bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
At our church, the pastor personally favors the NKJV, but preaches from the NASB since that's what most people in the congregation apparently use. I usually bring my ESV and read along from that.
Bible Version & Church Polity
- Thread starter larryjf
- Start date
- Status
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
It is not a difference in polity. They have merely adopted the ESV as the default version for those publications, and I think it was previously the NIV that was used. It is the same with the OPC's New Horizons and maybe Ordained Servant as well. However, quite often authors will use a different version.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
If there is no difference between congregational polity and denominational polity, then shouldn't the denomination have an official Bible version as a congregation does?
It has been discussed that it is beneficial for a congregation to have unity when it comes to the Bible version that they use, wouldn't be just as beneficial denomination-wide?
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
At Christ Reformed Church we have standardized on the ESV. All public reading, preaching and teaching is done in the ESV. Anyone preaching or teaching here would be expected to use the ESV.
I would rather keep the issue of textual variants out of the pulpit in regards to preaching. I rarely in my own preaching use the Greek to 'correct' or 'enhance' my translation on principle that there is not a single example of this in the scriptures. We do not see in the New Testament scriptures, a single place where the author 'corrected' or 'enhanced' upon the Greek Septuagint. There are some rather glaring places in the New Testament where the Septuagint is quoted where it seems to scream out for correction from the Hebrew but the author simply quotes it as is without modification or clarification.
If I ever use Greek or Hebrew in my preaching, the congregation just has to take my word for it as they don't know either language nor are proficient with lexical tools to check what I am saying.
This is not to say that I don't use the Greek and Hebrew in my sermons...for instance, if I were preaching on John 19:30 where Christ said "it is finished"...rather then pointing out that the Greek verb here is in the perfect tense and that therefore Christ means it is finished once and for all time, I would simply say that "what Christ is saying here by 'it is finished', is that it is finished now once and for all time", stressing that point without making any reference to the Greek (I don't need to point out an unknown language to my congregation for them to understand that what I am saying is indeed the case). I do this sort of thing a lot in my preaching. I want my people to have confidence in the Bible they hold in in their hands, and not in a language that is alien to them.
I know some Christians who sit under the type of Pastor that constantly 'corrects' the translation so that in the end, the believers have so little confidence in the english translation (whichever they use) as to find it almost worthless.
When it comes to textual variants, if I were in a church that used the KJV, I would preach from the KJV and if there were a passage that I felt had little support from the manuscripts, I would not point that out in my message; rather I would simply not place any weight upon it in my message (preach around it without calling the passage otherwise into doubt).
Bottom line...I don not see the pulpit ministry as the place to do translational studies or textual criticism.
These things I do in principle...if you ever listen to my preaching long enough you will eventually hear exceptions...but they are exceptions.
I would rather keep the issue of textual variants out of the pulpit in regards to preaching. I rarely in my own preaching use the Greek to 'correct' or 'enhance' my translation on principle that there is not a single example of this in the scriptures. We do not see in the New Testament scriptures, a single place where the author 'corrected' or 'enhanced' upon the Greek Septuagint. There are some rather glaring places in the New Testament where the Septuagint is quoted where it seems to scream out for correction from the Hebrew but the author simply quotes it as is without modification or clarification.
If I ever use Greek or Hebrew in my preaching, the congregation just has to take my word for it as they don't know either language nor are proficient with lexical tools to check what I am saying.
This is not to say that I don't use the Greek and Hebrew in my sermons...for instance, if I were preaching on John 19:30 where Christ said "it is finished"...rather then pointing out that the Greek verb here is in the perfect tense and that therefore Christ means it is finished once and for all time, I would simply say that "what Christ is saying here by 'it is finished', is that it is finished now once and for all time", stressing that point without making any reference to the Greek (I don't need to point out an unknown language to my congregation for them to understand that what I am saying is indeed the case). I do this sort of thing a lot in my preaching. I want my people to have confidence in the Bible they hold in in their hands, and not in a language that is alien to them.
I know some Christians who sit under the type of Pastor that constantly 'corrects' the translation so that in the end, the believers have so little confidence in the english translation (whichever they use) as to find it almost worthless.
When it comes to textual variants, if I were in a church that used the KJV, I would preach from the KJV and if there were a passage that I felt had little support from the manuscripts, I would not point that out in my message; rather I would simply not place any weight upon it in my message (preach around it without calling the passage otherwise into doubt).
