Does KJV-only teaching affect or harm Bible doctrine of Sanctification?

[Logos1560]

Some KJV-only teaching suggests that use of the KJV and belief in a KJV-only view are essential to Christian service and sanctification.

In his publication The Perilous Times, Ray Blanton wrote: "Until you come to realize that we have an absolute authority, perfect and settled in the King James Version, you are not prepared to serve the Lord! It is a basic essential to Christian service" (June, 1995, p. 7). Were English-speaking believers before 1611 unprepared to serve God? Are believers who only speak languages other than English unprepared to serve God? On his TV program discussing the issue of Bible translation, John Ankerberg asked Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only advocate, the following question: "So if a guy is in Russia and he really wants to get to the truth of the Word of God, would he have to learn English?" Samuel Gipp's reply was "Yes" (Which English Translation, p. 1). Did the word of God come only unto those who speak English (1 Cor. 14:36)? When did the opinions and traditions of imperfect men become an essential to Christian service? Has a new form of denomination begun where KJV-only advocates alone set the rules and determine who is allowed to serve God? Is the Bible doctrine of sanctification being altered or harmed by KJV-only teaching?

David Hoffman asserted that "fake bibles kill Christians" (The Flaming Torch, July-Sept., 1996, p. 4). Do believers who use a translation other than the KJV risk losing their salvation or their opportunity to serve God? In this same issue, Herb Evans wrote: "The more conservative (copyrighted) bibles produce crippled Fundamentalists who doubt whether we really have God's Word or not" (p. 6). Earlier, it was noted that Herb Evans claimed that "perverted bibles" produce "spiritual cripples." William Grady suggested that any Bible-believers or fundamentalists that encourage doubt in the KJV-only view are "satanically motivated" and are "apostate" (Final Authority, pp. 8, 18). Was John R. Rice who disagreed with the KJV-only view "satanically motivated?" Roy Kendel wrote: "No one can be saved through the totally imperfect perversions (false bibles), nor can Christians grow spiritually by reading and studying the perversions" (Perilous Times, May, 1992, p. 14). Jack Hyles asserted: “The perfect word of God must be used if a person grows in grace” (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). David O’Steen declared: “If you do not believe and study the KJB, you are greatly hindering your spiritual growth” (Study Notes, p. 19). Rolland Starr claimed: "The truth is, users of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc. do not believe God" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 17).

Gail Riplinger claimed: "It seemed that those who used the new bible versions, like the NIV, NASB, or NKJV, were beset by emotional problems or difficulties in their walk with the Lord" (The End Times, Jan.-Feb., 1994, p. 1). In this article, Gail Riplinger also suggested that her students "seemed to be left shipwrecked by new bible versions" (p. 7). Again, she claimed that new converts' "spiritual growth is going to be aborted" by use of new versions (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). William Grady declared: "A true Bible believer will never exchange his KJV for a NKJV" (Final Authority, p. 303). Wally Beebe wrote: "Since the KJV saves, corrects, convicts, and calls people to the mission field and Christian work, why should we change?" (Church Bus News, Apr.-June, 1992, p. 10). In another issue of his publication, Wally Beebe also claimed: "If our Bible (the KJV) is not true, then there is no reason to win souls, preach, or live a separated live" (April-June, 1996, p. 18). D. A. Waite declared: "You cannot have the power of Christ if you read these false versions" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 145). Waite wrote: "Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use" (Ibid., p. 133). Waite commented: "It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual's knowledge of the Scriptures" (Ibid., p. 144). Kelly Gallagher claimed: “It is vital, however to choose the true and complete and pure Word of God because it will affect our walk with God, our doctrine and our spiritual discernment” (Perfect Bible, p. 57). Kelly Gallagher wrote: “This writer has come to the conclusion that all modern versions of the Bible stunt real spiritual growth and discernment” (p. 77). Doug Stauffer asserted: "One loses the opportunity for effective Bible study by using these modern versions" (One Book Stands, p. 96). Edward F. Hills claimed that “only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 87). Edward Hills suggested that “these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief” (p. 54) and that they lead young Christians “away from the Bible by introducing them to the logic of unbelief“ (p. 55). Roy Branson asserted that “defending the King James 1611 is not only necessary, but vital to the very faith delivered by our fathers” (KJV 1611, p. 2). G. John Rov alleged that “if you believe that all English Bibles are equal in authority, you have not traveled far in your spiritual pilgrimage in Christ” (Concealed from Christians, p. 93). John Rov claimed: “You can never bear perfect fruit if you have not believed on the King James Bible. No matter how much you have matured in the Lord, you will always lack that critical belief from God’s view point” (p. 166). In the first chapter of his 2004 booklet intended to help new believers grow spiritually, Jack Chick teaches his KJV-only view as a basic step toward Christian maturity (Next Step for Growing Christians, pp. 9-11, back cover). On the other hand, in the 1973 edition of a booklet with this same title, Jack Chick did not teach a KJV-only view as a basic step toward Christian maturity. Do the Scriptures teach that the steps towards Christian maturity changed after 1973?

