AV 1611 and the Church of Rome

[rsr]

Gene said:

"The Geneva Bible was still used primarily by those with serious theological problems with the Anglican Church until the time of the English Civil War (roughly)."

Not so roughly. The Geneva became unpopular especially after the Restoration because it was associated with the Parliamentary Party. Not a good place to be, politically, with the Stuarts back in charge.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
This persecution of the Church of England against us because of the rejection of the AV and opposition of other romish practices and equivocations of the CofE of those who went before us is part of our Baptist heritage.
--------------------------------------------------


First of all, you show you do not understand the full extent of the history of that time, NOR the Anglicans beliefs, nor do you pay much attention to the words of the Lord:

Matthew 10

25. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26. Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


1 Cor. 1

0. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Actually, michelle, he is quite correct. I happen to have a degree in history. In fact, I happen to have specialized in The Religious, political, and social development of Great Britain. You know where I took that set of courses, michelle...LONDON, ENGLAND! You're the one showing a remarkable ignorance right now. I'm sitting here with a book on the History of the Church of Scotland right now.

Ironically, Anglicans do, in fact own up to their persecution of Baptists and the users of the Geneva Bible as being sinful and wrong. Why is what is good enough for them NOT good enough for you?

 

[rsr]

It would help if we would stop posting long strings of Scripture that have nothing to do with the topic.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by rsr:
Gene said:

"The Geneva Bible was still used primarily by those with serious theological problems with the Anglican Church until the time of the English Civil War (roughly)."

Not so roughly. The Geneva became unpopular especially after the Restoration because it was associated with the Parliamentary Party. Not a good place to be, politically, with the Stuarts back in charge.

Actually, that had a lot to do with Charles II's installation and what he did to the Kirk. He tried to impose bishops upon them and broke the promises of the Covenanters. This had more to do with his belief in autocracy and the primacy of the monarchy over Parliament. By extension he felt he needed to do this to the church, and the best way was to extend the Episcopalian form of church gov't into the Kirk, which did not set well, particularly with Scots lowlanders. (Remember, he eventually dissolved Parliament). It took the English revolution of 1688 and William's enthroning to undue the damage that the Catholic Stuarts did to the Puritans, the Baptists, and even to the Kirk itself. In the North, it took the Jacobite Rebellion to put Catholic unrest and influence to the side completely, and this was solidified by the siding of the Kirk with the Hanovers over the Stuarts.

It should be noted that the First Great Awakening in America, which was Reformed theologically, was not tied to the KJV. Johnathan Edwards' listeners actually preferred following his sermons/lectures from their own Greek New Testaments. (Sproul, The Soul's Quest for God ). (This dispells the KJVO myth that the First Great Awakening was somehow associated with the KJV).

It should be noted that the Anglican Church did become more truly "Reformed" over time as all this went on. It's only sensible, as Presbyterianism influenced it more and more, and then the rise of Methodism eventually came, though it was more Arminian in nature, also reflective of the shifting social philosophies of the age, which tended more toward ideas regarding personal liberty, which tend to dovetail rather well with Arminianism itself. (Note: Wesleyanism itself, according to his own writings was more "Reformed" than Arminianism itself, it would take Finney in the US for classic Arminianism to show a more distinct rise. Wesleyanism originally was actually a hybrid of Reformed theology, German Moravianism , and Arminianism itself).

 

[michelle]

---------------------------------------------------
Ah, the infamous KJVO double standard at work again. Ruckman believes in his own definition of advanced revelation, michelle, We've been over this before. If you get to discount persons on the basis of their beliefs then we get the same privlege.
--------------------------------------------------


No, I have shown no double standards. You have shown you are stubborn to truth however and that you actually are the one to hold to double standards, because you reject truth because someone quotes something from someone whom you disagree with their belief in this issue based only upon a false label and disregard the entirety because of it, even in the face of the truth that is presented. You ONLY look at those who hold to your belief in this issue, regardless of their FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST and HIS WORDS OF TRUTH and their erroneous theories and assumptions not based upon FACT. You rather believe those who are unbelieving, and DO NOT BELIEVE in Gods words of truth and that they are and have been preserved, and that they must and can reconstruct it to its perfect state, as if God hasn't provided it. You believe men who DENY THE POWER and PROVIDENCE of God Almighty concerning HIS words of truth and God's PROMISES concerning them. You also approve of those who have DENIED and REJECTED the EVIDENCE that God HAS indeed provided, long before they EVER came into being.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
You all reject scholars on the basis of guilt by association and irrelevant history all the time. You ignore the fact that the AV 1611 was the product of a set of scholars that included people that ascribed to Roman Catholic theology themselves, as the Anglican church at that time was a hybrid of Catholicism and Presybterianism. You accept as valid the work of men that believe they have received advanced / new revelation, etc.

In other words, michelle, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is not only an erroneous statement of what the Anglicans believed in 1611, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with the SCRIPTURES or this ISSUE AND DEBATE. YOu are bringing up, and using a straw man argument to evade the REAL TRUTH and condone and try to justify something that is WRONG and also slapping a false man made label onto those who come warning you of it because of this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Ironically, Anglicans do, in fact own up to their persecution of Baptists and the users of the Geneva Bible as being sinful and wrong. Why is what is good enough for them NOT good enough for you?
--------------------------------------------------


I have never said that the baptists were not persecuted by the King of England. This is historical fact. WHat is not being properly addressed, nor given attention to, are the REAL REASONS why! You are skewing the historical facts and twisting them to fit your "theory" in order to promote your straw man argument against the truth, which in reality has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this ISSUE and DEBATE regarding the SCRIPTURES.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Whatever, michelle, clearly you can't discuss the topic, which is about history at this point.

All your "source" is about is KJVOnlyism. It quotes a man who holds a false belief about new / advanced revelation. It does so at length. (In fact, the site is just a string of quotes from KJVOists. It doesn't even attempt to honestly examine the issues). You discount "our" scholars all the time on the same basis as I have discounted yours. That is, by definition, a double standard on your part. Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself. It also qualifies, more precisely in and of itself as
The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim. (e.g. Sam is not a Christian, therefore he can't compile a Greek New Testament from any manuscripts).

This issue is about the Church of Rome, the Apocrypha, and other historical issues.

I will no longer entertain your juvenile behavior.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Ironically, Anglicans do, in fact own up to their persecution of Baptists and the users of the Geneva Bible as being sinful and wrong. Why is what is good enough for them NOT good enough for you?
--------------------------------------------------


I have never said that the baptists were not persecuted by the King of England. This is historical fact. WHat is not being properly addressed, nor given attention to, are the REAL REASONS why! You are skewing the historical facts and twisting them to fit your "theory" in order to promote your straw man argument against the truth, which in reality has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this ISSUE and DEBATE regarding the SCRIPTURES.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Ok, michelle, what are the real reasons why, using your obvious credentials as a historian, that Baptists were persecuted by the Crown?

 

[rsr]

Gene said:

"By extension he felt he needed to do this to the church, and the best way was to extend the Episcopalian form of church gov't into the Kirk, which did not set well, particularly with Scots lowlanders."

Which helps explain why the Stuarts were among the worst, if not the worst, monarchs in English history. They insisted on alienating their only natural constituencies. When push came to shove, they picked the Highlanders (a brave but undependable folk, and often Catholic) against the Lowland Scots, who were tied to the north of England by economics and kinship.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
It would help if we would stop posting long strings of Scripture that have nothing to do with the topic.
--------------------------------------------------

THe scriptures have EVERYTHING to do with this and all manners of life, faith and practice, ECSPECIALLY this issue, which is concerning them.

2 Tim. 3

13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


1 Thess. 5

14. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
15. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
16. Rejoice evermore.
17. Pray without ceasing.
18. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
19. Quench not the Spirit.
20. Despise not prophesyings.
21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.


You are asking me to stop doing something that the Lord in the scriptures has told me to do. I will listen to the Lord, not you.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by rsr:
Gene said:

"By extension he felt he needed to do this to the church, and the best way was to extend the Episcopalian form of church gov't into the Kirk, which did not set well, particularly with Scots lowlanders."

Which helps explain why the Stuarts were among the worst, if not the worst, monarchs in English history. They insisted on alienating their only natural constituencies. When push came to shove, they picked the Highlanders (a brave but undependable folk, and often Catholic) against the Lowland Scots, who were tied to the north of England by economics and kinship.

You, sir, get an A!

In retropect, it would have been wiser for Charles to have done less to antagonize the people (since they did eventually depose James), using their overall tiredness of the war in a more positive manner. Of course, he did use the fear of war in his now famous speech in which he dissolved Parliament. He stoutly reminded Parliament that the nation had just suffered a war and that, if they challenged him further, they would plunge the nation into further ruin. (This of course, since Charles had strong French ties, insinuated that, if they went to war, he would gladly pull France into the war on his side, which Parliament knew was a war they could not possibly win...remember, the Queen was French, though she had no children of her own...that is why Catholic James II ascended to the throne...and he was, well, a nut).

The Church of England is actually a fascinating study in the history of what happens when church and state become intertwined and how hybrid theologies develop.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
You all reject scholars on the basis of guilt by association and irrelevant history all the time. You ignore the fact that the AV 1611 was the product of a set of scholars that included people that ascribed to Roman Catholic theology themselves, as the Anglican church at that time was a hybrid of Catholicism and Presybterianism. You accept as valid the work of men that believe they have received advanced / new revelation, etc.

In other words, michelle, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is not only an erroneous statement of what the Anglicans believed in 1611, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with the SCRIPTURES or this ISSUE AND DEBATE. YOu are bringing up, and using a straw man argument to evade the REAL TRUTH and condone and try to justify something that is WRONG and also slapping a false man made label onto those who come warning you of it because of this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Ok, michelle, what was the theology of the Church of England during 1611? Tell us what they believed.

 

[rsr]

To further ignore the interruption, at what point did Baptists reject the Apocrypha? There is a hint in the 1644 London Baptist Confession, but nothing definite.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
You discount "our" scholars all the time on the same basis as I have discounted yours. That is, by definition, a double standard on your part. Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself. It also qualifies, more precisely in and of itself as
The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim. (e.g. Sam is not a Christian, therefore he can't compile a Greek New Testament from any manuscripts).

--------------------------------------------------


I have read the others side of this issue and am quite informed of it, and continue to read those things that are shared from them and test it always to the truth in the scriptures to come to understanding the truth and reality of it, and I do not REJECT the truth that they share. I look to the scriptures to reject their contrary beliefs of them, and disregard those. You however, do not, nor have you even given any scriptural support to show where your belief in this issue comes from, but ONLY your own opinions, and the opinions of men, that are CONTRARY TO THE SCRIPTURES.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

By the way, michelle, James I is on record as having said he wished to "harrow out Baptists."

Tell us why he wanted to do that. What was his motive?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Though the 39 Articles of Religion say that the Apocrypha is non-canonical, the KJV Bible itself equivocates and includes the Apocrypha in the 1611 First Edition (and others) without using this very word: non-canonical.

In the AV1611 The Apocryphal books are included in the same font and format with chapter and verse tags just as the rest of the books of the Old and New Testaments and that without comment as to canonicity.
--------------------------------------------------


The Articles of Religion is a documented statement of what they BELIEVED Hank. Hence, you are ASSUMING something that is NOT TRUE, as indicated by their OWN STATEMENT OF BELIEFS. I would call this a false witness. Nor is there ANY INDICATION of such assumed beliefs being EVIDENCED of this in the SCRIPTURES. The FACT of the matter is the APOCRYPHA is NOT included in the SCRIPTURES then, nor even up until today. This is a straw man argument against the TRUTH of this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Then why would they "add" to the scriptures against what the scriptures themselves say? (Whether or not they believe it.)
As I said, look at the first page of each testament (including the apocrypha at http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf and see for yourself. There are NO other introduction pages before or after the apocrypha page I posted. The OT simply ends of the page before.

 

[rsr]

Michelle said:

"
THe scriptures have EVERYTHING to do with this and all manners of life, faith and practice, ECSPECIALLY this issue, which is concerning them."

NO, MICHELLE, your POSTINGS of SCRIPTURE have NOTHING to do with this TOPIC.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by rsr:
Do we really have to put up with this? We were doing fine, then the SHOUTING begins.

Don't think the moderators don't see a common thread in all of these subjects that have been "cut off". They aren't stupid.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
You discount "our" scholars all the time on the same basis as I have discounted yours. That is, by definition, a double standard on your part. Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself. It also qualifies, more precisely in and of itself as
The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim. (e.g. Sam is not a Christian, therefore he can't compile a Greek New Testament from any manuscripts).

--------------------------------------------------


I have read the others side of this issue and am quite informed of it, and continue to read those things that are shared from them and test it always to the truth in the scriptures to come to understanding the truth and reality of it, and I do not REJECT the truth that they share. I look to the scriptures to reject their contrary beliefs of them, and disregard those. You however, do not, nor have you even given any scriptural support to show where your belief in this issue comes from, but ONLY your own opinions, and the opinions of men, that are CONTRARY TO THE SCRIPTURES.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle,

I am simply giving a history lesson here today. I haven't said anything that should require a reference to the Scriptures. I'm articulating the history of the Church of England and, to some extent, the development of its systematic theology some of the historical and political events around the issue. This thread isn't about KJV vs. MV's. You're the one that came here and hijacked it for that purpose.

If you have something to say about the real reason that Baptists were persecuted and what the Anglican Communion's theology affirmed during 1611 or the history of the Apocrypha and the A.V., then by all means chip in and add to the talk.

RSR,

I'm honestly not able to field your question about Baptists and the Apocrypha. However, my guess is that most never did, really. German Moravians did not, to my knowledge, and they are strongly related to the Anabaptists. ( I know this because I live in a town settled by Moravians). The Apocrypha itself is strongly Maryolitric, and this is anathema to all Baptists. Thus, I doubt it was ever held with much esteem beyond the academic and historical interest as "fun fiction to read that will convince you of the heresies of Rome ."