Are all KJVOs arminians?

Quote from Brother Bill

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?

So, are you saying that you don't preach anything from your commentaries, study helps, encyclopedieas, dictionaries,etc.?
I'd watch the "condemnation" factor if I were you; John 3:17.

 

I'm not the one who doesn't understand that every translation is an interpretation. I have no problem with some one using commentaries and other resources from the pulpit, but saying that the KJV is the only inspired translation implies that no other translation carries any authority and that is the most absurd conclusion I think I've ever heard.

 

Edited for not having anything to do with the current topic. This is not about personalities.

[ June 05, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Well, technically speaking, we don't associate; religiously. PBs do not fellowship with churches outside of our faith. Although I consider many on this board brethren in our common faith in Christ, I could not take communion with any of the non-PBs here.

BTW, I never did condemn anybody for using other translations. All I said was my personal belief. While I do not agree with using other translations, it is none of my business if you do.

Just as if I said I will not listen to heavy metal music. That doesn't mean I condemn those who do. It just means that I will not.

If there is one thing I don't like, it is one faith bashing another faith. We all believe what we believe for a reason. I really would hope that no denomination would come out to condemn PBs on anything, unless they themselves are PBs.

God Bless. Brother James

 

There is a big difference ... there are some very good arguments for the traditionalist position on music. There are no good arguments for the KJVO position. The concern of the traditionals is a valid concern and needs to be taken more seriously by the contemporaries. But that discussion belongs elsewhere (like we are not off topic enough here already). My only point is that the two position are entirely dissimilar, having nothing in common. For the most part, the intellectuals take the MV position, the traditional position, and the Calvinist position. Of course there are exceptions.

I am not entirely convinced by his argument. I think there are more relevant concerns about the contemporary/traditional argument. This view you are talking about is the objective view of beauty ... that there are things that are objectively beautiful. In the post-modern world, beauty, like truth, has become subjective and that is not a well-founded position entirely. I believe it deserves more thought.

That very sound ... the rockabilly/southern gospel sound. As a whole, most KJVO churches are more tolerant of that sound than CAlvinistic churches are.

 

I don't think that faith in a translation being inspired should be put on the same level as our faith in Christ. We can't "prove" Christ to the world because the world has a definite prejudice against the implications of Christ's reality-- you know, all the stuff about sin and hell and repentance. So they demand "proof" which we can't solidly furnish 2000 years later. But what Christ stands for, plus the realization that there must be a God, that we are corrupted, yet expect a world of perfection, and the Bible is the only thing that addresses these things make Christ very worthy of belief. Then, of course, He would have a written word for us that we also couldn't "prove" to those bent on unbelieving, but would go along with belief in the Christ it teaches of; and he would preserve His Word (Isaiah 40:8)
But a later translation of it in a particular language? God never promised to inspire each translation, but men would be allowed to translate it, errors would come up, but I believe God fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word, because where errors may have come up, scholars have found and revealed the alternate renderings, and nothing that serious was changed anyway. By tying faith in Christ and His inspired texts in with a 17th century translation, you are adding something God is not behind, and helping cast the whole revelation in doubt.

 

Certain concerns are valid and need to be taken seriously by contemporaries. And here on the music forum most of us defending contemporary styles are also voicing those concerns regarding the CCM and industry and P&W movement. It's the stuff on rhythm, beats, accents, in relation to the flesh vs. spirit, etc. that have no good arguments and go hand in hand with and are cut from very much the same cloth as KJVO (why do you think most fundies; at least of the Arminian revivalist stripe, who hold one hold the other?)

Earlier, I had a second thought and figured you must have been referring to the 19th century "gospel" songs, which are now being criticized by some as being just as "man-centered" as the modern stuff. The KJVO's overlook that as well, as their main concern is just keeping that "jungle beat" out.

So to get back on topic, it seems that most of the "intellectual" Calvinist types are not strictly "traditionalist" in music, but take the balanced position I mentioned, criticizing the "shallowness" or "subjectivity" of much of CCM and P&W, and using the great hymns of old as an example of musical text that honors and glorifies the majesty of God, and like the TCMO's criticizes the modern church. But it is not the same as the TCMO position with its neurotic focus on beats and styles. They do accept modern songs that have more substance, and some [secular stuff clean, of course] that at least does not pretend to be "Christian". Horton is a great example of this, and he criticizes all across the board, both separatist and contemporary, and people like him definitely need to be listened to more. One problem with him is he seems to blame all of this on Arminianism[/Pelagianism], which is not accurate. There are, Of course, Calvinistic Baptists, "Fundamental Presbyterians" and others, and those are the ones to be more likely to share a fundamentalist style TCMO repudiation of modern styles. But sorry to say, I don't see them as pure "intellectuals", but as a cross; being influenced by Reformed intellectualism on soteriology and worship, and still holding elements of an often non-thinking revivalism.
So it seems pure intellectuals take the MV position, Calvinist position, and criticize shallowness in modern worship and song, but not a traditional style position. Zealous separatists; going by tradition and emotional attachment more than intellect and reasonable exegesis, but have enough of an emphasis on scripture and doctrine to at least try to read their positions into them, are largely KJVO position, mostly TCMO position, and mainly Arminian, but there is a lot of Calvinism scattered around, and of course, many exceptions combining one side or another with others.