After observing that it was possible for someone to get saved through other versions, Samuel Gipp added that such believers "will never be a threat to the devil by growing" (Answer Book, p. 101). Joey Faust wrote: “There are serious consequences for rejecting this truth about the infallibility of the King James Bible. Christians that do not believe every word of the Bible is given by God will be hindered in their growth” (The Word, p. 329). Jack Hyles claimed: "The perfect Word of God must be used if a person grows in grace" (Enemies of Soul-Winning, p. 47). Chick Salliby wrote: "Beyond question, in the King James Version, as in no other translation, can we grow in both the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 96). Wally Beebe claimed that the fruit of those who studied the KJV are "different from the life-styles of the loose and infamous of NIV, NAS, and NKJV fame" (Church Bus News, Apr.-June, 1995, p. 7). Roy Branson wrote: "The fruits and works of all translations other than the KJV identify them as evil" (KJV 1611, p. 95).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You may mean to say that it hinders Sanctification in your O.P. question. If false, of course, inasmuch as all false beliefs hinder sanctification. KJVO is not unique in this respect. It does no harm to the doctrine itself anymore than any other false belief does.

Is the Bible doctrine of sanctification being altered or harmed by KJV-only teaching

No.
Wrong thinking hinders the sanctification of any individual. Wrong thinking about anything does.
Of course.......
This is the only false doctrine on Earth, and the only one worth obsessing over.

David O’Steen declared: “If you do not believe and study the KJB, you are greatly hindering your spiritual growth” (Study Notes, p. 19).

Why would this quote be inherently problematic? Why quote it if not to "Gish Gallup" us?
It's perfectly logical.
The logic is simple:
1.) Growing in grace and sanctification requires studying God's Word
2.) A perverted or incomplete "Bible" would stunt Christian growth; at least in comparison to an accurate and complete one.
3.) The KJV (he believes) is accurate and complete, and other versions are not.
4.) Therefore it follows that 'if you do not believe and study the KJB, you are greatly hindering your spiritual growth'.

Has a new form of denomination begun where KJV-only advocates alone set the rules and determine who is allowed to serve God?

This sounds like an absurdly dishonest question.

In the first chapter of his 2004 booklet intended to help new believers grow spiritually, Jack Chick teaches his KJV-only view as a basic step toward Christian maturity (Next Step for Growing Christians, pp. 9-11, back cover). On the other hand, in the 1973 edition of a booklet with this same title, Jack Chick did not teach a KJV-only view as a basic step toward Christian maturity. Do the Scriptures teach that the steps towards Christian maturity changed after 1973?

So......Can someone write another edition of something 31 YEARS LATER and change a point of emphasis?

If James White writes a second edition of "The King James Only Controversy" and excludes some quotes or arguments made in the previous edition. Or, simply puts appreciably less emphasis on something should we ask whether the "SCRIPTURES" teach that the doctrine of inspiration and preservation changed after 1973? What if White became thoroughly convinced that the Johannine Comma was indeed original and should be kept and not questioned as new evidence is provided demonstrating its originality and therefore essentially deletes the entire chapter he dedicated to the argument in the original edition?

I'll answer both questions for you:
Only if one takes Chick tracts or James White as being Scripture.

Kelly Gallagher claimed: “It is vital, however to choose the true and complete and pure Word of God because it will affect our walk with God, our doctrine and our spiritual discernment” (Perfect Bible, p. 57). Kelly Gallagher wrote: “This writer has come to the conclusion that all modern versions of the Bible stunt real spiritual growth and discernment” (p. 77).

IF the premise of KJVO is true, then it follows naturally, and almost necessarily that Kelly is simply making an obvious logical observation.
I can imagine you making a perfectly similar one.
Something like:
If the doctrine of KJVO is false, than belief in it will affect our walk with God, our doctrine and our spiritual discernment.

Many, if not most of the quotes you pasted here are similar. I.e. (everyone of the ones in your last paragraph minus one.)
They are simply the logical conclusions which follow from an admittedly false premise they begin from (King James Onlyism).
Should non-KJVO authors be allowed to state the logical conclusions of their premises but not KJVO authors?

Should we apply different standards to one and not the others?
Should we use dishonest weights and measures on one group and not another in order to score points in a debate?


I have no problem with people using other translations of Scripture.
I take no issue with someone debating that KJVO onlyism is false (It is)
I take issue only with dishonest weights and measures used by either/any side when they make their arguments.

 

[Marooncat79]

So, we have to teach people English Before we can preach the Gospel.
That way, if they are converted, we can hand them a KJV to read

ummm yeah, ok

 

[Logos1560]

It's perfectly logical.
The logic is simple:
1.) Growing in grace and sanctification requires studying God's Word
2.) A perverted or incomplete "Bible" would stunt Christian growth; at least in comparison to an accurate and complete one.
3.) The KJV (he believes) is accurate and complete, and other versions are not.
4.) Therefore it follows that 'if you do not believe and study the KJB, you are greatly hindering your spiritual growth'.

It was not perfectly logical since it is based on unproven and false premises and on fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning. It would require use of fallacies and assuming unproven premises to be true for it to be logical.

That KJV-only author has not proven his KJV-only teaching to be true and scriptural. That KJV-only author believes assertions that are not true; therefore, he deceives himself or has been deceived by others.

His conclusion does not follow because his premises were not true; therefore, his logic would be incorrect.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It was not perfectly logical since it is based on unproven and false premises and on fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning. It would require use of fallacies and assuming unproven premises to be true for it to be logical.

That KJV-only author has not proven his KJV-only teaching to be true and scriptural. That KJV-only author believes assertions that are not true; therefore, he deceives himself or has been deceived by others.

His conclusion does not follow because his premises were not true; therefore, his logic would be incorrect.

It was logical.
That is to say the arguments are valid if not sound.

An argument is valid if the conclusions follow logically from the premises. It does not assume the truth of the premise.
An argument is sound if it is both valid and the premises are true.

Their arguments are therefore unsound, in that they follow from the false premise that KJVO is true. But they are valid.
But, why act as though they cannot draw the obvious logical conclusions from their sincerely held beliefs?
Why shouldn't they?
It seems to me that the rhetorical questions you so often ask (demonstrated here) are either not asked in good faith...or your logic is often seriously flawed.

What is the point of an O.P. criticizing them for stating what is the obvious conclusions to draw from their (admittedly false) premises?

Wouldn't it simply be more valuable to state why KJVO premises are false?
Unless we simply wanted to copy/paste volumes of quotes to make our O.P. appear more thoughtful and well-established than it is? (Gish Galloping).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So, we have to teach people English Before we can preach the Gospel.
That way, if they are converted, we can hand them a KJV to read

ummm yeah, ok

Yeah, it's a dumb idea. A lot of KJVO statements are absurd.
But, the O.P. is: does it harm the Bible doctrine of Sanctification.

The answer is NO, except inasmuch as any or at least many false doctrines do.
There is no direct link making it more or less harmful than a myriad of errors.

 

[Reynolds]

Usually the people teaching and sitting under KJV only teaching, are so morrow minded, they won't learn much period.

 

[Logos1560]

What is the point of an O.P. criticizing them for stating what is the obvious conclusions to draw from their (admittedly false) premises?

Pointing that their false KJV-only premises and faulty logic would affect Bible doctrine would be one way to try to get them to see that their view is unsound.

 

[Logos1560]

This sounds like an absurdly dishonest question.

Incorrect.

There was nothing dishonest in my question. It was a honest question based on the logical implications of the various assertions made by KJV-only authors. You do not seem to want anyone to challenge their following their false premises to their logical conclusions except when someone does the same thing to try to show them that their premises are not true.

Were you trying to attack my honesty?

 

[Logos1560]

Wouldn't it simply be more valuable to state why KJVO premises are false?

It is being demonstrated why KJV-only premises are not true and are not scriptural.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It is being demonstrated why KJV-only premises are not true and are not scriptural.

You have made no arguments as to why their premises are not true.
You've essentially lambasted them for mostly benign statements which follow naturally from their (admittedly) false premise: Namely, that the KJVO doctrine is true.
They cannot be blamed for stating that, given their assumptions, it follows that a Christians process of sanctification is hindered by non-adherence to what they view as a truth.

I assume that
You assume that
Any human with an I.Q. over 50 should assume that.

This O.P. thus far argues for nothing.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Incorrect.

It's not possible that that statement was "incorrect".
It is (by its very nature) subjective....
As in, it was my perception that it was not asked in intellectual honesty.
That is still the case.
I must conclude that either you utilize intellectually dishonest tactics and unjust weights and measures (or at least did there) or that your thread was illogical and deeply lacking any intellectual rioguor and sophisticated argumentation.

I hesitate to conclude the latter inasmuch as I would now have to believe you actually wrote books, sold them, and gained disciples in the process.

There was nothing dishonest in my question.

Perhaps not.
If it wasn't intellectually dishonest, it was stupid.

It was a honest question based on the logical implications of the various assertions made by KJV-only authors.

