Is KJVO Compatible with Classic Fundamentalism?

I'm not sure what happened to the thread. I'm an Independant Fundamental Baptist, and I hold to the things you listed above. That includes the King James 1611 Bible. i base my salvation on the gospel it holds, my standards and convictions to the truth it teaches, my home in Heaven to the words of our very Saviour. I have no doubt that it's God's word, inspired and infallable. I take it by faith, and I'm thankful I've never had to question it. I beleive it's perfect. I would quote you verses backing that up, but that would be circular reason I think some of you would say.
Thing is, if the KJB isn't God's word, then what is? Can you hold a MV, and all sincerity, after study, and prayer say you have God's inspired word? The MV's change things around. They take away from the very fundamentals I'd die for! And if you can't say that in assurance, then how do you know all of it trust worthy? After all, if it isn't of God, it's of man, and man has faults. And if you have trouble taking the Bible as a whole, then how do you know the part speaking about salvation is true? Now, I'm not questioning anyone, but do you see where I'm going with this? Do you see what confusion it can cause if you dwell on it? And who is the author of confusion? {I'll let ya'll guess.}
If the men of God who so diligently took so long to copy my precious Bible from ancient manuscripts, that men gave their lives to defend, and if God, himself proclaims it true in His word, and if holds the power of conviction to save souls and convict sin, then I know I can trust it.
And if those other versions want to take away from the basic fundamentals I hold so dear, don't expect me to remain silent. I'd {by God's grace} give my life to protect God's word. I stand firmly. I have a Saviour born of a virgin who lived a sinnless life, who died on a rugged cross the death fit for a criminal, who conquered death, and raised Himself up, who rose to Heaven and who's coming for me one day! And if someone thinks they can change a verse about those things, don't think I won't be boiling mad.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a solid foundation, from solid Bible teaching! Bible teaching from God's inspired word!
Well Glory! I feel like shouting I'm so excited!
~Abby

 

1. Yes I can.

2. Name one.

3. Name one.

I realize this isn't the versions forum, but I don't know what happened to the thread I started either.

 

I don't think KJVOs really fit the definition of fundamentalism. The Fundamentals in fact expressly denied the tenets of KJVOnlyism. It is a new doctrine.

Yes, without doubt and without apologyl

No one has yet to show a place where this is true. It is an often repeated axiom but falls short on backing it up with the facts. I too would die for those fundamentals of the faith and I could prove them all beyond doubt from a modern translation.

Another oft repeated axiom that experience has shown not to hold water. It is the KJVOs that create the confusion. I have exclusively used MVs for 6 or so years now and I have yet to see one person confused by them. In my church, people carry the NASB, the NIV, and KJV (that I know of). There is never any doubt about what the Scripture says. Perhaps it is my style of preaching where I carefully and clearly explain the text. But I have never seen any confusion. The only problem ever made was from a KJVOnly person who after about 45 minutes in my office (with a Greek text opened in front of him) apologized to me.

Which is why the MVs can be trusted.

The bottom line is that the early fundamentalists were not KJVOnly and their writings expressed their position. It does not appear that the contemplated a day when this would be an issue. They were fighting the opposite problem (liberalism) but it is interesting how much liberalism and KJVOnlyism have in common. It would surprise you ... And when you read the comments of the early fundamentalists on liberalism, you see that their comments apply equally well to KJVOnlyism.

 

Larry nailed it. I do not believe KJVOs are fundies in its truest sense. The original fundies did NOT even use the KJV. They used the ASV. So, I suppose today's fundies should use the NASB. Not a bad choice.

 

This thread is under review and will be temporarily closed. Do not begin additional threads dealing with this topic. Thank you.
Pastor Bob
Moderator

 

Based on a review by the other moderators and administrators, this topic will be reopened. However, let's keep strictly on topic, obey all rules to the letter. Any post not conforming will be deleted/edited and the poster will be turned over to the administrators.

Remember that the topic is "Is KJVO compatible with classic fundamentalism?" So far, one vote says yes while three say no.

TomVols
Co-Moderator

 

Personally, I see this as a very simplistic proposition:

If a KJVO Church declares the KJ Bible (1611 or 1769) IS the Word of God by Inspiration of the English text then they are not "fundamental" according to the Niagra Convention.

If a KJVO Church declares the KJ Bible IS the Word of God by manuscript derivation then they are "fundamental" (assuming the other 4 points being viewed soundly).

