# Does reformed understanding require there to be a TR/NT scripture then?



## Dachaser (May 15, 2017)

Does reformed understanding require there to be a TR/NT scripture as the basis for the textual evidences for translation? As in Baptist circles there are advocates for both of those 2 Greek texts, as well as those holding to the Critical text...

is there an "official" reformed viewpoint on this issue?


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2017)

*WSC Q. 107. What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer teach us?*
A. *The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen,* teacheth us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only, and in our prayers to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him; and, in testimony of our desire, and assurance to be heard, we say, Amen.

Is the WSC 'official' enough?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2017)

I'm confessionally Reformed. I give preference to a text like Mt.6:13 with its extended conclusion. I teach the _pericope adulterae_ (Jn.8:1-11) and Mk.16:9-20 as Holy Scripture.

I do not think 1Jn.5:7-8 _inclusio _is rendered truly according to the TR. I do not think one is required to be TR if he should still be considered Reformed and confessional.

I think the text-question is misdirected energy for most people. For a select few, I'm happy they are happy to make it their scholarly concern.

If your theory of biblical authority is bound to your certitude about the purity of the text *beyond* the 95% (or whatever it is exactly) that ALL the text-authorities--TR/MT/CT/other--are basically in agreement on, I think you want more than this poor world is actually capable of until the regeneration (Mt.19:28).

God has spoken. There are good instruments of conveying that word to you. Like radios, they come from various "manufacturers" in various "brands." There are better ones, and there are crummy ones. As someone who has been given ears to hear, typically it doesn't greatly concern me if the radio is a GE or a Sony; that is, if the translation is a KJV or a Holman.

If the product is shoddy, obviously that will affect the quality of my listening experience. I'm not going to buy what I think is a bottom-shelf product. But I care a lot less about the circuit board, than I do the speaker output. And I know that God communicates with abundant clarity in his Word so marvelously preserved in so many versions, that we have people who get excited about the 2% that contains "static."

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Dachaser (May 15, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm confessionally Reformed. I give preference to a text like Mt.6:13 with its extended conclusion. I teach the periscope _adulterae_ (Jn.8:1-11) and Mk.16:9-20 as Holy Scripture.
> 
> I do not think 1Jn.5:7-8 _inclusio _is rendered truly according to the TR. I do not think one is required to be TR if he should still be considered Reformed and confessional.
> 
> ...


We are thinking along the same lines as regarding this issue, as do believe that regardless which Greek text one uses for translation and study, any of them would be seen as the word of God unto us, and that there are no real differences between them in the extent of causing a change in dictrine on any essential point of the Christian faith!


----------



## arapahoepark (May 15, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We are thinking along the same lines as regarding this issue, as do believe that regardless which Greek text one uses for translation and study, any of them would be seen as the word of God unto us, and that there are no real differences between them in the extent of causing a change in dictrine on any essential point of the Christian faith!


It seems that even those who are CT basically say that the Word of God is there in the oldest translations, it just has been added to perhaps inadvertently by a scribe.


----------



## MW (May 15, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> is there an "official" reformed viewpoint on this issue?



When the reformed minister reads from holy Scripture in the gathering of the church it is confessed and understood that he is reading the word of God. The preservation of the word is tacitly maintained along with its inspiration, authority, and infallibility. How he chooses to vocalise and explain this action may or may not support his practice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> It seems that even those who are CT basically say that the Word of God is there in the oldest translations, it just has been added to perhaps inadvertently by a scribe.


Yes, as we would see that there have been some mistakes in copying process , as some scribes did add in their margin notes some variants were added in, such as when Paul stated in Romans that those of us who have placed faith in Jesus are not saved from wrath of God, but a scribe added into that 'and who also walk in the Spirit", as if faith alone was not enough...


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2017)

MW said:


> When the reformed minister reads from holy Scripture in the gathering of the church it is confessed and understood that he is reading the word of God. The preservation of the word is tacitly maintained along with its inspiration, authority, and infallibility. How he chooses to vocalise and explain this action may or may not support his practice.


So the version itself would be seen as the word of God, so can be KJV/NASB/Esv etc?


----------



## MW (May 16, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So the version itself would be seen as the word of God, so can be KJV/NASB/Esv etc?



Whatever the version from which the reformed minister reads it is being read and received as the preserved word of God. This lays upon the minister the necessity of ensuring that the version is in fact the preserved word of God. A version translated from a text which claims the word of God has been corrupted and must be reconstructed to approximate to the original is not heading in the right direction.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (May 17, 2017)

MW said:


> Whatever the version from which the reformed minister reads it is being read and received as the preserved word of God. This lays upon the minister the necessity of ensuring that the version is in fact the preserved word of God. A version translated from a text which claims the word of God has been corrupted and must be reconstructed to approximate to the original is not heading in the right direction.


So there is indeed in Reformed churches the tradition of the english text needs to be from the TR or majority text then?


----------



## MW (May 17, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So there is indeed in Reformed churches the tradition of the english text needs to be from the TR or majority text then?



I am not sure what you mean by "needs to be." Tradition is what it is. Whether one likes it or not the textus receptus was considered by the reformed and evangelical world to be the inspired, preserved word of God for quite some time; and the concept of a received text continues to operate with canonical force in the minds of many Christians. The reason why textual criticism has failed to establish itself on a purely scientific basis is owing to the fact that evangelicals retained the fundamental ideas behind the textus receptus even while they sought to replace it. As for the reformed confessions, it only requires an examination of the proof texts to see the high and reverent esteem in which the tradition has held the textus receptus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 18, 2017)

David, in your post #7 the example you give is confused. The TR in Rom 8:1 has "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" whereas the CT omits that.

When you say this (TR) reading has those "who have placed faith in Jesus are *not* saved from wrath of God, but a scribe added into that 'and who also walk in the Spirit', as if faith alone was not enough..."

Paul actually says the same thing in verse four, and the meaning is that there is no condemnation to those who walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh ("Because the carnal mind is enmity against God" v 7). For if a person says they have faith yet continue to fully walk after the flesh—that is, willfully continue in sin—they deceive themselves.

Do you have a good Reformed commentary on the NT? William Hendriksen's is the best in my view (despite being more of a CT man than TR), although it is hard to find nowadays in hardcopy, though there are digital versions available. You may find that a true help as you grow in grace and knowledge. WH's commentaries are devotional and scholarly, and he excels in tackling difficult chronological questions and other apparent discrepancies.


----------



## Dachaser (May 18, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> David, in your post #7 the example you give is confused. The TR in Rom 8:1 has "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" whereas the CT omits that.
> 
> When you say this (TR) reading has those "who have placed faith in Jesus are *not* saved from wrath of God, but a scribe added into that 'and who also walk in the Spirit', as if faith alone was not enough..."
> 
> ...


Only thing that I have is the one volume New Bible Commentary, and my point in that addition was that Paul would be seeing that faith alone saves, and his grace is a free gift to those of us now placing faith in Jesus to save us!


----------

