# Presbyteries and Standardization of Bible Version



## Prufrock

(Please note the forum this is in, and respond accordingly: i.e., please do not introduce debates on the merits of differing texts within this thread. This is strictly about the church's governing authority. Also, upon further reflection, this may have to be for Presbyterians only, as I doubt most of these questions apply to Baptists.)

1. Is it within the bounds of presbyterial authority to set a standard translation of scripture for use in the churches? Not necessarily in a dogmatic, "This is forever and always the best and only translation," but simply for the purposes of mutable standardization. (Do not confuse this with Q.4 below)

2. If not, is at least within presbyterial authority to bring a church up on disciplinary charges for using a _bad_ translation? A Gender-neutral translation? The Message? The New World Translation? Scripture, indeed, does not dictate a specific version, but can the church enforce a certain standard of purity of worship by only allowing approved (or, at least, disallowing disapproved) translations in worship?

3. *Poster has edited this question out to simplify matters*

4. Finally, if you answered "Yes" to the above (That such things are, at least, within the authority of synods, presbyteries or sessions), do you think any of the above to be prudent or beneficial courses of action?

*Edit to Add*;
5. Pastors and Elders, if your presbytery decided to standardize a translation which you had no inherent problem with (such as the AV, NASB or ASV), but you personally preferred the ESV in your services -- would you appeal this? Or would you go along with it?


----------



## Skyler

While I think this is going to come down to a battle of opinions, mine is that there isn't really a reason to give that authority to the church. While it may be "nice" to have a standard version that everyone uses in service, I don't see that it's necessary enough to warrant forbidding any other version.

As far as forbidding only certain versions, well, I think I could sympathize with that. I wouldn't want someone in our pulpit reading from the Living Bible.

But as far as family worship is concerned, there should be no reason(I think) why the church should crack down on a man for preferring a different version. It might be wise to advise him not to use one of the more liberal translations--the Message or the Living Bible--but I don't think the church has the responsibility to go any farther than a caution on that subject.

Just my


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

These are good questions. I am not sure that standardization of a particular translation or version is a part of the jurisdiction of presbytery unless a pastor using a bad translation is disseminating error. I would hope that the congregation of that particular church would bring to the pastor's attention such an obvious error (or the large potential for error). 

Regarding question 3, I would say that most people who are serious about family worship do not use the Message or a similar version. Family worship has fallen by the wayside; very few families, proportionally, practice it because of the time and effort involved. Therefore, those who are willing to make the time for family worship, I believe, will not use a loose paraphrase like the Message.


----------



## he beholds

1) I think the session of each local church can choose which Bible to have as Pew Bibles. But I don't think they should tell people what to bring. 

2) I would think some kind of debate and proof would be necessary to deem a Bible absolutely un-usable. What if there is a church with very few English speakers? (I still personally would never suggest the Message nor would I attend a church that uses that "version," but I don't know for certain that it is absolutely harmful to do so. (I've honestly never even seen The Message, so it may in fact be indelible blasphemy, if so, I guess I would change this answer to say that no church should use that book in the worship service, but perhaps in a language barrier group or something it would be acceptable on Thursday nights/not Sunday.)

3) I don't think the church should discipline a man for reading a version that is still Christian in the home. I think if he were using the Jehovah's Witness version, yes. 
Even if he was using the Catholic Bible, with Apocrypha, but wasn't trying to worship through the Apocrypha, I would think that is OK. It is surely OK to own those books. 

4) I said no a few times, so I can't answer!


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

he beholds said:


> 2) I would think some kind of debate and proof would be necessary to deem a Bible absolutely un-usable. What if there is a church with very few English speakers? (I still personally would never suggest the Method nor would I attend a church that uses that "version," but I don't know for certain that it is absolutely harmful to do so. (I've honestly never even seen The Message, so it may in fact be indelible blasphemy, if so, I guess I would change this answer to say that no church should use that book in the worship service, but perhaps in a language barrier group or something it would be acceptable on Thursday nights/not Sunday.)


 
The Message is very common at a mega-church I used to attend (in fact, I still go there on Wednesday nights because they have a Greek class there). It's not blasphemous or heretical. It's a loose paraphrase that tries to put the language of the Bible into everyday speech. It is annoying, however, because it uses so many metaphors and allusions to try to creatively restate the text.


----------



## chbrooking

Great questions. 

As to #1, The OPC BCO says,

III. 3. All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship" (Confession of Faith, XX, 2).

I think it would be very difficult to show that standardizing a translation can be "founded on the word of God."

#s 2, 3, and 4 are rendered moot by denial of #1.

I realize that this is only the OPC's BCO, but I thought it might help. I doubt other Presb. BCO's are much different in this regard, but have not consulted them.


----------



## Prufrock

Does this statement from the Directory for Publick Worship have any bearing on the matter?


> All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, *out of the best allowed translation*, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.



Clark,

Thank you for bringing in your (and my!) denomination's BCO. I was hoping someone would bring theirs up soon. I am admittedly very ignorant of OPC history and order. I'm wondering, however, if #2 especially is necessarily contrary to the BCO section you published. Could the scriptural case be made that the ministers ought to read the pure word of God in their churches, and therefore certain translations are to be commended and approved, or disapproved?

And everyone else: thank you for your responses so far.


----------



## MAV

Hi this article deals with the issue you are discussing

The Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible


----------



## sastark

It seems to me, that the translation used in the pulpit falls under the purview of the one filling the pulpit. In other words, the Minister of the Gospel should be using the translation he finds to be the best/most accurate. In that sense, I don't see how the presbytery could be dictating what version to use in the local congregation. 

Further, my pastor often translates whatever passage he will be expounding directly from the Greek or Hebrew. His translation may not match word-for-word with any other English translation. Would a standardization like what you mention prevent him from doing this? If so, I think it would do great damage to exegesis in general.

Just my


----------



## Prufrock

sastark said:


> Would a standardization like what you mention prevent him from doing this?



Not at all. That is a part of opening and explaining a passage.


----------



## Archlute

Prufrock said:


> Does this statement from the Directory for Publick Worship have any bearing on the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, *out of the best allowed translation*, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.
Click to expand...


In as much as the DPW has binding authority on American Presbyterian churches...

(And I say that as one being truly being appreciative of Westminster's DPW)


----------



## Prufrock

MAV said:


> Hi this article deals with the issue you are discussing
> 
> The Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible



I have never heard of the Free Pres. Church of Scotland. Thanks for the information.


----------



## TimV

People are leery about passing laws that are not enforceable. It's not just that the whole situation the question is directed out isn't going to happen for other reasons, but also precedent. Which Bible are foreigners from 100 different countries who are members of denominations like the PCA, OPC etc.. authorised to use?

Any push towards adopting those sorts of laws would be rightly seen as disrupting the peace of the church and never get anywhere.


----------



## Knoxienne

TimV said:


> People are leery about passing laws that are not enforceable. It's not just that the whole situation the question is directed out isn't going to happen for other reasons, but also precedent. Which Bible are foreigners from 100 different countries who are members of denominations like the PCA, OPC etc.. authorised to use?
> 
> Any push towards adopting those sorts of laws would be rightly seen as disrupting the peace of the church and never get anywhere.



That's a really good point.


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> People are leery about passing laws that are not enforceable. It's not just that the whole situation the question is directed out isn't going to happen for other reasons, but also precedent. Which Bible are foreigners from 100 different countries who are members of denominations like the PCA, OPC etc.. authorised to use?
> 
> Any push towards adopting those sorts of laws would be rightly seen as disrupting the peace of the church and never get anywhere.



Oops -- Sorry, Tim; I meant to quote, not thank (although I suppose one needn't apologize for a thanks!)

Thank you for chiming in. I think, however, that perhaps you read too much into the question. The question is based upon the use of a common version of scripture in public worship within an individual region. I would imagine that someone in an English speaking church in Michigan would be able to understand the Bible being read from at church, if it is in English.

