Westminster Standards Dependency on TR/KJV

[CGS]

Would anyone be able to point me to a list of all the places in the Westminster confessions/catechisms where the primary content or the proof texts are dependent on the TR/KJV? For example, I know the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 KJV) was cited as a proof text for the Trinity in several Reformed confessions and catechisms. But the JC is omitted from translations based on the CT. And the Westminster Standards explicitly reference the doxology “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” (Matt. 6:13) – disputed/omitted by modern critical texts – in two catechism questions (WLC #196 and WSC #107). I would like to have an all-inclusive list of every instance where the Westminster standards are dependent on the use of the TR/KJV. Or in other words… a list of all the instances where using some translation other than the TR/KJV would put one somewhat “out of sync” with the Westminster Standards. Hope this makes sense.

Not looking to rehash the debate of the TR vs modern translations. Just trying to get a better understanding of how the Westminster Standards are dependent upon and synced up with the TR/KJV in many places.

Thank you!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't know if there is a preexisting database, but you can go to this page: https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/
and search the page for specific texts (you will have to check to see what the book abbreviations might be).

I did a quick search there for Mark 16 (of the different lengths end-text), and came up with the following:

ch. VII.3 note (b) Mk. 16:15-16​

VIII.4 note (j) Mk.16:19​

XVII.3 note (f) Mk.16:14​

XXVIII.4 note (a) Mk.16:15-16​

​

WSC 28, contains Mk.16:19 as a prooftext​

WLC 35, Mk.16:15​

WLC 51, Mk.16:19​

WLC 60, Mk.16:16​

WLC 63, Mk.16:15-16​

This seems a bit longwinded, but I don't know of a quicker method that has already been tabulated.

 

[CGS]

I don't know if there is a preexisting database, but you can go to this page: https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/
and search the page for specific texts (you will have to check to see what the book abbreviations might be).

I did a quick search there for Mark 16 (of the different lengths end-text), and came up with the following:

ch. VII.3 note (b) Mk. 16:15-16​

VIII.4 note (j) Mk.16:19​

XVII.3 note (f) Mk.16:14​

XXVIII.4 note (a) Mk.16:15-16​

​

WSC 28, contains Mk.16:19 as a prooftext​

WLC 35, Mk.16:15​

WLC 51, Mk.16:19​

WLC 60, Mk.16:16​

WLC 63, Mk.16:15-16​

This seems a bit longwinded, but I don't know of a quicker method that has already been tabulated.

This is helpful. Now I just need a list of texts to search on. So far, I have:

• The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 KJV)
• The doxology “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” (Matt. 6:13)
• The ending of Mark 16

Off the top of your head, what are some other disputed texts that I would need to look at?

Thank you!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

You might check the OPC minutes on the when the adopted new proofs a number of years back. Someone insisted on dropping some texts because of criticla text reasons If I recall correctly. Maybe there is a list in some motion.

 

[CGS]

You might check the OPC minutes on the when the adopted new proofs a number of years back. Someone insisted on dropping some texts because of criticla text reasons If I recall correctly. Maybe there is a list in some motion.

Per AI, this what the OPC did:

THE VERSES THE OPC REMOVED (2004–2005)
These verses were removed because they rely on textually disputed readings, TR‑only variants, or passages judged exegetically weak for constitutional proof‑text use.

1. Verses removed because they rely on TR‑specific readings​

These verses contain readings not supported by the critical text, and the GA judged them unsuitable as constitutional proof texts.

1 Timothy 3:16​

• TR/KJV: “God was manifest in the flesh”
• CT: “He was manifest in the flesh”. Removed because the doctrinal point (incarnation) is supported by many undisputed passages.

Acts 20:28​

• TR/KJV: “church of God … purchased with his own blood”
• CT: “church of the Lord …” Removed because the Christological force depends on the TR reading.

John 3:13​

• TR/KJV includes: “the Son of Man which is in heaven.”
• CT omits the clause. Removed because the omnipresence clause is textually disputed.

