Thread: The Critical Text and WSC Q #107

Do you NASB, NIV or ESV teachers include WSC Q #107 in your teaching?

What doth the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer teach us?

If so, why and how since neither Matt 6 nor Luke 11 conclude the Lord's Prayer with these words? I understand that you could teach that His is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, but how do you teach that it is the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer? Where do you go to teach that when we pray we should ascribe to Him kingdom, power and glory?

Hi:

Good point!

-CH

Originally Posted by KMK

Do you NASB, NIV or ESV teachers include WSC Q #107 in your teaching?

What doth the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer teach us?

If so, why and how since neither Matt 6 nor Luke 11 conclude the Lord's Prayer with these words? I understand that you could teach that His is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, but how do you teach that it is the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer? Where do you go to teach that when we pray we should ascribe to Him kingdom, power and glory?

Pssst!.....stick with the good King Jimmy!

I received a PM from which I gleaned that I have been misunderstood. I was not trying to make a point. I was just wanting to know how CT teachers handle this catechism question in light of the fact that they do not believe that the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen" are part of the Word of God. Do CT teachers and pastors skip that Question? Do they explain that the Divines were just doing the best they could with the Word that the HS had given them at that time but now we know that these words were never a part of the Lord's Prayer? Do you go ahead and teach it anyway because these words are so cemented in our minds?

I have no idea and have never seen it come up. I note that the OPC's version of proofs for the WLC 196, add to note "a" containing the Matt. 6:13 reference, [found in some, but not all, Greek manuscripts]. The WSC note has no references in the OPC version as they adopted the proofs of the PCUSA from 1896 (*their second set; the PCUSA SC did not have proofs before then under the first set of proofs from 1797,* for the WCF and WLC). I have not compared to see if the OPC has made any changes, but in either event, they retain the lack of proof texts for the words of the Lord's Prayer in the SC.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I have no idea and have never seen it come up. I note that the OPC's version of proofs for the WLC 196, add to note "a" containing the Matt. 6:13 reference, [found in some, but not all, Greek manuscripts]. The WSC note has no references in the OPC version as they adopted the proofs of the PCUSA from 1896 (*their second set; the PCUSA SC did not have proofs before then under the first set of proofs from 1797,* for the WCF and WLC). I have not compared to see if the OPC has made any changes, but in either event, they retain the lack of proof texts for the words of the Lord's Prayer in the SC.

And the OPC has done this because they 'officially' adopted the ESV? Is it likely that the OPC will eventually change the wording of the catechisms to fit their view of Scritpure?

I don't think so; some OPC'r may know the answer; I am not sure that the OPC has adopted any particular version?

I will say, the OPC, which has its own scripture proofs set, or at least a modified proof set, for the WLC, is the only one with this note far as I know.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I will say, the OPC, which has its own scripture proofs set, or at least a modified proof set, for the WLC, is the only one with this note far as I know.

Would this note be reflected in the catechism as published by GCP? And if so, is it a recent development?

I don't know unless it has been updated. I'm using The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church with Proof Texts (Willow Grove, Pa: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, (c) 2005) page 352.

As for the Kingdom, Power and Glory and Glory being "old" we have Chrysotom's sermons Kingdom, Power, and Glory, there is other good Patristic evidence as well.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I don't know unless it has been updated. I'm using The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church with Proof Texts (Willow Grove, Pa: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, (c) 2005) page 352.

My copy of the SC by GCP 1995 does not reference Matt 6. Neither does my copy by Banner of Truth 2004.

I still would be interested in how CT teachers teach this question.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I don't know unless it has been updated. I'm using The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church with Proof Texts (Willow Grove, Pa: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, (c) 2005) page 352.

My copy of the SC by GCP 1995 does not reference Matt 6. Neither does my copy by Banner of Truth 2004.

I still would be interested in how CT teachers teach this question.

They would say that the theology is right, even if the textual variant is not original. Isn't it similar to a statement in Chronicles anyway? I can't remember exactly where it is.

Sorry, I found it in 1 Chron. 29:11; here is the NIV rendering:

Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.

The ESV is virtually identical.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Sorry, I found it in 1 Chron. 29:11; here is the NIV rendering:

Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.

The ESV is virtually identical.

I understand that the omission of the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and glory forever. Amen" in Matt 6 does not do away with the theology that it teaches with the exception that, according to the Divines, Jesus teaches us that the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer actually teaches us something. However, CT users believe there is no conclusion to the Lord's Prayer, including the word "Amen".

I would assume that CT users, such as the OPC, would skip this question altogether because they believe the question itself is flawed. I am interested because I am currently preaching through the WSC on the Lord's Prayer.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I don't know unless it has been updated. I'm using The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church with Proof Texts (Willow Grove, Pa: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, (c) 2005) page 352.

My copy of the SC by GCP 1995 does not reference Matt 6. Neither does my copy by Banner of Truth 2004.

I still would be interested in how CT teachers teach this question.

As I said in my first note, it is not in the WSC in the OPC standards either because of the adoption of the PCUSA set of scripture proofs. The comment is at WLC 196 with the adoption of the new (2001) OPC scripture proofs for their version of the LC.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Sorry, I found it in 1 Chron. 29:11; here is the NIV rendering:

Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.

The ESV is virtually identical.

I understand that the omission of the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and glory forever. Amen" in Matt 6 does not do away with the theology that it teaches with the exception that, according to the Divines, Jesus teaches us that the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer actually teaches us something. However, CT users believe there is no conclusion to the Lord's Prayer, including the word "Amen".

I would assume that CT users, such as the OPC, would skip this question altogether because they believe the question itself is flawed. I am interested because I am currently preaching through the WSC on the Lord's Prayer.

