An Inadequate View of God's Providence Regarding Manuscripts of the NT

[Northern Crofter]

it seems doubtful to me that Erasmus was under the authority of the visible church.

I was simply using Erasmus as a hypothetical since his name was raised numerous times - my point was that it is the power of the Church to determine what is Scripture despite the fact that there may be those in the visible Church who are not true believers. (WCF 25.4-5) The Church and Scripture are inextricably linked: "there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will" (WCF 25.5) and the Word of God "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" (WCF 1.8). One does not exist without the other, and there would be no point having one exist without the other.

 

[Northern Crofter]

In fact, my understanding is the proof texts were added later and not done so consistently.

The proof texts were required to be added by the civil magistrate and the Church complied with the request. I adhere to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the Church of Scotland, which also adopted the proofs texts. Denominations such as the OPC have revised and continue to revise them. For those who have questioned where I am coming from, holding to the old path of the Covenanters, I do not believe a nation has not covenanted to Christ and established the Church and provided for a General Assembly has the authority to do so.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I don't have a full answer here. But relating it to your next point, how does this relate to the LXX being quoted by the Apostles? For example, in Hebrews 2:7, we see "little lower than the angels" which is how the LXX renders Psalm 8:5. In Hebrew, the word is "Elohim" which is rendered as "God" most often or possibly "gods" or "heavenly beings." The Geneva Bible renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than God" (using the Hebrew) while the KJV renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels" (following the LXX and the quotation of it in Hebrews).

This is one of the reasons I use the Geneva. Christ and the Apostles had the power to quote the Septuagint as an authoritative commentary on the Hebrew Bible. That is different than reading the NT reading back into the OT. If the Hebrew was originally "God" ("divine judges"), it should still be translated that way. If the author of Hebrews interprets it as "angels," he does so with apostolic authority - nowhere do Christ or the Apostles claim to be quoting the OT; they are teaching what it truly meant.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I believe the original languages are most important, and this is what I believe is so important about Reformation-era Bibles; that they went back to the best versions of the original languages they had available. I do not think this excludes all use of other languages for reference, as even the Apostles used the LXX over the MT in many places.

This is a bit odd to come from a TR advocate, as almost every defense of the Comma in I John 5:7 depends on looking at evidence beyond the original Greek. The Greek evidence is very slim for this verse and is limited to a handful of manuscripts that were closely tied to the Latin. Many TR advocates including in this thread have admitted God preserved the Comma through the Latin, rather than the Greek. It's certain not in the "Majority Text." Erasmus was very dependent on the Latin to fill in parts of the Greek he lacked from what I can tell, especially toward the end of Revelation. And the KJV translators' notes compare frequently to the Latin and sometimes borrow from it to help in translation.

I never refer to myself as a "TR advocate." I advocate whatever the Church tells me is God's Word.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I largely see this as a moot point, because there have been so few established churches and am not coming at this from quite the same perspective as you.

Correct - we do not have the same perspective. And probably not the same eschatology!

 

[RamistThomist]

No - his authority came from God. His authority and his duty was "to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed" and he had authority "to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" (even though this had yet to be written - WCF 23.3). He did not have authority to assume "the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven" or to prevent "the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, [to] meet together in [synods and councils}]. (WCF 31).

Exactly. My point is that King James was not a minister (I'm not an Anglican, after all)

 

[RamistThomist]

my point was that it is the power of the Church to determine what is Scripture despite the fact that there may be those in the visible Church who are not true believers.

This is word-for-word Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Much bad work has been done under the authority of the visible church.

Which is why the doctrine of the Church is so important: "This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them." (WCF 25.4) It is the duty of every Christian to seek out and join with the most pure. I suggest this will also bring you to the most pure Scriptures as, again, the Church and the Word are inextricably linked.

 

[Northern Crofter]

this view you're talking about makes Scripture subordinate to the Confessional Standards.

I don't view it that way.

 

[Polanus1561]

I don't view it that way.

Won't you find better answers from those in your denomination who don't use the TR? Just asking.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Can't it be both? The problem is not with the assertion, it's with the limiting of that assertion.

Not in my view - the purity and unity of the Church and the purity and unity of the Word are inextricably linked. I do not see many nations whose spiritual purity and unity rival that of the Dutch or the Scots during the late Reformation era.

 

[greenbaggins]

Andrew, are you aware of the function of multi-quotation on this board? Please do not post separately for five different issues you want to respond to.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Was the Geneva authorized by the state? Where do you find this requirement in Scripture? Or the Confession? The Bishop's Bible was authorized by both church (Anglican being the official church) and state, yet the Puritans rejected it as faulty.



