Kenneth Stewart's plea for unity

[iainduguid]

There's no doubt that the SL&C embodies the idea that modern nation states can covenant with God in exactly the same way that ancient Israel did, and receive the same kind of blessings and curses promised and threatened at Sinai - and this was often conceived in eschatological terms. Similar thoughts drove the Pilgrims across the Atlantic to set up a pure community here that could covenant with God more faithfully, forming a "city on a hill" that would project light back to compromised Europe. This idea was comprehensively rejected by later covenant theologians (certainly on this side of the Atlantic; not so sure of the wider history), but it's hard for me to see how you maintain the SL&C without it.

My point about the establishment principle is that I think there is a certain tension between the concept of a "national" church (one that is large enough to maintain churches within reach for the entire population) and a "pure" church (I don't mean that at all pejoratively; every conservative denomination is striving for purity, as we understand it, but the narrower we draw the lines, the smaller the church will tend to be). The post-disruption Free church was notably more conservative than the Church of Scotland from whence it came, but considerably looser than any of the present Scottish Presbyterian churches. In its desire to grow to match the mainline church, it became looser still, as the heresy trials, unions and further splits later in the 19th century demonstrate. I guess my question is whether it is possible to have a, say, 600 church denomination (required to be a national church even in Scotland) while affirming not only the WCF but quite minority views of how the WCF ought to be interpreted? Being small doesn't make you conservative, but my question is "Doesn't being larger almost inevitably require more toleration of a variety of interpretations of the standards?" And if this is true, how can a very conservative Presbyterian church realistically aspire to be the national church, even in a small country like Scotland? If you can't agree to differ on textual issues and 300 year old historical questions, what prospect is there of becoming "The Church of Scotland" (Free and Continuing)?

 

[Djmaclean]

Thank you for the reply, brother. I'm sorry to answer with delay.

My objection was directed to the principle enunciated earlier, i.e that which didn't divide the Chruch cannot be an obstacle to union. Discipline is not a division.
Furthermore, if we consider the mere fact that the TR has been the undisputed text of the Church of Scotland for three centuries, we have here a strong presumption in favour of the TR position. At least as strong as the discipline cases relating to marriage.

Please, note that the Free Church just claimed to be the Church of Scotland, with her Confession and constitution, free from the tyranny of the State. There is no Adopting Acts on the part of the Free Church. She just continued with the old Adopting Acts of the Church of Scotland, containing the real, and constitutionaly in force, animus imponentis.
An animus imponentis is not a private opinion, nor a majority opinion.

I agree in many respect with what you wrote. But to support errors within a Church is not the same thing as looking for union with other Churches we think to be in errors.

Thank you for this pleasant discussion. It is indeed good to have it.

Every blessing,

Hugues

Dear Brother

Thank you again for the engagement. I suppose there remain two areas of disagreement:

- Did the Free Church ever understand the Westminster Confession to commit her to the TR text tradition? I see evidence she didn't, and I don't think we can fall back on continuity with the Second Reformation (I'm not sure such an idea is actually problematic for Cunningham, but that is a wider historical question) to override the interpretation of the Confession revealed in the theory and practice of the 1843/1900 Free Church. I don't see how a church without Cunningham remains the Free Church.
- What are the implications of the older doctrine of the church for us today? I cannot see a path to reconcile the confessional/constitutional/second reformation doctrine of the church with the current division in Psalm singing churches in Scotland.

It has been good to discuss these matters in charity, and maybe one day in person we can continue dialogue!

Permit me to quote Durham in closing, which I'm sure we can all pray to see more lived out, even if we are not aligned on what this means in practice now:

"It is the duty of all Christians, especially of Ministers of the Gospel, to endeavour the preserving of unity, and the preventing of division, and the recovering of unity, and removing of division, by healing of the breach when it is made. Never did men run to quench fire in a City, lest all should be destroyed, with more diligence, than men ought to bestir themselves to quench this in the Church; never did mariners use more speed to stop a leak in a ship, lest all should be drowned, than Ministers especially, and all Christian men, should haste to stop this beginning of the breaking in of these waters of strife, lest thereby the whole Church be overwhelmed; And if the many evils which follow thereupon, the many commands whereby union is pressed; yea, the many entreaties and obtestations whereby the Holy Ghost doth so frequently urge this upon all, as a thing most acceptable to Him, and profitable to us; If, I say, these and many other such considerations, have not weight to convince of the necessity of this duty, to prevent, or heal a breach, We cannot tell what can prevail with men, that professe reverence to the great and dreadfull Name of God, conscience of duty, and respect to the edification of the Church, and to their own peace at the appearance of the Lord in the great Day, wherein the peace-makers shall be blessed; for, they shall be called the children of God."

