Praying in KJV English (Revisited)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
In 1 Sam 20:30 we read in the KJV "Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman". Thou is used in reference to a human.

Therefore I do not see anything distinctive about using Thee and Thou when addressing God.
 

De Jager

Puritan Board Sophomore
I sometimes throw in a thee or a thy. In our Dutch reformed circles, the older generations would pray in older style english out of reverence. The idea being that you're not just talking to anyone. For the same reason they wore suits to church. Of course, some just did it because everyone else did. You're going to have both.

Anyways, from what I read, you should move on to a reformed church. A church that consists of a single family and that believes that you can only be saved by KJV english is what I could call a cult.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
Yes this is indeed what they believe. Their argument is that since Christ is called the Word in John 1 and the KJV is the true word of God (according to them), that therefore there is an inseparable connection between Jesus Christ and the King James Bible. And so they say that since God only saves by Christ, that the KJV is the only means of salvation. I questioned them last summer as to whether or not they worship the Bible and they denied it. But doesn't all this really amount to being fooled into worshipping the Bible? Seems like a subtle but deadly error. I would have left last summer had they not denied they worship the Bible, but by now I could feel in my heart this is actually the case. Seems like to them the Trinity is "Father, KJV Bible and Holy Spirit."

Yes I have left there for good.

p.s. to anyone reading this thread. I actually use the KJV and have all my life. And yet it's for it's accuracy, not in any sense with the idea that the translation is inspired. I do hold to the traditional Greek and Hebrew texts being what God has preserved and yet this is a matter of faith. James White seems to think otherwise.
According to the International Bible Societies website ;

"According to Ethnologue, there are currently 7,099 living languages in the world. At least one portion of Scripture has been translated for 3,312 of these languages. The New Testament is available in 1,521 languages, with portions in 1,121. The complete Bible has been translated into 670 languages." *

*Statistics courtesy of our ministry partner, Wycliffe Global Alliance, Oct. 2017.

Perhaps mention to those folks at that church that prayers should be made for all of these poor souls throughout the world doomed to eternal destruction because they haven't been saved by and with the KJV Bible.
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Sophomore
There is a decent natural reason for using "thou", that is unfamiliar to English speakers.

Some languages have an honor system built into them. Examples are Korean and Japanese. You would use different styles of words when addressing a king than you would a coworker, and it can sound like the differences between a "thee/thou" style vs. a "you" style. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful if you used the same style for the king as you would the coworker. It is assumed in these countries that you will honor this system.

It exists in Spanish. Tu is the informal you (friends, buddies, peers), usted the formal (to bosses, authorities, parents, unfamiliar persons).

Even in Hebrew (although plural pronouns are not used to address God), Elohim is a "majestic plural."

English did have it. "You" used to be the respectful formal, "thou" was informal. That obviously is lost. English culture somewhat has it. Brits still refer to "Her Majesty the Queen"whenever she is spoken of. Though an honor system is not built into our language grammar anymore, we are still mindful of the form of our approach or reference to persons of authority.

KJV english is some people's way of building honor into our words. For many, we English speakers are probably the odd ones for not having this feature.

In any case, whether expressed in grammar or no, our approach to God is not like our approach to others. We come with confidence as children, but knowing He is a consuming fire we come with reverence and godly fear. Whether "you" or "thou", honor and fear ought to come out in the way He is addressed.
Not sure if you've come across this yet in your study, but many Chinese Christians use the pronoun (ni3) when addressing God instead of (same pronunciation), presumably out of respect, though I've never specifically asked about it. Generally speaking, the more respectful form for "you" in Chinese is (nin2) of course, but I don't think I've heard it used of God.

If you look closely, this essentially replaces the "meaning" radical on the left ( = human) with the divine radical (full form = ).

Naturally, this distinction only comes out in writing since the pronunciation of both words is identical.

I don't think this particular pronoun originated with Christians, but I think they're the only ones in modern China still using it.
 
Last edited:

Andrew35

Puritan Board Sophomore
I know that a lot of brethren use this language in prayer and that's fine. And I can be charitable about it. It's when every single person in a church does it and the one who doesn't can automatically be made to feel like he doesn't reverence God enough, even if they don't say anything about it. So I'm just asking that we consider the facts from scripture about the use of language, such as where Paul talks in 2 Cor 3 about using great plainness of speech under the ministry of the gospel, not as Moses who put a veil over his face, etc. And also the fact that when speaking or praying publicly, the language we use must be intelligible to any who would walk in and hear us.

But I suppose that if I were to follow my own logic on this issue then I should abandon the KJV because that's the only Bible I use. And yet it's only for accuracy. Not because I think that God needs to talk to me in Elizabethan English. We tend to forget that God can speak every language in the world, and really, these oddities only exist in the English speaking world. Chinese believers aren't over there in their underground churches squabbling over whether or not to read or pray in the Chinese KJV. There is no such thing. They are more worried about being thrown into prison for naming the name of Jesus (or however you say it in Chinese). I think it's important to see the bigger picture, that we English speaking folk are not the only Christians in the world, and that Christ has redeemed by His blood people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And our work as Christians is not only to build up the body of Christ, but to go out into the highways and byways and invite sinners to come to the feast. We are part of a bigger, worldwide work and Christian family that will one day coexist in heaven. And in heaven who knows what language we will speak! But I can guarantee you it won't be KJV English.
Well, there is the Chinese Union Version, which is the standard, but is quite difficult for Chinese believers to understand in parts, I think. Some of our friends, highly educated teachers, really struggled with the book of Romans and preferred reading it in English (because their English was fluent). They said the Chinese was "too philosophical."

I think there are a number of modern translations, but I don't know which is best currently. Haven't kept up with it.

There's definitely a Chinese "Christian vocabulary," though. You notice it after a while. Sometimes our friends who were older Christians would tell us that the new converts "needed to learn the proper vocabulary to pray," because they would use incorrect words at times. Kind of an interesting phenomenon.

I recall once when a translator -- a new Christian -- was translating English to Chinese, an older Chinese believer jumped in and corrected her. She explained later to us that the translator had used the Buddhist term for "temple" rather than the Jewish/Christian one.

Granted, this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I thought you might find it interesting.
 
Last edited:

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
I pray from the pulpit, during visitation, in the family and in private using "the kings". Having used Valley of Vision since shortly after I was saved, Henry's A Method For Prayer, and listening to lots of Martyn Lloyd Jones and Dr Beeke have all influenced that choice. It helps me slow down and actually pray more reverently and intentionally. Only a couple of people in my congregation pray in the kings English. I don't advocate that they should. They may if they wish. I would be deeply grieved if members were getting on each other for either using or not using the kings in prayer. I use this dialect for all my praying, but do not think anyone else must do this.
 

Drhabost

Puritan Board Freshman
I saw another discussion on this from 2011 and after perusing it, I wasn't sure if I saw some points that I would have made on the subject. I may have missed them though. So forgive me in advance if my points were already made.

So I have been in a church for some time where everyone except me prays in KJV English. They do not seem to like me for this fact and I am seeking out another reformed church because of it. But the one I attended this past Lord's Day does the same thing. Their prayer meeting consisted entirely of this, from every person that prayed. I remained silent and felt grieved in my spirit.

So here's my beef with this. Prayer is something that is commanded by God, that is a given. But the apostle tells us that as believers, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, by whom we cry out to God, Abba Father. When God truly saved us, we called out to Him in our despair to rescue and save us from our sins and from His just condemnation. We looked to Jesus Christ alone for justification and life. And He did indeed hear us as promised and sent the Spirit of Christ into our hearts, by whom we now cry out, Abba Father.

Now my point is not necessarily to go into what Abba means, but to argue that this miracle of new birth that takes place in our souls puts into us a spirit of groaning and supplication to our Holy Father jn heaven. We depend on Him for everything and every breath we take. And the majority of our private prayer is indeed groaning that cannot even be expressed. And yet God our Father knows. We groan in our pains and we enter His presence by Christ and only by His merits.

Now amidst my cries to God I have never felt it brought me any closer to Him to speak to Him in Elizabethan English. After all, do believers say in Russia have to cry out to their Father in heaven in some altered form of Russian to feel as though they are paying God due reverence?

To me it seems like religious hypocrisy to pray this way, especially publicly, considering the things I have stated about the nature of true prayer. And even though publicly, we must pray intelligibly, the language we use ought to still be that of a child to their Father.

