The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[smvoice]

Mark, I'm reading your post at Matthew 28:16-20. But have you read Matthew 23:1-3? "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples. Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: ALL THEREFORE WHATSOEVER THEY BID YOU OBSERVE, THAT OBSERVE AND DO: but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not." So it seems that the "Great Commission" Christ gave to Peter and the 11 contained legalism of the Pharisees. This is in Matthew.

So we move to Mark where we find the baptismal salvation and miraculous signs of Mark 16:16-18.

Then we go to Luke. Where we find the "Jerusalem FIRST" of Luke 24:47 and again in Acts 1:8.

And finally to John. Where the authority to remit sins in John 20:22,23 are given.

NONE of which, in ANY of these gospels are compatible with the gospel of the grace of God. Ephesians 2:8,9 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

So, just what is it that the Church is to teach all men? Legalism of Matthew, signs of Mark, Jerusalem first of Luke, or remission of sins of John? Notice that ALL of these refer to Israel. And not until the gospel of the grace of God is given is there any hint that Gentiles had any hope of salvation in those 4 gospels of Christ's earthly ministry. Because we didn't.

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands: That AT THAT TIME (time past) ye were WITHOUT CHRIST, being ALIENS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, and STRANGERS FROM THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE, having NO HOPE, and WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD:". When WAS this "TIME PAST"?? "But NOW IN CHRIST JESUS ye who sometimes were FAR OFF are MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." Eph. 2:13. So if it's the BLOOD OF CHRIST that makes Gentiles nigh, then BEFORE the blood of Christ was shed, we were exactly what Eph. 2:11,12 says we were.

Please explain to me what the teachings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have to do with Gentiles, the Church the Body of Christ, and the gospel of the grace of God in light of the Scriptures. And how the "Church" is to teach all men today that which was given to Israel?

[aruanan]

NONE of which, in ANY of these gospels are compatible with the gospel of the grace of God. Ephesians 2:8,9 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

So, just what is it that the Church is to teach all men?

There is, though, none more legalistic than Calvin and his version of the medieval doctrine of imputed righteousness. It's possible that what appears to be so discordant to you in the Gospels with other portions of scripture is that way because of a fundamental flaw in understanding.

[Natural Law]

"There is, though, none more legalistic than Calvin and his version of the medieval doctrine of imputed righteousness. It's possible that what appears to be so discordant to you in the Gospels with other portions of scripture is that way because of a fundamental flaw in understanding."

“The other thing is this: that I find by experience there is a very large measure of agreement among Christian denominations on all doctrine that is really oecumenical. A rigidly Catholic interpretation of the Creeds, for example—including the Athanasian Creed—will find support both in Rome and in Geneva. Objections will come chiefly from the heathen, and from a noisy but not very representative bunch of heretical parsons who once in their youth read Robertson or Cony-beare and have never got over it.” - Dorothy L. Sayers; Creed or Chaos

[smvoice]

Then by all means explain the fundamental flaw in understanding. I understand that when Christ commanded the twelve to "go NOT into the way of the Gentiles" (Mat. 10:5), He meant do NOT go to the Gentiles. ANd when, in Mat. 15:24 He said "But he answered and said, I am NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL", He meant it.

The "fundamental flaw in understanding" is NOT reading God's Word as it is written, but trying to change it into something we WANT it to say. It says what it says. And there is no way to mis-understand something that is CLEARLY stated.

If you have a different understanding that you believe is not flawed, please let me know. I would love to hear your explanation of just these two verses to begin with.

[aruanan]

Then by all means explain the fundamental flaw in understanding. I understand that when Christ commanded the twelve to "go NOT into the way of the Gentiles" (Mat. 10:5), He meant do NOT go to the Gentiles. ANd when, in Mat. 15:24 He said "But he answered and said, I am NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL", He meant it.

Yeah, at that particular time, but not for all time.

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
--Matthew 28

"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Luke 24

Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Acts 1

[HarleyD]

Of course the law was a means of holiness. It was in fact a grace to the Israelites. Are you saying that what was mandated by God was in fact an instrument of deception by the devil?

Every single law, every single command ever utter by God to us was for our instruction, benefit and well-being. The fact that we rebel against God's laws and commands shows to us that while God has our best intention at heart, WE don't. Otherwise we would simply follow God's commands. When God calls us "evil", "wicked", or "perverse", He is merely stating what should be obvious to all of us; that we are in constant rebellion to everything that would lead to our happiness. It is God's great grace through our Lord Jesus that helps us somewhat of our mess.

To believe one can keep parts of the law and ignore other parts fails to show an understanding of the real intent of the Law. There was, after all, a real purpose of God for having people slice the throats of animals and letting the blood flow around the altar. Without the high cost of the sacrifice and the stench and mess it made, one could not truly understand how much just ONE sin appears to God.

The law was never a means of holiness. Nor was it God's way of putting in front of us an impossible task. It was simply to show that while God wants the very best for us, we do not. And anything that God doesn't want is sin, rebellion and evil (I know that's redundant but it's to make a point).

