20 Questions to Ask before Joining a Church

[stilllearning]

problem is #1(which goes along with #2) doesn't define believing the Bible, but promoting a KJV ONLY view, not sound doctrine. I believe the Bible, not this idea that only one particular English translation is somehow perfect.

3 and 4 I agree with and would ask those questions.

#16 I agree with separation, but not the prideful separation many want to take. I'm saddened when I have to separate, not happy. I'm not a judge and am not going to say that the majority of Christians are in "apostasy." There are different levels of separation, but not the prideful kind.

You will notice, that I did not include #2, just for that reason.
(I see a distinction between #1 & #2.)

For instance, it does not matter to me, what kind of a Bible anybody brings to my Church.
But if they want to follow along with 99% of my messages, that are expository, they will need a King James.
--------------------------------------------------
And although this is not my list, to me #16 is not about separation.
(I would not have included that last line in it.)

I see it as more of an understanding a pastor has, of how bad things have really become.
I would hate to hear my pastor get up, and talk about the great world wide revival, that is going on, when there is no such thing.

 

[jbh28]

You will notice, that I did not include #2, just for that reason.
(I see a distinction between #1 & #2.)

Ok, but I don't agree with the wording of number one either. A "perfect copy" I'm assuming means a perfect written down copy of the Bible somewhere that is complete from Genesis to revelation. Now if you just mean that the Bible is perfect...then yes,

For instance, it does not matter to me, what kind of a Bible anybody brings to my Church.
But if they want to follow along with 99% of my messages, that are expository, they will need a King James.

Well, to follow along with you closely it might help, but I use the ESV every week in church and my pastor uses the KJV. I sometimes bring out my Droid and pull up the KJV there. But as far as doctrinally, it's the same.
--------------------------------------------------
And although this is not my list, to me #16 is not about separation.
(I would not have included that last line in it.)

I see it as more of an understanding a pastor has, of how bad things have really become.
I would hate to hear my pastor get up, and talk about the great world wide revival, that is going on, when there is no such thing.[/QUOTE]Ok, I understand that this isn't your list but a list you copied. I gave a reply on the first page of a few changes that I would make. Otherwise I was in agreement with it.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I find the list to be silly and downright missing the point...though I suspect the church(es) that subscribe to it are doing the same.

The list isn't silly at all. If a Church does not cling to fundamentals, then their missions are nothing but good works.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If a church holds the right doctrine, then sane evangelism will follow.

I've wondered about our churches where only about 40% of members show up on Sunday. What gospel did the sixty percent respond to, that didn't produce a desire for obedience to God?

What are we to say to those whose sole hope of heaven is "I said the prayer," or "I walked the aisle?"

What are we to think of those preachers who will ask, "Wanna Go to Heaven. Repeat after me?"

What are we to think about a famous Southern Baptist evangelist who guaranteed conversions during his revival (if you followed his methods, of course.)? Not Billy Graham, by the way.

So, in line with the OP, one of the questions I would ask the pastor of the prospective church is "How do you believe men and women come into a right relationship with God?"

Great post.

Too bad this isn't one of those boards where members can give reputation points to other members for good posts.

 

[webdog]

The list isn't silly at all. If a Church does not cling to fundamentals, then their missions are nothing but good works.

Kjvo and pride are not fundamentals.

 

[annsni]

For the first 13 years we were at our church, my expositional pastor taught from the KJV and I followed along first in my NIV and then in my ESV. My hubby is teaching right now out of the NIV and I still follow along in my ESV. I've never had an issue between the versions.

As far as the "separation" issue, I'd instead ask the pastor/church about church discipline and if they practice it. THAT is the issue. Not just "separation" but actually Biblically dealing with issues within the church and standing firm on the Word of God. I'm blessed to be part of a church that does and has practice Biblical discipline and while I've seen some just walk away from the church in anger, I've seen restoration as well. That is the goal - restoration instead of separation.

 

[preachinjesus]

The list isn't silly at all. If a Church does not cling to fundamentals, then their missions are nothing but good works.

Well thanks for bifurcating my post to make your point. Read on and you'll I have not said what you are attempting to put into my mouth.

