# WCF XX.2: if or in?



## py3ak (Mar 11, 2008)

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

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

But, the BPC website reads _in_ for _if_.

Which is, in fact, the authorized rendition?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> I just noticed that there seems to be a variant in WCF XX.2. A couple editions read like this:
> [taking up after the justly renowned semicolon] "or beside it, *if* matters of faith, or worship."
> 
> So it says in the version on CRTA, and in my 1997 printing of the Great Commission Publications version of the Standards.
> ...


The word should be "if". Here is Carruthers comment from my notes:“word, or” and _“in _matters” (DNLP): DNLP–J&H; ARP; BOCF; BP; PCUS; PCUSA-UP. “This double error is the most important in the whole Confession. It has obscured a distinction of great significance … The divines’ argument is this: men are free in all things directly contrary to God’s word; but, in addition, if the question is one of faith or worship, they are free in matters not stated in the word. The distinction between matters civil and religious, and the great doctrine concerning things indifferent in the ecclesiastical world, are completely obscured by the change of a single letter and an alteration of punctuation. It was Dunlop who introduced both of these changes, and his influence seems to have been strong enough to secure the adoption of this corrupt text by the Reformed Presbyterian editor, usually so accurate. The persistence of the error shews how easy it is to accept a well-known and official form of words without critical mental analysis.” Carruthers, _The Westminster Confession of Faith: Being an account of the Preparation and Printing of its seven leading editions, to which is appended a critical text of the Confession with notes thereon_ [1937].​p. 127-128.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> I just noticed that there seems to be a variant in WCF XX.2. A couple editions read like this:
> [taking up after the justly renowned semicolon] "or beside it, *if* matters of faith, or worship."
> 
> So it says in the version on CRTA, and in my 1997 printing of the Great Commission Publications version of the Standards.
> ...



"IN"

WCF (Free Presbyterian Publications), 1985

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

The correct reading is "if".

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

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> "IN"
> 
> WCF (Free Presbyterian Publications), 1985
> 
> This is the reprint of the original WCF -- Not the Americanized one.



I believe this has been corrected in later editions.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > "IN"
> ...


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

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


----------



## py3ak (Mar 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 11, 2008)

Rev-

so it should read:

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

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

And yes, Deacon.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 11, 2008)

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


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 11, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


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


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


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


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




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

Thank you.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


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



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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

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


----------



## py3ak (Mar 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 11, 2008)

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



> Protestants insist--That God has given only one, and that a perfect, rule of faith and practice in spiritual matters in the inspired Scriptures, and that He has hence set free the human conscience from all obligation to believe or obey any such doctrines or commandments of men as are contrary to or aside from the teachings of that Word.



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

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 11, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian Deacon said:
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 11, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I just noticed that there seems to be a variant in WCF XX.2. A couple editions read like this:
> ...



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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

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

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


----------



## MW (Mar 11, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 11, 2008)

armourbearer said:


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



It wasn't so clear to me either.



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



Contra--
Please elaborate. Thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 12, 2008)

I can't add anything. Some say it's a distinction w/out a difference. {shrug} I'm happy with having the original restored. Th RPW wasn't ignored for so long on the basis of a single letter. Peace,


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 12, 2008)

I've met more people who read it correctly whatever the wording than those that read it as Carruthers says it reads in the incorrect text (possibly one person; but too long ago to recall the details now). John Murray comments on this error in his review of Carruthers' book.* After describing the error, he writes:


> No doubt others, like this present writer, have been non-plussed by the terms of this section before becoming acquainted with the correct text. In the corrupted text the question arises: why did the Divines limit this principle of freedom of conscience _from th doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to God's Word, _to the spheres of faith and worship? Is it not true that this freedom is granted in every sphere of life and in every relation? Of course it is. That is the necessary expression of the principle that 'God alone is Lord of the conscience'. Why did not the Divines then universalize it?
> 
> The corrected text clears all difficulty. The import of the correct reading should be apparent. The conscience is free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are _in anything contrary_ to God's Word in every sphere, at all times. There is no restriction or limitation. It is an absolute universal. The conscience is ever bound to God's obedience; it is never bound to go contrary to His Word.
> 
> But in addition to this category of 'contrary to His Word' there is another category, namely, 'beside the Word'. That is to say, of 'things not stated in the Word nor by good and necessary consequence deducible from it'. They are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word. That is what the Confession means by the phrase 'or beside it'. The meaning of the semi-colon after 'His Word' and the words following, 'or beside it, if matters of faith or worship' simply is, that in matters of faith or worship the conscience is not only free from what is 'contrary' to the Word, but also from what is 'beside' it. Nothing binds in the spheres of faith and worship but that which is revealed or commanded in the Word. And therefore nothing is binding in faith or worship but that which, in the words of Chapter 1, is 'either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.'


*Collected Writings of John Murray (Banner of Truth, 1982) 294-295.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 12, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I just noticed that there seems to be a variant in WCF XX.2. A couple editions read like this:
> ...



The FRP has "if" as well, not "in." A. A. Hodge in his edition published by Banner of Truth has "in", so it has nothing to do with the American Edition. I would suspect some editions changed it to make it sound more clear.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 12, 2008)

It is a textual corruption; see above. The only intentional changes have been to correct it back in the more recent FPP, OPC and PCA editions. Last check the ARP still has it wrong (2003).


Stephen said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 12, 2008)

I'm going to go _if_ to my bedroom now and go to sleep.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 12, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm going to go _if_ to my bedroom now and go to sleep.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> Rich


----------

