Is it Typical In IFB Churches?

Um, no; Don copied and pasted what Matt wrote on a previous page.

 

Um, uh, you mean post #92? Learn to use the quote feature and it might just look like you didn't say it and that you were quoting someone else. OK?

I mean, why should I have to look back and see if someone else said it because you failed to use the feature correctly?

 

Um...because it wasn't directed at you? Because it was answering Matt's question? And I assumed that Matt would remember asking that question (which he has subsequently re-posted).

Didn't occur to me that you'd try to answer someone else's question.

 

So you couldn't use the quote feature because of the person it was directed to? OK.

What's wrong with answering someone elses questions? It happens on here all day long.

I asked who on the BB made such a statement (about people being prevented from coming to Jesus or however it was worded) directed at your post where you failed to use the quote feature, as it looked as if you stated it due to your mistake. Matt answered.

So my "Don made the statement" is justifiable.

 

Justifiable, yes; correct, no, which is why I posted a correction.

 

Being curious, I found a register of IFB churches in my area. The first two I looked at both had the following sections as the top two items in their Doctrinal statements:

1. Textus Receptus is preserved original scripture and the KJV is the only English text from the TR. It is therefore the only one to be used in the ministry of the church

2. Dispensationalism

Further down the list come sections on the Godhead, the person and work of Jesus, Holy Spirit, Depravity of Man, Salvation, Satan, Abortion, Sexuality, Creation, Divorce, Lawsuits.

Anecdotal evidence of course. Neither said that you couldn't be saved with other translations, but having it as the first belief listed in the doctrinal statement seems to give it undue focus.

I don't know that I've seen Dispensationalism listed officially in a church's doctrinal statement before.

 

The fact a church puts that first is most likely telltale about what type of KJVO they are, I'd guess they are fairly abrasive in their approach. Most of the churches I know of that are KJVO are reactionary type of ministries, ready at will and at ad lib to slam anything they feel they need to slam at the moment by way of sermon.

I'd dare say putting "KJV" first is an example of being reactionary, and that the driving force behind placing it foremost is hatred of other Bibles. I'd also say Dispensationalism is placed there for the same reason, as many are no longer Dispensational within Christendom. Many of these KJVO types believe they are "holding the fort," and others who disagree with these areas are thought of as apostate.

 

A classical example of the KJVO mentality comes directly from the website offered by John of Japan (The Sword of the Lord) where they -- up front and immediately -- explain that the KJV is the ONLY Bible they sell.

 

"Inconceivable!"

OBC was one of the two baptist colleges that I mentioned earlier that I attended. It was also the one where I saw someone who claimed the title "KJVO" lead someone to Christ out of the NIV. I also dated a girl who went to Heartland for a while (yeah, my fellow OBC alumni hated that), and had the same type of experiences with the people there. Even though they claim KJVO, they do not condemn those who use other versions, yet they do only allow the KJV in their school.

The problem, imo, is in the definitions. While they call themselves KJVO, they are really what we on the board would call KJVP. I believe it is this way across the board, that many churches/schools who call themselves KJVO are actually what the board would define as KJVP. This gives a false impression that the heresy that says you can only be saved out of the KJV is more rampant than it is.

 

That's it exactly. :thumbsup:

 

hmmm... I think most people that would label themselves kjvo are really kjvo, especially churches or schools. Whereas an extreme kjvo organization would call salvation into question, the moderate kjvo organization would only honor/allow scripture from the KJV.

Also a problem, imo, with KJVP, is not the definition at all, but that many KJVP have an attitude when it comes to other versions being used in any way besides privately, ie being used publicly in church. Why have an attitude when you're not getting what you prefer? What does it matter if you don't get what you prefer? And so, if it does matter, then it's more than a preference... it is some sort of requirement, and all that would meet that requirement is the KJV exclusively.... so they're a kjvo fronting as a kjvp.

Now, if a person only reads and uses the KJV, and they support and encourage my use of another version, they might then call themselves kjvo, but why in the world would they?

The problem I have is that people's behavior is not consistent with their own label.

 

yes, I am familiar with them. I'm not sure that they are KJVO to the furthest extreme though... maybe they are TRO only (but which version though is anyone's guess) which pragmatically speaking forces them to be KJVO... but why wouldn't they sell Tyndale's translation of the TR?

 

Traditionally. most conservative churches place GOD HImself, the trinity, as the first and primary item in the statements of belief...

Guess their God is the Bible, Bibiliogy, worship of the Book, not the Creator of the book!

 

Think majority of those here on both BB and in church at large really KJVP, its just that KJVO are so vocal and make it a dividing issue in body of Christ!

As evidenced by fact they have entire publishing houses dedicated to JUST making sure that christians only use KJV, avoiding those other "satanic" inspired modern bibles!

 

Just going by what they say on their book seller site. KJVO.

 

I think we've adequately established that the terms used around "baptistdom" are not necessarily the terms used here on the BB. While they may say "KJVO" on their website, they might be meaning "We only use and encourage the use of the KJV". This doesn't mean they are preaching the aforementioned heresy.

 

I would suggest that they are the ones leading that charge!

 

There is no charge to lead. They say "KJVO". What they mean is "KJV is the only bible we use." BB says "KJVO". What they mean is "KJV is the only true bible, rest are perversions, and you can only get saved out of the KJV."

Again, there is no charge to lead. Simply an ill-defined phrase, or rather, a phrase that is defined differently by different groups.

 

I guess you'll do some double talk to explain why the SBC doctrinal statement lists something about the Scriptures first.

 

Oh, let's hear what you have to say about Grace Community Church (home of the hero John MacArthur) that lists Scriptures first in their statement of beliefs.