Six Books that Should Not Have Been Written (at least in the form they are in)

"Of the making of many books there is no end" says the Preacher, and while there are very many good and profitable books in the world, there are also a large number of really bad ones out there. Christians have produced a large number of books, and behold that the good are very good, and the bad are very bad! The thought occurred to me that it might be of help to reflect on five of the worst I have ever read, six books that ought not to have been written, at least in the form that they have. They are presented in no particular order.

1. Alexander Hislop: The Two Babylons.

First published in 1858 as an expansion of a pamphlet published in 1853, the great burden of this book is to attempt to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian at all, but is really just old paganism with a Christian veneer. In order to 'prove' his point, Hislop reduces all pagan worship to the worship of Nimrod, his wife Semiramis, and their son. In the course of this polemic the author denounces the very symbol of the cross itself as pagan. The root fallacy is that Hislop everywhere proceeds on the principle that similarity proves connection, which is by no means proven, and which has been shown to be false time and again. The arguments that he uses have been quite successfully adopted by such authors as those drawn upon by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code to 'prove' that all of Christianity is in fact derived from paganism. The book is utterly useless, moreover, in the Roman Catholic controversy, for it proceeds not on the sound principle of addressing what the Roman Catholic Church now teaches or believes, but on a speculative theory as to the origins of its ceremonies and symbols. The book is calculated to produce a great deal of heat, but very little light. What is more, it is now horrifically outdated in terms of the scholarship that Hislop replies on. This book stands as an example of really bad anti-Roman Catholic polemic that should have gone out of print over a century ago; only foolish fanaticism keeps it in print.

2. Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk

This is another really bad piece of anti-Roman Catholic literature that ought to have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago, but thanks to certain fanatics with more zeal than sense, it can still be obtained. It purports to have been written by a young woman who was an escaped nun, and in it she talks about terrible things going on in a particular Canadian nunnery. According to 'Maria Monk', the nunnery was nothing less than a seraglio for the Seminary across the street, the offspring of the illicit unions being smothered at birth and buried in the secret tunnel that linked the two establishments. It is perhaps almost needless to say that the story proved to be a fabrication from end to end, and no evidence of its truth has ever been found. 'Maria' had never been a nun, but was almost certainly mentally ill. Even were it true, it would be meaningless; the problem with the Church of Rome is not that its priests and 'Religious' are particularly wicked, but that its doctrine is wrong, and that is what these sensational works almost completely ignored. If every Roman Catholic priest was an exemplary moral person, and every nun a loving and humble person, Rome would still be wrong!

3. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins: Left Behind.

Projected as a trilogy, the Left Behind series began publication in 1995. The success of the first novel led to the saga being spun out to an obscene length. These books are probably some of the worst Christian fiction ever written. I am not a dispensationalist, but I do not refer to the theology that underlies these books; the rapture doctrine could, if handled well, be the basis for a compelling work of fiction, but Left Behind is not that. It is badly written, has cardboard characters, and singularly fails to rise above the level of the mediocre at any point, usually remaining far below that level. Put simply, this is a bad book, and the first in a series of bad books. It evidences an astonishing lack of imagination, while the protagonists are unpleasant, arrogant men who remain unpleasant even after their conversions. Now, this might be fine if we were meant to think of them in such a way, but we are actually meant to identify with them. The storyline is constructed on the basis of a certain understanding of the End Times that its authors regard this timeline as set in stone and unchangeable, which is fair enough; the failure is that they have their characters decide that they can do nothing to stop Antichrist and that they should therefore work for him. The authors' thought-processes at this point are beyond my powers to explain, but suffice to say that they are wrong. The problem is that they locked themselves into a narrative style that meant they only tell us what happens to two main characters, who therefore have to be at the centre of things, and then they decided that both had to be 'good guys'. It would have been far better either to have an omniscient narrator, or to have one of the two main characters end up on the bad side (as happens in the vastly superior end-times novel The Clock Strikes).

I have put Left Behind in the list because it represents everything that is wrong with Christian fiction; cardboard characters, a smug satisfaction with being 'not as other men are', and a pedestrian style that makes events that should be exciting dull as ditchwater. Oh, and it lacks all imagination, for which it should for ever be consigned to the dustbin of bad literature. Christian fiction is all too often synonymous with bad fiction; brethren, these things ought not to be so.

4. H.D. Williams: The Attack on the Canon of Scripture

This book is one of those where you read it with increasing irritation because it could have been a good book! There really is a modern-day attack on the Canon, as witness the arguments of the Jesus Seminar, and the arguments put forward by such men as Bart Ehrman, and there is a call for a good book on the subject; this is not it. No, this is a bad King James Only book by a man who does not understand the issue; it is not really about Canon Criticism at all, but textual criticism, it mixes up the question of the canon with the question of the text. The King James Onlyist is simply not equipped to deal with Ehrman. This is a missed opportunity.

5. Gail Riplinger: New Age Bible Versions

If anyone is surprised that I have included this book, then they ought not to be; my antagonism to Mrs. Riplinger is well-known. The reason for this is that she is a liar, and I have proven it (see previous blog entries). In the course of this book she fabricates quotations to make it appear that men taught things that they abominated, and denied that which they affirmed. This is not a book of scholarship, it is the product of a twisted mind. Mrs. Riplinger has convinced herself, I know not how, that every modern Bible version is a product of a Satanic plot to usher in a one-world New Age religion. Convinced that this is the case, she has set out to find evidence for it, evidence she thinks is hidden in the modern versions and in the writings of those responsible for them. To her mind these versions and their authors are certainly guilty, and so she proceeds on that basis. The result is, of course, entirely unconvincing to all those who are not already disposed to believe her. It is mildly entertaining in an absurd and tragic sort of way, but justifies the verdict of many, even King James Only people, who have pronounced NABV possibly the worst Christian book ever written.

6. Gail Riplinger: Hazardous Materials

A book so bad that one of the men quoted favourably in it wrote a rebuttal, HazMat as I semi-affectionately call it, is huge, rambling, and at times baffling. Though I have not been able to find any repetition of Riplinger's quote-manufacturing technique from NABV in it, it is if anything worse than its predecessor. First of all, HazMat is formless; it has no real progression in it, but is a collection of loosely-linked sections with only one connection, Riplinger's conviction that the study of Greek and Hebrew is bad and dangerous. The book is hysterical in tone, not to mention conspiratorial. On one page we are shown a picture of Archbishop Trench of Dublin wearing a medallion bearing a St. Patrick's Cross, which is labelled 'Masonic' on the grounds that Mrs. Riplinger has decided that the 'X' is evil, apparently not realising that such a cross may be worn for other reasons (such as Trench's Irish bishopric). She accuses Trench of 'putting a serpent on his book', when it is really the logo of his American Publisher (she spends about ten pages on the question without once tumbling to this simple explanation, which ought to have occurred to her in a matter of minutes). Oh, and she cites Hislop's Two Babylons, always a mark against an author. Add a rant against Calvinism, thoroughly pointless discussions of Cecil Rhodes and the Knights Templar, not to mention a discussion of the the Pyramids that literally caused me to laugh out loud, and we have a book that is surely even worse than NABV, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", as the Bard would say. I list Mrs. Riplinger as illustrative of the very worst tendencies in Fundamentalist literature taken to their extreme.

These are my opinions, and frankly I do not want to hear from Mrs. Riplinger's supporters until they have explained why it is acceptable for her to create bogus quotations to sustain accusations of heresy against men. The Bible says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", and unless you really want to argue that that only applies to Christians and therefore one can lie as much as one likes about those one deems to be non-Christians (a wretched sophism that I hope exists only in my imagination and perhaps an old Jesuit work or two), Mrs. Riplinger has flagrantly breached this law over and over. She refuses to listen to those calling her to repent, and therefore must be exposed publicly for the purveyor of falsehoods that she is.

Gail Riplinger's Inspiration!

Couldn't resist it!

"The Godhead's Gone" - is That Bad?

On of the sinister signs of the Serpent's subtlety (sorry, it must be catching) that Gail Riplinger 'exposes' in her books is the fact that modern Bible versions have removed the word 'Godhead' from the Bible (Chapter 28 of NABV is titled "The Godhead's Gone". On P. 379 of NABV she gives a chart showing this. She states that the word "Godhead" means "Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Haowever, Gail Riplinger’s idea that 'Godhead' as used in the AV means 'Trinity' is an error, making a common term into a technical one, or in other words importing a systematic theological use of a term into a Biblical one. Let me explain my point further.

First of all, the term ‘godhead’, as used in the 17th century simply meant 'deity', as a perusal of Puritan literature will reveal. Thus in his Commentary on John,[1] first published in 1657, George Hutcheson writes that John's statement in John 1.3 that all things were made by Christ is "a proof of Christ's godhead" (P. 11). I might multiply quotations ad nauseum from Hutcheson, but it would serve no useful purpose. Matthew Poole wrote in 1685 on the same text that “The Divine nature and eternal existence of the Lord Christ is evident from his efficiency in the creation of the world.”[2] Also note that this is a comment on the same passage as the earlier quote from Hutcheson, incidentally showing that the old term ‘Godhead’ is a (now obsolete in this sense) synonym for ‘Divine nature’. Commenting on Colossians 2.9,[3] Poole uses ‘Godhead’ and ‘Divine nature’ interchangeably.

