Your post just contained 198 times more truth than the tripe in this blog/site

Of course salvation is that. However, it is a work in progress also. And the fact that the lost are depicted as perishing is true.

 

When I use the KJV it's because I want to not because of the same old tripe the KJVOnlyist shovel out.

 

What “tripe”, are you talking about?

 

This, for one. Although with stuff like this, "tripe" is a very kind way of putting it.

 

That the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation.

 

Yes. A teacher at school used to say that all the time. He joked on time that if you didn't know the answer, just put context as the answer and you might be right.

And btw, some excellent reasons to use the KJV. My church uses the KJV too. The KJV is a very good translation.

 

When in doubt, call in an airstrike.

 

I have a real problem with this statement. Is one of the important messages that will be given by a Church of Jesus Christ be which translation of the Bible to use? I would think the gospel of Jesus Christ would be a greater issue to be one of the most important message; among others related to missions, etc.

 

Double post.

 

Actually that is a quite imprecise (and misleading) statement-

1) None of the first century Churches had a KJV.

2) None of them possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures- the New Testament was not even canonized until 300 A.D. at the earliest.

3) The first century churches had the apostles themselves to guide them even in the absence of a "Bible".

 

Nicea represented the whole of orthodox Christianity. Trent represented only the Catholic portion. Comparing the two councils is misleading at best.

 

Ok then, Doctor Cassidy, would you accept the statement, "None of them (First Century Churches) possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures."

I appreciate your corrections.

 

How do you know what they had? Perhaps some churches had a complete copy of the New Testament. There is no way to know what individual churches had in their possession.

 

If John's Apocalypse was not written until about 90AD then it would near impossible for any 1st century churches to have a complete canonical New Testament; considering the 'technology' available for publishing and distribution at the time it would have been a tremendous feat to construct even a few complete NTs before 200AD (and with periods of persecution these Christian activities could not be executed in the open). Surviving documents do not testify to complete NTs before 4th century, I think.