How Calvin helped create Unitarianism

Was I denying that Westcott and Hort were Anglicans? Of course not. Why don't you deal with what I say?

Not as liberal as the mid20th century and beyond. Have you ever heard of J.C.Ryle? He was a staunch Anglican yet quite conservative in balance and Spurgeon admired him.

I'd like to know what your so-called neutral sources are.

Besides,as I said before --you aren't even dealing with what I had addressed in my last post.Naz said that Westcott and Hort among others were responsible for the mutilation of the New Testament and that they were Unitarians. All charges of which are sinfully absurd.

 

I was brought to salvation in the Church of England (Anglican) and started out in ministry as an Anglican priest in the Canadian Army (chaplain). The fact is that in the early days there were far more evangelical Anglican churches than any other denomination in England.

Think of all the early theological books written in the 1800's and early 1900's. The majority were written and published by evangelical Anglicans. Not so in the USA, I must say, even to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Naz,you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you agree that scholarly and faithful Evangelical Anglicans were producing good Bible commentaries in the 19th century. Then,out of the other side of your mouth you agree with DHK who said that Anglicans had become liberal in the last half of the 19th century. Which is it?

And I want you to name names of all those evil Unitarian Anglicans of the 19th century who mutilated the New Testament.

 

Hmm,why that magical year? Westcott wrote some classics after that pivotal year.

Care to inform us about these obscure men? And which Wordsworth --John or Charles?

 

As for sources, I found an encyclopedia on-line which said almost word for word what my "Dictionary of the Christian Church" (F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, ed., Hendrickson Publishers, 1997, Oxford University Press), says. Here is the quote:

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Brooke_Foss_Westcott


No, it doesn't point him to being a Unitarian but it does point him out as one who holds liberal views. Then I find it strange as one who delivered esoteric lectures which might have given way to "Unitarian views." But from this article one cannot tell. There are very, very few articles about Westcott like this online. Most of them do tell about Hort's involvement with the occult, the damaging influence of the Critical Text, their affinity with Roman Catholicism, (and apparently they had not given up many of the RCC beliefs), etc.



I can do a bit more research using his own commentary on the gospel of John. It is old and fragile, printed in 1887. It appears to be the second edition as his preface says that he has made some corrections to the first one he printed.

 

Or even Christopher, their younger brother, or another Christopher, their father, both of whom were also Anglican clergymen. ((And all were related to the poet, William Wordsworth).

 

B.F.Westcott a conservative Anglican scholar,published his Gospel of St.John in 1882.

The Epistles of St. John in 1883.

The Epistle to the Hebrews in 1892.

 

I'm still asking the same question which has gone unanswered by Naz.

 

Could you please document this charge without resorting to Riplinger,Waite,Sorenson and others of that ilk?

I borrowed his orginal edition of 1882 from my pastor on Sunday. I will quote from it later.

 

You came up with this bogus nonsense months ago. There is absolutely no evidence that these men were Unitarian or had Unitarian inclinations --the baseless charge comes from your overactive imagination.You seriously need to document such wild assertions (but don't quote yourself)

 

The above post was written in answer to comments by Rippon about Anglicans. But of the names you mention, several were not Anglicans at all. Philip Doddridge, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer were certainly not, unless you are thinking of different men with the same name. There were several that I couldn't check on, simply because I did not have enough facts to narrow down my search. I am thinking of men like Bode and Bloomfield for example.

Regarding Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), he started off in a Plymouth Brethren assembly, but there seems to be some confusion about what he next became. The Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 1959-60): XIX, 1097, says he became a Presbyterian. F. H. A.Scrivener, in A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, says he became an Anglican. T. C. F. Hunt says that the Brethren assembly with which he was associated maintained its independence, but "gradually adopted an organisation similar to that of the Presbyterians."

Nazaroo, I am also rather puzzled by the dates you give in brackets. For instance, by Doddridge's name, you have (1808), yet Philip Doddridge died in 1751. Philip is the one that immediately springs to my mind when I see the surname Doddrige, but you may mean someone else.

I would politely request that you do four things:

1. Define the men you are writing about more exactly
2. Tell us what the years beside the names mean
3. Give some kind of source for statements like, "The Mid-1800s were the peak of British faithful scholarship," and "These men were all Jesuit moles"
4. Stop using epithets like "idiots" and "stupid" when referring to those with whom you disagree.
​

Many thanks!

 

They were indeed conservative Anglicans of their day. Spurgeon had good things to say about Westcott.

You really have to apologize about saying that Naz was probably right "about them ascribing to Unitarianism." That is an utterly baseless and reckless charge. That is beneath you to say as a moderator on the Baptist Board.

 

As an FYI ..... I was reading commentary from Historian Will Durant ....

" Obviously Servetus was a bit more insane than the average of his time. He announced that the end of the world was at hand, that the archangel Michael would lead a holy war against both the papal & the Genevese Antichrists, and that he, who had been named after the Archangel, would fight and die in that war."

 

Naz and DHK have been making some remarkably unfounded comments regarding Westcott and Hort.

I borrowed three books by Westcott from my pastor on Sunday.

The following quotes are from his Gospel of John :

"The absolute,eternal,immanent relations of the Persons of the Godhead furnish the basis for revelation.' (p.2)

"He who has been made known to us as 'the Word' was in the beginning.Thus the economic Trinity,the Trinity of revelation,is shewn to answer to an esential Trinity." (p.3)

"No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." (p.3)

"The Son made God known not primarily as God,but as the Father. At the same time this title lays the foundation of revelation in the essential relation of the Persons of the Godhead." (p.15)

"(1)By opening a momentary vision of the Godhead itself in which can be seen the immanent Trinity" (p.16)

"The revelation is of the nature of Christ in the fulness of His double nature,of the incarnate Son in the fulness of His manifested being,and that in relation to the Father,to God as He is father at once of the Son and of men. The incanation was the proof of the complete unity of the Father and the Son.' (p.159)

In commenting on 17:3 Westcott says one should not impair "the true divinity of Christ,by contrast with the Father" which "is to totally misunderstand the passage." (p.239)