‘Godhead’ is in fact derived from the same root as the German ‘Gottheit’, Deity, that which makes God God, the essence of God. The Puritans – and the AV translators – use the word accordingly.

Second, Riplinger's argument is contrary to the Biblical usage of the term in the AV. In Romans 1.20 we read that creation reveals God’s “eternal power and Godhead.” Does creation reveal the Trinity so that it is “clearly seen’? Incidentally the Greek here is ‘Theiotes’, while in Colossians 2.9 it is ‘Theotes’. Both are translated ‘Godhead’ in the AV. This may seem slight, but remember that at the Council of Nicea the difference between heresy and orthodoxy was this same letter, iota. This letter can make a great deal of difference in Greek. The fact Riplinger does not think so only exposes the fact that she does not know Greek. The word in Romans could be hyper-literally translated ‘Godlikeness’ (German, ‘Gottlichkeit’). All of which is just to confuse you, of course.[4]

Colossians 2.9 is the passage that is most important in the discussion. There we read of Jesus Christ that "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Now, if we understand 'Godhead', when used in the AV as a technical term for the Trinity, it follows that the whole Trinity became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. The 'oneness' sects use this as a 'proof' for their false doctrine by importing the idea of the Trinity into the term 'Godhead', when a comparison with 17th century usage reveals that 'godhead' had not at that point the technical meaning Riplinger assigns to it. Thus switching to a word like "Deity" robs the Oneness teachers of a text they could otherwise pervert.

Nor is the term 'Divine nature' solely the property of the New Age Movement. The terms are common English ones. Just as Riplinger erroneously asserts that the term 'The Christ' is New Age (despite the AV itself stating that 'Jesus is the Christ', and never using the term 'the Christ' except in a positive way), so she has erroneously supposed 'Godhead' to refer to the Trinity, and 'Divine Nature' to be the sole property of the New Age. Now, I know the date of the origin of the New Age Movement is a bone of contention, but everyone agrees it is within the last 150 years, more or less. So you cannot accuse the Puritan Matthew Poole of New Age tendencies when he wrote in 1685 on John 1.3 that “The Divine nature and eternal existence of the Lord Christ is evident from his efficiency in the creation of the world” (Commentary on the Bible [Reprinted Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1975], Vol. 3 P. 278).


Friendly Footnotes:
[1] Modern edition London, Banner of Truth, 1972. And no, I didn't go hunting through Puritan literature for the word, I have better things to do with my time, I just happened to be using Hutcheson when I noticed his use of "Godhead" and thought 'well, isn't that interesting'.
[2] Matthew Poole: Commentary on the Bible (Reprinted Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1975), Vol. 3 P. 278
[3] Vol. 3 P. 716
[4] From Eadie: A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul’s Letter to the Colossians (Reprint, Vestavia Hills, AL, Solid Ground, 2005) P. 141. The etymology of "Godhead" is quite interesting if you're into that sort of thing.

Another word on 'The Christ'

The idea that the title 'The Christ' is necessarily evil is frankly bizarre. The elephant in the room that Gail Riplinger does not seem to have fully recognised is that the New Age movement has taken over wholesale Christian language, filling words that can really only be read in a Christian sense, with a meaning taken from Eastern Pantheism.

The fact that New Agers may use the term does not give them ownership of it, any more than the use of the word ‘teacher’ means that Sunday-school teachers are New Age agents. Yet on P. 318 of NABV, Riplinger heads a section in all seriousness: “T-H-E Christ: Antichrist.” The reasoning behind this hatred of the term is difficult to fathom. While the use of the term is rare in the AV, it does occur some 19 times, these are:
1. Matthew 16:16
2. Matthew 16:20
3. Mark 8:29
4. Mark 14:61
5. Luke 3:15
6. Luke 9:20
7. Luke 22:67
8. John 1:20
9. John 1:41
10. John 3:28
11. John 4:29
12. John 4:42
13. John 7:41
14. John 10:24
15. John 11:27
16. John 20:31
17. John 20:31
18. 1John 2:22
19. 1John 5:1
In not one of these cases is it used in a negative way or by a pretender to Messiah-ship. The Bible no-where says that “Antichrist will call himself the Christ,” or, as Riplinger, that “the Christ is antichrist.” In fact the AV says: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5.1). According to the AV, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2.22). So the AV, while it does not use the term “The Christ” often, demands that all Christians must affirm that “Jesus is the Christ.” Riplinger, in her eagerness to condemn the modern Bible versions, and her paranoia about the New Age movement, has inadvertently condemned the AV as well! It would be one thing if the new versions called Jesus ‘Hermes,’ but they do not (though Paul was mistaken for Hermes once). Instead they use a title that the AV itself uses for Jesus.[1] What is illegitimate is the use of a term that never appears in pre-Christian pagan literature to refer to pagan ideas.

Of course Riplinger tries to back up her point. First of all, though, every Christian must confess that the Word of God is the final authority. If the Bible uses a title of Jesus, then to use that title of Jesus cannot be wrong. Secondly, Bob Larson, her authority, does not say what she wants him to say:

“By using the definite article (the) when referring to Christ, mind sciences distinguish between Jesus the man and the divine idea of Christ-realization attainable by men.”[2]

Note what Larson is not saying: he is not saying that the term ‘the Christ’ is the exclusive property or trademark of the mind-science cults. He is in fact explaining how the mind-science cults abuse Christian vocabulary. They also use the word ‘Christ’ with no article. Does this make that word occultic?

Riplinger’s error is that she has missed that the heresy of the New Age does not lie in the use of the term “The Christ” at all; but in their denial (as condemned in 1 John 2.22) that “Jesus is the Christ.” What is heretical and New Age is to make a distinction between the historical man, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Christ, however that is done. Norman Geisler notes that it is not so simple as Riplinger makes out:

“We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as ‘the Christ-spirit’ or ‘Christ-consciousness.’ Generally, when New Agers (and many liberal Christians) speak of Christ, they are not referring to the historical Jesus spoken of in the New Testament and the great Christian creeds. If they do speak of the historical Jesus, they usually refer to Him as only one of several Christ figures in human history.”[3]

“Christ” is not a name; it is a title, a Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew ‘Messiah’, meaning ‘the anointed one’. It is usually preceded in Greek by the definite article, which is usually rendered in English as ‘the’. The Greek article does not correspond exactly to the English in all situations, nor does its use. It is commonly given in Greek before proper nouns, something that is bad English. But it is good English to place a definite article before a title when that title is used to describe a man, for example, “the pastor” or “the captain.” Thus it is good English to say “the Christ”. There is no conspiracy here; a phrase that is used only positively in the AV has simply appeared elsewhere.

Yet Riplinger writes,

“The following verses will be ripe for picking from the serpent’s tree to force feed starving souls following ‘the Christ’. The KJV clearly presents the past tense visit of Jesus Christ. The new version [sic] have ‘the Christ’ to come.”

Of course this is simply not the case. One can give a verse out of context to support all kinds of unbiblical nonsense, but such a procedure can be followed as easily with the AV as with modern Bibles. Remember, the Mormons use the AV!

Those who have written genuine New Age ‘Bible’ versions, doctored to teach their own ideas, have not contented themselves with changes to a few verses, or to words, but have massively re-written whole sections without any sanction from any ancient manuscripts. The ancient Gnostics did not change a few words here and there. Marcion radically pruned the canon, removing the whole Old Testament and reducing the New Testament to “The Gospel (most of Luke) and the Apostle (much of Paul).”[4] The Gnostics created their own books, such as those found in the Nag Hammadi Library. Joseph Smith, who taught that God was once a man and that man could become God, added several books of his own creation to the Bible. The peculiarities of the New World Translation produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society[5] are not the result of the underlying Greek text used by the Society, but the result of forcing the Bible to conform to the pre-existing theology of the Society. The modernist paraphrase Good as New[6] engages in radical editing, and omits several New Testament books, adding the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.[7] In other words, like Marcion, its editor has taken upon himself to revise the canon. What he does not like he omits or changes.

It must also be noted that on P. 321 Riplinger puts words into the mouth of the Apostle John. She writes:

“’Who is a liar,’ says the apostle John, but he who claims to be Christ. ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ not Buddha, a church, ‘each of us’ nor the coming antichrist.”

But what John wrote was: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2.22). John did not say that the one who is “a liar” claims to be Christ, but that he “denieth that Jesus is the Christ.” Why does Riplinger twist the Bible like this? Of course he who claims to be Christ is a liar, and is denying that Jesus is the Christ, but they are not the same thing!

In conclusion, what needs to be proved is what Riplinger has not even attempted to prove, that by using the phrase ‘the Christ’ modern versions intend to deny that “Jesus is the Christ.” Since the NIV, the NASB and the ESV all contain 1 John 2.22, denouncing “he who denies that Jesus is the Christ” (ESV), they cannot reasonably be said to separate Jesus of Nazareth from the title that He alone can wear, that of “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”


Things missing from Hazardous Materials - Footnotes!

