Has KJV-only teaching affected the Bible doctrine of salvation?

[Logos1560]

Gary La More wrote: “Without a living and abiding Word being preserved continuously by God, the believer would not have what he needs to be born again. God has promised perpetuity to His Word because He knows that without it there would be no hope of eternal salvation” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 71). In his footnote 115 on page 71, Gary La More wrote: “We are saved by means of incorruptible seed, not the corruptible. An application could and should be made that the corrupted text will be less effective or powerful because of its level of corruption. As strong as this text [1 Peter 1:23-25] is in relating salvation to the purity of the Bible, it does not go so far as to teach that conversion can only occur by means of the King James Bible.”

In this same book, David Sutton wrote: ”The doctrine of salvation is dependent upon preservation: if there were no preserved Words, then there would be no preached Word, and man could not believe on Jesus Christ” (p. 80).

In this book, Thomas Corkish wrote: “There are numerous volumes in existence today that valiantly defend a non-existing Bible and of non-preserved originals, but if this premise is true, man’s salvation, Saviour, sanctification, and sureness are all gone” (p. 151). Thomas Corkish wrote: “Can we trust God for other things if we can not trust His promise concerning the actual Words of revelation? Suffice it to say that without absolute preservation, there is not a lot to hope for Heaven” (p. 150).

In this book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: ”Salvation involves agreeing with God about obeying all of His Words” (p. 90).


Jason Harris commented: “This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg’s understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 58, footnote 63).

 

[Van]

Interesting opening post. Setting aside whether some edition of the KJV perfectly presents the actual gospel, let's consider whether we must believe all the right things and none of the wrong things for God to credit our faith as righteousness.

I do not know about others, but I do not hold perfect knowledge. Now I try to interpret a verse or passage of God's word in a way that is consistent with my understanding of the rest of scripture. And over time, as I have studied and hopefully matured, my interpretation of some gospel concepts have changed or evolved.

So my view, perhaps a tad self-serving is that God credits the flawed faith of the individuals He chooses to bestow mercy upon, and thus perfect understanding of the gospel is not required for salvation.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Gary La More wrote: “Without a living and abiding Word being preserved continuously by God, the believer would not have what he needs to be born again. God has promised perpetuity to His Word because He knows that without it there would be no hope of eternal salvation” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 71). In his footnote 115 on page 71, Gary La More wrote: “We are saved by means of incorruptible seed, not the corruptible. An application could and should be made that the corrupted text will be less effective or powerful because of its level of corruption. As strong as this text [1 Peter 1:23-25] is in relating salvation to the purity of the Bible, it does not go so far as to teach that conversion can only occur by means of the King James Bible.”

In this same book, David Sutton wrote: ”The doctrine of salvation is dependent upon preservation: if there were no preserved Words, then there would be no preached Word, and man could not believe on Jesus Christ” (p. 80).

In this book, Thomas Corkish wrote: “There are numerous volumes in existence today that valiantly defend a non-existing Bible and of non-preserved originals, but if this premise is true, man’s salvation, Saviour, sanctification, and sureness are all gone” (p. 151). Thomas Corkish wrote: “Can we trust God for other things if we can not trust His promise concerning the actual Words of revelation? Suffice it to say that without absolute preservation, there is not a lot to hope for Heaven” (p. 150).

In this book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: ”Salvation involves agreeing with God about obeying all of His Words” (p. 90).


Jason Harris commented: “This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg’s understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 58, footnote 63).

Yes it has. People like Jack Hyles would/do say that you can't be saved unless you read the KJV. They say that that is the "incorruptible seed" while anyone who would read say the NIV are reading a corruptible seed - thus the gospel is only the gospel if it is read in the KJV.

 

[JD731]

Yes it has. People like Jack Hyles would/do say that you can't be saved unless you read the KJV. They say that that is the "incorruptible seed" while anyone who would read say the NIV are reading a corruptible seed - thus the gospel is only the gospel if it is read in the KJV.

I do not believe what Jack Hyles is accused of believing but I am curious who you believe can be saved and how can they be saved? Your faith system might be as heretical as Jack's.

 

[JD731]

Gary La More wrote: “Without a living and abiding Word being preserved continuously by God, the believer would not have what he needs to be born again. God has promised perpetuity to His Word because He knows that without it there would be no hope of eternal salvation” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 71). In his footnote 115 on page 71, Gary La More wrote: “We are saved by means of incorruptible seed, not the corruptible. An application could and should be made that the corrupted text will be less effective or powerful because of its level of corruption. As strong as this text [1 Peter 1:23-25] is in relating salvation to the purity of the Bible, it does not go so far as to teach that conversion can only occur by means of the King James Bible.”

In this same book, David Sutton wrote: ”The doctrine of salvation is dependent upon preservation: if there were no preserved Words, then there would be no preached Word, and man could not believe on Jesus Christ” (p. 80).