*Edit*
I can't imagine _anyone_ with a native ______ (insert foreign language here) speaker in their congregation who does not have a good grasp of English telling them that they can't read a Bible in their own language at home! But this also has no bearing on what English version is used in the church.


----------



## a mere housewife

It seems that perhaps a case could be made for the church to recognise the best translation in a particular language, but that is a weighty thing to decide and it would be sad and confusing if orthodox presbyteries chose differently. Perhaps the church is too fragmented to make that kind of decision -- and the issue hasn't so far been clear enough to be capable of the sort of cross-denominational unity that it seems it would surely be fitting to have? 

(I think the topic is too complicated for me to understand much, but if an individual presbytery did do something like that, it doesn't seem that the church has any additional authority to discipline people for reading/using another bible version: it would be rather ridiculous if they did because the disciplined member could simply go to another confessionally orthodox church that would legitimately, in accordance with their own orthodox confession, receive them.)


----------



## Prufrock

To fix any ambiguity concerning #3 -- my question concerns _only_ a persistent use by a man leading his family in worship of a specific translation which the session/presbytery has specifically deemed "unfit," but which the man continues to hold forth to his family as The Word of God.

The question has nothing to do with disciplining someone simply because they are not using the translation used by the church.

-----Added 4/22/2009 at 05:05:34 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> It seems that perhaps a case could be made for the church to recognise the best translation in a particular language, but that is a weighty thing to decide and *it would be sad and confusing if orthodox presbyteries chose differently*. Perhaps the church is too fragmented to make that kind of decision -- and the issue hasn't so far been clear enough to be capable of the sort of cross-denominational unity that it seems it would surely be fitting to have?



I don't know if I _necessarily_ agree with the bolded portion; although I would certainly be in favor of more commonality in translation among churches within a region, nevertheless, so long as the different denominational presbyteries within a given area are not calling each other out, saying, "Your translation isn't good!" I wouldn't see too much of a problem _in that respect_ from the OPC churches in Michigan using one, and the PCAs another. A church can agree upon one without therein condemning another. I could see a parallel between which confession a church uses: my church uses the WCF; the one down the road uses the Belgic -- we've agreed upon different confessional standards to represent the same faith, but affirm each other's confessions as legitimate.

At the very least, if the OPCs in Michigan decided on a standard, and the PCAs another standard, there would probably be more commonality than there was before.

Your point, however, seems an excellent one: it would have to be done in such a way that it would not cause confusion as to one presbytery's stance regarding another, thereby disrupting unity and peace.


----------



## a mere housewife

I think on the score of commonality it would surely be an improvement (and my own denomination does this): but considering the really weighty issues involved when the church receives something as the best translation of the Word of God, it would be very sad for orthodox churches to recognize different translations. In that case, it would be better to make sure the reasons are understood to be practical rather than an authoritative reception. 

Re: the very helpful clarificaiton: unless orthodox presbyteries agree in deeming which versions are 'unfit' couldn't a man disciplined in one church still conceivably and legitimately be received into membership at another?


----------



## Prufrock

a mere housewife said:


> I think on the score of commonality it would surely be an improvement (and my own denomination does this): but considering the really weighty issues involved when the church receives something as the best translation of the Word of God, it would be very sad for orthodox churches to recognize different translations. *In that case, it would be better to make sure the reasons are understood to be practical rather than an authoritative reception.*



This is a good distinction.



a mere housewife said:


> Re: the very helpful clarificaiton: unless orthodox presbyteries agree in deeming which versions are 'unfit' couldn't a man disciplined in one church still conceivably and legitimately be received into membership at another?



This sounds like a good concern, and important. At the same time, however, I'm not sure it differs too much in practice from any other denominational distinctives present in different churches: whether EP, headcoverings, etc. Perhaps it does, however, since this concerns something in one's own home.


----------



## chbrooking

Matthew, 
I was disturbed by the following quote out of the article you cited. (Sorry I don't know how to do the fancy quoting of other cites as you guys do):

"Is the Church truly guarding this precious deposit faithfully if it does not separate the precious from the vile by warning against translations that corrupt the Word of God and commending the most accurate? If a church allows a variety of translations to be used, it is devaluing the gold standard of the Word."

This seems to imply that it only commends one (the "most" accurate). Further, I think we should remember that no translation is perfect, and that a comparison of good translations is very helpful -- if only to point up passages for the laymen to seek answers for from his pastor.

I think if the original post were rephrased so that it was asking if it fell within the purview of a presbytery to ban, for lack of a better word, an heretical translation, I would say, yes. After all, the ministerial and declarative authority of that judicatory would then be grounding their ruling in the word of God -- using the original languages.

No translation is right 100% of the time. At least I've never seen it -- but then maybe I'm wrong in my evaluation of their error. I hope you see the dilemma. Sure, there are better translations than others. But if your argument is based on depriving someone of the treasure of the scriptures, I think you do them a disservice by taking away tools of study.

Could they say that you can't preach from the NWT? Sure. Absolutely. Could they say that you can't use it for family worship? I think I'd have to say yes. But that's an entirely different thing than saying you must use the ESV, because it's the best. There are lots of things that go into making a translation good. Text criticism, hermeneutics, readability, etc.

I had the privilege of teaching the Bible in NC public schools. I was in a community that was KJ only. The problem was that the community also had literacy problems. Basically, the parents deprived their kids of the Bible, because the kids had a hard enough time with modern English. NONE of them knew what it meant to "wist".

Disapprove bad translations -- and I mean heretical ones? Yes. And so, in that sense authorize, okay. But I think it would be a mistake and would go beyond their rightful authority to approve only one.


----------



## DonP

Prufrock said:


> 1. Is it within the bounds of presbyterial authority to set a standard translation of scripture for use in the churches? Not necessarily in a dogmatic, "This is forever and always the best and only translation," but simply for the purposes of mutable standardization. (Do not confuse this with Q.4 below)
> 
> 
> Peacemaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> I will insert my thoughts in bolded quotes
> 1. Define "Use". The presbytery can if it chose to vote this into the BOCO to require it of ministers, I suppose as far as what to preach out of and use in the pews. But what about study with? Would they say he could not use other versions, or Greek or Hebrew? Could he no quote scripture from the Greek text then?
> What about other languages? Spanish speaking people would not be allowed to use their own Bible in the pew???
> I don't see how it would work or be enforced.
> As for requiring it of members, this would seem inconsistent with the Pres being able to require ministers to hold the the Confession, which they don't, but not require it of the members. To require a version for personal use seems unnecessary and unimportant and unenforceable.
> 
> Preferable would be a recommendation for a few best versions or a recommendation to avoid a list of perversions.
> 
> If this was done at a Pres level instead of a GA level, would you not let a minister preach out of his different version Bible approved by his presbytery?
> Hey we can't even enforce only letting Reformed Pres ministers preach in our pulpits. We have a Baptist man who is not an elder preach in ours occasionally.
> 
> So this would only be considerable at the GA level not presbyterial, if at all.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If not, is at least within presbyterial authority to bring a church up on disciplinary charges for using a _bad_ translation? A Gender-neutral translation? The Message? The New World Translation? Scripture, indeed, does not dictate a specific version, but can the church enforce a certain standard of purity of worship by only allowing approved (or, at least, disallowing disapproved) translations in worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If a list of forbidden versions were made and a session persisted in using one of those, sure discipline them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. If yes to #1 and #2, can this rightly in any manner pertain to a man's use of scripture in leading his family in worship? If a translation has been "Disallowed" for use in church (we'll use the Message as an example, since I don't the rejection of this will cause any sparks to fly here), could a man be brought up on discipline for persisting in its use as The Word of God in family worship after he has been admonished?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> I think it unenforceable and should be a matter of conscience. But certainly recommendations to use what the pew Bible is would be in line.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. Finally, if you answered "Yes" to the above (That such things are, at least, within the authority of synods, presbyteries or sessions), do you think any of the above to be prudent or beneficial courses of action?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of unity, I like the ease from consistency when all think of the same verse and wording, but today with all the choices, unlike the "BEST" version wording of the DPW where there only was one available obvious best version, it would be unwise.
> There is no senses making rules you can't and won't enforce. What would be the penalty for catching one reading from the LB, excommunicate him, but his playboy mag and internet peeks go unchallenged??
> 
> Just make recommendations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *Edit to Add*;
> 5. Pastors and Elders, if your presbytery decided to standardize a translation which you had no inherent problem with (such as the AV, NASB or ASV), but you personally preferred the ESV in your services -- would you appeal this? Or would you go along with it?
Click to expand...


