Hort's heresies

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Nazaroo, Sep 26, 2011.

  1. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    "THE THEOLOGY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT

    When we come to the theology of these two men we find heresy of the worst kind. The attack on the Bible began with German Rationalism in the 17 and 1800's as well as the theory of evolution popularized by Darwin, Lyell, and Hutton in the middle 1800's. The following quotes clearly reveal Westcott and Hort's apostasy concerning evolution, the inerrantcy and infallibility of the Bible, salvation, as well as other doctrines.

    - Westcott on the historicity of Genesis 1 to 3.

    In a letter dated March 4, 1890 to the Archbishop of Canterbury: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example give a literal history...I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did".

    - Hort on evolutionary theory.

    He wrote on April 3, 1860, "But the book that has engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with...My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

    - Hort believed that the scriptures contained the word of God but not necessarily that each "word" was the word of God.

    Hort wrote: "So only, we believed, could the unique character of the scriptures be rightly appreciated as 'containing all things necessary to salvation'.

    - Westcott called the nation of Israel the "old church" and the church of Christ the "new Israel" implying that the promises to Israel had passed to the church.

    He wrote: "The Christian Church (John 1 v 12) was not, as it might have been, the corporate transfiguration of the Old Church (Israel), but was built up of individuals... gives prominence to the act of personal faith which distinguishes the first-fruits of the New Israel. The New Church grew out of the Old Church, as its proper consummation."

    - Westcott believed in the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man.

    He wrote: God is spoken of as "Father" and expresses the original relationship of God to being and specially to humanity, in virtue of man's creation in the divine image (John 4 v 21).

    - Westcott thought Christians were in a true sense "Christs".

    He wrote: (1 John 2v20) "Christians are themselves in a true sense "Christs", anointed ones,..."

    - Westcott and Hort both failed to affirm the personal nature of the devil.

    Westcott wrote: (1 John 2v8) "From the very beginning we see a power in action hostile to God."

    Hort wrote: (Rev 2v13) "...but the visible supremacy of the power of evil, inspiring to evil."

    - Westcott had a false view of the baptism of Christ and also that God the Holy Spirit indwells believers.

    He wrote: (John 1v33-34) "At the same time we cannot but believe that Christ at this crisis (the baptism of John) first became conscious as a man of a power of the Spirit within him corresponding to the new form of His work."

    He wrote: (1 John 4v4) "He that is in you, that is in the Christian society...the divine person is undefined. We think naturally of God in Christ.

    - Westcott and Hort did not believe that heaven was a literal place.

    Westcott wrote: (John 1v18) "The bosom of the father (like heaven) is a state not a place."

    Hort wrote: (1 Peter 1v5) an inheritance reserved in heaven "It is hardly necessary to say that this whole local language is figurative only."

    - Hort denied the literal return of Christ but refers to Bible prophecy as figurative and the revelation of Christ as a spiritual process though ending in a climax.

    Hort wrote: (1 Peter 1v7) at the revelation of Jesus Christ "There is nothing in either this passage or others on the same subject, apart from the figurative language of Thessalonians..., to show that the revelation here spoken of is to be limited to a sudden preternatural (ie supernatural) theophany (ie appearance). It may be a long and varying process, though ending in a climax.

    - Westcott believed becoming a Christian and eternal life are processes.

    He wrote: (John 15v8) and so shall ye become my disciples. "A Christian never "is" but always "is becoming" a Christian."

    He wrote: (1 John 5v20) "Eternal life is the never-ending effort after the knowledge of God."

    - Westcott believed that Christ's perfection was not reached till after his death.

    He wrote: (Hebrews 2v10) "The conception of the word used for perfection here is that of bringing Christ to the full moral perfection of his humanity which carries with it the completeness of power and dignity...This perfection was not reached till after his death."

    Conclusion on Westcott and Hort's Theology

    The conclusion that Westcott and Hort were heretics and false teachers is evident from the small number of examples given. From the life and letters of Hort compiled by his son we see his move back to Rome. In vol. 1 page 41 he says, "He outgrew the evangelical teaching, which he came to regard as sectarian." In vol. 2 page 49-51 he says, "Another idea has lately occurred to me; is not mariolatry displacing much worship of scattered saints, and so becoming a tendency towards unity of worship? ...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary Worship and Jesus Worship have very much in common in their causes and their results."

    Hort's description of the Received Text (the dominant text from the seven churches to his day) as "that vile and villainous Textus Receptus" matches his theology well."
     
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is absolutely no question that Wescott and Hort were absolute heretics from the top of their head to the bottom of their toes. The evidence is overwhelming. There is evidence they were involved in the occult.
     
    #2 Dr. Walter, Sep 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2011
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    It's quite easy to slander men who have been dead near 150 years!
    You are speaking out of ignorance.
    I'd suggest you read their books and sermons to know their beliefs better.


