# When with others... WCF vs the LBC and Savory



## Unoriginalname (Jul 28, 2013)

*When with others... WCF vs the LBC and Savoy*

I was talking to a charismatic friend of mine who brought up that the 22nd Chapter of both the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession modify the equivalent 
chapter of the WCF (Chapter 21) on prayer. While the Westminster Confession states that:


> Prayer with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men; and that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of his Holy Spirit, according to his will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue.



The Savoy Declaration and London Baptist Confession state:


> ...with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and when with others in a known tongue.



He believed that this meant that the Congregationalists tolerated the charismatic understanding of tongues when done in private. I disagreed with him and told him that I never saw that documented anywhere. Does anyone know why that line was changed in both the SD and LBC?


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 28, 2013)

Unless there's a specific, historic reference, I don't know if we can discern the difference these past saints were making. I suspect -- and there is a good record among the Westminster divines so correct me if I'm wrong -- that the WCF was making allowance for the times where we simply have no words, where we wait for intercession on our behalf, for the groaning that goes beyond words. Such a wait, or emotions, or whatever might be expressed, is appropriate in a private setting, but not generally in public. I'm wondering if our congregationalist brethren were trying to underscore the private vs. public distinction? It would be a far leap to say: "this says tongues are OK in private," especially given the record in scripture of tongues being used to underscore the divine nature of revelation being given, a role entirely unnecessary in private, and no longer necessary with the completion of the scriptures.


----------



## davenporter (Jul 28, 2013)

I noticed some other changes in the language when I was looking between the different confessions, but substantially I believe that these confessions are all affirming exactly the same thing.

It is interesting to note that the WCF proof is 1 Cor 14:14 and the LBCF proof is 1 Cor 14:16-17. 

1 Cor 14:14 - For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

1 Cor 14:16-17 - Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

By citing 1 Cor 14:14, the WCF seems to be emphasizing the utter mindlessness of praying in an unknown tongue, whereas 1 Cor 14:16-17 points more toward the importance of edifying others. They are slightly different emphases, but in either case the issue is *vocal* praying. You can pray in your heart in your native tongue, even if no one else around you would understand you if you were praying aloud. But when you pray out loud (that is, with the participation of others) it should be in a language that everyone else understands.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 28, 2013)

davenporter said:


> I noticed some other changes in the language when I was looking between the different confessions, but substantially I believe that these confessions are all affirming exactly the same thing.
> 
> It is interesting to note that the WCF proof is 1 Cor 14:14 and the LBCF proof is 1 Cor 14:16-17.
> 
> ...



In I Corinthians 14:14 the Apostle is saying that he is not mindless in his praying in a tongue that is unknown to the hearers, because his spirit truly prays; "spirit" here is not an entity which is irrational, emotional or cut off from reason as we might imagine at first reading. He also says that his mind or understanding of what he is saying does not bear fruit in the hearers, because they do not understand what he is saying.

The Apostle's argument is that edification is linked to understanding and that those who spoke in unknown tongues knew what they were saying themselves, although their hearers didn't without an inspired translation.

Otherwise how could someone intelligibly give thanks in an unknown tongue, yet his brother sitting at meat with him not give thanks.

See e.g. O.Palmer Robertson "Tongues for Today?" , which may be online somewhere in printed form, and may be at Monergism.com in audio.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 28, 2013)

jwithnell said:


> Unless there's a specific, historic reference, I don't know if we can discern the difference these past saints were making. I suspect -- and there is a good record among the Westminster divines so correct me if I'm wrong -- that the WCF was making allowance for the times where we simply have no words, where we wait for intercession on our behalf, for the groaning that goes beyond words. Such a wait, or emotions, or whatever might be expressed, is appropriate in a private setting, but not generally in public. I'm wondering if our congregationalist brethren were trying to underscore the private vs. public distinction? It would be a far leap to say: "this says tongues are OK in private," especially given the record in scripture of tongues being used to underscore the divine nature of revelation being given, a role entirely unnecessary in private, and no longer necessary with the completion of the scriptures.



I agree that is seems to be a rather flimsy argument but I did not know if there was something akin to the minutes of the Westminster Assembly that explained the rational for the language changes in the London Baptist Confession or Savoy Declaration.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 28, 2013)

"Savoy Declaration", although the "Savoury Declaration" sounds more delicious. lol.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 28, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> "Savoy Declaration", although the "Savoury Declaration" sounds more delicious. lol.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 28, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> "Savoy Declaration", although the "Savoury Declaration" sounds more delicious. lol.


I understand the rationale for that, but is it rational?


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2013)

Unoriginalname said:


> Does anyone know why that line was changed in both the SD and LBC?



Foreigners prayed and conducted services in their vulgar tongue. The impetus for the change in the 50s likely would have been the broader Protestant toleration under Cromwell.


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 29, 2013)

I suspect that the Latin Mass would have been another foil against which to judge the context of the times.


----------

