Saved Using a Non-KJV??

I am just a simple retired Navy Master Chief who has been called into the ministry... During the past 2 and a half years as a pastor, I have used several translations from the pulpit... since June of this year I have used the HCSB only.

Early this year and the prior year, I used the NKJV and ESV 90% of the time... as for people being saved reading something other than the KJV...

During the calendar years 2003 and 2004, God has allowed this simple old boy to lead around 80 people to Him... I think I may have used a KJV once in those presentations of the Gospel.

Recently prior to a funeral I was conducting, a well respected pastor from my area (same church for 45 years)visited with me, he saw that I was using the HCSB, he told me that many of his congregation would not come to hear me preach, if they knew I wasn't using the KJV. I almost replied that I was looking for people who loved the Lord and not a version of His word. I held my tongue.

I believe that many people in our generation can understand the message clearer reading the HCSB, ESV, NLT etc rather than trying to read the 400 year old English.

God can use them all...

God Bless

 

Amen, I gave a "season" present to a young lady who got teary eyed after reading the NKJV because she could understand it.

HankD

 

As an Only KJV Pastor, I have determined that this area is not something to divide over as some of the extremists would. Our church runs a camp and we have around 15 churches each year that send their young people to our one week of camp. Out of these 15, there are 2 churches that I would consider extremists, but only 1 of the 2 would hold to the idea that you can only be saved from the KJV. That is just a small sample. I am sure that in some areas of the country, closer to Hyles land or Bob Gray land, that the percentage would be far greater.

 

The direct or implied claim of no salvation without use of the KJV may be more common than
some KJV-only advocates realize. Perhaps their
KJV-only bias blinds them to the implications of some of their own claims. For example, those who claim that Satan wrote the new versions are implying that people cannot get saved thru them.

Norman Hopkins wrote: "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).
Gail Riplinger wrote: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, p. 12).
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] (p. 80). J. J. Ray wrote: "Only an unaltered Bible can produce a perfect, soul-saving faith" (GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE, p. 10).
Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith" (IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, p. 93). Wally Beebe wrote: "My constant reference to the King James Version, being in fact the inspired Word of God and our authority, is very important as a prerequisite to salvation" (CHURCH BUS NEWS, July-Dec., 1993, p. 11). Pastor Raymond Blanton wrote: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bible" (PERILOUS TIMES, Feb. 1997, p. 4). Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE, p. 97). KJV-only pastor Rolland Star wrote: "The truth is, users of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc. do not believe God" (FLAMING TORCH, Oct.-Dec., 1999, p. 17). Roy Branson wrote: "The fruits and works of all translations other than the KJV identify them as evil" (KJV 1611, p. 95).

For each of these printed claims, how many other KJV-only advocates may speak or imply this
same claim?

 

None of those authors would be considered good reading material within the majority of churches that are around me (mostly Okjv churches). We would consider those authors extremists.

 

To be fair, you must concede that there is a big difference between having a book, a tape, or even a friendship with someone and then doting "on every word."

I suppose that I have every book that Jim Vineyard wrote (his last two Christians, Islamic Terrorism, and Israel and Heroes I Have Known are both excellent reading) mainly because of our friendship and the fact that he gave them to me personally. Even so, there is no way that it can be said that I "dote" on every word that he speaks. I'm sure the same can be said about most of the authors mentioned.

I have Riplinger's New Age Versions, there is much in it with which I disagree. I have Grady's Final Authority, I do not support many (most) of his assertions. He relys to heavily on Gipp. I do not read Ruckman or Gipp because they are from the same school and I adamantly disagree with most of their views on the issue.

It is an inaccurate stereotype to say that all who defend the KJV "end up at the same place." The fact of the matter is that we don't. Sometimes, we aren't even close to the same place.

 

Yes. It's clear that we who love the KJV need to do everything we can to defend it from those who use it to spread the unscriptural false doctrine of KJVOism.

 

Strange, I always thought the Holy Spirit did the "convicting".

 

I am not so sure of the above comment! Those who don't espouse the direct views of Gipp, Riplinger, Grady, Ruckman, etc... still hold to views that are contrary to sound, historic, fundamental Baptist doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. Those like yourself, Pastor_Bob, who hold to a 'providentially preserved' KJV work around the clearly refuted false teachings of the above mentioned authors, but still hold to the same conclusions of the aforementioned same authors. The reason why the stereotype of the moderate KJV-onlyists is similarly lumped in with the aforementioned authors is that the conclusions you all draw are the same, regardless of the fanaticism of the predominantly fervent KJV0 camp. I cannot see anything different in what you say versus what the aforementioned authors with the exception as to how you get to the end conclusion of your arguments.