In this book, Thomas Corkish wrote: “There are numerous volumes in existence today that valiantly defend a non-existing Bible and of non-preserved originals, but if this premise is true, man’s salvation, Saviour, sanctification, and sureness are all gone” (p. 151). Thomas Corkish wrote: “Can we trust God for other things if we can not trust His promise concerning the actual Words of revelation? Suffice it to say that without absolute preservation, there is not a lot to hope for Heaven” (p. 150).

In this book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: ”Salvation involves agreeing with God about obeying all of His Words” (p. 90).


Jason Harris commented: “This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg’s understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 58, footnote 63).

How do you define salvation and who do you teach can be saved, and how? Are you saved?

I actually teach that men were getting saved for 15 years before the epistle of James, the first NT epistle and written in 45 AD, and addressed to the 12 tribes, and gentiles were being saved, beginning in AD 40 with Cornelius, an Italian, but the first epistle to gentiles was Galatians, written by Paul in 49 AD.

Doesn't this teach us that Bibles are not the first tool for the soul winner? aren't Bibles for the saved?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I do not believe what Jack Hyles is accused of believing but I am curious who you believe can be saved and how can they be saved? Your faith system might be as heretical as Jack's.

Anyone who repents and places their faith in Jesus Christ alone as their Lord and Savior.

 

[JD731]

Anyone who repents and places their faith in Jesus Christ alone as their Lord and Savior.

There are people who post regularly here who believes in the doctrine called determinism and teach that the vast majority cannot be saved because God has determined before creation not to save them. People who teach this generally would agree with Logos1560 that Jack Hyles and others he mentions are heretics. I have caught Logos 1560 in time past quoting one heretic trying to prove the supposed heresy of another.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

There are people who post regularly here who believes in the doctrine called determinism and teach that the vast majority cannot be saved because God has determined before creation not to save them. People who teach this generally would agree with Logos1560 that Jack Hyles and others he mentions are heretics. I have caught Logos 1560 in time past quoting one heretic trying to prove the supposed heresy of another.

Hyles was a heretic, and gross immorality ran rampant in his congregation. I assume you are using "determinism" and "Calvinism" interchangeably? The problem I have with your view is that it demands God show mercy to all, otherwise He is unjust. To be frank, I find most who would subscribe to your view as taking an "entitled" view of salvation. A better question is, "why would God show mercy to anyone?", not, "why would he pass over some?" God is the just judge, and our sin is a violation of His Law, no judge is required to show mercy.

 

[Logos1560]

I have caught Logos 1560 in time past quoting one heretic trying to prove the supposed heresy of another.

You accuse, but you do not prove. You also fail to recognize that quoting someone does not mean that I have to agree with them in all their beliefs.

Would you suggest that you agree with all the doctrinal views and beliefs of the Church of England makers of the KJV when you quote their translating decisions in the KJV?

When you quote the KJV, are you quoting Church of England heretics who believed in baptismal regeneration and in Calvinism?
The great majority of the KJV translators were Calvinists although possibly two or three of them were not.

 

[Logos1560]

Jack Hyles, well-known fundamentalist pastor, wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Jack Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Jack Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). Jack Hyles asserted: “The precious seed is the King James Bible, preserved for us word-for-word” (p. 136). In a recorded sermon, Jack Hyles stated: "The King James Bible is necessary for anybody to be saved in the English language."

 

[Logos1560]

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Gail Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80).

In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93).

Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Raymond Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4).

Norman Hopkins asserted: “There is no need to memorize scripture in the new versions or go on visitation with one, for there is no convicting power in altered scripture” (Right Bible, p. 17).

Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book Stands, p. 97).

David Norris claimed: “The new, deliberately ‘modernised’ versions of Scripture will necessarily present a changed or ‘updated’ Christ, another Jesus. A false bible presents a false Christ” (Big Picture, p. 184).

James Rasbeary asserted: “The new versions are deader than doornails. They do not have any life. They do not speak to people with the voice of the Shepherd” (What’s Wrong, p. 122).

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Gail Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80).

In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93).

Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Raymond Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4).

Norman Hopkins asserted: “There is no need to memorize scripture in the new versions or go on visitation with one, for there is no convicting power in altered scripture” (Right Bible, p. 17).

Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book Stands, p. 97).

David Norris claimed: “The new, deliberately ‘modernised’ versions of Scripture will necessarily present a changed or ‘updated’ Christ, another Jesus. A false bible presents a false Christ” (Big Picture, p. 184).

James Rasbeary asserted: “The new versions are deader than doornails. They do not have any life. They do not speak to people with the voice of the Shepherd” (What’s Wrong, p. 122).

Frankly, cultic KJV onlyism is a different religion. Riplinger, Hyles and the rest add to and take away from the gospel.