Oh and for the list, it is has peripheral theological issues masquerading as foundational doctrinal matters. Not just the KJVO silliness but also the point about unnecessary separation (do we really believe that there are only .00000005% of the world's population are honest, practicing Christians? Maybe my view of God's mission is greater than that...but seriously)

Seems to me if we look pound for pound into the ministry of Jesus, He was just as concerned with mission as doctrine.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

This is an interesting set of standards to base the authenticity of a "genuine" Christian church. While some are valid points, the agenda of KJV only without addressing the issues of modern textual criticism, neglects to inform the reader about how a majority of Greek scholars prefer earlier manuscripts and the intrinsic value of a text over simple numbers. In essence, the NT contained in the KJV was a translation of the Textus Receptus, but after this translation earlier Greek manuscripts were discovered that questioned the sufficiency of this particular text. While a majority of Greek text (many being hundreds of years removed from the original Greek) agreed with the TR, the earliest manuscripts did not. This in turn caused scholars to question the “infallibility” of the KJV. Why? Because, according to most textual critics, the closer a text is to the original the less time for copying errors or textual variations to creep in. This is not to say that these scholars are completely correct, but it does demonstrate how KJV only people fail to give all sides of the story.
Besides, last time I checked I failed to find one verse that said, "Thou shall only use the KJV!"

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Gabriel Elijah

And let me be the first to welcome you.

Although there is another section of this forum, dedicated to the subject of Bible translations, let me slip this in real quick.

You said........

“....but after this translation earlier Greek manuscripts were discovered”

This is not really the case. Nothing was “discovered”, something was "manufactured".

Wescott & Hort, took two clearly inferior manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus(that did not even agree with each other), and concocted them together and came up with their own version of the Greek New Testament.

The reason that these two manuscripts happen to be the oldest, is self evident:
They lasted so long, because they were so bad, no Christian ever read them.
--------------------------------------------------
I hate coming back out of the closet like this, but you said.......

“according to most textual critics, the closer a text is to the original the less time for copying errors or textual variations to creep in.”

This statement does not take into account, the fact that God is Sovereign, and He is still on the throne.
I trust that God is capable of providing me a “perfect” copy of His Word.

For me, the whole issue is “faith”!

Hope to talk to you again.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Still learning
Thank you for the swift reply & the information about the biblical translations being located in another thread. But as far as your response, I find it amusing how KJV only supporters assume that all evidence contrary to their belief system comes from Westcott/Hort (when this is clearly not the case). However, since this is not the thread for such a debate, I will simply reference D A Carson’s “The King James Version Debate” that covers all issues including the Westcott/Hort controversy, demonstrating how the issue itself reaches much further than two proposed “bad” theologians/historians. For instance, if the Byzantine texts were so popular how come they are not quoted by the ante-Nicene theologians? And why are there no Byzantine texts found before the 4th century? Let me guess—b/c they were so popular they got worn out & fell apart? If this is the case might I ask who was using them—certainly not the early church fathers. But before we get into to much of a discussion, might I ask if you yourself know Greek or have studied textual criticism? Just curious, b/c I have never personally met any true students of either who are advocates of KJV only (not to say they don’t exist—I just don’t personally ever talk to any—so I’d love for you to be the first.) As far as God being on His throne & His keeping the KJV “perfect”—how can it really be shown that the KJV is accurate based on the idea that God is on your side because you personally support a theory! Hey I think Jesus is an Auburn fan b/c I am—does this really make him one? I’d love to say more but got to run to work—hope to hear from you soon.