Every blessing
DJ

 

[JP Wallace]

There's no doubt that the SL&C embodies the idea that modern nation states can covenant with God in exactly the same way that ancient Israel did, and receive the same kind of blessings and curses promised and threatened at Sinai - and this was often conceived in eschatological terms. Similar thoughts drove the Pilgrims across the Atlantic to set up a pure community here that could covenant with God more faithfully, forming a "city on a hill" that would project light back to compromised Europe. This idea was comprehensively rejected by later covenant theologians (certainly on this side of the Atlantic; not so sure of the wider history), but it's hard for me to see how you maintain the SL&C without it.

In one sense whether or not the SL&C provisions and desires have been comprehensively rejected by later theologians or not - rather misses the point (I don't mean that you, Ian, are missing the point!) - the nations of the present UK and Ireland ARE in covenant with, indeed are in a broken covenant relationship with God and that is the case whether it was a good idea or bad idea, whether it was wise or foolish, whether it was workable or not. The Covenanting movement recognises when carried out legitimately and nationally as the SL&C was, that those covenants are inviolable and so whether we think that generation was right or wrong we are included in the covenant committments of our fathers de facto.

So we are covenanters not only because we wish to see those provisions restored, but also because those provisions were put in place in the first place.

 

[iainduguid]

In one sense whether or not the SL&C provisions and desires have been comprehensively rejected by later theologians or not - rather misses the point (I don't mean that you, Ian, are missing the point!) - the nations of the present UK and Ireland ARE in covenant with, indeed are in a broken covenant relationship with God and that is the case whether it was a good idea or bad idea, whether it was wise or foolish, whether it was workable or not. The Covenanting movement recognises when carried out legitimately and nationally as the SL&C was, that those covenants are inviolable and so whether we think that generation was right or wrong we are included in the covenant committments of our fathers de facto.

So we are covenanters not only because we wish to see those provisions restored, but also because those provisions were put in place in the first place.

In the case of the FCC and the RPC, I don't think it is an issue since both affirm the SL&C to be sure. But it would hardly be a moot point in a proposed union between churches that had different views on the validity of modern nation states seeking individual covenants with God. If a covenant could not have legitimately been made in the first place, then that covenant could hardly be inviolable for the descendants of the original parties. It would be like a mother vowing that her first son would become a monk, using Hannah as her justification; if the vow was not legitimate in the first place, the son could hardly consider himself to be bound by it, even if he is obligated as a covenant child to serve the Lord.

In terms of the wider thread, this highlights the downside of the commendable desire for unity among conservative Presbyterians. Sound theology is very important to us, to the point where we are willing to have heresy trials and discipline people who (from our perspective) get it wrong. Larger churches must either agree to disagree over a multitude of "smaller" things or spend a lot of time and institutional energy trying to establish and maintain tight uniformity. It's not ideal that we have different views on so many things (worship issues, translation issues, historical issues, etc). But is it possible that sometimes it is better to work together harmoniously with a smaller group of brethren with whom we are in one accord than join a larger group that is condemned to perpetual infighting and/or compromise)? Perhaps more of us should be willing to accept more diversity in theological views in pursuit of unity, but then perhaps others have too willing to accept theological diversity in pursuit of unity? Each of us will be accountable to the Lord for what we regard as "non-negotiables" and what we compromise on, but we should be slow to judge brothers who come to a different conclusion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

An implication of the establishment principle, and Reformed ecclesiology more generally, was that one ought to join the national Reformed church - notwithstanding its many imperfections. Nowadays, our ecclesiology is not properly Reformed, but more a form of Presbyterianized Brownism.

Concerning the Solemn League and Covenant, our divines believed there was an analogical, not univocal likeness between Old Testament Israel and Protestant states in the New Testament age. Hence, they believed modern nations should enter similar covenants of duty to honour and obey the Lord.

 

[CathH]

My point about the establishment principle is that I think there is a certain tension between the concept of a "national" church (one that is large enough to maintain churches within reach for the entire population) and a "pure" church (I don't mean that at all pejoratively; every conservative denomination is striving for purity, as we understand it, but the narrower we draw the lines, the smaller the church will tend to be). The post-disruption Free church was notably more conservative than the Church of Scotland from whence it came, but considerably looser than any of the present Scottish Presbyterian churches. In its desire to grow to match the mainline church, it became looser still, as the heresy trials, unions and further splits later in the 19th century demonstrate. I guess my question is whether it is possible to have a, say, 600 church denomination (required to be a national church even in Scotland) while affirming not only the WCF but quite minority views of how the WCF ought to be interpreted? Being small doesn't make you conservative, but my question is "Doesn't being larger almost inevitably require more toleration of a variety of interpretations of the standards?" And if this is true, how can a very conservative Presbyterian church realistically aspire to be the national church, even in a small country like Scotland? If you can't agree to differ on textual issues and 300 year old historical questions, what prospect is there of becoming "The Church of Scotland" (Free and Continuing)?