Here is the wrinkle...
The only wrinkle might be if they use the word "preservation" instead of "derivation" or "inspiration".

For instance it might be acceptable to other fundamentalists if a KJVO Church declares the KJ Bible IS the Word of God by preservation.
I believe in this case they would have to give a defintion of "inspiration" whether it applies to the Greek and Hebrew or 1611/1769 English or both.

Then comes the unhappy task of giving historical/scrpitural reasons for an "inspiration" which applies to a non-original language. Then ALL translations must be assessed (Japanese, Chinese Spanish, Italian, etc) as to which is "inspired" and which isn't and why.
For instance why did God choose the 1611 KJV and not the 1582 Douay Rheims or Tyndale or Coverdale as the English text of "inspiration".

Messy.

HankD

 

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I have a point to make but it will take laying some groundwork. Please bear with me. Those of you who know me know that lengthy posts are not the norm for me.

In the twentieth century, several significant theological movements became clearly defined. Prior to the middle of the nineteenth century, Protestant Christianity in America essentially could be categorized as “orthodox.” “Orthodox” simply means, “sound in doctrine.” Most “non-Catholic” groups believed the cardinal doctrines of historic New Testament Christianity.

In the latter portion of the nineteenth century, a strain of “modern” theology began to become popular. It surfaced particularly from the University of Tubingen located in Tubingen, Germany. This new theology became known as German Higher Rationalism. American theologians flocked to this center for “higher” theological learning. As a result, they brought home to America what soon came to be known as “Modernism” or also, “theological Liberalism.”

As Liberalism spread throughout the grass-roots level of most denominations and churches here in America, Bible believers rose up against it. Bible conferences were held in places such as Niagara Falls and Chatauqua, New York. In these large conferences, the great orthodox views of historic, New Testament Christianity were preached. Doctrinal themes such as the Deity of Christ, the blood atonement of Christ, the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the visible second coming of Christ were emphasized.

As the controversy between “Modernism” and “Historic Christianity” carried into the twentieth century, sermons of these great conferences were printed, circulated, and later bound together in book form. This book became known as the “Fundamentals.” As a consequence, in the 1920’s, the term “Fundamentalist” was coined referring to those who adhered to these fundamentals of the Christian faith.

In spite of these Bible conferences, the major denominations in America were quickly being taken over by Modernists and theological liberals. Conservative, Bible believing pastors of churches realized what was happening and they began to fight back. As a result, groups began to break away from the major denominations and separate themselves from the apostasy that was so prevalent therein.

In 1932, a group of churches separated from the Northern Baptist Convention and eventually organized themselves as the General Association of Regular Baptists. After WWII, another group broke from the Northern Baptist Convention and formed themselves into the Conservative Baptist Association of America. Many churches withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention as well and formed independent Baptist fellowships and associations. The Baptist Bible Fellowship, the World Baptist Fellowship, and the Southwide Baptist Fellowship are three such groups.

Though the Fundamentalist movement began with the doctrinal emphasis of adhering to the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, as the twentieth century wore on, the term cam to have additional significance. As groups, little by little, began to separate from the apostate denominations, the term “Fundamentalist” also came to have the distinction of being separated from apostasy and unbelief. Therefore, as the definition of Fundamentalism has fully developed in the last half of the twentieth century, it has a double connotation.
1. Fundamentalism is an adherence to the orthodox, cardinal truths of the Bible, and
2. Fundamentalism demands separation from error or apostasy as it becomes necessary to do so.

Thank you for bearing with me to lay the groundwork; now to my point. The lineage of almost all eighteenth and nineteenth century textual critics is deeply rooted in German Higher Rationalism.

The chief architects of the modern critical text, Westcott and Hort, have a documented history of apostate associations. How can a true Fundamentalist ignore this? Charles Spurgeon declared in 1888, “I have preached God’s truth, so far as I know it, and I have not been ashamed of its peculiarities. That I might not stultify my testimony, I have cut myself clear of those who err from the faith, and even those who associated with them .”

In the twentieth century, almost all of the major editors of the critical text have been card-carrying theological Liberals. This is true for Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Eugene Nida, and even Cardinal Carlos Martini of the RCC. How can a true Fundamentalist ignore this?

