1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Hort's heresies

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

  1. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you consider BB Warfield a heretic? Do you think BB Warfield did not believe in the inspiration of Scripture, especially considering that he wrote the greatest book on innerancy ever written since the Bible).

    Is BB Warfield a heretic?


    Did you know that only one version of Erasmus' work included I John 5:7, and he took it out and later regretted adding it. Looking at his decision, he was completely wrong to add that text as he did not add it based upon the Greek, but based upon the Latin, not the Greek. He was wrong and he believed he was wrong as he revised it out of his later works. You are, in essence, saying he was right about an issue that not even Erasmus would support.

    Again, you have not shown one bias, just attesting the bias. Again, let us recreate his work and decide from there. I would love to look at the manuscript theory.

    As for the substitutionary atonement, that was in context where he not only affirms the atonement, but expresses a need to understand it. It is like questioning the Trinity, there are issues I have with the Trinity, not that I deny it but that it is very complicated. He was asking for help to understand it. Do we want to lampoon someone over asking for help to understand an issue that seems on the face contradictory? I hope not, then we are all heretics.
     
  2. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you KJV only? I am not a fan of Erasmus' morality nor his theology. However, I do respect his work as I do Westcott and Hort.
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,490
    Likes Received:
    1,239
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Can't help but feel that Narvoo and Walter really haven't personally spent much time reading either author's works.

    Slandering men that have long ago passed is juvenile.

    Men of past ages need to be judged by the times in which they lived and not by present standards.

    This is particularly important when considering the early days of the theory of evolution.

    Rob
     
  4. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Erasmus (1466-1536)

    Father of Modern 'Marriage'
    "Erasmus knows well how to expose error, but he knows not how to teach the truth!"
    - Martin Luther

    Ironically, both Martin Luther and many other Reformers were heavily influenced by Erasmus on the subject of marriage, and this had lasting negative consequences that reach to our day in the Western nations.
    Erasmus was an outspoken critic against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church of his day. However, his methods and motives were quite different from those of the great Reformers who followed afterward.
    His sharp wit and cutting pen exposed the vices of the Church and lashed out at the monks. One of his famous books was In Praise of Folly, which exposed the disorders, ignorance, impurity, and absurd conduct of Church leaders.
    Rejecting Church teachings, Erasmus turned to classic Latin and Greek literature: He studied Hippocrates for medicine, Plato for philosophy, and Pliny regarding natural history. He also studied the writings of the early church fathers and the New Testament.

    Erasmus' New Testament in Greek and Latin:
    In his reaction to current Church practice, Erasmus turned to the New Testament. He made a scholarly re-translation of the Greek text into Latin and published both in parallel columns, in 1516, one year before the official "Reformation". In this effort, Erasmus had inadvertantly restored the NT to the learned, just as later Martin Luther would do for the German people by translating it into German.
    Thus along with exalting Scripture, he had spoken up against distorted Church teachings, that corrupt priests used to enrich themselves while oppressing the ordinary people. Erasmus had a genuine hunger for God, though his views were mingled and weakened by humanist philosophy. He wrote:
    "The sum of all Christian philosophy is reduced to this: to place all our hope in God, Who, through grace, without our merits, gives us everything by Jesus Christ..."
    - Erasmus







    Erasmus:

    His Infamous Background

    Erasmus held traditional Christian marriage in low esteem. He had a dim view of the Church's position on divorce. To see how this came about, we need to look into his early life. Erasmus' childhood experiences provided ample motivation for him to compose his lenient views on divorce and remarriage.
    Erasmus was an illegitimate child. His father, Gerrard, grew up in the Netherlands and was attracted to a physician's daughter named Marguarit. Gerard did not live by Christian principles, and soon Marguarit was pregnant. Gerrard's parents and 9 brothers urged him to enter a monastery and become a monk. Instead, he fled to Rome leaving Marguarit behind, soon to give birth.
    Later, Gerrard was falsely told by his parents that Marguarit had died. In a siege of grief he then entered the priesthood and took the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
    Years later he returned to Holland to discover Marguarit and his son Desiderius were really alive. She had refused to marry anyone but Gerrard. However, he stayed loyal to his vows (prohibiting marriage). The two parents continued to give Desiderius their affection, and focussed on his education.