[smvoice]

And I agree with you on that point. But the kicker is that Peter and the 11 never got farther than their own nation, as far as Scripture is concerned. Unless you can show me Scripture that says they did. They were to wait to preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM. But Israel, as a Nation, never accepted Christ as their Messiah. Hence we have Paul taking up collections for the "poor saints at Jerusalem" and going to Jerusalem in Gal. 2:9, where something very important happened. "When James, Peter, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived THE GRACE that was given unto me (Paul), they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that WE SHOULD GO UNTO THE HEATHEN (GENTILES), and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION." Gal. 2:9.

Don't you see what happened there? They loosed themselves from taking the kingdom gospel to all nations and gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship to take the gospel of THE GRACE that was given to him (the gospel of the GRACE OF GOD) to the Gentiles. What was bound in earth was bound in heaven, and what was loosed in earth was loosed in heaven. They took their Christ given commission to the CIRCUMCISION ONLY. According to Galatians. And Paul went to the Gentiles with the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7), with their blessings, and their asking Paul only that we (Paul and Barnabas) would remember the poor.

If you could show me from Scripture where any of the 12 went outside the Jewish land to preach to all nations, please do.

Their commission depended on Israel accepting Christ as Messiah, whereby they would spread the gospel to all mankind. But that did not happen and by Acts 28, Israel is blinded and set aside. Peter and the 11 had marching orders by Christ to preach the kingdom gospel to Israel FIRST. Until Paul was saved, and given a new commission, which is found in 2 Cor. 5:14-21, and which is our marching orders for this age of grace.

[aruanan]

If you could show me from Scripture where any of the 12 went outside the Jewish land to preach to all nations, please do.

If you're limiting yourself to scripture, then you don't exist. There's the Thomist Church in India. And if you're really going to limit yourself to Scripture, then that particular verse in Galatians is only talking about James, Peter, and John. It doesn't mention the other members of The Eleven, so you're unwarranted in saying that none of the other disciples went outside Israel to preach to other nations. The existence of churches Paul did not start shows that someone was obeying the great commission. And you're also making an error to assume that what was the status quo at the time of the writing of Galatians remained the status quo.

[MarkBsnr]

Please explain to me what the teachings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have to do with Gentiles, the Church the Body of Christ, and the gospel of the grace of God in light of the Scriptures. And how the "Church" is to teach all men today that which was given to Israel?

You keep making my points for me. The Apostles were to go to all men, teaching them about Christ and the Good News of salvation. You have repeatedly posted to the effect that you have embraced the religion of the Paulian, removed from Christ and stand-alone. If you do not believe that Christ came for all men and sent the Church to teach in Matthew 28, why then, how do you claim Christianity? If you believe that Paul (a created human being) has the path to salvation (as opposed to Jesus Christ who is God), then I am at a total loss as to how you can consider yourself Christian.

You bring up examples of early training of the Apostles. And well they are examples. Yet, this is training for them, not their eventual destination according to Jesus. These are like little children, who need to be educated away from the rabbinical Judaism that they were taught and into the whole thought process of Christianity, which is rather distant or opposed to many of the precepts of Judaism.

The Great Commission is given. Will you gainsay it?

[MarkBsnr]

Then by all means explain the fundamental flaw in understanding. I understand that when Christ commanded the twelve to "go NOT into the way of the Gentiles" (Mat. 10:5), He meant do NOT go to the Gentiles. ANd when, in Mat. 15:24 He said "But he answered and said, I am NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL", He meant it.

Yeah, at that particular time, but not for all time.

Exactly so. At the wedding at Cana, Jesus told Mary that His time had not yet come, but He went ahead anyway.

"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Luke 24

Let us not substitute Paul for Jesus in any way, shape or form. One must not mistake the herald for the King.

[smvoice]

So are you saying that the other 9 disciples were not under the authority of Peter? And what churches before Acts 28, and the setting aside of Israel were not “to the Jew first”? Even Paul went to the Jews first, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, that Christ was indeed Messiah. And he continued to do so until Israel was blinded and set aside. So just what was the great commission that Christ gave to the twelve, beginning at Jerusalem, offered on the day of Pentecost, preached to Israel first before being preached to all nations, that Peter released the 12 from, when he perceived the grace that was given to Paul? Was it the same commission that Paul preached?

[MarkBsnr]

If you're limiting yourself to scripture, then you don't exist. There's the Thomist Church in India. And if you're really going to limit yourself to Scripture, then that particular verse in Galatians is only talking about James, Peter, and John. It doesn't mention the other members of The Eleven, so you're unwarranted in saying that none of the other disciples went outside Israel to preach to other nations. The existence of churches Paul did not start shows that someone was obeying the great commission. And you're also making an error to assume that what was the status quo at the time of the writing of Galatians remained the status quo.

I don't know if I've ever heard it put quite this well.