Yes, there is a lot in this. Even having just walked out of a vitiated establishment, the post-Disruption Free Church retained the ideal of being a church for all of Scotland. This ideal is not very prominent in practical terms any more -- I mean, it's a nice idea, but in practical terms the smaller denominations have a tendency to add more niche practices and more niche doctrines to the list of things that are central to their identity, even when these are sometimes barely enforceable or barely explicable even within their own communions. So they function in effect as good markers of belonging to Denomination X, but they are not really relevant to belonging to the visible Church Universal, and there is hardly a chance of rolling them out even across Scotland.

So, if "pure" means "dotting every i with Denomination X's cultural markers" then I'd have to agree that purity is incompatible with being a national church. At the same time though, I would venture that in the minds of the Disruption fathers prior to the Disruption, they would have thought that there had been reasonable success in balancing "purity" with not only a "national" church but even an established church. I think this would be the sentiments of, eg, the 1842 Claim, Declaration and Protest - that for 300 years by then, give or take, the national church had not been so impure as to require secession. So I would slightly dissent from the position that there is inevitably a tension between "pure" and "national," although there is probably inevitably a tension between separatist and national.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I really appreciate seeing another perspective, but would you be able to summarize? I don't really have time to listen to over two hours of material on this point. Thanks!

I thought I had listened to these but it was a case of intending to, then never did. I listened to them yesterday and today. They were gripping! (Rev. Beers is a master history re-counter). They're the kind of narrative you don't want to end. They clarified so much. Just commenting to encourage anyone with an interest in an accurate and enlightening history of our sad divides to give them a listen.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

What Christian could disagree with an unqualified call for church unity? The Church of Christ ought to be one, and barriers to union ought to be addressed so that they may be taken away. The FCC and the RPCS ought to be one. However, Mr. Stewart's address does not give the full picture. For a fuller understanding of the schism that exists between the RPCS and the FCC, and how that schism can be healed, I recommend the following two-part series.

Reposting Tyler's links for ease in finding.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I know this really isn't going to address the doctrinal issues -- a denomination can and SHOULD pay serious attention to the Bible version used, and if a denomination believes the Textus Receptus is the only faithful text, that's going to be a nonstarter for union with any groups that don't agree. Same for exclusive psalmody and a long list of other issues.

But perhaps we ought to be re-evaluating the premise, not the specifics that are barring church union.

Is it really required by God's Word that every godly church be in full communion with every other godly church? Is there not a place in the body of Christ for legitimate differences in doctrine that stem, not from denying the authority of God's Word, but rather from debating what specific texts do or do not say?

Look at the Puritan Board, for example. I know this isn't a church, or a fellowship of churches. But I think it's patently obvious that conservative Reformed Christians from a wide variety of conservative Reformed local churches (note that I did not **NOT** use the word "denomination" here, and there are reasons for that) have more Christian fellowship here, and more mutual encouragement and edification and education, than happens in most of the smaller Reformed denominations at their synods/general assemblies or other national broadest assemblies/highest courts.

This isn't new. Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield recognized that they shared the same faith but obviously differed greatly on church polity. One was in Anglican orders; the other was a Congregationalist. A few generations later, Spurgeon was widely read with great profit by non-Baptists, and a few generations earlier, the same had been true for Bunyan. Both men are still today widely read by Reformed men who are not Baptists and could never be members of a Baptist church without rebaptism following profession.

If two denominations decide they have enough in common that they should merge, that's a good thing.

But the modern ecumenical movement has left a bad taste in the mouth of many conservatives, perhaps most, on the problems of prioritizing church union. "I don't believe anything, you don't believe anything, so let's get together" is not an unfair evaluation of much of ecumenicalism.

It's patently obvious these conservative Scottish denominations believe a great deal and care greatly about what they believe. That criticism doesn't apply to them.

But I seriously wonder whether most of these church union proposals, even when made by godly conservative men, lead to far more heat than light, and spent large amounts of effort on a goal which may be unattainable and unnecessary even if it is attainable. Perhaps these denominations should just spend more time working together on what they both agree is God's work than on debating terms of union, and then seeing if the union logically follows as members, elders, and ministers decide their doctrinal differences may not be as important as they thought, or on the other hand, that the differences allow cooperation but not union.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Is it really required by God's Word that every godly church be in full communion with every other godly church?

Yes (depending, perhaps, on what you mean by "godly church" and "full communion").

Is there not a place in the body of Christ for legitimate differences in doctrine that stem, not from denying the authority of God's Word, but rather from debating what specific texts do or do not say?

Yes. These 2 questions are not mutually exclusive.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Yes (depending, perhaps, on what you mean by "godly church" and "full communion").

Yes. These 2 questions are not mutually exclusive.