    Early Tragedy
    When Desiderius Erasmus was 12 years old, his mother died. A short time later his broken-hearted father also followed her to the grave.
    Erasmus' guardians sent him to a monastery to become a monk. He spent 8 difficult years there, reacting against what he saw and also the vows he had taken. Finally, he turned from there to the universities, where he could pursue his interests freely.
    He made friends with powerful men such as John Colet, who became dean of St.Pauls College, and Thomas More, future Lord Chancellor of England.
    Thomas More: (1477-1535) - More served as Lord Chancellor in the court of King Hengry the 8th. This was the highest judicial office in England.
    However, More resigned in 1532 because he opposed King Henry's plan to divorce his queen. Three years later, Thomas More was beheaded for refusing to accept a mere king (Henry) as the head of the Church of England.






    Erasmus:

    His Disastrous Influence re: Marriage

    On the one hand, Erasmus was plagued by the fear of being branded a heretic. On the other, he strongly wanted to expose superstition and error in the Church. His new friends, along with his parental memories and writing talent, gave him the boldness to express his new and revolutionary views on divorce and remarriage.
    Erasmus' new ideas on divorce/remarriage caused him to be courted by rulers such as Charles V and Frances I of France, and Henry VIII of England. Henry had special interest, since he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and then (re)marry Ann Boleyn.
    The vigorous work of Erasmus helped prepare the way for Luther's Reformation. But in spite of being a daring critic, Erasmus remained loyal to the Roman Catholic Church, rather than breaking with it, as Luther did.

    The Church's View on Divorce and Remarriage
    The Church had begun teaching that salvation was earned by observing the Seven Sacraments of:

    • Baptism
    • Confirmation
    • Communion
    • Confession
    • Last Rites
    • Holy Orders
    • Marriage
    In attacking the abuse of the doctrine of Sacramental Marriage, Erasmus also rejected the almost unanimous view of all the early Church fathers that there were no Scriptural grounds for divorce (and remarriage), and that if divorce should occur, there was postively no Scriptural basis for remarriage. (The only historical dissenter to this view was Ambrosistar, a 4th cent. Latin writer.)
    The Strict Church view on Divorce and Remarriage was very old.
    Augustine (354-430 A.D.), believed in the absolute indissolubility of marriage. He emphasized that even an innocent party could not remarry if a divorce occurred because of adultery.
    Augustine exalted marriage as a sacred institution, ordained by God and confirmed by Christ, which illustrated the unity of Christ with the Church as expressed by the Apostle Paul in Eph. 5:31-32.
    Thomas Aquinas (1222-1274) treated marriage as a church sacrament by which saving grace is transmitted to ones seeking salvation. Aquinas viewed marriage as equal to the other six sacraments, which he taught were instruments of God to dispense saving grace.
    The Council of Trent (1545-1563) confirmed this view as official Church doctrine. Both Erasmus and Luther reacted strongly to the idea that any sacrament could bring about salvation.
    In spite of strong teaching on the permanence of marriage, many church goers in the days of Erasmus were dissolving their marriages through divorce. Church leaders differentiated between two types of divorce. The first type was a separation from bed and board. Augustine, Jerome, and other advocated this type.
    The second type of divorce was an Absolute Annulment of the marriage by insisting that the marriage had been unlawfully contracted at the outset. Those who wanted such an annulment would seek it from the Church and were obligated to pay whatever fee was demanded.

