-
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!
Does KJV-only teaching affect or harm Bible doctrine of Sanctification?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
- Status
Consigning your theological opponent to Hell, is never a convincing argument.
I know that I quote him in my signature...I also know that many Evangelicals object to him...
The quote is brilliant....
And neither you, nor I, nor anyone you are quoting here could have come up with it.
The man who wrote the article is not sophisticated enough to create a quote so brilliant as the one Lewis does here.
That's what he objects to....
He objects to the fact that he didn't write the Chronicles of Narnia,
He objects to the fact that he didn't write the Space-Trilogy
He objects to the fact that he doesn't have one-tenth the imagination and insight that Lewis did.
So, he just consigns him to hell..
Meanwhile MILLIONS of children and adutls are being moved for or against Christianity by men like C.S. Lewis.
Lewis is in heaven.
(Actually he's only in Paradise which is the place in Sheol or Hades where the righteous go in preparation for the ressurection)
And.....then he will be bodily resurrected after hades and sheol give up their dead.
He will then find out that he should have thought more like an independent Baptist, and that his Theology lacked horribly, (Something he always admitted throughout his life).
and then he wil go on to glory....Like you, and like me.
But, that quote is BRILLIANT!
Lewis is in heaven.
(Actually he's only in Paradise which is the place in Sheol or Hades where the righteous go in preparation for the ressurection)
And.....then he will be bodily resurrected after hades and sheol give up their dead.
He will then find out that he should have thought more like an independent Baptist, and that his Theology lacked horribly, (Something he always admitted throughout his life).
and then he wil go on to glory....Like you, and like me.
But, that quote is BRILLIANT!
C.S. Lewis isn't an Evangelical. That's true.
(Actually he's only in Paradise which is the place in Sheol or Hades where the righteous go in preparation for the ressurection)
And.....then he will be bodily resurrected after hades and sheol give up their dead.
He will then find out that he should have thought more like an independent Baptist, and that his Theology lacked horribly, (Something he always admitted throughout his life).
and then he wil go on to glory....Like you, and like me.
But, that quote is BRILLIANT!
C.S. Lewis isn't an Evangelical. That's true.
37818
Well-Known Member
The article is by a Presbyterian Reformed Christian Society. The Trinity Foundation. They posed the question.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I have several bibles on my system KJV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV BSB etc. plus Greek and Hebrew I use all of them as I have found that by reading the verses in various bibles you can get a better idea of the intent of the verse. I do this as I do not want to let the bias of any single text influence me. It may not be the best way but it has worked for me.
37818
Well-Known Member
When there are competing texts contradictory [a known textual variant] being presented to be the word of God, only one of them can actually be the word from God. Or neither.
A poster unsoundly tried to distort and misrepresent what I mean by the term KJV-only. Therefore, I clearly presented my definition and explanation of the term KJV-only.
Amazing that poster still imagined or found a way to be negative about a proper effort to be completely clear and straightforward about my use of the term KJV-only.
That poster merely seems to imagine that he knows my motives and heart when he does not. He attacks a strawman misrepresentation that is not what I state. My motive and intention are just as I stated: to attempt to present the truth and to oppose false teaching.
I have no personal financial interest in Peter Ruckman. There are other KJV-only authors that are just as extreme in their KJV-only claims as Ruckman was.
I stopped selling my book The Unbound Scriptures several years ago. Most KJV-only authors probably make far more money on their books. If my motive had supposedly been money, I could have written a KJV-only book and perhaps sold a lot of books and made a lot of money like Gail Riplinger.
I choose to present the truth instead of seeking to make money. Perhaps someone seeks to attack my motives because they may want to avoid the truth concerning non-scriptural KJV-only teaching. My writing has helped several KJV-only advocates turn from their incorrect KJV-only opinions.
I have worked a full-time job to provide for my family.
Amazing that poster still imagined or found a way to be negative about a proper effort to be completely clear and straightforward about my use of the term KJV-only.
That poster merely seems to imagine that he knows my motives and heart when he does not. He attacks a strawman misrepresentation that is not what I state. My motive and intention are just as I stated: to attempt to present the truth and to oppose false teaching.