They may argue that since it is a fitting conclusion (which is Biblical in its content), then it is legitimate to use it in the WSC/WLC, even though the conclusion is not in the original text.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Sorry, I found it in 1 Chron. 29:11; here is the NIV rendering:

Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.

The ESV is virtually identical.

I understand that the omission of the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and glory forever. Amen" in Matt 6 does not do away with the theology that it teaches with the exception that, according to the Divines, Jesus teaches us that the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer actually teaches us something. However, CT users believe there is no conclusion to the Lord's Prayer, including the word "Amen".

I would assume that CT users, such as the OPC, would skip this question altogether because they believe the question itself is flawed. I am interested because I am currently preaching through the WSC on the Lord's Prayer.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Sorry, I found it in 1 Chron. 29:11; here is the NIV rendering:



The ESV is virtually identical.

I understand that the omission of the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and glory forever. Amen" in Matt 6 does not do away with the theology that it teaches with the exception that, according to the Divines, Jesus teaches us that the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer actually teaches us something. However, CT users believe there is no conclusion to the Lord's Prayer, including the word "Amen".

I would assume that CT users, such as the OPC, would skip this question altogether because they believe the question itself is flawed. I am interested because I am currently preaching through the WSC on the Lord's Prayer.

They may argue that since it is a fitting conclusion (which is Biblical in its content), then it is legitimate to use it in the WSC/WLC, even though the conclusion is not in the original text.

How would they know that it is not in the original text and that it is the CT which is corrupt.

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

I understand that the omission of the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and glory forever. Amen" in Matt 6 does not do away with the theology that it teaches with the exception that, according to the Divines, Jesus teaches us that the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer actually teaches us something. However, CT users believe there is no conclusion to the Lord's Prayer, including the word "Amen".

I would assume that CT users, such as the OPC, would skip this question altogether because they believe the question itself is flawed. I am interested because I am currently preaching through the WSC on the Lord's Prayer.

They may argue that since it is a fitting conclusion (which is Biblical in its content), then it is legitimate to use it in the WSC/WLC, even though the conclusion is not in the original text.

How would they know that it is not in the original text and that it is the CT which is corrupt.

That is the complexity of Textual criticism. And why I stay away from the arguments. James White's book The King James Only Controversy gives you the standard CT arguments on textual variants (for anyone interested).

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

They may argue that since it is a fitting conclusion (which is Biblical in its content), then it is legitimate to use it in the WSC/WLC, even though the conclusion is not in the original text.

How would they know that it is not in the original text and that it is the CT which is corrupt.

That is the complexity of Textual criticism. And why I stay away from the arguments. James White's book The King James Only Controversy gives you the standard CT arguments on textual variants (for anyone interested).

I like White, I really do, but his bias towards the CT is so much a part of this book, I think it to be one of worst books he has ever written, if White had ONLY wanted to deal with the KJO camp that would have been fine, frankly, he smears the MT, ingnores some key Patristic citations and old Lectionaries, and in the end, rather than making a case against the MT rather than dealing with the issue of KJ onlyism.

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by etexas

How would they know that it is not in the original text and that it is the CT which is corrupt.

That is the complexity of Textual criticism. And why I stay away from the arguments. James White's book The King James Only Controversy gives you the standard CT arguments on textual variants (for anyone interested).

I like White, I really do, but his bias towards the CT is so much a part of this book, I think it to be one of worst books he has ever written, if White had ONLY wanted to deal with the KJO camp that would have been fine, frankly, he smears the MT, ingnores some key Patristic citations and old Lectionaries, and in the end, rather than making a case against the MT rather than dealing with the issue of KJ onlyism.

If you don't like James White's arguments, then I am sure that there are other books which can give you the arguments on the Textual variants. I have a lot of respect for the MT/Byzantine priority positon (and would not equate this with KJV Only or TR only). There is a book explaining why the NIV translators rendered passages in various ways and preffered CT readings, but it escapes me who it was written by or what it is called (I have it at home)

I’m presently working on a paper (for a PB thread) dealing with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:2-4, comparing the Critical Text’s renderings with the Textus Receptus, using Dr. White’s treatment of them in his book, The King James Only Controversy, and comparing that with John Burgon’s investigations, along with other modern defenders of the authentic texts of the prayer. I think Pastor Ken’s (KMK’s) point is well taken re the WSC. Whether Scripture proofs refer to the passage in question or not is beside the point, for the Catechism itself teaches from it.

If the primary standard – the Scripture – is negated, so shall the secondary standards be. The flood started with just a little hole in the dike.

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.a The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;b the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.c

a. Mat 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 John 5:7. • b. John 1:14, 18. • c. John 15:26; Gal 4:6.

When teaching from the confession about the Trinity would you delete 1 John 5:7?

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.a The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;b the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.c

a. Mat 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 John 5:7. • b. John 1:14, 18. • c. John 15:26; Gal 4:6.

When teaching from the confession about the Trinity would you delete 1 John 5:7?

The PCUSA 2nd set of proofs for the Confession of Faith (1896) does delete it, and the OPC follows suit since they adopted those proofs generally, though I think they may have made some changes; but they didn't add it back that is certain.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

I’m presently working on a paper (for a PB thread) dealing with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:2-4, comparing the Critical Text’s renderings with the Textus Receptus, using Dr. White’s treatment of them in his book, The King James Only Controversy, and comparing that with John Burgon’s investigations, along with other modern defenders of the authentic texts of the prayer. I think Pastor Ken’s (KMK’s) point is well taken re the WSC. Whether Scripture proofs refer to the passage in question or not is beside the point, for the Catechism itself teaches from it.

If the primary standard – the Scripture – is negated, so shall the secondary standards be. The flood started with just a little hole in the dike.

Preach it Steve!