1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum)​

• TR/KJV includes the Trinitarian formula.
• CT omits it entirely. Removed (it had been removed in most American Presbyterian editions already).

2. Verses removed because they are part of disputed longer passages

Mark 16:9–20​

The longer ending of Mark is textually disputed. Any proof texts drawn from this section were removed.
John 7:53–8:11 (Pericope Adulterae)
Likewise textually disputed. Any proof texts drawn from this section were removed.

3. Verses removed because they were judged exegetically weak or irrelevant
These were not removed for textual reasons but because the GA judged them not sufficiently strong to serve as constitutional proof texts.
John 5:4
The angel‑stirring‑the‑water verse is textually disputed and doctrinally irrelevant. Removed.
Acts 8:37
Confession of faith before baptism — absent in CT. Removed.
Matthew 6:13 (doxology)

• TR/KJV includes: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.”
• CT omits the doxology. Removed as a proof text for the Lord’s Prayer conclusion.

Westminster Sections & Verses Removed (OPC 2004–2005)​

This table shows each doctrinal section of the Westminster Confession or Catechisms that lost proof texts, and which verses were removed — with the reason.
WCF 1 — Of Holy Scripture
Removed verses:

• 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum)
• Acts 8:37
• Mark 16:9–20 (any verses used)
• John 7:53–8:11 (any verses used)

Reason: Textually disputed passages; unsuitable for constitutional proof texts.

WCF 3 — God’s Eternal Decree
Removed verses:

• John 3:13 (“which is in heaven” clause)

Reason: Clause is TR‑only; doctrinal point (God’s decree, Christ’s omnipresence) supported elsewhere.

WCF 8 — Christ the Mediator​

Removed verses:

• 1 Timothy 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh”)
• Acts 20:28 (“church of God… purchased with his own blood”)

Reason: Both rely on TR‑specific readings. OPC GA judged the doctrinal point (incarnation, deity of Christ) to be better grounded in undisputed texts (John 1:1, Heb. 1, etc.).

WCF 11 — Justification
Removed verses:

• John 5:4 (angel stirring the water)

Reason: Textually unstable and irrelevant to justification.

WCF 21 — Religious Worship & Sabbath​

Removed verses:

• Matthew 6:13 (doxology)

Reason: Doxology is TR‑only; OPC retained the Lord’s Prayer but removed the proof text for the conclusion.

WLC 196 / WSC 107 — Conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer​

Removed verses:

• Matthew 6:13 (doxology)

Reason: Same as above — TR‑only; doctrinal point supported by other passages on God’s glory and kingdom.

WCF 25 — The Church​

Removed verses:

• Acts 20:28 (again, where used for ecclesiology)

Reason: TR‑only reading (“church of God… his own blood”). OPC replaced with undisputed ecclesiology texts (Acts 15; Eph. 4; 1 Tim. 3).

WCF 28 — Baptism​

Removed verses:

• Acts 8:37

Reason: Absent from critical text; OPC replaced with undisputed baptism passages.

WCF 33 — Last Judgment​

Removed verses:

• Mark 16:16 (if used)

Reason: Part of the longer ending of Mark.

@NaphtaliPress -thank you for pointing me to this.

 

[CGS]

Also, just found this:
Statements of Faith Affected by Alterations in Modern Bible Versions

https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/SoundWords-Appendix1?utm_source=copilot.com

So, I think I have everything I need now...thank you all for the replies!

Per the article:

• 15 different Old Testament Scripture proofs are affected in their use in the statements in 15 separate instances affecting 13 different doctrines. In the statements as a whole, the use of these 15 proofs is affected in 32 different places.
• 60 different New Testament Scripture proofs are affected in their use in the statements in 70 separate instances affecting 43 different doctrines. In the statements as a whole, the use of these 60 proofs is affected in 192 different places. Some of these places involve more than one proof or a proof that is used in support of more than one doctrine.

If further proof texts affected by alterations to modern Bible versions are identified these will be added to the work. Last updated 20 May 2026.

