1. 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!

AV 1611 and the Church of Rome No. 2

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by gb93433, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a huge tract from The Canterbury Project with explicit writings regarding baptismal regeneration all from the Church of England:

    http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/tracts/tract76.html

    I skimmed the tract: Some are in favor ("the Romanists" in the Anglican Communion), and some are repudiating the doctrine. In any event it just shows how prevalent the doctrine seems to have been, even at a point far removed from the original schism between Rome and Canterbury.
     
  2. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    ---------------------------------------------------
    No, michelle,

    It is NOT an opinion. Here is what the Church of England itself says from a leaflet on baptism published by the communications unit of the General Synod of the Church of England.

    "The custom of baptising babies grew up as Christian parents wanted their children to belong to Christ and be part of the Church."

    The leaflet says that anybody, INFANTS, CHILDREN, or ADULTS may be baptised.

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


    Your evidence is from the Anglican church today? PLease. Do you even understand what Apostacy is? Do you? I do not think that you do.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  3. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am so tired of this. Can't we have some discussions without this constant barrage of KJVO blather?
     
  4. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's tract 76. If you follow the link to the Canterbury Project I gave and step back to the main page, there's a whole list.

    There are several by Newman there.

    Michelle,

    I have made no such claim regarding the KJV. I have stated to you repeatedly that the KJV is the Word of God, and I affirm that the Scriptures are without error in all that they affirm. I affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (though I believe it equivocates in certain sections and is not as solid a statement as it could be).

    It has now been shown, directly from the primary sources, thanks to manchester, that the Apocrypha was indeed considered part of the OT by King James and the Anglicans themselves and the translators themselves. If you believe it to be the inerrant word of God, perserved completely, then it is inconsistent to reject the Apocrypha as well, as the originators of the KJV 1611 did not appear to have rejected it as such.

    It simply illustrates the flawed thinking of the KJVO 4 and 5 positions.
     
  5. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    The MODERN DAY Church of England repudiates the idea of baptismal regeneration and infusion theology. However, they STILL baptise babies. Again, the same leaflet says, "Each year, more than a quarter of all babies born in England are brought to their parish churches to be baptised or, in modern usage, christened."

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


    This has nothing to do with the scriptures, nor the argument of this thread.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  6. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, for heaven's sakes michelle, what do I have to do, find church rolls with the names of the infants baptised?! Was Spurgeon lying in his sermons when he quoted the very lines from the Common Book of Prayer that prove that Anglicans baptised infants and believed in baptismal regeneration? I've even gone and given an entire tract on the teaching of baptismal regeneration in the Anglican Church.

    The MODERN church REPUDIATES baptismal regeneration, michelle. However they still baptise babies. Their theological rationale is the same now as the rationale that Presbyterians have always affirmed: it is a sign of participation in the coveant blessings of the Christian community, very similar to the way we Baptists dedicate our own babies in some of our churches, but without the water in our case. Anglicans have ALWAYS baptised infants. It was their EXCLUSIVE practice until the mid17th century. There is a long history of affirming baptismal regeneration that goes with it. They did not abandon that teaching until sometime between the modern era and at least 1864. We know this because modern pamphlets tell us that they now baptise adults as believers if they wish (Is that apostate? I hope not, because there are evangelicals in the Anglican Communion, michelle, and we Baptists also practice believer's baptism).
     
  7. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle,

    I'm trying to get you to understand the history behind the Anglican Communion. It's simply NOT the rosy little picture you like to think it is. That's all.

    I have no anti-KJV agenda. I'm simply trying to educate you about the facts about Anglicanism since you're the one that says I am wrong. RSR is interested.

    It's important, however, because this affirmation of paedobaptism, and the corresponding baptismal regeneration/infusion theology that went with it was present during 1611 and well into the 19th century. I have documented it with primary sources.

    This shows a Romish mindset. It accounts historically also for the use and acceptance of the Apocrypha. The connection is clear.

    I'm not using division, e.g. saying the KJB is invalid because of its inclusion of the Apocrypha. However, if you think in a KJVO mindset, I can see how you could perceive that, because KJVOism is very rigid and can't tolerate the Apocrypha's acceptance by the translators if the KJVO position is true.
     
  8. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Here is an Episcopal university on the Apocrypha. They say the Apocrypha was considered Holy Scripture. You can't accept the KJV without accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Who says I can't? YOu? Based upon their opinions? Ha ha ha ha ha! The apocrypha is NOT scripture. The KJB is however.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  9. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    On this we agree. The KJV is Scripture.
    Absolutely. Now, why is that the case? Because Scripture is God-breathed? Yes. Now is the KJB itself God-breathed or is it because the underlying text is God-breathed? We all agree, the KJB is Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed. We all state with confidence the KJB is God's Word.

    Now, hypothetically, from the standpoint of KJVO defs 4 and 5 as found in the BB definitions, how is it possible to maintain a KJV (particularly KJV 1611) position and repudiate the Apocrypha at the same time when the original KJB included the Apocrypha and its translators considered it Scripture?
     
  10. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    If you believe it to be the inerrant word of God, perserved completely, then it is inconsistent to reject the Apocrypha as well, as the originators of the KJV 1611 did not appear to have rejected it as such.

    It simply illustrates the flawed thinking of the KJVO 4 and 5 positions.
    --------------------------------------------------

    First of all, you haven't proved anything, and even if you did, would not make "their" opinions of it binding on me, nor anyone else for that matter, and in no way indicates the KJB is NOT THE infallible and inspired, inerrant words of God in our language. Like I said, it has NO RELEVANCY TO the issue or debate. What you should be more concerned about are the modern versions. Not the KJB because you believe it to be based upon the Anglican churches beliefs on baptism and the Apocrypha, which are side issues, not at all affecting the scriptures, as we see HAS BEEN DONE and is EVIDENT in the MODERN VERSIONS. Read that link I provided. This IS what you should be concerned about, rather than this nonsense.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    My KJB contains the apocrypha. You statement is self-contradictory.

    P.S. I also believe the translator footnotes
    (not the ones written by Scofield) are
    inerrant divine words which God has
    preserved for our generation. But hey,
    i don't limit God to being handicapped to
    having one and only one book.
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    If the KJV 1611 is claimed to be the Word of God then the apocrypha goes along with that.Because the KJV 1611 had the apocrypha. If you seperate out the apocrypha then you do not have the complete KJV 1611.

    To accpet the canonical books of the KJV 1611 is one thing but quite another to say you accept the KJV 1611 in its entirety.

    But we must remember that even though you present the truth some will never accept it even knowing and admitting they are wrong. A good case and point is often with Mormons and JW's.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother GeneMBridges -- Preach it! [​IMG]
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Good to see you don't agree with the Anglicans. But you have gone on record as writing that the KJV is the preserved words of God. The KJV includes the apocrypha. So I assume you no longer believe the KJV in its entirety is the preserved words of God.

    Can't have it both ways.
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    My KJB contains the apocrypha. You statement is self-contradictory.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I'll bet the KJV translators translated the apocrypha too.
     
  16. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, michelle, that's a red herring. This thread IS about the 1611 and the Apocrypha. Changing the subject is a red herring.

    If you accept the KJB as KJVO's accept is, that is investing their faith in a particular translation in the manner they do, then it is inconsistent to repudiate the Apocrypha. If you reject the Apocrypha for any reason, then you have to borrow the reasons they do so from something other than KJVOism, namely the KJVOist has to accept principles of the MV position, which they seek to deny.

    It's the same thing atheists do when they use the concept of absolutes in reasoning out atheism. The concept of absolutes comes from theism Thus, in using absolutes of any kind, they have to embrace at least one premise that they seek to deny, namely the existence of absolutes, even if only linguistically. It's the same idea, and one of the reasons we know atheism to be a false philosophy.

    I DON'T reject the KJB at all. However, if you say W-H, et.al. are to be rejected because of their theology, as AskjO often says here, then it is a double standard to not reject the KJB, given the history of the C.of E. and its theology regarding baptismal regeneration in particular. To reject the Alex. texttypes based on some association with Catholicism makes no real sense if the basis of the rejection is simply Catholic theology, because to accept the KJB while using that rationale vs. the MV's is inconsistent. Why? Because of the papism still going on in the Anglican Communion as late as the mid 19th century, no doubt more rampant in 1611.
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Michelle:

    What do you call the apocryphal books in the KJV 1611?
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are the only person saying such stuff.
    I've followed this thread and it's
    predecessor for several hours now.
    Nobody seems dogmatic about saying the
    the KJB (what ever that might me, nobody
    defined it) was what you said it was not.
    You are sparring with shadows. I hope you
    wup them shadows downright.

    The KJB is the infallible and inspired,
    inerrant words of God in the English language
    of 400 years ago. The HCSB the KJB is the
    infallible and inspired, inerrant words of God
    in our 21st century language.

    Have a very catholic evening [​IMG]
     
  19. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    My KJB contains the apocrypha. You statement is self-contradictory.

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

    My statement is NOT contradictory, because the KJB is Gen.1 - Rev. 22:21 and nothing else. NO footnotes, no concordance, no maps, no prefaces, etc. are inspired scriptures, nor are they the words of God which is what the scriptures are, and to what has been labeled the KJB. The apocrypha doesn't make it the KJB. The scriptures (Old and New testaments) of it do. Nothing else.


    BTW, my KJB does not have the Apocrypha in it. Yours does, but it is not part of the scriptures. You should know this, as all christians do.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  20. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    ---------------------------------------------------Good to see you don't agree with the Anglicans. But you have gone on record as writing that the KJV is the preserved words of God. The KJV includes the apocrypha. So I assume you no longer believe the KJV in its entirety is the preserved words of God.

    Can't have it both ways.
    --------------------------------------------------

    This is a false statement and very untrue. The KJB DOES NOT include the apocrypha. My KJB does not have it, nor has generations of printed KJB have not. Just because the 1611 included it, doesn't make it only a KJB. You are wrong. History and present day make that VERY EVIDENT.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
Loading...