As we continue this week's theme of reasons I am NOT KJV-Only (again, not the best way to say it, but the most eye-catching!), yesterday I talked about not being KJV-Only because of the copyright issue. Today, I want to give you reason number 2:
Reason # 2: Because you can only be saved if you are using the KJV.
The argument would go like this: James 1:21 says that we can be saved by the 'engrafted word.' 1 Peter 1:23 is more specific, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Since the KJV is the word of God and is without corruption, and "the other version" is full of corruption, it goes without saying that you can't be born again with "the other version"... Right!?
Well, I have a couple of issues with that. First, I'm pretty sure that people were saved before 1611 (think about guys like Martin Luther or John Knox here...). Some would say, then they must have been using the Greek Textus Receptus for that... Ok, but I'm pretty sure that there were some people that were saved before 1611 that did not speak Greek. They would have either used the Latin, or some other language of Scripture. That means, that they were saved using a translation that most people realize would have had some level of corruption...
Second, what if someone is just saved from the testimony of others. What if somebody witnesses to someone else using their personal salvation story and including the truths of the gospel without quoting the Scriptures behind it. For example, what if I say: "You're a sinner, and Jesus died for your sins. He then rose from the dead, and you need to repent and put your faith in Him or else you will die and go to Hell." If someone believes that and repents... can they be saved? Even though there was no Bible verses quoted? I think so... The authority needs to be God's word, found in the Bible, but I don't think an exact quote is mandatory for the person to receive God's word - arguments?
It is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. When we witness, we ought to use Scripture - the word of God is quick and powerful - but if we misquote a verse on accident, we don't need to be afraid about that person not being able to get saved. (I don't think we ought to misquote verses either!) Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The closer we are to the word of God (which is pure), the greater opportunity there is for faith to increase.
Just a thought...
3 comments:
I am able to get over the NOT KJV only title, but would it be better stated,(even if less eye-catching)
"Bad Reasons to be KJV only"
It will be interesting to see your next reasons, could there be 10?
And if you use the suggestion, you should know that I expect.20 cents per use.
I am confused. You gave 10 reasons why you believe it is perfect, and now you are giving reasons why you think it isn't..
Anyway, this isn't even a reason. No Bible Believer teaches or believes this. Jack Hyles did for a while, when he got on the Al Lacey bandwagon, but real Bible Believers, Gipp, Ruckman, Riplinger (I name those three, because they are synonomous with defense of the KJV) don't even teach this heresy.
You can get saved only by Jesus Christ, not a book.
As I said in my first Not KJV-Only... what I am saying is that these are not reasons that I am KJV Only... I meant it to be attention grabbing, and it did - but apparently confusing too.
Like you said, there are/have been people that teach it. So, I'm just clarifying that it is not why I am KJV only.
Sorry for any confusion - and I agree with you (except when you suggest that Hyles may not be a Bible Believer because he believed that 'for a while').
Amen, you only get saved by Jesus Christ... but you only know about Him from his Book.
Post a Comment