How Calvin helped create Unitarianism

[DHK]

Copycat! I told you that when you said on 6/22/11 :"Calvin is known for his plagiarism."

Calvin said, “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I would do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings” (John Calvin—“The Eternal Predestination of God”).

 

[Nazaroo]

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
OCCULT REVIVAL

The Legacy of Westcott & Hort By Barbara Aho

 

[Rippon]

Calvin said, “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I would do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings” (John Calvin—“The Eternal Predestination of God”).

That's a pathetic grasping of straws on your part

Plagiarism means the stealing of words and ideas with no acknowledgement of the real author. Calvin did not borrow anything from Augustine. He quoted him freely. Calvin had nothing to hide. If someone is guilty of plagiarism they wouldn't be inclined to also quote the person they are stealing from.

No,Calvin acknowledged things that benefited him from Augustine's works. But he was also critical of a number of things Augustine believed. So when an individual sees all the times that Calvin quotes Augustine they need to realize that he wasn't just a yes-man. I think it is rather well established that Calvin was his own man. He could think on his own. Augustine did not come near him in systematizing theology.

Here's a quote from R.C.Reed (1851-1925):"Calvin was a wholesale plagiarist,from Moses and David,Isaiah and Ezekiel,Jesus and John,Peter and Paul."

What Spurgeon said of Bunyan can rightly be said of John Calvin :"His blood ran bibline."

 

[Rippon]

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
OCCULT REVIVAL

The Legacy of Westcott & Hort By Barbara Aho

Her article was pretty long. There were two sections that I focused on :The Occult Revival and The Anglican Spiritualists.

I couldn't find a line,phrase or sentence that charged Hort with anything about occult activities. Can't you do any better than this?

 

[Rippon]

Naz,in your OP you quoted Wright saying that Calvin "in order to reassert his waning political influence..."

In 1553 John Calvin wasn't even a citizen of Geneva --that didn't happen until six years later. Calvin wasn't about politics --he was into his ministry. He didn't want political power or any kind of power. And he certainly wasn't greedy. He wanted to be given the same pay as the other ministers of Geneva. Of course his request was denied.

Wright also said:"while Geneva sought the advice of other Swiss cities about how best to proceed" [re M.Servetus]. Wright didn't relate to his readers that they were of one voice --M.S.needs to be executed.

Geneva at that time was seen by many as the best place for liberty --the best place for freedom --and the best place to live where solid preaching and application of the preaching was going on. That's why flocks of folks came to Geneva. Before and after the Michael Servetus affair --especially afterward.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin's little performance of wishing Servetus was only beheaded, is as phoney as a 3-dollar bill.

The trouble with your contention is that you are not telling the truth. John Calvin was seen as too tender-hearted for wanting a more humane death for Servetus. William Farel in particular chided Calvin for that "weakness."

And I'll ask you again : Will you fault Calvin and Farel for pleading with him to recant? They were sincere. I know you want to believe the worst regarding Calvin -- but even his enemies didn't attach "liar" to his reputation.They wanted to spare his life. If Michael Servetus had recanted --he would not have been executed.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Byzantine Text incomplete as it was was well used in the East but notably because of its tie in to John Chrysotsom's Liturgy regularily used by the Eastern Churches. People quickly overlook this obvious bias.

This "obvious bias" is apparent in your obvious made up story.

Real studies on Chrysostom show he didn't use the Byzantine text, or used it only half the time. Nor was he a great influence on the preference of the Eastern Church for the Byzantine text-type.

This is all just modern Hortian mythology, without any grounding in historical fact.

This was originally the claim of G.D. Fee: (1980, Camb. NT Studies, Text of Mark)

"Hort had noted that ‘a glance at any tolerably complete apparatus criticus of the Acts or Pauline Epistles reveals the striking fact that an overwhelming proportion of the variants common to the great mass of cursive and late uncial Greek MSS are identical with the readings followed by Chrysostom (ob. 407) in the composition of his Homilies’."
​

Fee had claimed to have re-examined the work of Geerlings and New and demonstrated it false:

"Furthermore, Hodges chose to cite an earlier study by Geerlings and New (1931) that seemed to dispute this reality about Chrysostom's text. But my own sampling of work on Chrysostom's text made me realize that something was desperately wrong with that study. The result of this interchange with Hodges caused me to go back over the work of Geerlings and New. It turned out that the failure was methodological. The results of that inquiry were published as Fee 1979 and demonstrated that Chrysostom's text of the NT was consistent throughout."
​

But only those who were already in the Hortian camp were impressed by Fee's claims.