[1] This is the only permissible version of the Argumentum ad Hominem, demonstrating that even from the perspective of one’s opponent her argument is faulty. The real reason Riplinger attacks the use of the term ‘the Christ’ in the modern versions is of course that its wider use represents a change from the King James Bible. She seems incapable of discriminating between a change in the underlying Greek Text and a change that exists solely in the English translation. It is for this reason that her position is correctly denominated King James Only, as opposed to the more nuanced Textus Receptus and Majority Text positions.
[2] Bob Larson as quoted NABV P. 318
[3] The Infiltration of the New Age (Wheaton, Illinois, Tyndale, 1989) P. 142
[4] Harold O.J. Brown: Heresies (Peabody, Mass., Hendrickson, 2003) P. 63
[5] See http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html As I am simply using the NWT as an example, comments attempting to defend the NWT will be regarded as off-topic and ignored.
[6] John Henson, (ed.), Good As New: A Radical Retelling of the Scriptures (New Alresford, Hampshire, O Books [Imprint of John Hunt Publishing], 2004). I am glad to say that this perversion appears to have sunk without trace. I have only ever seen one copy of it, in a secondhand bookstore. In passing, let me say that it is frankly dishonest for the King James Only lobby to lump together such blatant perversions as this with formal translations such as the NKJV and the ESV. Henson has gone far beyond the NWT, let alone the NRSV or any Evangelical translation!
[7] http://www.bible-researcher.com/gan.html accessed 03/10/09

On the use of words. Or: Why you're not a New Ager because you went to the Office today

In many places Riplinger uses common vocabulary to 'prove' a New Age involvement in modern Bible versions. The trouble is that the words she cites are not necessarily New Age or occultic at all. They may be used by the New Age, but they are used by many other people in other ways. The New Age likes to turn words that are used in English in a variety of ways as 'codewords', but the use of these words does not itself prove involvement with the New Age, rather a New Age connection has to be proved before the word can be interpreted in a New Age way. So it is not the title ‘The Christ’ that is evil (contra Riplinger on Pp.318-321 and in many other places)[1], but the meaning that the New Age movement has filled the title with. The AV itself uses the title several times, for example in John 1:41, John 20:31, 1 John 5:1, and 1 John 2:22. Riplinger has reversed the correct procedure, which is first to prove that a writer is New Age, and then (and only then) to understand the words as New Age.

Words mean things, but they mean different things to different people, which is why a Mormon and a J.W. can both call Jesus 'The Son of God', but mean completely different things by it (both of which are wrong). What is more, the New Testament itself uses language that is also used by the Greek philosophers. If mere similarity of language is enough to establish an identity of ideas, then we must concede that the New Testament borrows from pagan thought (it does not). Rather we need to heed the words of Gordon Clark,

“Since the New Testament was written in Greek, it uses words found in pagan writings… But the point in question is not the use of words but the occurrence of ideas … One cannot forbid Christian writers to use common words on pain of becoming pagans.”[2]

This witness is true. Making the necessary changes, we can say that this caution is still in force. Some of the words referred to by Riplinger to make her case are: Demon,[3] Love,[4] One,[5] Teacher,[6] Teaching,[7] Age,[8] and Office,[9] not to mention many other such “common words.” Not one of these words is in itself a technical New Age term. To use these terms does not necessarily make its user a heretic or New Ager. Thus it can be seen that it is not enough to prove that a writer uses a specific term that the New Age uses, it must also be proven that the writer uses it in the same way as the New Age movement’s writers, and this can only be done by citing the use of the word in context.

Of course there are genuine heretical catchphrases and terms. The catchphrase of the Arian is "There was a time when he [Jesus] was not." The Semi-Arian says that Jesus is "Of a similar nature to the Father." The New Ager refers to "The Christ-consciousness," and the Swedenborgian speaks of "Our Lord God Jesus Christ." The Mormon speaks of "The only-begotten of the Father according to the flesh," and so on. It is by these uncommon words and phrases that we identify false teaching.



Necessary Info in the Footnotes

[1] It has been pointed out to me that Riplinger’s quotation of Norman Geisler, “Liberty University's Dean Norman Geisler adds: 'We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ" . . . “ (NABV P. 318) to back up her point is dishonest. This is in fact a doctored quotation. The original reads: “We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ spirit" or "Christ-consciousness.” Quoted by Bob and Gretchen Passantino, http://answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html (accessed 29/09/09). Geisler does not say that it is the title ‘The Christ’ that is New Age, but the phrases “The Christ-Consciousness” and “The Christ-Spirit.”
[2] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, as quoted in Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Phillipsburg, Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003) P. 7. Emphasis added by Nash. The whole of this book, which deals with the claim that the New Testament borrows wholesale from pagan thought, is well worth reading, not only for those interested in the subject and seeking to reply to claims such as those found in the Da Vinci Code, but to those interested in the whole question of how far similarity of language can be used to show dependence of thought. It is fascinating to see how closely Gail Riplinger's method with the modern Bible versions resembles that of the History-of-Religions-School with the New Testament. As well as scary, of course.
[3] P. 13
[4] P. 13
[5] Chapter 5, Pp. 76-97
[6] P.20
[7] Pp. 325-9
[8] P. 283
[9] P. 347

Westcott and 1 John 2.2

The following forms Appendix 3 to my essay 'The Craft of Dishonest Quotation'. The abbreviations in the titles of books are those used in the body of the essay.

On P. 234 of NABV Riplinger writes of Westcott:

“Commenting on I John 2:2 which reads, ‘[H]e is the propitiation for our sins,’ Westcott says this verse is ‘Foreign to the language of the New Testament.’”

The implication is that B.F. Westcott denied that 1 John 2.2 belongs in the New Testament. Since the book I facetiously refer to as The Big Book of Textual Variants (Philip Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary) lists no variant in this place, it follows that Riplinger is accusing Westcott of engaging in conjectural criticism of the text – a sort of New Testament version of the so-called ‘Higher Criticism’[1] of the Old Testament. If this were true it would indeed be a serious indication of unsoundness in Westcott, rejecting a verse that is in every manuscript that contains 1 John 2 for purely theological reasons. But there’s the rub, is it true?

At this point Riplinger has forgotten to give the reference to Westcott’s Epistles. As the specific quotation is not found in the body of the work on the text in question,[2] but in an additional note, this failure to give the reference actually gives the false impression that Riplinger has given a bad reference, when in fact she has given no reference at all. The context is:

“The Scriptural conception of hilaskesthai is not that of appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender, but of altering the character of that which from without occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship. Such phrases as ‘propitiating God’ and God ‘being reconciled’ are foreign to the language of the N.T. Man is reconciled (2 Cor. V.18 ff.; Rom. V.10 f.). There is a ‘propitiation’ in the matter of the sin or of the sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He ‘cannot’. In virtue of His very Nature welcome the impenitent and sinful: and more than this, He ‘cannot’ treat sin as if it were not sin.
“This being so, the hilasmos, when it is applied to the sinner, so to speak, neutralises the sin. In this respect the idea of the efficacy of Christ’s propitiation corresponds with one aspect of the Pauline phrase ‘in Christ.’ The believer being united with Christ enjoys the quickening, purifying, action of Christ’s ‘Blood,’ of the virtue of His life and death.”[3]

Note first of all that it is not the verse that Westcott says is “Foreign to the language of the New Testament.” He is not engaging in the 'higher criticism' (or, as James Begg called it, "the lower scepticism"). At first reading the passage the evangelical reader is put on the defensive. Westcott appears to be trying to make the verse say something other than its plain meaning by quoting various extra-Biblical sources and Greek translations of Old Testament texts. Then, however, a second reading clears the air somewhat.

An Evangelical would not have used Westcott’s language, but in fact he is substantially correct. Westcott is right to say that the idea that Christ’s sacrifice changes something in God is unbiblical, and this is in fact the force of the passage. He is also quite right to say that the effect of Christ’s death is finally not in God, but in us. If Christ’s death affects the way God treats those who believe in Jesus, it is because the death has changed something about us, it has taken away our sins. And it is the false idea of Christ’s death changing God’s mind that Westcott, rightly understood, says is “foreign to the language of the N.T.” There has been, sadly, a school of Evangelical preaching that has given the impression of God the Father in a fearful rage being mollified by the self-sacrifice of a loving Son. The impression is given that, before the cross, the Father had no love for us, and that it was the cross that created the Father’s love. This is of course not what the Bible teaches at all, nor is it what the best Evangelical preachers have taught. Most of the time it is merely rhetoric, bad and false rhetoric, but still merely rhetoric and not the actual belief of the speaker. Still, Westcott is quite right to say that such a view of the cross is false, and ultimately dangerous, for it creates the idea of disharmony in the Trinity, the Son loving those the Father does not love. It also gives the impression that the Father’s wrath is ultimately unjust, wrong and merely emotional.