I have no personal financial interest in Peter Ruckman. There are other KJV-only authors that are just as extreme in their KJV-only claims as Ruckman was.
I stopped selling my book The Unbound Scriptures several years ago. Most KJV-only authors probably make far more money on their books. If my motive had supposedly been money, I could have written a KJV-only book and perhaps sold a lot of books and made a lot of money like Gail Riplinger.
I choose to present the truth instead of seeking to make money. Perhaps someone seeks to attack my motives because they may want to avoid the truth concerning non-scriptural KJV-only teaching. My writing has helped several KJV-only advocates turn from their incorrect KJV-only opinions.
I have worked a full-time job to provide for my family.
.
That is the lie...
You spent a thousand hours sneaking in one WORD...."INPIRATION"...
KJVO's do NOT assume double-inspiration, or anything to that effect.
My wife had the patience to read through your drivel (I didn't you tend to bore me)...
But she saw where you clearly accused all KJVO's of believing in "double-inspiration".
They do not....
Yoiu are lying or ignorant if you insist they do.
KJVO''s do NOT always insist on "inspiration" and are careful not to use that word flippantly.
You are falsely accusing the brethren,,,of a lie that they do not hod to.
Repent.
Your accusation is simply not true. You try to misrepresent and distort what I accurately stated.
My statement soundly acknowledged that any who claim inspiration for the KJV would be KJV-only, but my statement did not at all say that everyone who is KJV-only claims that the KJV is inspired. You improperly read something into my statement that it did not say. Perhaps you fail to notice the "or" in my statement.
Claiming inspiration for the KJV is one exclusive only claim that some make for the KJV, but it is not the only exclusive only claim made for the KJV.
In his 2019 book, KJV-only author G. John Rov claimed: “’The Bible is inspired by God, but only in the originals’ is the double talk of men” (Concealed from Christians, p. 36). John Rov claimed that the makers of the KJV translated “under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost” (Concealed from Christians, p. 148). John Rov claimed that the KJV “alone is the matured, finished Bible carrying the inspiration of God” (p. 70).
In his 2018 book, KJV-only author David Daniels, who has perhaps written the most KJV-only books the last ten years, suggested that “it [referring to the KJV] carries the same inspiration as the originals” (51 Reasons Why the King James, p. 158).
Evangelist Dennis Corle accused other KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates of “theological double-talk” if they accept what he claimed is “the false idea that the King James Bible is preserved but it is not inspired” (God’s Inspired Book, p. 11). Dennis Corle asked: “If we begin with something inspired, and we preserve it, how do we lose inspiration in the process of preservation” and “if we preserve what is inspired, how can we possibly lose inspiration in the process of preservation?” (pp. 11, 20).
In his 2021 book, KJV-only author David O'Steen claimed that "faith is the main reason to believe that the KJB is the inspired word of God" (Study Notes on the KJB, p. 29).
In his 2018 book, KJV-only author David Daniels, who has perhaps written the most KJV-only books the last ten years, suggested that “it [referring to the KJV] carries the same inspiration as the originals” (51 Reasons Why the King James, p. 158).
Evangelist Dennis Corle accused other KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates of “theological double-talk” if they accept what he claimed is “the false idea that the King James Bible is preserved but it is not inspired” (God’s Inspired Book, p. 11). Dennis Corle asked: “If we begin with something inspired, and we preserve it, how do we lose inspiration in the process of preservation” and “if we preserve what is inspired, how can we possibly lose inspiration in the process of preservation?” (pp. 11, 20).
In his 2021 book, KJV-only author David O'Steen claimed that "faith is the main reason to believe that the KJB is the inspired word of God" (Study Notes on the KJB, p. 29).
Last edited:
That is not what my statement said. You misunderstand it or you improperly distort it.
If a non-exclusive "or" is used...
You are still placing them in the same category.
O.K.
You win this....
Logos is right....
Apparently, the KJV sucks or something...
Don't use it.
This matters a LOT to Logos...
I mean, no one else cares really..I mean, no one else evenm bothers to argue with you, but....Use the NKJV, I guess, and, if you use the KJV...Your doctrine of Sanctification is compromised......
