saturneptune
New Member
Amen to you and Brother Gregory.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Any one else think I slandered the Niv here?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
well, the Institutes have been one of the most influencial texts ever written in Chrsitiandom, and the teachings of calvinism itself not by itself causing problems, its when we as believers, BOTh cals and non cals, want to be inthe flesh srguing this, and not abiding in the Spirit!
always remember that calvinism, or teachings of calvin himself, are basically a systemamized way to vie wthe scriptures regarding doctrines of the bible, so same as non cal theologies in that sense!
Also remember that it was jesus who died for my sins, NOT calvin, and Apsotles were inspired of God in doctrines, NOT calvin, nor any other writer since them!
Of course not. You said the NIV dilutes the distinction between the sexes. That is absolute rubbish. You are continuning to try and cover up that lie but it still will not go away. You have yet to support your outrageous contention with even a single example. You're shameful.
Hiding your head in the sand won't make that historicalfact go away.
Seriously John Calvin was a great teacher/scholar/theolgian/preacher among other his other varied gifts.
Nothing much aside from his view of baptism.
Yes,it is very apparent that you have never read a page of his Institutes.
Well,being a semi-Pelagian-Arminian in your theology maybe they are putting up with you despite the flaws in your system.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Not ALL Division Is Bad
Amen to ALL you had to say brother..And to Brother Saturneptune's comments as well....I will remind you both though that not all division is of the devil....some of it is actually necessary. Our Lord spoke of this in Luke 12:49-53. He declares Himself to be a divider. Truth from error. We must continue to prayerfully discern truth from error and seperate between the two. There will always be disagreements here about which is which. We just need to DIE DAILY to this flesh and pray God will daily fill us with His Spirit and the fruits of His Spirit that we can walk in truth and love toward them that are without or those who oppose God and themselves in error. God forbid that we would EVER be prideful. Amen?
Bro.Greg:saint:
Amen to ALL you had to say brother..And to Brother Saturneptune's comments as well....I will remind you both though that not all division is of the devil....some of it is actually necessary. Our Lord spoke of this in Luke 12:49-53. He declares Himself to be a divider. Truth from error. We must continue to prayerfully discern truth from error and seperate between the two. There will always be disagreements here about which is which. We just need to DIE DAILY to this flesh and pray God will daily fill us with His Spirit and the fruits of His Spirit that we can walk in truth and love toward them that are without or those who oppose God and themselves in error. God forbid that we would EVER be prideful. Amen?
Bro.Greg:saint:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
It ain't so.
As Christians, don't you agree that we need to be very careful about distributing misinformation?
Tell that to the "Yes"-man too.
And just what would some of those "ridiculous positions" be?
Well, given the relative profitability of pornography and Bibles, it would me more likely that porn was subsidizing Bibles than the other way around ...
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Did you read the whole article? --
It was the anti-Spanish group that introduced the king to George Villiers, reputedly one of the handsomest men in Europe. Through Villiers they sought a conduit to power.
Even at the time it was thought unseemly that a lover should be provided for the king at the connivance of the queen and the archbishop. ...
Even at the time it was thought unseemly that a lover should be provided for the king at the connivance of the queen and the archbishop. ...
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Amy, why did you only ask InTheLight this? When Revmitchell posted a source you just responded with a simple "Thank you".
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
By your conjecture, since the AV1611 clearly condemns unrighteous anger, lying, covetousness, envy, and stealing we can conclude that King James didn't commit these sins also?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I said thank you because I appreciated the link, but I hadn't read the article at that point.
Regarding ITL's articles I guess I just find it hard to accept that King James was a homosexual. I would like proof of that.
I'm not KJVO. I use several versions.
Does that also apply to King James I and his translators?
S. H. Ford wrote that "almost canonized head of the Episcopal Church [King James] thus, in the name of Christ, authorized poor Wightman's death" (Origin of the Baptist, p. 21). Phil Stringer observed that Wightman was burned at the stake "for declaring that baptism of infants was an abominable custom" or "for being a Baptist" (Faithful Baptist Witness, p. 7).
KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 that was approved also by King James I (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (Ibid., p. 93). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11).
This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (Ibid., p. 18). Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi). William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127). While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93). McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150). MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Men Behind the KJV, p. 96). Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs, p. 322).
Last edited by a moderator:
KJV-only author David Cloud admitted that King James “was a profligate, conniving, deceitful man” (Faith, p. 586). Ashley observed: "James was a congenital, if perhaps unconscious liar: he did not regard truthfulness as a necessary royal attribute" (Stuarts in Love, p. 103). Fraser maintained: “James was already a practiced deceiver by the time he reached his teens” (Mary Queen of Scots, p. 457). W. H. Stowell noted that James was "a great dissembler, a greater liar" and that he was "unscrupulous in breaking his promises" (History of the Puritans, pp. 230, 246). Sir Walter Scott pointed out that James "had been early imbued with the principle that the power of dissembling was essential to the art of reigning" (Scotland, II, p. 138). W. M. Hetherington wrote: "The policy of principle he knew not, because he was himself unprincipled; but the policy of falsehood, cunning, and sycophancy, he well understood and practised" (History of the Church of Scotland, p. 203). Hetherington also noted that James "had repeatedly broken his most solemn pledges, and brought his word into such suspicion, that the more earnestly he protested, the less he was believed" (Ibid., p. 175). Gardiner wrote: "No one could be sure that what James said one day he would not unsay the next" (History of England, III, p. 347).
One biography listed the following as the lesser faults of James: "the too-familiar manners, the bawdy talk, the blasphemy that came too readily to his tongue, [and] the habit of heavy drinking" (Making of a King, p. 15). Riggs cited King James's own physician, Theodore Mayerne, as noting that his Majesty "errs as to quality, quantity, frequency, time, and order" in his drinking (Ben Jonson, p. 253). Scott declared: "His language was so filthy English historians still refuse to cite it" (Great Christian Revolution, p. 136). Eadie observed that the common talk of King James "was a continuous infringement of the Third Commandment" (English Bible, II, p. 163). E. S. Turner noted that James was "a prodigious swearer" (Court of St. James's, p. 120). J. B. Marsden described James I as “an habitual swearer, a drunkard, and a liar” (History, p. 380). Akrigg confirmed that "King James was notorious for his profanity" (Jacobean Pageant, p. 131). John Jesse referred to “his reputation for profane swearing” (Memoirs, I, p. 51). Neal stated: "Upon his accession to the English crown, he threw off the mask, and by degrees gave himself up to luxury and ease, and all kinds of licentiousness. His language was obscene, and his actions very often lewd and indecent" (History of the Puritans, p. 277).
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Thank you for responding. I know you're not KJVO.
There has been a segment of historians that believe that King James was a homosexual, while other historians are not so certain that the evidence can be considered conclusive. There is not likely going to be absolute 'proof'.