King James Onlyism: A New Sect - A Bible Believer's Response

[John the Baptist]

If these manuscripts differ, they can't both be true. THAT is the issue.

You are right Jerry, the variations either show that the KJV is not inerrant or the ealier text is not correct. But to me the evidence shows that the KJV is not inerrant. Yet it is totally trustworthy. No translation is perfect. You err putting the English over the Greek. Which came first. This is not only a earlier text issue. This is a issue over the basis of the original languages for the English text.

God Bless
John

[Jerry]

How is something with "errors" trustworthy? If it had errors, it would not be trustworthy. However, I do not believe the KJV has errors - it is the Critical Text that has the errors and the contradictions.

[heartstrings]

How is something with "errors" trustworthy? If it had errors, it would not be trustworthy. However, I do not believe the KJV has errors - it is the Critical Text that has the errors and the contradictions.

Amen

I believe that the King James Bible....Bible...not a "version", is God's Holy word, perfectly preserved right down to the last jot and tittle, for English speaking people. I believe all of the "MV's" are of the devil.

That is not to say that the KJB is the only accurate Bible on earth. God is well able to preserve His Holy Word on other languages. But it is the only inerrant, perfectly preserved Bible for English speaking people.

[speerjp1]

One question that needs to be asked is this: what is the doctrinal reason for having "another translation?" In all of my years discussing both KJV infallibility and calvinism (trust me, there is a connection) I've found that a calvinist will insist on the fallibility of the KJV. There are always doctrinal reasons for someone insisting on using another translation, even if it isn't calvinism. The main purpose for most modern versions is to water down passages that clearly define salvation, sin, and holy living among other biblical issues. If this is not their purpose, it is a consistent by product of their translations. Wescott and Hort, and many other "textual scholars" from whom the modern versions derive their translations, did not believe in salvation as the KJV put it forth. Are you a calvinist johnthebaptist? Just wondering. :2cents

[kevinmiller]

Let us also remember that there are many Baptists that use other versions.

[brandplucked]

One question that needs to be asked is this: what is the doctrinal reason for having "another translation?" In all of my years discussing both KJV infallibility and calvinism (trust me, there is a connection) I've found that a calvinist will insist on the fallibility of the KJV. There are always doctrinal reasons for someone insisting on using another translation, even if it isn't calvinism. The main purpose for most modern versions is to water down passages that clearly define salvation, sin, and holy living among other biblical issues. If this is not their purpose, it is a consistent by product of their translations. Wescott and Hort, and many other "textual scholars" from whom the modern versions derive their translations, did not believe in salvation as the KJV put it forth. Are you a calvinist johnthebaptist? Just wondering. :2cents

Hi speer. Hope you don't mind if I jump in here for a couple of comments. The beliefs in an inspired and inerrant Bible (KJB) and the doctrines of election and predestination of God electing before the foundation of the world unto salvation (a.k.a. Calvinism) are two entirely separate issues.

There are Calvinists and free-willers on both sides of the Bible version issue. They are not related issues at all. I know of many Calvinists who are King James Bible believers. I myself admittedly am Calvinistic in my theology. I do not agree with everything Calvin taught by any means, but I sure do believe in God doing the choosing as to who will be saved and who will not.

I will not get into an argument or debate over Calvinism versus Arminianism. It just is not that important to me whether you believe one way or the other. But keep in mind that the vast majority of the KJB translators themselves were Calvinists; they either belonged to the church of England (which was strongly Calvinistic) or they were Puritans, all of whom were strongly Calvinistic in their theology.

Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva Bible translators were all Calvinists. Most Baptist churches and denominations were strong Calvinists until about 150 years ago. Guess which church is not Calvinistic but Free-will in its theology, and always has been. That's right. The Catholic church.

I find it a bit ironic that so many of my King James Bible believing brethren are so viciously set against the doctrines of free grace and sovereign election, when most of the KJB translators were themselves Calvinists.

I don't go around the boards debating Calvinism or what I prefer to call the doctrines of grace, mainly because this is not at the top of my personal list of what I think is most important. I am far more concerned about the Bible version issue. I think this is the number One issue facing the church today. Destroy the inerrant Bible, and everything is downhill from there on.