    Erasmus' Changes to Divorce and Remarriage
    The abuse of marriage together with the longing of many Church leaders and members for acceptance of divorce and remarriage prompted Erasmus to dilute the firm teachings of Scripture with humanistic philosophies.
    Erasmus emphasized the idea that love should come before any law on marriage. He held the opinion that it was not a loving act to allow many thousands of couples to continue in an unhappy partnership. Thus he reasoned that if they could be allowed divorce and remarriage, many could be saved from unhappiness.
    The humanistic premise of Erasmus was that love must at times be allowed to do what is legally forbidden, but seems justified in the situation. He argued that the Church should seek to deliver those in suffering marriages like Jesus sought the lost sheep.
    The views of Erasmus on the Sermon on the Mount are significant. He believed this Scripture (including Matt. 5:31-32) was not spoken to the multitudes, but to the disciples, who were the purest part of Christ's Body.
    THese were the ones whom he thought belonged to the Kingdom of Heaven, and thus, were able to live above the need to divorce.
    Within the Church however, he thought there existed another group which did have need of divorce, oath-taking, and the like. These, in his mind, were the imperfect ones who are found in large numbers and constitute the kingdom of the world. In this sphere, Erasmus concluded, it was not wrong to:
    go to court (vs. Matt. 18:15/Luke 12:58),
    take an oath (vs. Matt. 5:34/James 5:12), or
    obtain a divorce (vs. Matt. 19:9/Mark 10:11).



     
  5. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Protestant Views

    re: Divorce/Remarriage


    The Reformers' View on Divorce and Remarriage
    In their rush however, to free the people from the 'false doctrine' that sacraments (like marriage) provided grace for salvation, Luther and other Reformers also adopted Erasmus' views on divorce and remarriage!

    Divorce for Adultery
    Martin Luther based his reasoning on OT law which required adulterers to be stoned. He and other Reformers reasoned that even though the (current) civil government didn't carry out this sentence, the adulterer could still be considered 'dead' in the eyes of God. Hence, a spouse victimized by adultery would be free to remarry, as if their partner were dead!
    Although a harsh judgment against the adulterer/adulteress, the net result was that more and more allowance was made to justify divorce and remarriage.

    Divorce for Desertion
    Again, if a man deserted his believing wife and children, he was to be considered no better than a Gentile (Barbarian) or unbeliever who deserved the same punishment as an adulterer.

    Divorce for Disobediance
    Finally, if a wife refused to submit to her husband, "then the husband should let a 'Vashti' go, and take an 'Esther', just like King Ahasuerus did." (see Story of Esther).

    Divorce for Barrenness
    Still another reason put forward (supposedly to protect the right of a Nobleman to heirs) was 'impotence'. A barren woman could then be put away, and another fertile woman put in her place.
    Soon convenience and emotion had replaced reason and longstanding tradition regarding how to handle marriage difficulties.





    Conclusion:

    The Debasement of Marriage and Doctrine

    As Protestantism evolved further and further away from mainstream Christian values and principles, more and more reasons for divorce were added to the list. In the 1980s for instance, the list of legal reasons for divorce grew to this:

    • Adultery
    • Desertion
    • Mental or extreme cruelty
    • Physical Cruelty
    • Impotence
    • Nonsupport / Wilful Neglect
    • Insanity
    • Alcoholism
    • Drug Addiction
    • Conviction of a felony
    • Living Apart
    • transmission of a venereal disease
    • Public Defamation
    • Sodomy
    • Child neglect or abuse
    While all these reasons are severe, and each appears justified in proper circumstances, the fact is that many of these problems involve either gray areas or problems which could or should have a plausible (even if difficult) Christian solution beyond easy divorce. But this wide list itself was only a short stop-gap for a quickly deteriorating legal situation.
    The question of who could petition for divorce, and whether it should be granted unilaterally, is also a difficult one. Prior to the 80s, the party petitioning had to be themselves innocent. by about 1985, most states in the USA allowed "no fault" divorce, with no other reason needed than "irreconcilable differences". This effectively replaced the whole list above.
    It can't be denied that with the new 'no fault' view of divorce/remarriage, it is much easier to disolve a marriage than at any previous time in Christian history. The net effect is to discourage partners from resolving differences, greatly increasing the number of divorces.
    This sadly, is the final legacy of following Erasmus and his humanistic philosophy down the path further and further away from the clear and plain teaching of Jesus Himself.
    Now Christians, living in a Sodom-like environment in their own countries, are quickly arriving at the foretold time in which a nation of adulterers and adulteresses (James 4:4), will no longer endure sound doctrine (2nd Tim. 4:3-4).
     
  6. WestminsterMan

    WestminsterMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. Only one problem... It wasn't a response - it was a question and one that you completely ignored. So, here it is again.


    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.


    It's a very straight forward question there doc and gets to your critizism of "The Ghost and Guild" and their "...investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects..."

    I'd love to hear your answer.

    WM
     
  7. WestminsterMan

    WestminsterMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    0


    There is no way that you, I, or any other creature can say who is going to "burn in hell" and who is not. You are certainly free to hazard a guess, but that's all it is. Utlimately, if he is going to burn in hell as you claim, then that must mean he has yet to be placed in hell. So tell me Nazaroo, where is he now?

    WM
     
  8. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

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

    We are talking about textual criticism, namely the specifics on why Westcott and Hort are not as scholarly as Erasmus and why some prefer to personally attack W&H as reason to reject their work but not Erasmus for reason to reject his work.

    If you want to argue divorce, that is a great topic for another thread.
     
  9. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, I believe he was heretical on many different issues(evolution, baptism, Lord's Supper, ecclesiology, etc.).


    I know the evidences for this text and I believe the immediate context supports its inclusion and I believe there is sufficient support for its inclusion. So yes, I believe he was correct including it and incorrect in deleting it.



    Not from what I read in several of his letters. He completely repudiated Substitutionary atonement and clearly said that he had problems with the Ransom theory but preferred it over other choices.
     
  10. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

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

    Then I have no doubt you would consider me a heretic if you consider B.B. Warfield a heretic.

    I think I will let my previous posts speak for themselves and let your post be the last word.
     
  11. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, I don't beleive in ghosts. I do believe in angels, fallen and unfallen and they are "spirit" in nature. I don't believe the spirits of departed saints are roaming the earth. I believe what people report as "ghosts" or "haunted" or space aliens are demons. My belief is based upon the revealed Word of God rather than the superstituous claims and guesses of people.

    The passage you quote cannot be interpreted to mean anything more or less than a "spirit."

    However, Hort and company even dismissed the existence of "angels" in their investigation.
     
  12. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    I use the term "heretic" differently than the word "heretical." A person that I consider a "heretic" denies one or more fundementals of the faith and it is a more comprehensive term to decribe the whole person. A person that I consider "heretical" has reference to areas of relative lessor errors and it is not descriptive of him as a whole but refers simply to a error in regard to ANY lessor particular Biblical doctrine and thus the term "heretical" is restricted to a particular but relatively non-essential teaching that they are wrong on.

    The forum we are on has to do with "Other Christian Denominations." There are some on here that reject justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, reject the diety of Christ, reject the Trinity, rejection substitutionary atonement and all such I regard as "heretics." There are others on here that embrace the gospel of Christ, the Trinity, etc., but are wrong on many lessor issues that I regard as "heretical." And yes, Whatever area that I would be wrong about I would be "heretical" in regard to that particular area of doctrine. And yes, everyone one on this forum is wrong on some points and therefore "heretical" of that issue.

    I regard the fundementals of the faith to be all doctrines essential for salvation and a correct view of God.
     
    #32 Dr. Walter, Sep 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2011
  13. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    That differentiation is not an historic understanding of being a heretic. However, I still maintain that such a dividing line considering the historic understandings of Genesis that have occurred throughout history shows this is an important, but no where close to an essential doctrine. If BB Warfield were alive today, I would not only ask him to preach in my pulpit but would be honored to have such a man present.
     
  14. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would not have any presbyterian in my pulpit, nor Catholci, nor Lutheran nor any paedobaptist minister.

    That is the historic usage of the ENGLISH terms "heretic" and "heretical" but the Greek term as used in Titus 3:10 refers to a self-willed person who cannot be converted from his error.
     
Loading...