Westcott and Hort (mis?)quotes

[Amy.G]

To be fair, it does appear that W and H rejected the substitutionary view of atonement - sometimes strongly and other times mildly. However, this is in no way heretical as the substitutionary view of atonement is by no means essential for orthodoxy (it doesn't even get formulated till nearly 1200AD). It is an "in house" debate and thus not a sufficient reason for division over a translation.

Rejecting the atonement is not heretical? Pray tell, what is????

 

[dwmoeller1]

Rejecting the atonement is not heretical? Pray tell, what is????

As I clarify in the post previous to one you respond to, W and H *don't* reject the atonement. In fact, they affirm it fully, and they reject the "modern thinking" which they see as limiting the sacrifice of Christ.

What I am pointing on is that they don't hold to the substitutionary view. There are many competing view about the atonement, but no one particular one can be considered *the* orthodox view. While the penal substitutionary view certainly holds sway in Evangelical and Reformed circles, it would be incorrect to view it as the orthodox view. What is essential is that one views Christ's death as necessary to salvation and God's justice. Since W/H clearly hold to this essential, their view can't be considered heretical.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Where someone gets the idea that the substitionary atonement of Christ isn't essential doctrine I will never know.

Well, its certainly essential to reformed doctrine as well as other systems of doctrine, but its never been considered essential to orthodoxy. Its highly doubtful that the Early church held such a view and you don't even find it formulated till nearly 1200AD. There are other views of atonement which, while the reformed position would strongly disagree, no serious theologian would call heretical. The views of the atonement are largely an "in-house" debate (like Arminianism vs. Calvinism is).