Thus, while I disagree with Westcott that “Such phrases as ‘propitiating God’ and God ‘being reconciled’ are foreign to the language of the N.T.” absolutely, I agree that, if understood as referring to a change produced in God, such phrases are. But, if they are understood as referring to a new relation which we, as Christians, now enjoy due to our position in Christ, the phrases are quite permissible.

The Footnotes Begin Here

[1] “Why ‘higher’? The word bewilders me always.” – B.F Westcott to Archbishop Benson, Life Vol. 2 P. 224
[2] Epistles P. 44
[3] Ibid. P. 87.

Was Brooke Foss Westcott an Occultist?

Riplinger’s doughty defender has written that Riplinger’s method with the writings of Westcott is quote correct, because

“Riplinger is reading him between the lines as his fellow occultist [sic] did”

Of course, this defence fails first of all on the ground that we are supplied with no evidence that Westcott intended his writings to be thus interpreted. We have instead the ipse dixit that occultists hide their true beliefs in their writings, a method I have facetiously compared to a scene in Without a Clue an otherwise very bad spoof Sherlock Holmes film I saw many years ago, where Holmes, who is in the film a bungling American (don’t ask), declares that Moriarty has hidden clues in his name, and comes up with the remarkable deduction that Moriarty is really called Arty Morty. How do we know Westcott’s writings have to be read in this manner? Because Riplinger’s defender says so!

Secondly, he fails on the count that Westcott was not an occultist at all. The sum of the evidence for Westcott’s occultism presented by Riplinger is as follows:

1). While an undergraduate at Cambridge he was a founder member of a club called ‘Hermes.’

2). While a graduate student at the same University, he was a founder member of an institution called ‘The Ghostlie Guild.’

3). A man called W.W. Westcott, who founded the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, might be an alternative identity of B.F. Westcott.


None of these proofs, however, can support the weight Riplinger wishes to hang on them, that Westcott was an ‘occultist.’

1). The Hermes Club.

Arthur Westcott writes in his biography of his father B.F. Westcott:

“These four, together with W.C. Bromhead, J.E.B. Mayor, and J.C. Wright, were the original members of an essay-reading club, which was started in May 1845, under the name of ‘The Philological Society.’ At a later date the society took the name of ‘Hermes.’ The society met on Saturday evenings in one or other of the members’ rooms, when a paper was read, and a discussion, not infrequently somewhat discursive, ensued. The following were the subjects of papers read by my father:- The Lydian Origin of the Etruscans; the Nominative Absolute; The Roman Games of (or at) Ball; The so-called Aoristic Use of the Perfect in Latin; The Funeral Ceremonies of the Romans; The Eleatic School of Philosophy; The Mythology of the Homeric Poems; The Theology of Aristotle; Theramenes.”[1]

This is all the evidence that we have of the activities of the ‘Hermes Club’. It tells us firstly that it was an “essay-reading club”, and originally christened the “Philological”, a name that sounds dull rather than sinister. Take the subjects, and behold, the true nature of the club becomes apparent – a group of earnest young classicists meeting together to discuss classical subjects! The only danger I can conceive in the meetings of this club might be that of extreme boredom in some of the meetings! Seriously, only Riplinger, who regards the poetry of Homer as satanic, would find anything sinister in this list of classical subjects. I can think of far worse activities for students to engage in on Saturday nights. And most of them happen in the city centre here!

As for the identity of ‘Hermes’, Riplinger on P. 400 of NABV refers to “Hermes Trismegister”. She is confusing the Egyptian Hermes, usually identified with the ancient Egyptian god of Wisdom, Thoth, with the Greek. Of course those classicists who met to discuss the mythology of Homer referred to the Grecian Hermes. They were not Egyptologists or occultists. This is the same Greek Hermes whose name appears in the Greek New Testament in Acts 14.12. The AV translators, Latinists as many of them were, render the name “Mercurius”, but the Greek is ‘Hermes’. J.A. Alexander writes that Hermes was “the interpreter or spokesman of the gods.”[2] In other words, Riplinger has confused the Hermes’! This I call the ‘Another Man of the Same Name’ fallacy. I hope to be able to show you a picture of the true Egyptian Hermes as soon as I am able to get out to Biddulph on my bicycle! You will agree he looks most unlike the Grecian Hermes.[3] Also that Paul is unlikely to have been confused with him.

It seems that this harmless “essay-reading club” existed only as long as Westcott was an undergraduate.

2). The ‘Ghostlie Guild’
According to Westcott’s biographer, the chief source we have for this club, its aim was to investigate reports of supernatural activity. It was not engaged in séances or attempts to provoke or cause supernatural events.[4] Arthur Westcott writes:

“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 that he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good.”[5]

Please note that the only source Riplinger quotes to prove Westcott’s involvement in the occult limits that involvement to a few years during his years as a graduate student! A man who dabbled in the investigation of alleged ghost sightings as a graduate student is not properly called an ‘occultist’, yet that is all the evidence we have of Westcott’s involvement with the occult. Yes, I labour the point. It needs labouring! Note also that Westcott’s mature judgement was that: “such investigations led to no good,” and that he "ceased to interest himself in such matters" for that reason.

3). W.W. Westcott

It has been satisfactorily proven that William Wynn Westcott was an individual separate from Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham. Riplinger’s speculation is to be found on Pp. 676-7 of NABV, where she speculates that Bishop Westcott of Durham was also W.W. Westcott, founder of the ‘Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” Riplinger writes, “The similar identity of these two is not a matter of historical record.” Now, I will admit to not being a logician, but two men are either “identical” or “similar”, I suppose she means ‘the identity of these men’ (i.e. their in fact being the same man). They are in fact two different people. She sheepishly admits, “The connection between B.F. Westcott and the activities attributed to the possible allonym W.W. Westcott are speculation on my part.” The fact remains that that they were as much different persons as were Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole! And yes, the Hermes of ‘Golden Dawn’ was the Egyptian, not the Grecian. Yet Riplinger refers to Bishop Westcott as "B.F Westcott, a London Spiritualist" on P. 25, a description that only fits if Brooke Poss Westcott was also W.W. Westcott. If the two were not the same man, then Bishop Westcott is not the man whom "Secular historians and numerous occult books see... as 'the father' of the modern channeling phenomenon, a major source of the 'doctrines of demons' driving the New Age movement" (NABV P. 25).

Of course it is possible, given the information Riplinger supplies, to think that the identity of W.W. Westcott is a mystery, that he is nothing but a name. He is not; he is a real person whose life is documented extensively, there are even pictures of him - as seen above! Nor does he suddenly appear on the scene out of no-where and disappear again about the time of Bishop Westcott's death. For this reason it is impossible to suppose that he is a mere “allonym” of Bishop Westcott. And in fact "allonym" is the wrong word, as a dictionary definition of 'allonym' is 'the name of a historical figure taken as a pen-name.' The correct word for a literary alias that is not the name of a historical figure would be a "pseudonym". Thus, were I to write under the name 'Spartacus', that would be an allonym. 'The Highland Host' is only a nom de plume or pseudonym. But to return from nit-picking... (I apologise, but Riplinger twits others for their use of English, so hers is fair game in my book)

Brooke Foss Westcott was born in Birmingham on 12th January 1825. His father was Frederick Brooke Westcott. He was baptized according to the rite of the Church of England in St. Philip’s Church on 7th February.[6] He went to school in Birmingham and took his degree at Cambridge. On leaving Cambridge in 1852 he taught at Harrow School.[7]

William Wynn Westcott was born in Leamington, Warwickshire, on 17th December 1848. He was adopted by his uncle after the death of his parents when he was ten, and educated at Kingston-upon-Thames. He studied medicine at University College London, and on taking his medical degree he became a rural doctor.[8]

In 1869 Brooke Foss Westcott became a canon of Peterborough Cathedral,[9] in 1870 he became Regius professor of Divinity at Cambridge.[10] In 1890 he became Bishop of Durham.[11] Brooke Foss Westcott died on 27th July 1901.[12] He wrote a number of books, including commentaries on John's Gospel and Epistles, on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and on the Epistle to the Ephesians.

In 1881 W.W. Westcott became Coroner for central London,[13] an official post of great responsibility, meaning that he had to carry out inquests into deaths within central London. It is estimated that he carried out more than ten thousand inquests – a level of activity incompatible with also being the Bishop of Durham and having another family up north. He held this post until 1910 – nine years after the death of the Bishop of Durham. In 1918 he emigrated to South Africa, where he died in Durban on 30 June 1925.[14] Willim Wynn Westcott seems to have become involved with the occult after moving to London. There he joined (and eventually led) the Societas Roscruciana in Anglia, and co-founded the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as well as being a member of the Theosophical Society. He authored more than a dozen books on the occult, including An Introduction to the Study of the Kabalah, Sepher Yetzira, The Number 666: Its Symbolism, The Occult Power of Numbers, and The Magical Mason. He was active in the occult from the 1880s onwards, although in the latter part of the 1890s he was forced to curtail his occult activities by the authorities, who did not want the bad press attendant on a senior coroner being a leading spiritualist.

There is simply no way that Brooke Foss Westcott and William Wynn Westcott could be the same person. Both were highly educated men whose lives left a long paper trail. Neither man’s origin nor end is shrouded in mystery, and their activities do not overlap in location. The Bishop died nearly a quarter of a century before the occultist coroner, who was born more than twenty years after his namesake. Their lives overlap, but that is all. Riplinger refers to Bishop Westcott as "B.F Westcott, a London Spiritualist" on P. 25, a description that is most inapt for the Bishop of Durham, but fits perfectly with William Wynn Westcott. While Brooke Foss Westcott spent very little time in London, and is most linked with Durham and Cambridge, William Wynn Westcott was based in London for more than thirty years, and held his most prominent post in London. He was also deeply involved in the London occultic scene. It is William Westcott whom "Secular historians and numerous occult books see... as 'the father' of the modern channeling phenomenon, a major source of the 'doctrines of demons' driving the New Age movement" (NABV P. 25). Thus Riplinger, on the basis of wild and errant speculation, has libelled Bishop Westcott. About the only connection between the two men is that they both had the same surname! It is as if someone should suppose Dr. James White and Dr. John White to be the same person.

The alternative is that Brooke Foss Westcott took the identity of William Wynn Westcott, who either died naturally or was bumped off by the Bishop at some point. Did he do this when W.W. Westcott was a doctor in the West Country? Certainly not during W.W. Westcott's time in London, as it would be impossible to replace such a prominent public official without someone noticing!

We would then have to belive that this clergyman, in order to keep up the pretence that W.W. Westcott and B.F. Westcott were two different people, instead of opening a private clinic in London, applied for the post of coroner for central London and was employed in that post. He then accepted a post as a university professor at Cambridge, and then the Bishopric of Durham, hundreds of miles from London. In an age when the fastest mode of transport was the steam train, Brooke Foss Westcott was able to live a double life in London and Durham, often being in both places at the same time, or at least managing to appear to be. He faked his own death in his bed in 1901, and then lived for another twenty-four years in the identity of William Wynn Westcott without anyone suspecting until Gail Riplinger. Moreover, the period of W.W. Westcott's emergence as an occult leader coincides with the period at which B.F. Westcott was at his busiest, first as a Cambridge Professor, and then as Bishop of Durham. You will pardon my inability to believe such errant nonsense.

The fact that there is no dark veil of mystery over the identity of W.W. Westcott means that Riplinger’s speculation is utterly pointless. So why does she do it? The same reason she engages in all this misquotation – the hope that if she slings enough mud, some of it will stick!

So let me recap.
1). The Hermes Club was a harmless essay-reading club of young classicists.
2). The 'Ghostlie Guild' was a club to investigate reported sightings of Ghosts, and after leaving Cambridge Westcott abandoned all such activity.
3). Brooke Foss Westcott and William Wynn Westcott were two completely different individuals. There is no eveidence the two men ever even met each other.

The evidence that B.F. Westcott was an occultist is therefore non-existent. The most that could be said is that he dabbled in the paranormal for a few years while a graduate student, before giving up such invesigations as dangerous. And don’t bother coming up with the quotations using supposed occultic vocabulary. Remember, what must be proved is that Westcott intends the words in an occult way, and to do that, you must first prove that he was an occultist. B.F. Westcott, not William Wynn.

If I receive an answer along the lines of “but of course he hid the fact…”, I think I will laugh very loudly and advise the writer to read some elementary texts on research. Or boil his head, whichever he likes.

Here come the footnotes!
[1] Life, vol. 1 P. 47
[2] Joseph Addison Alexander, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Reprinted London, Banner of Truth, 1963) Vol. 2 P. 54
[3] He is to be found beneath a pyramid of topiary, in a secret underground grotto. Those who know Biddulph Grange gardens will know of what I speak.
[4] Life vol. 1, Pp. 117-8
[5] Ibid. P. 119
[6] Life Vol. 1 P. 1
[7] Ibid. P. 173
[8] http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/cbindex.html?showindex=William%20Wynn%20Westcott It amuses me to give this citation, as Riplinger uses the same site to link Charles Dodgson (‘Lewis Carroll’) with the Ripper murders. Perhaps she can link B.F. Westcott too! W.W. Westcott is also a highly unlikely suspect, suggested ony by recent conspiracy theorists. See also http://www.golden-dawn.org/biowestcott.html
[9] Life i. 301
[10] Ibid. P. 366
[11] Life ii. P. 91
[12] Ibid. P. 401
[13] http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/cbindex.html?showindex=William%20Wynn%20Westcott
[14] Ibid.

A Note:

Our 'Puritan' Commenter has written of Westcott that:

"he was a dark-minded, dishonest, consciously dishonest individual who knew very well he was dishonestly putting a false bible over on the Christian world ..."

It is a common piece of rhetoric to argue that those you disagree with are dishonest. However, unless one is able to prove it (as I believe I have done with Riplinger), it really amounts to little more than saying "I don't agree with your interpretation of the evidence." Fine. It's a free internet, after all. But Christians ought to be cautious of throwing such accusations around. After all, lying is a sin. So unless you can prove the charge, don't make it. The same goes for the accusation Westcott was an occultist, and incidentally the charge he was a pederast.

The Craft of Dishonest Quotation - Conclusion

So I conclude what was originally an essay prepared to help people to think through Gail Riplinger's abuse of quotations in NABV.

The previous posts have demonstrated conclusively that Gail Riplinger appears to have a cavalier disregard for the rules of fair play. She alters quotations at will, and appears to think that this is a quite legitimate procedure. She has no regard at all for context, but then, this is true of her use of the Bible as well. To illustrate how the modern versions teach error she compares on P. 106 the AV and the NASB, where she claims the modern versions encourage the seeing of visions. To prove this she cites Colossians 2.18, “taking his stand on visions he has seen.” Of course the problem here is the context, for those who are seeing visions in Colossians 2.18 are false teachers, who are seeking to “defraud you of your prize” (NASB). She falls over Colossians 2 once more on P. 129, where she cites Colossians 2.23 to prove that the new versions encourage asceticism, promoting, “Self-abasement… severe treatment of the body… harsh treatment of the body,” in contrast to the AV’s “humility… neglecting of the body.” But who are spoken of in Colossians 2.23? Those same heretics referred to in 2.18!

It becomes apparent that Riplinger’s present Christian association is with a circle that routinely use single verses plucked out of context to back up their statements, and Riplinger has picked up this bad habit, which she applies to sources other than the Bible. Of course this is not how one ought to do Bible study, and it is certainly not how one reads a book. Context is king. Words do not have meanings on their own, but placed in a context, something Riplinger seems dimly to understand in some places, but which she generally ignores. Thus, for example, she spends Pp. 559-80 doing something exceedingly strange with The Shepherd of Hermas. What she does is take words and phrases from the Shepherd and place opposite them quotations from the Bible, that are in completely different contexts, to 'prove' that the Shepherd is an occultic work (or something like that, anyway, otherwise the whole thing is just pointless). Thus on P. 561 she notes that the Shepherd contains the phrase “delivered unto him”, and cross references this with, “Luke 4.6 records, ‘the devil said… that is delivered unto me.’” But Matthew 11.27 records that Jesus said, “All things are delivered unto me.” Why must we understand that the Shepherd is not referring to Christ here?

On P. 563 she quotes from the Shepherd, “The gate was made recent that they which are to be saved may enter.” Opposite she writes, “This Calvinistic predestination statement appears in numerous new versions, particularly the NIV… the gate here referred to is the ‘wide gate… that leadeth to destruction’ (Matt. 7.13) and the ‘gates of hell’ (Matt. 16.18).” Now, what fair-minded person would conclude such a thing? Is it not in fact apparent from the context that this is intended to be “the gate… which leadeth unto life’ (Matt. 7.14), "made recently" by the death of Jesus Christ? Only by taking single word and phrases out of context can Riplinger make the Shepherd appear to be a New Age work, rather than what it is, an early Christian allegory. It would be very easy to show that Riplinger is herself a New Age heretic by using this method on her writings! For example, on P.315 she writes: “‘Christ’ takes centre stage in the new versions as Satan attempts to move the true God… into the wings.” I have of course omitted the words “Jesus Christ,” but this is no more than Riplinger does with Westcott when she omits "but assumes" from the phrase, "He does not expressly affirm but assumes the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." Of course, this would is highly unfair, but that is rather the point! If it is wrong for me to quote Riplinger like this, why is it right for her to quote others this way?

I would note that Riplinger, like all too many Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, regards anything outside of her own system of belief as not only wrong but actually heretical. Most well-known in this regard is her attitude towards Calvinism, which she has called “heretical”, stating that the “five points form a satanic pentagram,” a form of argument that has no basis in reason at all. Most notorious, however, ought to be her denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ. Gail Riplinger holds to an ‘Incarnational Sonship’, that is, that Jesus is called ‘the only-begotten Son of God’ because of the miracle of His birth. Although this has been a minority position frowned on by most of the Church, it is not a heresy, just an error[1]. Riplinger, however, condemns as heretical the teaching of the eternal Sonship! On P. 337 she writes, “Begotten is used in reference to the body of ‘flesh’ ‘beheld’ by mankind.” Thus, to her mind, any reference to the Father ‘begetting’ the Son eternally is heresy. Now, she is at liberty to use the word ‘begotten’ however she likes in her own theology (even if she is wrong), what she is not at liberty to do is to read her own minority understanding of this word into the writings of others. Yet on P. 344 she cites Edwin Palmer’s statement, “The Holy Spirit did not beget the Son” as if it refers to the incarnation and not to inter-Trinitarian relationships. Although she has disclaimed this intent, why else would she have juxtaposed a quotation from a Mormon source? She certainly gives the impression that Palmer and Brigham young are referring to the same thing.

With this in mind, it is not surprising that she has been tempted to twist Westcott’s quotations as she has. What is most appalling is just how completely she has yielded to that temptation. Riplinger liberally sprinkles the book with dishonestly doctored quotations from those she opposes. I have concentrated on quotations from a single source, Bishop Westcott, because as a full-time minister I have to spend most of my time preaching the Gospel - which is as it ought to be. Unlike Riplinger's son-in-law, I am not an evangelist for a Bible version, but for Jesus Christ (see Hazardous Materials). Westcott is quoted often, and I happened to possess several volumes of his works. I came to Riplinger’s book with an open mind, but having examined the quotations from Westcott, I find I cannot trust any of her quotations without examining them for myself. A defender of Mrs. Riplinger has written on this blog that he admires her spirit. I would like to ask how any Christian can admire the spirit of a person who uses the words of others as I have documented Riplinger using the words of Bishop Westcott. We are faced with a choice, either Riplinger is completely ignorant, and unable to understand a word of what Westcott said, or she is dishonest. In either case she is unfitted to write books, and disqualified from teaching Christians. One is in fact left with serious doubts about her salvation, for “… all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone,” according to Revelation 21.8, and “whatsoever… maketh a lie” shall “in no wise enter into” the New Jerusalem” (Rev. 21.27).

Pray for Gail Riplinger that she repents and withdraws this book.

Lone Footnote:
[1] I use the common theological terminology, referring only to those departures from the historic faith that undermine the fundamentals as ‘heresies’, and other wrong theological ideas as ‘errors’

The Craft of Dishonest Quotation - 9

So we have come to our final category of dishonest quotation. This is a less serious category in some ways, but it is still:

5. When an illegitimate inference is drawn from a quotation.

In fact it would be possible to charge Mrs. Riplinger with serious theological error in this regard, for she cites statements that Jesus is fully man as if to say so meant that he is not also God! On P. 304 she quotes from Westcott's Historic Faith: “Christ was and is perfectly man,[1]” as if it is a heretical statement. Now, if Westcott had said that Christ was perfectly man and nothing else, it would be questionable, but of course he did not! In fact he had already taught in the same book that “His Godhead is one with the Godhead of the Father.”[2] Westcott was an orthodox Trinitarian, as any perusal of his works will more than make clear, and as our series has shown!

On P. 368 Riplinger asserts that Westcott “Believed Jesus had sinned.” She refers the reader to P. 35 of Westcott’s John. Nothing on that page necessarily indicates that Westcott believed Jesus was a sinner; this has to be read into what Westcott wrote. It may be that she is thinking of this passage:

“All that truly belongs to humanity, all therefore that belongs to every individual in the whole race, belongs also to Him.”

But to say that includes sin is to beg the question, to assume what has to be proved. Many theologians deny that sin can be said to ‘truly belong’ to humanity as created, and that it is therefore an interloper. Then again, it may be she is thinking of what he says concerning the “weakness” of the incarnate Christ:

“As ‘the Son of Man’ He is revealed to the eyes of His first martyr, that Christians may learn that which is begun in weakness shall be completed in eternal majesty.”

But then it is incumbent upon Riplinger to prove that Westcott necessarily equated sin and weakness. Westcott’s own writings do not allow us to say that he did, however, for, writing on Hebrews 5.2, Westcott says,

“Weakness does not absolutely involve sin, so that the weakness and the sin, even in the case of man as he is, are two separate elements. In the case of the human High-priest weakness actually issued in sin. In this respect the parallel with Christ fails. But it has been seen (iv.15) that a sense of the power of the temptation and not the being overpowered by it is the true ground of sympathy. Comp. vii.27.”[3]

Thus we find that Riplinger is once again guilty of libel against Westcott. She has stated that he denied the sinlessness of Christ, apparently making an inference from his use of the word ‘weakness’ to describe Christ’s condition in His humiliation, but when we examine his use of the word ‘weakness;, we find that as Westcott used it, it did not involve sin. Turning to his exposition of Hebrews 4.15, “Tempted in every way like as we are, yet without sin,” a passage that expressly deals with the sinlessness of Christ, we find that Westcott has this to say:

“The words are capable of two distinct interpretations. They may (1) simply describe the issue of the Lord’s temptation, so far as He endured all without the least stain of sin (c. vii.2). Or they may (2) describe a limitation to His temptation. Man’s temptations come in many cases from previous sin. Such temptations had necessarily no place in Christ. He was tempted as we are, sharing our nature, yet with this exception, that there was no sin in him to become the spring of trial.”[4]

So, having gone to a place where the question of the sinlessness of Christ (note that Westcott here, as elsewhere, uses ‘Christ’ to describe the Incarnate Son) is expressly dealt with, we find that Westcott affirmed it. Of course, the fact that Riplinger does not refer her readers to Westcott on Hebrews 4.15 should raise warning signs. If a man has written on Hebrews, then his comment on Hebrews 4.15 will settle once and for all what he thought about the sinlessness of Christ! Note that Westcott gives two options as to what the passage may mean, neither is an attempt to evade the force of the statement "yet without sin." One can only conclude that Riplinger did not refer to Westcott on Hebrews 4.15 because she is not interested in the truth.

Thus end the quotations. The conclusion will follow, God willing, tomorrow.


Supplementary Note:

On P. 213 Riplinger, arguing that the modern versions call into question the historicity of some Biblical characters, quotes Westcott as saying: “David is not a chronological… person.” She cites P. 127 of Vol 2 of westcott's Life. Nothing on this page corresponds to her quotation, as this is a place where there is an error in the reference - the notes in NABV have not been checked very well. Reading Westcott's Life again, I came across the genuine quotation on P. 147. The real quote reads in context:

“David is not a chronological, but a spiritual person in relation, e.g. to Ps cx.”[5]

Note again that Riplinger has universalised a statement that refers to a very specific context, namely a Messianic Psalm. Certainly David is a spiritual figure in Psalm 110, and it is disingenuous to cite a phrase with a specific context as if it were a denial of David’s historicity – which it is not.


Footnotes!
[1] The passage may be found in Historic Faith P. 62
[2] P. 49. Westcott uses 'Godhead' in the archaic sense of 'deity' here, not as a technical term for the Trinity. Compare Colossians 2.9 in the AV. Despite Gail Riplinger's insistence that 'Godhead' always means the Trinity (P. 379), if it is understood to mean 'Trinity' here, then it must follow that the whole Trinity became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. Certain 'Oneness' Pentecostals indeed use this verse in the AV to promote their own heresy that there is only one person who is God. A familiarity with older Christian writers' use of the word 'godhead' would have preserved Riplinger from this error.
[3] Hebrews P. 122
[4] Ibid. P. 108, emphasis added
[5] Life Vol. 2 P. 147

The Craft of Dishonest Quotation - 8

Continuing the cavalcade of Riplinger's wretched wrenched references, we come to quotation twist No.

4. Where a quotation is carefully altered to say what Mrs. Riplinger wants it to say. This is the most blatant form of false quotation, the sort everyone recognises as such. It is therefore not surprising that Riplinger uses it sparingly, but sadly it is not surprising that, when she feels she can get away with it, she does not hesitate to change the wording of the original.

On P. 234 she writes: “He [Westcott] has ‘great difficulty with the notion of sacrifice and vicarious punishment.’” This is a doctored quotation from Life Vol. I. P. 231. But Westcott does not say what Riplinger makes him say. In fact the full quotation is as follows:

“He preached on the atonement. But who is equal to such a subject? What he said was very good, but then he did not enter into the great difficulties of the notion of sacrifice and vicarious punishment…”

Note what Riplinger has done. Taking a sentence fragment, she has inserted the word ‘with’, without any warrant in the text being quoted and changed “difficulties” to “difficulty.” Why? To make Westcott say that he had doubts about the doctrine of the atonement, rather than saying that it is a difficult subject for a minister to preach about!

P. 304 contains another example of this, although this time it is an unnoticed omission in the original, where she quotes Westcott as saying, “He does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.” This quotation comes from Westcott’s John P. 16. Turning to the relevant page, we find that she has omitted two vital words without telling us. Indeed, it would have been ruinous for her to have included those words, for the full quotation is:

“He does not expressly affirm but assumes the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.”[1]

From Riplinger’s version of the quotation one gets the impression that Westcott is denying that the person of Jesus Christ is to be identified with the Word of the prologue to John’s Gospel, when in fact Westcott’s position is exactly opposite! Sadly I can only assume that this is a dishonest and deliberate omission. Not only does Riplinger not indicate the omission, but the actual quotation affirms what she wants to imply Westcott denied. She juxtaposes this quotation with two more, firstly from Historic Faith P. 62, “Christ was and is perfectly man.” This, of course, is a fact that all Christians affirm. Unless Riplinger holds to a heretical Christology, she must herself affirm that “Christ was and is perfectly man.” Second from P 297 of Westcott’s John, “He never spoke directly of himself as God.” I have already dealt with the context of this twice. Suffice to say that in context Westcott affirms the deity of Christ, arguing that Jesus leads us to confess Him as God without Him having expressly stated that He is God. Not one of these quotations in context denies the deity of Christ, and in fact two expressly affirm the doctrine, yet Riplinger uses them as if they deny it!

