# WCF - "Kept pure in all ages"



## nwink (Jan 3, 2011)

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical..."

I have always understood the phrase "by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages" to mean that the Westminster theologians believed that God had preserved His Word through time as would be found in the Textus Receptus, the collection of the Greek Text the Church has always used. Meaning, that God has so preserved His word such that what was immediately inspired by God...has been kept pure and entire to this day so that we can trust the Word we have to truly be God's Word.

Recently, I heard a seminary professor (who has spent much study on the Westminster Assembly) say that this was not the intention of the theologians. He said this phrase instead referred to them _only _ saying that God had preserved His word _in Greek & Hebrew_...combating the Roman Catholics who believed God had given His word in the Vulgate.

*Please note: I'm not starting this thread to be a debate on the Textus Receptus issue so much as to know the intention of the Westminster divines.*


----------



## TimV (Jan 3, 2011)

Whatever the true view of the TR is, we know that theologians living at the time very often preferred readings not found in the TR or any TR variants. On another thread there were listed people like Calvin, Beza, Turretin etc.. who all (in places) preferred using non TR phrases. So they couldn't have meant the TR.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 3, 2011)

Here is an informative article on this issue in an older Presbyterian journal (see esp. pp.643ff).


----------



## nwink (Jan 3, 2011)

Any other thoughts?


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2011)

nwink said:


> Any other thoughts?


 
Yes; I would be wary of an ahistorical reading of the Confession. While it is true that the divines were reflecting the theological controversy which concerned the "fountains" and were counteracting Romanist claims concerning the Vulgate, it is obvious that they proceeded on the basis that they could make their final appeal to the immediately inspired word of God as it had been preserved for them. What they considered to be the preserved word of God is accessible in the proofs of Scripture to which they appealed in support of their doctrinal propositions. A study of those proofs will demonstrate very clearly that the divines appealed to a text of Scripture which consistently reflects what has come to be known as the "textus receptus" in contradistinction to "neutral," "eclectic" and "majority" texts.


----------



## sastark (Jan 3, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> nwink said:
> 
> 
> > Any other thoughts?
> ...


 
Yes, what Rev. Winzer said. The burden of proof is on the professor who claims otherwise. May I ask who this was and if this opinion is in print?


----------



## nwink (Jan 4, 2011)

Thank you very much for your thoughts!



sastark said:


> Yes, what Rev. Winzer said. The burden of proof is on the professor who claims otherwise. May I ask who this was and if this opinion is in print?


 Seth, the professor I was referring to in my OP was Dr Wayne Spear from RPTS.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 4, 2011)

Hi Nathan:

The statement that Dr. Spear makes is accurate up to a point. Since God inspired the original Greek and Hebrew it would follow that God would also preserve the original Greek and Hebrew through all of history in the many copies made. Translations from the Greek and Hebrew - such as the Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Italic, and Arabic, are not to be considered inspired nor inerrant. Only the Greek and Hebrew copies contain the autographs.

The article by B.B. Warfield cited by Phil D. is also true up to a point. Warfield places Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort within the scope of those who have preserved the original autographs, but this is patently not the case. Tischendorf and the others created a *new and different* Greek text that included errors of fact and contradiction in it. This text is the text used by modern scholars, and is commonly called the Critical Text. There are errors in the Textus Receptus, but these errors are matters of transmission, and can be easily weeded out by comparing the extant Manuscripts, "What mistake is in one copy is corrected in another."

The question you might want to ask Dr. Spear, "If God preserved the Greek text through all of Church History, then why do we have a completely different text emerging out of the 19th Century? Did the Church have a less than perfect text prior to Tischendorf?"

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 4, 2011)

MOD WARNING: Per the OP and the particular forum this thread has been placed in, this is NOT a debate over the merits of the TR and the Critical Texts. I realize this may be difficult to refrain from given the issues, but please limit the discussion to the intention of the Westminster divines, per the OP.


----------



## sastark (Jan 4, 2011)

Nathan, I checked Letham on this issue, and it seems he takes a similar view to that of Dr. Spear (See Rober Letham, _The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context_, 144-146). It's possible that Dr. Spear is simply drawing from Letham on this point.

However, I would point out that Letham's analysis is flawed. He quotes Warfield saying "our Tischendorfs and Tregelleses, and Westcotts and Horts...are all parts of God's singular care and providence in preserving His inspired Word pure." Letham then goes on to write: "Such a belief mandates textual criticism, which at that time was in its relative infancy, but which now has yielded a text that gets us as close to the original as it may be possible to come, and one more complete than possessed by anyone in the first century" (Letham, 146). This assertion by Letham is in direct contradiction to what the divines wrote. The divines did not advocate the creation of a text which is "as close to the original as it may be possible to come," but believed that God's Word has been "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages." We do not need to reconstruct the original text, because it has never been lost. That was the view of the Divines, as clearly expressed in WCF 1.8.


----------



## TimV (Jan 4, 2011)

sastark said:


> We do not need to reconstruct the original text, because it has never been lost. That was the view of the Divines, as clearly expressed in WCF 1.8.



That, and in addition relating to the OP their view was not that the original NT was contained in the TR or even in any of the TR variants. So I don't see how that leaves out textual critics. A whole long list of those scholars did what W&H etc.. did and left the TR at times.


----------



## sastark (Jan 4, 2011)

TimV said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > We do not need to reconstruct the original text, because it has never been lost. That was the view of the Divines, as clearly expressed in WCF 1.8.
> ...


 
"Leaving the TR at times" is patently different than declaring the whole-scale corruption of the text which now must be ever-reconstructed based on the latest findings of the textual critics and biblical archaeologists. The Westminster Assembly declared that God's Word has never been lost, but been kept pure in all ages. W&H, following the German higher critics, stated exactly the opposite: the originals have been lost, so we must do our best to reconstruct them based on which ever texts are the oldest.

I also realize it is very hard to distinguish between a TR vs. CT discussion and a WCF vs. W&H/Warfield discussion. I am doing my best to limit my comments to what the divines wrote and believed, as opposed to what some later men (such as Dr. Spear, Dr. Letham, Warfield) claim the divines intended.


----------



## TimV (Jan 4, 2011)

> "Leaving the TR at times" is patently different than declaring the whole-scale corruption of the text which now must be ever-reconstructed based on the latest findings of the textual critics and biblical archaeologists.



It's a difference of degree, not principle. They either felt the Word was preserved in the TR and it's variants or they didn't. And they didn't, except for a few like perhaps Owen.



> The Westminster Assembly declared that God's Word has never been lost, but been kept pure in all ages. W&H, following the German higher critics, stated exactly the opposite: the originals have been lost, so we must do our best to reconstruct them based on which ever texts are the oldest.



They haven't been lost, but the WA never said they knew where they were. And as an aside, would you every feel comfortable proclaiming, like the Fundy KJVOnlies that you have an absolutely perfect copy of God's Word in your hand?



> I also realize it is very hard to distinguish between a TR vs. CT discussion and a WCF vs. W&H/Warfield discussion. I am doing my best to limit my comments to what the divines wrote and believed, as opposed to what some later men (such as Dr. Spear, Dr. Letham, Warfield) claim the divines intended.



Then what did the divines believe? Where exactly did they say the Word of God was?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 4, 2011)

A comment on showing intent; primary evidence would be Assembly documents, and minutes of debates; lacking that, then what individual divines wrote that may give clues, and lacking that, what contemporaries wrote that may give light to what they intended.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 4, 2011)

Hi:

If I remember correctly, the Westminster Divines were following William Whittaker's book, _Disputations on Holy Scripture_.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## sastark (Jan 4, 2011)

TimV said:


> > "Leaving the TR at times" is patently different than declaring the whole-scale corruption of the text which now must be ever-reconstructed based on the latest findings of the textual critics and biblical archaeologists.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a difference of degree, not principle. They either felt the Word was preserved in the TR and it's variants or they didn't. And they didn't, except for a few like perhaps Owen.



It is in fact a difference of principle. Modern textual criticism says God's Word has NOT been kept pure in all ages. The WCF says the opposite.



> > The Westminster Assembly declared that God's Word has never been lost, but been kept pure in all ages. W&H, following the German higher critics, stated exactly the opposite: the originals have been lost, so we must do our best to reconstruct them based on which ever texts are the oldest.
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't been lost, but the WA never said they knew where they were. And as an aside, would you every feel comfortable proclaiming, like the Fundy KJVOnlies that you have an absolutely perfect copy of God's Word in your hand?



Lumping my opinion in with "the Fundy KJVOnlies" is an unnecessary ad hominem. I have never claimed that an English translation is an absolute perfect copy of God's Word, and the Confession makes it clear that the Greek and Hebrew texts are to be appealed to as inspired and preserved. The question is, what has been preserved? The textual critics of the 19th century explicitly denied that God's Word had been kept pure in all ages. To say "The texts have not been kept pure" is in direct contradiction to the proposition "the text has been kept pure." They cannot both be true.



> > I also realize it is very hard to distinguish between a TR vs. CT discussion and a WCF vs. W&H/Warfield discussion. I am doing my best to limit my comments to what the divines wrote and believed, as opposed to what some later men (such as Dr. Spear, Dr. Letham, Warfield) claim the divines intended.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what did the divines believe? Where exactly did they say the Word of God was?



See WCF chapter 1.


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2011)

Concerning the divines' text critical methodology, none other than Warfield himself acknowledged, "had their lot been cast in our day it is possible that many of them might have been of the school of Scrivener and Burgon, rather than of that of Westcott and Hort."


----------



## TimV (Jan 4, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Concerning the divines' text critical methodology, none other than Warfield himself acknowledged, "had their lot been cast in our day it is possible that many of them might have been of the school of Scrivener and Burgon, rather than of that of Westcott and Hort."