There is no sense making a rule you can't or won't enforce. 
This is where recommendations might even be stronger since they would not provoke rebellion in people. 

I started using the ESV in home worship for consistency with my grandkids ever since our church adopted the ESV for the pew Bible and I don't even like it and no one recommended we do it.


----------



## Prufrock

> Originally Posted by *PeaceMaker*
> _The presbytery can if it chose to vote this into the BOCO to require it of ministers, I suppose as far as what to preach out of and use in the pews. But what about study with? Would they say he could not use other versions, or Greek or Hebrew? Could he no quote scripture from the Greek text then?
> What about other languages? Spanish speaking people would not be allowed to use their own Bible in the pew???
> I don't see how it would work or be enforced.
> As for requiring it of members, this would seem inconsistent with the Pres being able to require ministers to hold the the Confession, which they don't, but not require it of the members. To require a version for personal use seems unnecessary and unimportant and unenforceable._



Don, none of these things would follow. I am merely asking about a standard translation for the reading/preaching of the Word, and other such things.


----------



## a mere housewife

Prufrock said:


> At the same time, however, I'm not sure it differs too much in practice from any other denominational distinctives present in different churches: whether EP, headcoverings, etc. Perhaps it does, however, since this concerns something in one's own home.



It is probably because of my confusion on some of these issues, but I can't help feeling that EP, a doctrine we either see or do not see in Scripture, is on a different level than what the church accepts or in this case rejects as being Scripture. I understand that I could just be getting hung up on something and am not trying to argue the point specifically, just adding that I think any official statement about what the church does not accept as the word of God (which is necessarily an authoritative rather than a practical statement) will be confusing to people like myself if it isn't shared by other orthodox churches.


----------



## Prufrock

Heidi,

Well said. That is, all except for this part: "It is probably because of my confusion on some of these issues," which I highly doubt is true. You seem to speak quite to the point and accurately.


----------



## MW

chbrooking said:


> As to #1, The OPC BCO says,
> 
> III. 3. All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; *all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God*. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship" (Confession of Faith, XX, 2).



Rather than rule out the possibility of a standard Bible translation, the claim that all church judicatory decisions are to be founded upon the Word of God requires the church to define what the Word of God is. The reality is that without a standard Bible translation the church has no "Word of God" in its mother tongue to which to appeal. This effectively binds the church to unwritten traditions and imposes implicit authority on the people.


----------



## Montanablue

Are there actually any translations that we would consider heresy? I have certainly not read or heard of one. Even The Message - which I dislike and think is unhelpful for study - doesn't seem like it crosses the line into heresy. 

My point being that I do not think a church could rightly "ban" a translation unless it was actually heretical. To do so would not only be wrong, but also unproductive and confusing. 

Apologies if I'm coming off a bit strongly here - but I simply can't see a reason to prohibit a translation unless its heresy. Recommending some translations over others is fine, and in most cases probably quite useful, but a ban seems like a misuse of church authority.


----------



## DonP

Prufrock said:


> Originally Posted by *PeaceMaker*
> _The presbytery can if it chose to vote this into the BOCO to require it of ministers, I suppose as far as what to preach out of and use in the pews. But what about study with? Would they say he could not use other versions, or Greek or Hebrew? Could he not quote scripture from the Greek text then?
> What about other languages? Spanish speaking people would not be allowed to use their own Bible in the pew???
> I don't see how it would work or be enforced.
> As for requiring it of members, this would seem inconsistent with the Pres being able to require ministers to hold the the Confession, which they don't, but not require it of the members. To require a version for personal use seems unnecessary and unimportant and unenforceable._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, none of these things would follow. I am merely asking about a standard translation for the reading/preaching of the Word, and *other such things*.
Click to expand...


That is what I am pointing to. What "other such things"?

And if you limit to preaching and or pews, the rest of my concerns still apply. 

*You asked about requiring it for home worship as well. *
I don't see why we would say other versions are fine to read and study to get the truth, but not fit to read or preach from, whether at home or in the pulpit?? 

And if it is only for convenience of congruity, I see more challenges than benefit. Again, if you can't discipline it, like reading a bad version in the home, why have a rule? What pastor would argue with a man who says I choose to raise my kids by helping them learn to read scripture they can understand even if you say I can't use that version?

Maybe I am missing you. I'll scoot out, I think its pretty clear why it hasn't been done though maybe Joel Beeke and some TR and KJV only men might like it.


----------



## Prufrock

PeaceMaker said:


> You asked about requiring it for home worship as well.



You have misread. To remove any ambiguity, I further specified this in a subsequent post: the question about family worship had to do with a man _persisting_ in leading his family by calling a specific translation the authoritative Word of God which the church has declared unfit. I apologize again for a lack of clarity on my part.

*Edit*
Of course the pastor is going to study the scriptures in Greek and Hebrew; at least, I sincerely hope he is. And of course he is going to bring the fruits of these studies to bear in his preaching and explanation. But this is different than having a specific translation which serves as the standard for the church.


----------



## MW

Montanablue said:


> Are there actually any translations that we would consider heresy?



Not if one doesn't have a "standard" by which to examine them.


----------



## Montanablue

armourbearer said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there actually any translations that we would consider heresy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if one doesn't have a "standard" by which to examine them.
Click to expand...


Perhaps my question should be - Have any translations been considered heretical by any Reformed denominations, pastors, or leaders? Or, put another way, have any Reformed denominations or leaders claimed that a translation is heretical?


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there actually any translations that we would consider heresy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if one doesn't have a "standard" by which to examine them.
Click to expand...


Well even if we used a general consensus of the versions we have the TEV would be heresy. 



> From wiki
> The GNB has been challenged as to the degree of accuracy one of the translators maintained to the Greek texts.[citation needed] Concern was raised after Robert Bratcher made public statements questioning the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture in March 1981, as well as deriding those who hold to such views as dishonest or wilfully ignorant. Many people believe that Bratcher's viewpoints unduly influenced what was written into the GNB. His speech so outraged many churches that they withheld monetary donations to the American Bible Society, a move that nearly bankrupted the ABS. The ABS requested Bratcher's resignation later that year.[5]
> 
> Further statements from Bratcher and subsequent investigation of the GNB cause some to believe that it weakens or undermines other key doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ; it failed the "Isaiah 7.14 litmus test" that had been used by conservative Christians since the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1952 (see Revised Standard Version#Reception and controversy).


----------



## MW

Montanablue said:


> Perhaps my question should be - Have any translations been considered heretical by any Reformed denominations, pastors, or leaders? Or, put another way, have any Reformed denominations or leaders claimed that a translation is heretical?



The Good News and NIV often come in for criticism, and rightly so. But one wonders on what authority the criticism is based if there is no "standard" translation. All the individual accomplishes by making such criticisms is the elevation of his own personal opinion to the level of a "standard" which the individual has already repudiated as being too dominical.


----------



## Montanablue

armourbearer said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps my question should be - Have any translations been considered heretical by any Reformed denominations, pastors, or leaders? Or, put another way, have any Reformed denominations or leaders claimed that a translation is heretical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Good News and NIV often come in for criticism, and rightly so. But one wonders on what authority the criticism is based if there is no "standard" translation. All the individual accomplishes by making such criticisms is the elevation of his own personal opinion to the level of a "standard" which the individual has already repudiated as being too dominical.
Click to expand...