Fair point. The devil is in the details. (To be clear, I do believe in strict confessional subscription, and I do believe in what the Dutch call "close communion," i.e., elder supervision of the Table, which puts me quite a bit to the right of a lot of people in the American conservative Reformed world, even within NAPARC, let alone the broader group of people who identify as "Reformed." My answers to those types of questions are probably going to look a lot more like what the Scots are used to than what a lot of American Calvinists are used to.)

However, on the broader issue, I seriously question whether full organic union of denominations is worth the effort many put into it. I understand why the liberals promote ecumenism; they have agendas and goals that are not ours. For conservatives, however, I think we would be much better advised to simply do the work that churches are supposed to be doing at the local, regional, national, and international levels and decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not we can work with specific local churches and denominations.

If that leads to denominational union or local church mergers, fine. If not, that also may be fine.

Sometimes people can cooperate with no problem, but mergers will never work.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Fair point. The devil is in the details. (To be clear, I do believe in strict confessional subscription, and I do believe in what the Dutch call "close communion," i.e., elder supervision of the Table, which puts me quite a bit to the right of a lot of people in the American conservative Reformed world, even within NAPARC, let alone the broader group of people who identify as "Reformed." My answers to those types of questions are probably going to look a lot more like what the Scots are used to than what a lot of American Calvinists are used to.)

However, on the broader issue, I seriously question whether full organic union of denominations is worth the effort many put into it. I understand why the liberals promote ecumenism; they have agendas and goals that are not ours. For conservatives, however, I think we would be much better advised to simply do the work that churches are supposed to be doing at the local, regional, national, and international levels and decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not we can work with specific local churches and denominations.

If that leads to denominational union or local church mergers, fine. If not, that also may be fine.

Sometimes people can cooperate with no problem, but mergers will never work.

I'm "right" there with you. But when you say you believe in strict confessional subscription, do you mean the original Westminster Standards? Those standards were intended to bring about covenanted uniformity and the establishment and maintenance of faithful, established Churches in many nations. Or do you mean an American version of the confession which surrenders the ideal of national, established Churches?

I agree that mergers often don't work but is that perhaps due to the fact that they do not have as a common goal the establishment of a national Church "that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed" (WCF 23.3)? While admitting that "particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them" (WCF 25.4), this is no reason to not have them - the SL&C that was the impetus behind the Westminster Standards admitted that the Scots' Church was more pure than the English and Irish Churches (calling for "preservation" of the former and "reformation" of the latter two - which gives sense to how much influence the relatively few Scots' commissioners were given).

Maybe this ideal is fading as amil supplants postmil in the Reformed world, but I still pray for a confederation of Reformed national Churches which can support one another and "go from strength to strength, till every one appear before God in Zion." (Psalm 84:7). Imagine if some non-Western nation took the best of Westminster and the best of the 3FU and created a national Church based on the resulting hybrid - theological heterosis if you will. Consider the benefits of federalism (albeit in faded form given the increased power of federal government) in the United States or United Kingdom - having different states/kingdoms doing things differently and learning from one another what works best - and imagine that with different nations having different Churches.

 

[Jake]

Darrell's post reminded me that: two of the Scottish denominations, FCoS and FCoS(C) are part of the U.K.'s Affinity group which is sort of like NAPARC in North America and is denominations partnering together: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_(Christian_organisation)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I must say this is the best Puritan Board thread I've had opportunity to read in a good while. I have good friends in both the RPCNA and the FC(C) and am intrigued by a lot of this conversation on that front, as well as enjoying the historical lessons. On the MK question I find myself (at the moment) more in the Gillespie/Rutherford camp, partly because they are the ones I have read most recently.

Thank you to each of the men (and ladies) involved in the conversation. As someone in a Seceder/Covenanter hybrid church (the ARP) along with Rev. Dr. Duguid (I'm not sure if Dr. Duguid remembers but he gave the charge at my ordination many moons ago) I have read a lot in the 1733 Secession. One of the things I have found interesting in Ebenezer Erskine's writings particularly is that he takes a view that in the scheme of things the Societies which stayed out of the 1690 settlement were in principle correct to do so. He also has much to say (along with Alexander Moncrieff) on the inviolable nature of the National covenants, which the Secession Church felt the need to reaffirm at their founding. A lot was also written in those days as to the nature of the Secession Church, whether they were a continuing church or a "new thing". At the end of the day they believed themselves to be much of the same mind of Thomas Chalmers a century later who would write that they were Establishment principle men going out on the Establishment principle and were the true heirs of the 1560 CoS. The Burgher controversy was one of the saddest events in the history of the Scottish Church for this reason.

I say all this because the ARP is constitutionally different (at least in theory, our practice is all over the place, sadly) when it comes to the question both of EP and the Establishment than other American denominations. We are not of the American revisions. Our WCF (1799) 21.5 has a note that remarks that the WCF understands Psalms to mean Psalms (noting this because we are not EP, but we believe the original WCF is EP), and that WCF 23 requires Christian Magistrates ruling according to Christian Principles.