Logos doesn't have the talent or money of Gail Riplinger:...
That's established.
So, use something else...
PBTTTTH...
You win this....
Logos is right....
Apparently, the KJV sucks or something...
Don't use it.
This matters a LOT to Logos...
I mean, no one else cares really..I mean, no one else evenm bothers to argue with you, but....Use the NKJV, I guess, and, if you use the KJV...Your doctrine of Sanctification is compromised......
Logos doesn't have the talent or money of Gail Riplinger:...
That's established.
So, use something else...
PBTTTTH...
Gail Riplinger asserted: “’All scripture is given by inspiration of God…’—every word, every true copy and translation (2 Tim. 3:16)” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 550). Riplinger suggested that the context in 2 Timothy 3:16 “includes copies and translations” (Ibid.). Riplinger claimed: “Bible inspiration, preservation, and translation are one” (p. 547). Riplinger claimed that “the verse—‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God’—is stating that the originals, the copies, and the vernacular translations are ‘given by inspiration of God’” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1162).
Do you agree with Gail Riplinger's claims?
The question of this thread concerns whether KJV-only teaching affects the Bible doctrine of sanctification.
The actual assertions quoted from KJV-only authors would conflict with this Bible doctrine since the Bible does not teach those KJV-only claims. The Scriptures do not teach that believers have to be KJV-only before they can be sanctified or before they can serve God.
The question does not at all suggest that reading the KJV affects this doctrine. I have read the KJV for over 50 years. I have nowhere suggested that any believer who wants to read the KJV should not read it. The KJV is a good over-all English Bible translation.
What I clearly disagree with is non-scriptural KJV-only teaching, which is not the same thing as the KJV. The KJV does not teach a KJV-only view.
The actual assertions quoted from KJV-only authors would conflict with this Bible doctrine since the Bible does not teach those KJV-only claims. The Scriptures do not teach that believers have to be KJV-only before they can be sanctified or before they can serve God.
The question does not at all suggest that reading the KJV affects this doctrine. I have read the KJV for over 50 years. I have nowhere suggested that any believer who wants to read the KJV should not read it. The KJV is a good over-all English Bible translation.
What I clearly disagree with is non-scriptural KJV-only teaching, which is not the same thing as the KJV. The KJV does not teach a KJV-only view.
The above statement in bold type was my definition of KJV-only. The rest of that post was an explanation considering examples of what would be KJV-only and what would not be KJV-only.
The explanation clearly demonstrated that I do not consider KJV-only advocates to be monolithic in thinking.
The above statement was soundly presenting examples of views that would be KJV-only. It was not defining those possibilities as being the only forms of a KJV-only view as it was unsoundly misrepresented.
The last part of my explanation made it abundantly clear that I was not treating KJV-only advocates as
monolithic in thinking in contradiction to the false accusation that I supposedly was.
There is precedent in scripture. During the years after God gave the Law to Moses (Scripture) how many other nations knew the national language of Israel through whom God reveled his word and his ways? Answer, none. What happened to those nations?
Did you know that anyone from those nations who wanted a relationship with God were required to become a Hebrew (circumcision and observe the law of Moses) and live as a Hebrew in the land of the Hebrews.Without these things they were not in the covenant relationship with God. He makes the rules according to the laws of heaven, not according to your laws.
Now, I am not saying that God requires the nations to learn English today so they can read the KJV and I don't think any bible believers would say that, but it is noteworthy that there are few Christians churches in in non English speaking nations and continents today. I have read that God providentially sent his word to the people who would receive it and believe it. It would be senseless for a omniscient God to send it to people who has religious baggage that would hinder them from accepting it. So God establishes his church in the West and they send missionaries, who learns the languages of the nations to whom they are sent, and preach to them. They do not preach to them in the Greek langauge.
I think the critics on the board mostly knows about what other critics write and say but you will not ever hear from them how good our God is and wonderful it is to be saved. At least I haven't. How can someone write every day about biblical subjects and never brag on God and our Lord Jesus.
Ac 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
Gentiles are in the West where the Japhetic nations are. Many of them speak English.North Americans speak English. God knows what he is doing.
- Status