Page 89 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

BIBLE VERSIONS

further quotes see The Modern Bible Version Hall of there is no literal salvation, and if the first chapters of
Shame. Genesis are myth the rest of the Bible is nonsense.]
“But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the “I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I
infallibility of a canonical writing” (Hort writing to mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that
Westcott in 1860, cited in Life and Letters of Fenton Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each
John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p. 422). [COMMENT: Hort of his descendants, as Coleridge justly
plainly denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture; as argues” (Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss
we will see, Westcott also rejected this doctrine.] Westcott, Vol. I, p. 78). [COMMENT: This is a plain
“For I too ‘must disclaim settling for infallibility.’ In the denial of the Bible and also of Jesus Christ and the
front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, Apostles, for they testified plainly to the historicity of
the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from the early chapters of Genesis and of the account of
my own ignorance, and that at present I find the Adam’s fall. See Mt. 19:4-6; 23:35; Ro. 5:12, 14; 1 Co.
presumption in favor of the absolute truth--I reject the 15:22, 45; 2 Co. 11:3; 1 Ti. 2:13-14; Jude 14.]
word infallibility--of the Holy Scripture “... the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral
overwhelming” (Westcott writing to Hort in 1860, cited and material counterfeit. ... Certainly nothing could be
in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p. more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s
207). [COMMENT: This is standard Westcottism. He bearing our sins and sufferings to his death; but indeed
wants to hold the Bible as absolute truth but not as that is only one aspect of an almost universal
infallible, which is impossible except to deluded minds heresy” (Hort to Westcott, 1860, cited in Life of Hort,
such as Westcott’s. His writings often appear to be Vol. I, p. 430). [COMMENT: What Hort called heresy is,
doctrinally sound but he will redefine terms so that in fact, the truth. The atonement of Christ was made
what he seems to say is not what he really means; and through His literal blood and death, not by His life. We
he contradicts himself as he does in this exchange with are justified by His blood and reconciled by His death
Hort, speaking the truth on the one hand while taking (Ro. 5:9-10). Note that Hort decries a “material”
it away on the other. In this, Westcott was a contrast to doctrine of the atonement, referring to literal blood
Hort, who was more forthright about his unbelief.] and death. The heresy is on Hort’s side, and it is not
“I am glad that you take the same provisional ground merely heresy; it is “damnable heresy” (2 Pe. 2:1),
as to infallibility that I do” (Hort writing to Lightfoot in meaning that those who hold it cannot be saved.]
1860, Life of Hort, Vol. 1, p. 424). [COMMENT: Thus, Westcott and Hort were instrumental in getting the
after corresponding with his friend Lightfoot, another Unitarian Christ-rejecter George Vance Smith on the
translator of the English Revised Version, on the issue ERV translation committee, and when an outcry was
of biblical inspiration, it was Hort’s understanding that made by Anglican ministers against the Unitarian’s
Lightfoot held the same heretical view of inspiration presence on the committee, these men threatened to
that he held.] resign unless he remained.
“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Westcott was exceedingly clever in the statement of
Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is his heresies and ordinarily refused to state things
proud to be contemporary with. ... My feeling is strong
that the theory is unanswerable” (Hort writing on April plainly. He acknowledged that those of his party hid
3, 1860, Life of Hort, Vol. 1). [COMMENT: their views so as to avoid “persecution” (Life and Letters
Darwinianism is a direct assault upon the Scriptures of Westcott, Vol. I, p. 229). After studying Westcott’s
and upon the Gospel (which is predicated upon man’s writings, Dr. Donald Waite observed: “Westcott’s attack
literal creation, fall, and subsequent need of on the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not
redemption).] by any means a direct clash of out-and-and denial, but
“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three rather AN ADROIT, SKILLFUL, OBLIQUE
chapters of Genesis give literal history--I could never UNDERMINING of the bodily resurrection of Christ BY
understand how any one reading them with open eyes MEANS OF A RE-DEFINITION OF TERMS” (Waite,
could think they did--yet they disclose to us a Gospel. Westcott’s Denial of Bodily Resurrection). Writing in
So it is probably elsewhere [in the Bible]” (Westcott, 1922, modernistic textual critic Kirsopp Lake stated:
writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1890, cited “Bishop Westcott is really the author of the great change
in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. II, p. 69).
[COMMENT: Westcott wrote this in his old age. It is [in the doctrine of the resurrection]. He entirely
obvious that even when he spoke of the Gospel, he was abandoned belief in the resurrection of the flesh as
speaking allegorically, because in his view the very formulated in the creed; BUT HE NEVER SAID SO. On
foundation of the Bible was not literal history. Like the contrary he used all HIS MATCHLESS POWERS OF
Plato, Westcott held that myth could present spiritual SHADING LANGUAGE, so that the change from white to
truth. Of course, the denial of the historicity of Genesis black appeared inevitable, natural, indeed, SCARCELY
1-3 is a denial of Redemption and of Jesus Christ, who PERCEPTIBLE” (Lake, Immortality and the Modern Mind,
taught a literal Adam and Eve. If there is no literal fall pp. 38-40).

Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity 89