Right, I know that a number of versions have been criticized - but have any been called outright heresy? 

I could definitely see the utility of having a "standard" translation - but practically, I rather doubt it will happen.

Edit: Don, I didn't see your post at first. Thanks. I assume GNB is "Good News Bible?" What is TEV?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> (Please note the forum this is in, and respond accordingly: i.e., please do not introduce debates on the merits of differing texts within this thread. This is strictly about the church's governing authority. Also, upon further reflection, this may have to be for Presbyterians only, as I doubt most of these questions apply to Baptists.)
> 
> 1. Is it within the bounds of presbyterial authority to set a standard translation of scripture for use in the churches? Not necessarily in a dogmatic, "This is forever and always the best and only translation," but simply for the purposes of mutable standardization. (Do not confuse this with Q.4 below)
> 
> 2. If not, is at least within presbyterial authority to bring a church up on disciplinary charges for using a _bad_ translation? A Gender-neutral translation? The Message? The New World Translation? Scripture, indeed, does not dictate a specific version, but can the church enforce a certain standard of purity of worship by only allowing approved (or, at least, disallowing disapproved) translations in worship?
> 
> 3. If yes to #1 and #2, can this rightly in any manner pertain to a man's use of scripture in leading his family in worship? If a translation has been "Disallowed" for use in church (we'll use the Message as an example, since I don't the rejection of this will cause any sparks to fly here), could a man be brought up on discipline for persisting in its use as The Word of God in family worship after he has been admonished?
> 
> 4. Finally, if you answered "Yes" to the above (That such things are, at least, within the authority of synods, presbyteries or sessions), do you think any of the above to be prudent or beneficial courses of action?
> 
> *Edit to Add*;
> 5. Pastors and Elders, if your presbytery decided to standardize a translation which you had no inherent problem with (such as the AV, NASB or ASV), but you personally preferred the ESV in your services -- would you appeal this? Or would you go along with it?



The quick answer to this would be a quote from the confession.



> 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.



A presbytery that attempted any of what is stated in this would be very close to violation of XX.2 and would be subject to charges. The most salient portion in my opinion is "...or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship." This _sounds_ more like the RCs than any reformed church. It certainly would smack of legalism, is certainly something the Bible itself does not command, and certainly is something touching faith and/or worship. While for "decently and in order" could be used for someone insisting to read a different version during a responsive reading, or disrupting the worship, telling a church which version to use, or admonishing someone for using a bad translation in personal devotion (or family worship) would be worthy of admonishing the presbytery that did so.

So not only do I think it not within the authority of a presbytery to command such, I think it sin that they would do so.


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps my question should be - Have any translations been considered heretical by any Reformed denominations, pastors, or leaders? Or, put another way, have any Reformed denominations or leaders claimed that a translation is heretical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Good News and NIV often come in for criticism, and rightly so. But one wonders on what authority the criticism is based if there is no "standard" translation. All the individual accomplishes by making such criticisms is the elevation of his own personal opinion to the level of a "standard" which the individual has already repudiated as being too dominical.
Click to expand...


Well hasn't the critical text defined that for at least themselves, if not some of their stronger adherents? 

They say, we are able to say this meets the standard so we decide this is the best. 
So were we to follow its recommendation we have a standard. 
Others compare everything to the TR so to them they have a standard. 

Its just not all of us agree on a standard. But one Presbyterian could be a TR Presbyterian and another follow the Critical text MT. 
May add to more designer presbyteries we have already begun to spring up over issues like BT and FW.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to #1, The OPC BCO says,
> 
> III. 3. All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; *all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God*. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship" (Confession of Faith, XX, 2).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than rule out the possibility of a standard Bible translation, the claim that all church judicatory decisions are to be founded upon the Word of God requires the church to define what the Word of God is. The reality is that without a standard Bible translation the church has no "Word of God" in its mother tongue to which to appeal. This effectively binds the church to unwritten traditions and imposes implicit authority on the people.
Click to expand...


The problem with this is that the BOCO is a tertiary standard, the secondary standard states:


> 8. 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; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.


It is NOT okay for a church to state that any translation is the standard. The standard is the Hebrew OT and Greek NT. When the BOCO refers to the Word of God, it refers not to any translation, but the Word as the WFC states.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> The problem with this is that the BOCO is a tertiary standard, the secondary standard states:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. 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; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.
Click to expand...


This is only half the section; please read on and take note of the part about these immediately inspired Scriptures being translated into the vulgar language of every nation that the word of God might dwell plentifully in all. See also the afore-mentioned section of the Directory for Worship relative to the best allowed translation in order to discover in what sense the Divines understood their own words anent appeal to the originals.


----------



## MW

PeaceMaker said:


> May add to more designer presbyteries we have already begun to spring up over issues like BT and FW.



"Standards" by nature unite those who adhere to them and alienate those who do not. We deliberately pursue such a course with respect to our subordinate standard, and the subordinate standard is supposed to reflect the supreme standard, so I don't see why we should be afraid of setting up a standard of translation lest it should lead to the division of those who do not accept it. If the subordinate standard is clearly set forth in language every person can understand and examine for themselves, there is no basis for leaving the supreme standard in obscurity to be translated according to the private judgment of the individual. The church either knows what the Bible says or it does not; one should doubt the ministerial authority of a church which is too afraid to state what the Bible says, not laud it because it does not speak contrary to the voice of private judgment.


----------



## TimV

> I don't see why we should be afraid of setting up a standard of translation lest it should lead to the division of those who do not accept it.



I can think of a few other reasons. Like education, discernment, logical abilities....the fact that none of the major Reformed denominations have ever, or are now seriously considering doing so gives an indication of the nature of the question.



> If the subordinate standard is clearly set forth in language every person can understand and examine for themselves, there is no basis for leaving the supreme standard in obscurity to be translated according to the private judgment of the individual?



Who would you trust to do the translating?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> the fact that none of the major Reformed denominations have ever, or are now seriously considering doing so gives an indication of the nature of the question.



The major reformed denominations have all sprung from a Presbyterian and Reformed tradition which gladly received and used what was called "the common English Bible" prior to the advent of academic popery. The only reason they do not hold forth to the world a "standard Bible" now is because they fear the judgment of men.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this is that the BOCO is a tertiary standard, the secondary standard states:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. 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; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only half the section; please read on and take note of the part about these immediately inspired Scriptures being translated into the vulgar language of every nation that the word of God might dwell plentifully in all. See also the afore-mentioned section of the Directory for Worship relative to the best allowed translation in order to discover in what sense the Divines understood their own words anent appeal to the originals.
Click to expand...


I understand that as well, but the Word of God is not in the translation, but in what God said. Language changes, and the translation has to change as language does. Yet the Word does not change, and yet the translation is necessary and prudent as it allow the Word of God to dwell in the hearts of men. The Word of God is not the words, but Jesus ... he never changes, but words do.

We translate into the vulgar tongue, but we do not confuse that with the final authority. A defendant in a legal case before presbytery would be well within his right to appeal against a charge based on any English translation. If the defendant had good reason to state that the translation of some verse was faulty, appealed to the Hebrew text, and then properly stated the charge was out of order as it was based not on the original Hebrew, but upon a translation, he should prevail. On the other hand, if a defendant was using an English translation to support his position and the translation (as all translations are the work of men) was in error at that point, he would have no defense. The confession is clear, while men have a need for the scriptures in their own language, that in no way confuses, dilutes, or shares the authority of the Hebrew and Greek.


----------



## DonP

You would need a standard in each vulgar of each language right?

And we have a hard time agreeing with any translations from the originals now.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact that none of the major Reformed denominations have ever, or are now seriously considering doing so gives an indication of the nature of the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major reformed denominations have all sprung from a Presbyterian and Reformed tradition which gladly received and used what was called "the common English Bible" prior to the advent of academic popery. The only reason they do not hold forth to the world a "standard Bible" now is because they fear the judgment of men.
Click to expand...