Bottom line...I don not see the pulpit ministry as the place to do translational studies or textual criticism.
These things I do in principle...if you ever listen to my preaching long enough you will eventually hear exceptions...but they are exceptions.
2 Tim 4:2
Puritan Board Freshman
I only use the KJV. However I do not take some of the positions of the KJV onlyers. I will not be told which translation to use. And the church has no biblcial standard to make such a demand on the Pastor unless they can prove grave error in the translation. The church should be taking their leadership form the Pastor not the other way around. But if the church was going to be rebelious and it was going to be a constant source of contention. I would most likely see if God would have me resign.
Not in a Presbyterian church. The church takes its leadership from the Session (of which the pastor is a part) not one man. The Session is free to make a determination on publicly-used translation or not.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
So Fred, the real question is...since it benefits Church polity to have an official version on a congregational level, wouldn't it benefit Church polity to have an official version on a denominational level. In other words, would it be beneficial for the General Assembly to make an official Bible version for the PCA?
If yes, why haven't they done it?
If no, why the difference between the denominational level and the congregational level?
Simple:
1. It is more difficult to get consensus from 4-5 elders than 1500.
2. This, like other decisions in worship, are more affected by local situations. E.g. do most of your congregation use a particular version? Is it a small congregation that already has a certain pew Bible (and could not afford $500-1000 in the budget to buy new ones)?
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, in some instances there are local considerations. But certainly if the GA decided on an official version they could still allow churches to choose their own. Much like on the congregational level we have an official version, but we allow individual members to choose their own.
Our congregation in particular had NIV pew Bibles, and most of the congregation read from the NIV. Our pastor actually did sermons from the NASB. After the ESV came out we looked into it and decided to make that our official translation. We replaced all of our NIV's with ESV's.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Larry:
Maybe I'm dating myself, but years ago the main point of having a common version in use was for copywright purposes. Because people didn't identify with the KJV anymore, and were reading the easier versions in their daily devotions the church periodicals and even the church pulpits began to use the versions mostly used by the people. But the only one that could be used for free was the KJV, with all others requiring permission for use in publication. I know that in one denomination the entire denomination paid for the right to use one version for all printed material used denomination-wide, including individual churches. As I recall, that was the biggest reason at that time.
But another reason that was given was that of unity. Just like the denomination recommended the use of a common book of praise, so also it also recommended a common version of the Bible. A person could be anywhere in North America and still be at home in the local church of that denomination, wherever he may be.
As far as I can remember the denomination steered very clear of making any decision on version preference, or recommending one version overtop of another. They were all practical reasons, and not reasons of elevating one version overtop of another. Maybe that's changed in our day, I don't know. My church uses the NIV without being noticeably tripped up on the dynamic equivalence issue.
Maybe I'm dating myself, but years ago the main point of having a common version in use was for copywright purposes. Because people didn't identify with the KJV anymore, and were reading the easier versions in their daily devotions the church periodicals and even the church pulpits began to use the versions mostly used by the people. But the only one that could be used for free was the KJV, with all others requiring permission for use in publication. I know that in one denomination the entire denomination paid for the right to use one version for all printed material used denomination-wide, including individual churches. As I recall, that was the biggest reason at that time.
But another reason that was given was that of unity. Just like the denomination recommended the use of a common book of praise, so also it also recommended a common version of the Bible. A person could be anywhere in North America and still be at home in the local church of that denomination, wherever he may be.
As far as I can remember the denomination steered very clear of making any decision on version preference, or recommending one version overtop of another. They were all practical reasons, and not reasons of elevating one version overtop of another. Maybe that's changed in our day, I don't know. My church uses the NIV without being noticeably tripped up on the dynamic equivalence issue.
According to traditional Presbyterianism, the minister of the Word and sacraments has his seat in the Presbytery, and is answerable for the conduct of his ministry only to the Presbytery.
And the Session is charged with oversight of the worship of the local congregation.
The traditional rule is: "The Minister is specially responsible to the Presbytery for the mode in which all the parts of public worship are conducted." It certainly falls to the Session to determine the time of worship, but the parts of worship are the minister's responsibility.
- Status
Similar threads