Extended work that went far beyond the original work of Geerling and New was ignored by Fee, for instance:
THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS IN PHOTIUS: I

Hodges had already responded to Fee's first articulation of his claims in the JETS 1978 article, MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE MAJORITY TEXT: A SURREJOINDER

"For example, [Fee's] rejoinder claims knowledge of the tech. studies on the texts of Chrosostom and Photius but does not seem to be aware that they seriously undermine his previous assertions. Fee had claimed that "it is almost inevitable that the text-form Chrysostom used first at Antioch and then later carried to Constantinople shoud become the predominant text of the Greek Church". But with regard to the text of Chrysostom in Mark, Geerlings and New concluded that its variants from the TR were about the same as from Westcott-Hort and that "it is no more a typical representative of the late text (von Soden's K) than it is of the Neutral text." Obviously Fee cannot claim Chrystostom's influence as an "almost inevitable" factor in the spread of the so-called Byzantine text without calling the work of Geerlings and New into question. Does he really wish to do this?
In the same way Birdsall's studies in Photius point clearly to the conclusion that no official, ecclesiastical text existed in the eastern empire even by the 9th century. Thus the supposition that the Byz. text prevailed due to somebody's influence is further undermined. Neither Chrysostom nor Photius is a good candidate for explaining the rise and dominance of the maj. text."

 

[Nazaroo]

The trouble with your contention is that you are not telling the truth. John Calvin was seen as too tender-hearted for wanting a more humane death for Servetus. William Farel in particular chided Calvin for that "weakness."

Yes, thats right: a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers chided another more 'softhearted' murderer
[offensive statement edited]

And I'll ask you again : Will you fault Calvin and Farel for pleading with him to recant? ...
Calvin -- but even his enemies didn't attach "liar" to his reputation.

Well, why look for a conspiracy [edit]?

They wanted to spare his life. If Michael Servetus had recanted --he would not have been executed.

[edit]

Servetus knew they weren't going to let him go in any case. That is why he saw it was absurd to recant, even though he was terrified of being burned alive, the whole time he was in custody.
If he had thought there was any chance of even a commuting of his sentence to mere beheading, he would have recanted in a heartbeat, but they had made it clear that they were determined to burn him alive as an example.

Calvin knew this, and tried to get him to recant anyway, so he would have Servetus on record admitting that Calvin was right all along on the Trinity. [edit]
That was all Calvin cared about.

If Calvin had cared about Servetus, whom he openly hated and despised, he would have spent the weeks trying to convince the city council to recant, not Servetus.

This is a no-brainer: try to figure it out.
When Bob Dylan thought that boxer was innocent and undeserving, he didn't spend his days trying to get the boxer to recant, but spent his time trying to get others to stop an execution.

 

[Nazaroo]

Her article was pretty long. There were two sections that I focused on :The Occult Revival and The Anglican Spiritualists.

Can't you do any better than this?

You can't have it both ways:
Either you want good scholarship,
or you want flakier stuff you can just ridicule.

I'm not here to provide you with straw men.
Find your own fake targets.

 

[Nazaroo]

By the way, lets not just assume Westcott was some kind of saint or star, just because he was more careful with his statements than Hort:

1872 - Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot begin the Eranus Club (the "we three" of the Ghostly Guild.) Sidgwick and Balfour of the upcoming Society for Psychical Research also join Eranus.
1881 - "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott)
1889 - "Life and truth grow more and more mysterious. (Westcott)
1893 - 'He sometimes with much seriousness professed to be much drawn to BEER..." "His zeal in the cause of pure BEER involved him in a correspondence which was published in the newspapers in the later part of 1893 and his picture together with some of the following words spoken by him was utilized for an advertisement of a brewer of pure beer. "My idea is that they might have a public house in which good BEER alone would be sold...I consider pure BEER...to be an innocent and wholesome beverage...ubstitutes for malt...is now what the purchaser demands nor expects." (Westcott letter to Brewer's Society against inferior BEER)

1896 - "The Prohibitionists once more showed themselves to be unstatesmanlike..."

1899 - "But from my Cambridge days I have read the writings of many who are called mystics with much profit." (Westcott)

Appropriate behavior and speech for a soldier of Christ?
Not in a million years.

 

[Nazaroo]

And I'll ask again : ...
-- but even Calvin's enemies didn't attach "liar" to his reputation.

Is it reasonable to expect Calvin's Roman Catholic enemies to be perceptive and brilliant geniuses?
And since they agreed with him that Servetus should be burned at the stake for 'blasphemy against the Trinity', they would hardly speak up here.

Newton and his age of 'scientific reason' was 100 years away;
Sherlock Holmes and his anti-supernatural approach was still 300 years off.

 

[Rippon]

And I'll ask you again : Will you fault Calvin and Farel for pleading with him to recant? They were sincere. I know you want to believe the worst regarding Calvin -- but even his enemies didn't attach "liar" to his reputation.They wanted to spare his life. If Michael Servetus had recanted --he would not have been executed.

Naz,this is what you should respond to.

 

[Rippon]

You can't have it both ways:
Either you want good scholarship,
or you want flakier stuff you can just ridicule.

I'm not here to provide you with straw men.
Find your own fake targets.

I just would like a line or two. Your article didn't address Hort's supposed "involvement with the occult."

 

[Rippon]

By the way, lets not just assume Westcott was some kind of saint or star, just because he was more careful with his statements than Hort:

On the contrary,let's presume to call them saints --brothers in the Lord.

1881 - "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott)
1889 - "Life and truth grow more and more mysterious. (Westcott)

I see you are following the zealous KJVO sites with great zeal yourself. They specialize in taking things out of context following their exalted leader --G.A.R.

1893 - 'He sometimes with much seriousness professed to be much drawn to BEER..." "His zeal in the cause of pure BEER involved him in a correspondence which was published in the newspapers in the later part of 1893 and his picture together with some of the following words spoken by him was utilized for an advertisement of a brewer of pure beer. "My idea is that they might have a public house in which good BEER alone would be sold...I consider pure BEER...to be an innocent and wholesome beverage...ubstitutes for malt...is now what the purchaser demands nor expects." (Westcott letter to Brewer's Society against inferior BEER)

I have never had a beer. I don'r drink alcohol. But what,pray tell are you trying to do here? Is it a sin to drink in moderation? Do you think Westcott was a drunkard?!

1896 - "The Prohibitionists once more showed themselves to be unstatesmanlike..."

Well,Billy Sunday got his start around this time. He was as unstatesman-like as they come to say the least.He got the Gospel confused with prohibition.

1899 - "But from my Cambridge days I have read the writings of many who are called mystics with much profit." (Westcott)

The mystics. A.W.Tozer liked the mystics too. They have their value. People like Guyon,Brother Lawrence,Fenelon,Thomas a Kempis,Tauler (whom Martin Luther enjoyed) and Eckhart. One can,with discernment draw some profitable things from their writings. I prefer the Puritans though.

Lloyd-Jones admired A.W.Tozer. They planned a meeting. As I recall,Lloyd-Jones said something along the lines of:"He appreciates the mystics and I the Puritans. But we met in the middle."

 

[Nazaroo]

[FONT=&quot]THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]By[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Dr. Phil Stringer[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Source: pbministries
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF WESTCOTT AND HORT.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is clear that neither Westcott nor Hort held anything even faintly resembling a conservative view of Scripture.

According to Hort’s son, Dr. Hort’s own mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his views about the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly rejected the “idea of the infallibility of the Bible”. Hort says the same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] the Durham University Journal welcomed [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Westcott[/FONT][FONT=&quot] with the praise that he was “free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Salvation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement “immoral”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally evangelical, teaching salvation through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The High Church Party taught salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Westcott and Hort wrote many commentaries that include references to classic passages about salvation. Repeatedly their commentary is vague and unclear .

Westcott taught that the idea of “propitiating God” was “foreign to the..New Testament”. He taught that salvation came from changing the character of the one who offended God. This is consistent with his statement that, “A Christian never is but is always becoming a Christian.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again and again, Westcott’s vague comments about salvation are easy to interpret as teaching universal salvation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Doctrine of Christ[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was common in the days of Westcott and Hort for those in the Church of England who denied the Deity of Christ to speak in vague terms! To clearly deny the Deity of Christ was to jeopardize your position in the Church of England. Many High Church modernists learned to speak of the Deity of Christ in unclear terms as a way to avoid trouble.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Many statements by both Westcott and Hort fall into that category of “fuzzy” doctrinal statements about Christ. Westcott and Hort were brilliant scholars. Surely they were capable of expressing themselves clearly on the doctrine of Christ if they wanted to. At best they are unclear; at worst, they were modernists hiding behind the fundamental doctrinal statement of the Church of England. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Other Teachings of Westcott and Hort [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the “Christian socialist” movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote “Christian socialism” and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Both honored rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Frederick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is much about the teaching of Westcott and Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible believer.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


IX. WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT SAVED ? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hort are quick to assert that they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical Church of England. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
However, there is no doubt that there were many Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The High Church party was well known to teach salvation by works. Within the Church of England there was a vigorous debate between true evangelicals and those who taught baptismal regeneration or some other system of works for salvation. In their lengthy writings, neither Westcott nor Hort ever give an account of their own conversion. They never identified with the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were never accepted by the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were associated with various occult figures, but never with evangelicals. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave anyone any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Nazaroo]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]XII. FUNDAMENTALIST DEFENDERS OF WESTCOTT AND HORT[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are fundamentalists who refuse to accept the characterization of Westcott and Hort as liberals (much less occultists)! J. B Williams writes, “I have three of Westcott’s commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine.” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Keith Gephart writes, “In reality, Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ, in no way was he guilty of heresy and apostasy.” In responding to a critic of Westcott and Hort, Gephart wrote this, “I cannot help but suspect that . . . some blinding presupposition . . .drives you to prove him a heretic at any cost.” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dr. Stewart Custer writes, “Especially when these men have written in their mature years book after book defending the conservative interpretation of scripture, it is unjust to characterize their whole ministries by a few misinterpretations that they may have been guilty of.” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Evangelist Robert Sumner admits that Westcott and Hort were liberal in theology but he still believes that they were trustworthy to “restore the original text.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It would be easy to ask at this point if everyone is reading from the same books. How can there be such a difference of opinion about what these men believed and wrote? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is true that these men (especially Westcott) wrote commentaries in which they used the great doctrinal terms of the Christian faith in a positive way. They used terms that were part of the official doctrinal position of the Church of England (in which they both held prominent positions). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Almost all denominational liberals use the terms expected of them. This is important in maintaining their income, position and influence. The important thing is how they explain those doctrinal terms (or fail to explain them). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Unless you are determined not to see it, it is clear from their commentaries that they put a liberal interpretation on many Christian doctrines. Both of their sons admit that they were accused of heresy because of their books. This understanding of these statements in their commentaries are supported by several external facts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Westcott and Hort identified with the High Church Party (Broad Party) within the Church of England. In contrast with the more evangelical and conservative Low Church, modernism found it’s home in the High Church Party. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Westcott and Hort constantly praised theological liberals, socialists and other radicals like Coleridge and Darwin. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No similar praise is found for evangelicals or fundamentalists, either in or out of the Church of England. They are normally ignored! When they are mentioned at all, like D. L. Moody, it is with disdain! [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Their private correspondence reveals their liberal drift much more clearly then their commentaries. Of course, it was safer for them to admit what they really believed in this forum. Their correspondence also shows that they had concerns that they could not afford to have all of their beliefs known by the general public. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons clearly reveal that they were not in harmony with the official positions of the Church of England. Their sons had no reason to lie about them. Certainly their sons had no King James only bias. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is interesting that some men can’t face the real record about Westcott and Hort. In fact, some who are quick to attack even minor differences with living preachers, take a blind eye to Westcott and Hort. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, this is easy to understand. Their campaign to replace the King James Bible has been based upon the work of Westcott and Hort only. To admit these men were not trustworthy would be to admit that they have been wrong in a major premise of their entire ministry.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Perhaps we must be forced to suspect that some blinding presupposition drives them to prove that Westcott and Hort were not heretics at any cost. It appears that “scholarship” requires only a shallow reading of Westcott and Hort and ignorance of their personal letters and correspondence.

Their defenders do not spend anytime quoting their personal correspondence or the biographies written by their sons. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Their defenders never recount the testimonies of their conversion because no such testimonies exist.[/FONT]

 

[Rippon]

Wright Is Wrong

​

Here is an excerpt from Heretics, by Jonathan Wright (NY, 2011) p. 200 fwd:

"Servetus​

When Servetus's Christianismi Restitutio (a more mature anti-Trinitarian work) was published in 1553, the French authorities arrested him and declared him a heretic. It is likely that it was Calvin who informed his Catholic enemies that they had a covert Unitarian in their midst: a curious, some would say disreputable, moment of cross-confessional cooperation in a century of religious strife. Again however, Servetu made good his escape. Early one morning he scaled the wall of the prison garden in Vienne and headed of to Italy: all that was left to the infuriated French authorities was to burn Servetus in effigy.
​

"It is likely" Wright said, and then Naz goes off on a tear.

This is what W.J.Grier (Former Minister in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Ireland) stated in a Banner of Truth article,issue April,2010.

"Servetus' book was printed at Vienne. One lot was seized at Lyons,brought to Vienne,and burnt there in 1553 by the Romanist authorities. Another lot reached Frankfort,but the Protestant pastors there were warned by Calvin --so this lot was seized also and burnt. Another lot possibly reached Geneva itself. Servetus was at Vienne when his book was issued. His secret,so well kept for twenty years,now came to light. Arrested in the Episcopal Palace,he found himself in the hands of the Inquisition. He first of all denied that he was the author (the book did not plainly bear his name). The defenders of Servetus accuse Calvin of denouncing him to the Roman Archbishop. Calvin's reply was that he had no such extreme familiarity with the Pope's satellites;N.weiss has shown that this accusation is completely false. This charge failing,another one is laid --that he was guilty of treachery. He is accused of allowing a friend to pass on to Vienne a 'confidential letter' from Servetus. Actually there were no 'confidential letters';they were already in print --printed by Servetus himself. Servetus escaped from his dentention in France in April 1553. In his absence he was condemned to be burnt alive over a slow fire. Since he had fled the authorities burnt an effigy of him along with his books. if the Romanist authorities had had their way there Servetus would never have made it to Geneva,for he would have been burnt by them in Vienne instead!"
​

 

[Rippon]

It is likely however, that Servetus went to Calvin's part of town
for the very reason of confronting him with the accusation of Calvin's betrayal of him to the French Roman Catholics,
which was actually documented.

"It is likely..." you begin to say --then you say "it was actually documented." You don't know what you are talking about Naz.

Calvin was a cowardly betrayer and murderer, and also a tyrant.

Your charges are false on all three heads.

 

[Nazaroo]

I'm not impressed.

People who cover up murders and torture,
and call the murderers and informants "saints",
are real sickos.

Far more disturbed than those who refuse to listen to "theologians" with dubious reputations and bad fruit.

 

[Rippon]

Like I have said before :most of the websites that "report" this junk are KJVO. You need to show some needed discernment before you may your "observations". The majority report on many given subjects are often false --especially when it comes to stuff on the web.

I googled :"Hort's involvement with the occult." On the first page here's what I got:

www.maranatha.ca [a kjvo site]

www.psalm118 [a kjvo site]

worldfamine.com [a kjvo site]

watch.pair.com [a kjvo site]

www.kingjamesbible.com [need I tell you?]

HipandThigh [non-KJVO. It's run by the very reasonable Fred Butler.]

answers.yahoo.com [the lead "article" was most certainly KJVO.]

amazingdiscoveries.org [kjvo]

www.westcotthort.com [A non-kjvo site run by the astute James May.]

falseflags.wordpress.com [a kjvo site]

So what do we have here? Well 80% were KJVO,and the remaining 20% were non-KJVO.What does that tell us? Most of the information posted on the subject-at-hand is bogus, with an agenda to nail Mr.Hort with whatever they can throw against the wall.

Let me sum some things up :



Westcott and Hort were not Unitarians.

Westcott was a theological conservative.

Hort was not involved with the occult.

This post is for the benefit of Naz and his short memory.