On P. 313 she gives the quotation:

“The Son of Man was not necessarily identified with the Christ.”

She juxtaposes it with a quotation from Madame Blavatsky that reads in part: “The Christ with the Gnostics mean [sic] the impersonal principle… not Jesus… Jesus the’Christ’God is a myth.” Now, in context, Westcott writes on P. 184 of his John:

“The question clearly shews that the title, ‘the Son of Man’ was not necessarily identified with ‘the Christ.’”[2]

The omission of Westcott’s inverted commas, and of the vital phrase “the title”, has made it appear that the Bishop is denying that Jesus is the Christ, when in fact it is a discussion of titles, stating that the two titles, ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Christ’ were not necessarily seen as synonymous in 1st century Jewish thought.

On P. 349 Riplinger attempts to charge Westcott with the adoptionist heresy that Jesus became ‘the Christ’ at His baptism. She quotes:

“We realise the perfect humanity of Christ… at this crisis [baptism] first became ‘conscious’ as a man of a power of the spirit within him.”

This is from P. 23 of Westcott’s John. The words Riplinger has put in bold are compared with New Age quotations asserting that Jesus received the Christ power at baptism. But Westcott actually wrote:

“At the same time we cannot but believe (so far as we realise the perfect humanity of Christ) that Christ at this crisis first became conscious as man of a power of the Spirit within Him corresponding to the new form of His work.
“For the rest it will be seen that the narratives of this event lend no support to the Ebionitic view that the Holy Spirit was first imparted to Christ at His baptism; or to the Gnostic view that the Logos was then united to the man Jesus.”

Note first of all that Westcott expressly denies the very heresy Riplinger tries to charge him with – whatever he means, he cannot mean that! It is a principle in theological controversy that a man ought not to be charged with a heresy that he explicitly denies. This is made more certain by the fact that Westcott denies the heresy in the very context Riplinger is quoting from! Secondly, the omission of brackets that are in the original give the impression that Westcott is saying something he is not. That Jesus at His baptism first became aware that He was prepared for His public ministry is surely not false but a truism! Certainly it does not follow that to say as much is to hold to an Adoptionist Christology! And if Mrs. Riplinger's defeders reply that she merely said it sounded like Adoptionism, then what, pray, was the point of quoting it? Only the age-old principle that if you throw enough mud some of it is sure to stick!

On P. 424 we have another example of Riplinger essentially making things up. She writes: “Arthur Westcott recalls his father’s tradition of reading Goblin stories at Christmas.” She references Life, Vol. ii, P. 185. There we read:

“On Christmas day he enters: ‘evening reading: Andersen: Goblin Market.’ The meaning of this is that after we had, in family conclave assembled, exchanged Christmas gifts, receiving them with appropriate words from my father’s hands, he read to us, according to ancient custom, a fairy tale. This was always a great treat, reserved exclusively for Christmas Day.”

The reference is in fact to reading the fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen, an activity very many parents have engaged in with their children. While one may disapprove of a Bishop reading fairy stories to his children, only the most narrow-minded fundamentalist would see anything sinister in it! This is probably why Riplinger has changed it to the much more sinister-sounding “Goblin stories.” Why? Because Riplinger is determined to make Westcott appear to be the most monstrous and cunning villain, not to mention one of the worst heretics in history (with the other one as his friend Hort.

Next time, God willing, we shall deal with the final category of doctored quotations. By now we have seen more than enough evidence to charge Riplinger with deliberate falsification of the evidence, and if any reader can still admire this woman, well, he is beyond reason.

Footnotes! Footnotes! Footnotes! Get your footnotes here!
[1] Emphasis added
[2] Emphasis added

The Craft of Dishonest Quotation: - 7

Continuing Riplinger's composite quotation extravaganza...

On P. 274 we find another manufactured quotation. This time Westcott is made to say:

“The universal fatherhood of God… a brotherhood of nations… [is] the destiny of mankind.”

The notes refer us to Life Vol. II, P. 22; History of Religious Thought P. 351, and John P. 159. “Universal fatherhood” seems to come from John P. 159, though there it is not in the full phrase given by Riplinger. Instead we read:

“The thought, which is concrete in v. 28, is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of universal Fatherhood.”

This is part of a comment on John 10.29, the term “universal Fatherhood” is used only in passing. We turn to the next book from which this composite quotation has been manufactured, Life Vo. 2, P. 22:

“Christianity rests upon the central fact that the Word became flesh. This fact establishes not only a brotherhood of men, but also a brotherhood of nations; for history has shown that nations are an element in the fulfilment of the Divine counsel, by which humanity advances towards its appointed end.”

You will note that the “brotherhood of nations” that Westcott refers to is not a future thing – the Antichrist one-world government that Riplinger’s eschatology calls for – but a present reality. This then leads us to the final, and most wickedly used, sentence fragment: “The destiny of mankind” seems to be a slightly altered quotation from History of Religious Thought P. 351. This is taken completely out of context and wedded with a quotation from another context. In context it tells us that:

“Again, we may not be able to see far into the application of these lessons; but it becomes intelligible that if the virtue of Christ’s life and death was made available for man through suffering – if it was through suffering that He fulfilled the destiny of man fallen – the appropriation of that which He has gained may be carried into effect through the same law. The mystery of the forgiveness of sins is fulfilled, and we can bear cheerfully the temporal consequences of sin.”[1]

Passing over the alteration of ‘man’ to ‘mankind’ as unimportant, we see the great objection to Riplinger’s abuse of this sentence fragment – which is that it has nothing to do with “a brotherhood of nations” at all! It refers to the work of Jesus Christ for us sinners, in His suffering and death. It refers to Jesus obedience unto death. Here three sentence fragments have been taken from three different contexts in three different books and strung together into a single manufactured quotation! Most egregious is the use of “the destiny of man,” which has been taken from a Christological passage and placed in a non-Christological context to apparently complete this pretended quotation. It makes me wonder, what kind of a person thinks that this is a fair use of quotations?

On P. 313 she gives the quotation:

“It is not said that Jesus glorified not himself, but the Christ. He never speaks directly of Himself as God.”

She juxtaposes it with a quotation from Madame Blavatsky that reads in part: “The Christ with the Gnostics mean [sic] the impersonal principle… not Jesus… Jesus the-Christ-God is a myth.” There is nothing on the page to indicate that this is not a complete quotation from a single source. It is not, it is another composite quotation. The first sentence fragment comes from Westcott’s Hebrews P. 124 (not 122 as Riplinger’s notes have it). The full quotation from Westcott is as follows, commenting on Hebrews 5.5, “So Christ also glorified not Himself to become High Priest.”

“The title of the office emphasises the idea of the perfect obedience of the Lord even in the fullness of His appointed work. It is not said that ‘Jesus’ glorified not Himself, but ‘the Christ,’ the appointed Redeemer, glorified not Himself.”

Note two things. Firstly, Riplinger has omitted Westcott’s inverted commas. Secondly, she has not referred to the context. It is an inescapable fact that Hebrews 5.5 says “the Christ (the article appears in every Greek manuscript) also glorified not Himself to become High Priest.” Since the Bible says this, why quote it as if this was some awful heretical statement? We have already met with the other part of this manufactured quotation on P. 303, “He [in context Jesus] never spoke directly of himself as God.” But the full quotation is:

“He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (John P. 297)

The context, as we have seen, is a comment on Thomas’ confession “My Lord and my God” (John 20.28). What Westcott is saying is that while Jesus does not ever say “I am God”, everything He says and does lead us to confess that He is God, and is intended to do so! Westcott could hardly be further from Blavatsky, as he boldly confesses the deity of Jesus, and that Jesus alone is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.[2]

Another composite quotation is found on P. 339. It reads:

“It is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power. We find ourselves met by difficulty which belongs to the idea of begetting… if we keep both [Arianism and Sabellianism] before us we may hope to attain to that knowledge of the truth.”

Riplinger claims that this shows “a kind of semi-Arianism.”[3] The trouble is that in fact it is Riplinger who is teaching theological error here. She denies the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, holding instead that Jesus has the title ‘Son’ solely on the basis of the incarnation. Thus she refers the phrase ‘only-begotten’ to the incarnation – which she is at liberty to do, of course, even though she’s wrong. What she is not at liberty to do is declare that the historic faith, which has always referred the begetting to the inter-Trinitarian relations, is “semi-Arian.” When Westcott refers to the “eternal generation” of the Son, he does not mean that the Son is a created being. In order to make it appear that Westcott teaches Semi-Arianism, she has manufactured this quotation from statements in two different books. The first is from Westcott’s John P. 159:

“It seems clear that the unity [in John 10.30 of Father and Son] cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father’s hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power.”

So there we have it, Westcott is affirming that the Son is of one essence with the Father. Since Arianism denies this, and Semi-Arianism holds that Christ is merely of a like essense with the Father, it follows that Westcott cannot be Semi-Arian. He is affirming explicitly the Homoousia, which is the mark of Trinitarian orthodoxy against Arian and semi-Arian heresy. But then, having given a fragment from this page, without giving any indication in the text, Riplinger jumps to another context and another book, Historic Faith P. 202 (her note says P. 204, but this is a mistake. P. 204 contains only a quotation from Matt. 11.27). This quotation has been mangled and actually changed. It reads:

“If we rest in the thought of ‘the only son’ and try to pursue that thought alone to the remoter consequences which seem to be involved in it, we find ourselves met by difficulties which belong to the ideas of beginning, of material existence, of separate individuality. If again we think of coessentiality only, then little by little the conception of three distinct, eternal Persons in the one God fades away. There is on the one side of the twofold Truth an affinity, if I may so speak, to the modes of thought which issue in Arianism (the ‘dividing the Divine substance’ ‘essence’), and on the otherside an affinity to the modes of thought which issue in Sabellianism (the ‘confounding the Divine Persons’)… So much at least is certain, disastrous results answering to these typical forms of error follow from an exclusive development of one side or other of the complex Truth; but if we keep both sides before us we may hope to attain, so far as the end is within our reach, to that knowledge of the whole Truth which belong to man.”

Note that what we are to “keep… before us” are not two heresies, but rather the two Biblical truths of the three Persons and the one God. What he wants us to do is simply to embrace the whole of the Biblical teaching! Nor does he refer to “difficulty which belongs to the idea of begetting,” at all. I am afraid that what Riplinger is guilty of here is simply dishonesty, which has necessitated my quoting most of a page of Historic Faith to give the context in which the words appear. It will be seen that Westcott is cautioning against a one-sided dwelling on one Biblical truth to the detriment of another. If this is “semi-Arian”, then the Nicene Creed is semi-Arian – which of course it is not!


More amazingly altered quotations next time, as we come to type 4.

Footnotes:
[1] B.F. Westcott, History of Religious Thought (London, Macmillan, 1891)
[2] Note: The heresy of Blavatsky and the Gnostics is found precisely in this, that they deny the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with the Christ, while Westcott, with all Christians, affirms that identification.
[3] NABV P. 339

The Craft of Dishonest Quotation - 6

Continuing our examination of the staggering dishonest with which Gail Riplinger treats the words of those whe disagrees with, we come to quote abuse type:

3. When a quotation is manufactured out of sentence fragments taken from diverse sources, including multiple books, yet presented as if it were from a single context.

This is probably the most common abuse of quotations that Mrs. Riplinger is guilty of. Of course, these composite quotations are constructed of phrases taken out of context, and often constitute new and misleading contexts.

There are many examples of this, but among the worst is that which appears on P. 187. Here Riplinger gives the following manufactured[1] Westcott quote:

“[T]he knowledge of Christ… has its analogues in human power… the Son of Man gives the measure of the capacity of humanity… nothing implies that the knowledge of the Lord was supernatural.”

The footnote refers us to: Historic Faith Pp. 258-259; John, pp. 66, 46. This should immediately set alarm bells ringing, for this is not a single quotation, or even from a single book, let alone a single context. From Westcott’s John she has selected “nothing implies that the knowledge of the Lord was supernatural” from P. 66, and “[T]he knowledge of Christ… has its analogues in human power” from P. 46. The rest of the matter appears to be derived from Historic Faith, but the page reference given appears to be incorrect, and I have been unable to locate the correct reference. Even if these three places were dealing with the same subject, it is not correct to string the words together as though the distance between “nothing implies that the knowledge of the Lord was supernatural” and “[T]he knowledge of Christ” was the same as that between “[T]he knowledge of Christ” and “has its analogues in human power,” to say nothing as to the impropriety of manufacturing a quotation from elements found in different books! Nor is Westcott discussing in any of these places the question of human knowledge, but the question of Jesus’ knowledge during His time on earth! The quotation, “nothing implies that the knowledge of the Lord was supernatural” is in fact in relation to Jesus knowing a specific fact, namely that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.”[2] It has nothing at all to say about Jesus knowledge of information at other times!

P. 260 contains the following composite quotation that appears to be a single, if edited, quotation:

“[It is] significant that the original only gives ‘words’ without the definite article… the religions of the world surrender to a supreme king. … and are not far from the Kingdom.”

Only by consulting the notes is it apparent that this too is not a complete quotation, but is drawn from three different places, and three completely different contexts. The first part comes from Life ii. P. 72, where it is part of a criticism of an essay by another man. The second fragment comes from History of Religious Thought P. 358, in context it reads:

“[I]f, on the other hand, it is obvious that the religions of the world each touched the hearts of men by a power of order or devotion, of sympathy with nature or of surrender to a supreme King, then each prae-Christian [sic] religion becomes a witness to the Faith which combines these manifold powers in a final unity.”

First of all, the passage simply does not say what Riplinger wants it to say, that “the religions of the world surrender to a supreme King,” but that the religions of the world each seek that which Christianity only supplies. Secondly, she has omitted almost twenty words between “the religions of the world” and “surrender” in order to manufacture out of Westcott’s words what she wants him to say, and that without indicating it! The final words “and are not far from the Kingdom” come from Historic Faith P. 54. The immediate context is as follows:

“It is a truism to say that Christianity is a belief in Christ, but is it not a forgotten truism? We honour with ungrudging admiration those who labour with zeal and patience to shield the weak from injury, the poor from want, and the ignorant from temptation; who hope to elevate the condition of our artisans by giving their opinion the responsibility of power, and to discipline the improvident by ideas of comfort and self-respect: those who investigate the problems of religious thought, and seek to shew how circumstances of time and place call out this and that want, this and that belief, and lay open the manifold elements of truth which give whatever stability and strength to the religions of the world: those who in lonely meditation strive to reconnect man’s spirit to its source. Such are not far from the Kingdom of God; but as yet they are not Christians.
“Christianity is not philanthropy, or philosophy or mysticism.”[3]

In context what Westcott is saying is about individual persons, not “the religions of the world.” It is part of a passage denying the identification of Christianity with “philanthropy, or philosophy or mysticism,” an identification Riplinger also would deny. In fact, Westcott is asserting the necessity of faith in Christ for a person to be identified as a Christian! By taking two sentence fragments out of context, Riplinger has created a quotation that is simply false. If anyone objects that Westcott did believe what the fraudulent quotation says, it is incumbent upon that person to prove it. In fact, If Westcott had believed this and taught it (and the only way to know Westcott believed it is if he taught it), it would not have been necessary for Riplinger to manufacture a quotation for the purpose.


Additional Note: Did Westcott lose his voice?

Since writing the section on Westcott's supposed losing his voice, I have discovered new evidence that proves conclusively that Riplinger's quotations do not prove that Westcott lost his voice. On P. 448 Riplinger claims that Westcott lost his voice, citing quotations from Westcott’s biography, claiming:
“Westcott’s biographer cites that in 1858 ‘he was quite inaudible’ and by 1870 ‘his voice reached few and was understood by still fewer…’”

We are referred to P. 198 and P. 272 of Arthur Westcott’s Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott for these quotations. What strikes one on examination of these is first of all that both are from Westcott’s earlier life, not later (both relate to his time as a schoolmaster at Harrow), leading one to wonder if he had in fact never had the voice Riplinger suggests he had lost. On referring to P. 272, we find that Riplinger has omitted a most important part of the passage she is quoting. The full passage is as follows:

“His voice was not yet a force in the chapel. It reached but a few, and it was understood by still fewer.”

Riplinger omits the suggestive not yet. It would be more accurate to say, then, that Westcott found his voice, rather than lost it! This impression is confirmed by Arthur Westcott, who writes in Life P. 302:

“His voice did, as he had anticipated, marvellously improve with practice, and he who in earlier life had not dared to preach in a large church was not afraid in his advanced years of preaching in St Paul’s Cathedral or York Minster, and made himself fairly audible even in the Albert Hall, by reason of the great pains he bestowed on distinct articulation.”

There is no evidence Westcott lost his voice (otherwise Riplinger would have quoted it), and all the evidence shows that he in fact developed his voice. So why has Riplinger invented this spurious fact? Because she wants to give the impression that Westcott was under some sort of divine judgement for his work on the Revised Version and the new edition Greek New Testament. Thus, unable to find any real 'judgement' she can cite, she claims he lost his voice, when he did not! Ironically his gaining his voice coincides with his work on the Greek N.T., but that's another matter entirely!


Footnotes:
[1] I use the word not because Westcott did not write the words, but because Westcott did not put them together as they appear in NABV
[2] John 4.1
[3] Emphasis in original. I have given a more than usually full citation to ensure that no-one will claim that I am misrepresenting Westcott.