You've read about 10 times as much as I have about the subject, but from what I've read that seems right. Which naturally (this is directed at the author of the thread) means there would never have been a willingness to formulate 1.8 to mean (as far as the NT) using only the TR and it's variants.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Did the Church have a less than perfect text prior to Tischendorf?"



No, but the Divines didn't claim to know exactly where it was, so we're sitting with the exact same situation now.


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2011)

TimV said:


> Which naturally (this is directed at the author of the thread) means there would never have been a willingness to formulate 1.8 to mean (as far as the NT) using only the TR and it's variants.


 
I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion unless you mean something unusual by "the TR and its variants." Burgon and Scrivener were the 19th century defenders of the TR and its variants. If the divines would have been of their school it means that they would have understood 1.8 according to the conservative methodology which carefully defined "preservation" and limited variants.


----------



## TimV (Jan 4, 2011)

> I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion unless you mean something unusual by "the TR and its variants." Burgon and Scrivener were the 19th century defenders of the TR and its variants. If the divines would have been of their school it means that they would have understood 1.8 according to the conservative methodology which carefully defined "preservation" and limited variants.



Yes, I realize that. But the quote you provided said "possibly many". And I can see that with Owen's writings in particular. Warfield was just being fair. He didn't even come close to saying the majority, let alone all of them. There would have been obvious disagreements, and the formulation was broad enough to accommodate everyone.

You yourself pointed out that even a small minority of Divines, like Twisse, Vines and the other guy I can't remember ( Gatager?) were enough to change "whole" to "perfect"


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2011)

TimV said:


> You yourself pointed out that even a small minority of Divines, like Twisse, Vines and the other guy I can't remember ( Gatager?) were enough to change "whole" to "perfect"


 
That obviosuly has reference to a past discussion but I can't recollect the context, so I can't say what bearing it has on this discussion.


----------



## TimV (Jan 4, 2011)

> That obviosuly has reference to a past discussion but I can't recollect the context, so I can't say what bearing it has on this discussion.



That with just three people who denied Christ's active obedience is Salvic a compromise in language was necessary.

Even being generous with Warfield's quote, you don't get close to everyone, if put into our context, becoming a Burgon and Scrivener. No way. So if the intent of 1.8 meant TR and variants only, there would have been disagreements.


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2011)

TimV said:


> > That obviosuly has reference to a past discussion but I can't recollect the context, so I can't say what bearing it has on this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> That with just three people who denied Christ's active obedience is Salvic a compromise in language was necessary.



I think you've misunderstood what I was saying in that context, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion at any rate. Those were specific statements made by divines in relation to a point of controversy which was being discussed at that time. In this case we are seeking to know how their overall position would have related to a controversy which arose later in time. My point is not that Warfield is seeking to give an accurate or studied portrayal of the view of the divines. The point is that he, as an advocate for a different theory, recognised that most of them probably would have espoused a position which was opposite to his own. That testimony carries weight because Warfield regularly sought to show how his own theological position ran in the current of reformed scholasticism.


----------



## TimV (Jan 4, 2011)

Did he say in another place "most" of them?


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2011)

TimV said:


> Did he say in another place "most" of them?


 
Correction -- "many of them." In the context of a statement relative to the Assembly as a whole it amounts to quite a broad concession.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 4, 2011)

Just another source of information on this topic. Douglas Moo seems to have some good historical context insights in his book Biblical Authority and Conservative Perspectives.


----------



## ServantsHeart (Jan 15, 2011)

I have a question about the role of the Holy Spirit when it comes to questions about how we can have absolute confidence in the WORD of God when we have not the time or in some cases the ability to pursue a level of Scholorship you my dear Pastors & Studied Brethren have. I love GODS WORD I believe it is GODS WORD from Genesis to Revelation, I believe GOD has kept it pure and free from demonic & human corruption down through the ages. I bless GOD for those whom He has raised up in every age to rightly divide or handle His Holy WORD. We have a vast depository of labourers who we can consult as regards the languages and commentaries on the WORD of GOD. Objective study is first for sure in our efforts to understand it and proper methods must be employed. So my question is how important is looking in prayer and meditation in dependence upon the Helper/Holy Spirit? If we know anything about the things of GOD it most surely is not the Natural Man/Unregenerate Man that is enabled to more accurately discern the things of GOD. Can we trust secular Professors and Experts on the ancient languages with regards to the scriptures. How much can we or dare we look to the subjective in connection with the objective means of discerning the Truth as it in Jesus the WORD made flesh? I always pray for illumination and understaning the Holy Spirit helping me,I compare Scripture with Scripture and use word studies as best as I am able. I use good Commentaries,look to my Pastors and Brethren like yourselves more studied than I. So what role if any does a subjective dependance upon the Holy Spirit play? Sorry if this is not clear but I struggle with being more concise at times.


----------