Might I suggest you think about what you have posted, and contemplate "only God knows the heart"? While you might believe that many are disingenuous for not holding to your viewpoint, "The only reason" is universal in scope, and seldom if ever is correct. If you are wrong about that issue (and I assure you that universal motives will be) then what is your post to those for whom the statement is not accurate?


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> I understand that as well, but the Word of God is not in the translation, but in what God said. Language changes, and the translation has to change as language does. Yet the Word does not change, and yet the translation is necessary and prudent as it allow the Word of God to dwell in the hearts of men. The Word of God is not the words, but Jesus ... he never changes, but words do.



So what you are saying is that the church has a final authority to appeal to, but it is just not permitted to state with any kind of ministerial confidence what that final authority actually says.



Brian Withnell said:


> A defendant in a legal case before presbytery would be well within his right to appeal against a charge based on any English translation.



The defendant has no inspired and infallible grammar or lexicon to which he can appeal for his specific translation of the originals; hence any defence would merely be the individual's translation as over against the "standard" translation.


----------



## Arch2k

If the church of God can not decide what the Word of God is, who can?



> 1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?


 
I cannot see how the church can ever move toward the Unity described by Christ if she is not even willing to recognize what the Word of God is, and what the Word of God is not. The church has recognized the canon of scripture, should this be open to debate from the church as well? It is also disturbing to me that most of the modern Bible versions are not even translated BY the church! Instead, in many cases, we rely on "scholars" and ungodly men to do a large part of what the Church should have been doing all along.

In my humble opinion, we should be able to trust the true church (that the Lord has promised to bless) to provide us with a faithful translation of the scriptures. This is not to say that I believe that any translation is perfect, but I think that if anyone is to provide us with THE word of God, it is the church.

Also, if we believe that preached sermons by our ministers are the word of God, do we not implictly trust them to provide us with the uncorrupted Word of God each Lord's day morning?



> Q160: What is required of those that hear the word preached?
> A160: It is required of those that hear the word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence,[1] preparation,[2] and prayer;[3] examine: What they hear by the scriptures;[4] receive the truth with faith,[5] love,[6] meekness,[7] and readiness of mind,[8] *as the word of God*;[9] meditate,[10] and confer of it;[11] hide it in their hearts,[12] and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.[13]
> 1. Prov. 8:34
> 2. I Peter 2:1-2; Luke 8:18
> 3. Psa. 119:18; Eph. 6:18-19
> 4. Acts 17:11
> 5. Heb. 4:2
> 6. II Thess 2:10
> 7. James 1:21
> 8. Acts 17:11
> 9. I Thess 2:13
> 10. Luke 9:44; Heb. 2:1
> 11. Luke 24:14; Deut 6:6-7
> 12. Prov. 2:1; Psa. 119:11
> 13. Luke 8:15; James 1:25


 


> 1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.


 
I look forward to the time when the church will dwell in Unity on all matters, but it seems to me that this is very fundamental to accomplishing unity in other matters as well, as the Word of God is the foundation for determining all doctrine.



> Psa 133:1 <A Song of degrees of David.> Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
> Psa 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
> Psa 133:3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.


----------



## Prufrock

I'm sorry, Tim. I really don't see how that issue comes into play. This question concerns whether presbyteries have the authority to establish a standard version, whether it be the ESV, NASB, the Word on the Street, or what have you. There is no hiding behind any bushes. I don't want to discuss different texts. Specific texts here are irrelevant: this is about church authority. _Also, I would ask kindly that refrain from making speculative accusations about my intentions._ I promise, all I want to discuss is what is in the opening post.

Brian,

Does WCF XXXI.2 come into play here? Could you see a determination of the translation of a text falling under "Determining controversies of faith?"


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> May add to more designer presbyteries we have already begun to spring up over issues like BT and FW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Standards" by nature unite those who adhere to them and alienate those who do not. We deliberately pursue such a course with respect to our subordinate standard, and the subordinate standard is supposed to reflect the supreme standard, so I don't see why we should be afraid of setting up a standard of translation lest it should lead to the division of those who do not accept it. If the subordinate standard is clearly set forth in language every person can understand and examine for themselves, there is no basis for leaving the supreme standard in obscurity to be translated according to the private judgment of the individual. The church either knows what the Bible says or it does not; one should doubt the ministerial authority of a church which is too afraid to state what the Bible says, not laud it because it does not speak contrary to the voice of private judgment.
Click to expand...


We set up standards not to divide ... we set them up to clarify what the church believes. It may be that historically, every standard has always been in response to error within the church, yet the purpose was not to alienate, but to educate. If the purpose was to alienate, that would be divisive, and worthy of a charge of being divisive. There are things which are worthy of separating from a body, and there are things were are not. A standard translation is far from worthy of dividing the church when the standards themselves point to the original languages as the primary authority within the church.


----------



## DMcFadden

The issue is not with having a "standard" for teaching, many Reformed and non-Reformed churches already do this. Some do it by action of the board, others by pastoral edict, others by a consensus of pastoral staff, and still others by a combination of the aforementioned methods. Practically speaking, a strong pastor tends to accomplish the same thing by virtue of his own selection of translation from which to preach. Many in the free church tradition have a de facto translational "standard" for preaching and Sunday school teaching. I know of churches where the KJV, NKJV, ESV, or NAS are the exclusively used Bible for all official classes and teaching. Piper, for example, has appeared in ads for the ESV proclaiming that it is the standard at Bethlehem Church.

The difficulty comes when one tries to sanction the personal use of some other translation. It is not as if we can exercise church discipline against individuals who read the Bible in some other translation than the one the pastor uses on Sundays.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Might I suggest you think about what you have posted, and contemplate "only God knows the heart"? While you might believe that many are disingenuous for not holding to your viewpoint, "The only reason" is universal in scope, and seldom if ever is correct. If you are wrong about that issue (and I assure you that universal motives will be) then what is your post to those for whom the statement is not accurate?



My statement refers to the actions of modern denominations, so there is no "heart" to be judged in this matter. Your own initial post in this thread demonstrates clearly that your respect to private judgment is the reason why you think it is a "sin" (judgment!) to maintain a standard Bible translation. Having seriously weighed this subject for many years I am persuaded that the modern idea of toleration is the specific reason why denominations have not acted to state with clarity for the sake of their witness in the world what the Bible actually says.


----------



## DonP

Well if this discussion is any example of the larger Reformed church, which I think it would be, we don't have much chance to come to unity on a version or a standard. 

That is why I see the attempt would end up more divisive than helpful, though I would like the idea of one version or at least a list of exclusions that is updated, but only as recommendations, not to bind the consciences.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> We set up standards not to divide ... we set them up to clarify what the church believes. It may be that historically, every standard has always been in response to error within the church, yet the purpose was not to alienate, but to educate. If the purpose was to alienate, that would be divisive, and worthy of a charge of being divisive. There are things which are worthy of separating from a body, and there are things were are not. A standard translation is far from worthy of dividing the church when the standards themselves point to the original languages as the primary authority within the church.



We set up standards knowing they will divide. I stated this in response to the suggestion that we should not set them up lest they divide. There was no implication that we seek division for division's sake

As for what you regard unworthy of dividing over, an idealist philosophy finds it difficult to identify particulars but a realist knows that the abstract takes concrete form in the tangible world and deals with it accordingly.


----------



## DonP

Brian Withnell said:


> We set up standards not to divide ... we set them up to clarify what the church believes. It may be that historically, every standard has always been in response to error within the church, yet the purpose was not to alienate, but to educate. If the purpose was to alienate, that would be divisive, and worthy of a charge of being divisive. There are things which are worthy of separating from a body, and there are things were are not. A standard translation is far from worthy of dividing the church when the standards themselves point to the original languages as the primary authority within the church.



