Aiding & Abetting the Wicked

"Theological Heresies of Westcott & Hort" is packed full of out-of-context and butchered quotes, to make them seem like they were saying the exact opposite. I have several of Westcott & Hort's books in my collection that discuss things like the deity of Christ, the resurrection, scripture, etc, etc, etc. They were NOT unbelievers, they were more theologically than most Baptists I've met. I can provide quotes-a-plenty (*in* context) that show that "Heresies of Westcott & Hort" is nothing but slanderous tabloid journalism at best, and intentional *lies* at worst. For just a brief example (one example out of literally hundreds), read what Westcott says about the deity of Christ at this link, and et me know if a "minister of Satan" would say such things:

http://www.tegarttech.com/wh/historicfaith_iv.html

Let's examine and discuss a couple "quotes" from the "Theological Heresies" booklet.

BTW, W&H were Anglican scholars as you've said, *as were the KJV translators*. Many of the "heresies" listed in that booklet are held also by the KJV translators.

 

"Aiding and Abetting the Wicked" should be addressed to those who, like yourself, attack the word of God for false reasons. When you attack the word of God, you are aiding and abetting the wicked no matter how much your profess to love it. Out of the same mouth are coming blessings and cursings and as James says, Brethren, these things ought not to be. When you attack the word of God, you are attacking the only basis for hope that man has.

You speak of those who mishandle the word of God while supporting those who do that very thing by twisting the word of God to fit their own ill-conceived and unbiblical doctrines.

Your last sentence sums up the problem: That problem is, of course, between the individual and God and must be resolved Scripturally rather than by human reason or emotions. The KJVO movement is full of those who refuse to solve their problems scripturally. They apply their human reasoning to the issue, and it is bad human reasoning at that. Their emotions spring up thick and explosive over the idea that someone could have the word of God in a modern translation. Their arguments, such as teh one you promote here, are purely emotional. To charge Westcott and Hort with heresy is pure emotionalism. It is not true and it does not matter. To use a MV is not to subscribe to or promote the beliefs of Westcott and Hort any more than using the KJV promotes the beliefs of Erasmus or the Anglican church. The problem is that people are unwilling to put aside their emotions long enough to study Scripture. It is time for this nonsense to stop. It is time for a return for you and your kind to biblical thinking, to a doctrine of bibliology that the Scripture teaches, rather than one that sprang from the minds of men.

 

howard435 said:

AIDING & ABETTING THE WICKED
or
Mishandling the Very Word of God, written, and thus manhandling the Living Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ

Your error of fact concerning Westcott and Hort has already been decisively dealt with; however, am I to understand from the above excerpt that you equate Jesus with the Bible?

 

Dear Howard435 !

God bless you for your humble response to Brians post!

 

I personaly have never read a profession of faith from either of those two.

 

Howard,

Wow, I admit your response was unexpected. Normally those who read and believe "Heresies..." will let nothing convince them otherwise. Thanks for your gracious response, and your willingness to consider that the author of that booklet has misrepresented these two men.

MV-neverist, did you read the link I gave above? It is just one *small* chapter from one of their many books. Here are some quotes from it:

"I believe in Jesus Christ. These simple words are a Creed in themselves. The phrase, Jesus Christ is more than a name, more than a title. It expresses that One truly man fulfilled a divine office, that Jesus Who was born, suffered, died on earth, is the Christ, the hope of Israel, the hope of the world. And we declare our belief in Him as true man and as the Christ."

"We believe therefore in Jesus, the Christ, as the apostles proclaimed Him...and we acknowledge each for ourselves that Jesus of Nazareth is the Saviour for Whom we look, Who has brought God to dwell with us and in us."

"We confess that He is 'the only son of God' and 'our Lord'. In both respects, though truly man Who lived with men, He occupies a position essentially distinct from that of any other. His Godhead is one with the Godhead of the Father, His sovereignty over men is absolute."

"We believe - I say - and confess that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God."

"We believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord: 'our Lord,' and not vaguely 'the Lord.' The words describe plainly the position in which we stand and proclaim that we stand towards Him."

"As Christians we believe in God: we believe also in Jesus Christ. It is, let us boldly avow it, an amazing faith. We cast the burden of our lives upon Him Who, very man, has borne it upon earth, upon Him Who has fulfilled by living, dying, rising again, every promise to Jew or Greek through which the Father encouraged the world to look for redemption and consummation: upon Him Whom we confess in the fulness of His Deity as the only Son of God, and in the absoluteness of His sovereignty as our Lord."

 

perhaps a change of ur reading sources is in order. W&H have written tons of excellent commentaries on the NT, n it's a v selective reader (e.g. one who AVOIDS primary sources) who doesn't get to notice their profession of faith.

as someone has said, the validity of one's faith is only as good as its object.

