# WCF Chapter II and 1 John 5:7



## Davidius (Nov 12, 2006)

I am currently doing my first study through the WCF, using Hodge's commentary to supplement my reading of the confession itself. In both the first and second chapters I have noticed the citation of 1 John 5:7, I believe from the KJV, which is the following:
_
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one._

I found this interesting as I had never come across a text that seemed to so plainly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. However, after looking in my ESV bible all I found for verse 7 was:

_ For there are three that testify:_

And then verses 7 and 8 together:

_ For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree._

I did a search and found one thread in which this was briefly mentioned but it was not the thread's subject and there was no discussion of this issue specifically. Does anyone know if this was something added at some point in earlier church history, perhaps after the development of the Nicene creed, and then later taken out?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 13, 2006)

David,

You are no doubt going to get many responses to your question -- both pro and con the authenticity of this passage -- as it is one of the most hotly disputed texts of the Scripture. I post here a link that has a good take on the issue:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

This person, Will Kinney, has a site that defends a number of the King James readings, and I think he does an excellent job of it. This is a part of his site with many articles: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html

There are some learned scholars and apologists (Dr. James White, for one) who very strongly oppose the authenticity of the verse, and others who defend it. On this section of the board "Kaalvenist" and "CalvinandHodges" both do a good job in its defense.

It essentially boils down to this: what is the "interpretive grid" through which we make sense of the available data concerning the NT texts, is it the presupposition, based on God's promises, that He would preserve His word forever, or is it the presupposition that a supposedly neutral science can discover evidences that can answer the question -- these two approaches are called presuppositional and evidential.

I would like to illustrate this with a couple of brief quotes from an essay by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, _The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate_. This is from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”. 

Letis begins his interaction with Carson on this note:

If D.A. Carson’s book illustrates nothing else it shows there are two schools of thought. Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text? And is this a recent or a long-standing debate? It is these questions that we hope to broach—and answer—in this essay.​
Letis ends the essay thus:

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of [scientific] neutrality versus the dogma of [divine] providence…(pp. 201-204)​
A fuller quote of this essay has been posted in the thread, “What is the authentic New Testament text?”)

It is written in Matthew 4:4 that the Lord Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Is it not reasonable to conclude that He would indeed provide that which we needed to live? That is, His *every word?* Does this not indicate such a preservation as the Westminster Confession confesses in 1.8? There is not much dispute that the KJV faithfully renders the Hebrew and Greek of the texts we affirm were preserved, even though some of the words are archaic.

Our "dogma" of preservation is based on nothing else than our Lord's promise. Not a bird falls to the ground out of His sovereign will, nor a hair from our heads. It is not too much to affirm that One so great as He is cannot preserve intact the words of His Book, for His children and the Bride of His Son.

The "dogma" of some is that the science of textual criticism is neutral, and accurate. We do not believe this; we have seen science so-called bent to the prejudices and aims of those who do not believe in His sovereign power and majesty. The word of our God alone is absolutely accurate, and true.

May the Lord guide you in your seeking answers, David.

Steve


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 13, 2006)

Steve,

Thanks for the summary. I don't follow the manuscript debates very often but kind of had a sense of what you just posted but you really brought it together very well.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 13, 2006)

There are a few threads on this subject which may be of interest:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=5797

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=12414

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=12547

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=15569

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=15938


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 13, 2006)

FYI. 1JO 5:7 was dropped as a proof text in the revised second set of PCUSA scripture proofs first printed in the PCUSA Standards of 1906. The OPC retains this revision.


----------



## Tallen (Nov 13, 2006)

BTW, David, I agree with what JB has written here and would point out also that the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't find itself grounded upon this verse. I am sure you already realize that, but thought it should be brought out here. This is a doctrine developed by the scriptures throughout and is a consistent teaching of the Protestant Christian church.


----------



## Davidius (Nov 13, 2006)

Thanks for all the responses! I have found the material to be very helpful.


----------

