"Modern versions" in a Nutshell

There you go again. You are lying about godly men who were certainly NOT Unitarian.

I'm not familiar with Noyes and S.Davidson,but I wouldn't doubt that you are treating them the same way as you have Lachmann (who died in 1851),Tregelles (who died in 1875)),and Tischendorf (who died in 1874). The last three gentlemen were orthodox Christians. Shame on you for attempting to sully their names once more.

 

Noyes was a unitarian. Although S. Davidson, Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were not Unitarians there is evidence they were "modernists" who rejected the absolute deity of Christ among other mainstream orthodox doctrines. Hence, they were Unitarian in regard to the doctrine of Christ.

 

Dr. Samuel Davidson had this to say in his autobiography:

It is impossible for an ordinarily instructed man to maintain the infallibility of the Bible as a whole, or its supernatural origin. Yet
ministers ostensibly treat it as such, or speak from it and
of it as if it had that character.

and

From that time I worshipped no more among orthodox
Dissenters, but repaired quietly to the Unitarians, and
sometimes to the Church of England, taking my place
among the unnoticed there, enjoying many of the prayers
and the devotional part of the services without attaching
importance to the sermons.

and

This interpretation is in harmony
with the general teaching of the apostle, which conveys the
idea that the Son of God, after putting off His body on the
cross, returned to heaven, where He is enthroned at the
right hand of God as " our Lord," the Lord of glory. The
distinction between Christ and the Father, the supreme
God and His Son, which Paul always makes, forbids us to
believe that he thought worship should be paid to the
latter. He was a monotheist.


The autobiography and diary of Samuel Davidson : with a selection of letters from English and German divines, and an account of the Davidson controversy of 1857

Davidson consistently used the term "orthodox" in his autobiography to refer to those who believed in the Trinitarian doctrine which he opposed.

 

We are now in the development period of
Christianity, though not in an advanced stage of it. As
time proceeds, those who think at all must witness the
abandonment of doctrines long believed and still embodied
in ecclesiastical creeds such doctrines as the old tenet
of the total inspiration of Scripture, the Athanasian Trinity,
the sameness of Christ with the Supreme God in substance
and attributes, vicarious satisfaction for sin, and the magical
influence, however veiled or mysterious, of the sacraments.
It is hard for any cultivated mind to entertain the idea
that these can ever regain the hold they once had upon
professing Christians, or enter into the honest convictions
of a well-educated man. The passing away of such beliefs
should gratify all who desire to see the corruptions of
Christianity vanish into the past.

- Samuel Davidson

Davidson expresses the "modernist" view of Christianity as opposed to those he called "orthodox". Many if not most of the Revisionist were "modernists."

 

2 thoughts...

I suppose the records of the theological beliefs of the KJV translators are lost forerever...very convenient.

also, you do know that "Authorized Version" merely refers to being authorized by King James...not by God, right?

 

No, we know what were the theological views of those who translated the King James Version and they were not "modernists" in their views.

Yes, no one to my knowledge claims the term "authorized" was intended by the translators, the printers or even King James to infer or imply that God "authorized" that translation.

Furthermore, it is a "translation" and a translation is never as reliable as the text from which it is translated. I don't think anyone on this forum believes in the "inspiriation" of any translation. If so, I am not aware of it.

 

You said it :Lachmann,Tregelles and Tischendorf were not Unitarians. Naz lied when he said they were. He included them in his category of The Peak of the Unitarian Movement.

 

Therefore not a Unitarian as you had falsely claimed.

Please document were outrageous claim.

Please document that absurdity,but please don't refer me to any of your sites or that of David cloud and his ilk.

My Lord Jesus Christ did. Do you have anything derogatory to say about Him as well?

 

You are a hoot and a half Naz. You use the worst language against departed saints that is possibly allowable on a Christian forum and yet complain when I call you on making defamatory judgments on deceased Christians.

You are at it again.

Document your charges my man --don't just assert.

That is quite offensive to me for you to say such contemptible things about him. You need to document your filth Naz.

Most members on this forum know what a Christian is. You apparently do not. A Unitarian of any stripe is not a Christian. The term Christian is not as elastic as you think.

Norman Geisler is a real Christian but he goes around calling himself a moderate Calvinist even though he has the same beliefs as Arminians. He has no right to upend historic Christian designations. You are doing the same thing although your very act of calling Unitarians Christian is much worst.

You speak drivel my man. Why don't you back up your faulty claims once in a while?

Let the folks on the BB decide if my line of reasoning is inaccurate.

 

One thing is for sure. All these men were "modernists" and the autobiography by Samuel Davidson reveals this clearly as Davidson did not only work together with many of them in a joint effort to interpret and produce the Word of God but maintained a personal fellowship with them when he was excommunicated from fellowship by those he termed "orthodox" christianity.

These men had no qualms about fellowshipping and working together with Unitarians together in the most important task of handling and interpreting God's Word. How many on this forum would fellowship and work together with Unitarians in a joint effort of interpretation and handling of the Word of God? How many would invite such to participate in such a work?

Hence, overall Nazeroo is correct in his evaluation of them as liberals and non-orthodox Christians. They were "modernists" who rejected the inspiration of the Scriptures and held many other false doctrines. Ask yourself, what would it take for someone who calls themselves a "Christian" to invite and work with such persons who embraced what Davidson expresses to be the educated Christians position:

We are now in the development period of
Christianity, though not in an advanced stage of it. As
time proceeds, those who think at all must witness the
abandonment of doctrines long believed and still embodied
in ecclesiastical creeds such doctrines as the old tenet
of the total inspiration of Scripture, the Athanasian Trinity,
the sameness of Christ with the Supreme God in substance
and attributes, vicarious satisfaction for sin, and the magical
influence, however veiled or mysterious, of the sacraments.
It is hard for any cultivated mind to entertain the idea
that these can ever regain the hold they once had upon
professing Christians, or enter into the honest convictions
of a well-educated man. The passing away of such beliefs
should gratify all who desire to see the corruptions of
Christianity vanish into the past. - Samuel Davidson

Although we may agree with Davidson concerning the sacraments and perhaps many other things he embraced but what he rejects and scorns above places him outside what he even defines as "orthodoxy."

 

GE:

In this instance, Rippon, your "line of reasoning is ... ACCURATE"!

 

I just want to say, thank you, for the best 'thread' on 'unitarianism' I for a long time if not ever in my life, have seen on internet or in books.

Thanks especially for the 'orthodoxy' of (some of) its contributors.

 

By the Baptist Board SOP, every person who makes a typo, an error of fact, or changes his mind is automatically classified as a liar. Live with it. <G>

 

And by what means have you determined that?

And as I said before,I was not defending Davidson because I am not familiar with him.

He established no such thing. Naz offered no substaniation for any of the scurrilous charges he laid at their feet.

Why do you say such a thing with no proof to do so?

Are we talking about the same men I defended or others such as Davidson who I am not defending?

 

Thanks for that vote of confidence GE.

 

And STILL you have not produced any evidence whatsoever to prove your nonsensical and sinful allegations against Lachmann,Tregelles and Tischendorf. Naz,you couldn't even state the correct year in which they died much less support your demeaning and quite false characterizations.

My original church background was with the Plymouth Brethren. Tregelles was one of the early figures in that movement (later becoming a Presbyterian). According to Wikipedia he was a "warm-hearted evangelical and wrote a number of hymns for the "poor flock" (as PB'ers sometimes called themselves).

He was friends with the godly George Mueller among others. I saw nothing untoward said about his character in my investigations.

Also from Wikipedia Tregelles said :"While Mormonism and other things are spreading themselves in Wales,it is well for some effort to be made to uphold the simple historical authority of the Scriptures which God has been pleased to give us as the sure record of His holy will."