I don't understand why providence is allowed in that situation (which I completely agree with!) but the age of information sharing and the explosion of diligent scholarship and interest in the Greek texts is denied providence. Can't it be both? The problem is not with the assertion, it's with the limiting of that assertion.



I believe that the scriptures were kept pure in "all ages", not merely purified during the Reformation. In order to keep in line with that statement in the WCF, I must necessarily take a broader view of preservation than to restrict it to primarily to one moment in English history.

I believe it is a false assumption that in order to accept those doctrinal standards, one has to believe that every word contained in the Bibles of their day cannot be changed or you become unconfessional. Read their writings and you'll see that they did not believe that.

Don't read something into their views that isn't there. They believed that their English translation, and the Greek underlying it, was imperfect, yet authoritative. So do I.

I was careful not to say this - what I showed was that verses they were certain enough about to include as proof texts are now missing from some Bibles in the English language.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Andrew, are you aware of the function of multi-quotation on this board? Please do not post separately for five different issues you want to respond to.

Sorry - I just saw this and I'm new at this. I'll try to figure it out...

 

[Northern Crofter]

Exactly. My point is that King James was not a minister (I'm not an Anglican, after all)

I apologize - I am not sure what your point is/was.

 

[Northern Crofter]

This is word-for-word Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

How so? Who determines the canon of Scripture? A collection of scholars? A publishing company? In my confessional tradition, the Church decides, thus the WCF begins by stating what is (1.2) and what is not Scripture (1.3).

 

[RamistThomist]

How so? Who determines the canon of Scripture? A collection of scholars? A publishing company? In my confessional tradition, the Church decides, thus the WCF begins by stating what is (1.2) and what is not Scripture (1.3).

Every EO and RCC talking point says the church determines Scripture.

 

[greenbaggins]

Andrew, to multi-quote, you click the +Quote button next to the "like" button. But you can add more quotes than just that to the multi-quote. Then copy them all out into your post, and use Return to space them.

As for your position on the church determining the canon, you are indeed mistaken if you believe this is the Reformed view. The church receives the canon. It only recognizes the authority of God that is already there in the text. The way you formulate it, the text of Scripture isn't canon unless the church says so. That is, as Jacob has said, the EO and RCC way of putting things. In the Reformed view, the canon underlies the church, and is the foundation of the church. In the EO and RCC view, the church underlies and is the foundation for the canon. You need to get this one straight.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Andrew, to multi-quote, you click the +Quote button next to the "like" button. But you can add more quotes than just that to the multi-quote. Then copy them all out into your post, and use Return to space them.

As for your position on the church determining the canon, you are indeed mistaken if you believe this is the Reformed view. The church receives the canon. It only recognizes the authority of God that is already there in the text. The way you formulate it, the text of Scripture isn't canon unless the church says so. That is, as Jacob has said, the EO and RCC way of putting things. In the Reformed view, the canon underlies the church, and is the foundation of the church. In the EO and RCC view, the church underlies and is the foundation for the canon. You need to get this one straight.

Thank you for the tech help - I will try to teach my neo-Luddite self to do better.

I apologize for writing in haste and thus being imprecise - I agree that the Church receives the canon and that God's Word exists outside of the Church. What I was trying to put forth was the point that the Church must at some point in time determine which written texts to receive (or not) as canonical.

Respectfully, what is the point of all this? In these conversations it is stated over and over that the recently discovered (post-Reformation) variants do not challenge any doctrines. And if a textual variant or computer model emerged that did challenge a doctrine we hold, we would reject that variant/model based on our presupposition that the doctrines we have been handed down are true. So why are we looking for and debating the validity of manuscripts when they will not change our doctrine? The Reformers did not change or invent new doctrine because they discovered new manuscripts - they pealed away the dross and went back to the doctrines that previously existed, purging the leaven using God's Word (which was made more available in that age - not just with the printing press, but also with labor-saving technologies allowing more and more people the time to read the Word for themselves instead of trying to survive a subsistence lifestyle). I am a historian by trade and so I value palaeography perhaps more than the average person, but what profit is it to the Church in this present age? Again, what do we gain from the discovery of new variants and manuscripts?

 

[greenbaggins]

Andrew, you are well illustrating some of the reason for the frustration non-TR folk have had debating a wide variety of viewpoints within the TR position. For you, no doctrine changes going from TR to CT. For other TR folk, the doctrine of Scripture itself is at stake, and a huge difference exists between the TR and the CT. For you, not as much is at stake. For other TR folk, guys like me don't even have the Word of God at all. I have been clanging on this bell for years about the minuscule differences between the TR and the CT. You are therefore directing your complaint to the wrong party. Tell your fellow TR guys that they need to formulate their position in more moderate ways. Or are you ignorant of the full-frontal assault on the CT that has been gaining traction in the last year and a half or so? We non-TR guys are arguing because our entire structure is under full-blown attack. We have the feeling that if we did not argue for our position, then we would be ousted as being not Reformed at all. We are being told that only the TR position is confessional.

As for the value of discovering new manuscripts, that is easy. The discovery and collation of new manuscripts only demonstrates the truth that God's Word has been preserved and kept pure in all ages. The way you put it is prejudicial (this happens all the time with TR folk: creating a non-level playing field by asking prejudicial and slanted questions). We are not in this for finding new variants. It is for finding the original reading.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It is for finding the original reading.

What is the point (if even possible)? If it will not add to or subtract from any doctrine, why bother looking? Again, contrary to your assertion, I do not consider myself a TR (or CT) guy, but what would be lost (in your view) in simply saying "let's just all use TR-based translations and move on"? I think the TR folk would say "quite a few verses" if you subbed CT in that proposal but seriously - what would we lose if we all moved on in unity with translations from the TR? I can appreciate the sense in which even the moderate TR side sees the CT push to remove certain verses as coming across as being on par with the Reformers removing the apocrypha. There are extremes on both sides. But what solution is the best for the peace and prosperity of the Church?

 

[Logan]

Andrew, you've written a lot but to be brief and stick to the main points, the conditions you are proposing for accepting a Bible are not found in Scripture nor any confession. I don't even know if those conditions a true for any translations anywhere in the world except the KJV and perhaps (if you accept Scotland's approval) the Geneva Bible. Which would at least call into question the legitimacy of all other translations in all other languages. By the way, I am establishmentarian myself.

Wasn't the Revised Version authorized by the magistrate and the established church (in England)? And thus...by God according to the reasoning you used for King James? Or is there some other qualifier that would discount the Revised Version but maintain the KJV and Geneva as legitimate?

I have to say that I find these sorts of qualifiers based upon this or that historical condition to be very arbitrary and anglo-centric and I've often seen the same person change their qualifiers once they realize the historical facts don't fit their premise. This really seems like the "no true Scotsman" line of reasoning.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Andrew, you've written a lot but to be brief and stick to the main points, the conditions you are proposing for accepting a Bible are not found in Scripture nor any confession. I don't even know if those conditions a true for any translations anywhere in the world except the KJV and perhaps (if you accept Scotland's approval) the Geneva Bible. Which would at least call into question the legitimacy of all other translations in all other languages. By the way, I am establishmentarian myself.

Wasn't the Revised Version authorized by the magistrate and the established church (in England)? And thus...by God according to the reasoning you used for King James? Or is there some other qualifier that would discount the Revised Version but maintain the KJV and Geneva as legitimate?

I have to say that I find these sorts of qualifiers based upon this or that historical condition to be very arbitrary and anglo-centric and I've often seen the same person change their qualifiers once they realize the historical facts don't fit their premise. This really seems like the "no true Scotsman" line of reasoning.

Outside of the Dutch Church, I have not studied the establishment of the Church in many other nations (other than the British Isles). As I think I stated above (admittedly amongst a lot of words), I still largely follow the old Covenanter path from which I am descended. So I would not recognize as legitimate the actions of churches (such as authorizing the RV) like the C of E that broke their covenant obligations. This is why I use the Geneva and hold to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the C of S when it was faithful to its covenants, those covenants being the immediate basis of the Westminster Assembly and its work. I do not believe this means that other nations have not done or cannot do the same.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Outside of the Dutch Church, I have not studied the establishment of the Church in many other nations (other than the British Isles). As I think I stated above (admittedly amongst a lot of words), I still largely follow the old Covenanter path from which I am descended. So I would not recognize as legitimate the actions of churches (such as authorizing the RV) like the C of E that broke their covenant obligations. This is why I use the Geneva and hold to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the C of S when it was faithful to its covenants, those covenants being the immediate basis of the Westminster Assembly and its work. I do not believe this means that other nations have not done or cannot do the same.

I'm not sure what you mean about why you use the Geneva. The AV was viewed in Scotland as "our English version" to quote Gillespie in English Popish Ceremonies, and after the covenants (National and SL&C) the Westminster Assembly did not abandon the AV but it was what they exclusively authorized for publication why they were sitting. I think the last Geneva was published in the Netherlands around 1642-3 as an import.

 

[retroGRAD3]

To the person saying the Church determines scripture. That is not a protestant position. If I recall correctly, the church recognizes scripture. God determines the scripture.

Also, for anyone on the fence (or interested) in this issue. I would recommend the 7 part series Mark Ward did on textual confidence. Nothing I have heard from the TR advocates has overcome what they have put together in that series.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq1Aq0ucgkPC8DHPKsXWl8zl3iAG64qyV

 

[Northern Crofter]

I'm not sure what you mean about why you use the Geneva. The AV was viewed in Scotland as "our English version" to quote Gillespie in English Popish Ceremonies, and after the covenants (National and SL&C) the Westminster Assembly did not abandon the AV but it was what they exclusively authorized for publication why they were sitting. I think the last Geneva was published in the Netherlands around 1642-3 as an import.

I did not mean to communicate that my use of the Geneva means that I do not also recognize the equal legitimacy of the AV. I could swap AV for Geneva in #223. I prefer the Geneva because I like the notes. And while Gillespie and the Assembly used the AV, it was largely because the further publication of the Geneva was banned (James did not the notes as much as I do), but the Geneva was still widely used and preferred by many Scots and English Puritans, including those who emigrated to Ulster and the American colonies.

 

[Jake]

The proof texts were required to be added by the civil magistrate and the Church complied with the request. I adhere to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the Church of Scotland, which also adopted the proofs texts. Denominations such as the OPC have revised and continue to revise them. For those who have questioned where I am coming from, holding to the old path of the Covenanters, I do not believe a nation has not covenanted to Christ and established the Church and provided for a General Assembly has the authority to do so.

I do not think agreeing to the proof texts is required for subscription even in the Church of Scotland and its direct descendants, even before you get to modifications. If I understand correctly from my time in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) the catechisms, system of government, proof texts, etc. are not required to be held to in full, only the Confession itself. Whereas in both the RPCNA and ARP Church the Confessions and Catechisms are included, though still not the proof texts.

I never refer to myself as a "TR advocate." I advocate whatever the Church tells me is God's Word.

I assumed based on your other posts you would hold to the TR as used in the Geneva Bible including the Johannine Comma. Sorry I misinterpreted you. However, I think the bolded statement is a very dangerous view. The church has erred but God's Word does not err. I would not place my authority on the church to determine what is the Word of God.

Correct - we do not have the same perspective. And probably not the same eschatology!

For the record, I agree with WCF Chapter 23 as adopted by the RPCNA in her Testimony. I don't like the revisions made by the ARP Church to the section of the WCF on the Civil Magistrate. But I am not a historicist and it seems you're getting at a very different view of the role of the state in the affairs of the church. It sounds closer to being Erastian to me, but I'm probably just getting confused since I know you are a Covenanter.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The church has erred but God's Word does not err. I would not place my authority on the church to determine what is the Word of God.

If it is not the Church that determines what texts are to be received, then who does have that power/authority? It seems to take a very low view of the Church of Christ and His providential care of Her to fear this. Yes, for hundreds of years the Church included apocryphal writings and there were centuries where the light of the Church was almost extinguished. The Church will never be perfect until Christ returns, it will be more or less visible in various places and times, and it may even err in holding forth a less-than-pure version of Scripture. And yet "there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will" (WCF 25.5) and God's Word will always be "kept pure" in every age (WCF 1.8). And I confess that I hold to the belief that "particular churches" (which I believe refers to national churches) within the visible catholic Church can be judged as more or less pure, thus I prefer what the "more pure" branches confess to be the Word of God. I do believe the light has "faded" if comparing our present age to the Reformation era. But I also believe (and pray that) it is ready to burst forth and shine brightly at any moment, though I suspect it will probably not be in the West.

I would be interested in hearing thoughts on WCF 1.5 and how it puts forth authoritative appeals to ecclesiastical, rational, and experiential aspects of recognizing God's Word as God's Word (this section always stands out to me with its use of the first person plural "We" and "our" in contrast to the almost universal use of third person in the rest of the chapter): "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

 

[RamistThomist]

If it is not the Church that determines what texts are to be received, then who does have that power/authority?

The Bible.

You are confusing "recognizing" the texts with "determining" the texts. The former is Protestantism. The latter is Roman Catholicism.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I did not mean to communicate that my use of the Geneva means that I do not also recognize the equal legitimacy of the AV. I could swap AV for Geneva in #223. I prefer the Geneva because I like the notes. And while Gillespie and the Assembly used the AV, it was largely because the further publication of the Geneva was banned (James did not the notes as much as I do), but the Geneva was still widely used and preferred by many Scots and English Puritans, including those who emigrated to Ulster and the American colonies.

The assembly could have unbanned it. But by the time of the last GB edition I think the AV had become accepted by the puritans and the Scottish kirk.