You can't have one without the other. 

to say we are only creating a standard to unify, is like saying God only elected and did not reprobate. 

The standard defines what is unacceptable so we divide those off who will not unify with us. It is a definition. It divides by nature. And its intent is to divide and make clear that which is acceptable and which is not. 
We unify by dividing off that which we reject and decide is unacceptable

So to define a version of the Bible to use would divide away other versions and others who think that would be binding their conscience beyond scriptural warrant and might leave, and would divide off those who pick a different version to include or exclude, if they did.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]
*Let's keep the thread on target. This is not about textual debates, and textual debate posts will be vigorously pruned.

If you don't have an answer to Paul's 5 questions, maybe this is not the thread for you.*
[/Moderator]


----------



## Prufrock

It may have gotten lost, so I will post it again. WCF XXXI. 3


> III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, *to determine controversies of faith,* and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the *better ordering of the public worship of God*, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.



Do these apply? If we consider the matter not so much as the _imposition of a book_ upon the churches, but the church together giving an agreed upon and standard interpretation of the Greek and Hebrew text (a determination of a controversy of faith), what would be the objection? (Sincere question.)


----------



## jogri17

It does not fall within the authority of the local church in my opinion to decide for individuals which translation to use though the choice bible to use for reading and preaching during the local service is a legtimate question. I use a different bible for personal reading then I do for studying or during the church service.


----------



## fredtgreco

The problem here is that the issue is as much (or more) one of ecclesiology as translation.

A very serious question for those who are implying that the answer two the main OP is "yes" (a church may so bind): would you submit to the authority of the church (Presbytery) if it did indeed determine a translation, and if that translation were NOT the AV, making using the AV unauthorized to use from the puplit?


----------



## Prufrock

I have removed Q.3 from the opening post; I don't think I phrased it very well, and it has caused confusion.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> A very serious question for those who are implying that the answer two the main OP is "yes" (a church may so bind): would you submit to the authority of the church (Presbytery) if it did indeed determine a translation, and if that translation were NOT the AV, making using the AV unauthorized to use from the puplit?



It would depend what the translation was and the process by which the church came to adopt it. There can be no abstract yes or no answer because the quality of translation depends upon an induction of particulars which must be judged according to the circumstances of the case.


----------



## Prufrock

fredtgreco said:


> The problem here is that the issue is as much (or more) one of ecclesiology as translation.
> 
> A very serious question for those who are implying that the answer two the main OP is "yes" (a church may so bind): would you submit to the authority of the church (Presbytery) if it did indeed determine a translation, and if that translation were NOT the AV, making using the AV unauthorized to use from the puplit?



Pastor Greco,

Thanks for chiming in! I was hoping you would do so. 

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I agree completely. In fact, I asked this as a question of ecclesiology, not translation _per se._ I am asking whether such a determination can belong to a presbytery, and not just to individual churches.

In answer to your second question: yes (within reason, of course). I would have no problems with that. I do take one caveat to your question: I am not sure that any such decision would make any other translation's reading unallowable to use from the pulpit: I'm sure even if the official translation from which the church reads is the ESV, no one take objection to the use of, say, the NASB's rendition to open and explain the passage while preaching.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very serious question for those who are implying that the answer two the main OP is "yes" (a church may so bind): would you submit to the authority of the church (Presbytery) if it did indeed determine a translation, and if that translation were NOT the AV, making using the AV unauthorized to use from the puplit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend what the translation was and the process by which the church came to adopt it. There can be no abstract yes or no answer because the quality of translation depends upon an induction of particulars which must be judged according to the circumstances of the case.
Click to expand...


Let me be very particular. Your Presbytery sets up a committee to establish a translation. It moves that the NASB be used in all its churches. A substitute motion is made to establish the AV.

The substitute fails, 35% to 65%.

The main motion passes, 60% to 40%.

Do you heed the court's ruling and use the NASB in your church?


----------



## fredtgreco

Prufrock said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that the issue is as much (or more) one of ecclesiology as translation.
> 
> A very serious question for those who are implying that the answer two the main OP is "yes" (a church may so bind): would you submit to the authority of the church (Presbytery) if it did indeed determine a translation, and if that translation were NOT the AV, making using the AV unauthorized to use from the puplit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Greco,
> 
> Thanks for chiming in! I was hoping you would do so.
> 
> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I agree completely. In fact, I asked this as a question of ecclesiology, not translation _per se._ I am asking whether such a determination can belong to a presbytery, and not just to individual churches.
> 
> In answer to your second question: yes (within reason, of course). I would have no problems with that. I do take one caveat to your question: I am not sure that any such decision would make any other translation's reading unallowable to use from the pulpit: I'm sure even if the official translation from which the church reads is the ESV, no one take objection to the use of, say, the NASB's rendition to open and explain the passage while preaching.
Click to expand...


Yes. I would also assume that a minister's own "translation" would be allowable in preaching, to open up the meaning.

I took your OP to mean the required text for the element of Scripture reading, and perhaps the version used at the outset of the sermon, as well as all "official" teaching materials in the Presbytery.


----------



## Prufrock

fredtgreco said:


> Yes. I would also assume that a minister's own "translation" would be allowable in preaching, to open up the meaning.
> 
> I took your OP to mean the required text for the element of Scripture reading, and perhaps the version used at the outset of the sermon, as well as all "official" teaching materials in the Presbytery.



Yes -- you took rightly.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> Do you heed the court's ruling and use the NASB in your church?



No, I would dissent and maintain that the court has erred (WCF 31:4) and acted contrary to its own constitution; for how can it maintain a standard translation which repudiates the confession's scriptural basis on which its doctrinal standard is established? Please note: I would only dissent from the particular decision, not from the authority of the court to make such a decision. Which is why I think the scenario is irrelevant to the issue debated in this thread.


----------



## Arch2k

Fred,

The same line of argumentation could be leveled against secondary standards, yet you accept those as valid as a pastor in the PCA. If the PCA accepted an erroneous confession, would you submit to it? 

Just because it is possible for the church to err does not mitigate its responsibilities.


----------



## TimV

> The same line of argumentation could be leveled against secondary standards, yet you accept those as valid as a pastor in the PCA. If the PCA accepted an erroneous confession, would you submit to it?
> 
> Just because it is possible for the church to err does not mitigate its responsibilities.



I don't think you understand his point. If there was an ecumenical Reformed translation voted on by the major Reformed churches the one thing we can be certain of is that it wouldn't be the KJV or NKJV.

So, if the major Reformed churches said that your Session couldn't use any Bible which was translated largely from the TR would you submit?


----------



## Brian Withnell

PeaceMaker said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We set up standards not to divide ... we set them up to clarify what the church believes. It may be that historically, every standard has always been in response to error within the church, yet the purpose was not to alienate, but to educate. If the purpose was to alienate, that would be divisive, and worthy of a charge of being divisive. There are things which are worthy of separating from a body, and there are things were are not. A standard translation is far from worthy of dividing the church when the standards themselves point to the original languages as the primary authority within the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have one without the other.
> 
> to say we are only creating a standard to unify, is like saying God only elected and did not reprobate.
> 
> The standard defines what is unacceptable so we divide those off who will not unify with us. It is a definition. It divides by nature. And its intent is to divide and make clear that which is acceptable and which is not.
> We unify by dividing off that which we reject and decide is unacceptabel
Click to expand...


While we may have standards that do divide, we establish them without the intent. The OPC has no requirement for a member to subscribe to the WFC, yet we state clearly it is a secondary standard and what we believe is an accurate summary of the doctrine the Bible states. We allow those that have a credible profession of faith to join the church, and do not require subscription to the confession. While we hold the officers to that higher level of requirement, we do not require it of members. We do not divide the church because someone does not hold to covenant baptism (i.e., we do not remove someone from the rolls if they do not have their children baptized). What is not commanded in scripture is not something we can require.

