# KJV and Romans 13



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2007)

Has anyone ever argued for the KJV by using Rom 13:1-7 ??

Is there any biblical advantage to the fact that the KJV was authorized by a king?


----------



## Herald (Jan 4, 2007)

_"Biblical advantage"_? Are you suggesting that King Jimmy had some influence upon the text that the Holy Spirit did not? Is any further "advantage" needed than that which the Holy Spirit provided in the writing of the original autographs and the preservation of the word of God to this day?


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2007)

Bill,

I'm trying to see if anybody thinks that since the Bible speaks of the authority that God has invested in kings and such (e.g.: Rom 13:1-7) that it has any advantage over other versions from this aspect.

Not that King James had an influence that the Holy Spirit did not, but rather that the Holy Spirit has a special influence in kings.

Now, i am not saying that this is my view. It's just in reading some of the KJV posts i was curious as to what others might think of this.

Personally, i would put more weight on the idea that God's people (OT Jews and NT believers) have special charge over the Scriptures, not the king - Rom 3:2.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 4, 2007)

Deleted...rabbit trail...sorry.


----------



## Herald (Jan 4, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Bill,
> 
> I'm trying to see if anybody thinks that since the Bible speaks of the authority that God has invested in kings and such (e.g.: Rom 13:1-7) that it has any advantage over other versions from this aspect.
> 
> ...



Larry - I cannot find anywhere in scripture that the Holy Spirit had any special influence in kings that He did not already have in the writers of scripture. Even David (a king) did not have any added benefit because he was a king. As far as Romans 13, contextually it is instructing Christians on their attitude towards government. Where would you get any reference to a kings role in the writing of scripture?


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2007)

Bill,



> Where would you get any reference to a kings role in the writing of scripture?


Again, i don't. I am looking to see if anyone has heard this type of argumentation. And if anybody thinks there is some biblical advantage in having a king authorize a translation.

I think i made it clear that this is not my perspective.

I will take it that your answer is...
#1 - no, you have never heard this type of argument
#2 - no, there is no advantage in having a version authorized by a king


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 4, 2007)

Larry, 

I understand your question and think it is a good one. 

For what it's worth, I just came across this quote in doing some research regarding the AV translation (CarolinaCalvinist just so happened to send me this link today):



> Although it is often referred to as the King James Version, the only active part King James took in the translation was lifting the criminal (death) penalty attached to its translation and setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process (such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes.)


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2007)

Larry, I think your question is appropriate. The answer to it depends on whether one holds to the establishment principle, as defined in the original WCF 23:3. There it is taught that the civil magistrate has authority to take order that all the ordinances of God be duly settled, administrated, and observed. Confessional Presbyterians base their constitution on the attainments of the second reformation period, sometimes called the covenanted work of reformation. It was in this context that the work of the Westminster Assembly was accomplished. The Westminster Assembly was called into existence and acted under the direction of the Long Parliament. Its accomplishments are not merely a legacy of reformation, but a platform for biblical church unity. It is worth noting that the AV is the accepted translation of the Westminster standards.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 4, 2007)

*State and Church Bible*

Hay:

That a Bible is authorized by both the State and the Church is greater than a Bible authorized by some "Bible Society" or church denomination seems appropriate. After all, it was the Emperor Constantine who called the Council of Nicea. And, I believe the book, Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, republished by Naphtali Press, argues for a role of the government in Church affairs.

So, I would answer your question with a "yes" - that a Bible which is authorized by both Church and State is greater than a Bible that is simply authorized by the Church or some para-Church organization.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2007)

Excellent responses.
This is the kind of discourse that i was looking for.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 5, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Has anyone ever argued for the KJV by using Rom 13:1-7 ??
> 
> Is there any biblical advantage to the fact that the KJV was authorized by a king?




Keeping in mind that King James authorized the _making_ of the translation, but did not authorize (give it his official okie-dokie) the finished product.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 5, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> _"Biblical advantage"_? Are you suggesting that King Jimmy had some influence upon the text that the Holy Spirit did not? Is any further "advantage" needed than that which the Holy Spirit provided in the writing of the original autographs and the preservation of the word of God to this day?



Keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit caused the writing of the _original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts_ (as you say), not the King James Version of the English Bible.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The answer to it depends on whether one holds to the establishment principle, as defined in the original WCF 23:3. There it is taught that the civil magistrate has authority to take order that all the ordinances of God be duly settled, administrated, and observed.



The obvious problem here, of course, is that, in our world today, this would be impossible to see realized because, given that the vast majority of people in governmental positions (at all levels) are spiritually dead (= unbelievers), they have _no_ interest in anything having to do with God's ordinances.

It is a basic principle of Scripture that spiritually dead people are not interested in spiritual things because they are not able to be so interested (_The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned._ [1 Corinthians 2:14, ESV]).

So, while WCF 23.3 may have been easier to understand given church/state relationships in Britain in the middle of the 17th century, this provision is virtually unenforceable today.

Besides, the establishment principle was never a good idea, in my opinion (Archbishop of Canterbury, call your office).


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Besides, the establishment principle was never a good idea, in my opinion (Archbishop of Canterbury, call your office).



Not even in the OT?

My father is an unbeliever. If he told me to worship another god, I would say no. If he told me to worship the Lord, I would gladly do it. Then my joy would be full, worshipping the Lord which is the chief end of my being, and doing so also out of love and respect for my father. What a tremendous blessing if I could most dutifully worship the Lord also in submission and obedience to the powers that be!

Modern Christians make idols of their individual freedoms. They should desire their nation and its rulers to be blessed under the profession of the true religion. I think deep down they believe that the world cannot be the better for the Christian faith -- poor people!


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Not even in the OT?
> 
> My father is an unbeliever. If he told me to worship another god, I would say no. If he told me to worship the Lord, I would gladly do it. Then my joy would be full, worshipping the Lord which is the chief end of my being, and doing so also out of love and respect for my father. What a tremendous blessing if I could most dutifully worship the Lord also in submission and obedience to the powers that be!
> 
> Modern Christians make idols of their individual freedoms. They should desire their nation and its rulers to be blessed under the profession of the true religion. I think deep down they believe that the world cannot be the better for the Christian faith -- poor people!



Ooh, that is a very intriguing point to chew on, Rev. Winzer. While I'm still figuring out a lot of things with my beliefs on the Civil Magistrate statements in the WCF, your example is a vivid illustration of the merit a Christian state can have in society. And I do agree with you that most Christians do often value their freedoms over what would be superior alternatives (only in regard to this specific instance of the conversation). I'm still trying to hammer it out, but the fact that Calvinists have been the bulwark of many a free society is something definitely underappreciated in our times.

You add thoughtful nuggets as always, and I truly enjoy and am edified by your posts. May God bless you, your family, and your flock in this new year, and thank you for taking the time to post on this board.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 5, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> You add thoughtful nuggets as always, and I truly enjoy and am edified by your posts. May God bless you, your family, and your flock in this new year, and thank you for taking the time to post on this board.



I think the fact that he posts in an Australian accent makes his posts seem more interesting...


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2007)

Bewdy!


----------



## bookslover (Jan 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> My father is an unbeliever.



I trust that you're praying fervently for your father. My own father died nearly five years ago as an unrepentent sinner, and is now in Hell. When I attempted to speak to him about the gospel, he would always say, "I'll take it under advisement", which was his way of just blowing me off. He frankly considered himself a heathen - a word he freely used of himself. (He was raised with no religious training of any sort, as far as I know.)

My mother, who will be 77 this year and who's health is only fair, is a very lapsed Roman Catholic. (I don't think she's been inside a church of any kind in about 40 years.) Visiting her late last year (she lives about 400 miles from me), I asked her what she thought of Jesus Christ. She answered, He was a "great guy" who "set a really good example for us". Evidently, she doesn't believe that Jesus is God. My fear is that she is going to join my father in Hell unless the Holy Spirit truly ministers to her. 

Of my parents and my three siblings (all younger), I'm the only Christian. Since my own salvation, I've envied people who grew up in thoroughly Christian homes...


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2007)

Richard, we have similar family situations. I thank the Lord that he sets the solitary in families, and when earthly families alienate us we have the body of Christ. "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Richard, we have similar family situations. I thank the Lord that he sets the solitary in families, and when earthly families alienate us we have the body of Christ. "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children."



 My father is a lapsed Roman Catholic while my Mother and brothers are very devout Roman Catholics. I was just thinking about this today and reflecting how much grace has been shown to me to call me out of that.


----------



## Herald (Jan 5, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit caused the writing of the _original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts_ (as you say), not the King James Version of the English Bible.



Huh? I thought I was keeping that in mind. Did I miss something?


----------



## Herald (Jan 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Not even in the OT?
> 
> My father is an unbeliever. If he told me to worship another god, I would say no. If he told me to worship the Lord, I would gladly do it. Then my joy would be full, worshipping the Lord which is the chief end of my being, and doing so also out of love and respect for my father. What a tremendous blessing if I could most dutifully worship the Lord also in submission and obedience to the powers that be!
> 
> Modern Christians make idols of their individual freedoms. They should desire their nation and its rulers to be blessed under the profession of the true religion. I think deep down they believe that the world cannot be the better for the Christian faith -- poor people!



Matthew - many of us do desire that our nation and its leaders be blessed by faith in Christ. This should be the desire of each and every child of God. But Jesus said, Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." When I consider the spiritual condition of my own country I find that passage to ring true. I thank God for my constitutional freedoms but I see them being threatened by an ever increasing secular society. I suppose that is why a large percentage of American Christians see a strom cloud looming in the future.


----------



## lv1nothr (Jan 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I was just thinking about this today and reflecting how much grace has been shown to me to call me out of that.



 same here! He is sooooooooooo gracious!


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 5, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Has anyone ever argued for the KJV by using Rom 13:1-7 ??
> 
> Is there any biblical advantage to the fact that the KJV was authorized by a king?



I think that Dean Burgeon may have...but was probably more to do with bishops on hindsight.


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - many of us do desire that our nation and its leaders be blessed by faith in Christ. This should be the desire of each and every child of God. But Jesus said, Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." When I consider the spiritual condition of my own country I find that passage to ring true. I thank God for my constitutional freedoms but I see them being threatened by an ever increasing secular society. I suppose that is why a large percentage of American Christians see a strom cloud looming in the future.



Bill, I see Christian establishmentarianism as the answer to willy nilly government.


----------

