AV 1611 and the Church of Rome

[GeneMBridges]

Yes,

And, like all episopalian forms, they are slow to change.

The Church of England was not founded out of theological protest at all. It was founded by Henry VIII when he couldn't get the Pope's approval for his first divorce.

It only changed theologically as it became influenced by Calvinists, usually Knox Presbyterians. If you notice, there is no Arminianism in the Church of England until after John Wesley and the rise of Methodism. The Methodists, actually not classical Arminians, instead modifed Arminians, a hybrid of Episcopalian Calvinism and Arminianism itself, split from the Church of England. (As a fun tangent, this is interesting, speaking as a historian, because Methodism, while ostensibly considered "Arminian" against traditional Calvinism, is always lumped into the Reformed tradtion of Protestantism because of its origins. When speaking historically, we tend to group Protestants in Reformed, classic Arminians, and Lutherans, depending on their origins).

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The first completed Bible printed in English was the Coverdale Bible (1535). In this Bible, "the books of the Apocrypha were separated from the other Old Testament books and printed themselves as an appendix to the Old Testament - a precedent followed by English Protestant Bibles ever since (insofar as they include the Apocrypha at all)." The Bible in Translation Bruce Metzger pgs 60,61

I believe we can surmise that the KJV translators in 1611 were equally aware of the non-canonical status of the Apocrypha, and as such, placed them between the testaments as an appendix much like Coverdale.

 

[rsr]

Sorry this thread is disjointed, but it can hardly be helped when one is carrying on two conversations at once.

Gene said:

"Actually USING or AFFIRMING the Apocrypha was then up to the laity and clergy depending on to which strand of Christianity they gave their allegiance."

I think this pretty well stands up to what we've been saying, given that the church was deeply divided. The case is still the same today.

 

[michelle]

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

SACRAMENTS michelle, SACRAMENTS. Do you understand the Catholic belief in infusion of grace vs. the Reformed doctrine of imputation which we receive by grace through faith.
--------------------------------------------------


Have you read the articles of Faith? I think you HAVE NOT and are showing your IGNORANCE. Let me help you:


From the link:

http://www.acl.asn.au/39articles.html

--------------------------------------------------
Article XXII
Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

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


--------------------------------------------------
Article XXV
Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
--------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------
Article XXVIII
Of the Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

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


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 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.

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


THen go to a history forum and NOT A BIBLE VERSION DEBATE forum if this really is the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

I'll be happy to let a moderator tell me where to post, not you, michelle. Thanks for your input. </font>[/QUOTE]Gene, with all due respect, to whomever... I appreciate what you are providing us.

This is the REAL reason for these debates, to learn, not to slash throats. It appears it only gets derailed under certain conditions (which we are all aware of).

I for one, think that this IS the appropriate place and thread to have this discussion because we are looking at the HISTORY of the translation of 1611. Without understanding the political climate and other factors at work, we are simply giving opinions and since the study of English history not one of my strong-points, I am devouring this information like a shark devours schools of fish. I for one, THANK YOU and appreciate the moderators for allowing these forums to continue when they are constructive.

After all, YOU ARE the author of this thread.

If we plug our ears and do not study the historical backgrounds, we might as well believe the Mormons and join their new revelations.

You are doing good, my man, do not be derailed for the sake of us who are learning.

 

[natters]

michelle said "Read the 39 articles of Faith. They tell you, as well as the translators in their preface. They were against the Roman Catholics and their beliefs and traditions....Notice this important statement that is CONTRARY to what you are all claiming on this thread (along with all the other articles and what they express)"

How is it contrary to what I have claimed? I agree they were against Roman Catholicism. However, they were also against Evangelicals, Puritans and Baptists. They have beliefs that seem "Catholic" to us Baptists. They have beliefs that seem "Protestant" to the Catholics. I don't believe they viewed the apocryphal books as scripture, but they still held them in very high regard.

 

[rsr]

Phillip asked:

"Was this done, with or without approval of the Crown? "

Actually, it was with the approval of the Congress under the Articles of Conferation. Not likely that the crown patent was invoked.

 

[michelle]

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

Look at the pictures, Michelle, the apocrypha was NOT set aside as anything different, it used the same type face, the same headings, the same chapter and verse divisions. NOTHING indicates it is anything BUT scripture. If the Anglicans felt strongly about it, there would have at least been a note, or it would have been seperated (like maps and other stuff you mentioned) and put in the back or front with a special heading. The rest of the information included in the book that is not scriptural was handled that way, NOT the apocrypha. Your explanation does not fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was indicated as separate, as the title "Apocrypha" reveals. It is also stated in the articles of Faith.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
The first completed Bible printed in English was the Coverdale Bible (1535). In this Bible, "the books of the Apocrypha were separated from the other Old Testament books and printed themselves as an appendix to the Old Testament - a precedent followed by English Protestant Bibles ever since (insofar as they include the Apocrypha at all)." The Bible in Translation Bruce Metzger pgs 60,61

I believe we can surmise that the KJV translators in 1611 were equally aware of the non-canonical status of the Apocrypha, and as such, placed them between the testaments as an appendix much like Coverdale.