I say all this for a couple of reasons. 1) I am sympathetic to the need for union, but wonder at its utility for some of the reasons Dr. Duguid has noted. Sometimes good fences make good neighbors. 2) There are a lot of problems in the American Presbyterian world right now which, in my mind, have their genesis in the voluntaryism native to our founding.

As I learn and see more of the conversation in this thread it is helping me personally to know how to live and navigate life in a church (the ARP) with so much going on theologically (let alone ecclesiastically).

Thanks again y'all.

 

[Solparvus]

I must say this is the best Puritan Board thread I've had opportunity to read in a good while.

I've only superficially kept up in the last few weeks, but I fully agree. It's been a help to me as well for reasons you've mentioned. I hope to weigh in again if time and availability let me.

I'm working through the life and works of Martin Bucer right now, and he had many things to say on matters of unity. Perhaps I'll be able to contribute something that I find from him.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Thank you Andrew. And sorry for the delay in my reply.

Do you mean the Westminster Divines as a body, or in their individual writings outside of that body? I'm not sure we can know the former without the latter, but you seem to reject that:

The Westminster documents have an internal coherence and clarity so that, usually, it's not necessary to read the individual writings of the Divines to understand the documents correctly. In other words: I don't think that it is necessary to read every Westminster Divine on every confessionnal issue before being able to understand or suscribe the Confession.
Furthermore, the Confession has not integrated every opinion of every Divine, so that an individual writing can be at variance with the Confession.
Yet, that being said, I agree that the individual writings are important.

I think B.B. Warfield did a worthy job of showing how the Assembly arrived at the wording of WCF 1, and his work showing the influence of Usher and the 1615 Irish Articles sheds light on whether or not the Westminster Divines thought they possessed pure Hebrew and Greek sources - they definitely "identified the pure Hebrew and Greek sources" in 1.8 as "The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God," but they never claimed to have pure copies at hand. This does not mean they did not believe they could not, as Usher put it, discern "the true reading" and that the "this diversity or difficulty [of having "diversities of readings noted in the Greek text of the New Testament] can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of the Christian religion." See The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Book VI. The Westminster Assembly and its Work. 2003 Baker Books edition. pp.176-177 with pp.187-188 (I couldn't find a free digital copy online).

My question is not about copies as such. Did they possess the pure sources mentioned in the Confession, i.e the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek?

 

[Logan]

My question is not about copies as such. Did they possess the pure sources mentioned in the Confession, i.e the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek?

Yes they did. And so did those coming before Erasmus. It was kept pure in all ages. Thus what is meant by the phrase cannot apply exclusively to one line of printed manuscripts. Their view of purity was necessarily broader than how the TR camp is defining it.

 

[Sam Jer]

The OPC is a continuing church of the old PCUSA, and the PCA is a continuing church of the old PCUS. That's why Sean Michael Lucas named his book on the origins of the PCA For a Continuing Church.

That's not to say that many of the men in those denomination emphasize those things much. However, that was the intent when the denominations were founded.

I doubt it is that simple. The reasons the old PCUS and old PCUSA were seperated would come into question, meaning one legitimate continuing church of the original Philadelphia Synod would exist. The OPC and PCA would both have to delve into the various schisms of the past to figure out which one of them is the legitimate Continuing Presbetyrian Church in the United States of America.

 

[iainduguid]

I doubt it is that simple. The reasons the old PCUS and old PCUSA were seperated would come into question, meaning one legitimate continuing church of the original Philadelphia Synod would exist. The OPC and PCA would both have to delve into the various schisms of the past to figure out which one of them is the legitimate Continuing Presbetyrian Church in the United States of America.

I'm sure the distinctions between the OPC and PCA are not simple, and probably include a number of different emphases between Northern and Southern versions of Presbyterianism. However, as I understand it, neither the OPC nor the PCA would claim to be the one legitimate continuing Presbyterian church. Because neither believes in a single established church for America, there is nothing at stake in the claim to be the only true heirs of that church (historically speaking), in the way that the issue seems to be important to the FCC and RPC. They are both seeking to be faithful to their confessional roots (the American version), and the Scriptural foundations upon which they rest (as of course are the FCC and RPC in their own understanding).

Of course, as history demonstrates, being a "voluntary" church doesn't remove all obstacles to unity (not least if the other Presbyterian church is committed to the establishment principle). The PCA and OPC had a couple of attempts at joining together in the 70's/80's (a bit before my time) which went nowhere for a variety of reasons. Some of those probably had to do with perceived differences of church culture, while others had to do with suspicion that the other church was "too broad" on some issue. Initially, some in the PCA had concerns that the OPC was unreliable on justification (this was in the immediate aftermath of the Shepherd controversy). But I don't think American church history ever became an issue in the discussions (I'm open to being corrected if others know differently.

