Yes it did, I believe in a separate section between the OT and NT as many "scholarly" Bibles do to this day. I am aware that there is still some debating around the edges of Anglicanism regarding the status of the Apocrypha, but I think Article 6 is both clear and wise: we read it for edification and historical context, but we do not put it on the same level as the 39 OT Books that are Inspired by God and can therefore be used for the formulation of doctrinal truth.
I've heard one quote from Luther suggesting he didn't like James, but then I've also heard another quote where he says James is great if you understand it. Luther seemed to say lots of things "in the heat of the moment" that we might call "unguarded" to say the least. I am not aware of him making any serious effort to try to get James dropped from the canon for Lutheran churches, but I'm not Luther scholar to be sure.
As a baptist, I would say that the "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" is problematic, if not more-so than lower case catholic. And to a lesser extent, apostolic church, can be confused with apostolic succession.
Most Baptists I know it is the remission of sins part. A few independent Baptists I know really struggle with catholic meaning universal. And as a Gideon I approve of the illustration👍🏻.
As a Baptist, I knew the motion regarding the Nicean Creed would fail. Church history is not a strong point amongst Baptists. Personally, I think the Nicean Creed and Apostles Creed should be adopted. Until that happens, we need to teach and re-affirm our belief in the Trinity. We also need to maintain a strong gospel presentation which includes the imputed righteousness of Christ. Do Anglicans hold to the imputation of Christ's righteousness for believers?
Yes, many Anglicans do hold imputation (though I'm sure there are a variety of interpretations that would be considered "in bounds"); I cannot recall if the word "imputation" is used in any doctrinal formularies, but the Articles of Religion do say "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by Faith, and not of our own works or deservings..." (Article XI). "Accounted" here is what (I believe) most folks mean by "imputation."
@@danielhixon8209 That sounds good. Being accounted righteous by the merits of Christ is what distinguishes us from Rome. When you speak of "catholicity" and "ecumenism", you don't mean reuniting with Rome, do you?
Who was the ultimate authority on assembling the bible? Are you suggesting that the church is, not the Holy Spirit? Seems like you glossed over that part pretty quickly to say churchmen did it. And if history serves me, the Apocrypha were not officially Deuterocanon until after Luther posted the 95 theses, making them a response to the reformation. It seems like you're in agreement but that's an important component overlooked, because as you pointed out, there were many that agreed with Jerome, who was most responsible for translating the Septuagint.
Thank you for the comment; it sounds like I need to clarify: I am certainly not trying to create a contrast or wedge between the work of God the Spirit and the consensus of the early and universal church. I believe that the building of the consensus of the church in identifying the canon was itself guided by the Holy Spirit. It was a genuine exercise of church authority AND a movement of the Spirit. I am contending that, if we can trust that the universal consensus as to the content of the canon was guided by the Spirit, we can also trust the same Spirit guided early fathers in crafting the creeds and the universal consensus across the ages in receiving those creeds. I am not, however, saying that the Creeds are equivalent to a new "word from the Lord" and therefore equal to Scripture (as some groups have claimed for their leaders), but that the Church, guided by the Spirit, provided an authoritative interpretation and summary proclamation of the Scripture, in keeping with the promise of Christ in John 16:13 and the example of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. As to the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, I think the evidence is that some Christians considered them equivalent to the other books of the Old Testament (St. Augustine) and others considered them important, but not God-breathed Scripture (St. Jerome) and there has never been a universal consensus (which we could reliably attribute to the Holy Spirit) on those particular books.
I’ve spent the last 25 years of my life engaged in devoted study of the Bible; I’m constantly discovering new connections and new insights, and new reasons to believe this book is inspired of God. Of course, there are unsettling passages (but unsettling precisely and only because I have internalized a Christian moral vision; Gengis Khan would not have found them unsettling) but far more passages that are badly misunderstood (even by preachers). If you really want answers to the questions you are raising (and are not simply using them as a rhetorical shield) I recommend the Truth Unites RUclips channel from Gavin Ortlund. He addresses many of the concerns and objections raised to Christian belief in a thoughtful and charitable way. God bless.
@@danielhixon8209 If you don't know that mass-murdering women, children, toddlers, infants, babies and unborns is evil, then you apparently lack the knowledge of good and evil and ought to be immortal according to the logic of Genesis. Did your god gypp you, or did primitive human beings create an evil, intolerant god in their own image? I was a reading prodigy and read the Bible from cover to cover at age 11. I knew from the first three chapters of Genesis that the biblical god was evil, and he was evil from beginning to end. No decent human being would do the things Yahweh did. I'm sure you wouldn't either. What does it say when your morals are better than your god's?
![Yeat & Quavo - 5BRAZY [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4XxnTAwyxus/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you brother Daniel. A subject that was easily dismantled and easily understood. Your teachings are a blessing. Chris x
The original Authorised Version (KJV) included the Apocropha.
Yes it did, I believe in a separate section between the OT and NT as many "scholarly" Bibles do to this day. I am aware that there is still some debating around the edges of Anglicanism regarding the status of the Apocrypha, but I think Article 6 is both clear and wise: we read it for edification and historical context, but we do not put it on the same level as the 39 OT Books that are Inspired by God and can therefore be used for the formulation of doctrinal truth.
Didn't Luther try to get rid of the book of James?
I've heard one quote from Luther suggesting he didn't like James, but then I've also heard another quote where he says James is great if you understand it. Luther seemed to say lots of things "in the heat of the moment" that we might call "unguarded" to say the least. I am not aware of him making any serious effort to try to get James dropped from the canon for Lutheran churches, but I'm not Luther scholar to be sure.
I think the biggest obstacle for many denominations is the word "catholic "
As a baptist, I would say that the "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" is problematic, if not more-so than lower case catholic. And to a lesser extent, apostolic church, can be confused with apostolic succession.
Most Baptists I know it is the remission of sins part. A few independent Baptists I know really struggle with catholic meaning universal. And as a Gideon I approve of the illustration👍🏻.
As a Baptist, I knew the motion regarding the Nicean Creed would fail. Church history is not a strong point amongst Baptists. Personally, I think the Nicean Creed and Apostles Creed should be adopted. Until that happens, we need to teach and re-affirm our belief in the Trinity. We also need to maintain a strong gospel presentation which includes the imputed righteousness of Christ. Do Anglicans hold to the imputation of Christ's righteousness for believers?
Yes, many Anglicans do hold imputation (though I'm sure there are a variety of interpretations that would be considered "in bounds"); I cannot recall if the word "imputation" is used in any doctrinal formularies, but the Articles of Religion do say "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by Faith, and not of our own works or deservings..." (Article XI). "Accounted" here is what (I believe) most folks mean by "imputation."
@@danielhixon8209 That sounds good. Being accounted righteous by the merits of Christ is what distinguishes us from Rome. When you speak of "catholicity" and "ecumenism", you don't mean reuniting with Rome, do you?
Who was the ultimate authority on assembling the bible? Are you suggesting that the church is, not the Holy Spirit? Seems like you glossed over that part pretty quickly to say churchmen did it. And if history serves me, the Apocrypha were not officially Deuterocanon until after Luther posted the 95 theses, making them a response to the reformation. It seems like you're in agreement but that's an important component overlooked, because as you pointed out, there were many that agreed with Jerome, who was most responsible for translating the Septuagint.
Thank you for the comment; it sounds like I need to clarify: I am certainly not trying to create a contrast or wedge between the work of God the Spirit and the consensus of the early and universal church. I believe that the building of the consensus of the church in identifying the canon was itself guided by the Holy Spirit. It was a genuine exercise of church authority AND a movement of the Spirit. I am contending that, if we can trust that the universal consensus as to the content of the canon was guided by the Spirit, we can also trust the same Spirit guided early fathers in crafting the creeds and the universal consensus across the ages in receiving those creeds. I am not, however, saying that the Creeds are equivalent to a new "word from the Lord" and therefore equal to Scripture (as some groups have claimed for their leaders), but that the Church, guided by the Spirit, provided an authoritative interpretation and summary proclamation of the Scripture, in keeping with the promise of Christ in John 16:13 and the example of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
As to the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, I think the evidence is that some Christians considered them equivalent to the other books of the Old Testament (St. Augustine) and others considered them important, but not God-breathed Scripture (St. Jerome) and there has never been a universal consensus (which we could reliably attribute to the Holy Spirit) on those particular books.
Teaching children to believe in an evil "god" and hell is child abuse. How am I wrong?
If God
is good
half the Bible
is libel.
--MIchael R. Burch
I’ve spent the last 25 years of my life engaged in devoted study of the Bible; I’m constantly discovering new connections and new insights, and new reasons to believe this book is inspired of God. Of course, there are unsettling passages (but unsettling precisely and only because I have internalized a Christian moral vision; Gengis Khan would not have found them unsettling) but far more passages that are badly misunderstood (even by preachers). If you really want answers to the questions you are raising (and are not simply using them as a rhetorical shield) I recommend the Truth Unites RUclips channel from Gavin Ortlund. He addresses many of the concerns and objections raised to Christian belief in a thoughtful and charitable way. God bless.
@@danielhixon8209 If you don't know that mass-murdering women, children, toddlers, infants, babies and unborns is evil, then you apparently lack the knowledge of good and evil and ought to be immortal according to the logic of Genesis. Did your god gypp you, or did primitive human beings create an evil, intolerant god in their own image?
I was a reading prodigy and read the Bible from cover to cover at age 11. I knew from the first three chapters of Genesis that the biblical god was evil, and he was evil from beginning to end. No decent human being would do the things Yahweh did. I'm sure you wouldn't either. What does it say when your morals are better than your god's?