Liberty of the conscience is of great importance. If we pronounce edicts on things the Bible does not pronounce as edicts, we are no different than papists. Requiring what God does not require is papist in the extreme.

For the particular topic at hand, translation of what the church already has stated is the Word of God (the Hebrew and Greek) is unimportant compared to liberty. We already know what the Bible is ... that has been settled with Chapter I of the WCF. There is a reason it is chapter I, and that is it is to illumine all that follows. When the confession says "Word of God" it refers to what is the inspired Word, as stated in Chapter I.

While it might be "nice" to have everyone reading the same translation, it would be better yet if everyone were fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and needed no translation. That isn't going to happen, so any translation into the vulgar tongue is better than no translation at all. You won't find me using a "New World" translation unless it were the only one I could have (shipwrecked on a desert island!) Would I then use even that which I know is not even what I would call a translation? You bet. Better that than having nothing of the Word.

The original question is about the authority of the church, and does it extend to mandating a translation, even to the extent of private worship. My answer to that would be, unless the scripture teaches that there is only one translation into each language, the answer is no. WFC XX.2 forbids what is otherwise a popish practice of requiring what is in addition to what the scriptures teach in matters of faith and worship.


----------



## DonP

Brian Withnell said:


> Liberty of the conscience is of great importance. If we pronounce edicts on things the Bible does not pronounce as edicts, we are no different than papists. Requiring what God does not require is papist in the extreme.
> 
> For the particular topic at hand, translation of what the church already has stated is the Word of God (the Hebrew and Greek) is unimportant compared to liberty. We already know what the Bible is ... that has been settled with Chapter I of the WCF. There is a reason it is chapter I, and that is it is to illumine all that follows. When the confession says "Word of God" it refers to what is the inspired Word, as stated in Chapter I.
> 
> While it might be "nice" to have everyone reading the same translation, it would be better yet if everyone were fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and needed no translation. That isn't going to happen, so any translation into the vulgar tongue is better than no translation at all. You won't find me using a "New World" translation unless it were the only one I could have (shipwrecked on a desert island!) Would I then use even that which I know is not even what I would call a translation? You bet. Better that than having nothing of the Word.
> 
> The original question is about the authority of the church, and does it extend to mandating a translation, even to the extent of private worship. My answer to that would be, unless the scripture teaches that there is only one translation into each language, the answer is no. WFC XX.2 forbids what is otherwise a popish practice of requiring what is in addition to what the scriptures teach in matters of faith and worship.



We are in total agreement here. Not sure if you didn't think so, but I agree. It is what I said earlier. 

Though if the a GA, not a presbytery, did bind our consciences and require one, or exclude some, I would submit and think it had some benefits.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you heed the court's ruling and use the NASB in your church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would dissent and maintain that the court has erred (WCF 31:4) and acted contrary to its own constitution; for how can it maintain a standard translation which repudiates the confession's scriptural basis on which its doctrinal standard is established? Please note: I would only dissent from the particular decision, not from the authority of the court to make such a decision. Which is why I think the scenario is irrelevant to the issue debated in this thread.
Click to expand...


So you would deny the decision of the court, and enter into private judgment?



Jeff_Bartel said:


> Fred,
> 
> The same line of argumentation could be leveled against secondary standards, yet you accept those as valid as a pastor in the PCA. If the PCA accepted an erroneous confession, would you submit to it?
> 
> Just because it is possible for the church to err does not mitigate its responsibilities.



The church may err, but the minister is left with only two options: (1) submit peacefully, or (2) withdraw peacefully.

The minister is not permitted to flout the authority of his court.

That is why it is becoming obvious that for some the answer to the OP is: (a) Yes, if the decision is what I think; (b) No, if the decision is not what I think.

That is not Presbyterianism.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> So you would deny the decision of the court, and enter into private judgment?



No, I wouldn't regard it as maintaining my private judgment because my judgment was the judgment of the church when I entered the ministry, as is clear from my ordination vows. Put simply, I would maintain what the church stood for when I made my vows and appeal from the court ill-informed to the court better informed.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> The minister is not permitted to flout the authority of his court.



The presbyterian court itself, recognising its liability to error, has provided for the expression of disagreements which do not flout the authority of the court.


----------



## DonP

But most current presbyterianism allows exceptions, right? 

3rd option. 
One could except this part anyway. 

Since we do not hold to a strict and total subscription, it wouldn't make many change. It would be just one more exception. 

If you can have exceptions to the Confession, can you not also have an exception to a BOCO? or By-Laws or wherever this would go.

Hmmm.....

But Armoubearer, would you then say their can only be one version as standard as long as the current Confession stands? 

They would have to change the Confession, base it on a new version to allow for a different Bible Version to be the standard? 
Referring to your comment below.



> Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by fredtgreco View Post
> Do you heed the court's ruling and use the NASB in your church?
> No, I would dissent and maintain that the court has erred (WCF 31:4) and acted contrary to its own constitution; for how can it maintain a standard translation which repudiates the confession's scriptural basis on which its doctrinal standard is established? Please note: I would only dissent from the particular decision, not from the authority of the court to make such a decision. Which is why I think the scenario is irrelevant to the issue debated in this thread.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> If we pronounce edicts on things the Bible does not pronounce as edicts, we are no different than papists.



Who would know what the Bible pronounces as edicts since according to the novel theory which has been presented in this thread the messsage of the Bible is shut up in originals which no person has access to nor the infallible key to unlock them.


----------



## MW

PeaceMaker said:


> But Armoubearer, would you then say their can only be one version as standard as long as the current Confession stands?



Abstractly it would be possible to have two versions which say basically the same thing because a rich vocabulary can express the same idea in a number of ways. But in reality the versions available today do not say the same thing because they have arisen as an expression of individual interpretations of Scripture. This leaves confessional people with a choice. Now, how much do they believe their confession, and on what basis do they believe it? A confession which is not based on Scripture represents a magisterial rather than a ministerial tradition and is unreformed. If they accept a translation which offers a different interpretation of Scripture than the one on which their confession is founded they are left without a biblical basis for holding their confession? E.g., the reformers rejected the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen 4:7 which effectively alters the doctrine of original sin; but the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen. 4:7 has been adopted by every modern translation; yet reformed people who accept and authorise these modern translations have not altered their doctrine of original sin; hence reformed people are believing a doctrine on something other than a biblical basis, which is unreformed. Changes in the interpretation of the Bible sets in motion a process which will require an alteration in the doctrinal formulations which are based on them. That is an inescapable reality.


----------



## Edward

1. No. And if they tried to require a certain commercial translation, I'd want to look to see if anyone was getting a kickback. 

2. Yes. It is not only their right, but their duty to protect the body from evil. 

4. Yes. See answer to 2 above.


----------



## Prufrock

armourbearer said:


> Abstractly it would be possible to have two versions which say basically the same thing because a rich vocabulary can express the same idea in a number of ways. But in reality the versions available today do not say the same thing because they have arisen as an expression of individual interpretations of Scripture. This leaves confessional people with a choice. Now, how much do they believe their confession, and on what basis do they believe it? A confession which is not based on Scripture represents a magisterial rather than a ministerial tradition and is unreformed. If they accept a translation which offers a different interpretation of Scripture than the one on which their confession is founded they are left without a biblical basis for holding their confession? E.g., the reformers rejected the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen 4:7 which effectively alters the doctrine of original sin; but the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen. 4:7 has been adopted by every modern translation; yet reformed people who accept and authorise these modern translations have not altered their doctrine of original sin; hence reformed people are believing a doctrine on something other than a biblical basis, which is unreformed. Changes in the interpretation of the Bible sets in motion a process which will require an alteration in the doctrinal formulations which are based on them. That is an inescapable reality.



