AV 1611 and the Church of Rome

Very interesting, now this is the type of discussion I enjoy. This gives us a good place to start when trying to study the REAL historical issues. Thank you, both!

 

Indeed and for this reason (among others) I ultimately chose to make my primary fellowship with the Baptist churches (who support the Baptists distinctives). IMO the "Protestant" Churches (Anglican,Lutheran,Presbyterian) did not go far enough in their separation from and out of the the errors of Rome.

While I find a closer kinship to these groups than the Church of Rome, as far as I am concerned the distinctives set Baptist Christians apart from mainline "protestantism"

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Hank, you mentioned something interesting about your Baptist beliefs and I too feel the same way.

I am going to ask you a question that is off the subject, but in light of a quick detour without a fuss, I don't think the moderators will mind.

What is the deal with the Dr. Kennedy who is Presbyterian? I have listened to many of his sermons and if he isn't Baptist, I don't know what to think. It is my understanding that HIS Prebysterian church is (USA or something different) and not connected or was a split from the main Presbyterians. Does anybody know his story and if he actually is following the beliefs of HIS church denomination? Not to derail the thread, just curious. I sure wish he would just convert to a Baptist, he IS a good preacher.

And so I don't make the moderators too upset, "he doesn't believe or preach the apocrypha either."

 

Thank you for the information. I do not recall Kennedy preaching about Baptism, so that explains that. I have heard some good sermons about the flood and other things that left the listener with a view that it really took place and he provided good common sense answers to back it up.

Although I have heard many sermons, I have not listened to him THAT much, so I must have missed much of his political speeches.

As for the historical accuracy; I can't disagree with you because I haven't tried to confirm anything that he has said. So, I will now take him with a grain of salt and be careful. Thank you!

 

The website for the denomination is www.pcanet.org

Here is their denominational confession:

WHAT WE BELIEVE
Presbyterian Church in America

We believe the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.

We believe in the Holy Trinity. There is one God, who exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We believe that all are sinners and totally unable to save themselves from God’s displeasure, except by His mercy.

We believe that salvation is by God alone as He sovereignly chooses those He will save. We believe His choice is based on His grace, not on any human individual merit, or foreseen faith.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, who through His perfect life and sacrificial death atoned for the sins of all who will trust in Him, alone, for salvation.

We believe that God is gracious and faithful to His people not simply as individuals but as families in successive generations according to His Covenant promises.

We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells God’s people and gives them the strength and wisdom to trust Christ and follow Him.

We believe that Jesus will return, bodily and visibly, to judge all mankind and to receive His people to Himself.

We believe that all aspects of our lives are to be lived to the glory of God under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.


There are a few PCA churches here. They are as unique from each other as Baptist churches in their style of worship. One is "high" worship, another is almost a house worship, and the other is more "middle of the road," in worship style. The smallest one is a tad, IMO, legalistic, because they go for head coverings for a the women, et.al. However, their theology, et.al. is very sound. Their theology is more uniformly evangelical than the USA group. Here, where I live, First Presybterian itself is USA, but it is evangelical. The other USA churches are very liberal. The USA group is currently being reclaimed by evangelical Christians.

It should be noted that PCA churches vary on their baptismal practices. While the denomination itself teaches paedobaptism in its seminaries, their seminaries do teach non-Presbyterians and raise the issue of believers baptism as a valid mode. They practice paedobaptism in much the same way that Baptists dedicate babies and out of tradition and community. This is distinct from the Roman Church who do this out of their soteriological belief in infusion of grace, vs. the evangelical belief in conversion/salvation by grace through personal exercise of faith. PCA churches have been known to practice believers baptism as well for those members who have strong convictions about it and who wish to be baptised as believers.

Dr. Kennedy and Coral Ridge are the original writers / publishers of Evangelism Explosion, which many Baptist Churches still use as their evangelism program. PCA churches do evangelism very aggressively (as aggressively or moreso than many Arminian churches ).

He is out on a political tangent these days, however, and that is my personal problem with him. Of course we only see what goes on TV, but IMO, he needs to get off the poltical bandwagon and back to preaching the gospel and practical Christian living from the Scriptures themselves instead of the front page of the news.

Tenth St. Pres. in Philadelphia is also PCA. That church has produced Donald Grey Barnhouse and James Boice, two of American Reformed Theology's most highly regarded pastors and theologians from the Presbyterian denomination. They also run one of the most highly regarded "ex-gay" ministries on the East Coast, one of the few within the Reformed tradition at that. It serves the PA area and the Lord has even brought men and women from NYC to that ministry. They are on the forefront of missiology right now, as they see homosexual subculture as a distinct mission field, akin to bringing people out of religious cults. That ministry can be found at www.harvestusa.org , where you can read their articles on the subject of homosexuality and how reaching out to them is more akin to doing missions and evangelism among Mormons and other cults than anything else.

[ October 16, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

Here is a link to show the TRUTH about what really has a Roman Catholic influence and approval:


I suggest you all read the entirety.


http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defens.htm


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
If the Apocryphal books are not canonical why include them? “for example of life and instruction of manners” they themselves answer. Therefore straddling the fence between the Pope and the King of England.
--------------------------------------------------


This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the SCRIPTURES, nor does it have anything to do with THIS ISSUE and DEBATE. Stick with RELEVANT FACTS to the issue Hank, not IRRELEVANT ones.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Check your sources, Michelle...This resource to which you link quotes RUCKMAN.

For somebody that claim's she's not KJVO, you sure to go to great lengths to defend KJVOism.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Though the 39 Articles of Religion say that the Apocrypha is non-canonical, the KJV Bible itself equivocates and includes the Apocrypha in the 1611 First Edition (and others) without using this very word: non-canonical.

In the AV1611 The Apocryphal books are included in the same font and format with chapter and verse tags just as the rest of the books of the Old and New Testaments and that without comment as to canonicity.
--------------------------------------------------


The Articles of Religion is a documented statement of what they BELIEVED Hank. Hence, you are ASSUMING something that is NOT TRUE, as indicated by their OWN STATEMENT OF BELIEFS. I would call this a false witness. Nor is there ANY INDICATION of such assumed beliefs being EVIDENCED of this in the SCRIPTURES. The FACT of the matter is the APOCRYPHA is NOT included in the SCRIPTURES then, nor even up until today. This is a straw man argument against the TRUTH of this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Check your sources, Michelle...This resource to which you link quotes RUCKMAN.

For somebody that claim's she's not KJVO, you sure to go to great lengths to defend KJVOism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And you REJECT TRUTH because you disagree with a man who stands for the words of the Lord, and rather ACCEPT lies by UNBELIEVING SCHOLARS such as METZGER and OTHERS? You are only hurting yourself. And if you cannot read, what that site said and honestly look at what is provided there because you have DEEMED it cannot be trusted because they quote Ruckman, then you show that you approach this issue with something other than love for the TRUTH no matter what the cost and are stubborn as a mule.
YOu cannot honestly approach this issue, if you refuse to even consider the other side in this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Simply put, it wasn't.

The doctrine of the Anglican Communion was still ostensibly Roman. It could best be described as a hybrid of Romanism and Scots Presbyterianism. This is mirrored in its history. What we need to remember is that the conflict between Anglicanism and Romanism did NOT occur over theology, unlike the other Protestant movements. It was based solely on Henry VIII's desire to get a divorce from his first wife. The split was political at first.

James I himself was son of Mary, Queen of Scots, reared in France and, herself, Catholic. James, while Anglican himself after coming to the throne as a member of the Kirk, the Reformed Church of Scotland formed under John Knox's leadership in the 16th century, for no Catholic could truly carry legitimacy while monarch, still entertained the theology of ROme, without giving allegiance to her. Meanwhile Puritanism did gain inroads from Scotland when he came to the throne. While Presbyterianism came to flourish in Scotland, with the Kirk, the Church of Scotland undergoing complete Reformation under greats such as John Knox, it took the English Civil War to fully bring Reformation itself to England, when the Puritans, who, by then had come to control Parliament. The Puritans perceived the Anglican Church for what it was, theologically, just another form of Romanism. Thus the English Civil War had both a political and a theological dimension. Charles I tried to keep the Kirk under royal control (as did James I), and this eventually split the Kirk from the Church of England itself. James II, Charles II's successor, was himself Catholic. He did not last long.

The AV 1611 was partly an attempt to keep the peace between Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans, on the part of James I, and this is why it's translators had such diverse backgrounds and is often attributed as one of the major reasons it had such widespread support in England. The Geneva Bible was still used primarily by those with serious theological problems with the Anglican Church until the time of the English Civil War (roughly).

 

--------------------------------------------------
This persecution of the Church of England against us because of the rejection of the AV and opposition of other romish practices and equivocations of the CofE of those who went before us is part of our Baptist heritage.
--------------------------------------------------


First of all, you show you do not understand the full extent of the history of that time, NOR the Anglicans beliefs, nor do you pay much attention to the words of the Lord:

Matthew 10

25. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26. Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


1 Cor. 1

0. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Ah, the infamous KJVO double standard at work again. Ruckman believes in his own definition of advanced revelation, michelle, We've been over this before. If you get to discount persons on the basis of their beliefs then we get the same privlege.

You all reject scholars on the basis of guilt by association and irrelevant history all the time. You ignore the fact that the AV 1611 was the product of a set of scholars that included people that ascribed to Roman Catholic theology themselves, as the Anglican church at that time was a hybrid of Catholicism and Presybterianism. You accept as valid the work of men that believe they have received advanced / new revelation, etc.

In other words, michelle, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.