One interesting result of the failed OPC PCA discussions was that a number of OPC churches moved into the PCA (especially those associated with the "New Life" movement) because they felt the PCA a better fit. I've sometimes imagined that every fifty years, Presbyterians should announce a "Jubilee" year, in which everyone gets together in a single location, finds all the churches that they can agree with on as much as possible and forms themselves into new denominations (or new versions of the same ones, if you prefer). We probably wouldn't end up with many fewer denominations, but we might live more harmoniously in the groupings that we have. This is obviously why I don't teach Church Polity...

 

[Sam Jer]

I'm sure the distinctions between the OPC and PCA are not simple, and probably include a number of different emphases between Northern and Southern versions of Presbyterianism. However, as I understand it, neither the OPC nor the PCA would claim to be the one legitimate continuing Presbyterian church. Because neither believes in a single established church for America, there is nothing at stake in the claim to be the only true heirs of that church (historically speaking), in the way that the issue seems to be important to the FCC and RPC. They are both seeking to be faithful to their confessional roots (the American version), and the Scriptural foundations upon which they rest (as of course are the FCC and RPC in their own understanding).

I did not say these discussions took place (I am mysekf ignorant), but that such a view of the church would not allow giving both denominations the designation of dully constituted.
Now the American situation certainly complicates things, since churches came over from various places across the pond.
Also, the very question assumes this view of ecclesiology. Does a denomination born by sinful schism still have an obligation to "roll it back" as it were, even when many generations have passed, and much else transpired since?

However, establishmentarianism is not, in my view, part and parcel of the question. It is simply amplifying it. One could hold to the duty of church unity, and that such historical questions are the way to find out who everyone ought to join, without holding to establishmentarianism.

One interesting result of the failed OPC PCA discussions was that a number of OPC churches moved into the PCA (especially those associated with the "New Life" movement) because they felt the PCA a better fit. I've sometimes imagined that every fifty years, Presbyterians should announce a "Jubilee" year, in which everyone gets together in a single location, finds all the churches that they can agree with on as much as possible and forms themselves into new denominations (or new versions of the same ones, if you prefer). We probably wouldn't end up with many fewer denominations, but we might live more harmoniously in the groupings that we have. This is obviously why I don't teach Church Polity...

If you could agree to such a re-shuffle, why not go one more step and unify the P&R churches in those united states?

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I did not say these discussions took place (I am mysekf ignorant), but that such a view of the church would not allow giving both denominations the designation of dully constituted.
Now the American situation certainly complicates things, since churches came over from various places across the pond.
Also, the very question assumes this view of ecclesiology. Does a denomination born by sinful schism still have an obligation to "roll it back" as it were, even when many generations have passed, and much else transpired since?

However, establishmentarianism is not, in my view, part and parcel of the question. It is simply amplifying it. One could hold to the duty of church unity, and that such historical questions are the way to find out who everyone ought to join, without holding to establishmentarianism.


If you could agree to such a re-shuffle, why not go one more step and unify the P&R churches in those united states?

Robert Godfrey had a worthy idea.

A Reformed Dream | The Outlook Magazine

outlook.reformedfellowship.net

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Yes they did. And so did those coming before Erasmus. It was kept pure in all ages. Thus what is meant by the phrase cannot apply exclusively to one line of printed manuscripts. Their view of purity was necessarily broader than how the TR camp is defining it.

Hello Logan, thank you for your reply. And Happy New Year to everyone.

I'm not aware of any person in the TR camp applying the preservation of the Greek New Testament exclusively to the printed TR. Since the various editions of the TR are merely printed versions and compilations of the received copies, such a claim would have no sense.
The Greek New Testament, pure and authentic, according to the Divines, was subsisting in both modes: through received copies and printed editions.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Furthermore, the Confession has not integrated every opinion of every Divine, so that an individual writing can be at variance with the Confession.
Yet, that being said, I agree that the individual writings are important.

The Greek New Testament, pure and authentic, according to the Divines, was subsisting in both modes: through received copies and printed editions.

Did they possess the pure sources mentioned in the Confession, i.e the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek?

Brother, I appreciate your replies, but I must admit I'm a bit lost trying to figure out how to respond to your responses. The WCF simply states in 1.8 that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek were "immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." Nowhere does it state that in all ages that those texts were known to man. The same argument can be used with the proof text provided for WCF 1.8, Matthew 5.18: "For truly I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle of the Law shall not pass away, till all things be fulfilled." Christ taught that that every jot or tittle will remain - He did not say they would always be known. In fact, it is a regular teaching of the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles that sometimes He hides His Word - see Matthew 13.13-17 and Acts 28.25-28 (both quoting Isaiah), for examples.