 

[jwright82]

Would anyone be able to point me to a list of all the places in the Westminster confessions/catechisms where the primary content or the proof texts are dependent on the TR/KJV? For example, I know the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 KJV) was cited as a proof text for the Trinity in several Reformed confessions and catechisms. But the JC is omitted from translations based on the CT. And the Westminster Standards explicitly reference the doxology “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” (Matt. 6:13) – disputed/omitted by modern critical texts – in two catechism questions (WLC #196 and WSC #107). I would like to have an all-inclusive list of every instance where the Westminster standards are dependent on the use of the TR/KJV. Or in other words… a list of all the instances where using some translation other than the TR/KJV would put one somewhat “out of sync” with the Westminster Standards. Hope this makes sense.

Not looking to rehash the debate of the TR vs modern translations. Just trying to get a better understanding of how the Westminster Standards are dependent upon and synced up with the TR/KJV in many places.

Thank you!

What do you mean by "somewhat out of sinc" with the Standards? Also what does "using" mean? By whom, for what?

 

[CGS]

So...for example, if one is studying the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 196. What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
A. The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, (which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.) teacheth us to enforce our petitions with arguments, which are to be taken, not from any worthiness in ourselves, or in any other creature, but from God: and with our prayers to join praises, ascribing to God alone eternal sovereignty, omnipotency, and glorious excellency; in regard whereof, as he is able and willing to help us, so we by faith are emboldened to plead with him that he would, and quietly to rely upon him, that he will fulfill our requests. And, to testify this our desire and assurance, we say, Amen.

Matt. 6:13; Rom. 15:30; Dan. 9:4, 7-9, 16-19; Phil. 4:6; 1 Chr. 29:10-13; Eph. 3:20-21; Luke 11:13; 2 Chr. 20:6, 11; 2 Chr. 14:11; 1 Cor. 14:16; Rev. 22:20-21.

Now go to the ESV version of the bible... The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, (which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.) has been omitted from Matthew 6:13. So...if you are using the ESV instead of the KJV you are "out of sync" with the WLC. Based on the ESV, question 196 should not even exist becuase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever" should not be in the bible.

There are numerous examples given in the posts above and here:

https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/SoundWords-Appendix1?utm_source=copilot.com

 

[Northern Crofter]

Also what does "using" mean? By whom, for what?

For example, what if a minister who is nearing the end of his exposition of Mark states he is not planning to preach the ending because he is unsure of its canonicity? Reminding him it is cited in multiple places in the Westminster Standards (and thus reminding him that the men who wrote our standards believed it to be Scripture) can lead to a change of heart.

You might check the OPC minutes on the when the adopted new proofs a number of years back. Someone insisted on dropping some texts because of criticla text reasons If I recall correctly.

I knew the OPC reviewed and updated the proof texts a few years back, but I was very surprised to see the extent of the changes (the TBS link was also very eye-opening to see the extent of such revisions throughout the confessional world).

 

[jwright82]

For example, what if a minister who is nearing the end of his exposition of Mark states he is not planning to preach the ending because he is unsure of its canonicity? Reminding him it is cited in multiple places in the Westminster Standards (and thus reminding him that the men who wrote our standards believed it to be Scripture) can lead to a change of heart.


I knew the OPC reviewed and updated the proof texts a few years back, but I was very surprised to see the extent of the changes (the TBS link was also very eye-opening to see the extent of such revisions throughout the confessional world).

That makes sense. I never thought about that because I've never been in a church where the pastor said something like that. Is that a common/rare thing? In fact the only textual criticism type issues I've ever come across by orthodox Reformed Christian's was in print not sermon.
So I wonder if this is a problem that doesn't exist, thinking out loud here? And taking a textual debate amongst otherwise orthodox people and trying to "win" the debate by sort of forcing it in as a confessional issue when that person could put forward an overture to require officers to affirm that side of the debate and see how it turns out.
So let's imagine a pastor saying what you wrote, how would it turn out if a complaint was made to the session/presbyteri/classis? Why has this never been done before, to my knowledge?
So I guess to sum up the speculative point of my questions like this. You never hear about this particular problem because it practically doesn't exist in NAPARC Churches, although I have attended some Baptist churches where they were KJV only churches.
Trying to use the courts to "settle" the debate probably wouldn't go well or be looked very highly of by members. The overture method probably the same but I'd be interested in watching it unfold. So I think since the church has final say in who their pastor/elders are that's the real place for ensuring that kind of viewpoint being taught in that church.
I'm just thinking outside the box and long-term practical realities on this, not some hypothetical thought experiment about principle outside the current reality in NAPARC Churches. For instance I'd be more willing to bet that in my denomination (in some quarters), the PCA, that a preacher using the "gender-nuetral" Bible is closer to really happening versus your example.
But thanks for the example and it gives me much to think about here.
I guess because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't really have an opinion on this debate. Because I've never studied it and since I've never come across a situation like you described then I never even had to think about it.

 

[Northern Crofter]

That wasn't a hypothetical situation. Had the (member of a NAPARC church) minister not been humble and gracious (and reconsidered his leaning) I would have felt compelled to petition the Church court regarding the matter. A minister should not be publicly declaring from the pulpit his opposition to standards he has obliged himself to by a vow - he can petition the courts to change the standards or should have stated an exception (not that I favour either: [1] I am opposed to ministers and elders taking/stating/declaring exceptions, and [2] when standards are changed, wouldn't resubscription or a "revowing" be required?).

 

[jwright82]

That wasn't a hypothetical situation. Had the (member of a NAPARC church) minister not been humble and gracious (and reconsidered his leaning) I would have felt compelled to petition the Church court regarding the matter. A minister should not be publicly declaring from the pulpit his opposition to standards he has obliged himself to by a vow - he can petition the courts to change the standards or should have stated an exception (not that I favour either: [1] I am opposed to ministers and elders taking/stating/declaring exceptions, and [2] when standards are changed, wouldn't resubscription or a "revowing" be required?).

Thanks for the reply. I don't want to derail this thread with my questions, that are tangentially related to the OP. I asked ChatGPT my questions and got the answers I was looking for.
According to the future Terminator Overlord's no NAPARC Churches require one view in this debate over the other, that could be wrong IDK. Nor have there been any church court trials in which this issue was relevant. That's just what it said.
I'm not weighing in on one side or the other in this debate, I'm ignorant of the details. My only remaining questions deserve a new thread not derail this one. And I'm sure it's been debated before.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Perhaps my next questions are DA's questions. (What do I mean by DA?)

Why are we so sure that because manuscripts are older and there's a proliferation of them that therefore they are correct?

What about the argument of preservation versus restoration of the NT text?

How can we be sure? In the Bible it is very often the case that the minority is correct while the majority is in error. This seems to be one of God's MO's does it not?

Last Question:
Which is more likely? For a scribe to drop a word or phrase from the Scriptures? Or, to add a phrase or verse of his choosing?
~~~~~~~

If I'm too far off the subject, could somebody let me know and I will delete this post?

 

[MyCrows]

According to the future Terminator Overlord

 

[MW]

Why are we so sure that because manuscripts are older and there's a proliferation of them that therefore they are correct?

From a restorationist's point of view the oldest have been shown to be more corrupt. The "oldest is best" argument came from the re-emergence of old codexes. But newer discoveries gave earlier windows on the text and led the critics to hold that most of the corruptions in the text go back at least to the second century. The hope, then, is only to restore the text to about the fourth century. Although some of the more optimistic ones try to push that back to the third century.

What about the argument of preservation versus restoration of the NT text?

Good question. The reality is that there is not a reading in any ms. that can be materially and empirically proven to be written by the apostles. The belief that anything we have in the mss. is the word of God is based on presuppositions about the text. One holds to the doctrine of the word of God and then goes looking for it. Any "evidence" that emerges from that simply confirms the original belief. A doctrine of "preservation" is therefore baked into any theory that claims what is written in mss. is to be identified with the original. Some, in the interests of appearing "neutral" and genuinely "empirical" cover over their fideistic presuppositions. Others are more open about them.

How can we be sure? In the Bible it is very often the case that the minority is correct while the majority is in error. This seems to be one of God's MO's does it not?

This raises the question as to what is the "whole" of which one part is a minority and the other part a majority. Historically it is very hard to determine. The very idea of calling things "NT mss." already affords a quasi canonical status to the readings, and this tends to be assumed in their treatment. But it begs the question whether they are in fact NT mss. We do not have any chain of custody to determine provenance, and hence we are dependent on conjectural theories of ms. transmission. We have first hand witnesses of heretics corrupting mss. But we have no way of determining for sure which mss. they corrupted.

Last Question:
Which is more likely? For a scribe to drop a word or phrase from the Scriptures? Or, to add a phrase or verse of his choosing?

This supposes good intentions. Again, there were malignant forces at work, but we do not have the means to historically tie it to specific mss. and readings. Suppositions can be made based on what we claim to be the exemplar. And so you get the old Alexandrian versus Syrian narrative. Another factor is that we do not know what certain mss. were used for. Some of them bear the marks of being a text critical apparatus and may not have been intended as providing the true reading in themselves. And if we take into account all the reasons that somebody might copy a ms., they are not all for the purpose of providing an exact duplication. Just as someone would want to update an English Bible, so there would be people who wanted to update the Greek. Just as someone might casually copy a text for more general purposes, so with the Greek. In fact, just as a trainee would have to practice copying, so in the Greek. Perhaps they were also copied as writing exercises.

And we have not even gotten to the idea of sample size. How many mss. would have been copied versus how many we actually possess. In other empirical fields the same ratio would likely be regarded as too small to be able to draw positive conclusions from it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A word of caution here – we must be careful here to not delegitimize a view of faithfulness to our Confessions on the basis of TR or CT readings. A person may, in their scholarly integrity and good conscience before the LORD, hold to a view that supports the Critical Text. For me to say that person is in violation of the Confession simply goes back to one's view of which text is the one "kept pure".

We have come to an agreement, here on PB, not to delegitimize those who differ on their textual choices. I say this as one who is ardently and irrevocably a TR defender, yet I accord grace to those who differ with me. They are neither "unConfessional" nor unBiblical – though I strongly disagree with them – for they are men and women of integrity and in good conscience before our God. I'm not saying anyone here has denied this – just a word of caution.

 

[Pictet]

Just to add one extra caution to this debate, the scripture proofs are not an original part of the confession; the divines did not wish to have them. They worried, among other things, that it might lead to shallow, Biblicist proof-texting. There are none in the first edition.

They were added afterwards, by the divines, at the instruction of parliament. And they are (literally) marginalia there, not part of the inline text.

Obviously whether this is a subscription issue for us does depend on how our churches handle it/the vows we took/etc. But it seems to be to be a reasonable position to subscribe to the confession and see the proofs as useful aids to the confession and not as part of its substance.

 

[MW]

Just to add one extra caution to this debate, the scripture proofs are not an original part of the confession; the divines did not wish to have them. They worried, among other things, that it might lead to shallow, Biblicist proof-texting. There are none in the first edition.

They were added afterwards, by the divines, at the instruction of parliament. And they are (literally) marginalia there, not part of the inline text.

Obviously whether this is a subscription issue for us does depend on how our churches handle it/the vows we took/etc. But it seems to be to be a reasonable position to subscribe to the confession and see the proofs as useful aids to the confession and not as part of its substance.

It is true that the first printed edition of the Confession did not include Scripture proofs, and it is true that Parliament later instructed the Assembly to add them. But the claim (which I have seen commonly made) that the divines did not wish to have them or that they feared shallow Biblicist proof‑texting is not accurate. The Assembly itself explicitly explained why the proofs were not originally appended, and their reasons were very different.

1. They did not omit proofs because they opposed them. In their petition to Parliament, the Assembly stated plainly that they were willing and ready to obey the order to add proofs. Their hesitation was not theological but practical.

2. Their primary reason was the size of the Confession. They explained that the Confession was intentionally large, crafted to articulate orthodox doctrine and to meet common errors. If Scripture texts had been appended to every clause, it would have required an entire volume, not a single printed document.

3. They followed the precedent of the Church of England. The Articles of Religion had never included Scripture proofs, so the Assembly followed that established pattern.

4. The Assembly's debates did not focus on which doctrines were true. Most doctrinal points were universally received truths among the Reformed churches. Debate focused on wording, not on which texts proved the doctrine. As a result, Scripture texts were rarely discussed and never voted on.

5. Adding proofs now would have required extensive new debate and formal voting. Because proofs had never been voted on, every proposed text would now need to be offered by a member, debated, and formally voted upon. The Assembly warned Parliament that this would be a work of great length, making it impossible to "forthwith" print the Confession as Parliament had ordered.

Those who engage with the Reformed and Catholic exegetical tradition will see the proofs as being representative of that tradition. They reflect a shared understanding of the connections between text and theological statement. Numerous texts are common places. The Authorised Version is in sync with that exegetical tradition.

The historical fact is that the exegetical tradition has changed and new translations of Scripture reflect that change. However, in many cases, the Confession has not changed with it. If one holds to the new exegetical tradition it would be consistent to adopt a Confession that reflects it.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Just to add one extra caution to this debate, the scripture proofs are not an original part of the confession; the divines did not wish to have them. They worried, among other things, that it might lead to shallow, Biblicist proof-texting. There are none in the first edition.

They were added afterwards, by the divines, at the instruction of parliament. And they are (literally) marginalia there, not part of the inline text.

Obviously whether this is a subscription issue for us does depend on how our churches handle it/the vows we took/etc. But it seems to be to be a reasonable position to subscribe to the confession and see the proofs as useful aids to the confession and not as part of its substance.

Regardless, the point remains that we know that the Divines accepted as Scripture many verses/passages that are now questioned by the Critical Text tradition.

 

[CGS]

Or another way to put it...the Divines believed that they had a text that had been "kept pure in all ages" by God's "singular care and providence"...and this text included the Johannine Comma, the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer, the ending of Mark, and many other disputed verses.

 

[CGS]

The historical fact is that the exegetical tradition has changed and new translations of Scripture reflect that change. However, in many cases, the Confession has not changed with it. If one holds to the new exegetical tradition it would be consistent to adopt a Confession that reflects it.

@MW - do you agree with what the OPC did (see post #5 above)?

 

[MW]

@MW - do you agree with what the OPC did (see post #5 above)?

It is only a partial acknowledgment of the change in the exegetical tradition. Scripture regulates faith and the Confession of faith is subordinate to Scripture. So where is the new Confession to reflect the new exegesis? What does the new exegesis produce as one moves from text to theology? Or has Scripture ceased to exert a regulative control over the doctrines to be confessed? One is keeping the theological tradition alive but how long can it last on life support?

 

[PreDustined]

It's why I accept them because I know they are a basis for our standards

 

[DNM300]

I don't know if there is a preexisting database, but you can go to this page: https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/
and search the page for specific texts (you will have to check to see what the book abbreviations might be).

