paidagogos
Active Member
Would you please explain how KJVOism is a legalistic standard? What is your definition of legalism?
Is the OT Law legalistic? Or, was it made a legalistic standard by the Pharisees? Consider I Timothy 1.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Attitutudinal Issues
- Thread starter Rhetorician
- Start date
Is the OT Law legalistic? Or, was it made a legalistic standard by the Pharisees? Consider I Timothy 1.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Not here - perhaps in the BV/T forum if you wish. It will have to be tomorrow either way, its time for bed on this side of the Pond.
paidagogos
Active Member
Would you please explain how KJVOism is a legalistic standard? What is your definition of legalism?
Is the OT Law legalistic? Or, was it made a legalistic standard by the Pharisees? Consider I Timothy 1. It seems that any standard, any requirement, can be made legalistic. For example, modesty in women's apparel is a Biblical standard but it can be made into a legalistic issue. Modesty, as you know, is more than simply covering the body amply with fabric.
Then can we conclude that the standard itself is not inherently legalistic but it is the way the standard is applied? If so, how can we label KJVOism as intrinsically legalistic?
There are some good reasons why a church may choose to be KJV only in its ministries.
1. It provides a single accepted standard used by all members of the group.
2. The KJV is a known standard without having to worry about the bad translations or paraphrases.
3. Supports the idea of an authoritative Scripture without division and controversy generated by varying translations.
4. The KJV has four hundred years of commentary, exegesis and definition of theological terms behind it. It portends a venerable body of scholarship.
5. The language of the KJV is a highly denotative language as opposed the more connotative modern usage.
6. The KJV language is not changing but it is a fixed reference.
7. It has deep cultural and literary roots that enhance its interpretation and meaning.
8. The KJV has been the English translation accepted and used by the believing church for centuries. Preservation, like canonization, is carried out and accepted within the body of believers.
9. The KJV is a trustworthy translation approved and accepted by the conservative, believing church as opposed to the genesis of the modern versions in liberal, skeptical rationalism.
10. ad infinitum
paidagogos,
I agree. It would have to be in how the standard is used. If it is used as a means of criticizing and looking down on other people, than those people are being "legalistic". They are placing a standard upon someone else in order to make fun of them for not living up to it, or in order to place them in some sort of "subset of Christianity".
But to present and teach a specific set of standards as Biblical, I can't see that as legalistic.
I agree. It would have to be in how the standard is used. If it is used as a means of criticizing and looking down on other people, than those people are being "legalistic". They are placing a standard upon someone else in order to make fun of them for not living up to it, or in order to place them in some sort of "subset of Christianity".
But to present and teach a specific set of standards as Biblical, I can't see that as legalistic.
All about Grace
New Member
You have already admitted using another translation in your church would be a problem. Are you now saying it is not because your church believes the KJV is somehow superior to other translations?
Legalism is always cloaked in "biblical" terms. Just b/c something is presented as "biblical" does not mean it is not legalistic.
AAG,
we only use the KJV from the pulpit. It is taught that the KJ is the Word of God. It is defended, as well, although this really is not a topic that is brought up all that often.
However, if someone walks in with an NIV, or any other version, no one is chasing them back out the door, or being sarcastic at them about it, or in any way mistreating them because of it.
Our belief that the King James Version is superior does not mean we are mistreating people.
we only use the KJV from the pulpit. It is taught that the KJ is the Word of God. It is defended, as well, although this really is not a topic that is brought up all that often.
However, if someone walks in with an NIV, or any other version, no one is chasing them back out the door, or being sarcastic at them about it, or in any way mistreating them because of it.
Our belief that the King James Version is superior does not mean we are mistreating people.
All about Grace
New Member
This is an easy one ... believing the KJV is the superior translation is a legalistic position for one simple reason: it simply is not true. It is also quite nieve. Preferring the King James is one thing ... believing it is superior is another.
AAG,
well, I think we've already made it pretty clear that we differ on that issue.
It still has nothing to do with legalism, unless you are again broadening the definition of a term without giving due notice.
Legalism as I was taught all my life is defined as placing standards as a WAY of salvation.
Since then Ive seen some define it as placing standards in a position that outweighs their relationship with God.....though Im not sure how someone else can judge another person's heart toward their relationship with God.
I could handle the definition of legalism being standards placed on other people in a way that would lower them in your eyes if they don't "comply", or in a way that would cause you to mistreat them.
Still, I don't see KJVo as a standard, its a belief about the Bible. Admittedly people can get legalistic about it....they mistreat others because of it, but that doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the belief itself.
well, I think we've already made it pretty clear that we differ on that issue.
It still has nothing to do with legalism, unless you are again broadening the definition of a term without giving due notice.
Legalism as I was taught all my life is defined as placing standards as a WAY of salvation.
Since then Ive seen some define it as placing standards in a position that outweighs their relationship with God.....though Im not sure how someone else can judge another person's heart toward their relationship with God.
I could handle the definition of legalism being standards placed on other people in a way that would lower them in your eyes if they don't "comply", or in a way that would cause you to mistreat them.
Still, I don't see KJVo as a standard, its a belief about the Bible. Admittedly people can get legalistic about it....they mistreat others because of it, but that doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the belief itself.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
This will not become a versions debate - we have a forum for that. If this continues here I will be forced to close what has been an excellent thread.
All about Grace
New Member
No debate here ... all involved parties (except bpmom) have agreed the KJVO stance is legalistic.
And no one is broadening the definition of legalism. Perhaps what you have been taught falls short of the true definition (which often happens in legalistic churches that do not want to be identified by that name).
And no one is broadening the definition of legalism. Perhaps what you have been taught falls short of the true definition (which often happens in legalistic churches that do not want to be identified by that name).
AAG,
What has bothered me most in this thread about your attitude is your condescension and negativity (yes, the very things some fundies are guilty of). You often use the word "amuse" to describe your observation of fundies. If that isn't condescending, I don't know what is.
I don't frequent the Baptist Board very often, nor do I read every forum sub-group, but the two times I have come across your posts, they are the same in attitude - this one and the other one was in the C/A forum. You displayed the same attitude in your attack of someone who attends John Piper's church - i.e., "I used to be one of you, and I know how unbiblical you are, so I can be critical of you."
So I guess I'm wondering, is this a trend with you? It's not a very admirable way of loving the brethern.
What has bothered me most in this thread about your attitude is your condescension and negativity (yes, the very things some fundies are guilty of). You often use the word "amuse" to describe your observation of fundies. If that isn't condescending, I don't know what is.
I don't frequent the Baptist Board very often, nor do I read every forum sub-group, but the two times I have come across your posts, they are the same in attitude - this one and the other one was in the C/A forum. You displayed the same attitude in your attack of someone who attends John Piper's church - i.e., "I used to be one of you, and I know how unbiblical you are, so I can be critical of you."
So I guess I'm wondering, is this a trend with you? It's not a very admirable way of loving the brethern.
All about Grace
New Member
The answer would be B)
And yes the KJVO issue is a valid one in the discussion over legalism. Right or wrong - legalistic or not: it is a definite characteristic.
All about Grace
New Member
Opinion noted.
Don't get too "bothered" by anything. All is fun and games here on the BB.
Can you point me to this quote? I am assuming it is a quote since you put quotation marks around it ... otherwise it would simply be a distorted misrepresentation of what I actually said. If that is the case, please correct your misleading.
Unlike misquoting someone ...
All about Grace
New Member
Wow ... seems like I may know more about the IFB circles than those who are here to defend it. How can you defend independent baptist fundamentalism's attitude when you do not even know who some of its key players are?
If you do not know who some of these people are, I can understand your dismissal of some of the accusations.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Supports my contention that fundamentalism is a BROAD group. Too broad to make blanket statements.
Sorry, I did not mean for that to be an exact quote - I intended to be along the lines of what you said in the C/A forum. I apologize for my misuse of quote marks (was never that good at grammar/English). But your attitude was the same in that thread as it is in this thread: that you used to run in those circles, you've since rejected those circles, and now you can sit back and find amusement by looking down on those still running in those circles.
It appears to be a trend with you. I just hope we can all become as enlightened as you one day.
All about Grace
New Member
That's why I prefer terms like "most" or "many" as opposed to "all".
Are you suggesting fundamentalism is too broad to offer authentic characteristics of the general movement?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Excellent question.
My "gut" reaction would be , "yes" the term is too broad to make most generalisations.
My "gut" reaction would be , "yes" the term is too broad to make most generalisations.