Re: [Covenanted Reformation] conspiracy theory always bad history
- Mr. Letis wrote:The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV.That remains to be seen. Your credentials in textual criticism do not automatically make you right. There are some factors I believe you are overlooking, or, of which you may not be fully aware. Do you deny that the Jesuits, as part of their continuing counter-reformation, infiltrated the seminaries of England (like Oxford) in the 19th century -- their primary goal being the same as it always had been up to that point, viz. the destruction of Protestantism? Do you deny that the Jesuits put forth their Rheims ENGLISH New Testament in 1582 (translated from their Latin Vulgate) solely to usurp Tyndale's ENGLISH New Testament? Do you want us to believe the Jesuits suddenly lost interest in attacking Protestant Bibles, after 1582? Do you not find it incredible that, from 1881 to the present, professing Christianity has made a glaring shift away from all Reformation texts, Bibles, and doctrines, for false texts, false bibles, and false doctrines that had been previously REJECTED by the Reformers?With that fact in mind, re-read your statement above.Mr. Letis continues:Furthermore, neither W nor H were tractariansHow can you be so sure? Look at what was going on in their day. Unbelief in the authority and inspiration of the Bible abounded within the Anglican Church PRIOR TO the start of the "revision," not to mention the attacks that took place on the doctrines found WITHIN the Bible. Look at the blasphemous garbage posited by Temple, Williams, Powell, Wilson, Goodwin, Pattison, and Jowett in Essays and Reviews (to which Dean Burgon brilliantly responded in 1861, in his work entitled, Inspiration and Interpretation). Six of those seven men were ministers of the Church of England! What doctrines were being attacked by those "ministers?"
Note that these doctrines were being attacked by ministers within the Church prior to the call for revision of the AV, and after the last of the Tracts for the Times had been published. Funny you should mention German Textual Criticism. That, in fact, was one of the methods used by Jesuits to infiltrate the seminaries, whereby they could replace the text of the Reformation with a text that had been rejected by the Reformers! I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, and, though Wilkinson is wrong on some things (aren't we all?), you cannot deny the truthfulness of the following:"BECAUSE of the changes which came about in the nineteenth century, there arose a new type of Protestantism and a new version of the Protestant Bible. This new kind of Protestantism was hostile to the fundamental doctrines of the Reformation. Previous to this there had been only two types of Bibles in the world, the Protestant, and the Catholic. Now Protestants were asked to choose between the true Protestant Bible and one which reproduced readings rejected by the Reformers." (Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, ch 15, Ages Software)
- the word of God
- the Creation
- the Fall
- Heaven and hell
- Eternal punishment
- a Day of Judgment
- Jewish History
- Gospel narrative
- Doubt regarding the Incarnation
- the Resurrection
- the Ascension
- the Divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity
- the Personality of the Third Person of the Trinity
It is certainly a remarkable circumstance that so many of the Catholic readings in the New Testament, which in Reformation and early post-Reformation times were denounced by Protestants as corruptions of the pure text of Gods Word, should now, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, be adopted by the Revisers of our time-honored English Bibles. (ibid. ch 12, Wilkinson cites Edgar's Bibles of England)Just because Burgon doesn't mention anything about W/H being tractarians, who's to say it isn't plausible...and even PROBABLE that they were...especially knowing the secret manner in which Westcott and Hort "introduced" their Greek text to the unsuspecting public? It seems to me Burgon wanted to stay out of such matters anyway. In fact, he was willing to keep SILENT on the fact that a Unitarian participated on the Revision Committee:"I frankly avow, my Lord Bishop [Ellicott], that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising Body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by." (Revision Revised, pg 503)Furthermore, your friend, Paul, himself, said that Burgon didn't see "a Jesuit plot behind all the tracts"...so why would Burgon have felt the NEED to mention whether W/H were Tractarians?Have you ever heard of the doctrine of "Reserve?" (see tracts 80 & 87) For the benefit of the readers, I will tell you what it is: it is basically saying one thing, while secretly believing/doing another...all for the good of the cause. In other words, the truth was "reserved" only for the initiated. Tractarians (including Newman) would preach against Rome, while being secretly sympathetic to it. Walsh documents a great deal of Newman's own Letters, in The Secret History of the Oxford Movement. One thing I found interesting, is that some of the doctrines attacked in Essays and Reviews above are the SAME DOCTRINES that were held in "Reserve" by Tractarians!Taking into account the relation of Newman, Pusey, and Keble to Wiseman and Mai (Wiseman was appointed curator of Arabic mss in Vatican Library, and spent a great deal of time examining various mss in that library -- while Mai was a Jesuit who was the keeper of the same Library...having his own edition of Vaticanus!), its not a far stretch to see how W/H were influenced. Leaders of the Oxford Movement had direct ties to text critics who resided at the Vatican. To assert that W/H were miraculously UNAFFECTED or IMMUNE to anything I have mentioned thus far is simply ludicrous!I'll respond to the second half of your post tomorrow, and will also give you some of my background...on this issue, as well as others. In a nutshell, up until 2 years ago, I was a dispensational, pre-trib, pre-millennial, futurist, Arminian Baptist. I ascribe to NONE of those things now.Keith----- Original Message -----From: Theodore LetisSent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:22 PMSubject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] conspiracy theory always bad history
Keith Dotzler <keipen@...> wrote:Dr. Letis says:I am here, however, to dispute the historiography of conspiracy theory advocated on this list for several days now regarding Fenton John Anthony Hort and the Revised Version revision committee of I88I.Can you tell me specifically what you are disputing, regarding my posts of the last few days? Once you give me specific points of contention (please cite my own words, so there is no doubt as to what I really said), I will then attempt to respond.Keith---------------------------------------Not a problem, from post # III59:The committee that produced the RV was dominated by tractarians, just as the council of Trent was dominated by JesuitsThis is utter non-sense. It as dominated by W&H who were in turn dominated by Griesbach and German text criticism. Read Burgon on this WHO never refers to ANY Jesuit or tractarian influences on either W. or H. This foolishness as first set forth by Benjamine Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day Adventist. The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV. Furthermore, neither W nor H were tractariansfrom post #III88...the above quotes come from Grady's Final Authority, pp 220-223)Grady is a certifiable Ruckmanite, Dispensational Baptist preacher who use to sell office furniture, for crying out loud. How would he know ANYTHING about the history of Victorian religion??Why does a Reformed believer read this rubbish, rather than Hills, or even Van Bruggen? These guys ALL copy from one another's church basement press publications. Grady copies, Gipp, who copies Floyd Jones, who copies David Cloud, who copies D.A. Waite, who copies Chick, who copies Ruckman. NOT one of them has any training in this field; not one of them is even an academic in any field--they are all Baptist preachers...Theodore P. LetisDirector
The Institute for
Renaissance and Reformation
P.O. Box 870525
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
- --- In email@example.com, "Keith Dotzler"
> Mr. Letis wrote:Not if this last e-mail of yours was suppose to prove otherwise. It
> The Catholic church had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the RV.
> That remains to be seen.
is ironic that the title of this thread is: "conspiracy theory always
bad history," and yet all that you presented was more of the same.
Perhaps if I provide you with another example from the people from
whom you have picked up your bad habits (Ruckmanites all), you can
see the techniue you have become addicted to. What link that follows
is my reply to the crazy woman Riplinger as found in my book, THE
ECCLESIASTICAL TEXT: TEXT CRITICISM, BIBLICAL AUTHORITY AND THE
My friend, you have offered NO evidence that either Westcott or Hort
were part of a Jesuit conspiracy, or that Rome had anything
whatsoever to do with the RV revision committee. NONE of your sources
provide even a hint of this, because none of these authors ever
argued this. It is a theory formulated by Peter Ruckman and repeated
for 30 years. He got it from Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day
Adventist. You are wrong about this and I will say it one more time
that it is irresponsible to repeat this misinformation on discussion
lists, or elsewhere. You destroy the cause you think you are
defending. Give up the conspiracy theory and become a real student of
the subject (i.e., throw out your Ruckmanite library :-).
Theodore P. Letis