 

In summary, all the KJVO stuff from mild to extreme has all come from the SAME MAN-MADE MYTH! They ALL follow it to one degree or another. There's only ONE valid reason to be KJVO or OKJB...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Any other reason is part of the KJVO false doctrine, and is hogwash.

 

I am a new member in this board/forum.

I strongly agree that the King James Version is the only inspired, infallible, inerrant, planary version.

And I am also a KJO christian. But I do believe that a person can be saved by any version. The Gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are some christian who testify that they were saved from other denomination (not Baptist church) that uses other version.

Its the Holy Spirit that give the conviction. AS long as the message was clear a person can be saved.

 

OUCH!! That's too funny. God bless you, Rook. And He obviously is doing just that - 80 people, that's just fantastic. And I'll bet they're all genuine conversions. I pray God will continue to bless your ministry.

Happy New Year!

 

Hello, dpogs!

I strongly agree that the King James Version is the only inspired, infallible, inerrant, planary version.

How do you KNOW it is? Have you carefully studied the facts, or have you simply followed the "party line" set forth by Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller, kept afloat today by the likes of Ruckman, Gipp, or Riplinger?

And I am also a KJO christian.

Is that different from simply----Christian?


But I do believe that a person can be saved by any version. The Gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now, you're making progress.


There are some christian who testify that they were saved from other denomination (not Baptist church) that uses other version.

I was a Christian before I became a Baptist. I didn't attend church, period. After salvation, I attended as many various churches as possible to learn something about them. I settled on Baptist because, as my knowledge grew and my beliefs solidified, I saw the Baptists matched my beliefs more closely than any other, especially my Sola Scriptura stand. That's part of the reason I so despise the KJVO myth...it's entirely NON-SCRIPTURAL.

Its the Holy Spirit that give the conviction. AS long as the message was clear a person can be saved.

And clearly, He's not limited to just one Bible version.

 

YES!!! Enlightened to the truth.

 

And I am also a KJO christian.

Is that different from simply----Christian?
________________________________________________
Slambo:YES!!! Enlightened to the truth.

To what truth that just---CHRISTIANS---aren't enlightened?

 

Okay, so I'm a pre-millineal Christian, obviously more enlightened than those dreadful confused Preterists.

 

In the real world it's obvious that people can be saved and grow into spiritual maturity through almost any translation of the Bible. It happens frequently. If MVers can be as saved as KJVers, then I'm not sure what the advantage of KJVOism is, unless it's the need of some to feel superior to the "heretics" around them. There are plenty of such people in our churches, on all sides of the debate. Too bad.

 

Well I guess I'm in big trouble.I was saved without the benefit of any version of the Bible.

 

I can't draw the distinction of KJVO's and MV's quite so black and white. When I first started in the Word, KJV was predominant but I soon heard about the Living. A short time later I stopped reading it, the KJV was obviously superior. Then I was told about the NASB but by then loved the King James and went KVJO for many years without really thinking about it.

I first learned of the Versions debate when I got a computer in 1998 and for about a year was KJVO because the first info I read was Riplinger and Aho, I think. I didn't check everything out or seriously investigate further.

Anyway, today I believe to be KJVO is to be handicapped when it comes to God's Word. It's as if God has given us 3 portions but we'll only take 2. I really think that's a good analogy.

But the main point I'm trying to make is this: I think we have to be very careful when associating and grouping modern versions of scripture together (Tangent, I realize you are probably not doing that).

After much investigation and some years of experience with different versions there are only 2 versions that I would even put in the same class as the KJV. They are the ESV and the NASB. I'm taking a look at the HCSB now but the standard is high.

These three are what I read and study. I might call them "A" class. If a Christian wants to be serious about the Word, he could go with these 3 translations and Strong's and Vine's and be way ahead of the game - 99 percentile, I would guess. I reference and compare about 15 others which I mention in another thread, but would not trust any of them exclusively for serious study. I would rate them "B" and "C" class.

I would like to say that I have much disregard for the NIV. It seems shallow and lacks depth. One thing about God's Holy Word, it has GREAT DEPTH, infinite depth in fact, and to desire God's Word and study the wrong version and miss that is a terrible shame, IMHO.

Finally, I would like to say I consider any version that changes God's Word in any significant way, such as gender neutral, issue neutral, and paraphrases like The Message, ABOMINATIONS.