Would this be a KJ- Only?

[JonC]

The "Without error in the original manuscripts" statement is like chumming shark-infested waters in the KJV-Only world! They certainly are not "Ruckmanites" but perhaps they want to be sufficiently "KJVO" in order to run with the more mainstream KJVO crowd? Sounds more like they are KJV-Preferred, perhaps "Bo-Jo" (BJU) types?

By and large, I do not disagree with their statement. The King James is an accurate English translation of its underlying (TR) text. I would repace "Manuscripts" with "Autographs" in the discussed statement though.

"Bo-Jo" . I nevee heard that one. Love it.

 

[JonC]

I actually think Bo-Jo (gonna use it) when I think KJVO and IFB. I know the latter is not fair, but Bo-Jo was known for clinging to tradition over Scriprure.

I remember in....what...2000ish Bo-Jo forbade (used for @SovereignGrace .... or forbadded) interracial dating. They clung to racism so long for tradition sake. "It was good for our grandparents so it is good for us" type of thinking.

That is how I view KJVO and KJV-preferred-and-advocating people. We do not find it difficult so those who do really do not matter.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

"Bo-Jo" . I nevee heard that one. Love it.

A few years ago, I spent some time with a "Bo-Jo" congregation that was transitioning to a more "reformed" direction. Great group of folks and I was actually liking where they were going - taking caution regarding the reformed doctrine, not going overboard, etc. They wanted me to give input in making the services more "Contemporary" and I told them that "I like where they were just fine" (Hymnbooks mixed with some good contemporary material). Told them to "stay away from the laser lights and fog machines, and it was OK to lose the ties but no tattoos and "skinny Jeans!"

Oh, and they were using the ESV as their congregational Bible.

 

[JonC]

A few years ago, I spent some time with a "Bo-Jo" congregation that was transitioning to a more "reformed" direction. Great group of folks and I was actually liking where they were going - taking caution regarding the reformed doctrine, not going overboard, etc. They wanted me to give input in making the services more "Contemporary" and I told them that "I like where they were just fine" (Hymnbooks mixed with some good contemporary material). Told them to "stay away from the laser lights and fog machines, and it was OK to lose the ties but no tattoos and "skinny Jeans!"

Oh, and they were using the ESV as their congregational Bible.

I attended a similar church when I moved here. I did not join because they were too legalistic. I couldn't wear my skinny jeans.

 

[JonC]

...no tattoos and "skinny Jeans!"

Ok....I gotta ask.

Today tattoos are normal. Does the church view a person with a tattoo as un-savable (reformed, so maybe reprobate), disqualified to be a member when saved, or disqualified to serve as a pastor when called by God to that position?

The question just popped into my head. Things just pop into my head quite often these days. So I had to ask.