Then, at the bottom of it all is the apathetic modern evangelical: MV position, CCM/P&W, and mostly Arminian, though they may have some professing Calvinists, and the majority "Well, you can't really know; don't waste time with those doctrinal issues; just have Jesus in your heart".
It's this group that is allowing both the "intellectuals" and "zealous separatists" to enjoy such momentum today, and be able to denounce "new-evangelicalism", or at least the doctrines they disagree with such as modern music or Arminianism, with hardly an intellectual or scriptural response, but mostly personal "feelings". That's why people think the Calvinists and TCMO's are "winning" their respective debates; supposedly "having more scripture", as people have claimed both here and on the music board. When intellectual Arminians appear, such as here, or Hunt's book, Calvinists, used to the weak feelings based arguments, are knocked for a loop. (even though they do manage to come back with some kind of answer) Thankfully, there are enough non KJVO intellectuals to challenge the KJVO position well, and that's why I don't have my own page on that issue.

 

Post deleted for being off topic. It had nothing to do with anything being discussed in this forum. Keep your posts on topic. Personalities are not on topic.

[ June 05, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Well Bro. James, is you committment to "not take communion with any of the non-pbs here" based on scripture or on emotion? If you have a scriptural basis for your stance, would you please share it with us so that we too can understand and perhaps excluded PBs from communing with us.

Can you provide us with, or direct us to the tenets of the PB "Faith"?

 

Can I get a shout out to throw some pre-trib rapture into this mix???

Okay, here is a question for Pastor Larry and Eric B since I am loving this "more intellectual thing"

Which beliefs here are held by the more intellectual types (I think I would say the Academics, but whatever)

PreTrib/Posttrib
Alcohol
Church = Spiritual Israel
Women Preachers
Women in Dresses
Charasmatic gifts

Someone mentioned before about an old moderator on the translation board who was asked to leave for reasons other then content. If I am correct in indentifying who is being spoken off, a man with a doctorate who once abbreviated it into his name, may I suggest that he was NOT a calvinist. I could be wrong, but I once surfed his churches web site and got a pretty strong statement agaist calvinims on it. He seems more in the camp of David Cloud; both in theology and on the KJVO issue.

 

Okay I retract my statement. I searched the church's website where he is pastor and I saw no firm statement one way or the other. It is my general experience that churches that are Calvinist make a point to say so, but that is an arguement from silence so I won't affirm my earlier statement as fact.

 

This may be too far off topic, but to answer your questions:
PreTrib/Posttrib: it seems the Calvinist intellectuals reject both (as a wasteful distraction) and generally go with amill. The Calvinist/fundie hybrids generally go along with the pre-trib. I myself (non-Calvinist intellectual) am mid-wrath (after the trumpets but before the bowls, Rev. 14:14-19), which appears to be a fairly rare position, but seems to be the most clear in Rev.

Alcohol. intellectuals accept in moderation;

Church = Spiritual Israel: seems to go along with amillenialism of Calvinist intellectuals. I take a dual position: the Church is spiritual Israel, but physical Israel still has a part in Bible Prophecy

Women Preachers; intellectuals seem to be more tolerant on this

Women in Dresses: strictly an old-line position. Intellectuals do not bother trying to reconstruct such measures.

Charismatic gifts: usually the opposite of intellectualism; generally held by those who emphasize doctrine less. (Being highly intellectual makes such emphatically non-intellectual things all the more difficult to attain.)

 

PB Creeds of Faith

Not to worry, Primitive Baptists can not take communion with churches of another faith anyway. So, there really is no reason for you to exclude us; we exclude ourselves.

God Bless. Brother James

 

Wow, it's good that fishermen didn't feel that way about tax collectors

 

[/QUOTE]Not to worry, Primitive Baptists can not take communion with churches of another faith anyway. So, there really is no reason for you to exclude us; we exclude ourselves.

God Bless. Brother James [/QB][/QUOTE]

Here in Western KY (the land time forgot) most Baptists practice closed communion--they don't even commune with people who are of like faith and practice unless they belong to the same congregation. Happliy, the congregation of which I am a member is an exception...

 

Here in Western KY (the land time forgot) most Baptists practice closed communion--they don't even commune with people who are of like faith and practice unless they belong to the same congregation. Happliy, the congregation of which I am a member is an exception... [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]That is somewhat like the attitude the regional society practices that is carried over into the Faith isn't it?

 

[/QB][/QUOTE]That is somewhat like the attitude the regional society practices that is carried over into the Faith isn't it? [/QB][/QUOTE]

We have a lot of oddities here, although things are slowly changing. Before 1940, there were no bridges across the Kentucky River and Cumberland River, none across the Mississippi, and only one or two across the Ohio into this little corner of Kentucky. If anyone came here they had to really WANT to come here!

 

You said it brother!!!

It's also a good thing God didn't feel that way about sinners!!! This is what I believe Jesus was warning the disciples against when he said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

 

That is somewhat like the attitude the regional society practices that is carried over into the Faith isn't it? [/QB][/QUOTE]

We have a lot of oddities here, although things are slowly changing. Before 1940, there were no bridges across the Kentucky River and Cumberland River, none across the Mississippi, and only one or two across the Ohio into this little corner of Kentucky. If anyone came here they had to really WANT to come here! [/QB][/QUOTE]It seems you understand the problem. Is it not time to set things straight in the faith and include all your Christian Brothers and Sisters to the divine Table of Remembrance?

There is a scriptural test to determine who those may be. 1 John 4:1-6. Those whose spirit is in accord with the Spirit of Christ will provide you the right answer? Then you can feel free to include them at the table. Maybe then you can drop the "primative" from your name.

 

You did not read the posts carefully.

1. I am not a PB

2. My church has open communion, most around here don't.