    Until then, look at the Westcott and Hort Resource Centre [LINK]

    Also review their FAQs page [LINK]

    Rob
     
  4. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for these links. I appreciate people who attempt to work diligently to clarify things. Unfortunately, most of the KJV only people often do tell half truths to make their point, which is a reason I tend to avoid their conversations. Your posts are interesting and I am glad you knew of these places.
     
  5. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find the following a very interresting quote:

    This is from the first link Deacon provided.
     
  6. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    This quote comes from a letter Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, on March 4, 1890. The surrounding context from the letter is below (underlining added):

    "The picture which you draw is sad, but I too, in my way, know that this is true. We want - and I know that I want, which is something - a living faith. When we are quite sure that God is speaking today - and He is speaking - we shall not grow wild in discussing how He once spoke.
    I have purposely refrained from reading Lux Mundi, but I am quite sure that our Christian faith ought not to be perilled on any predetermined view of what the history and character of the documents contained in the O.T. must be. What we are bound to hold is that the O.T., substaintially as we receive it, is the Divine record of the discipline of Israel. This is remains, whatever criticism may determine or leave undetermined as to constituent parts. No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses, in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the "sun rising," it was no less necessary that He should use the names "Moses" and "David" as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History: this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"


    http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_evolution.html
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Amen to what Deacon has said.
     
  8. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    0
    As someone used to say many times on the radio....


     
    #8 Alive in Christ, Sep 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2011
  9. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a book containing all the letters written to and from Fenton John Anthony Westscott. There is one letter dated December 29th and 30th in the year 1851 that says:

    "Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to beleive that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective illusions. We shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names.

    Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us 'The Cock and Bull Club'; our own contemporary name is 'The Ghost and Guild
    ." - The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Westcott, Chapter IV, p. 211

    Westcott left the club not due to disbelief but due to the popularity of his new books and his departure from that area. After Westcott left and went to Cambridge he was still a member of the ghostly club in 1852 and received letters containing materials to examine.
     
    #9 Dr. Walter, Sep 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2011
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Were Westcott & Hort Members of a Ghost Society?

    By Robert L. Sumner


    There is a network of publications that, by quoting each other, are mass instigators of misinformation, each seeming to feel that his own publication is the last line of defense before the capitulation of Fundamentalism to the Enemy. As an illustration of what we are talking about, in the July/August 1993 issue of Battle Cry, the publication of Californian cartoonist Jack Chick, there was an article with a two-column heading “Son of Biblical Text Editor Westcott Says: ‘My Father Was A Spiritualist’. “ Here are the opening two paragraphs:

    Writing that his father had a lifelong ‘faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism,’ the son of famed biblical Greek text editor B. F. Westcott admits to a considerable public alarm at his father’s activity.

    Westcott and his famed partner, Hort, were among the founders of the Ghost Society in the 1850s. Fascinated by the spirit world, their club was dedicated to pursuing knowledge of ghostly encounters with spirits.

    Is this information true of false? Well, let’s just say it is a prime example of what these fellows do with a tiny germ of truth, twisting it to give their readers a false picture and make the victim look bad--in this case, 19th century men who have been dead a combined total of 195 years (Brooke Foss Westcott died in 1901 and Fenton John Anthony Hort in 1892), men no longer around to defend their honor.
    To get at the truth, note the following:

    1) The Guild was not formed (Westcott’s association was short lived, as we assume was Hort’s) when the two were mature biblicists seeking to restore the New Testament Greek text, but when they were still students at the University of Cambridge.

    2) The author of the article above erred in the name. It was not the “Ghost Society,” but the “Ghostlie Guild.” In short, it seems to have been exactly the kind of humorous name a bunch of college kids would give such a society. While an error in the name is not of earth-shaking import, it does show the inattention to detail of which these heresy hunters are often guilty.

    3) The Guild was not formed so that its members could communicate with ghosts. Quite the contrary, it was intended as a scientific society “established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effects.” Its members were to collect all such accounts possible, investigate them, discard those obviously false, and seek to document any that might be true. Members were instructed, in dealing with alleged accounts, to “request written communications, with full details of persons, times, and places,” although the informers’ names would not be used “without special permission.” Still, a guild member “making any communication should be acquainted with the names, and should pledge himself for the truth of the narrative from his own knowledge or conviction.” Even as college kids, then, Westcott and Hort were not participating in seances, playing with ouija boards, becoming involved in crystal-gazing, or sampling any other form of clairvoyance. It was first, last and ever a scientific study into the phenomenon of the spirit world.

    4) One could not doubt the reality of some of these apparitions and spectacles without denying the existence of biblical demons. We refuse to do that.

