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

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Andrew's position doesn't really exist or isn't mainstream according to Robert Truelove. We really need to figure out *what* the TR position is so that there is a definitive version that can be critiqued. After all, the preservation of God's Word is at stake.

 

[Jake]

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."

Section 5 follows section 4. You have to read section 5 in light of 4, which I believe answers your concerns.

WCF 1:4 reads, "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

The Belgic confession says similarly:
We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation,
foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing, without any doubt, all things
contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as
such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts that they
are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are
able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling.

I also recommend reading the Chapter 7 of the first book of Calvin's Institutes, entitled, "The testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the credibility of Scripture depends on the judgment of the church."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's interesting that one of the things I was musing about yesterday was illustrated in this thread after it was re-opened.

Another line that was taken was something that a Baptist TR-advocate (who confessedly represents the "mainstream") wouldn't agree with as a historical Baptist and that is the Establishmentarian context of the "creation" of the very standard that everyone is relying upon but then argues at from a different angle.

What I mean is that some come at this issue from the fact that the scholars who contributed to the TR represented the "believing Church" but, when you look at the "how" of all these things it was in the context of their commitment to the fact that the Magistrate had commissioned them to perform this work.

What makes it "authorized" is the Establishmentarian Church collating, translating, and then "authorizing" its use among the Churches. Even though some maintain this commitment to an Establishmentarian context, others then sort of choose to ignore this context and want to simply refer to it as the "Church" or believing scholars.

Given the ad hoc nature of these arguments, I've even seen some sort of argue that (for now) we have what the "Church" has created but, given the only hypothetical nature of the "Church" coming together again to look at the manuscripts that exist and represent a "believing textual criticism" to look at this issue, then various folks can simply fall back on the idea that "believers did it in the past" and so we stay with what was done in the era when the "Church" collated and translated.

I guess it would have to be the Church of England if this happened again. I can't see someone accepting that the Establishmentarian dream would materialize and the thoroughly Calvinistic State of the Netherlands in 2050 would be a thoroughly Christian country at that point. Because English is the Lingua Franca, this country would look at all the manuscripts and all its Reformed Scholars would do the work of textual criticism in a believing fashion. The scholars would all be committed Reformed men who saw that the Westminster Standards were superior to the 3FU and adopted them in 2040 as Reformation swept the Netherlands. The King called for a "believing work of collation and translation" to serve the "Church". These men would look at all manuscripts and come up with the "2050 TR" that defined for the "Church" a Greek platform without any variants. They would then translate this into the English preserving all the old English idioms to preserve the richness of language as it once existed.

In this glorious future would this be the work of the Church if the product differed from the TR?

Oh, I forgot to mention that, like the TR produced in the 17th Century, no Baptists would be part of that work because, well, how could a State Church be Baptist?

I know, to some, who take this very seriously it sounds like I'm mocking but I'm trying to point out the inherent contradictions when people use terms like "believing scholarship" when what they really mean is that men who were in the Church (who were certainly believers) ultimately believed that the work was authorized because it was in an Establishmentarian context.

Even though the majority of the Confessional Reformed Churches don't adopt the TR position, our current Churches don't (somehow) represent what the "Church" believes because we're no longer, ultimately, in an Establishmentarian context.

 

[greenbaggins]

Andrew's position doesn't really exist or isn't mainstream according to Robert Truelove. We really need to figure out *what* the TR position is so that there is a definitive version that can be critiqued. After all, the preservation of God's Word is at stake.

How very Byzantine of you.

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

Jason, thanks very much for linking these. They are spectacular.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The Bible.

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

I'm not sure that it is that cut and dry. Again, I agree that the Church receives the canon and that God's Word exists outside of the Church. But the Church must at some point in time make a determination and testify which written texts it recognizes/receives as canonical. If I follow you, you are saying "the Bible determines the Bible" which seems at odds with Reformed confessional statements which appeal to two or three witnesses: to "the testimony of the Church" and "the inward work of the Holy Spirit" and not merely aspects of self-evidence alone. I am not generally a big Sproul fan, but he has his uses:

"Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly. This does not mean that Reformed theology doubts the canonical status of books included in the New Testament canon. Some Protestant theologians believe a special work of divine providence kept the church from error in this matter without imparting to the church any permanent or inherent infallibility." (Grace Unknown : The Heart of Reformed Theology, p.54). The bold (mine) seems to be an allusion to the WCF.

My question, however poorly framed, is how CT proponents deal with the issue of not having any particular church recognize such texts whereas there is evidence that particular churches did receive TR texts. My point in all of this is, I don't think there is a particular church able to do so in this present age, so shouldn't we look back (reform) to when there was and use what they used? Which, admittedly would leave us with using the TR and is where I'm at. It is, after all, called the "received text" for a reason - it was received not only by the English-speak churches, but also by the Germans, the Spanish, the Czechs and just about every other Reformed group in Europe in translating the New Testament into their native tongue. What faithful church has received the CT in the same manner?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

After all, the preservation of God's Word is at stake.

I am not a TR advocate as such but I think the TR proponents have picked up on a problem. 2 Tim 3:16 says ' All Scripture is breathed out by God'. If all scripture is breathed out by God, this implies the scripture should be perfect with no variants, just as God Himself is perfect.

Calvin says "By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word.” (Institutes 1:9:3) If the Spirit Himself is perfect and is joined 'by a mutual bond' with the word, and 'we recognise Him in His own image, namely in the word', does this imply that the transmission of the scriptures should be perfect?

I do not believe the TR proponent has solved this problem. They cannot solve the 'which TR' question. I raised this in a previous post but did not find the responses convincing.

Perhaps Deut 29:29 is applicable '“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.' [NKJV]

 

[Logan]

I am not a TR advocate as such but I think the TR proponents have picked up on a problem. 2 Tim 3:16 says ' All Scripture is breathed out by God'. If all scripture is breathed out by God, this implies the scripture should be perfect with no variants, just as God Himself is perfect.

Agreed, and I think everyone confesses that. But it does not imply that every copy will be perfect with no variants. Or that the work of every scribe will be God-breathed. Or the work of every textual compiler/comparison. It's all touched by human fallibility. Does that mean that we can't trust it is God's word, as is Ehrman's view? Certainly not.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

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.

I could be wrong, but I think “the church recognises scripture” is what Andrew is arguing, and not that the church determines scripture.

 

[RamistThomist]

I could be wrong, but I think “the church recognises scripture” is what Andrew is arguing, and not that the church determines scripture.

That would make sense, but he has doubled and insisted that the church determines Scripture.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think everyone confesses that. But it does not imply that every copy will be perfect with no variants. Or that the work of every scribe will be God-breathed.

That's the key point. The nature of copying implies variants. Try copying a page from the dictionary and see how many harmless variants appear. At this point, if someone says there can be no variants, they have to apply the doctrine of inspiration to the manuscript process.

 

[csallen]

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

Andrew, As another brother pointed out, the Church recognizes God's Word, but does not determine it. I trust this was what you meant. With this clarification in mind, are you aware of the RPCNA's stated position on the text of the NT? The Synod of 1973 adopted recommendations that recognized translations based upon critical editions of the Greek NT as "acceptable" and "faithful" translations of the Scriptures.

 

[De Jager]

Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?

 

[JH]

Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?

To my knowledge, those who affirm a Majority Text position typically end up rejecting the Comma, amongst other passages that are lacking in extant manuscript evidence.

 

[Logan]

Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?

I certainly believe so. I've mentioned several times that I very much appreciate the work of Maurice Robinson, and think his "Case for the Byzantine Priority" is well-worth reading. Lane has mentioned Sturz as another approach.

I think the TR is too dogmatic about holding on to readings that were clearly influenced by the Latin. I think the CT is a little too aggressive with going with readings about which there is reasonable doubt about which reading is original (e.g., Pericope Adulterae, long ending of Mark) or with preferring older readings that are a minority. I would much rather be too cautious than too dogmatic on a given reading.

I think there is at least a reasonable case for preferring texts which were commonly used in the church, and carefully studying, weighting, and collating them. Not that you would just take a statistical approach, but weight that type of text more heavily. But I would be cautious of denying God's providence to any other group of texts as well.

 

[Jake]

Andrew, As another brother pointed out, the Church recognizes God's Word, but does not determine it. I trust this was what you meant. With this clarification in mind, are you aware of the RPCNA's stated position on the text of the NT? The Synod of 1973 adopted recommendations that recognized translations based upon critical editions of the Greek NT as "acceptable" and "faithful" translations of the Scriptures.

I think that this statement from the RPCNA Testimony is quite compatible with the use of critical text based translations, and directly contradicts the attitudes of some TR-only advocates I've heard in this thread.

18. Bible translations must combine faithfulness to the original text with the idiom of the native language, and thus will always be imperfect. The Church is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them. Paraphrases, which interpret rather than translate, must be used with great caution.

 

[De Jager]

I certainly believe so. I've mentioned several times that I very much appreciate the work of Maurice Robinson, and think his "Case for the Byzantine Priority" is well-worth reading. Lane has mentioned Sturz as another approach.

I think the TR is too dogmatic about holding on to readings that were clearly influenced by the Latin. I think the CT is a little too aggressive with going with readings about which there is reasonable doubt about which reading is original (e.g., Pericope Adulterae, long ending of Mark) or with preferring older readings that are a minority. I would much rather be too cautious than too dogmatic on a given reading.

I think there is at least a reasonable case for preferring texts which were commonly used in the church, and carefully studying, weighting, and collating them. Not that you would just take a statistical approach, but weight that type of text more heavily. But I would be cautious of denying God's providence to any other group of texts as well.

I recently listened to a lecture from Dr. Michael Barrett of PRTS on the King James Version. I thought it was quite good. He explained why in his view it was an excellent translation, and why he even prefers it, and yet did not dogmatically assert that it was the only acceptable translation for Christians.

Tradition, Text, and Translation of the KJV

Dr. Michael Barrett | Geneva Reformed Seminary

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?

I think that you have highlighted what is a serious problem with these discussions, namely, that the subject is discussed as if there were no mediating positions in between those adopted by either CT or TR idealogues. Nearly every time this subject comes up, those who reject TR purism are caricatured as CT advocates - even when they are not.

 

[Logan]

Just gonna drop this quote here from Rutherford, which I definitely agree with:

And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had.

I'm pretty sure Rutherford, as a Westminster Divine, is "Confessional" and would have known what "kept pure" meant

How shall we hold and keep fast the letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? and these diverse from one another? Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them...In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings: there is a Marginall reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all:

Bridge was also a Westminster Divine. This is exactly what I have been stating was the position of men like Beza and Calvin: they had questions, they did not come down on an absolute position on certain readings, but they also didn't lose sleep over it and sometimes taught from variants they were unsure of. And contrary to Andrew, neither Rutherford of Bridge here appealed to a received text or translation that was approved by the Magistrate and an Established Church, despite being very contributors to the WCF. Are they unconfessional?

To this I might add

Although in the Hebrew copies there hath been observed by the Masorites, some very few differences of words, by similitude of letters and points; and by the learned in the Greek tongue, there are like diversities of readings noted in the Greek text of the N.T., which came by fault of writers: yet in most by circumstance of the place, and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned. And albeit in all it cannot...yet this diversity or difficulty can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of the Christian religion;

He admitted that it might not be possible to discern the true reading, yet it doesn't make the sum and substance of the Christian religion uncertain.

p 14:
The whole Prolegom. 7 is spent in proving that the Originall Texts are not corrupted either by Jews, Christians or others, that they are of supream authority in all matters, and the rule to try all translations by. That the copies we now have are the true transcripts of the first autographa written by the sacred Pen-men, That the special providence of God hath watched over these books, to preserve them pure and uncorrupt against all attempts of Sectaries, Hereticks, and others, and will still preserve them to the end of the world, for the end for which they were first written, That the errors or mistakes which may befall by negligence or inadvertency of Transcribers or Printers, are in matters of no concernment (from whence various readings have risen), and may by collation of other copies and other means there mentioned, be rectified and amended.

pg 66
I do not onely say, that all saving fundamentall truth is contained in the Originall Copies, but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire; or if any error or mistake have crept in, it is in matters of no concernment, so that not only no matter of faith, but no considerable point of Historicall truth, Prophecies, or other things, is thereby prejudiced, and that there are means left for rectifying any such mistakes when they are discovered.

pg 68
To make one Copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no Copy can plead this privilege since the first autographa were in being.

Textual confidence in the purity of scripture is declared by all, despite none of them appealing to a printed text, and all of them admitting that there were variants that should be compared.

Now, how far would they be willing to go I will not speculate, nor should anyone else. But what did they mean by "kept pure in all ages"? We don't have to speculate about that. They tell us. No doubt some would have been more to one one side and some on the other of specific readings, but I don't think it can be questioned that many, if not all did not share the same views as today's proponents of "Confessional Bibliology" or "the TR". Their view was far more nuanced and less dogmatic. I like to believe I share their views.

 

[De Jager]

"And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had."

As written...in subsequent manuscripts? Or is he saying that the original autographs contained errors in number and genealogies, etc.??

What I am reading in this quotation is that the Bible "contains" the word of God, and the important doctrinal matters are sure, but we can't be sure of some peripheral details. Is this correct?

 

[Logan]

As written...in subsequent manuscripts? Or is he saying that the original autographs contained errors in number and genealogies, etc.??

What I am reading in this quotation is that the Bible "contains" the word of God, and the important doctrinal matters are sure, but we can't be sure of some peripheral details. Is this correct?

Only in subsequent copies made from the originals. They recognized that there were readings (most quite small) where one manuscript said one thing and another said another thing and that sometimes one couldn't tell which was the original. But that despite that, we are sure of the key points of doctrine, that they are the very word of God.

I don't know how far Rutherford would allow himself to go with that view (e.g., long ending of Mark, Pericope Adulterae, Comma Johanneum), but the primary point is that he didn't take a textual absolutist stand and say that we have to pick a reading (or family of printed texts, or a particular translation) in order to have certainty and assurance nor that the belief in preservation necessitates the belief in knowing every reading with certainty.

 

[De Jager]

Only in subsequent copies made from the originals. They recognized that there were readings (most quite small) where one manuscript said one thing and another said another thing and that sometimes one couldn't tell which was the original. But that despite that, we are sure of the key points of doctrine, that they are the very word of God.

I don't know how far Rutherford would allow himself to go with that view (e.g., long ending of Mark, Pericope Adulterae, Comma Johanneum), but the primary point is that he didn't take a textual absolutist stand and say that we have to pick a reading (or family of printed texts, or a particular translation) in order to have certainty and assurance nor that the belief in preservation necessitates the belief in knowing every reading with certainty.

This makes sense. Thanks Logan.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Anecdote: The deeper I go into the things presented in this thread by Lane, Logan, Rich, and others, the more confidence I have in the text of Scripture we possess, and the less dogmatic I feel even about my own position. Thank you very much brothers.

Above all, praise the Lord that there is a solid path that keeps one out of the ditches of the extreme positions, and also deals with the reality of the manuscript situation as we have it!

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Just gonna drop this quote here from Rutherford, which I definitely agree with:



I'm pretty sure Rutherford, as a Westminster Divine, is "Confessional" and would have known what "kept pure" meant



Bridge was also a Westminster Divine. This is exactly what I have been stating was the position of men like Beza and Calvin: they had questions, they did not come down on an absolute position on certain readings, but they also didn't lose sleep over it and sometimes taught from variants they were unsure of. And contrary to Andrew, neither Rutherford of Bridge here appealed to a received text or translation that was approved by the Magistrate and an Established Church, despite being very contributors to the WCF. Are they unconfessional?

To this I might add


He admitted that it might not be possible to discern the true reading, yet it doesn't make the sum and substance of the Christian religion uncertain.



Textual confidence in the purity of scripture is declared by all, despite none of them appealing to a printed text, and all of them admitting that there were variants that should be compared.

Now, how far would they be willing to go I will not speculate, nor should anyone else. But what did they mean by "kept pure in all ages"? We don't have to speculate about that. They tell us. No doubt some would have been more to one one side and some on the other of specific readings, but I don't think it can be questioned that many, if not all did not share the same views as today's proponents of "Confessional Bibliology" or "the TR". Their view was far more nuanced and less dogmatic. I like to believe I share their views.

Could I get the sources for these, brother?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Andrew, As another brother pointed out, the Church recognizes God's Word, but does not determine it. I trust this was what you meant. With this clarification in mind, are you aware of the RPCNA's stated position on the text of the NT? The Synod of 1973 adopted recommendations that recognized translations based upon critical editions of the Greek NT as "acceptable" and "faithful" translations of the Scriptures.

I appreciate your input. I don't see my statement that "the Church must at some point in time make a determination and testify which written texts it recognizes/receives as canonical" is the same as the Papist position that the Church determines what is Scripture and what is not. Maybe I'm just not picking up on the semantics but determining what texts you will receive (or not receive) is not the same as saying that the act of such a determination makes those texts infallible and inerrant, the Word of God being both of these by nature. To me the former is what WCF 1.2-3 is doing.

As for the RPCNA, as I state publicly in my signature on PB, I am an adherent. This is because I cannot take the oath required for denominational membership, and (I asked and was told) there is no allowance to state exceptions (except, I have observed, for ministers and other Church officers). I worship with them because they are the closest Reformed work and I believe it is a sin to forsake assembling with the brethren. I was not aware but am not surprised the RPCNA Synod's approval of CT translations in the 1970s. I will simply note that was the same era where they began ordaining women, rejected multiple parts of the WCF, and generally departed from their covenants as binding. I love my RP brethren and sit with them at the Lord's Table, but for many reasons (which I do not believe are appropriate to include in this thread) I cannot join them at this time beyond that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I certainly believe so. I've mentioned several times that I very much appreciate the work of Maurice Robinson, and think his "Case for the Byzantine Priority" is well-worth reading. Lane has mentioned Sturz as another approach.

I think the TR is too dogmatic about holding on to readings that were clearly influenced by the Latin. I think the CT is a little too aggressive with going with readings about which there is reasonable doubt about which reading is original (e.g., Pericope Adulterae, long ending of Mark) or with preferring older readings that are a minority. I would much rather be too cautious than too dogmatic on a given reading.

I think there is at least a reasonable case for preferring texts which were commonly used in the church, and carefully studying, weighting, and collating them. Not that you would just take a statistical approach, but weight that type of text more heavily. But I would be cautious of denying God's providence to any other group of texts as well.

I think this is where I fall down as well. Again, I see the many manuscripts we find as an opportunity to rejoice and think: "Praise God that he preserved so many Christians with HIs Word throughout the ages! Look, another testimony that Christians are a people of the Word!" I mean, seriously, one tires to find the oldest copies of the accounts of Julius Caesar and the unmistakable conclusion you are left with is that we have far more and earlier copies of the writings of some martyred servant of Christ from the early Church! These beleaguered Saints mean far more in human history than the Romans who killed them could have every imagined.

The good thing about all the modern versions is that they haven't "deleted" the contested passages but left them in there for the still living Church to read and for Pastors to continue to do the work of preaching from those texts and explaining why they are in the margins and let the Spirit do its work. I don't know if the pericope adultery is original with absolute confidence but I read it yearly and I believe it is.

 

[Jake]

As for the RPCNA, as I state publicly in my signature on PB, I am an adherent because I cannot take the oath required for denominational membership, and (I asked and was told) there is no allowance to state exceptions (except, I have observed, for ministers and other Church officers). I worship with them because they are the closest Reformed work and I believe it is a sin to forsake assembling with the brethren. I was not aware but am not surprised the RPCNA Synod's approval of CT translations in the 1970s. I will simply note that was the same era where they began ordaining women, rejected multiple parts of the WCF, and generally departed from their covenants as binding. I love my RP brethren and sit with them at the Lord's Table, but for many reasons (which I do not believe are appropriate to include in this thread) I cannot join them at this time beyond that.

How do you determine which church (or civil magistrate -- not 100% clear where you land on this) is qualified to make a judgment on the text and translation of Scripture, since the denomination you worship with is not?

 

[Logan]

Could I get the sources for these, brother?

Strange, I did include sources in the top "said" portion of the quotations but it looks like the forum truncates those.
Most of them were gathered from Warfield's little discussion on phrase in the WCF, which is excellent and he includes a myriad of quotations in his footnotes which are well worth reading.
https://books.google.com/books?id=W0Q9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA643&lpg=PA643

The Rutherford quote is from "Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience", 1651, pp 360, 361
The Bridge quote is from "Scripture Light the Most Sure Light" 1656, pg 47
The Walton quote is from "Prolegomena", pg 14, 66, and 68
The Usher quote is from "Body of Divinity" pp 20, 21. Warfield shows in parallel columns how closely the WCF resembles this work.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Rutherford's PLC is 1649. He left the assembly, the last of the four Scottish ministers to leave (Henderson died), in 1648 (sorry, forget the exact date).

The Rutherford quote is from "Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience", 1651, pp 360, 361

 

[Northern Crofter]

How do you determine which church (or civil magistrate -- not 100% clear where you land on this) is qualified to make a judgment on the text and translation of Scripture, since the denomination you worship with is not?

It is not for me to determine - it has been determined for me by my forbearers: a nation that covenants with Christ, establishes a Church, and maintains its confession has the authority to make such judgements through its synods and councils.

For my family that goes back to the Scots Confession (1560): "And such Kirks we, the inhabitants of the Realm of Scotland, professors of Christ Jesus, confess us to have in our cities, towns, and places reformed; for the doctrine taught in our kirks is contained in the written word of God, to wit, in the Books of the Old and New Testaments. In those books, we mean, which of the ancient have been reputed canonical, in the which we affirm that all things necessary to be believed for the salvation of mankind, is sufficiently expressed; the interpretation whereof, we confess, neither appertained to private nor public person, neither yet to any kirk for any pre-eminence or prerogative, personal or local, which one has above another; but appertained to the Spirit of God, by the which also the Scripture was written. When controversy then happeneth for the right understanding of any place or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to look what men before us have said or done, as unto that which the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures, and unto that which Christ Jesus Himself did, and commanded to be done. For this is a thing universally granted, that the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of unity, is in nothing contrarious unto Himself. If then the interpretation, determination, or sentence of any doctor, kirk, or council, repugn to the plain word of God written in any other place of the Scripture, it is a thing most certain, that theirs is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, supposing that Councils, Realms, and Nations have approved and received the same: For we dare not receive and admit any interpretation which directly repugneth to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or yet unto the rule of charity." (Chapter 18)

This confession was maintained in the National Covenant (1638) which opens thus: "WE all and every one of us under-written, protest, That, after long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved in the truth by the word and Spirit of God: and therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm, before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is, by the mercy of God, revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel; and is received, believed, and defended by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this realm, as God's eternal truth, and only ground of our salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the Confession of our Faith, established and publickly confirmed by sundry acts of Parliaments, and now of a long time hath been openly professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm both in burgh and land. To the which Confession and Form of Religion we willingly agree in our conscience in all points, as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon his written word."

This was enlarged in the Solemn League and Covenant to include all of the kingdoms in the British Isles to state "That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us." (SL&C I.) Thus they concluded by "most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success, as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and encouragement to other Christian Churches, groaning under, or in danger of the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."

My understanding of WCF Chapter 31 is that it allows the civil magistrate to call upon the Church to make a judgment on the text and translation of Scripture (31.2 - see also the end of 31.5), but precludes magistrates from making such a judgment themselves (31.3). I believe this is what occurred with the Geneva in Scotland and the KJV-AV in the United Kingdom.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One of he things that occurs to me is an assumption that isn't really spelled out as to what constitutes something as "Ecclesiastical". It's argued, for instance, that even though the KJV was produced at the behest of the Crown and initially authorized by the Anglican Church (in an Erastian context), it became "Ecclesiastical" because another Church body received it.

But does that process cease now?

One of the articles I post regularly to other PCA Elders is this great article on Naphtiali.com: https://www.naphtali.com/articles/schism-separatism/the-sin-of-schism/

The principal point about a catholic conception of the Church catholic is not that it will have institutional unity but that the various branches of the Christian faith constitute the Church. This is why we don't require re-baptism for persons baptized in other communions.

Is the OPC a branch of the Church and, if so, does it have the authority to receive the ESV or the NKJV as faithful translations or are members of respective NAPARC Churches bound to accept a translation as "Ecclesiastical" if it was originally authorized within an Erastian Church?

I see some of the arguments for "Ecclesiastical" to be at odds with the very principle articulated as to how Scottish theologians viewed the unity of the Church. I don't believe my own branch of the visible Church has the right to "bind and loose" a translation of the Scriptures upon all Christians everywhere but, it seems to me, that some who circumscribe "Ecclesiastical" to a specific branch of the Church in space and time are in violation of the principles so well articulated in this article. At the very least they are under obligation to articulate how they are not making some standard for "Ecclesiastical" that works only for Bible translations but doesn't work for any other area of the Christian faith where we have common, catholic communion.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I so oft quote this article to PCA Elders is that some are under the illusion that our specific visible branch needs to tolerate teaching that is inimical to the Westminster Standards (side B, FV, paedocommunion, etc). The argument is sort of the idea that the key to unity is that Elders compromise on doctrines for the sake of unity. The healthier option is to adopt the principle that separation is not always schism when one is under the conviction that one has to sin in order to obey God's commands. The very reason I have such common, catholic unity with Baptists is because we are separated into communions where we can thrive within our Scriptural convictions. It would be utter rancor if we were casual about our views on the Sacraments and polity in order to achieve organizational unity. Likewise, the best thing for people who are crypto-Anglicans or distort teachings such as Side B is to separate and leave the PCA to the Reformed (realizing that many consider the PCA to be barely Reformed in the things it tolerates).

What I'm driving at, then, is how one applies the principle of "unity" and authority across a separation of the branches. It seems it has the ultimate spirit of schism to "un-Church" another branch of the Christian faith over whether it has the authority to receive a translation of the Scriptures on the basis that (somehow) only the time of the Reformation had the makings of that which is "Ecclesiastical".

That is, by the way, why a TBS-translated Bible is fruitful. Not because some other branch of the Church in history has given it the imprimatur of Ecclesiastical but because it is received and used by a visible branch of the Church.