Are all KJVOs arminians?

Surely ye jest? </font>[/QUOTE]OK Timmy my son, take a little wine for you tummy!

OK! Alcohol is not the evil! Abuse of Alcohol is the evil, just like food, and chemical substances. Use nuclear power for the wrong reason and it is evil, etc., etc., etc.

 

First Corinthians Fourteen and Thirty Three is why I only read and study the KJV!... Brother Glen

 

Daniel... For shame!... Is any version responsible for killing any?... I lay the blame on sinful men... Not any version no matter how I may dislike it or disagree with it... GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION!... Brother Glen

 

But Glen, 1 Cor 14:33 has nothing whatsoever to do with versions. The only confusion is being caused by the KJVOs, who say that their translation is the only right one. I have never seen confusion any where else. I use a NASB and pastor a church with a lot of growing believers from all maturity levels. We routinely reference the NASB (which I preach from) and the NIV, sometimes the KJV. There has rarely, if ever, been any confusion at all.

Back to the topic, there seem to be very few KJVOs who are calvinists. Most of the ones I know are arminian. I think the two go hand in hand because there is typically very little thinking and study that goes into either one. There are exceptions, as some of our friends on this forum have shown. However, the KJVOs in the BVT forum show very little thinking most of the time. There are a couple (such as Pastor Bob) and the most able defender of the KJVO-type position was asked to leave over some issues unrelated to content. He was not really a KJVO though. He was a calvinist.

 

In using my KJV, I missed where it says you must use the KJV. I prefer the Geneva. If you read Psalm 12:6-7, you will see that God promised to preserve the Geneva. The KJV users should be ashamed. The KJV is the VERSION that is a satanic counterfeit that is responsible for the killing of many good, faithful Christians.

Btw Pete Richert, what you are forgetting is that music is from hell altogether. Remember that Lucifer is the musical angel. The first people to use music were lost people.

Now we have a barn-burner. </font>[/QUOTE]What?! Are you just saying stuff to be confusing.
You honestly think music is evil
Comon, where'd you get that, just read the book of psalms.

Na, you can't possibly be serious...

 

It is music that broke my final resistance to coming to faith in God. "Just as I am without one plea..." "What a friend we have in Jesus..."
"A mighty Fortress is my God..."

Music, the tender persuader.

 

Speaking of music,

What goes together are KJVO and TCMO (i.e. only traditional music is good for Christians, and spending a lot of time blasting "rock") Alomost all KJVO's are TCMO, and while much less Calvinists are KJVO, there are a large number of them which are TCMO, so still, they are just as influenced by non-thinking and non study!

 

I think you would have a very hard time making this argument. The traditional position on music is very well thought out by many on that side. An example would be the book by John Makujina (whose title I can't remember). There is no comparison between teh traditional music position and the KJVO position. The KJVOs I know are much more willing to use a type of music that most calvinists aren't.

 

I'm a calvinist and I am not "TCMO", if fact, when i hear arguments for why things such as 'drums' are evil i have to laugh at the bad scriptural interperitation.

Me personally, i like many different kinds of music. I can sit down and enjoy classical music just as much as rock, honestly, i listen to classical music more, i just can't stand punk and rap.

OK, this is way off topic.

 

What goes together are KJVO and TCMO (i.e. only traditional music is good for Christians, and spending a lot of time blasting "rock") Alomost all KJVO's are TCMO, and while much less Calvinists are KJVO, there are a large number of them which are TCMO, so still, they are just as influenced by non-thinking and non study! </font>[/QUOTE]Clever slam Eric, I am not KJVO, though I rely on it's authenticity and deeply respect what it did for the gentile world.

I blast "hard", "acid", "heavy metal", etc., rock because of their cacophonous harmonies, raucus rythms, and raunchy, often irritating lyrics, and poor, at best, performances. I find little to praise in most of it. It is oft stated that music reflects the moral and emotional state of it's adherants, so it follows that one's respect for others's, quite often is the result of what the one adheres to. So, if one dwells on heavy metal rock music, it's dischordinate harmonies, and raucus lyrics the general level of respect that one affords others will be raucus and dischordinate too!

Am I intolerant of others who adhere to those forms of music? NO! But I do not go out of my way to be with them while they are indulging themselves. Am I intolerant of the respect they show others? YES! But I understand it's source. Just as they pursue their choices in music, I pursue mine, and I am not stuck in a timewarp either. I am quite thrilled with much of the "modern", this era music, so long as it is melodious, harmonically sound, lyrically moral and decent, and performed well.