At the very least, Rev. Winzer, I deeply appreciate this reminder that our confessional formulations must be wholly rooted in scripture, and that our exegesis of individual passages can have far reaching implications. Again, at the very least, this drives me to ensure that I understand _why_ the old divines interpreted certain passages the way they did, especially as they saw them in relationship to other teachings and portions of scripture.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

armourbearer said:


> ...E.g., the reformers rejected the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen 4:7 which effectively alters the doctrine of original sin; but the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen. 4:7 has been adopted by every modern translation; yet reformed people who accept and authorise these modern translations have not altered their doctrine of original sin; hence reformed people are believing a doctrine on something other than a biblical basis, which is unreformed. Changes in the interpretation of the Bible sets in motion a process which will require an alteration in the doctrinal formulations which are based on them. That is an inescapable reality.



For those interested here is the difference:

New King James Version


> If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”



New International Version


> If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."



New American Standard Bible


> If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."



King James Version


> If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minister is not permitted to flout the authority of his court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The presbyterian court itself, recognising its liability to error, has provided for the expression of disagreements which do not flout the authority of the court.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the discussion between you and Pastor Greco, so if this is an obtuse question, please forgive me.

But to take this a step further, what if the BCO were amended to mandate the use of the NASB? Since part of your ordination vows requires you to submit to the BCO, would you not then have to submit to their decision? The heart of my question is at what point can you express disagreement in a valid way and at what point are you required to heed the court's ruling?


----------



## MW

ColdSilverMoon said:


> But to take this a step further, what if the BCO were amended to mandate the use of the NASB? Since part of your ordination vows requires you to submit to the BCO, would you not then have to submit to their decision? The heart of my question is at what point can you express disagreement in a valid way and at what point are you required to heed the court's ruling?



We have a Practice and Procedure which we have inherited from Scotland rather than a BCO, and though of the same nature it has has some variations which may impact the answer to the question. The fundamental standard which characterises the constitution of the church is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. All office-bearers vow first and foremost that these Scriptures are the only rule of faith. Next, all office-bearers vow that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the confession of their faith. There are no reservations or exceptions. Thus the church's doctrinal constitution includes the Confession as a faithful and conscientious interpretation of the Scriptures. Therefore the act of accepting a Bible which repudiates the biblical basis of the Westminster Confession of Faith is unconstitutional. This means said versions are beyond the power of man to authorise.

The Practice allows for all office-bearers to register appeal, dissent and even protest against unconstitutional actions of any church court.


----------



## MW

*Times change, not convictions*

The stance of the Old School Presbyterian Church of 1858, as reported by the Southern Presbyterian Review:



> It is a source of gratification to the Old School Presbyterian Church, that she has been able to do thus much to preserve the English Version of the Scriptures from arbitrary changes. She has an interest in the so-called Version of King James beyond that of almost any other denomination of Christians... The Presbyterians also contribute far the largest portion to the funds of the American Bible Society, and have the largest representation in it, though without any seeking of their own. The duty of the American Bible Society plainly is, *to publish the English Version as it came from the hands of the translators*, with no other changes than the adoption of the modern for the obsolete orthography, and the correction of printers' blunders which may have been made... An improved version has not yet appeared in the English tongue. *When it has been produced and obtained the approbation of the people of God*, it will be time to take measures for its publication and diffusion.


----------



## TimV

> Next, all office-bearers vow that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the confession of their faith. There are no reservations or exceptions. Thus the church's doctrinal constitution includes the Confession as a faithful and conscientious interpretation of the Scriptures. Therefore the act of accepting a Bible which repudiates the biblical basis of the Westminster Confession of Faith is unconstitutional.



Do you have a list of those Bibles, even a partial list of Bibles, which do NOT repudiate the Biblical basis of the WCF?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Do you have a list of those Bibles, even a partial list of Bibles, which do NOT repudiate the Biblical basis of the WCF?



Obviously these would include the received translations at the time the Confession was written, such as the Geneva and the AV, and hypothetically any subsequent translation which did not alter the text or interpretation upon which the confessional formulation was based.


----------



## TimV

Is there a list of Bibles that are permissible to be used for teaching in your denomination, or is this your personal interpretation of your denominational standards?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Is there a list of Bibles that are permissible to be used for teaching in your denomination, or is this your personal interpretation of your denominational standards?



The Authorised Version is the standard English Bible used in the pulpit and recommended to others.


----------



## MAV

chbrooking said:


> Matthew,
> I was disturbed by the following quote out of the article you cited. (Sorry I don't know how to do the fancy quoting of other cites as you guys do):
> 
> "Is the Church truly guarding this precious deposit faithfully if it does not separate the precious from the vile by warning against translations that corrupt the Word of God and commending the most accurate? If a church allows a variety of translations to be used, it is devaluing the gold standard of the Word."
> 
> This seems to imply that it only commends one (the "most" accurate). Further, I think we should remember that no translation is perfect, and that a comparison of good translations is very helpful -- if only to point up passages for the laymen to seek answers for from his pastor.
> 
> I think if the original post were rephrased so that it was asking if it fell within the purview of a presbytery to ban, for lack of a better word, an heretical translation, I would say, yes. After all, the ministerial and declarative authority of that judicatory would then be grounding their ruling in the word of God -- using the original languages.
> 
> No translation is right 100% of the time. At least I've never seen it -- but then maybe I'm wrong in my evaluation of their error. I hope you see the dilemma.
> 
> Disapprove bad translations -- and I mean heretical ones? Yes. And so, in that sense authorize, okay. But I think it would be a mistake and would go beyond their rightful authority to approve only one.



Thanks for this - the article does not of course claim absolute perfection for the work of the King James translators. But it doesn't follow that because this claim is not made that we cannot identify one translation as the most accurate in a language, which we can. We need to take a high level view from the principles of translation and the text of Scripture rather than whether we like the rendering of one verse in one translation more than that in another. The danger of making all translations equal is that the church member is confused as to what is the word of God and starts to feel they can pick and choose which they prefer. Far better to have a commentary or minister give some explanation as to why a word means this or that based on the original languages rather than have them wade through a sea of versions. This would undermine their confidence in the authority of the bible and ability to come to a correct view of its meaning. 

The question of uniformity is important which is why the Westminster Assembly looked at the question from this point of view rather than what is evidently heretical. It spoke of the best allowed - implying that there was a need to sanction and that the best was to be identified and approved. All we are speaking of here is, to use your words, ensuring that "the ministerial and declarative authority of that judicatory would then be grounding their ruling in the word of God -- using the original languages".

With regard to heretical translations, the article rather focuses attention on what is a confessional translation and what is not. Is a translation consistent with the doctrine of Scripture that the Westminster Confession outlines? This is grounding the decision on an appeal to Scripture. You'll see the discussion of this. 

In many ways this connects to having a confessional doctrinal standard and Samuel Rutherford makes the connection between subscribing to the latter and having a vernacular translation. A confession is Scripture in its various doctrines put into the form of a doctrinal statement. It is not Scripture verbatim but it is Scripture in its doctrine. You are not required to sign up to the confession as the absolutely perfect way of expressing these truths. In other words the wording is not infallible as with Scripture but this does not take away from the fact that it is teaching what Scripture teaches. Likewise you do not necessarily assert that every word and choice of the translators is absolutely perfect but this does not take away from the fact. If we need a binding common confession how much more do we need a common translation of Scripture on which the confession is founded. Of course we appeal to the original languages from both but that does not mean that we cannot identify a clear common standard as the best for the purposes of teaching and unity. 
Hope this helps


----------



## MW

Charles Hodge, 'The American Bible Society and its New Standard Edition of the English Version,' in _The Princeton Review_, July, 1857, p. 507.



> As there is nothing in this world so sacred as the word of God, and nothing so precious to all who use the English language as the English version of the Bible, it is the instinct, as well as the duty of the Church (i. e. of the people of God) to guard its integrity with the greatest vigilance, and to watch with a solicitude, amounting even to jealousy, the conduct of those who are charged with its publication and distribution.


----------



## Prufrock

To my shame, I really need to learn more about the history of the Presbyterian church in my own country...


----------

