AV 1611 and the Church of Rome No. 2

Yep, right here:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=980
is that strange page that contains Micah
IIII and Micah V.1-6 yet says
"Ioel" at the top
Looks like a good copy of the KJV1611 edition.

 

No, it's not irrelevant, because if the KJB is the preserved words of God and the translators included it, then it means, if you are correct in your KJVOnlyism that the Apocrypha is also inspired. On the other hand, if I'm right, and I know I am, it shows that the OT and NT are God's Word, but the Apocrypha isn't and that it was included to placate those English Anglicans who were really papists, but not openly so. It's that simple. It's the same reason Article 27 equivocates theologically. It was a move to keep the peace, a compromise to satisfy Catholics and Calvinists alike, plain and simple. To deny this is to deny what the Church of Englands own historians teach.

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.

Please, michelle, go back and read Article 27. It ties regeneration to the act of baptism. Baptism of an infant with regard to regeneration can only mean that there must have been a belief in baptismal regeneration. This is NOT believer's baptism, michelle, this is infusion of grace to the formerly Catholic priests, some of whom were the bishops that helped write the Articles, or as a simply sign of participation in the Christian covenant but non-salvific to the Calvinist and Lutheran type bishops. Michelle, it is a documented FACT that in 1611 there were still Anglican priests that believed in infusion theology. This is NOT an opinion. It is a FACT.


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."

Here is a short account from John Gill regarding the disputes that Baptists had regarding infant baptism and their affirmation that it was "Popery." Note that it refers very specifically to an answer made to James I:

"This way of arguing, as Mr. Stennet (Answers to Ruffen, p. 173, etc.) observes, is used by Cardinal Du Perron, in his reply to the answer of King James the First, and by Mr. John Ainsworth, against Mr. Henry Ainsworth, in the dispute between them, and by Fisher the Jesuit, against Archbishop Laud; a late instance of this kind, he adds, we have in the controversy between Monsieur Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, and a learned anonymous writer, said to be Monsieur de la Roque, late pastor of the reformed church at Roan in Normandy. The Bishop, in order to defend the withholding the cup in the Lord's Supper from the laity, according to the authority of the church, urged that infant-baptism, both as to mode and subject, was unscriptural, and solely by the authority of tradition and custom, with which the pretended Reformed complied, and therefore why not in the other case; which produced this ingenuous confession from his antagonist, that to baptize by sprinkling was certainly an abuse derived from the Romish church, without due examination, as well as many other things, which he and his brethren were resolved to correct, and thanked the bishop for undeceiving them; and freely confessed, that as to the baptism of infants, there is nothing formal or express in the gospel to justify the necessity of it; and that the passages produced do at most only prove that it is permitted, or rather, that it is not forbidden to baptize them. In the times of King Charles the Second, lived Mr. Jeremiah Ives, a Baptist minister, famous for his talent at disputation, of whom the king having heard, sent for him to dispute with a Romish priest; the which he did before the king and many others, in the habit of a clergyman: Mr. Ives pressed the priest closely, showing the whatever antiquity they pretended to, their doctrine and practices could by no means be proved apostolic; since they are not to be found in any writings which remain of the apostolic age; the priest, after much wrangling, in the end replied, that this argument of Mr. Ives was as of much force against infant-baptism, as against the doctrines and ceremonies of the church of Rome: to which Mr. Ives answered, that he readily granted what he said to be true; the priest upon this broke up the dispute, saying, he had been cheated, and that he would proceed no further; for he came to dispute with a clergyman of the established church, and it was now evident that this was an Anabaptist preacher.

Here is another statement from Anglicans: There is evidence that ‘believers’ immersion along with infant immersion continued up to around 1000 AD in the Church of England, and then only infant immersion continued, this ceased from approximately 1620. From between the 1620s and 1640s onwards the practice of the church of England has been infant sprinkling or pouring.

IT IS CLEAR from our own Baptist history that the Church of England during James I own reign baptised infants and many in it believed in baptismal regeneration. The only way an infant can be regenerated in baptism is if infusion theology is true. There can be no other way.

