# Question for the Confessional CTer



## Michael (Jan 31, 2008)

Some weeks ago I posted a Question for the confessional KJVer. Thank you to Mr. Winzer and Mr. Rafalsky in particular as well as everyone else who contributed.

This evening I would like to ask something of confessing believers who are partial to the Critical or Ecclectic Text. How can one _fully_ subscribe to Westminster Standards, among other confessions, when the Received Text (and more specifically the KJV) is woven so deeply within its instruction? Not only rampant in the footnotes validating our confession but also in the very questions of our catechisms (see WSC 107, WLC 196).


----------



## Ivan (Feb 1, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Some weeks ago I posted a Question for the confessional KJVer. Thank you to Mr. Winzer and Mr. Rafalsky in particular as well as everyone else who contributed.
> 
> This evening I would like to ask something of confessing believers who are partial to the Critical or Ecclectic Text. How can one _fully_ subscribe to Westminster Standards, among other confessions, when the Received Text (and more specifically the KJV) is woven so deeply within its instruction? Not only rampant in the footnotes validating our confession but also in the very questions of our catechisms (see WSC 107, WLC 196).



I enjoy your questions, Michael. Keep asking them!

I pray all is well with you and your dear family.


----------



## Michael (Feb 1, 2008)

Hey Ivan! 

Sent you a pm...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 1, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Some weeks ago I posted a Question for the confessional KJVer. Thank you to Mr. Winzer and Mr. Rafalsky in particular as well as everyone else who contributed.
> 
> This evening I would like to ask something of confessing believers who are partial to the Critical or Ecclectic Text. How can one _fully_ subscribe to Westminster Standards, among other confessions, when the Received Text (and more specifically the KJV) is woven so deeply within its instruction? Not only rampant in the footnotes validating our confession but also in the very questions of our catechisms (see WSC 107, WLC 196).



This does not really answer the question (I'll leave that to others), but the church's supreme standard is the Biblical text as it was originally given, if the WCF quotes textual variants of dubious originality, then they should be amended. Moreover, one can fully subscribe to the _theological content_ of WSC 107 and WLC 196 without adhering to the originality of the text used.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Ezekiel16 said:
> 
> 
> > Some weeks ago I posted a Question for the confessional KJVer. Thank you to Mr. Winzer and Mr. Rafalsky in particular as well as everyone else who contributed.
> ...



Two off topic questions:

1) Who decides whether variants are 'of dubious originality'?

2) The 'theological content' of Q 107 is that there is a 'conclusion' to the Lord's Prayer. How can that be subscribed to by way of the CT?


----------



## Michael (Feb 1, 2008)

Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Ritchie. I'm sure most everyone will agree with you that God's word alone is infallible while our confessions are not. 

However, we on this board _are_ of the confessing church and by the grace of God we express our faith this way in obedience of his word. Considering the Westminster Standards, it was not enough for the Divines to complete a document of theological themes to agree with. They were instructed to hold all content captive to scripture. How can we claim to share their subscription if our scripture be different then theirs?

To say that we don't necessarily agree that WSC 107 or WLC 196 reflects precisely how our Lord instructed us to pray, but that we still hold to the theological idea of it seems pretty shaky. Especially when the Divines themselves were not allowed such a concept to begin with.

I look forward to further comments...


----------



## Ivan (Feb 1, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Hey Ivan!
> 
> Sent you a pm...



Got it, Michael! Will response soon.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 1, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Ritchie. I'm sure most everyone will agree with you that God's word alone is infallible while our confessions are not.
> 
> However, we on this board _are_ of the confessing church and by the grace of God we express our faith this way in obedience of his word. Considering the Westminster Standards, it was not enough for the Divines to complete a document of theological themes to agree with. They were instructed to hold all content captive to scripture. How can we claim to share their subscription if our scripture be different then theirs?
> 
> ...



They would have held the doxology to be an innovation and heretical Church tradition and attacked it mercilessly then scholastically defended the new reading - we would then have Treatise's expounding upon that terrible Romish heresy of imputing unto our Lord words He never said concerning the Kingdom of God.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 1, 2008)

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Ezekiel16 said:
> ...



1) That is why the question still remains largely unanswered and there is so much disagreement.

2) CTers (and remember I don't describe myself as one) could argue that the church adopted the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer into its liturgy; the conclusion would thus still be considered profitable (as its Scripturally accurate) even if not original.


----------



## Michael (Feb 2, 2008)

> They would have held the doxology to be an innovation and heretical Church tradition and attacked it mercilessly then scholastically defended the new reading - we would then have Treatise's expounding upon that terrible Romish heresy of imputing unto our Lord words He never said concerning the Kingdom of God.