This may have been what they intended, but viewing a 1611 King James Version, you would NEVER KNOW that it is an appendix.

Please, again, review the pictures of the originally printed 1611 that I have provided that starts each of the three sections. There are NO missing introduction pages to the apocrypha, only the end of the OT. Also, note that the title of the apocrypha is as big as the titles of all other listed books and sections.

 

[rsr]

Gene said:

"It only changed theologically as it became influenced by Calvinists, usually Knox Presbyterians."

I think that is true at a later date, but it seems to me that Cranmer was really a Lutheran, whose influence permeated the Book of Common Prayer.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by rsr:
Phillip asked:

"Was this done, with or without approval of the Crown? "

Actually, it was with the approval of the Congress under the Articles of Conferation. Not likely that the crown patent was invoked.

If this is so, then did England try to invoke it as an international patent, since the patent and copyright systems had not been put in place at this time? In otherwords, did England complain?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------

Look at the pictures, Michelle, the apocrypha was NOT set aside as anything different, it used the same type face, the same headings, the same chapter and verse divisions. NOTHING indicates it is anything BUT scripture. If the Anglicans felt strongly about it, there would have at least been a note, or it would have been seperated (like maps and other stuff you mentioned) and put in the back or front with a special heading. The rest of the information included in the book that is not scriptural was handled that way, NOT the apocrypha. Your explanation does not fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was indicated as separate, as the title "Apocrypha" reveals. It is also stated in the articles of Faith.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

You would turn a skunk into a cat, if it was necessary to fit your belief.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by rsr:
Gene said:

"It only changed theologically as it became influenced by Calvinists, usually Knox Presbyterians."

I think that is true at a later date, but it seems to me that Cranmer was really a Lutheran, whose influence permeated the Book of Common Prayer.

Thanks, rsr, I had forgotten Thomas, I stand corrected.

However, we do still consider Anglicans to be "Reformed" from a purely historical perspective.

Again, the history of the development of their theology is really a series of compromises between Catholics and Protestants, until the Catholicism itself was dropped altogether.

The Articles reflect that. No honest person can read them and, knowing what was going on at that time, not realize how vague they are. They include enough Protestant Calvinism to be workable (but not quite as clear as say, the Synod of Dort or the other creeds that Presbyterians affirm traditionally) and throw in some Lutheranism along the way, keeping Catholic forms and, very importantly, a very clear compromise statement regarding baptism, which reflects the infusion theology of Catholicism and simultaneously leaves room for traditional Reformed belief in the first statement, and, notably it seems to be almost baptistic in part, until you get to the paedobaptism bit (that's when you realize...oh, this isn't believer's baptism, this is infant baptism, thus, infusionary (Catholic affirmation) or inclusionary, but not regenerative (traditional Presybterian affirmation), depending on which way you personally believe.

 

[HankD]

My contention is that the KJV translators tainted the AV1611 with their romish theology.

The 39 articles of Religion is an equivocation.

They promote a kind of baptismal regeneration:

First they call “Baptism” by the romish designation as “Sacrament”

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Second they affirm their error by this statement of the 27th Article

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeablewith the institution of Christ.

Notice that while they say that baptism is a sign of regeneration or the new birth they also say “Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeablewith the institution of Christ”

Therefore (since young children in the CofE includes babies) babies are born again and grafted into the Church according to the CofE doctrine by water baptism.

This is further advanced by the KJV translation of Matthew 3:11

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

“with” water and “with” the Holy Ghost are mistranslations of the koine word en and it is locative and not instrumental as is evident even to the English speaker.

Both of these words are translated correctly (and ironically) as in the 1901 ASV

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

“with” supports pado-baptism of sprinkling, while the correct word “in” supports believer’s baptism.

HankD

 

[Phillip]

So, to summarize or put it in a single cup: The church was essentially Catholic when the split occurred for political reasons, but due to changes in political climate, groups of people in control and other factors, it moved TOWARDS Prtestantism.

So, now, we have a hybrid and obviously since there will be dissention from either side, the articles of faith were intentionally vague in order to pacify all parties.

Would this be considered accurate?

