# Original 1646 WCF Ch. 23 vs. Revised American 1789 WCF Ch. 23



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 13, 2010)

What Do You Believe is Taught by Scripture? 

The original wording of ch. 23 of the WCF or the American revised version of the WCF? 

What do you think about what each teaches? 

*Original Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 Edition Chapter 23*


> I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good, and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.
> 
> II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasion.
> 
> ...



*American Revision Westminster Confession of Faith 1789 Chapter 23*



> 1. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.
> 
> 2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.
> 
> ...


----------



## dudley (Mar 13, 2010)

I hold to the original wording of ch. 23 of the WCF and also on the Church, sacraments etc. I like and hold to the Original 1646 WCF as my preference.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 14, 2010)

*bump


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 14, 2010)

Original for me.



> Jonah 3:6-10 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 14, 2010)

While my affections incline me towards wanting to affirm the original because it is the original, I can't. I am convinced the American revision is correct.

But I'll go further... not only do I think the American revision of WCF 23.3 is more Biblical, I think it corrects a gross inconsistency in the original version.

I realize apologists of the original will take issue, but I - but not_ only_ I - believe it is pretty clearly contradictory to assert that the magistrate cannot assume the "power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and yet have the remainder of the paragraph given to various duties of the magistrate that have in them an inherent binding or loosing of conscience associated with the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 

Fortunately, the early American Presbyterians recognized the inconsistency and made the necessary changes... and the major Presbyterian denominations have accepted the American revision as indicative and reflective of biblical truth on the subject.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2010)

The revision speaks against denominational establishments, not Christian establishments; yet the majority of the time the revision is appealed to as if it corrects the Christian establishmentarianism of the original. This appears to me to be an historical blunder.


----------



## jfschultz (Mar 14, 2010)

I voted both are wrong because I would hold that the original grants too much to the civil magistrate while the American revision denies too much to the civil magistrate. I am not sure where the correct line should be drawn, except that it is somewhere between the two.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 14, 2010)

I like the content of the revised one better, but I prefer the Roman numerals and freedom from typographical errors found in that posting of the original.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 20, 2010)

God has a law, summarized in ten commandments. All men are bound to obey it, in all of their capacities. Fathers do not merely observe it for themselves; their keeping the commandments also means ensuring that they are kept by their family. Ministers and ruling elders, in observing the commandments, must also teach their congregation to observe the commandments, and correct members who break the commandments. Civil magistrates are also to keep the commandments, not only as individuals, but as magistrates, by ensuring that those under their authority do the same. If they do not do this -- if they do not reward those that do well (keep the commandments), and punish those that do evil (break the commandments), they are themselves sinning against those commandments.

The first two commandments require correct belief and correct worship. If these must be enforced by the civil magistrate, how does this not come out to the establishment principle?


----------

