Today's blog is going to take us on a trip starting in 16th century England with King Henry VIII to the shores of the Americas.
Why Did Henry VIII Break Away From the Catholic Church?
Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church so that he could divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry his lover Anne Boleyn.
The year was 1527, and Henry VIII wanted a male heir. Unfortunately, his wife was too old to bear a child, so he needed a new wife. At the time, divorce was not allowed in the Catholic Church, and if Henry got a divorce without the pope’s permission, he could be excommunicated or kicked out of the church – a fate that would ultimately lead to an eternity in hell.
Henry asked the pope for a dispensation to get a divorce, but the pope would not grant him that. In response, Henry asked the archbishop of Canterbury to grant him a divorce, and the bishop had no choice but to comply. The pope was appalled, but Henry just used the occasion to split away from the Catholic Church and to establish the Church of England.
The break away from the Catholic Church had far reaching consequences, and it subverted the current world order. Prior to the break from the Catholic Church, the commonly accepted hierarchy was God, pope, king, but Henry thrust himself between the pope and God in a move that was unprecedented. The king, or monarchy became the head of the "church". This is important as I'll reveal later. Ultimately, the break opened the door for the Protestant Reformation to enter England, but that movement did not gain speed in the country until after Henry’s death during the reign of Edward VII.
Henry's clean break from the "Church of Rome" did not seriously deviate from Catholic doctrine. With the exception of the denial of papal supremacy and expressions of skepticism about the existence of purgatory, Henry upheld all the central pillars of the Roman Catholic faith. It was also during this time that Henry commissioned a new English Bible, the Great Bible, to replace Rome's Bible.
Henry considered Martin Luther's teachings on justification by faith alone, the sacraments, the priesthood, and the Mass to be dangerous and erroneous.
When Edward VI (ruled 1547–1553), England made a religious shift towards Protestantism. It was during this time Archbishop Cranmer created the Church of England's statement of faith, the Forty-Two Articles. All of Edward's reforms were short lived. When "Blood Mary" reigned she reversed all his reforms and great persecution ensued.
Mary's reforms didn't last long. Queen Elizabeth took over the throne and turned the kingdom back towards Protestantism. It was during her time that the Forty-Two Articles were revised to the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Bishop's Bible came into existence.
Now I turn to King James I of England, who was formerly James VI, King of Scotland, whom had been raised and schooled in Protestantism. Of an interesting note, in 1601, while still King of Scotland, he entered the secret society of the Freemasons. The Masons credit him as being the originator of their lodges as they are to this day.
One would think that King James was a godly man being raised a Presbyterian and commissioning a new Bible translation. Yet what do we learn of his character? It was said that he "perverted the laws, both of man and of God." (History of the Scottish Church, pg. 309) That he was "notoriously and outrageously wicked." (The Bible Question, pg. 37) The meanest and most despicable sovereign that ever held an English scepter." (Bye-paths In Baptist History, pg. 80)
Yet, in 1604, he commissioned, or "authorized" [though there are no official records of him doing so] his own translation of the Bible. The translating work did not begin until 1607 and of course was released in 1611. The other versions, namely the Geneva Bible, fell to the Kings disfavor because their footnotes failed to honor the King, and his Church of England, or Anglican Church. To correct this, he invited fifty-four scholars, of which only 47 heeded the call (one-third of them being Protestants), and gave them fifteen edicts to follow [one of which is important to note is the chopping and changing (Tyndale) of Scripture with the word "church" corrupting apostolic doctrine in the process which corruption continues today without a bat of an eye] as they translated and published his Authorized Version according to the 39 Articles of the Church Of England (Anglican Communion), which is an interesting mixture of Catholic and Protestant theology or dogma. It is sometimes referred to as a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism. This is troubling to say the least. (Are you unfamiliar with the "chopping and changing" of Scripture with the word "church"? Read my old blog post at the link below.)
https://fulekifiles.blogspot.com/2020/12/what-more-greek.html
Why? Because both dogmas have a mixture of Platonism which we know the apostles were combating in their writings. To put it another way, Platonism became mixed or syncretized with Scripture, and corrupted it. The translations of the Bibles were based on these biases. The apostolic doctrine was diluted with Greek philosophy and taught in the monasteries, seminaries and universities that not only influenced the Catholics, but later the Protestants and then the Evangelicals. Therefore, it created a different god and another Jesus. A good portion of the core "Christianity" we have been conditioned to accept is not according to apostolic doctrine. This is alarming!
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…” Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli were highly influenced by the teachings of Augustine.
The systematic theology that is taught is contrary to what is revealed in the manuscripts that were translated. Much of what we were taught is core "Christian" doctrine, is actually nothing more than a syncretism of religious and philosophical ideologies. All of our English translations were distorted and twisted to keep these syncretistic doctrines in tack. Yes, it is amazing how man did not fear to tinker with God's Word.
Some of these gnostic philosophies are trinitarianism; original sin; immortality of the soul and an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell; gnostic allegorical interpretation of Scripture leading to acceptance of amillennialism in Catholicism as opposed to chiliasm.
Paul warned us not to be entangled and taken captive by empty philosophy devoid of truth after the instruction of men and the fundamental principles of the world and not after Christ (Col. 2:8). As Donald C. Stamp said. "Any teachings, doctrines or ideas originating from persons, congregations, or traditions and not expressed or implied in God's Word may not be included in the apostle's doctrine. To mix [syncretize] them with the original content of the apostle's doctrine is to pervert the Word of God. Anyone adding to or taking away from the original and fundamental truth of God's Word and the apostle's doctrine are under God's curse."
Mr. Stamps continued, "Those who reject the original revelation of Christ and the apostles do not have God. Although they may claim to know Him (1 Jn. 2:4 [John wrote this letter to combat the gnostic teachings infiltrating the Body of Christ]), they are deceived if they do not continue in the teaching of Christ; those who forsake Christ's doctrine forsake Christ. All theology that does not hold to the truth and righteousness revealed in the NT is not Christian theology and must be rejected. Those who distort and oppose the NT faith must not be received into the fellowship. God warns true believers to guard against accepting false teaching."
Paul's fear in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 has become a reality and like the frog in a pot of water being brought to a slow boil, so people have been deceived through a corrupted English translation in holding, as truth, principles that are not truth. Are you among the many who hold to the pseudo "mainstream" "Christianity" that is propagated from "sea to shining sea"? If so, heed Donald C. Stamp's warnings above, as well as the warnings of the apostle's and return to the simple, unmixed, unadulterated, unaltered doctrine of Christ.
Moving on in history, the Church of England, or Anglican Church, is the primary state "church" in England, where the concepts of "church" and state are linked. The British monarch is considered the supreme governor of the "church". Among other privileges, he or she has the authority to approve the appointment of archbishops and other "church" leaders. All of this is contrary to the ekklesia of Christ (Mt. 16:18). Remember how I had mentioned earlier King James' edict on the use of the word "church" in the AV corrupted not only the Scriptures, but also the way we understand and practice them?
According to the Twenty-third Article of Religion, the canons of 1604, the Article, though derived from one (No. 10 of the 13 Articles of 1538), asserts that the institution or licence to minister publicly belongs to some superior jurisdiction, and that ministry in a particular place is not a thing which a man can take upon himself. It is well known that such power of jurisdiction was claimed and exercised by the Crown, often on a large scale, in the 16th century, that power of licensing to preach, is, according to canon 36 of 1604, possessed also by the two Universities, and that power to institute and license has often been delegated to Bishop's officials...and forbids any to preach without licence of the King... - as I talked about in recent blog posts, if the head of your "church" is a man, a king, a monarch, the state, etc, by whom you are granted privelleges to operate or conduct business, you Head is not Christ!
Observe Peter Kershaw's take of the situation in England:
The British crown represented the establishment church system -- the Church of England. Moreover, the king, by royal edict, was "lord sovereign head" of the Church. Even many years subsequent to the official separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, Anglicanism remained thoroughly steeped in the tyrannical and despotic traditions of popery. In Rome, the pope was sovereign head of the Church; but in England, it was the monarchy. The "divine right of popes" was exchanged for the "divine right of kings."
All preaching and publishing was sanctioned by royal license. No religious license could be obtained without the public proclamation that the king was "lord sovereign head" of the Church. For those of Romish persuasion, there was no personal conflict in such an affirmation; but no Christian of Reformational faith could swear such an oath of assent. Many thousands of Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist and Independent ministers were excommunicated, their churches locked, and they were ordered to preach and publish no more. Most defied the ban on unlicensed preaching, taking to their horses and preaching wherever they could find an audience. The era of the circuit-riding preacher was born!
Anglican Bishops routinely engaged in a campaign of terror against "Nonconformist" ministers. The most brutal and barbaric of men often received their Bishoprics as a direct result of their notorious and gruesome reputations. Such is the case of Bishop Paterson, inventor of the thumbscrews. Many a bishop actively engaged in inventing "machines of torture." If excruciating pain proved unsuccessful in compelling the "Dissenter" to recant of his "heresy," he would be shackled to a stake and burned alive. Few bishops showed any mercy, and this became their final, and most tormenting, of all punishments. Rather than setting light to combustibles which would engulf the victim in a roaring inferno and promptly dispatch them, the bishops would quite often select green wood. Many a bishop delighted in "slow-roasting" their victims.
It is, therefore, easy to understand why thousands of Nonconformist preachers fled to America's shores, and for a time at least, the Stuart monarchy* was glad to be rid of them. Few colonists shared the religious convictions of the British crown. For the most part, they were of the "Protesting faith." Many of the emigrant clergy had been convicted criminals, guilty of "preaching without a license" and "publishing without a license." Some had been "banished to the plantations." Others were fugitives of the law, having received subpoenas to appear before the king's Star Chamber, but fleeing rather than facing a heretic's trial. Some had even escaped from the king's prisons.
The Pilgrims arrived in 1620 to America to escape the shackles of the Church of England and it's head's lordship. They brought with them the Geneva Bible, and not the King James Bible. As noted earlier, both versions were corrupted from their purity with biased gnostic syncretism. The KJV was seen as the Bible of the English king and the state Church of England which had been persecuting them. This happened only for a short period of time, as the Anglican Communion had actually been established in the colonies beginning in 1607 with the establishment of Jamestown.
Kershaw continues:
But the arrival of thousands of unlicensed preachers in America did not spontaneously result in freedom of religion. While Protestants firmly adhered to a policy of the independence of the church from the State, Anglicans exerted their influence in an attempt to bring all American churches under the sway of the monarchy, and later, also under the parliament. In an effort to control religion, the British crown established hundreds of Anglican churches throughout the American Colonies. Through imposition of various "religious acts," the king sought a church monopoly. Unlicensed preaching and publishing was forbidden, and just as in England, the king declared himself "sovereign head" of America's churches. To America's Dissenting clergy, this was nothing short of blasphemy. It was in the unlicensed pulpits of America's Nonconformist churches that the phrase was coined, "No king but King Jesus!" It was also there that such patriotic phrases originated as "Live free or die!"
America's unlicensed clergy were typically among the most highly educated and brilliant men of their time. The Puritan world view held to the political philosophies of Locke, Milton, Sydney and Montesquieu. They abominated "pluralism," the view that one set of laws governs the church, while an entirely different law code governed the civil affairs of man. Only God is truly Sovereign, and the ruler that does not govern according to His Law's is not a ruler, but a usurper. As the Puritan's would say, "By his own tyranny, the king unthrones himself." They also abominated "Erastianism," the political philosophy that the civil ruler is supreme in authority over not only the the sphere of civil government, but also in the affairs of the church.
All clergy in America exercised an immense influence over public opinion, either for good, or for evil. The Anglican clergy were sent to our shores to convince the Colonists of the king's agenda.
The young candidates for the Anglican clergy were taught at Oxford that submission and obedience, clear, absolute, and without exception, was the badge and character of the Church of England. The Anglican clergy were compelled to read on the anniversary of the death of Charles I the Oxford homily "against disobedience and wilful rebellion,' or to preach a sermon against that sin.
Protestant preachers in America (and in England, for that matter) shared no such affections for the despot Charles, nor did they mourn his execution at the hand of Oliver Cromwell. Charles II, the "Supreme Governor of the Church," declared his father canonized among the "army of martyrs" and "saints," with the anniversary of his death solemnized, in the Anglican prayer book, a national holy-day of fasting. Not only was the reading of the Oxford homily compulsory for all ministers, but they were required to say a prayer for Charles I, and pronounce a benediction, "Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us." Many an unlicensed colonial preacher obeyed the letter of the law, but they did so with an air of solemn mockery, much to the delight of their congregations.
When you compare this blog with my recent blog posts it should be evident that the battle has been raging on for centuries over who will be lord or head over the "Christian" faith, man, or Jesus Christ. What doctrines of faith will be allowed to be taught? Man's through their corrupted, syncretized theology based translations, or the unadulterated, pure Word of God? See where the nonprofit 501c3 corporations fit in? I hope that it is becoming more evident that we have been bamboozled to believe lies mixed with truth. Plenty for you to chew on until next time.
https://www.reference.com/history/did-henry-viii-break-away-catholic-church-83929a640b7d87bd
https://www.gotquestions.org/39-Articles-42-Articles.html
https://christianityfaq.com/protestant-anglican-comparison/
https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/protestant-denominations/church-england
No comments:
Post a Comment