    5) Perhaps the most blatant misrepresentation in the entire Battle Cry article was in the opening sentence of paragraph one (see above). Here is what Arthur Westcott actually wrote about his father: “What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good.” Do you not see how the words of the son were twisted by the writer of the unsigned article? He said Westcott had a lifelong faith in Spiritualism. The son said his “father ceased to interest himself in these matters.” All the son was saying was that his father never ceased to believe in the existence and ministry of demons. Nor have we. The longer we live the more we are convinced of their reality. (And we hope no future heresy hinter will write an article after my decease calling me a Spiritualist. I am not! Nor is there evidence that either Westcott or Hort were!)

    MORE HERE
     
  11. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sumner is lying! I personally read through Westcotts own letters last night and there are two other letters that I did not quote. That club was formed and continued at least for over two years (1851 and 1852) if not longer. Westcott continued as a member and is even called a "member" two years after leaving the physical locality where the club originated. In his letters there is no repudiation of that club or membership in that club.

    In those same letters, Hort at least temporarily embraced Darwins theory while Westcott was a skeptic of it. Westcott beleived in "baptismal regeneration" believing salvation was in the scaraments and church. Westcott sided with the "high churchmen" in the Church of England.

    Now, you can call in second hand witnesses all day long but it does not change what his own letters say.
     
    #11 Dr. Walter, Sep 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2011
  12. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0

    Cite your source please (and not from a bibliography of a secondary source, but the actual sources you accessed and read in context). A few notes here.

    First, Sumner never says how long the club lasted, but does note their length of period of involvement was short-lived.

    Secondly, when you mention "Baptismal Regeneration" by referring to it as a sacrament, I am curious if you merely attribute him holding to baptismal regeneration because he calls it a sacrament, or does he say that baptism saves in clear and unambiguous terms? There is a huge difference and most in the KJV only circle do not understand the historical significance and wide use of the word "sacrament." For instance, I believe it is a sacrament, but I reject baptismal regeneration. My view is shared by a number of well-known Baptists throughout history and it seems King James believed it was a Sacrament.

    Will you just as loudly denounce Erasmus' work which was the foundation of the KJV? He clearly believed in Baptismal regeneration and many other horrors that we can list. However, I believe, like I do with Westcott and Hort, that his work should be respected despite his character and theology because we can recreate what he did.

    Calling a member of an organization is not cause for alarm. I still call Catholic friends, though I have long left the Catholic Church. Erasmus interacted with a lot of men of ill repute. Will you condemn his work too? Guilt by association was one point that the Pharisees used to condemn Jesus, and a point which the KJV only people use to condemn others.

    Finally, are you reading primary sources or secondary sources? As Christians, before we totally blast people by lying and making innuendo, we should get our facts straight and ensure we are accurate. The KJV only people often lie so often and distort the truth so much, that if I held them to the standard they hold others, I would reject them just because of their dishonesty.
     
    #12 Ruiz, Sep 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2011
  13. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thing Sumners completely misrepresented was his statement that they simply were defending the existence of angels or fallen angels -demons. Take note of the statement above that is put in bold letters.
     
    #13 Dr. Walter, Sep 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2011
  14. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have personally verified everything you accuse Westcott and Hort below. I have verified from primary source materials - their own writings. What you say is true and cannot be honestly denied - all critics have to do is just read their letters.


     
  15. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, I am curious before I respond to the other issues, what is it about Erasmus' work that is far superior to Westcott and Hort? I know that even Erasmus took issue with various versions of his works that were used in the KJV and I am not doubting his scholarship, but I do not think it was perfect. I never had someone say that Erasmus' work is far superior to Westcott and Hort.

    What surprises me is that in the book you cited, is rather interesting. It seems to note Westcott's strong belief in the innerancy and providential belief in the Word of God (p. 422) and while Hort embraces an apriori view of Scripture, he did have some struggles especially with the "Q" source. They did have a discussion on the use of a single source for the synoptics (in modern language called "Q"). This is not an issue of doctrine or heresy. Yet, it seems he had an a priori view of Scriptures being from God.

    Next, I read the section on dealing in Baptismal Regeneration. First, he wanted to remain neutral. Secondly, and this is where we need a fuller understanding of the Episcopal view of Baptismal Regeneration and that of the Catholic View, which he differentiates in this section. He notes he has difficulty with the Episcopal view and the Roman view. Yet, he never goes into detail on what that might be.

    Yet, this is a bigger problem and brings up more questions than it answers. For instance, Luther believed in a form of Baptismal Regeneration and many Episcopals, as seems to be a part of the problem Hort is expounding upon, used the language. This is one of the cases in which more confusion exists than does not. He cited an author and I was unable to find this author's book, but it seems he was an episcopal who outlined the 39 articles. Without reading his work, I am not certain we can definitively state his view of Baptism Regeneration. I think that was what the issue was. Now, the text states that the protestant view of his day had some more dangers than the Roman Catholic view, but he still seemed to disagree with both views. Thus, I am more curious than I am enlightened by the quote.

