Is a doctrinal statement or the Scriptures the starting point for your church?

I don't know who you are addressing. Click reply on the post you are replying to. It helps.

Chester and I have not been arguing about anything. None of our conversation has been about who is right or wrong. It is a discussion.

As to the English definition of a Christian denomination you can confirm with a dictionary. I would not argue about something so settled.

When I present information to consider it is not to argue.

And some churches don't have a history of trying to be different or having separated in protest. That might be one churches history for being independent.

Another might have developed from a neighborhood bible study that grew out of a house. No intention of being critical of existing denominations or feeling the need to start a different kind.

They are just believers being believers the best they know how.

And if it is just them and no other churches connected to them it does not fit the definition of denomination. If you want to insist that it does that would be a definition in YOUR mind not in the Webster dictionary.

And I won't argue about it. Even though I think I just did. LOL. But I am done now.

Okay I like this post you made and my reply was a general reply to what’s being said so far in this topic. Thank you.

If a ....."statement of faith"... does not accept the KJV 1611 edition as God's word...better pass it. Many references to the ...mini bible concept...practiced by several denominations., i.e baptist..."baptism not necessary", etc.
If not then you are traveling with the new age religion group.

I have never heard of a denomination or a church that mentions the KJV in a statement of faith. Do you know of one?

It is usually something to the effect of "we believe in the inspiration of the word of God as written in the original languages and autographs (manuscripts.)

Statements of faith are not supposed to be that minuet. They are just guides to help you identify the fellowship you agree with for the most part.

To find out if the pastor only teaches from the KJV and has a rule that no other bible can be used you would probably have to call and ask.

Even the ones that had such a rule would never advertise it in a statement of faith. It is too fanatical. It would guarantee a very small group of ignorant, belligerent followers.

I mean it would be great if they did, at least people would know what to expect but I would be interested to know if there is such a statement of faith out there.

As a matter of fact several churches do.

WOW......many baptist refutes need for baptism....where does that come from...not the Bible. I don't intend to know what the denominations require...don't need them.

The Bible is not "minuet"......whatever that refers.

If their "statement" says KJV 1611 only, I run the other way; it's a cult.

There you go again judging people you know nothing about.

I know. If you choose to put your head in the sand that's you're problem.

Are you KJV 1611 only?

No

KJV only?

No. I have several translations and dictionaries I use in my studying, but I prefer the KJ because I find it easy to use and understand.

Tell me, who have I "judged" here? Who, specifically, have I condemned? I've judged a movement, yes. But you say I've judged "people."

Because I condemn a movement you think I'm condemning everyone in that movement? You say things like this to get people to shut up and tow the line.

Many different translations out there.
Each may have a preference.
Just do not see where it is necessary to pass judgment on a person or group and label them a cult because of their preference.

You can say what you please, just as I can.
Movements are made up of people.
Now if you have first hand knowledge that a group is a cult, give us their name.
But to label someone a cult based on their translation preference is really foolish.

You keep saying I'm passing judgement on individual people. For the record, that's your opinion. Who, specifically, have I called out and said you're a cultist?

If it were only their preference that would be one thing; but you don't seem to be very familiar with KJV onlyism. The KJV is the only Bible in the English language authorized by God. You know what that means? Everyone who doesn't read only the KJV or the KJV 1611 is an inferior believer; they aren't getting all of Yahweh's blessing; they're anemic—if not outright on Satan's side. The whole idea of is ludicrous.

To create a doctrinal statement that says the KJV 1611 is the only Bible authorized by God is un-Christian and does a disservice to the Kingdom. If you can't see how it's a cult then I really don't know what to tell you.

In fact, just in our area here there are some churches that have KJV only on their signs by the main highway.

I don't know that I have directly seen a statement of faith with KJV only in it, but I am quite certain some groups have it in there.

I would run the other way too! And keep going for awhile.

But I would not call them a cult. I have some good very sincere and godly friends in these groups.

A translation "preference" is a whole lot different approach than the KJV only teaching.

There are a lot of good, very sincere, and godly people who get caught up in cults. I'm not suggesting we write off people in these groups; but we shouldn't be afraid to call it what it is.