The United Bible Societies is the chief publisher of the modern critical text. Yet, the UBS is deeply involved with the RCC and the World Council of Churches. Conservative Fundamentalists in England founded the Trinitarian Bible Society in reaction against the British and Foreign Bible Society (the predecessor of the UBS). The Trinitarian Bible Society has, from its beginning, stood upon the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, the Received Text, and the King James Version. The United Bible Societies have long advocated the critical text and its resultant modernistic translations. How can true Fundamentalists support the side of the United Bible Societies and the World Council of Churches against those who have stood for the Trinity and the Deity of Christ?

Paul wrote, “Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.” Regardless of your opinion of the critical text, a true Fundamentalist must conclude that the critical text and the modern versions that result are unholy through their multiple associations with apostasy.

Is KJVO compatible with classic fundamentalism? Without a doubt. In fact, unless one separates from that which is associated with apostasy, one can no longer regard himself as a “classic fundamentalist.”

(Much of the historical information contained in this post was gleaned from a Doctor of Ministry major project by David Sorenson)

 

No. KJVOnlyism represents a departure from Fundamentalism due to the establishment of an extra biblical dogma.

This statement is weakly worded but even so it leaves a stumbling block for KJVOnlyism- "verbally inspired". Unless God "verbally inspired" the words of the KJV, their immovable allegiance is badly misplaced.

Arguably no because the Bible illustrates that something other than the KJV or the text it was taken from can rightly be called the Word of God.

Simply put though, the Bible does not say that only the KJV is the Word of God in English. It doesn't speak directly on the subject of versions at all. Indirectly, it appears that OT quotes in the NT agree with the Greek OT more than the Hebrew but this isn't concrete proof of any position.
The bottom line is that the Bible is silent on versions... yet KJVO's have presumed to speak in God's place. I believe this violates the spirit of the belief cited above.

KJVO's do not judge KJVOnlyism by the Bible and in many cases ignore matters of biblical separation to embrace KJVO authors/proponents. One fellow here insisted that GA Riplinger was telling the truth even when shown that she claimed the Jesus gave here the Acrostic Algebra. Many maintain allegiance to Ruckman in spite of unbiblical attitudes and beliefs.

See above. Also, KJVO's assign some kind of special spiritual office to the KJV translators that enabled them to re-create God's perfect words, only this time in English. These translators embraced error and persecuted those who believed like us. They are not separating from ALL compromise with error and apostasy from the Truth.

Versional onlyism was not delivered by the prophets nor Apostles.

 

Guilt by association condemns the KJV as much as the CT. The most glaring point is this: the original fundamentalists did not even use the KJV. To assert KJVO into fundamentalism is a historical and theological error. It is not compatible at all.

 

PTW,
I hear your point. But if we follow your train of thought, would fundamentalists only use the ASV then? If that's not the case, should we write off the KJV because fundamentalists didn't use it? Are people not fundamental because they don't use the NASB or ESV today?

I agree wholeheartedly that to be KJVO is to jettison fundamentalism and embrace theological liberalism. But I'm not sure your argument is proof, friend.

 

That was the first time I have seen KJVO and liberalism related like that.

 

1. No. They used an English version that was based on the CT. That does prove that the various families of texts did not dictate their version. They used an accurate version.

2. We should not write it off. It is an accurage translation of God's word.

3. Of course they are. I use the NASB and ESV.

Finally, my point was directed at KJVOism. That must be rejected by fundamentalists. Using the KJV is not a problem.

 

You should linger in this forum more often.

 

EVERY KJVO Baptist that I know is a staunch conservative, oh well!

 

Being conservative and being a fundamentalist are not the same things. Btw, what KJVO stands for adds to (and ultimately takes away) from the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy.

 

It has been said before, but bears repeating again. In fact, it could be said in almost every thread started in this forum.

KJVO is a very broad label. To make a blanket statement that KJVOs are not fundamentalists is simply an unfair assessment. I am KJVO in that I "only" use the KJV. However, I do not deny or weaken the doctrine of inspiration or inerrancy.

I believe, like fundamentalists of old, that God verbally inspired His Word in the original autographs. He then preserved His Word in the lineage of the Traditional Received Text.

I am not all that concerned about being labeled a fundamentalist. This term can and does change with every generation. I am satisfied to say that I am a Bible-believing child of God. I have no desire to fit into any mold or be accepted into any "camp." That's why I am an Independant Baptist.

 

Bob, I have know people like you also. Usually, I clasify such as OKJV. It isn't the same thing.

KJVO in my view are those who have the views of Ruckman, Waite, Cloud, Riplinger, Marrs, etc.