 

[JD731]

Hyles was a heretic, and gross immorality ran rampant in his congregation. I assume you are using "determinism" and "Calvinism" interchangeably? The problem I have with your view is that it demands God show mercy to all, otherwise He is unjust. To be frank, I find most who would subscribe to your view as taking an "entitled" view of salvation. A better question is, "why would God show mercy to anyone?", not, "why would he pass over some?" God is the just judge, and our sin is a violation of His Law, no judge is required to show mercy.

While it is probably true what you say about Hyles you do not provide or cite any proof and therefore it is slander until you do.

Concerning mercy in the context of God and Judge. He is God before he is Judge and his character is diminished in no way when he becomes Judge and I personally am thankful to know that.

Ps 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.

I have a problem with your religious system getting your views of God from books of men like Robert Blake who you think knows something but no doubt gets his theology from books of other men as well.

This is my last post about that.

 

[JD731]

You accuse, but you do not prove. You also fail to recognize that quoting someone does not mean that I have to agree with them in all their beliefs.
Would you suggest that you agree with all the doctrinal views and beliefs of the Church of England makers of the KJV when you quote their translating decisions in the KJV?
When you quote the KJV, are you quoting Church of England heretics who believed in baptismal regeneration and in Calvinism?
The great majority of the KJV translators were Calvinists although possibly two or three of them were

It does mean that on Christian issues the heretics are not trustworthy. The KJV does not promote Church of England theology and the KJV is not the official Bible of the church of England. The only people that I know of who baptizes babies for salvation and wears dresses are sects of the Presbyterians and I don't know of any of them who are KJVO. It makes me think that the whole worldwide church might have been church of England or Presbyterian had it not been for the KJV. I know of no KJVO believers who are Calvinists unless they also subscribe to the Baptist Bride doctrine. They sure don't believe the words and they are as confused as a termite in a yo-yo.

 

[Logos1560]

the KJV is not the official Bible of the church of England.

When the KJV was made in 1611, it was the official Bible of the state Church of England. It was the third authorized version of the state Church of England, and the KJV was authorized to be read in the state churches. The title page of the 1611 included the following clause: "Appointed to be read in churches," and it referred to “his Majesty’s special commandment.” King James I was the head of the Church of England.

The Church of England kept the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Article XXVII of this church's Thirty-nine articles implies this doctrine of baptismal regeneration. This doctrine is stated more plainly in the Catechism of this church and in the baptismal service of the Liturgy, which pronounces every child after baptism to be regenerated (The Creeds of Christendom, p. 639). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that the Book of Common Prayer preserved the traditional Catholic teaching concerning baptism (p. 127).

Booty's edition of The Book of Common Prayer--1559 stated: "It is certain by God's Word that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (p. 283). Edmund Calamy observed that the ministers ejected or silenced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon” (Nonconformist’s, p. 39). Charles Spurgeon observed that "in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express it,--you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to Rome" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 136).

 

[David Lamb]

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Gail Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80).

In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93).

Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Raymond Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4).

Norman Hopkins asserted: “There is no need to memorize scripture in the new versions or go on visitation with one, for there is no convicting power in altered scripture” (Right Bible, p. 17).

Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book Stands, p. 97).

David Norris claimed: “The new, deliberately ‘modernised’ versions of Scripture will necessarily present a changed or ‘updated’ Christ, another Jesus. A false bible presents a false Christ” (Big Picture, p. 184).

James Rasbeary asserted: “The new versions are deader than doornails. They do not have any life. They do not speak to people with the voice of the Shepherd” (What’s Wrong, p. 122).

“Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” (1Pe 1:22-23 NKJV)

Peter was not referring to a particular translation of the bible into English, a language which would not exist for several hundred years in Peter's time. And what about people whose native language is not English? Are you saying that the only way they can be saved is to learn not only English, but the particular variety of English used in the 1611 translation, where "prevent" meant to go before, "conversation" meant manner of life, and "carriages" meant luggage? If so, it would seem that organisations such as the Wycliff Bible Translators, in seeking to provide God's Word in languages which still don't have it, are wasting their time.

 

[JD731]

When the KJV was made in 1611, it was the official Bible of the state Church of England. It was the third authorized version of the state Church of England, and the KJV was authorized to be read in the state churches. The title page of the 1611 included the following clause: "Appointed to be read in churches," and it referred to “his Majesty’s special commandment.” King James I was the head of the Church of England.

The Church of England kept the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Article XXVII of this church's Thirty-nine articles implies this doctrine of baptismal regeneration. This doctrine is stated more plainly in the Catechism of this church and in the baptismal service of the Liturgy, which pronounces every child after baptism to be regenerated (The Creeds of Christendom, p. 639). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that the Book of Common Prayer preserved the traditional Catholic teaching concerning baptism (p. 127).