Then allow me to answer this honest question:
NO.
and also:
DUH

You do not seem to want anyone to challenge their following their false premises to their logical conclusions

They should follow their false premises to their logical conclusions.
Everyone should.
You are using a double-standard by acting as though they are wrong for doing so.

except when someone does the same thing to try to show them that their premises are not true.

You have done no such thing, nor even tried to do such a thing (in this thread anyway). You've mostly posted quotes of them doing what any basic thinking person should normally do.
You have not argued that (much less demonstrated) that their foundational premise is false...
You could only be doing so with this form of argumentation if you were attempting some form of Reductio ad absurdum wherein you showed that their own premises are self-defeating. You made no such attempt.

Were you trying to attack my honesty?

I was essentially accusing this thread of either:
1.) Having zero intellectual rigour
or
2.) It attempted to establish a double-standard for argumentation forcing KJVO to use a dishonest weight and measure to meet a standard you would never require anyone else to meet.

You are criticizing them for being internally logically constistent within the scope of their own belief system.
That's either dishonest, stupid or insane.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Usually the people teaching and sitting under KJV only teaching, are so morrow minded, they won't learn much period.

Often.
But, that's true of many folks and many errant teachings.
I myself was KJVO (and sat under said teaching) for about 15 years.

It wasn't easy to break from it. Moreover, I knew the most wonderful, Godly and passionate folks who were under that conviction.

Here's the driving thing: They are passionate about what they understand to be God's Word.
They read it, they know it, and they try very hard to apply it to every aspect of their lives. They rarely hold heretical doctrines, or if they do, it doesn't follow from their KJV onlyism.

Honestly, I still have a lot of respect for many of them.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Pointing that their false KJV-only premises and faulty logic would affect Bible doctrine would be one way to try to get them to see that their view is unsound.

You've made no argument that their logic is faulty.
You essentially quoted them being logically consistent and then criticized them for it.

 

[37818]

I myself was KJVO (and sat under said teaching) for about 15 years.

Hmm. What was the first truth that was necessary to you to no longer being KJO? And what were the steps from there to you no longer being a KJO?

 

[Logos1560]

I myself was KJVO (and sat under said teaching) for about 15 years.

Honestly, I still have a lot of respect for many of them.

Readers have seen how you have a lot of respect for KJV-only advocates and their false teaching since you repeatedly seek to defend them. Perhaps you have not completely departed from all the KJV-only teaching that you were taught.

No matter how sincere and passionate that they are in believing claims for the KJV that are not true, it is not an excuse or justification for their KJV-onlyism.

The majority of their modern KJV-only teaching is false teaching that is not taught in the Scriptures. They read into verses many things (that the verses do not state) to try to support their non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.

 

[Logos1560]

You've made no argument that their logic is faulty.

Incorrect. When it is admitted that their unproven KJV-only premises are not true, it shows that their logic is faulty. When you start with premises that are not true, you need up with conclusions that are not true.

It is faulty and unsound logic to assume premises to be true by use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.

 

[Marooncat79]

Yeah, it's a dumb idea. A lot of KJVO statements are absurd.
But, the O.P. is: does it harm the Bible doctrine of Sanctification.

The answer is NO, except inasmuch as any or at least many false doctrines do.
There is no direct link making it more or less harmful than a myriad of errors.

By implication of my post. Their position is yes which is just plain silly

again, Japanese, Rotooru and speakers of other languages must learn English before they can progress in sanctification

 

[Marooncat79]

You have made no arguments as to why their premises are not true.
You've essentially lambasted them for mostly benign statements which follow naturally from their (admittedly) false premise: Namely, that the KJVO doctrine is true.
They cannot be blamed for stating that, given their assumptions, it follows that a Christians process of sanctification is hindered by non-adherence to what they view as a truth.

I assume that
You assume that
Any human with an I.Q. over 50 should assume that.

This O.P. thus far argues for nothing.

Can a person who does not know English use their Bible which is Japanese, Arabic or Rotooru become more sanctified by using a KJ Bible?

is there a distinction of sanctification between KJVO and others who use another translation?
That’s the issue as I understand it being posed here.

 

[Logos1560]

You are criticizing them for being internally logically constistent within the scope of their own belief system.

Actually KJV-only advocates are not completely logically consistent within the scope of their incorrect KJV-only system. They are many times when what one KJV-only author asserts conflicts with or even contradicts what another KJV-only author states. KJV-only advocates do not apply their own assertions consistently and justly to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

For example, many KJV-only advocates will praise the Geneva Bible and place it in their pure stream of Bibles while they inconsistently condemn the NKJV which has many if not all the improvements that the KJV made to the Geneva Bible and which also has many of the renderings where the Geneva Bible is better or more accurate than the KJV. They are also not logically consistent when they avoid the fact that the Church of England makers borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, which is in their corrupt stream of Bibles.