 

[stilllearning]

Still learning
Thank you for the swift reply & the information about the biblical translations being located in another thread. But as far as your response, I find it amusing how KJV only supporters assume that all evidence contrary to their belief system comes from Westcott/Hort (when this is clearly not the case). However, since this is not the thread for such a debate, I will simply reference D A Carson’s “The King James Version Debate” that covers all issues including the Westcott/Hort controversy, demonstrating how the issue itself reaches much further than two proposed “bad” theologians/historians. For instance, if the Byzantine texts were so popular how come they are not quoted by the ante-Nicene theologians? And why are there no Byzantine texts found before the 4th century? Let me guess—b/c they were so popular they got worn out & fell apart? If this is the case might I ask who was using them—certainly not the early church fathers. But before we get into to much of a discussion, might I ask if you yourself know Greek or have studied textual criticism? Just curious, b/c I have never personally met any true students of either who are advocates of KJV only (not to say they don’t exist—I just don’t personally ever talk to any—so I’d love for you to be the first.) As far as God being on His throne & His keeping the KJV “perfect”—how can it really be shown that the KJV is accurate based on the idea that God is on your side because you personally support a theory! Hey I think Jesus is an Auburn fan b/c I am—does this really make him one? I’d love to say more but got to run to work—hope to hear from you soon.

You asked........

“might I ask if you yourself know Greek or have studied textual criticism?”

No & No; So your record still holds.
--------------------------------------------------
One last word.
You said........

“...is accurate based on the idea that God is on your side..”

No, God is not on my side. But God is “God”, and His Word is, “His Word”.
Therefore it’s more like God is on the side of His Word.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Well, I’ve taken two years of biblical Greek & two graduate classes on textual criticism, & just want to say—there’s a reason I’ve never personal met anyone whose trained in these areas who is KJV only. That being said—I really admire your Christian attitude when you debate & completely respect if you personally want to use the KJV. I’m glad I got to met you & hope to see you on here in the future. God bless & praise Jesus for salvation.:jesus:

 

[rbell]

Hello Gabriel Elijah

And let me be the first to welcome you.

Although there is another section of this forum, dedicated to the subject of Bible translations, let me slip this in real quick.

That there's funny.

The whole point of your thread was to direct the discussion to versions (more precisely, one version. I think. Not sure which year, but that's yet another thread).

Just admit it and move on.

 

[stilllearning]

Good morning rbell

There you go, trying to read my mind again, with no success.
No, I have no ulterior motive, for anything that I say; That would be dishonest.

The only explanation for how the subject seems to always come back around to God’s Word, is because it is the foundation of our faith.

 

[rbell]

The only explanation for how the subject seems to always come back around to God’s Word, is because it is the foundation of our faith.

Nope.

For you, it comes back around to one translation of God's Word (one translation to the exclusion of all others); that is the foundation of your disagreements with almost all other English-speaking Christians.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You should add: What do you do for the poor & impoverished in & outside of your church? Then make them tell you about the later. Few can.

 

[stilllearning]

Nope.

For you, it comes back around to one translation of God's Word (one translation to the exclusion of all others); that is the foundation of your disagreements with almost all other English-speaking Christians.

Please, stop misrepresenting my position.
Note: What I said in post #41.
--------------------------------------------------
jbh28, also goes to a KJVO Church, but you never misrepresent him like this.

 

[DeBrite1]

I found this in.......James L. Melton’s

X. Do you believe that the apostolic sign gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues and the gift of healing, are not for today, since they were for the purpose of confirming the preached word of God to Israel in the first century?

[/COLOR]

NO -
If the signs were needed to confirm the preached Word of God to Israel surely they are still needed now to do the same to this generation.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello DeBrite1 and welcome to the forum.

You said.......

“NO -
If the signs were needed to confirm the preached Word of God to Israel surely they are still needed now to do the same to this generation. “

I think what is being said here, is in the lines of..........
Hebrews 2:3-4
V.3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];
V.4 God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The Apostles, who were used to pen the Word of God, were given these signs to confirm that what they were giving the Church, was God’s Holy Word.

The test for preachers today, is to judge them by their fruit.

 

[preacher4truth]

Hello DeBrite1 and welcome to the forum.

You said.......


I think what is being said here, is in the lines of..........
Hebrews 2:3-4
V.3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];
V.4 God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The Apostles, who were used to pen the Word of God, were given these signs to confirm that what they were giving the Church, was God’s Holy Word.

The test for preachers today, is to judge them by their fruit.

What fruit do we look for, and why, and for what do we judge them, and to determine what, and to what objective?

I don't get the logical flow from the apostles penning the words, to judging todays pastors.