Hi Thomas,

Can you please explain?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 2, 2008)

The modern camp holds that the doxology is an addition from Church liturgy. If the Reformers would have held to this concept then they would have attacked the doxology like they did all other traditions. Elder Rafalsky has two good posts on the Lord's Prayer here.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 2, 2008)

They would not necessarily have attacked the conclusion, Thomas. Giving all glory to God, and ascribing all power to God, and ascribing the kingdom to God is a perfect summary of many biblical doctrines, and many Scriptures. The Reformers could tell the difference between mere words, and the ideas behind the words. There is nothing in any of those three ideas expressed that has not been expressed many times in many other parts of Scripture. I still speak of the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer, even though I don't think it was originaly part of Matthew's Gospel. When I preached through it, I mentioned this fact, and you know what? Absolutely no one came up to me afterwards, and said, "My faith in the inerrancy of Scripture was profoundly shaken because you don't think that this is part of Scripture." So, even though I don't believe the words were part of the original Lord's Prayer, I can still affirm the confession's exposition of what is certainly biblical doctrine. This is so because what can by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture is just as binding on us as Scripture itself. Of course, it has to be good and necessary consequence. And we are often wrong. And nothing man can say is as binding as Scripture itself. All these qualifications are important. But I have no hesitation in saying that the traditional conclusion to the Lord's Prayer is a completely biblical statement.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 2, 2008)

Lane

How many manuscripts actually have the conclusion as it is stated in the TR?

I have read that there are many texts which have _a conclusion_, but it is not always exactly the same as _the conclusion_ in the TR.


----------



## tellville (Feb 2, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Some weeks ago I posted a Question for the confessional KJVer. Thank you to Mr. Winzer and Mr. Rafalsky in particular as well as everyone else who contributed.
> 
> This evening I would like to ask something of confessing believers who are partial to the Critical or Ecclectic Text. How can one _fully_ subscribe to Westminster Standards, among other confessions, when the Received Text (and more specifically the KJV) is woven so deeply within its instruction? Not only rampant in the footnotes validating our confession but also in the very questions of our catechisms (see WSC 107, WLC 196).



1. Just because one holds to the CT does not mean one holds to it at every single decision. 

2. I agree with you: I can not _fully_ subscribe to every jot and tittle of my respective confession because in some cases the scripture passage cited might not exist in the CT. However, I've seen polls (I did one myself) where there are various people who disagree with 1 or 2 points of their respective confessions, or at least have questions concerning them. I do not see this as a negative position. Blindly following the confession I think would be frowned upon by the Reformers. 

3. If one is basing their choice of text based on what the confession uses I think they make this decision on horrible grounds. The choice of text should not be based on what X Reformer used but rather on the textual arguments for that text. Maybe X Reformer had excellent reasons for using said text, but then base your decision on X's reasons, not the fact that X used it. 

Good question btw!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 3, 2008)

Hello Daniel,

You asked, 



> How many manuscripts actually have the conclusion as it is stated in the TR?
> 
> I have read that there are many texts which have a conclusion, but it is not always exactly the same as the conclusion in the TR.




Your question should be adequately answered in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defending-lord-s-prayer-1-a-27974/


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 3, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Lane
> 
> How many manuscripts actually have the conclusion as it is stated in the TR?
> 
> I have read that there are many texts which have _a conclusion_, but it is not always exactly the same as _the conclusion_ in the TR.



The manuscripts that have the ending as it is found in the TR are as follows: L W Theta 0233, f13 33 Majority f g1 q syriac bohairic (some).

The manuscripts that have the basic form of the ending, but lack certain words are the Sahidic and Fayyumic, the Didache, Curetonian Syriac, Old Latin k. Some Greek manuscripts have "for ever and ever" and most have "Amen." Several late manuscripts (157 225 418) add a Trinitarian ascription. 

The portion in question is lacking in the Alexandrian manuscripts, the Western manuscripts, as well as some of the early Patristic commentaries (such as Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian). This information is all from Metzger's textual commentary on the passage.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 3, 2008)

Answer: The issue of the CT versus the TT did not exist when the confession was written. The confession simply does not address the issue. To read the textual criticism controversy into the confession is to read in a position that is simply not being presented either way. They used the TT in their wording and references because that is what they had (the supporting manuscripts for the CT were virtually unknown to the Westminster divines).

Finally, in chapter 1 on the Holy Scriptures, while the confession mentions the original Greek and Hebrew, it makes no distinction or clarification between the different text types or alternate readings. 

The argument that the CT is not confessional is an artificial, forced argument.




Ezekiel16 said:


> Some weeks ago I posted a Question for the confessional KJVer. Thank you to Mr. Winzer and Mr. Rafalsky in particular as well as everyone else who contributed.
> 
> This evening I would like to ask something of confessing believers who are partial to the Critical or Ecclectic Text. How can one _fully_ subscribe to Westminster Standards, among other confessions, when the Received Text (and more specifically the KJV) is woven so deeply within its instruction? Not only rampant in the footnotes validating our confession but also in the very questions of our catechisms (see WSC 107, WLC 196).


----------



## MW (Feb 3, 2008)

prespastor said:


> Answer: The issue of the CT versus the TT did not exist when the confession was written. The confession simply does not address the issue. To read the textual criticism controversy into the confession is to read in a position that is simply not being presented either way. They used the TT in their wording and references because that is what they had (the supporting manuscripts for the CT were virtually unknown to the Westminster divines).



I suppose the same might be said for higher criticism. But conservative Presbyterianism of the late 19th century saw that while the Confession does not specifically address the subject, there is certainly a higher critical viewpoint which is inconsistent with the Confession's doctrine of Scripture. The same applies to lower criticism. One cannot maintain the divines only had access to an inferior medieval text and also uphold the original intent of WCF 1:8. That section at the very least reflects the divines' belief that they possessed the "authentical" Word of God as a result of God's singular care and providence in preserving His Word.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 3, 2008)

Comparing this to higher criticism is like comparing an apple to an orange.

I suppose the only real, objective way to handle this question would be for one's denomination to make a ruling on this as individuals could argue back and forth on an issue like this until the cows come home. 





armourbearer said:


> One cannot maintain the divines only had access to an inferior medieval text and also uphold the original intent of WCF 1:8. That section at the very least reflects the divines' belief that they possessed the "authentical" Word of God as a result of God's singular care and providence in preserving His Word.


----------



## MW (Feb 3, 2008)

prespastor said:


> Comparing this to higher criticism is like comparing an apple to an orange.



Separating the issues of text and canon is a distinctively "eclectic" and/or "Alexandrine priority" approach to the subject. It's not comparing apples and oranges from a traditional text perspective, because traditional text proponents recognise the oracles of God with respect both to canon and text are committed to the church.




prespastor said:


> I suppose the only real, objective way to handle this question would be for one's denomination to make a ruling on this as individuals could argue back and forth on an issue like this until the cows come home.



Which brings us back to the question for which the OP of this thread was seeking an answer.


----------



## KMK (Feb 4, 2008)

tellville said:


> 3. If one is basing their choice of text based on what the confession uses I think they make this decision on horrible grounds. The choice of text should not be based on what X Reformer used but rather on the textual arguments for that text. Maybe X Reformer had excellent reasons for using said text, but then base your decision on X's reasons, not the fact that X used it.



How does one base their decision on the 'textual arguments'? Whose arguments are to be used for the basis of the decision? What if there are conflicting arguments? How does one pick and choose whose arguments are correct? How does one learn about the arguments?

If one bases his decision on the argument of Metzger, for example, how is that any different than basing his decision on the confession? Either way the man is basing his decision on someone else's argument.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 4, 2008)

Robert,

When you say (in your post 17),



> The issue of the CT versus the TT did not exist when the confession was written. The confession simply does not address the issue. To read the textual criticism controversy into the confession is to read in a position that is simply not being presented either way. They used the TT in their wording and references because that is what they had (the supporting manuscripts for the CT were virtually unknown to the Westminster divines)



this is not accurate.

_Vaticanus_ (B) has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Erasmus knew of it, as one of his friends in Rome, Professor Paulus Bombasius, often sent him readings from it – _many_ readings – and he rejected them as departures from the common text accepted by the people of God, and from the Greek texts he came into contact with during his travels and searching out of manuscripts. Nor will it do to say he did not know the people of God, belonging to Rome as he did, because he fellowshipped with Protestants (and died among them), and was intimately acquainted with some of their teachers. The Reformers *did* know of the Vaticanus readings.

In John Owen’s day, Brian Walton published his _Biblia Polyglotta_, which was intended to attack the Reformation’s text – the _Textus Receptus_ – and it exhibited the variants, including Vaticanus’, in this (ultimately Romish) attempt to subvert the Reformation.

Ted Letis has done remarkable research (well documented) in this area, in his book, _The Majority Text_, and I highlight the essay, “John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton.” Also David Cloud, in his, _Myths About the Modern Versions_, the chapter on Erasmus and the one following, “Myth Number Two: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence”, gives abundant documentation that the variant readings of B were well known at that time.

Although it was not called such, the CT was indeed known to the Reformers _*and*_ the Westminster divines in its guise at that time as the weapon of the Romish counter-reformation bringing in the variants in an attempt to undermine the Reformation text – the Traditional Text (TT). Turretin, Owen, the Westminster divines all knew of the “CT” (though not called that then) and fought against it in their writings and confessions.


----------