The church at it's heart, must be evangelical as well and ever seeking to expand the work of the gospel. We are not here on the earth to form little religious societies filled with oddities which may be a hindrance to sinners seeking God, or even to those not yet seeking Him. What will a man think who walks into our assembly seeking help and guidance think when he hears us praying, O God we thank thee for thy richest blessings which thou hast bestowed upon us...etc..? Will he get the impression from this that we truly have a personal relationship with God, or that we are simply performing a religious duty? Maybe he will think that he wants nothing to do with Christianity now because he could never bring himself to pray in such a way.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.
Some interesting thoughts here. To be honest, judging by some of your other messages the use of thee and thou sounds like it's the least of your problems!

I'm 27 and have seen, in my local church context, the move from thees and thous to modern language. I've thought about it a lot for that reason so, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts.

Firstly, it's unsurprisingly the case that the initiators of the change in language had their own theological baggage. They were the hip, loose wing of the church who wanted to drag the church into "coolness" and who made complaints about the church being old fashioned and unattractive to the world. This manifested in a desire for bands, hymns, casual wear to church, doctrinal carelessness and, yes, casual prayers. It should come as no surprise that, despite the best of intentions, that people following in their linguistic footsteps should be considered suspect.

And that leads me to the second point. You quite rightly draw a distinction between private and public prayer. In public prayer, men are leading their congregation into the audience chamber of the Lord. It's not the same as the quiet word we have in the morning. We should do so with "reverence and Godly fear". We should not pray the same type of prayers because it is a public act. Many these days would argue that this is hypocritical, however, to do so is to adopt the word's philosophy on authenticity. We do not always act as we feel, nor should we always pray as we feel. To be clear, I am not arguing for insincere prayers, but you can be sincere without sounding like a boyband.

For example, if an earthly prince addressed his father in public in the same way he did in private, it would be outrageously disrespectful. Does that make him a hypocrite? To paraphrase scripture "if an earthly prince knows how to show respect, how much more should we as heavenly princes". I suppose you see it in the prayers of Christ, which addressed the Lord very respectfully. Frankly, we don't know how people pray in private, and if they use older language it's because our Bible and the best of our books are written in older English. It would be natural to retain that in our prayers.

For these reasons I don't think it's right at all to tar most people who use this language with the brush of hypocrisy or formalism. Personally, I rarely use thee and thou and the associated language in private prayer, occasionally do in family worship and almost always do in public prayer, unless it's grammatically clunky.

I don't know what you think of Abba, but I have heard modern Christians (and I don't mean modern as in "alive today" say it's the equivalent of "daddy". How nauseating. Can you imagine, reverently speaking, Christ praying in public to "daddy". I feel horrible writing that, it's so disrespectful, but that's the argument being made.

Lastly, in terms of the unsaved, prayer is not an evangelistic tool or a message to the hearers. And even if it was, it's just as possible that someone would come into a church and hear these blue-collar workers praying in exalted language and think "wow, there's something to this".

As usual, I've totally failed to be succinct, but in summary, I'd encourage you not to worry about people's use of thee and thou. It's been used without harm for 4 or 5 centuries and it's not reflective of the sincerity of the prayer.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
Much of what is called KJV English actually predates 1611 and is really Coverdale English, the language of the Book of Common Prayer [BCP]. Baxter's liturgy still reflects the older Coverdale language of the BCP.

I tried to think of how people would react to the use of a contemporary English Lord's Prayer. "Our heavenly Father, Holy be your name. You kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins and obligations, as we forgive those who sin against us. Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the Kingdom and power, and glory, forever and ever. So be it." Maybe I am just too steeped in Coverdale English, but a contemporary conversational English Lord's prayer just doesn't sound respectful

It makes sense to me that people would pray using the same language as the translation of the Bible that is used in that Church for Bible Reading and preaching.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
My own two cents...

If you’re convicted to pray in Elizabethan English, do so. If in modern, do so. If you want to discuss and disagree that’s fine. Don’t look down on those who do the other. This sums to be the problem here - I don’t think the OP has an issue with so many in his church praying in KJV English as much as they are not happy with him praying in modern. That’s the problem.

I and my church party in modern English but if one of the elders used the older language no one would bat an eye.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
It's when every single person in a church does it and the one who doesn't can automatically be made to feel like he doesn't reverence God enough, even if they don't say anything about it.
And there's the issue. That's why you were disappointed with the new church you attended, right? It wasn't anything they actually said to you, but what you assumed they likely were thinking. It's also an understandable reaction, given the hurt you experienced in your old house church.

From all you've reported about that house church, you probably do need to leave it. But be careful not to let the baggage from your house-church experience cause you to reject the new church just because they are similar in some ways. Don't assume the worst about your new church. Instead, discuss your concerns with them and explain your history.

You need to heal. You will need reassurances that the new church won't treat you the same way the house church did. And they can't give you those reassurances if they don't know about your past hurt. So you need to tell them about it. That's probably scary to do, But given what you experienced in the house church, it's probably something you will need to do with any new church before you can feel truly comfortable. In fact, opening up and being vulnerable about your past hurt, and seeing how the new church responds, is a good way to find out whether or not the new church can be a place where you will heal. So I urge you, even though it will be hard, to talk to someone at this new church about your painful house-church experience.
 

Rescued

Puritan Board Freshman
In 1 Sam 20:30 we read in the KJV "Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman". Thou is used in reference to a human.

Therefore I do not see anything distinctive about using Thee and Thou when addressing God.
Some sincere Christians pray like this and I don't have a problem with that. But my point of all this was to prove just what you're saying, that really, it's not something God desires or requires. Does He require respect? of course! But to imagine that using "The King's English" from 16th Century England, here in the United States in 2021 is somehow more respectful than simply addressing God respectfully in modern English...well it's just silly. The respect for Him comes from the heart and it's the spirit in which we pray that He looks at. Somehow I fear that imagining that Thee and Thou are inherently "holy language" in the eyes of God is dangerous because we can get caught up in legalism quickly when we go down this path. We then begin to look at other brothers for whom Christ died with disdain in our hearts because they pray to God in modern English. That can be very sinful. We should remember too all that our Lord had to say about the Pharisees, and how they worshipped God in vain, teaching as doctrine the commands of men. He warned them about their hypocrisy and how they laid burdens on others that were grievous and that they kept others out of the kingdom and they too were barred from it. And that their condemnation would be greater. The lowest place in hell is reserved for religious hypocrites.

Now this isn't to say that anyone who prays in KJV is Pharisaical or is going to hell. Many I know are sincere brothers. But it's a warning to us though do our best to stay away from pretentious religious practices that God never required, that can have an adverse effect on those who are weak or seeking Christ. Whether or not the practice in discussion falls under that category I guess would be for God to judge, not us.

Does a man pray in KJV, then if in his own mind it's more respectful to God, then so be it. But nobody should imagine that God ever required it.
 

Rescued

Puritan Board Freshman
Get back at them by using KJV English for non-religious purposes: "How thinkest thee in thine heart whether it will behoove us to diminish our filthy lucre by procuring ice cream cones tonight?" It will make a point without being confrontational. It would be jolly fun to put the teens up to creatively doing this. Have a KJ party where everyone talks this way; punishment for ordinary English is a frown sticker. It's my feeling that many believers don't even realize they are doing this. Hearing KJ's language for secular conversation would make the point.
Ah yes indeed! I might beseech them forthwith that upon a fortnite hence we do this. But peradventure we may be an hungered for some thing of greater substance, it may indeed behoove us to go into yonder village and procure unto ourselves victuals before advancing to frothier pleasures such as this "ice cream" of which thou speakest.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Get back at them by using KJV English for non-religious purposes: "How thinkest thee in thine heart whether it will behoove us to diminish our filthy lucre by procuring ice cream cones tonight?" It will make a point without being confrontational. It would be jolly fun to put the teens up to creatively doing this. Have a KJ party where everyone talks this way; punishment for ordinary English is a frown sticker. It's my feeling that many believers don't even realize they are doing this. Hearing KJ's language for secular conversation would make the point.
Are you being serious with this suggestion? I can't tell. But if you are, I find it difficult to see how this would be interpreted as anything other than sarcastic irreverence. It would be like me quoting only the Psalms all day in everyday speech to "make a point" to an exclusive psalmodist. I think taking the have-a-sincere-conversation route is far better. The suggestion made here seems to be more on the side of provocation than anything else.
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
Are you being serious with this suggestion? I can't tell. But if you are, I find it difficult to see how this would be interpreted as anything other than sarcastic irreverence. It would be like me quoting only the Psalms all day in everyday speech to "make a point" to an exclusive psalmodist. I think taking the have-a-sincere-conversation route is far better. The suggestion made here seems to be more on the side of provocation than anything else.
You don't have to speak with only the Psalms all day, brother, just in between the Call to Worship and Benediction!
 

Rev. Todd Ruddell

Puritan Board Junior
As some of the responses have made clear, the difficulty is not really "praying in KJV English" but addressing the Lord with the older, and accurate, second person singular pronouns Thee, Thy, etc. No one prays in KJV English that I'm aware of--it is the pronouns only that are usually retained. The objections of "being out of touch with the world around us" are really more along the lines of "unnecessarily being out of touch" and this perception is subjective--for we all confess that our Lord said, "Marvel not, if the world hate you." I appreciate the encouragements to charity, and second them.

As one who uses the older pronouns addressing the Lord in public and private worship, it is in keeping with my understanding of the accuracy of those pronouns, which a deeper reading of John 3 makes clear, where our Lord tells Nicodemus that "ye" that is, all you Pharisees, must be born again. The singular "Thee" and "Thou" are in keeping with the prayers of Scripture, and the only way in English to retain this singular address to our God. Other languages have this facility. Sadly, modern English does not.

Finally, I understand that there are those who retain this address to the Lord out of tradition, habit, practice, and that it can be a point of haughtiness or stumbling for some. Of course, I do not support that. It is interesting to note that in several of the posts above it has been generally said, "I have no problem with those who use the older language." It seems to me that this begs the question in favor of the modern usage, and *may* reveal a bias in favor of it. For my part, I assume that those who use the modern pronoun "you" in addressing the Lord retain a proper attitude of reverence. I have been witness to other forms of address to the Lord that I would not consider reverent at all. But if I'm being led in prayer by a man in the Church using the modern pronoun "you" when addressing the Lord, I do not let that withhold my hearty "Amen!" at the end. I pray for the same charity for myself, when I lead in prayer.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I use the Book of Common Prayer in private worship, which uses thee and thou. I don't say "cockatrice" or words like that, though. I also don't say "the bowels of Christ."
 

Rescued

Puritan Board Freshman
As some of the responses have made clear, the difficulty is not really "praying in KJV English" but addressing the Lord with the older, and accurate, second person singular pronouns Thee, Thy, etc. No one prays in KJV English that I'm aware of--it is the pronouns only that are usually retained. The objections of "being out of touch with the world around us" are really more along the lines of "unnecessarily being out of touch" and this perception is subjective--for we all confess that our Lord said, "Marvel not, if the world hate you." I appreciate the encouragements to charity, and second them.

As one who uses the older pronouns addressing the Lord in public and private worship, it is in keeping with my understanding of the accuracy of those pronouns, which a deeper reading of John 3 makes clear, where our Lord tells Nicodemus that "ye" that is, all you Pharisees, must be born again. The singular "Thee" and "Thou" are in keeping with the prayers of Scripture, and the only way in English to retain this singular address to our God. Other languages have this facility. Sadly, modern English does not.

Finally, I understand that there are those who retain this address to the Lord out of tradition, habit, practice, and that it can be a point of haughtiness or stumbling for some. Of course, I do not support that. It is interesting to note that in several of the posts above it has been generally said, "I have no problem with those who use the older language." It seems to me that this begs the question in favor of the modern usage, and *may* reveal a bias in favor of it. For my part, I assume that those who use the modern pronoun "you" in addressing the Lord retain a proper attitude of reverence. I have been witness to other forms of address to the Lord that I would not consider reverent at all. But if I'm being led in prayer by a man in the Church using the modern pronoun "you" when addressing the Lord, I do not let that withhold my hearty "Amen!" at the end. I pray for the same charity for myself, when I lead in prayer.
So the underlying assumption is that addressing our heavenly Father in the formal Thee and Thou which were the singular form of You in old English, is more reverent when addressing God today in 2021. Because if we addressed Him as "You", He would think that we consider Him to be a plurality of deities? Or He would think us to be disrespecting Him if we spoke to Him in the language we use to speak to our earthly father? Children are to honor their earthly father with the same level of respect they would pay to God, so why shouldn't they use the singular Thee and Thou to pay their Dad more respect?

The very fact one thinks in their heart that addressing God in the singular Thee's and Thou's from the past is more respectful than just using the pronouns we speak in our day, will by default cause them to believe those who differ are in error and in sin. And this road will lead to legalism.

If I pray, Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, is that less respectful than, Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name...? The first, in modern English, is the singular and that is the language we speak. We no longer speak old English. The pronoun "you" is more versatile today, and it's the context signifies the singular or plural. When we begin our prayer with "Our Father in heaven..." we are setting the context that we are talking to a singular person. This has just been the development of our language. But we shouldn't imply some moral decline has taken place simply because our pronoun "you" is more versatile now.

We are the people of God for today, not yesterday. And to imagine that God somehow requires an English speaking man in the 21st century to use the singular Thee's and Thou's from the 16th century is pure fiction.
 
Last edited:

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
The very fact you think in your heart that addressing God in the singular Thee's and Thou's from a bygone age is more respectful than just using the pronouns we speak in our day, betrays the fact that you do not truly in your heart think that those who differ from you are properly reverencing God. So you can't feign charity towards them when you truly do not think they are right. You honestly probably think they are sinning by not properly reverencing God with the Thee's and Thou's.
This is not sound reasoning. It is a false dichotomy.

It is entirely possible for one to believe someone is wrong about something and still give them charity. If this were not so, then we would be left with one very difficult dilemma—charity or uniformity. But there are other options. For example, Baptists and Presbyterians believe the other is sinning with regard to baptism, yet they still can (and must) be charitable.
 
Last edited:

Rescued

Puritan Board Freshman
This is not sound reasoning. It is a false dichotomy.

It is entirely possible for one to believe someone is wrong about something and still give them charity. If this were not so, then we would be left with one very difficult dilemma—charity or uniformity. But there are other options. For example, Baptists and Presbyterians believe the other is sinning with regard to baptism, yet they still can (and must) be charitable.

Brother, I would softly admonish you not to respond to a brother who has gone out of his way to be kind and in fact charitable by accusing him of being disingenuous, asserting about him opinions and dispositions which he himself has not and likely will not own, as well as using inflammatory words like “ludicrous” and “pure fiction.” Your appeals for charity and unity do not sit well when they are couched in speech that is both uncharitable and divisive.
While your were writing this to me I was in the process of editing my post. May I ask you to go back and re-read it? It's after midnight and I was writing and editing at the same time. I read what you quote here and saw that it was too harsh.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
While your were writing this to me I was in the process of editing my post. May I ask you to go back and re-read it? It's after midnight and I was writing and editing at the same time. I read what you quote here and saw that it was too harsh.
Yes, I did notice you edited it. I’ll delete the relevant part of my post. Please don’t think I was trying to scold you or something. Heaven knows I’ve done my fair share of heated rhetoric on here over the years. I get it. It’s easy to do when we are passionate about something. Passion is a good thing.
 

Rescued

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, I did notice you edited it. I’ll delete the relevant part of my post. Please don’t think I was trying to scold you or something. Heaven knows I’ve done my fair share of heated rhetoric on here over the years. I get it. It’s easy to do when we are passionate about something. Passion is a good thing.
Thanks brother. Look I probably shouldn't have even started this post after having been hurt by these people. I know that many sincere and godly brethren pray with the antiquated pronouns. But I'm not going to start doing it to fit in at a church. It's not how I talk to my Heavenly Father. And I feel like I would be trying to please men instead if I did that just to make them happy. God looks on the heart. That should have been the crux of this whole argument. Heart worship or lip service.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Thanks brother. Look I probably shouldn't have even started this post after having been hurt by these people. I know that many sincere and godly brethren pray with the antiquated pronouns. But I'm not going to start doing it to fit in at a church. It's not how I talk to my Heavenly Father. And I feel like I would be trying to please men instead if I did that just to make them happy. God looks on the heart. That should have been the crux of this whole argument. Heart worship or lip service.
Honestly, it sounds like you have answered your own OP right here. This sounds perfectly reasonable and biblical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top