# Scripture References in Confessions



## ReadBavinck (Nov 3, 2006)

I notice that some publications of the confessions contain different Scripture references than other publications. Did each of the "6 forms" of unity have their own original set? How do you know when that set is being used? I was thinking about this in regards to the book, _Reformed Confessions Harmonized_.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 4, 2006)

Christopher,
I know about the Westminster stds; but I gather your question is not about them.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 4, 2006)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Christopher,
> I know about the Westminster stds; but I gather your question is not about them.



Actually, I was wondering about the Westminster Standards and the 3 Forms of Unity. This stems from another question I have: In _Reformed Confessions Harmonized_ the answer to "What do the Scriptures principally teach?" has 2 Tim. 1:13 and 3:16 as the proofs in the WSC but is missing v. 3:16 in the WLC. I'm curious why this would happen.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 4, 2006)

CJ_Chelpka said:


> Actually, I was wondering about the Westminster Standards and the 3 Forms of Unity. This stems from another question I have: In _Reformed Confessions Harmonized_ the answer to "What do the Scriptures principally teach?" has 2 Tim. 1:13 and 3:16 as the proofs in the WSC but is missing v. 3:16 in the WLC. I'm curious why this would happen.


Christopher, 
This was evidently by design; at least there is no indication 3:16 was ever included. The earliest editions have "2 Tim. 1:13 and 3:16" for the WSC and only 2 TIM. 1:13 for the WLC. This has been seen to be unsatisfactory as other churches adopted new or changed proofs for the Larger Catechism. Note: *PCUSA(1797):* (+)JOH 20:31; PSA. 19:105. *PCUSA(1894):* (-)PSA 19:105; (+)2TI 3:15-17. *PCUS(1910):* (-)all; (+)”See General Note” [“General Note: At several points the Larger Catechism is more specific in its statements than in Scriptures. These statements are inferences from the Scriptures, or from statements based on the Scriptures, or from the experience and observation of the church. In such cases no texts are cited; but reference is made to this general note.”]. *OPC(2001): *Note added after “concerning God”: GEN 1:1; EXO 34:5-7; PSA 48:1; JOH 20:31; See 2TI 3:15. In “n”: (-)2TI 1:13; (+)DEU 10:12-13; 2TI 3:15-17; ACT 16:30-31.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 4, 2006)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Christopher,
> This was evidently by design



What do you think their reason was for not including it? Is it common throughout standards not to have parallel citations where the documents are parallel in language?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 4, 2006)

CJ_Chelpka said:


> What do you think their reason was for not including it? Is it common throughout standards not to have parallel citations where the documents are parallel in language?


This is not an answer to why in this particular instance, but here is what Dr. Carruthers has to say in his _Three Centuries of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, _which Ligon Duncan put online some time back so happily I do not have to type:
http://zort.org/knowledge/netsec/sans-threats/NT_editor.php


> The Shorter Catechism was presented to Parliament, and printed, without proofs, in November 1647. The proofs were not presented, however, till the following April. During this time the proofs for both Catechisms were dealt with, those for the Larger Catechism between 7th December and 1st March, those for the Shorter Catechism from 2nd March till 12th April. There were three committees to prepare those for the Larger, and only one committee on those for the Shorter Catechism, yet the latter took much shorter time. This was doubtless due to the fact that the proof texts for the Larger Catechism were there, and merely needed modification because of the lack of complete parallelism between the two, and the omission of some statements from the Shorter one.
> 
> The character of the changes can be judged by the study of the proofs for a few questions which agree in the two catechisms. In Q. 1 they omitted John xvii. 21-3, a passage which only indirectly and inferentially proves that man is to enjoy God for ever. Q. 7 of the Larger corresponds to Q. 4 of the Shorter Catechism. The proofs as to God's glory, blessedness, perfection, all-sufficiency, incomprehensibility, and some other points became irrelevant, since these points were omitted from the answer in the Shorter Catechism. Strange to say, Exod. xxxiv. 7 is needlessly (though not irrelevantly) added to the previous verse as a proof of God's goodness and truth. Q. 5 of the Shorter Catechism omits I Cor. viii. 4, 6, seeing in the other two passages adequate proof of the answer. In Q. 6 they trust to the dubious I John v.7 and to Matt. xxviii. 19 for proof of the Trinity, omitting other texts at least equally good (Matt. iii. 16, 17 and 2 Cor. xiii. 14), as well as the insufficient John x. 30. On the decrees of God (Q. 7) they retain two passages as sufficient (Eph. i. 4, 11, and Rom. ix. 22,23), omitting the less manifestly relevant Rom. xi. 33, Rom. ix. 14, 15, 18, and the superfluous Psalm xxxiii. 11. In Q. 9 the statement of the Larger Catechism (Q. 15) that God made all things for Himself is omitted, and with it the need for the proof from Prov. xvi. 4.


So at least we can say the difference is generally becasue two different committees worked on the different proofs. Carruthers does not deal with WSC 3 and WLC 5 as an example.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 4, 2006)

NaphtaliPress said:


> so happily I do not have to type


  

You are blessing to me and the board. Thanks for your help, Chris.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 4, 2006)

Glad to help of course.


----------