In case you are interested, I have written one article called Calvinism and the King James Bible. It is rather the modern versions that attempt to water down the truths of sovereign grace, and not the other way around. I figure that if a modern version begins to pervert a particular doctrine, then that doctrine is true and important to God.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/CalKJB.html

You do not have to believe the way I do about salvation being TOTALLY of the Lord. I honestly don't really care that much about it one way or the other. We will both end up being redeemed by the same Lord and Saviour. But please don't try to turn this forum into a Calvinism bashing session, and I won't try to push what I believe is the truth of one of the central doctrines of the Reformation - the sovereign electing grace of the God who chose us in Christ, and wrote our names in the book of life before the foundation of the world.

God bless,

Will Kinney

[Tim]

I myself admittedly am Calvinistic in my theology.

Hi Will, This explains a lot :-)

Tim

[speerjp1]

Hi speer. Hope you don't mind if I jump in here for a couple of comments. The beliefs in an inspired and inerrant Bible (KJB) and the doctrines of election and predestination of God electing before the foundation of the world unto salvation (a.k.a. Calvinism) are two entirely separate issues.

There are Calvinists and free-willers on both sides of the Bible version issue. They are not related issues at all. I know of many Calvinists who are King James Bible believers. I myself admittedly am Calvinistic in my theology. I do not agree with everything Calvin taught by any means, but I sure do believe in God doing the choosing as to who will be saved and who will not.

I will not get into an argument or debate over Calvinism versus Arminianism. It just is not that important to me whether you believe one way or the other. But keep in mind that the vast majority of the KJB translators themselves were Calvinists; they either belonged to the church of England (which was strongly Calvinistic) or they were Puritans, all of whom were strongly Calvinistic in their theology.

Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva Bible translators were all Calvinists. Most Baptist churches and denominations were strong Calvinists until about 150 years ago. Guess which church is not Calvinistic but Free-will in its theology, and always has been. That's right. The Catholic church.

I find it a bit ironic that so many of my King James Bible believing brethren are so viciously set against the doctrines of free grace and sovereign election, when most of the KJB translators were themselves Calvinists.

I don't go around the boards debating Calvinism or what I prefer to call the doctrines of grace, mainly because this is not at the top of my personal list of what I think is most important. I am far more concerned about the Bible version issue. I think this is the number One issue facing the church today. Destroy the inerrant Bible, and everything is downhill from there on.

In case you are interested, I have written one article called Calvinism and the King James Bible. It is rather the modern versions that attempt to water down the truths of sovereign grace, and not the other way around. I figure that if a modern version begins to pervert a particular doctrine, then that doctrine is true and important to God.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/CalKJB.html

You do not have to believe the way I do about salvation being TOTALLY of the Lord. I honestly don't really care that much about it one way or the other. We will both end up being redeemed by the same Lord and Saviour. But please don't try to turn this forum into a Calvinism bashing session, and I won't try to push what I believe is the truth of one of the central doctrines of the Reformation - the sovereign electing grace of the God who chose us in Christ, and wrote our names in the book of life before the foundation of the world.

God bless,

Will Kinney

I will have to say that you are a rare exception in the realm of calvinists.

I live about 5 minutes from Bob Jones University and therefore know a lot of calvinists and calvinism teaching churches. They predominately push the NASB. Why? It is easier to get John Calvins version of salvation from that "version" of the Bible than from the KJV. I'm not a calvinist basher. My only point is that typically a person or denomination will seek out the "version" that best suits their needs doctrinely. Therefore, in their eyes, other Bible translations are less reliable. So you see, in my experience, a person's doctrine and their selection of "versions" of God's Word are by no means seperate issues.

[speerjp1]

Let us also remember that there are many Baptists that use other versions.

I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I'm not a Baptist "defender". I'm a Baptist because that is what my parents were and what I've always been and because I believe the Baptist doctrines are an accurate representation of what is layed out for believers in the Bible. The fact that many Baptist brethren use MV's is an indication of a problem in the Baptist churches, not a cause to hide the motivations of many who choose MV's over the best translation, the KJV.

[heartstrings]

theHi speer. Hope you don't mind if I jump in here for a couple of comments. The beliefs in an inspired and inerrant Bible (KJB) and the doctrines of election and predestination of God electing before the foundation of the world unto salvation (a.k.a. Calvinism) are two entirely separate issues.