Scripture further testifies of itself that its text can be "lost," remain hidden, and then be brought to light. See for example II Kings 22.8-10: "And Hilkiah the high Priest said unto Shaphan the chancellor, I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord: and Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.... Also Shaphan the chancellor showed the king, saying, 'Hilkiah the Priest hath delivered me a book.' And Shaphan read it before the King." The Geneva notes suggest: "This was the copy that Moses left them, as appeareth, 2 Chron. 34:14, which either by the negligence of the Priests had been lost, or else by the wickedness of idolatrous kings had been abolished."

Your question (Did [the Westminster Divines] possess the pure sources mentioned in the Confession, i.e the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek?) cannot be answered by appealing to the Confession alone, but would instead have to be answered by looking at the personal writings of the divines, which have you stated are both "important," but could also "be at variance with the Confession." So my question is, where in the Westminster Standards or in the writings of its authors is there a claim that they in that age possessed the pure Hebrew and Greek texts?

As I believe the II Kings passage teaches, the Scriptures can be kept pure by God's singular care and providence without man having access to them for a season. I am not saying that is true or not of the age of the Westminster Assembly because I see no evidence that they made either claim.

 

[Logan]

I'm not aware of any person in the TR camp applying the preservation of the Greek New Testament exclusively to the printed TR. Since the various editions of the TR are merely printed versions and compilations of the received copies, such a claim would have no sense.
The Greek New Testament, pure and authentic, according to the Divines, was subsisting in both modes: through received copies and printed editions.

Thanks Hughes. As for referring exclusively to the printed versions, I could name three prominent TR advocates who have argued exactly that. But regardless, to claim otherwise would undermine the TR position because the TR position in my experience has never allowed any alternate readings besides what are in the printed copies. This is likely because of a peculiar view of purity. But even there we have a problem, because if "pure means pure" then which readings in the TR are the correct ones since they all have slight differences and even the KJV was a compilation of several? Thus, the definition of "kept pure" is necessarily broader and encompasses more than just printed copies.

The "received" copies, according to the writings of the Puritans before mentioned, were "all" the copies. Which would make the received text "all" the copies (and the TR position would essentially be non-existent).

So is it all the copies, or just the printed copies? If, as you argue, it is not all the copies but just the received copies, then which ones are those received copies and can you point to a source who argued for that as opposed to the ones I've listed that argued for all the copies? Are the "received copies" only the ones that agree with the printed copies?

Remember, I'm not arguing for a critical text position.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Thank you brother. I appreciate the seriousness in which you engaged my former reply.

Thanks Hughes. As for referring exclusively to the printed versions, I could name three prominent TR advocates who have argued exactly that. But regardless, to claim otherwise would undermine the TR position because the TR position in my experience has never allowed any alternate readings besides what are in the printed copies. This is likely because of a peculiar view of purity.

I didn't speak about alternate readings. My point was that the pure Greek New Testament was kept pure in all ages, first in the received copies and then in the printed editions also. The printed editions are not a ex nihilo text. They are printed editions of the received copies.

But even there we have a problem, because if "pure means pure" then which readings in the TR are the correct ones since they all have slight differences and even the KJV was a compilation of several? Thus, the definition of "kept pure" is necessarily broader and encompasses more than just printed copies.

I don't think the purity of the text requires the absence of variants. Nevertheless, I don't understand your conclusion. Can you clarify, please?

The "received" copies, according to the writings of the Puritans before mentioned, were "all" the copied. Which would make the received text "all" the copies (and the TR position would essentially be non-existent).

I cannot agree with this statement. As for Bridge, the natural reading of the expression "received copies" lead us to suppose that some other copies have not been received. Furthermore, he describes these received copies as having "no material" differences between them. But some Greek copies had material differences between them.
John Owen spoke of "stigmatized" and "corrupted" copies. He gave several examples, one of them was a copy of the Gospel of Luke which had been in the hands of Beza.
Similarly, Turretin, alluding to Beza, spoke of "the most approved" copies in the context of a textual variant.
Erasmus himself seems to have denied the variants from the Vaticanus manuscript, which he thought to be a translation from the Latin text.

So is it all the copies, or just the printed copies? If, as you argue, it is not all the copies but just the received copies, then which ones are those received copies and can you point to a source who argued for that as opposed to the ones I've listed that argued for all the copies? Are the "received copies" only the ones that agree with the printed copies?

The received copies were the copies used by the Reformed to compile and print the TRs.

 

[Logan]

I didn't speak about alternate readings. My point was that the pure Greek New Testament was kept pure in all ages, first in the received copies and then in the printed editions also. The printed editions are not a ex nihilo text. They are printed editions of the received copies.

I don't think this concept of the "received" copies is one you'll find in any of their writings. But my primary problem with the TR position is that it holds to a number of readings that are indeed ex nihilo and ignore actual copies. 1 John 5:7 is a famous one but the last couple of verses of Revelation is problematic as they are readings which have only ever been in printed texts, never in any manuscripts.