 

She won't listen Gene, believe me.

HankD

 

By the way Gene, I did want to let you know I did appreciate your sharing that information with me and going through the trouble of posting it, even though I strongly disagree with your conclusion.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Oh my! I just found a tract by John Newman dating 1837 in which he repudiates the teaching of a fellow Anglican, Dr. Pusey, who sat in the Oxford Chair at that time, regarding infant baptism and the infusion of grace as comes with the elements of the Eucharist taught by papists. Seems the Church of England was having problems with the doctrine even as late as that.

Ah, here's a sermon by Spurgeon that clinches the matter, dating 1864. Here are his own words:

am not aware that any Protestant Church in England teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration except one, and that happens to be the corporation which with none too much humility calls itself the Church of England. This very powerful sect does not teach this doctrine merely through a section of its ministers, who might charitably be considered as evil branches of the vine, but it openly, boldly, and plainly declares this doctrine in her own appointed standard, the Book of Common Prayer, and that in words so express, that while language is the channel of conveying intelligible sense, no process short of violent wresting from their plain meaning can ever make them say anything else.


There you have it...a Englishman, and a Baptist who preached from the KJV at that, who tells us that the Church of England, or at least some in it, as late as 1864 taught baptismal regeneration via infant baptism and even locates the teaching in the Common Book of Prayer!

 

I beleive the intent of the original thread was to try and show a connection between the KJB and Rome.Having heard this aped before,many turn a deaf ear(willingly!) as to the fact that:

The TR,and any Bible from it,are on the list of forbidden books by the RCC.

The mss behind todays "bibles" are the same ones used by Rome,and JW's;Apocrypha and all.


Why not forget the Apocrypha being between the KJB's testaments,and deal with the fact that the Alexandrian mss(the ones behind todays "bibles") have the Apocryphal books in BOTH testaments as Holy Writ...

 

Here are the exact words from the Church of England's own catechism:

. The form for the administration of this baptism is scarcely less plain and outspoken, seeing that thanks are expressly returned unto Almighty God, because the person baptized is regenerate. "Then shall the priest say, 'Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.'" Nor is this all, for to leave no mistake, we have the words of the thanksgiving prescribed, "Then shall the priest say, 'We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church.'"

 

Thank you, michelle, all I'm trying to get you to do is realize that the schism btw. the Anglicans and Rome was NOT a theological split. It did become one OVER TIME. By 1611, most papism in it was gone, but the biggest holdover was the baptismal regeneration of infants. As Newman's repudiation of Pusey shows, it was going on as late as the early 19th century, and then Spurgeon tells us very specifically it was going on as late as the mid-19th century, and he even quotes the catechal words from the Common Book of Prayer. When I tell you why the Apocrypha was included and how the Articles were written as a compromise btw. theological Protestants, who repudiate Rome in theology and welcomed the schism and Catholics who had repudiated Rome to save their lives, not because of their theology, I'm going by what my own ANGLICAN profs in undergraduate school taught me, and, if anybody should know, they would be the ones.

We DO, however, know that now, the Church of England practices adult, child, and, yes, infant baptism. However, they have completely repudiated the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration and the accompanying infusion theology of it.

 

The Anglicans consider the Apocrypha to be part of the Old Testament. The KJV without the Apocrypha as scripture is not the KJV.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:OJK34TqfIjQJ:www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A-C/biblst/DJACcurrres/Eve/Eve4Hist.pdf+anglican+apocrypha&hl=en&start=1

 

Thank you...I'm glad somebody from the UK is posting now.

 

PLease show me where in this statement is Nehemiah refered to if it is not 2 Esdras?


