Jump to content
IGNORED

The Protestant Reformation


Fidei Defensor

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  49
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   17
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/13/2020
  • Status:  Offline

20 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Henry VIII did not translate the Bible at all and initially suppressed it's translation into English.

He "instituted" the Church of England, by seceding selfishly from Romanism, because the Bishop of Rome (correctly) would not give him an annulment, then declared himself as head of his new faction.

I am no supporter of Romanism, but Henry VIII was a deeply evil man!  He had two of his wives murdered!

 

But he was instrumental in creating the Great Bible...the first full English translation of the Bible. He commissioned it. The irony is that it contained Wycliffe's work but then had Wycliffe killed for political disagreements. 

Henry had his wives killed because he couldn't get a divorce and needed an heir. The issue arising from his marriage to the Emporor's Niece. He couldn't get an audience with the Pope who would have had to issue the divorce the same as he had for others. So Henry found a loophole and took advantage of it. (Not that I agree with his decisions) 

 

But credit is due for where credit is due. 

He created the Church of England.

Commissioned the first English translation of the complete Bible. 

Both of these things (as well as Bloody Mary and the Calvinists of Geneva) were key reasons and instrumental of how we got the English Reformation. 

 

It wasn't until Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen that the Reformation was fully realized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  49
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   17
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/13/2020
  • Status:  Offline

What's more is that Henry started his career fairly loyal to the Catholic Church. Even writing papers in support of Catholic doctrines. 

 

It wasn't until his need for an heir and blaming his wife for the lack of children that he chose to separate himself. 

That and his need for the funds that were leaving the kingdom to Rome. (He had spending habits to support)

 

Later in life he became known for his outrageous attitudes after an injury from playing tennis kept him bedridden and what's believed to be diabetes took hold. The volume of alcoholic beverages consumed by the average person would have made him impossible to deal with. But nothing was known about diabetes...or the sore on his leg that wouldn't ever heal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  49
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   17
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/13/2020
  • Status:  Offline

And lastly...

I'm not heralding him or applauding him. Only trying to factually state what happened. 

My applause is for how God used these people to accomplish His goals and aims. For which I am personally grateful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,731
  • Content Per Day:  3.62
  • Reputation:   3,522
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  11/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, JohnDB said:

But he was instrumental in creating the Great Bible...the first full English translation of the Bible. He commissioned it. The irony is that it contained Wycliffe's work but then had Wycliffe killed for political disagreements. 

Henry had his wives killed because he couldn't get a divorce and needed an heir. The issue arising from his marriage to the Emporor's Niece. He couldn't get an audience with the Pope who would have had to issue the divorce the same as he had for others. So Henry found a loophole and took advantage of it. (Not that I agree with his decisions) 

 

But credit is due for where credit is due. 

He created the Church of England.

Commissioned the first English translation of the complete Bible. 

Both of these things (as well as Bloody Mary and the Calvinists of Geneva) were key reasons and instrumental of how we got the English Reformation. 

 

It wasn't until Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen that the Reformation was fully realized.

The Matthew's Bible was published in 1537, two years before the Great Bible.  The Matthew's Bible was completed by John Rogers, mostly based on the work of William Tyndale, who translated the NT from Greek, not John Wycliffe, whose Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, much earlier.

The Great Bible was completed by Miles Coverdale, also based on the work of Tyndale, with some revisions.  It was the first Bible authorised to be read aloud, in the Church of England.

Henry VIII deserves precisely zero credit for creating the "Church of England".

Quote

Commissioned the first English translation of the complete Bible.

No, he didn't, as pointed out above.

Quote

Both of these things (as well as Bloody Mary and the Calvinists of Geneva) were key reasons and instrumental of how we got the English Reformation.

I'd say that Martin Luther had a very large role to play, wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  49
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   17
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/13/2020
  • Status:  Offline

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible

 

The Great Bible of 1539 was the first authorised edition of the Bible in English, authorised by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. 

 

Guess which one was more instrumental?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  49
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   17
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/13/2020
  • Status:  Offline

The Calvinists of Geneva were English speaking people...not native Swiss. The only reason they weren't caught up in the 100 Years War was because the town had no real rescources that the warring factions wanted after a long, arduous trek over mountains to get there. Nor did these English speaking people care anything about either side of the conflict. 

They did care about living though....which is why these people left England to get away from Bloody Mary and her return to Catholicism. So while they were there they commissioned and subsidized the Geneva Bible. 

Bloody Mary only had a five or six year reign. She died from cancer. 

Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen, never married because all the men she met available for marriage were pretty much just after the throne and power. But she allowed the return of the Calvinists and protestantism and subdued the Catholics. 

The Geneva Bible was the first Bible in history (English speaking) that the common man could actually afford and own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,731
  • Content Per Day:  3.62
  • Reputation:   3,522
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  11/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, JohnDB said:

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible

 

The Great Bible of 1539 was the first authorised edition of the Bible in English, authorised by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. 

 

Guess which one was more instrumental?

That would be the Matthew's Bible.  The later Geneva Bible and KJV were both largely based upon the Matthew's Bible.

The Great Bible had some changes from Tyndale's work, because the C. of E. bishops didn't like certain correct translations, e.g. congregation - they wanted "church", to foster their power base.  For similar reasons, the Geneva Bible was always more popular than the KJV, until King James forbade the continued publication of the Geneva Bible, in Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  49
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   17
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/13/2020
  • Status:  Offline

Regardless of your agenda,

I'm guessing that you will agree that in that day and time religion was politics and Politics was religion. Everyone missing the elephant in the room of scripture being dead set against Politics. But the nuances of the scriptures being bent towards particular governances. (Calvinist loved voting)

The glosses which were rampant in the Geneva Bible and especially the type used made the Geneva Bible easily read and popular. (As well as the pictures) 

 

The 1611 KJV was never popular. The gothic type, lack of glosses, and lack of pictures kept it from being popular. It also underwent a mild revision. Everyone who printed it went bankrupt. The Geneva Bible was still more popular even though it was banned. 

The last Bible named King James translation was actually a new work from scratch by Cambridge and Oxford universities. It too fell flat. (Too many other English translations available) Cambridge University actually doing the lion's share of the work. It wasn't that popular until a massive marketing campaign in the early 1900's made it so. 

I tend to rely upon the volume of Bibles printed and sold and read for being instrumental in forming the attitudes of people. 

 

Scriptures really weren't as popular as the Psalter and book of prayers (included in the Bible) that were focused on moreso than actual scriptures we focus on today. 

 

We look in shock at some of the things that concerned them and wonder how they could miss the main and plain things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,731
  • Content Per Day:  3.62
  • Reputation:   3,522
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  11/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, JohnDB said:

Regardless of your agenda,

I'm guessing that you will agree that in that day and time religion was politics and Politics was religion. Everyone missing the elephant in the room of scripture being dead set against Politics. But the nuances of the scriptures being bent towards particular governances. (Calvinist loved voting)

The glosses which were rampant in the Geneva Bible and especially the type used made the Geneva Bible easily read and popular. (As well as the pictures) 

 

The 1611 KJV was never popular. The gothic type, lack of glosses, and lack of pictures kept it from being popular. It also underwent a mild revision. Everyone who printed it went bankrupt. The Geneva Bible was still more popular even though it was banned. 

The last Bible named King James translation was actually a new work from scratch by Cambridge and Oxford universities. It too fell flat. (Too many other English translations available) Cambridge University actually doing the lion's share of the work. It wasn't that popular until a massive marketing campaign in the early 1900's made it so. 

I tend to rely upon the volume of Bibles printed and sold and read for being instrumental in forming the attitudes of people. 

 

Scriptures really weren't as popular as the Psalter and book of prayers (included in the Bible) that were focused on moreso than actual scriptures we focus on today. 

 

 

I have no "agenda", other than getting to the truth and honouring the Lord.

Quote

We look in shock at some of the things that concerned them and wonder how they could miss the main and plain things.

The same goes for nowadays (prosperity gospel, heavy shepherding, legalism, works righteousness, worldly gimmicks, etc.).

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,731
  • Content Per Day:  3.62
  • Reputation:   3,522
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  11/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, Nobody said:

If that's the case, check out what Luther wrote in his own words, and how he "honoured" the Lord: 

Luther's own statements concerning his teaching and its results, taken exclusively from the earliest and best editions of Luther's German and Latin works.

Here's the Index to whet your appetite:

Part I: Luther and his teaching

I. Luther rejects the authority of the Pope.

II. Luther admits the authority of the devil.

III. Luther proclaims his own authority and infallibility.

IV. Luther acts with authority and infallibility.

V. Luther's intolerance against those who refuse to submit to his authority and infallibility.

PART II: Results of Luther's teaching

I. Political results

II. Moral results

Conclusion

I couldn't care less.  The Bible is our authority, not Martin Luther and certainly not some so-called RC Magisterium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...