There are Calvinists and free-willers on both sides of the Bible version issue. They are not related issues at all. I know of many Calvinists who are King James Bible believers. I myself admittedly am Calvinistic in my theology. I do not agree with everything Calvin taught by any means, but I sure do believe in God doing the choosing as to who will be saved and who will not.

I will not get into an argument or debate over Calvinism versus Arminianism. It just is not that important to me whether you believe one way or the other. But keep in mind that the vast majority of the KJB translators themselves were Calvinists; they either belonged to the church of England (which was strongly Calvinistic) or they were Puritans, all of whom were strongly Calvinistic in their theology.

Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva Bible translators were all Calvinists. Most Baptist churches and denominations were strong Calvinists until about 150 years ago. Guess which church is not Calvinistic but Free-will in its theology, and always has been. That's right. The Catholic church.

I find it a bit ironic that so many of my King James Bible believing brethren are so viciously set against the doctrines of free grace and sovereign election, when most of the KJB translators were themselves Calvinists.

I don't go around the boards debating Calvinism or what I prefer to call the doctrines of grace, mainly because this is not at the top of my personal list of what I think is most important. I am far more concerned about the Bible version issue. I think this is the number One issue facing the church today. Destroy the inerrant Bible, and everything is downhill from there on.

In case you are interested, I have written one article called Calvinism and the King James Bible. It is rather the modern versions that attempt to water down the truths of sovereign grace, and not the other way around. I figure that if a modern version begins to pervert a particular doctrine, then that doctrine is true and important to God.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/CalKJB.html

You do not have to believe the way I do about salvation being TOTALLY of the Lord. I honestly don't really care that much about it one way or the other. We will both end up being redeemed by the same Lord and Saviour. But please don't try to turn this forum into a Calvinism bashing session, and I won't try to push what I believe is the truth of one of the central doctrines of the Reformation - the sovereign electing grace of the God who chose us in Christ, and wrote our names in the book of life before the foundation of the world.

God bless,

Will Kinney

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].

What are some of the unfruitful works of darkness? They are the concocting of false doctrines. And "doctrines" such as this which make God out to be unjust....are false doctrines. I won't beat around the bush my friend. Your statement is false doctrine, a lie of the devil. He is the author of confusion, a liar, and the father of it. If that makes you mad, you need to junk that my friend. The the Lord Jesus Christ does not predestine some to go to Heaven and others to go to Hell. Have you met Him? He is love my friend. He so loved the world and that means everybody...He died for all. John 3:16

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever God chooses can take the water of life freely. Is that what it says??

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is of the elect come. And he that is elected, let him take the water of life freely. Does it say that???

This is what the Bible says....
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Here's another one....
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

What does "not willing that any should perish" mean??
What about "but that all should come to repentance"??
Heres what it means....
It means that God does not want ANY to perish....
INSTEAD he wants ALL to be saved.

Whosoever will....that's what the Bible says.

God bless

[Tim]

I will have to say that you are a rare exception in the realm of calvinists.

I live about 5 minutes from Bob Jones University and therefore know a lot of calvinists and calvinism teaching churches. They predominately push the NASB. Why? It is easier to get John Calvins version of salvation from that "version" of the Bible than from the KJV. I'm not a calvinist basher. My only point is that typically a person or denomination will seek out the "version" that best suits their needs doctrinely. Therefore, in their eyes, other Bible translations are less reliable. So you see, in my experience, a person's doctrine and their selection of "versions" of God's Word are by no means seperate issues.

[John the Baptist]

How is something with "errors" trustworthy? If it had errors, it would not be trustworthy. However, I do not believe the KJV has errors - it is the Critical Text that has the errors and the contradictions.

I like the word variation better, because they are slight. The KJV is not a tranlation full of errors. It is totally trustworthy.

[John the Baptist]

One question that needs to be asked is this: what is the doctrinal reason for having "another translation?" In all of my years discussing both KJV infallibility and calvinism (trust me, there is a connection) I've found that a calvinist will insist on the fallibility of the KJV. There are always doctrinal reasons for someone insisting on using another translation, even if it isn't calvinism. The main purpose for most modern versions is to water down passages that clearly define salvation, sin, and holy living among other biblical issues. If this is not their purpose, it is a consistent by product of their translations. Wescott and Hort, and many other "textual scholars" from whom the modern versions derive their translations, did not believe in salvation as the KJV put it forth. Are you a calvinist johnthebaptist? Just wondering. :2cents

Well, I know many Calvanist who are not KJV Only. I am not a 5 point Calvinist. I do hold to some truths of Calvinism. As you do too, if you believe in Totally depravity, and the perseverance of the saints. But no, I do not go all the way with irrestable Grace, I do not believe in limited atonement. I do believe in unconditional election. I believe that Election is not based on God fore seeing man repent and trusting Him and then God elected Him to salvation. If that is the case who did the electing?

2Ti 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

Myself as well as many others do not hold to modern translations for doctrinal reasons, even though some do, but for language reasons.

God Bless
John

[Alimantado]

"I will have to say that you are a rare exception in the realm of calvinists. I live about 5 minutes from Bob Jones University and therefore know a lot of calvinists and calvinism teaching churches. They predominately push the NASB."

I'm a bit late to join this conversation, but here is my two pence worth. Where I come from, the strict Baptist churches are invariably both AV-only and also Calvinist. There's at least three such churches near where I live. Other denominations, such as C-of-E and Methodist are almost never AV-only and their stated doctrinal positions are too woolly to even ascribe to either Calvinism or Arminianism. All in all, if I was to walk into a church and find some AV-only Baptists, I would probably assume they were also Calvinists.

"I honestly don't really care that much about it one way or the other. We will both end up being redeemed by the same Lord and Saviour."

I've often had Christians say to me that this issue isn't an important one, because ultimately Armenians and Calvinists are all still Christians and still believe in the same fundamental doctrines of salvation. But as a non-Christian, it has always seemed to me that Calvinists and Armenians appear to be worshipping two different Gods.

The Armenian God has created all his children with salvation and Heaven in mind, and wants none to perish. The Calvinist God has created only a tiny portion of his children with salvation in mind, and has deliberately created the rest to send to Hell as a demonstration of his mercy on the saved ones. To me, those two depictions of God's divine will are so fundamentally different that it seems absurd to argue that they represent only a 'minor' disagreement in scriptural interpretation by people who are otherwise believing in the same God.

To me, the doctrinal postitions of a Calvinist and an Armenian seem to be almost as far apart as those between a Muslim and a Christian. And yet it goes without saying that no Christian would ever claim to be worshipping the same God as a Muslim.

[heartstrings]

Both Calvinism and Armenianism are false doctrines.

I could quote you the verses but instead I'll tell you how I got saved.


I realized ,through the preaching of the Word of God, that I was a lost, Hellbound sinner, sorrier than dirt and lower than a snake's belly. I heard the preaching of the Word of God through a preacher who was FULL of the Holy Spirit while he preached the precious Word of God and the Holy Ghost wooed my heart with love and compassion like I had never been confronted with before...ever...
For the first time in my life God, the risen Lord Jesus Christ was REAL to me.
Let me say that again....REAL!! It was overwhelming!! I was in the presence of Almighty God, the Saviour, the Lord....I mean...I wanted Him! Befroe I could even get out of the pew into the aisle, I screamed out Jesus' name and didn't care who heard me...not in the least. You don't know me my friends...I am VERY bashful. I believed with all my heart that God loved me, died for me. But overwhelming as His presence was, it was not "irresistable". I also remember, just before I started out of that pew, something said...."don't do it!" Not an audible voice mind you;just a thought. I remember physically shaking my head to the thought. I believe I said no to self and yes to the Lord Jesus.

Calvinsm is false....God said "whosoever will let him come and drink of the water of life freely" He will do the same for you my friend, whoever you are, no matter what you have done. God didn't create some to go to Heaven and others for Hell. The Bible says he died once for all. A...L...L.

Arminianism is also false....You cannot "lose" your salvation. God said "he that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death unto life."

Brother, when the mighty KIng of Glory, that made the Universe, came to earth, was born of a virgin, died and rose again and lives forevermore...comes into your heart, you will KNOW it. The Bible says that the five wise virgins got to go into the wedding because they had oil in their vessels. Brother, when I got saved on Mother's Day 1985, God filled my vessel slam full of the oil and there's more than enough in there to get me in. He told the woman of Samaria, at the well, that "whosever dirnks of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst" Never....just simply means never.