[MarkBsnr]

So are you saying that the other 9 disciples were not under the authority of Peter? And what churches before Acts 28, and the setting aside of Israel were not “to the Jew first”? Even Paul went to the Jews first, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, that Christ was indeed Messiah. And he continued to do so until Israel was blinded and set aside. So just what was the great commission that Christ gave to the twelve, beginning at Jerusalem, offered on the day of Pentecost, preached to Israel first before being preached to all nations, that Peter released the 12 from, when he perceived the grace that was given to Paul? Was it the same commission that Paul preached?

The Apostles were to preach the Good News to all the world. Not Jew alone. Matthew 28 is clear.

Now, tradition has it that the various Apostles went various places. It is not in Scripture because it was not necessary, or considered necessary at the time. It is not necessary to Scripture who went to Egypt, or Russia or India in terms of the salvation of Jesus Christ? Those stories are captured in non Scriptural books.

But let's put it this way, how do you explain the Thomist Church in terms of the Great Commission if you do not admit the Petrine narrative?

[smvoice]

Mark, I have explained numererous times, and with numerous Scripture Paul’s commission by direct revelations from the risen Christ. Do you think he lied? Do you not believe Christ gave him instructions, a commission, the apostleship to the Gentiles? Why do you insist that to understand Paul’s unique calling in the mystery, hid in God, from the foundation of the world until revealed to him, is to deny Christ? It doesn’t make sense, in any sense of understanding Paul’s writings. Over and over again, in every letter, every epistle, every doctrine, it is ALL about Christ and His revelations to Paul for the Church the Body of Christ. Us. Please, I’ve communicated too long with you for you to continue to make this a “choose one or the other” game. To not believe what Paul said Christ gave to him is to call Paul a liar or Christ a liar. You wanna choose that? Soitenly not...I’m sure :)

[aruanan]

So are you saying that the other 9 disciples were not under the authority of Peter?

Where in the world do you get the idea that the rest of the disciples were "under the authority of Peter"? The fact that Peter was cowed into changing his behavior in a hypocritical manner by folks coming to visit from Jerusalem and was chastised for it by Paul demonstrates that he was not, at that time, the head of everyone up in Jerusalem, unless he was a really weak leader.

[smvoice]

Well, let me ask it this way. What are Peter and the 11 promised by Christ that they will be doing when He returns and sets up His Kingdom on earth?

[smvoice]

Oh, I just thought he was the first pope. That upon this rock of Peter would the Church be built, etc. etc. Seems that would make him the authoritie.

[RobbyS]

And the people chosen for instruction was Israel. That has not changed. That covenant was to bring them to their knees,as Christ was to his under the weight of their sins, but only as prelude to raising them up, he the first.

[aruanan]

Let us not substitute Paul for Jesus in any way, shape or form. One must not mistake the herald for the King.

Actually, it was John the Baptist who was the herald for the King. Paul was one of the King's embassadors pleading for the enemy to be reconciled with the sovereign.

[Dutchboy88]

The extreme limit on my time compells me to answer briefly. First,

"Are you saying that what was mandated by God was in fact an instrument of deception by the devil?"

No, what was mandated by God was not an instrument of deception by the devil. It was exactly what Paul said, a tutor to lead the Jew to Jesus, who was the only One who could do the Law and was the only One who could justify. Rom.3:28,"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Even the men of old were justified by trust that God would solve their problem...not the Law.

And, yes, the Law is gone. Rom.7:6, "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

Serious misunderstandings of theology did, however, occur and are occurring in the world, all of which is guided by God. And, yes, of course, God is using Satan in those misunderstandings. Recall the "deluding influence" God will send. IIThess2:11 Further, you must admit one of us is seriously mistaken in this argument. Perhaps you believe truly sincere people will always find truth (your side), and thus you might question our sincerity. It does not feel to me as though either side is insincere. But, one of us, or perhaps both of us, are wrong. Is God doing the "deceiving" in one of us now? Well, evidently, yes. And, billions of other folks are wrong as well (Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, Zoroastrians, etc.).

This is, however, His perogative to guide His world the way He pre-planned to bring the most glory to Himself. It is not ego-maniacism, which is someone undeserving acting pompously. He really is the All in All. And, He is the Potter, we are the clay. Rom. 9. Some have been made for destruction, some for honor. Paul did not seem to think we deserved to have a gripe over this fact.

Thus, the Law of course could have been a means of holiness had any Jew been able to do it. Their broken natures (a picture of all humanity) mitigated against this possibility. None could, none would, none wanted to...at least that is what Paul noted their own Scriptures taught. Rom. 3.

Paul indeed stopped acting like a Jew. Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes." And, yes, he absolutely wrongly fell back into doing Law-bound actions (Acts 21). But, he said the Law was gone and was only suitable for teaching evil men how evil they were. ITim 1:9

Finally, I agree that Protestantism has reverted to some forms of the Law. They do, in fact, call certain buildings "sanctuaries", and they often create a "clergy". But, these are errors. And, to me Luther was nothing more than someone who noticed a part of the errors of his organization. He carried on with some of them; he corrected some of them. But, if these are reversions to the Law, Rome has clearly done this in spades.