If so, where does the Church of England stand TODAY, vs. in 1611. Has the wind blown it more in a single direction?

Also, based on what you said, and other things I have heard, the American Episcopal Church was a break-off of the English Church. Is this true and if it is, where does it stand in relationship to the English church of today.

If my first remarks are true, I would say, based on my limited observations of the Episcopals, that they are in the same boat that the Church of England was in. Like Catholics, but with a protestant twist. Would you also consider this to be correct?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
How is it contrary to what I have claimed? I agree they were against Roman Catholicism. However, they were also against Evangelicals, Puritans and Baptists. They have beliefs that seem "Catholic" to us Baptists. They have beliefs that seem "Protestant" to the Catholics. I don't believe they viewed the apocryphal books as scripture, but they still held them in very high regard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is being claimed the Anglican church of 1611 was nothing more than Cathlocism and an extension of it and the reason for their inclusion of the Apocrypha in the KJB of 1611 because they believed it to be scripture. I have shown this is not true, with thier own statements of belief. The rest of you rely upon your own human reasoning, assumptions and opinions of your own, and other men.


Maybe they "seem" it to you (I am not refering to the Anglicans of today, but those in 1611), but that is not what the truth is and has NOTHING to do with this ISSUE or DEBATE.


Are you also saying only Baptists are christians, and that if you are not a baptist, you cannot be christian and saved? I surely hope not, because that is NOT the truth. What does the Lord say is required to be saved? Thou must have the name Baptist, and be a member of a Baptist church?


Can someone claim to believe the baptist faith and articles of faith, and not behave as such? Can an Anglican claim to hold to their articles of Faith but not behave accordingly? Does this change the overall declaration of faith, and beliefs because of a few? Can someone claim to be Catholic, but not believe, nor behave according to the declarations of faith? What in the end, determines the true faith of someone? Is it the name attached to them, or what they say they believe? Or is it rather their actions and thier lives and deeds/fruits according to what they say they believe, and that affirm that belief that show forth their faith?


Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

So, to summarize or put it in a single cup: The church was essentially Catholic when the split occurred for political reasons, but due to changes in political climate, groups of people in control and other factors, it moved TOWARDS Prtestantism.

There have always been "high" and "low" churchmen in the Church of England. there has always been confusion and equivocation in the Church of England and flip-flops between the Church of England and the Church of Rome complete with Inquisitions and blood baths depending upon who sat upon the throne both before and after 1611.

HankD

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The Articles reflect that. No honest person can read them and, knowing what was going on at that time, not realize how vague they are. They include enough Protestant Calvinism to be workable (but not quite as clear as say, the Synod of Dort or the other creeds that Presbyterians affirm traditionally) and throw in some Lutheranism along the way, keeping Catholic forms and, very importantly, a very clear compromise statement regarding baptism, which reflects the infusion theology of Catholicism and simultaneously leaves room for traditional Reformed belief in the first statement, and, notably it seems to be almost baptistic in part, until you get to the paedobaptism bit (that's when you realize...oh, this isn't believer's baptism, this is infant baptism, thus, infusionary (Catholic affirmation) or inclusionary, but not regenerative (traditional Presybterian affirmation), depending on which way you personally believe.
--------------------------------------------------


You unfortunately have it reversed. If anything, the Anglicans of today, and from that time until today progressively became APOSTATE, contrary to their own declarations of FAITH. Not the other way around, as you would like us all to believe.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "The rest of you"

Why do you include me, when I have repeatedly agreed that they didn't accept the Apocrypha as proper "scripture"?

michelle said "Maybe they "seem" it to you"

Why do you include me, when I have repeatedly agreed that they didn't accept the Apocrypha as proper "scripture"?

michelle said "and has NOTHING to do with this ISSUE or DEBATE."

Which issue? Which debate? There are lots of different issues and lots of different debates on this forum. This forum is for discussing anything related to versions and translations. Not every discussion has to be about what you want it to be about.

michelle said "Are you also saying only Baptists are christians, and that if you are not a baptist, you cannot be christian and saved?"

Of course not! What manner of interpretation of what I said led you to that bizarre conclusion???

michelle said "Can someone claim to believe the baptist faith and articles of faith, and not behave as such? Can an Anglican claim to hold to their articles of Faith but not behave accordingly?"

Sure.

michelle said "Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know them."

Yep, he did.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
If we plug our ears and do not study the historical backgrounds, we might as well believe the Mormons and join their new revelations.


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


And this, many of your are INDEED doing. Closing your ears to the truth, and relying upon assumptions, theories and the opinions and beliefs of your own and of other men, just as the mormons do, rather than FACT and RELEVANCY and COMMON SENSE.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle