WCF 1.8 and CT

Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 24 42.9%
  • Hmm...I don't know

    Votes: 8 14.3%

  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
TimV, I don't think there is a problem with one word. I'd be more concerned about their textual philosophy.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
(Off topic interjection -- 7 pages?! Didn't see that one coming when I started this thread...)

It's been going on for a couple years, actually. The poll is about evenly split between people who think officers of confessional Reformed churches that require either conforming to the WCF or are required to state any objections to the WCF are

a) in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word

and

b) are not in violation of their vows by believing that translations not based on the TR can be called God's Word

So, the questions that I have for those who voted yes are:

Since both the Critical Text and the Majority Text use the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell my why the Elders of my Church

a) would be wrong in accepting the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19
b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
7 pages? No doubt, but this has been very educational. At the first, I probably would have voted no, but now? How people view the text has really made me think, and possibly changed my mind.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 11:44:30 EST-----

And TimV, why you keep bringing up that one word is beyond me. I don't think either camp would have a problem with one word.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
And TimV, why you keep bringing up that one word is beyond me. I don't think either camp would have a problem with one word.
What is the highest number of words different from the TR that you would accept before you believe that an officer candidate should make an exception to WFC 1.8?
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
The poll is about evenly split between people who think officers of confessional Reformed churches that require either conforming to the WCF or are required to state any objections to the WCF are

a) in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word

and

b) are not in violation of their vows by believing that translations not based on the TR can be called God's Word

So, the questions that I have for those who voted yes are:

Since both the Critical Text and the Majority Text use the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell my why the Elders of my Church

a) would be wrong in accepting the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19
b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the CT and MT reading of Rev. 22:19.

No. The poll question was: Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text?

It does not ask, "Does WCF 1.8 require *exclusive* use of the Received Test?"

It does not ask, "Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?"

You are putting words into the mouths of all those who voted 'yes' on this poll.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
No. The poll question was: Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text?

It does not ask, "Does WCF 1.8 require *exclusive* use of the Received Test?"

It does not ask, "Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?"

You are putting words into the mouths of all those who voted 'yes' on this poll.
I accept that it is possible that I'm putting words into people's mouths, but I don't see how. How exactly are you interpreting the question? That the TR is required to be used in addition to other texts? As in every other Sunday? Or used as a base texts with variations acceptable? And if so, how many variations? And where can they come from?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
No. The poll question was: Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text?

It does not ask, "Does WCF 1.8 require *exclusive* use of the Received Test?"

It does not ask, "Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?"

You are putting words into the mouths of all those who voted 'yes' on this poll.
I accept that it is possible that I'm putting words into people's mouths, but I don't see how. How exactly are you interpreting the question? That the TR is required to be used in addition to other texts? As in every other Sunday? Or used as a base texts with variations acceptable? And if so, how many variations? And where can they come from?

I'm with Tim here on this point. There is no other reasonable way to read the question.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
And TimV, why you keep bringing up that one word is beyond me. I don't think either camp would have a problem with one word.



What is the highest number of words different from the TR that you would accept before you believe that an officer candidate should make an exception to WFC 1.8?

Hi TimV,

It's not the number of words, I would look into how a person thinks philosophically/theologically about this issue.

The reason I said what I did, is that you keep using that one word (tree/book), and it comes across as saying that the TR position hinges on the accuracy of it. Which it doesn't. If only that one word was wrong, the TR is more accurate than I previously thought! Us Real King Jimmy users know that there are a few errors. As in probably less than 20, Or it is less than 1/2 of one page. Which isn't alot. All but 9 or 10 verses can be found written by the church fathers, so we don't have to look for 'newly' discovered texts to correct the text we have received. I think that the 'newly' discovered texts would detract from what we have. That idea is part of the 'philosophy' of the issue.

Which kind of gets to the philosophy statements I make. How does a person view scripture, who do they consider authoritative concerning the text (Church fathers, the church through history, or 'modern' scholars).
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Moderator, you don’t think TimV’s accusation, “you accuse 99% of Reformed Elders (yes, I know you're a Baptist, and don't have the WCF in your tradition, so 1.8 didn't come up for you) of betraying their vows,” is a breach of the 9th Commandment, a bearing false witness? And that this public vilifying of a church office bearer constitutes “railing / reviling” – [size=+1]lodoroj[/size] – per Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 5:11?

This is far more serious than the veering off topic, and was the reason I asked for moderation. Evidently the old Moderator standards have been relaxed:

"I have assumed a zero tolerance platform as of late; If I see any inuendo, ad hominem, slander, below the belt assaults on any believers from here on out, the guilty party will be banned immediately." [from the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/james-white-1-john-5-7-a-12414/#post162880]​

Which is a shame. When sin is tolerated the Spirit of Christ departs.

Fred, this is more nuanced than appears if you have followed the thread. Included in the discussion was,

Warfield[‘s] championing Westcott and Hort's revised Greek text, and his efforts against the higher critical attack on the Scriptures. This bears directly on the OP's question. I would say, in brief, that those who hold to the WCF (and 1:8 in particular) while using the CT, do so in good conscience, due to Warfield's influence. (see posts #135 and 163)​

From there the nature of his influence on the understanding of the WCF 1:8 was gone into at length in those two posts. This is why we have two views of the matter today.

The issue is not,

“Are officers in confessionally Reformed churches in violation of their oaths for believing WCF 1.8 allows them to consider translations not based on the TR God's Word?”​

but was Warfield right or wrong in his approach? It is assumed that ministers hold to the WCF 1:8 in good conscience regarding their oaths, whichever view they take. Those who assert otherwise – at least at this point in the discussion – are being willfully provocative and inflammatory. It is an academic, text critical matter, and not one of “violating oaths” etc.

If Moderation allows defamation of character and slander – which has occurred more than once in this thread – to continue, this is a serious breach in our integrity as an online community.

In the House of Light there is a great chamber called The Hall of Learning, where holy servants of the High King gather to exchange intelligence and to search out matters. This they do with great mutual respect and kindness, knowing that the bonds of love are the basis of their fellowship, and that learning is secondary. Whenever the bonds of love are broken in that Hall its participants immediately disperse, learning being impossible at that moment. But when these bonds of ardent love are profound and manifest, how wondrous to see divines and seers search out, and test, and prove what be the things of God, and what not, and what cannot with certainty be ascertained at that time. There is a thrilling joy which permeates that chamber, blazing with the light of Heaven...​

Or shall we become, the Jurassic Forums? If the latter, count me out!
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Steve,

I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):

If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.

to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."

I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.

In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Steve,

I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):

If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.

to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."

I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.

In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.

Fred,
Is there a way to ask the question in a non pernicious fashion? Or is that just in the nature of the question of asking what does the confession mean at this point?

CT
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
I think that the question is tangential to the real issue that many are debating, that is whether the TR is superior to the CT.

In arguing for the TR in this thread the confessions are being used as a tool for progressing an argument that the confessions did not directly address (if they addressed it at all).

It has been tacitly accepted that the text that the writers of the confession adhered to is not the same as the historical contemporary text or indeed the text that is in use today. While the differences may be minor it does show that an identical text to that at the time of the confessions completion is not a proper interpretation of the confessions text.

To use the confessions in this argument in such a black and white fashion (i.e. right or wrong) risks at the very least risks collateral damage such as seeking to place a large proportion of the confessional community as being in breach of their obligations.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Steve,

I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):

If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.

to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."

I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.

In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.

Just for the record: the OP was a question, not a statement. It was an honest question as to whether or not 1.8 required use of the TR in the public reading of scriptures. I (the person who started this thread) still stand by my initial "I don't know answer" (though as I stated in one post it at least seems more consistent). But again, it was a question -- not a statement, not an accusation, not a calling out; just an historical question about the intent of the Assembly with that phrase. Sorry for any confusion.

Edit
Honestly, I can't think of any other way of asking the question. But it clearly was a question, not an accusation. Even if it were a statement of "accusation," however, such things occur all the time: I mean, anytime we assert that paedobaptism is correct, don't we implicitly accuse credo ministers of improperly administering the sacraments and improperly teaching their use from the Word of God? Anytime anyone disagrees, there's a couched accusation of misusing/misrepresenting the Word. But, again, as I merely asked a question (and also testified that I voted, "I don't know," the OP clearly was an honest inquiry and not an accusation of anyone.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 05:34:57 EST-----

Also Fred (or anyone else) -- I don't want to draw you into this if you don't want to be involved, but would you care to state how you understand 1.8? Thus far, Tim has been pretty much the only one arguing for the negative of the OP question: I would love to hear others' reasons, and how you interpret 1.8 and its relationship to the public reading of translations as scripture.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
It's not the number of words, I would look into how a person thinks philosophically/theologically about this issue.

The reason I said what I did, is that you keep using that one word (tree/book), and it comes across as saying that the TR position hinges on the accuracy of it. Which it doesn't.
That's one traditional way AVers have when they run out of arguments; to talk about motive and philosophy, and they are always as vague as possible. And yes, that one word is all I need. If the word Tree, as in the MT is correct, then the TR doesn't contain God's exact Word. And that's why the hard core types dig their feet in on the issue. They know it. Just as they know (you called them weirdos in post 19 and I disagree with you which is why I use words like conspiracy theorists; many are very intelligent) that they can't budge on Christ quoting the Septuagint, Aramaic being in no possible way a dialect of Hebrew, etc...God either preserved His Word in one volume or He didn't. There's no difference of kind between 1 variation and one thousand.

BTW Luther's Bondage of the Will was written in reply to Erasmus' Freedom of the Will. One of his nicknames was the Prince of Humanists. And even if this very liberal Calvinist hater were alive today, by his own words would have updated the TR.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Hi TimV,

So you're saying the CT is perfect? Contain God's exact Word?

I don't get what your getting at.

And just so you know, I always talk about philosophy. It's in my blood. What a person's philosophy is betrays their theology. Theology is the queen of the sciences, Philosophy her handmaiden is old but true. And yes, the Ruckner types are weirdo's. Or weird would be better. I just don't have their taste.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
So you're saying the CT is perfect? Contain God's exact Word?
No, only AVers go down that road.

I don't get what your getting at.
If you and Ken ask yourselves "Was God's Word written down in it's entirety and perfectly in 1450?" You will both say (if you think about it for awhile) that God's Word may not have been written down in one, single place, and that's why we are grateful to Erasmus since he compiled several differing texts to form one, different then them all, which we call the TR.

Are we on the same page?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Fred,
Is there a way to ask the question in a non pernicious fashion? Or is that just in the nature of the question of asking what does the confession mean at this point?

CT

CT,

I think there might be. It may even be that the OP question itself is fine; the thread did not (in my opinion) go off the rails from the beginning, but rather as it developed. What might have been implicit, or muted, came out loud and clear as the thread went on. It became clear that to acknowledge any validity of a Critical Text version was to be abandoning the doctrine of preservation entirely. To be honest, I also share Tim's frustration at making a statement (such as that regarding the Septuagint) that is backed up by all but a minuscule number of scholars, and ther response being (in essence) "oh yeah, prove it."


Also Fred (or anyone else) -- I don't want to draw you into this if you don't want to be involved, but would you care to state how you understand 1.8? Thus far, Tim has been pretty much the only one arguing for the negative of the OP question: I would love to hear others' reasons, and how you interpret 1.8 and its relationship to the public reading of translations as scripture.

My own position would be similar to that of Williamson. The textual witnesses are actually the preservation of the Scriptures. I do actually think that the Majority Text base is a superior witness. (But of course, that issue only deals with the NT) For that reason, for example, I would not have a "short Mark" or take out a section of John. But I am not in the least troubled by potentially having either "tree" or "book" in the Revelation passage. I do think that there was a Septuagint. I think that God used that in His own wisdom in certain instances of the NT (the Hebrews passage on "a body you have prepared for me," for example)
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
So you're saying the CT is perfect? Contain God's exact Word?
No, only AVers go down that road.

I don't get what your getting at.
If you and Ken ask yourselves "Was God's Word written down in it's entirety and perfectly in 1450?" You will both say (if you think about it for awhile) that God's Word may not have been written down in one, single place, and that's why we are grateful to Erasmus since he compiled several differing texts to form one, different then them all, which we call the TR.

Are we on the same page?

Hi TimV,

I don't quite think so. I wouldn't agree to what you said above. There's always been a true church somewhere throughout history. And I'm sure they had the scriptures. But then you say "he compiled several differing texts to form one, different then them all". That seems odd. Why would a church accept scriptures that were different?

I'm not sure why, but you seem to have a negative view of AVers. Above, you say "only AVers go down that road", and yet you've been hammering away on one word throughout this thread, the book/tree distinction. Implying that if a text quoted that word wrong, it was invalid. That seems to be your view. Which is why I as asking questions. No text is perfect, but some are definitely better than others. You also said something in an earlier post - "That's one traditional way AVers have when they run out of arguments; to talk about motive and philosophy, and they are always as vague as possible."

It's easy to build a straw man and knock it down. When you criticize a position, a person has to represent it fairly. You pull the Ruckman philosophy and use it as if we all think like that. Which I've mentioned on several posts. So that's why I'm asking about how you represent us AVers?

Anyway, off to get some coffee, because I'm enjoying this thread.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Timothy,

Let me speak just for a moment for TimV (and he can disown me if he wishes! :) ) - there is a big difference between someone who uses the AV, or who even believes the AV to be the best Bible, and the one who thinks that it is the only legitimate Bible.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Grymir,

I think you're missing the point. Tim is pointing out that it is the AV position that the Church possesses the text of Scripture in the TR. It has no copyist errors in it, etc, because it is (I suppose) without error in the view of those who accept it as such.

The opposition to the TR assertions on this point do not all take the same form whereas the TR position tends to travel in predictable grooves. The real question is not whether or not Tim thinks a text is perfect but whether or not one of the TR advocates would agree with you when you state that "No text is perfect."
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
O.k., but I have seen very few KJVers who would take that position. I've been to a few KJV-only church's, but they didn't like my Calvinism. (I thought it would be a match made in heaven, being KJV-only, but I was wrong). I didn't know that the KJV view in the mainstream holds that all other bibles are illegitimate, or that the KJV is perfect.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 11:42:06 EST-----

I do think it's the best translation however.

Thanks y'all - Grymir
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Grymir,

You're really not paying attention very well to the conversation in this thread. What a mainstream KJV user understands or argues about the formation of the Textus Receptus (or even knows what that it is) is immaterial to this discussion.

Tim isn't interacting with the "man in the street" but with a line of argumentation that establishes the TR.

If you have nothing to offer to the issue of the formation of the Textus Receptus or a defense thereof then your comments are off topic.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
My own position would be similar to that of Williamson. The textual witnesses are actually the preservation of the Scriptures. I do actually think that the Majority Text base is a superior witness. (But of course, that issue only deals with the NT) For that reason, for example, I would not have a "short Mark" or take out a section of John. But I am not in the least troubled by potentially having either "tree" or "book" in the Revelation passage. I do think that there was a Septuagint. I think that God used that in His own wisdom in certain instances of the NT (the Hebrews passage on "a body you have prepared for me," for example)

Mr. Greco, thanks for the post. There's little in here to which I would take exception if I'm reading you correctly. I also have no problems with the ESV being used in your/my church: one needs only to read Gill's commentaries to see a good example of holding to one text as your basis of authority and yet constantly quoting variant readings from both within and outside of that textual tradition -- he always notes what the Alexandrian manuscript, or the Ethiopic translation says and makes use of that in his teaching. I'm all for that, and think it to be a good and indispensable practice (like I said, my understanding of preservation is probably a bit more moderate than some on here.)

But, if you're willing, allow to me to ask you a practical question from the initial post's intention. If/when you are preaching from the ESV on Sunday morning, in a practical way, how do you address the "textual problem." Thus, when the ESV differs from the majority text, do you "correct" it? Point out the difference? I'm really trying to understand the practical outplay of this. No one can deny it's an issue, and I'd like to know how pastors deal with it.
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
This is one heated thread, and I've read everything in it before voting.

I find this a 'meat VS veggies' thing. Some folks will find a stumbling block, while others will not. Both are sanctified in the Lord, and I really don't feel there is meaningful error in either position. I thus voted 'no' with genuine respect for all belligerents in the thread.

Theognome
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Follow-up explanation:

Part of my problem is that I think many modern translations have translated certain parts of scripture much better or more clearly than older TR/Majority Text translations -- I admire/prefer the clarity and accuracy of these modern translations; and yet, at the same time, I don't want to credit the mission or purpose of the critical text upon which they are based, or endorse some of its readings as "God's scripture."
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
My own position would be similar to that of Williamson. The textual witnesses are actually the preservation of the Scriptures. I do actually think that the Majority Text base is a superior witness. (But of course, that issue only deals with the NT) For that reason, for example, I would not have a "short Mark" or take out a section of John. But I am not in the least troubled by potentially having either "tree" or "book" in the Revelation passage. I do think that there was a Septuagint. I think that God used that in His own wisdom in certain instances of the NT (the Hebrews passage on "a body you have prepared for me," for example)

Mr. Greco, thanks for the post. There's little in here to which I would take exception if I'm reading you correctly. I also have no problems with the ESV being used in your/my church: one needs only to read Gill's commentaries to see a good example of holding to one text as your basis of authority and yet constantly quoting variant readings from both within and outside of that textual tradition -- he always notes what the Alexandrian manuscript, or the Ethiopic translation says and makes use of that in his teaching. I'm all for that, and think it to be a good and indispensable practice (like I said, my understanding of preservation is probably a bit more moderate than some on here.)

But, if you're willing, allow to me to ask you a practical question from the initial post's intention. If/when you are preaching from the ESV on Sunday morning, in a practical way, how do you address the "textual problem." Thus, when the ESV differs from the majority text, do you "correct" it? Point out the difference? I'm really trying to understand the practical outplay of this. No one can deny it's an issue, and I'd like to know how pastors deal with it.

Paul,

I only would comment if it made a significant difference from the point of my sermon. For example (and this is not strictly a textual difference, since it is a matter of Hebrew vowel pointing), when I was preaching on 1 Kings 19, I made a point to tell the congregation that I did not think "he was afraid" was the right translation/text for 19:3. I rather went with the KJV/NKJV translation of "saw" because it made a difference to the point.

I did not do that to show a "superior text" or translation, but to explain what I thought was going on in the rest of the passage, and how it was supported from the other evidence in the text. You can hear how I handled that here:

Elijah and Elisha

I believe far more damage is done with the average congregant by engaging in translation wars than by merely preaching, and not taking up every battle. The average congregant does not have the background, time, or frankly, interest in that. They want to be fed the Word of God, and be assured that they can trust the Bible that they are holding in their hands.

-----Added 12/21/2008 at 12:19:43 EST-----

Follow-up explanation:

Part of my problem is that I think many modern translations have translated certain parts of scripture much better or more clearly than older TR/Majority Text translations -- I admire/prefer the clarity and accuracy of these modern translations; and yet, at the same time, I don't want to credit the mission or purpose of the critical text upon which they are based, or endorse some of its readings as "God's scripture."

You raise a good point here. For example, most modern Americans will completely get the wrong point of Phil. 1:9 when reading the KJV:

KJV Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

as opposed to:

ESV Philippians 1:9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment,

NAU Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,

NKJ Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment,


That is not the KJV's fault, but it does happen. Another classic example is how Hebrews 11:1 in the KJV has allowed the Word of Faith movement to flourish, because we do not use the word "substance" any more like the Elizabethans did.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Hi Y'all,

One thing that I do in my class, is that the KJV is like the 'final' court when it comes to doctrinal issues. Every body has their favorite translation. (A few use theKJV, some use ESV, and the RSV, or even a NIV thrown in) They help in bring out the meaning. Like the examples that Fred gives above. But when there is a question of doctrine or theology, the KJV settles the issue. It doesn't matter to most of the people, but there are a few of us (It's usually the Libs/Barthians trying to contradict good theology) that will get wrapped up in a heated discussion. And the people get a good view of how these issues are settled.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Hi Y'all,

One thing that I do in my class, is that the KJV is like the 'final' court when it comes to doctrinal issues. Every body has their favorite translation. (A few use theKJV, some use ESV, and the RSV, or even a NIV thrown in) They help in bring out the meaning. Like the examples that Fred gives above. But when there is a question of doctrine or theology, the KJV settles the issue. It doesn't matter to most of the people, but there are a few of us (It's usually the Libs/Barthians trying to contradict good theology) that will get wrapped up in a heated discussion. And the people get a good view of how these issues are settled.

That is a direct contradiction of the words of, and the spirit of WCF 1.8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) , and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top