© 2007 The Flaming Torch, All rights reserved.
There is a movement afoot that claims "no one can get saved by hearing or reading one of the devil's perversions." That is, "the only Bible that can bring salvation is the KJV." This is an extreme, radical and unscriptural position. The subject is not an incidental issue since it involves an important fundamental of the faith: SALVATION.
It appears to me that some of the brethren are seeking to promote another position that sets them further apart as "the true fundamentalists." This is sad since fundamentalism is fragmented enough already.
Let me begin by stating that I believe that the King James Bible IS the PERFECT Word of God in the English language. But, I do NOT believe a person must have the exact wording of the KJV text to get saved. There are other English translations whereby a sinner can read and be saved.
For example, prior to the King James Bible there were numerous English translations that contained variant readings: The Wycliffe Bible (1380); The Tyndale Bible (1524); The Coverdale Bible (1535); The Great Bible (1539); The Geneva Bible (1560); The Bishops Bible (1568); The Douay Rheims Bible (1609).
Didn't these English Bibles have different readings than the AV 1611? Did those variant readings make the whole translation bad? Was Wycliffe's Bible one of "the devil's perversions?" Could an Englishmen get saved reading Wycliffe's or Tyndale's Bible???
The Pilgrims, who came to America on the Mayflower, did not use KJV. They used a Geneva Bible. Were they all lost.
I believe when a sinner picks up a NASV and reads in Romans 10:13, "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved," and does that, he will be saved.
If a sinner picks up a RSV and reads in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, ". . . Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scripture," he has enough of the Gospel message to believe and be saved.
There is no doubt in my mind that a lost person can be saved by believing Acts 16:30-31 in the NKJV, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Some preachers use 1 Peter 1:23 to try to prove their point -- "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." Yes, we are born again by the incorruptible seed of the Word of God. But how much of the Word of God does it take to save a sinner? One word? Two words? Half a verse? A whole verse? One chapter? The whole Bible?
When Peter says we are born again by the Word of God (NOT the WORDS of God), he is speaking of the message of God. Notice, this is how Paul used the phrase "the word" in Acts 15:7, "that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear THE WORD of the gospel, and believe."
He was referring to the "message" of the gospel. The same usage of "the word" is seen in Colossians 1:5. ". . . ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel. At Antioch of Pisidia Paul said to the Jews, ". . . to you is the word of this salvation sent." He was speaking of the message of this salvation.
Acts 38:25 says Paul spoke "ONE word" then went on for three more verses where finally we read, when he said these WORDS . . ." Did Paul speak ONE word or several words? Obviously the one word" was the one message Paul delivered to the Jews and that message consisted of many words. (Other places where "the word" means the message or testimony are 2 Corinthians 1:18; Revelation 12:11; 1 Timothy 5:17; 2 Timothy 2:17).
All I am trying to say is that we are born again by the message of God's Word. Therefore, as long as I communicate God's message of salvation accurately to a sinner, he can be saved. 1 Peter 3:1 makes it clear that a man can be saved "WITHOUT the word."
Some may object by saying that the Holy Spirit will not breathe on untruth. I heartily agree. But suppose I say, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved," have I spoken the truth? Of course I have. I didn't tell a lie! And I didn't partially lie! Yet that is exactly how the NIV reads.
I disagree that if a "bible" has one untruth in it, it is ALL bad. If a preacher makes one error in a sermon does that make everything else he says wrong? If I misquote one verse while I'm preaching, does that mean my whole sermon is corrupt? Of course not!
Some people would reason from Matthew 7:17-18 that a bible that has corruption in it cannot produce good fruit. But this is stretching the passage. By the same reasoning, no church on the face of God's earth could ever bring forth good fruit since there are no perfect churches.
If the church is not perfect, then it must be imperfect. If it is imperfect, it must have corruption in it. I think you will agree that every church has a certain amount of sin (leaven) in it's members. But that doesn't mean that it is ALL CORRUPT.
Whatever corruption might be within the church does not prevent it from bringing forth some good fruit! The Corinthian Church had much corruption within it's ranks, yet Paul still found some good things to say about them (1 Cor. 1:4-7).
There have been a few occasions when I've won souls without even using an exact quote of Scripture. If I tell a lost man, "The Lord Jesus Christ died for your sins; He was buried, and on the third day He arose from the dead, and, if you will call upon the name of the Lord, He will save you," can that man get saved on the basis of what I told him?
I've lead souls to Christ in our church by simply telling them the Gospel without quoting any verse verbatim. Are they going to hell because they haven't heard the truth from a book with KJV stamped on the binding? The Sword of the Lord has published Dr. John R. Rice's pamphlet "Dear Catholic Friend" for over twenty years. That pamphlet uses the Douay Rheims exclusively, yet the Sword reports hundreds who have been saved reading it.
What about David's statement, "The law of the Lord is PERFECT, converting the soul". Does this prove only the perfect Word of God can convert the soul? David did NOT say, "The Word of God is perfect converting the soul." There is a difference between "the LAW of the Lord," and "the WORD of the Lord." The Law converts the soul by acting as "a schoolmaster" in turning the sinner to Christ (Gal. 3:24).
In closing, lest anyone misunderstand my position: The King James Bible is God's preserved Word in the English language. It is superior to anything, including "the Greek." It is perfect and without error! It is my final authority for all matters of faith and practice. I am NOT endorsing the use of modern "bible" versions as God's infallible Word. I know that finding a dollar in a garbage can does not make it a bank. But that wouldn't stop me from using the dollar to buy a 99 cent whopper. A dumpster doesn't make the dollar a counterfeit. The cash is still cash no matter where I find it.
And the Gospel message is still the Gospel whether I hear it spoken, read it in a tract, or find it in a book. God can still revive stones out of the heaps of rubbish! Simply because I read the Gospel in the RSV, doesn't automatically make it "another Gospel." Where ever any "bible" translation agrees with the KJV, that translation contains the Word of God. Where it contradicts the KJV, it is wrong.
|
|
|
© 2007 The Flaming Torch, All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|