Booty's edition of The Book of Common Prayer--1559 stated: "It is certain by God's Word that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (p. 283). Edmund Calamy observed that the ministers ejected or silenced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon” (Nonconformist’s, p. 39). Charles Spurgeon observed that "in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express it,--you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to Rome" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 136).

The Roman Catholic Church has for it's authority the Pope, Traditions, and the scriptures in that order. Baptizing babies for salvation is a tradition not taught in any manuscript, or translation, the KJV, modern versions, or paraphrases that I am aware of. The Church of England, a product of political turmoil and essentially the Roman Church without the Pope, teaches infant baptism as a matter of tradition, not scripture. Your implication that this doctrine is taught in the KJV is disengenious and you obviously know better.

If traditions, popes, or anything else trumps scriptural teaching, it does not matter what Bible you adopt, it is subjected to something above it.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Gary La More wrote: “Without a living and abiding Word being preserved continuously by God, the believer would not have what he needs to be born again. God has promised perpetuity to His Word because He knows that without it there would be no hope of eternal salvation” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 71). In his footnote 115 on page 71, Gary La More wrote: “We are saved by means of incorruptible seed, not the corruptible. An application could and should be made that the corrupted text will be less effective or powerful because of its level of corruption. As strong as this text [1 Peter 1:23-25] is in relating salvation to the purity of the Bible, it does not go so far as to teach that conversion can only occur by means of the King James Bible.”

In this same book, David Sutton wrote: ”The doctrine of salvation is dependent upon preservation: if there were no preserved Words, then there would be no preached Word, and man could not believe on Jesus Christ” (p. 80).

In this book, Thomas Corkish wrote: “There are numerous volumes in existence today that valiantly defend a non-existing Bible and of non-preserved originals, but if this premise is true, man’s salvation, Saviour, sanctification, and sureness are all gone” (p. 151). Thomas Corkish wrote: “Can we trust God for other things if we can not trust His promise concerning the actual Words of revelation? Suffice it to say that without absolute preservation, there is not a lot to hope for Heaven” (p. 150).

In this book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: ”Salvation involves agreeing with God about obeying all of His Words” (p. 90).


Jason Harris commented: “This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg’s understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 58, footnote 63).

Good day everyone,

I'm Shawn, a King James Bible believer and I do not believe that people can't be saved by other versions. Yes, they are corrupted but they still have the gospel.

Though there are those little changes that might affect them getting the right gospel like faith only or works, or salvation is hard, though I am more concerned about the actual doctrinal changes that affect the Chrsitian life in the other versions.

Hyles, and the rest above were be heretics in my opinions on sharing that only through the King James Bible, a person can be saved.

Though, its the fact that the King James Bible that we still have other versions that still share the right gospel, and are not changed.

We might one day find a manuscript without John 3:16, though unlikely.

Anyhow, if someone realizes they are a sinner, repent (change mind) and believe the Gospel of 1 Cori 15:1-5, Jesus is God, he shed his blood on the cross to save us and rose again, they are eternally saved. This is for the church age.

Shawn

 

[Logos1560]

Your implication that this doctrine is taught in the KJV is disengenious and you obviously know better.

My statements were clear, accurate, and true, and they did not imply anything "disingenuous" as you incorrectly allege. The problem may be in your own misunderstanding or attempted misrepresentation of what I accurately stated.

 

[JesusFan]

Gary La More wrote: “Without a living and abiding Word being preserved continuously by God, the believer would not have what he needs to be born again. God has promised perpetuity to His Word because He knows that without it there would be no hope of eternal salvation” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 71). In his footnote 115 on page 71, Gary La More wrote: “We are saved by means of incorruptible seed, not the corruptible. An application could and should be made that the corrupted text will be less effective or powerful because of its level of corruption. As strong as this text [1 Peter 1:23-25] is in relating salvation to the purity of the Bible, it does not go so far as to teach that conversion can only occur by means of the King James Bible.”

In this same book, David Sutton wrote: ”The doctrine of salvation is dependent upon preservation: if there were no preserved Words, then there would be no preached Word, and man could not believe on Jesus Christ” (p. 80).

In this book, Thomas Corkish wrote: “There are numerous volumes in existence today that valiantly defend a non-existing Bible and of non-preserved originals, but if this premise is true, man’s salvation, Saviour, sanctification, and sureness are all gone” (p. 151). Thomas Corkish wrote: “Can we trust God for other things if we can not trust His promise concerning the actual Words of revelation? Suffice it to say that without absolute preservation, there is not a lot to hope for Heaven” (p. 150).

In this book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: ”Salvation involves agreeing with God about obeying all of His Words” (p. 90).


Jason Harris commented: “This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg’s understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 58, footnote 63).

Know that the most ardent KJVO support the notion that true salvation cannot happen apart from the use of the kjv in teaching and preaching