KJV and Anglicanism

I addressed that didn't I? God used it ANYWAY to bring about ALL the liberties we enjoy today.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

OK so answer my question: Where does Jesus say to burn someone at the stake because he "dips" believers in water rather than "sprinkles babies"?

HankD

 

Apologies - I read your post too quickly Jim.

Roger

 

No problem Roger.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

OK so answer my question: Where does Jesus say to burn someone at the stake because he "dips" believers in water rather than "sprinkles babies"?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]He didn't Hank. We ALL know that. So...Was Calvin right or not?

God used the Geneva version ANYWAY didn't He?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Are you ignoring the fact that many of our Baptist forefathers clearly based their doctrine and tenents of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, especially in their defense of immersion? Our Baptist forefathers did not hold nor advocate a man-made KJV-only theory that uses the same arguments as Roman Catholics used for their Latin Vulgate-only theory.

Henry Jessey, one of our Baptist forefathers in the 1600's, complained about the KJV for its episcopacy and reported that Archbishop Richard Bancroft "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy." Pastor Jessey also worked to produce a new translation of the Scriptures, but he was ejected from his Baptist church by the cruel Act of Uniformity and imprisoned where he died in 1663. Cathcart noted that Jessey had his translation prepared in 1660 when persecutions "rendered its publication impossible and resulted in its destruction" (BAPTIST ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 707).

Baptist pastor Thomas Helwys wrote a book in defense of the right of religious liberty and was imprisoned in Newgate Prison by order of King James I.

Are you also ignoring the 1842 revision of the KJV made mostly by Baptists? The sixth edition in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on the binding.

Are you ignoring the 1850 KJV N. T. with emendations edited by Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff?

 

Calvin was wrong.

Yes, God uses whatever version of the Bible He wants to use including the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, Wycliff, Tyndale, Geneva, Coverdale, KJB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc without exclusivity.

HankD

 

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of
the earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). One of the changes that the Church of England translators made in them may reveal their bias for their Episcopal church government.

Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows: "We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is the genuine signification of the Greek word 'cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out the words, 'by election'" (PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR BAPTIST CHURCH, p. 351).

Acts 14:23
ordained them elders by election in every congregation (Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's)
ordained them elders by election thru all the congregations (Coverdale's)
ordained them elders by election in every church (Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops')
ordained them elders in every church (KJV)

 

I still don't see what Calvin has to do with "Bible translations." I could associate Calvin with the KJV, for Theodore Beza was his successor, and Beza's text was one of the ones that the KJV translators used

Calvin wasn't the one who "started" Calvinism either.

 

"Baptist Distinktives" (as you call them) are based upon biblical doctrine such as "believer's baptism" unlike the pado-baptist Church of England.

BTW, which of these "distinktives" do you disagree with as being non-biblical doctrine?

Biblical Authority
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice.

Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church.

Priesthood of the Believer
"Priest" is defined as "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God." Every believer today is a priest of God and may enter into His presence in prayer directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people.

Two Ordinances
The local church should practice two ordinances: (1) baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and (2) the Lord's Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.

Individual Soul Liberty
Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.

Saved, Baptized Church Membership
Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer's baptism.

Two Offices
The Bible mandates only two offices in the church--pastor and deacon.

Separation of Church and State
God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government's purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and the church's purposes in Matthew 28:19 and 20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two.

BTW, an argument can be made that the Church of England (who many attribute with the ability of the prophets and apostles to speak with the inspiration and authority of God) denies either by doctrine or practice, each of these distinctives.

HankD

 

Three Offices:

Pastor, deacon, elders

 

In our church is "pastor", "deacons" and a BUNCH of "elderly". (...and that also includes most of the deacons.)

 

We just wouldn't be Baptists if we didn't agree even about the distinctives.

BTW, I was once a member of a Baptist church which had the office of "elder".

For that matter how about the Anglo-Roman Catholic ecclesiastic office of "Bishop" which (according to their theology) has been passed down from "Saint" Peter.

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

HankD

 

Calvin was just as culpable in the burning of Servetus as King James was of Whitman



Go learn some history, Jim.

 

You call THAT a "learned" response?

Look up your OWN history. It is a fact. Calvin was culpable and even stated that if Servetus were to come to Geneva, that he (Calvin) would not let him leave ALIVE.

Study up a bit friend.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

In no particular order these charges against Servetus are posted FYI taken from just ONE site of historical study. There were other charges to be sure, but these ought to pique your interest.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/servetus.html

Process of 14 August, 1553, before the Lesser Council of Geneva. Calvin : Opera. Vol. XIII, pp.727-731. French.

.[2] In the first place that about twenty-four years ago the defendant commenced to annoy the churches of Germany with his errors and heresies, and was condemned and took to flight in order to escape the punishment prepared for him [3].


XXXIV. Item, that the baptism of little children is an invention of the Devil, an infernal falsehood tending to the destruction of all Christianity.

Item, whether he has married, and if he answers that he has not, he shall be asked why, in consideration of his age, he could refrain so long from marriage.

A couple of quotes from John Calvin himself:

7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.

Now...just exactly what does this have to do with KJVoism? Nothing. But neither does the atrocities committed during 17th century England. I bring this information to the discussion only to point out the ABSURDITY of equating Anglicanism and its errors with KJVo. It is just as absurd to equate Calvinism and the Geneva Bible with the burning of Servetus. Nevertheless, I must ask all rational readers this question; Even if Servetus was the rankest heretic, how is it just and right to do what they did to him in the name of our Saviour?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Just this, one of the daily rants we used to get was the myth of the "godly" pristine character, faith and/or theology of King James and the KJV translators.

In addition, King James assumed the authority (via Henry 8th) that the King of England was titular head of the Church of England making the british monarch a kind of anglican pope. Hence one now has an "Authorized Version" Bible to "be read in the churches" sanctioned by this anglican "pope".

Another relevant issue (among several others) is the Anglican view of apostolic successionism through the "office of Bishop", where the so-called apostolic character of the KJV has to look to in order to justify the apostolic inspired character of the KJV via Ruckman's bizarre anglo-israelism.

This thread is about KJV and anglicanism. To bring Calvin into it is fine but it doesn't make the persecutions of the Church of England and the British crown against Baptists and others who felt that the KJV was a church-state ecclesiastic Bible go away.

In my opinion your factual account of Calvin's crime, though true, is a diversionary smokescreen of the fact that some of the very worst persecutions Baptists have suffered was at the hands of the English Crown and in particular King James and his "bishops" (some of which were part of the translation team).

HankD

 

See my previous post!
To answer the question;
No! Youur question and hypothesis is stupid and IMO inflammatroy.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

We cannot avoid the fact that by & large, the AV translators were Anglican. This includes their boss, Archbishop(of Canterbury) Richard Bancroft. Although he died in 1610, the translators stuck to his rules, since they'd been approved by the king.

Also, there's no denying that several of the most prominent of the translators were members of both the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission, the Anglican versions of the RCC's Inquisitions.