KJV & Calvinism - A Connexion?

No. None of the three main versions of
the KJV support Calvinism or Armenianism.
These theologies were developed outside
of the KJV and can be "proved" using the
flavor of KJV of one's choice.

 

I can't speak statistically about the above theory, but I would be closer to calvinist than arminian, and I am not KJVO, Calvinist theology is supported by any version you choose to read

 

My answers are conjecture for the most part

"Is there a connexion either way between KJV and Calvinism?"

I don't think so, the translators in all probability were not.

"Were the KJV translators Calvinists?"

Maybe one or two, but generally no, as far as I can discern.

"Do KJVO folks tend to be Calvinist?"

This depends on the definition of "Calvinism".

If you mean are they full TULIP, no, by and large I don't think so from what I have read.

Limited Atonement and/or irresistible Grace the area of contention.

The KJB can be intrepreted either as Arminian of Calvinistic as is evident by the panorama of fols who use it and are one way or the other or somewhere inbetween.

HankD

[ July 19, 2004, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Fols = folks

HankD

 

C4K asked:

Is there a connexion either way between KJV and Calvinism?

Yes.

James I grew up in the Presbyterian Church in Scotland.

As an adult, he hated Presbyterians, he hated Calvinism, he hated Puritans, he hated Calvinist political theology, and he hated the Geneva Bible translated in Geneva under Calvin's supervision.

Hence, the King James Bible came into being.

 

The official doctrinal position of the Anglican Church at the time of the translation of the KJV as stated by the 39 Articles of Religion of 1571 clearly state the Calvinistic position of the translators all of whom were required to profess conformity to those articles.

Ergo the translators were Calvinists. So, to be consistant, KJVOs must also be Calvinists because, to be consistant, if the translators were inspired by God it would be impossible for them to have a false view of salvation!

 

Gee, that must mean that all Anglican church officers are Calvinists today, too!

 

Skan, the 39 Articles of Relgion were not always as clear as they could have been, see above. There has always been a rift in the Church of England, high/low Church, high leaning toward Rome, low leaning torward the reformation. A distinct following of high-churchmen who were Anglo-Catholic by lip-service but had a heart after the Church of Rome.

While this has come to the forefront in more modern times it has always been there witnessed by the historical CofE flip-flops between Rome and the Crown.

It has always been dificult to nail down the CofE doctrine whether of the Crown or the Pope.

But, you are possibly right for the time of the AV1611.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20Church

HankD

[ July 19, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

The 39 Articles were revised in 1662, 1792, and several more times, the latest being, IIRC 1979. However, the present article dealing with predestination and election is little changed with the exception of the modernization of some words. However, Anglicans are no longer required to submit to the 39 Articles, but now only consider them a guide. As many Anglicans have slipped into Modernism and borderline agnosticism, it does not surprise me they no longer accept the biblical teaching regarding predestination and election.

 

I believe most KJVO's subscribe to Armenianism. At least the ones I know.

 

Don't really think that one has to do with the other. No real correlation in my experience.

Bro Tony

 

Bro Tony said:

Don't really think that one has to do with the other. No real correlation in my experience.

I'd say that the fact that the vast majority of KJV-onlyists come out of either the IFB (generally strongly anti-Calvinist) or Pentecostal (historically Arminian) traditions is in fact a very strong correlation. In those particular churches, they're both part of the package.

 

<personal reference deleted> , whose KJVO arguments were blown away so badly that he hasn't posted here for awhile, is Calvinist by his own admission.

Without wishing to start a C/A debate here since a forum exists for it, lemme simply say I'm not a calvinist & be done with it here.

The Geneva Bible was considered a Calvinist Bible by KJ and the Anglican big shots of his day, & that was one of the reasons they had for making the AV.

[ July 20, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

The point is, of course, that the KJV does tend to have a bias toward Calvinism due to the translators, which is interesting largely due to the strong anti-Calvinistic position of most KJVOs. It seems to me to be yet another of their contradictions.

 

My thoughts are that if one becomes stuck in one false doctrine, it's quite easy for that person to become stuck in another.

I've seen KJVOs become Calvinist and Calvinists become KJVOs. Much of it is based upon their misinterpretation of the "predestinated" verses, while ignoring the "whosoever"s spoken by Jesus in John 3:16, etc. I guess the use of the word "predestinated" in Eph.1:5 & 11 gives the KJV such a slant to some.

 

It seems to me that you don't have a very clear understanding of what Calvinism is.