 

My comments were based on what appeared a rehashing of old false statements. Your response to Brian demonstrated an attitude rarely seen among people. The types of arguments you put forth are typically put forth by KJVOs. I was not emotional really. I do get a little fervent when people attack God's word and it appeared that that is what you were doing. I have seen the word of God attacked way too often by people who make similar statements to yours. If you are willing to admit that all faithful translations of the original language texts are indeed the word of God, then we have no beef ...

 

Why don't you list the complete books that you have read by these two men. That way we can get an idea of whether or not you are in any position to be commenting on what you have read from them.

 

"Theological Heresies of Westcott & Hort" is packed full of out-of-context and butchered quotes, to make them seem like they were saying the exact opposite. I have several of Westcott & Hort's books in my collection that discuss things like the deity of Christ, the resurrection, scripture, etc, etc, etc. They were NOT unbelievers, they were more theologically than most Baptists I've met. I can provide quotes-a-plenty (*in* context) that show that "Heresies of Westcott & Hort" is nothing but slanderous tabloid journalism at best, and intentional *lies* at worst. For just a brief example (one example out of literally hundreds), read what Westcott says about the deity of Christ at this link, and et me know if a "minister of Satan" would say such things:

http://www.tegarttech.com/wh/historicfaith_iv.html

Let's examine and discuss a couple "quotes" from the "Theological Heresies" booklet.

BTW, W&H were Anglican scholars as you've said, *as were the KJV translators*. Many of the "heresies" listed in that booklet are held also by the KJV translators. </font>[/QUOTE]W/H said they had faith in Jesus Christ, however they rejected parts of the Bible. One problem that they had is John 5:46-47 (KJV)

 

Against W/H and their theological teachings, Remember what the Bible said:

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

W/H did not believe in the book of Genesis. How did they tell you about their faith? Contradict with the Scriptures? Yes, absolutrly!

2 Cor. 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

W/H produced their new bible translation, ERV. Contradict with the Scripture? Yes, absolutely!

Deut. 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

W/H added, removed and changed the Word of God in their ERV. Contradict with the Scriptures? Yes, absolutely!

More.... That's enough!

 

What evidence do you have that they had a "problem" with John 5:46-47?

John 5:46 says "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." The marginal note on this verse in "The Gospel According to St. John" by Westcott (John's Gospel with commentary by Westcott) cross references to Gen 3:15 and Deut 18:15, where the Pentateuch prophesies about Christ. By putting this marginal note, Westcott not only attributes the Pentateuch to Moses, but also sees those verses by Moses as prophesies about Christ.

Where are you getting this? Pulling it out of thin air? Or is this about that butchered quote about evolution in "Heresies..."??? How about some references/quotes/etc. *in context*. Here is one example of a reference, tell me what you think they thought of Genesis after you read this:

"I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth...This acknowledgement of God as the Creator of things visible and invisible brings with it many deep and helpful thoughts. It reminds us that as all that is came into existence by the will and power of God, so it is sustained by Him alone; for the fact of creation involves the necessity of preservation, of unfolding. It reminds us that the greatest and least objects by which we are surrounded, the Sun in its glory and the stars in their countless multitude: mountains and all hills: fruitful trees and all cedars: beasts and all cattle: worms and feathered fowls were made by Him who made us, and that they therefore fill a place in His vast counsel of love, and minister to His glory." ("The Historic Faith", B.F. Westcott, page 38, 1890)

By their books. How many of them have you read?

Every "contradiction" put forward that I've seen so far has been out of context, as well as shown to be false by what they wrote in other places.

And the KJV translators produced their new Bible translation, KJV. Your point?

Specifics?

Well, if you could prove that, you would have done so already and we'd all be KJV-only by now.

 

MV-neverist :

I personaly have never read a profession of faith from either of those two.

So what? From what I have seen of you on this board, you wouldn't believe it if you had.

When did written testimonies become a requirement of Christianity, anyway?

 

Westcott surely knew John 5:47 saying, " But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Westcott contradicted himself with this verse. Westcott wrote: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history..."

W/H were interested in evolution and Darwinism. That's why they rejected parts of the Bible. That's very obvious to show that they contradicted themselves with the Scriptures what they quoted.

 

Why do I always ask for *references*, *in context*, and I never get any? What book is this in? What page? What does the preceding and following paragraph say?

Also, not taking the first three chapters literally is not exactly as not believe in the book of Genesis, nor rejecting parts of the Bible. It's called *different interpretation*, and Christians do this all the time - heck, it's the driving force of discussion boards like this one.

Yes, they found it interesting, especially since the ideas were so new. Yet, Westcott wrote that paragraph I quoted, which specifically says he believes God created trees, beasts and all cattle, worms and feathered fowls, us, etc. Why didn't you comment on this? I know why - because it doesn't sound like evolution, and you *want* Westcott to be an evolutionist so you simply ignore his quotes to the contrary. Come on, show some honesty!

No, they did not reject any part of the Bible. They occasionally had a different interpretation. Like you'll find when ever you compare Baptists with Anglicans (like comparing me with the KJV translators).

No, what's obvious is that some authors are deliberately misquoting them and deliberately trying to make them into something they weren't.