    You misquote the text of Sumner who said, "The guild was not formed when the two were mature Biblicists." They were in college. Even if they were considered active members two years later (and I am still considered an active member of a church that I have not been a part of for 6 years because they haven't taken me off their list) seems at best speculative. There seems to be two accounts. From there, we cannot make a definitive statement and probably should ere on the side giving deference.
     
  16. WestminsterMan

    WestminsterMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well doc, don't you believe in ghosts?

    Matthew 14:22-26

    25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

    26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit [ghost, phantom, apparition, etc]; and they cried out for fear.

    Apparently the Jews believed.

    Hmmm...

    WM
     
  17. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, some of the discussion is also ludicrious on the outset for two reasons:

    1. Some of their "heresies" are not heresies. Two examples are below:

    Evolution. I am a strong 6 day creationist, but even B.B. Warfield, the author that influeced 100 years of innerancy writing, was not what I am.

    Covenant Theology. To place this as a dividing line would also place Spurgeon, Bunyan, Luther, Calvin, Pink, and on and on and on.. as people who differ on this issue. I would include myself among that list.

    2. The issue is whether their work is accurate and true, not what their theology is and is not. As noted before, Erasmus was not necessarily a man I would want my kids to grow up to become like, but I respect his work. I find it hypocritical that they attack the men Westcott and Hort and not attack the man Erasmus. WHy not attack their work which can be replicated instead of attacking them personally? I think the only reason they are attacked is because their work is difficult to attack rationally and they disagree with it, but instead of attacking the work it is easier to attack the men.
     
  18. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't consider evolution a "heresy"?????? It is a direct denial of the existence of God and replaces God with time plus chance! It is a direct denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures. It is a direct denial of the fall of man, of the diety of Christ. If that is not "heresy" nothing is!

    Hort wrote that the doctrine of the Substitutionary atonement was an "immoral" and "unchristian" doctrine. He really couldn't make up his mind what theory of atonement he did believe in but he said that he leaned more to the ransom to Satan view of the atonement. You may not call that hersy but I do!

    This is a completely fabricated straw man of your own imagination. Westcott and Hort were extremely selective in what they incorporated into their revision of the Greek Text and their theological biases were influential in the readings they omitted versus what they included. Their view of inspiration dictated how they treated the materials they were handling. On the other hand Erasmus was far more objective. He even conceded to including 1 John 5:7 if a manuscript were produced that included it. When a manuscript was produced he was true to his word. He had no theological bias that determined what he would include or exclude.
     
  19. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Boy!!! YOu know this is an absurd response! The society established by Westcot and Hort and company refused to assume even the existence of angels until it could be authenticated by evidence:

    "I forget who thinks it highly unphilosophical in us to assume the existence of angels which by the way we don't do, for our classification is only of phenomena though I don t suppose any of us would shrink from the assumption" -Hort Writing to Mr. Chambers, May 11, 1852 quoted from Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1

    Note he called it an "assumption" rather than the clear teaching of God's Word! This society questioned even the authenticity and authority of God's word on this subject but rather refused to beleive anything they could not substantiate with existential proof.
     
  20. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll gladly attack Erasmus. He was the son of two fornicators, who consequently (inevitably?) took such a lenient view on marriage that he almost singlehandedly overturned nearly 1500 years of Christian dogma and tradition on it.

    Because of his heretical 'easy divorce/remarriage' position, he was adopted by Henry the 8th (satanic wife-beater extraordinare - he murdered his wives).

    With the King's backing (resulting in free dissemination of his views), and unfortunately with the propensity for all the whoremongers of Europe to agree with him in exchange for easy access to tavern sluts, his views on marriage were adopted by virtually the whole Reformation, effectively shipwrecking what could have been the greatest Revival of all time.

    Instead, we were saddled with a slippery slope of ever-easing divorce rules based on Erasmus' uncritically accepted fantasies.

    The result was ever-increasing pregnancy out of wedlock, abandoned children and mothers, whoring, prostitution and a lowering of the rights and status of women beyond comprehension, all packaged and sold (by everyone following, all the way to Hugh Hefner) as "liberation".

    Now, it is virtually impossible to be a virgin, and marry a virgin, unless you live in a gated Mormon community or on a Mennonite/Quaker/Puritan farm.

    How can you have organized and fair 'divorce' rules, without the possibility of Biblical marriages?

    Now, of course, pastors' charitable status will be revoked, if they dare preach against same-sex 'marriages', and will be charged with 'hate-crimes'.

    So I would say that yeah, Erasmus is going to burn in hell for this.
     
    #20 Nazaroo, Sep 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...