--------------------------------------------------
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

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


Now read this:


--------------------------------------------------
2The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally combined into a single book. The combined book, Ezra-Nehemiah, was sometimes referred to as Esdras (Hb: Ezra, Gk: Esdras) but called 1 Esdras in the early Greek translations to distinguish it from another book from the same period (containing 2 Chron 35-36, Neh 7:38-8:12, plus other material not found in the Old Testament) that was also known as Esdras. While this second book was sometimes also called 1 Esdras it later came to be known as 2 Esdras. Still a third pseudepigraphic book of apocalyptic visions entitled Esdras was circulated a little later and was also know as 2 Esdras. After Ezra-Nehemiah was split into two books, Ezra was known as 1 Esdras, Nehemiah as 2 Esdras, the expanded OT version book as 3 Esdras, and the apocalyptic book as 4 Esdras.

link: http://www.cresourcei.org/canonot.html
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

If we look over the pages Apocrypha books in 1611 King James Version we find over 840 times the translators cross-referenced these books to those of the "ligament" canon. This is a clear sign that these books were held as Scripture by the translators. We find in the general rules set forth By King James himself for the translation of this Bible that these cross-referencing were only allowed for "one Scripture to another":

"7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another." [As found in "The Church History Of Britain" by Thomas Fuller, Oxford, M.DCCC.XLV]

Another example of the acceptance of the Apocrypha books is at the wording found at the bottom of the last page of the book of Malachi, [which most Protestants today consider the end of the Old Testament], just before the beginning of the First Esdras, we find the words "The end of the Prophets". As we can see the translators did not designate this as the end of the Old Testament [which they could have], they simply called it the end of the books of the Prophets, a grouping of books of the Old Testament.

The 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the Apocrypha is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture. Clearly, the original translators of the 1611 King James Version held the Deuterocanonical books as authoritative or Scriptural, and worthy of public prayer and worship. It is also important to note the occasions of the use of these Apocrypha books in the calendars.

First, the "Apocrypha" was not "sandwiched" between the Testaments, it was placed at the end of the Old Testament. If we examine this scan of the beautify engraved title page of the 1611 KJV we see it Simply say " The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old testament, and the New" with no designation separating the "Books called Apocrypha" from the Old Testament. The creators of the 1611 KJV went to great lengths to form a separation between the Old and New testament even placing a special elaborately engraved title page marking the beginning of the New testament. Yet they placed NO SUCH distinction between the end of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Again this show acceptance of these Books as part of the Old Testament.

These books were held far more important than simply as "appendix" or "reference material", they were read publicly in the Churches [by order of the King] but they were actually used in public worship in seventeen century Protestant England.

 

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.

http://www.sewanee.edu/theology/facultyfolder/bryan/foundations/canonHS.html

 

Hey, I'm only going by what he wrote in 1834 in one of his tracts. He even told Pusey he should step down from the Oxford chair and teach at the Vatican!

 

--------------------------------------------------
No, it's not irrelevant, because if the KJB is the preserved words of God and the translators included it, then it means, if you are correct in your KJVOnlyism that the Apocrypha is also inspired. On the other hand, if I'm right, and I know I am, it shows that the OT and NT are God's Word, but the Apocrypha isn't and that it was included to placate those English Anglicans who were really papists, but not openly so. It's that simple. It's the same reason Article 27 equivocates theologically. It was a move to keep the peace, a compromise to satisfy Catholics and Calvinists alike, plain and simple. To deny this is to deny what the Church of Englands own historians teach.
--------------------------------------------------


No, what in reality is happening, is you are making an outrageous claim that the scriptures labeled with the name KJB are not the inspired, infallible and inerrant words of God in our language, and that NNE today has them. This is an outright lie, that you and many others are trying to prove with showing that the Apocrypha WAS considered part of the scriptures by Anglicans (who cares and it is irrelevant regardless) and failing miserably, because that was not then, nor is the case now, in order to JUSTIFY YOUR COMPROMISE with the EVIDENT ATLERATIONS in the modern versions of today. This is the truth. Maybe Anglicans might believe this today, but they did NOT in the PAST and in 1611 as it has been shown to you REPEATEDLY, to which you have ignored. Suit yourself, but remember, there are precious souls, and new born christians reading these posts, to which only helps to sow doubt and hurt their faith, all based upon assumptions, and not truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle