The quote that really struck me was why Toplady applauded the removal of the study notes, even though they were Calvinistic in nature.
Toplady is dealing historically with England and the doctrines of grace and Arminianism. There is one chapter devoted to King James I. I've linked to the particular section I'm referring to, and I've done my best to update the spelling of words to their modern spelling and all emphasis are mine.
In 1611, that translation (used at this day) was finished by the excellent divines, to whose care this great work had been assigned, and who had spent about three years in the important employ. Instead of human annotations, the margin of this version is very properly filled with references to parallel Scriptures: so that the Bible is now a commentary on itself. If it be asked 'Whether the ancient notes were omitted, with a simple view to render the Scripture its own interpreter?' I must confess, that this is a question which I can answer by conjection alone.** And my conjecture is, that Jame's suspicious policy was afraid to entrust even the bishops and clergymen of the church of England, concerned in this translation, with the insertion of any marginal notes at all; left some remark or other might flip in, tending to emblazon the wickedness and absurdity of despotic power.
He was a better textary, than to be ignorant, that there are a multitude of passages, and of instance, in the inspired volume which grind the doctrine of non-resistance to powder, and disperse its atoms in empty air. Better, therefore, in James opinion, to forgo all explications whatever, than to run the risque of render those unfavourable passages more visible than they render themselves. This I conceive to have been the true cause of the simplicity, by which our present version is distinguished.
As to the Calvinistic doctrines, there is no need, nor was there any need from the first, of erecting marginal banners, to distinguish in what places of Scripture they are to be found. What I observed, several years ago, concerning the liturgy; I now observe, concerning the Bible; open God's Word where you will, Calvinism stares you in the face.
**(Note: there is a footnote in the text that where he gives an account of the Hampton-court converence in refernce to omitting the study notes of the new translation, to which Toplady says his conjecture is proved to be "...the true and undoubted cause of the said omission.")
The first thing I noted was that Toplady felt the translation to be a "great work". Only those that have an agenda could possibly deny that fact even if they don't read or preach from the KJV. But I thought it good to read some original source words of men of his era giving his opinion of the KJV.
But what really caught my attention was the quote on the omission of the study notes. Toplady was a STRONG Calvinist, and was known for his battles against Arminianism with Charles Wesley. Yet he applauded the removed of the study notes. Why?
They were not needed for the truth to preserver. I agree with his assertion that "open God's Word where you will, Calvinism stares you in the face". The Bible, as its own interpreter is what the child of God needs, and the truth will not falter. The truth IS THERE, and if you open the Bible, you will find God's Grace written there.
I truly believe that if a child of God sat down with an open heart and an open Bible, they would leave the study a Baptist, in belief anyway, because the truths Baptist hold to are taught in God's Word. I don't need a catechism and a theological framework to understand the doctrines of grace, or believers baptism. The truth is there as scripture interprets scripture. Certainly study helps are wonderful tools, but what is wonderful about the truth of God's grace and God's Word is that it isn't dependent upon men because it was not invented by men or is not perpetuated by men. The wonderful truth of grace is found on every page of God's inspired Word and will endure forever because it is God's Word and it is God's Grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment