I just noticed that there seems to be a variant in WCF XX.2. A couple editions read like this:
[taking up after the justly renowned semicolon] "or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship."

So it says in the version on CRTA, and in my 1997 printing of the Great Commission Publications version of the Standards.

But, the BPC website reads in for if.

Which is, in fact, the authorized rendition?

__________________
Ruben

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

The word should be "if". Here is Carruthers comment from my notes:

“word, or” and “in matters” (DNLP): DNLP–J&H; ARP; BOCF; BP; PCUS; PCUSA-UP. “This double error is the most important in the whole Confession. It has obscured a distinction of great significance … The divines’ argument is this: men are free in all things directly contrary to God’s word; but, in addition, if the question is one of faith or worship, they are free in matters not stated in the word. The distinction between matters civil and religious, and the great doctrine concerning things indifferent in the ecclesiastical world, are completely obscured by the change of a single letter and an alteration of punctuation. It was Dunlop who introduced both of these changes, and his influence seems to have been strong enough to secure the adoption of this corrupt text by the Reformed Presbyterian editor, usually so accurate. The persistence of the error shews how easy it is to accept a well-known and official form of words without critical mental analysis.” Carruthers, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Being an account of the Preparation and Printing of its seven leading editions, to which is appended a critical text of the Confession with notes thereon [1937].

p. 127-128.

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"IN"

WCF (Free Presbyterian Publications), 1985

This is the reprint of the original WCF -- Not the Americanized one.

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

The correct reading is "if".

Men are "free" from all directions of "authority" if "contrary" (against) God's will, but lawful authority must be obeyed.

BUT (!) in matters of FAITH, no law may be put "BESIDE" God's Word either, so men are to be "free" of commands respecting worship that are "imposed" beside the Word, even if not demonstrably contrary to God's command.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I believe this has been corrected in later editions.

Yes; a few have it corrected; the PCUSA retain the wrong reading (I mean, like they really care?).

That was about the closest I've see several comments posted at the same time, 9:16, 9:17, 9:17.

Perhaps I am insufficiently attentive (and I am glad to know the true reading of if), but either way I read it I come out at the same result: in one sphere, we are free from what is contrary to the word of God; in another sphere, we are free from what is merely beside it.

Rev-

so it should read:

"...free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word, or beside it, if (not in) matters of faith and worship..." (?)

Reuben, Free from what is ALSO (not "merely"!) beside it. Can't do in worship what God forbids either, now. tsk tsk

And yes, Deacon.

I see that it is "if" in the Trinity Hymnal version of WCF, also.

This is because the OPC adopted Carruthers transcription of the WCF MSS (rather than one of the first printed versions); it is correct in both, and the printed text was correct until Dunlop's text of 1719.

I guess I never really noticed the difference before, or if I did probably presumed it to be done by the same editors who took away the reference to the Pope as Antichrist in XXV:6.

Thank you.

Bruce, by "merely" I meant that it might not be contrary; but that is not enough. In matters of faith and worship it is not enough to prove that what you do is not against the word of God: you must rather prove that there is positive warrant for it.

Oh, Reuben, that sounds so... restrictive. What about the Holy Spirit!

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Liberty from the doctrines and commandments of men binding my conscience to worship God in a way that He has not appointed.

Frozen "Chosen", that's all you people are {neener neener} waaaoooaaaeeeoo

A. A. Hodge, The Westminster Confession: A Commentary:

So, comments about "frozen chosen" aside, my question is this:

Does understanding this passage (WCF XX.2) with the word "if" rather than "in" change our understanding of the confession. And if so how much? What are the practical implications of each of the two renderings?

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.

Editorial note: I don't think you'll find a fellow that knows more about the Critical Text of the Standards than our own Chris Coldwell. You da man!

I thought the Carruthers' comment (1st response, 2nd post of the thread, and quoted immediately above!) addressed the significance pretty well.

If we stick with "in", we lose the distinction the framers made between "matters of worship" and the rest of life, and the fact that the latter is bound to the Word, and that alone.

The Free P. publication committee later adopted the Carruthers text, and so editions from 1994 following read "if."

Schaff's Creeds reads "in," and the 17th cent. Latin trans. as provided by Schaff reads "in rebus fidei," &c.

I fail to see the point Carruthers makes about the variants. The variant seems to me to amount to the same proposition.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

It wasn't so clear to me either.

Contra--
Please elaborate. Thank you.