Fundamentalist & KJVO Mutually Exclusive?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Were the Anabaptists fundamentalists in belief? What version did they use? The KJV.

Not all Anabaptists were fundamentalists. Some denied the Trinity. Also, most 'fundamentalists' in the 1600's used the Geneva Bible and rejected the KJV as the CoE's Bible. The CoE oppressed and persecuted folks like us for much of the 17th and even 18th centuries.

Were not many denominations historically "fundamentalist" in their beliefs? What version did they use? The KJV.

The short history of how the KJV became dominate isn't... real Christians recognized it as God's perfect Word in English... it goes like this:

The King and CoE commission a new translation partly motivated by the King's hatred of the marginal notes in the Geneva that undermine his prelacy. The version is not met with immediate acceptance and in particular is rejected by many Puritans, Baptists, Independents, and Separatists. The CoE then used the force of government to suppress the printing, binding, and distribution of the Geneva. Over time, the KJV was accepted by subjects of England because it was the only Bible the government would allow them to have. Mark that different translations began to appear more often after religious freedom was won in the Revolution.

To claim Fundamentalism and the KJV are at "loggerheads" is absurd.

Of course it is absurd... but that isn't what's being claimed. It is being said and proven that fundamentalism and KJVOnlyism are contradictory.

If we did a poll on this very board & limited it to IFB pastors and asked what version they use, preach from, use for congregational responsive readings, testimonies, Sunday School memorization, etc., I already know what the answer is. But according to some here, they aren't "fundamentalists." It's absurd.

Use does not equal "onlyism".

Polls do not determine fundamental Christian beliefs. Scripture does.

By the way, your point about all kinds of folks being in hell because they only used the KJV is absurd!!!

 

[LadyEagle]

It is being said and proven that fundamentalism and KJVOnlyism are contradictory.

What proof? Opinions - that's supposed to be proof?

Oh, I get it. As long as IFBs say they use "other" versions, too, then they'll pass the MV litmus test and will be allowed to call themselves Fundamentalists. Okay.

Now the litmus test for being a fundamental Baptist depends on which version you use, not on doctrine. Okay.

It will take some time to digest all of this useful information.

By the way, your point about all kinds of folks being in hell because they only used the KJV is absurd!!!

It was intended to be. Guess you missed the point.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is being said and proven that fundamentalism and KJVOnlyism are contradictory.

What proof? Opinions - that's supposed to be proof?

Oh, I get it. As long as IFBs say they use "other" versions, too, then they'll pass the MV litmus test and will be allowed to call themselves Fundamentalists. Okay.

Now the litmus test for being a fundamental Baptist depends on which version you use, not on doctrine. Okay.

It will take some time to digest all of this useful information.</font>[/QUOTE] There is one and only one litmus test for fundamentalism. "Does the belief come from the Bible or not?"

KJVOnlyism is a manmade addition to biblical doctrine. Using an MV or the KJV have nothing to do with it.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />By the way, your point about all kinds of folks being in hell because they only used the KJV is absurd!!!

It was intended to be. Guess you missed the point.

</font>[/QUOTE]No. I got your meaning and it is what you meant that was an absolutely absurd straw man. No one made the version issue relevant to salvation but you extended it to that level rather than deal with the real issue.

Which is... KJVOnlyism is not from scripture therefore it is contrary to biblical fundamentalism.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
What proof? Opinions - that's supposed to be proof?

The proof has been stated multiple times. Read slowly.

Oh, I get it. As long as IFBs say they use "other" versions, too, then they'll pass the MV litmus test and will be allowed to call themselves Fundamentalists. Okay.

No, you don't get it.

Now the litmus test for being a fundamental Baptist depends on which version you use, not on doctrine. Okay.

The test is based on doctrine. Fundamentalists get their doctrine from scripture. The doctrine of KJV-onlyism comes from somewhere other than scripture. Thus: how can one get their doctrine from outside of scripture, and yet be a fundamentalist? Please provide your direct answer to this direct question.

 

[LadyEagle]

Fundamentalists get their doctrine from scripture.

Agreed.

The doctrine of KJV-onlyism comes from somewhere other than scripture.

That's what you say, all of you who have a hatred of the KJVO position. But that is a straw man.

The KJV IS Scripture. Fundamentalists get their doctrine from Scripture. Therefore, they are not at "loggerheads" with anything.

To Brian: You seem to have a lot of time (which I don't) debating at different boards against those who love the KJV. I don't want to debate that issue with you here. Especially since in your profile you list your denomination as "Baptist but wavering." I prefer to keep my discussion among Baptists who aren't wavering. No offense intended.

[ February 02, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The doctrine of KJV-onlyism comes from somewhere other than scripture.

That's what you say, all of you who have a hatred of the KJVO position. But that is a straw man.
</font>[/QUOTE]It's not a strawman. Show me one verse that teaches that the KJV alone is the word of God in English.

The KJV IS Scripture. Fundamentalists get their doctrine from Scripture. Therefore, they are not at "loggerheads" with anything.

KJV-onlyists make KJV-onlyism into a *doctrine*. Doctrine. Doctrine. It's a doctrine. I *agree* that the KJV is scripture, but I do not accept the doctrine that only the KJV is the word of God in English, and perfectly word-for-word preserved - that doctrine is NOT taught in scripture, and asserting it as doctrine is to get doctrine from outside of scripture - which is at odds with fundamentalism.

You seem to have a lot of time (which I don't) debating at different boards against those who love the KJV.

I do not do that. I love the KJV myself. I debate against KJV-onlyism, not the KJV itself, because the doctrine of KJV-onlyism is a false, man-made doctrine and does not come from scripture.

I don't want to debate that issue with you here. Especially since in your profile you list your denomination as "Baptist but wavering." I prefer to keep my discussion among true Baptists who aren't wavering.

That's fine.

BTW, a "true Baptist" would only get their doctrine from scripture - so I guess you will no longer have discussions with KJV-onlyists either.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
The KJV IS Scripture. Fundamentalists get their doctrine from Scripture. Therefore, they are not at "loggerheads" with anything.

No one denies that the KJV is scripture (or, at least, translation of scripture). The problem is that the KJVO position asserts that ONLY the KJV is scripture, and that view is unscriptural. The KJV is no more or less scripture than the NIV, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, etc.

Using only the KJV for one's personal scriptural reference is perfectly fine and appropriate. However, requiring the same of all Christians as compulsory is not biblical doctrine.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
The KJV IS Scripture. Fundamentalists get their doctrine from Scripture. Therefore, they are not at "loggerheads" with anything.

Look at it another way: suppose a church, that claimed to be "fundamental Baptist", created a doctrinal statement, and the first item in the list said that only the ASV was the word of God in English. All the other doctrines listed (resurrection, Trinity, etc.) had lots of scripture references given to show where each particular doctrine was taught in the Bible, but the doctrine that only the ASV was the word of God did not have any scripture references given to support that doctrine. Yet they still proclaimed that doctrine, listing it as their "number one doctrine", despite having no scriptural support for it. Would that be at odds with fundamentalism? Why? Because it is a doctrine not coming from scripture.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Johnv:

Using only the KJV for one's personal scriptural reference is perfectly fine and appropriate. However, requiring the same of all Christians as compulsory is not biblical doctrine.

Thank you John, I agree and since this has become a he said she said I will allow your comment to be the last. Please feel free to discuss this issue in the versions forum.

Murph