I did a quick search there for Mark 16 (of the different lengths end-text), and came up with the following:

ch. VII.3 note (b) Mk. 16:15-16​

VIII.4 note (j) Mk.16:19​

XVII.3 note (f) Mk.16:14​

XXVIII.4 note (a) Mk.16:15-16​

​

WSC 28, contains Mk.16:19 as a prooftext​

WLC 35, Mk.16:15​

WLC 51, Mk.16:19​

WLC 60, Mk.16:16​

WLC 63, Mk.16:15-16​

This seems a bit longwinded, but I don't know of a quicker method that has already been tabulated.

Only having experience with the shorter catechism really, that website provides scripture proofs significantly less than other copies of the WSC I have seen. 2 comparisons would be the PRTS pdf copy and The Crossway “creeds, catechisms and confessions” volume ed by C. Van Dixorn

 

[frog]

Those who engage with the Reformed and Catholic exegetical tradition will see the proofs as being representative of that tradition. They reflect a shared understanding of the connections between text and theological statement. Numerous texts are common places. The Authorised Version is in sync with that exegetical tradition.

The historical fact is that the exegetical tradition has changed and new translations of Scripture reflect that change. However, in many cases, the Confession has not changed with it. If one holds to the new exegetical tradition it would be consistent to adopt a Confession that reflects it.

In what way has the exegetical tradition changed? Does this refer to the change in the passages recognised as Scripture?

 

[MW]

In what way has the exegetical tradition changed? Does this refer to the change in the passages recognised as Scripture?

Yes, the textual base has changed, but that is only one part of the shift. Words matter. We call Scripture the word of God, and that already tells us that "words" are the divinely chosen means of communicating "things." The Reformed scholastics spoke of words as a doorway into realities. When Scripture is studied as verbal revelation, one becomes attentive to syntactical patterns, intertextual links, theological commonplaces, and the proof‑text chains that form a coherent doctrinal system.

But the deeper change is in the exegetical tradition itself. The older tradition operated with canonical coherence, typology, the sensus literalis as theological, and the conviction that Scripture's principal utility is for faith and life. Modern exegesis does not share these assumptions. Even if the textual base were identical, the method would produce different theology. Doctrinal loci no longer arise naturally from the text; intertextual chains are replaced with literary motifs; and confessional formulations, if they matter at all, matter only in the third or fourth place. Modern exegesis could not produce the Westminster Confession. A confession written today on modern exegetical principles would be dominated by methodological caveats and eschatological reconstruction.

In the older tradition, the exegetical goal was theological. The aim was to articulate the sense of the Holy Spirit speaking in holy Scripture. Modern exegesis aims at historical reconstruction and descriptive analysis, and it views traditional dogma with suspicion. The empirical method is inherently iconoclastic towards inherited theological claims; they are treated as idols to be smashed in the interests of methodological purity.

There is also a profound ecclesiological shift. In the older tradition, Scripture was written for the church and used in the church. Modern translations are designed so that every individual can read and understand for himself. The result is that every man has his own understanding, which then filters into the next generation of students and academics, who in turn produce a new translation for a new generation. Nothing is fixed; everything is in flux; and the flux itself is driven by metaphysical assumptions contrary to the Spirit of Scripture. A stable theological vocabulary becomes impossible because words have no stable meaning and no divinely intended coherence across the canon.

Now take this back to the text. IT HAS TO CHANGE. IT CANNOT REMAIN THE SAME. If it remained unchanged it would not be modern; and the spirit of modern intellectual thought demands first and foremost that everything must be MODERN.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I think what Charles @CGS has done in this thread, Westminster Standards Dependency on TR/KJV, especially in posts 5, 6, and 8 — is show how textual choices, based on modern views of Scripture and Confessional standards have impacted our spiritual lives and thinking.

Which is not to say that the findings resulting therefrom are binding on souls here at PB, but, rather, are evidences that our texts and our confessions have been tampered with, through the influence of modern paradigms of understanding and textual criticism.

I want to reiterate and stress, these findings are not binding, but are part of our arguments pertaining to the reliability of the KJV / TR view. I'd like to add at this point, the folks in my church, International Evangelical Church – Reformed, none of our congregation have English as their first language, and I freely use modern versions to help them understand God's word, all the while referring them to what I consider the "gold standard" of Scripture for accuracy and reliability: the KJV / TR.

Here at PB our folks are more learned and familiar with the various difficulties and don't need these aids, though I myself do benefit from studying the Greek and Hebrew and the modern versions' translational choices (when they don't contradict the gold standard).

 

[jwright82]

Yes, the textual base has changed, but that is only one part of the shift. Words matter. We call Scripture the word of God, and that already tells us that "words" are the divinely chosen means of communicating "things." The Reformed scholastics spoke of words as a doorway into realities. When Scripture is studied as verbal revelation, one becomes attentive to syntactical patterns, intertextual links, theological commonplaces, and the proof‑text chains that form a coherent doctrinal system.

But the deeper change is in the exegetical tradition itself. The older tradition operated with canonical coherence, typology, the sensus literalis as theological, and the conviction that Scripture's principal utility is for faith and life. Modern exegesis does not share these assumptions. Even if the textual base were identical, the method would produce different theology. Doctrinal loci no longer arise naturally from the text; intertextual chains are replaced with literary motifs; and confessional formulations, if they matter at all, matter only in the third or fourth place. Modern exegesis could not produce the Westminster Confession. A confession written today on modern exegetical principles would be dominated by methodological caveats and eschatological reconstruction.

All the only good reason to leave it alone one needs. I mean I guess I'll look it up after I post this. What possible reason was there to tinker with the proof texts?
Also I agree about the "near (we'll probably disagree with my choice of word there) impossibility of writing a confession today" because as you are about to elucidate the world view was different. More congenial to what the church needed.

In the older tradition, the exegetical goal was theological. The aim was to articulate the sense of the Holy Spirit speaking in holy Scripture. Modern exegesis aims at historical reconstruction and descriptive analysis, and it views traditional dogma with suspicion. The empirical method is inherently iconoclastic towards inherited theological claims; they are treated as idols to be smashed in the interests of methodological purity.

Yes and no matter where one goes with their exegesis it should be regulated by Scripture primarily but secondarily by our doctrinal tradition. A more or less stable confession regulates that in theory.
I believe it was Carl Trueman who said "yes confessions can change but it should be very hard to do so". It's not a matter to be taken lightly.

There is also a profound ecclesiological shift. In the older tradition, Scripture was written for the church and used in the church. Modern translations are designed so that every individual can read and understand for himself. The result is that every man has his own understanding, which then filters into the next generation of students and academics, who in turn produce a new translation for a new generation. Nothing is fixed; everything is in flux; and the flux itself is driven by metaphysical assumptions contrary to the Spirit of Scripture. A stable theological vocabulary becomes impossible because words have no stable meaning and no divinely intended coherence across the canon.

This is true as well. I mean look at all the different translations and study Bibles out there. I bet there's a LGBTQ friendly "bible" out there to suit your purposes.
But that's the opposite of the "Word Of God", it makes the text bow to us, rather than the other way around.

Now take this back to the text. IT HAS TO CHANGE. IT CANNOT REMAIN THE SAME. If it remained unchanged it would not be modern; and the spirit of modern intellectual thought demands first and foremost that everything must be MODERN.

 

[jwright82]

I think what Charles @CGS has done in this thread, Westminster Standards Dependency on TR/KJV, especially in posts 5, 6, and 8 — is show how textual choices, based on modern views of Scripture and Confessional standards have impacted our spiritual lives and thinking.

Which is not to say that the findings resulting therefrom are binding on souls here at PB, but, rather, are evidences that our texts and our confessions have been tampered with, through the influence of modern paradigms of understanding and textual criticism.

I want to reiterate and stress, these findings are not binding, but are part of our arguments pertaining to the reliability of the KJV / TR view. I'd like to add at this point, the folks in my church, International Evangelical Church – Reformed, none of our congregation have English as their first language, and I freely use modern versions to help them understand God's word, all the while referring them to what I consider the "gold standard" of Scripture for accuracy and reliability: the KJV / TR.

Here at PB our folks are more learned and familiar with the various difficulties and don't need these aids, though I myself do benefit from studying the Greek and Hebrew and the modern versions' translational choices (when they don't contradict the gold standard).

I always appreciate your input on these issues JB. But I must say this post is one of the most amazing applications of pastoral wisdom I've seen. "You'll use modern versions to help them understand but always refer them to the gold standard". Nicely done JB.

 

[cthorn14]

Here are some notable places where the standards follow a KJV reading that differs from most modern versions.

WCF 8.6 "the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world"

WSC 4 "God is a Spirit"

WCF 21.5 "with grace in the heart"

WSC 6 "these three are one"