 

I would agree on hard rock, but what I'm referring to, is an argument on beats and which accent they are on, which continent they came from[!] and syncopation, and lumping a lot of music that is nowhere near hard rock as "rock" or "jazz" because of those things, including modern praise and worship (offensive terms such as "jungle beat" also surface).

No, what I have just pointed out above is what the "traditional position" is based on, and it is very well CRAFTED and read into scriptures; rather than "thought out", and is much like KJVO reasoning.
I haven't had a chance to read Makujina's book either (MEASURING THE MUSIC; it is relatively new, and now the darling of all the TCMO ministries/sites), but one review I read on it pointed out he uses the "Gold standard of Plato" as his guide for "aesthetic beauty" (a purely intellectual, passionless concept of pleasure and beauty). I am sorry, but this is just as pagan as the "jungle" the TCMO's condemn, and is not scriptural.
The whole argument is actually based on a highly PELAGIAN understanding of sin and sanctification!(this positive review, BTW, was by a Calvinist ministry. I found it by doing an AOL search on "Makujina")

What type of music do KJVo's use that Calvinists don't? Country? (av1611.org advocates a ministry using a country sound. What a double standard!)

 

Please explain.

 

It's true. We are KJVO and TCMO. We have no bands, no choirs, no modern frills in the church. I guess that's why they call us "primitive".

The PBs have never taken too kindly to change. Why, 75 years ago, you would have been hard-pressed to find indoor toilets in ANY PB church. Same with electricity and padded pews. In fact, the padded pews didn't even come along until about 40 years ago.

With all of this, people expect us to change our Bible?

The way I see it, God inspired the original Greek and Hebrew, AND the KJ translation, IMHO. Obviously, we can't prove it, but no one else can prove thay He didn't. Also, no one can prove that God even exists, so why do we believe it? Faith. I have faith that the Greek and Hebrew were infallible. I also have faith that God preserved His word for the English speaking world in the KJV.

Now, I don't condemn anyone for using any non-KJ versions, so I would appreciate the same courtesy extended back to me. I just wouldn't allow any other version to be preached in my church.

BTW, Frogman, I couldn't have said it better myself(the reasons I don't believe in Calvinism OR Armenianism).

God Bless. Brother James

 

Brother James... For shame... You know we have ROCK in the PB Church... ON CHRIST THE SOLID ROCK I STAND... Brother Glen

 

Yeah, Most of the 47 KJB translators.

 

The KJV translators were NOT all evangelical believers. There were several semi-catholic high church types in addition to the minority group of puritans. Remember, the KJV was a Politically Correct translation which was engineered by King James (a WONDERFUL character according to history) because he did not like the footnotes of the Geneva, and he, for political reasons, wanted his realm to have one common translation. Reading the lavishly exuberant letter to the King, and knowing the history on his personal habits, even the high church boys must have had to put their tongue 'way in cheek to write that stuff.

 

KJVO, Calvinism, Music, and alcohol--the Baptist Board version of the perfect country song (women, whiskey, beer, dogs, trucks, tractors, bar stools, flags, guns, trains, rain, and Momma.). All we need to make this board snap is women preachers.

Do ya'll know any calvinistic, NIV-toting, CCM-playing, wine-drinking women preachers? I know one, in New Jersey! Well, acually, she is the worship pastor of her church, but her "testimonies" sound like sermons.....

 

This is a practical contradiction. On the one hand you say the KJV is the only interpretation that has been inspired but on the other hand you "don't condemn anyone for using any non-KJ versions". So you believe that we, non-KJV people, are preaching with a bible that is not inspired but you "don't condemn us"????

Why not? If I thought you were preaching from a book that wasn't inspired as if it were, I wouldn't hesitate to condemn you. It's one way or the other. Either we are your brethern preaching God's Word along with you or we are preaching a non-inspired book and should have no assocation with you. Which is it?

 

Maybe you should look closer into the life of King James I, what you have said is typical of those opposed to the KJB by attacking
King James I. That sort of thinking coincides with the "not-exactly-true" impression left by the related monarchy. It's true that the "people" were in fear of the rule, but not the Ruler/King James, so political correctness had absolutely very little ,if any, part in the translation of the KJB as presumed. www.avpublications.com is a good place to look.