I don't think the purity of the text requires the absence of variants. Nevertheless, I don't understand your conclusion. Can you clarify, please?

Perhaps you don't argue this but the "TR position" has so many variations and quite a few of its proponents argue that pure means pure, therefore you can't have a text with any uncertainty. They use this to argue against the Critical Text (e.g., "you can't have a mostly pure" text) while ignoring the variants within their acceptable printed line.

I cannot agree with this statement. As for Bridge, the natural reading of the expression "received copies" lead us to suppose that some other copies have not been received. Furthermore, he describes these received copies as having "no material" differences between them. But some Greek copies had material differences between them.

His statement concludes with "we may adhere to all". However, precisely what copies and what variants he meant by that statement isn't of particular importance to my point, which was they didn't appeal to any kind of TR as the modern TR proponents do. That wasn't a concept.

John Owen spoke of "stigmatized" and "corrupted" copies. He gave several examples, one of them was a copy of the Gospel of Luke which had been in the hands of Beza.
Similarly, Turretin, alluding to Beza, spoke of "the most approved" copies in the context of a textual variant.

Undoubtedly, and those are appropriate. But once again, there is no concept here of appealing to the line of printed text (and only their underlying "received copies"). After all, Owen praised Walton's work of collating all known variants as a worthy endeavor. They were making judgments of textual criticism based on the merits of the texts themselves. Not purely on some concept of "received". Turretin in particular argues for certain passages based on it appearing in most of the copies, or the best copies---a methodology which is antithetical to today's TR proponents.

Erasmus himself seems to have denied the variants from the Vaticanus manuscript, which he thought to be a translation from the Latin text.

I've seen this claim made but not substantiated. He appears to have been very interested in the manuscript. Even so, Erasmus' opinions on this aren't really relevant are they?

The received copies were the copies used by the Reformed to compile and print the TRs.

Where did they state this? Or is this a supposition? And why did they continue to look at manuscripts after this had apparently been "received" and decided?

Again, these are concepts which are unique to the modern TR position. You have to read those concepts back into the people of that era. Their views in their writings is quite clear: they looked at all the copies they could, they evaluated all the variants they could, and made judgments on them and in many cases disagreed with what was in the "received text" of the day in favor of alternate readings, and yet still maintained that the Scriptures were kept pure in all ages.

I'm going to excuse myself from further comment.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I've seen this claim made but not substantiated. He [Erasmus] appears to have been very interested in the manuscript.

Good day brother Logan,

Not trying to derail the broader conversation concerning unity, but are you familiar with H. J. De Jonge's article, "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum"?

The manuscript to which Erasmus refers at the end of this passage is the Codex Vaticanus par excellence, now Gr 1209, designated as B40 Erasmus regarded the text of this codex as influenced by the Vulgate and therefore inferior.

It is true that Erasmus repeatedly disqualified the Codex Vaticanus as a latinizing textual witness. Yet it should be pointed out nonetheless, that Erasmus was also the first scholar who appealed to the Codex Vaticanus for critical purposes. On 18 June 1521 Paul Bombasius, the secretary of the influential cardinal Lorenzo Pucci at Rome, sent a letter lo Erasmus containing a copy of l John 4, l-3 and 5,7-11 from the Codex Vaticanus. In his Annotationes on l John 5,7 Erasmus later stated that the Comma Johanneum was missing from the Codex Vaticanus, according to a transcript which Bombasius had made at his, Erasmus', request (meo rogatu). It appears from this that Erasmus himself had asked Bombasius to verify the passage in question in the Codex Vaticanus. It is with Erasmus that the Codex Vaticanus began to play a role in the textual criticism of the New Testament.

 

[Logan]

Good day brother Logan,

Not trying to derail the broader conversation concerning unity, but are you familiar with H. J. De Jonge's article, "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum"?

Thanks Alex, I hope you are well!

Yes, I'm familiar with De Jonge's article. It's a good article. I agree that the story of Erasmus' "promise" seems to be a legend.

Erasmus didn't accept the Comma, and also didn't dismiss Vaticanus because it was absent in it.

De Jonge states that "For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of 1 John."

"If he had had a Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum then he would have included the Comma. But he had not found a single such manuscript and consequently he omitted the Comma Johanneum."

In regard to the manuscript given to Erasmus that had the Comma, De Jonge states
"It is as good as certain, as JR Harris demonstrated, that this manuscript was produced to order." Even though we aren't certain Erasmus thought that, it does appear to be the case in actuality.

As to Vaticanus, yes, Erasmus believed that it and many other manuscripts had been influenced by the Latin, although as you quoted, he still appealed to it and in his Annotations appeals to the fact that Vaticanus didn't contain it.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Thanks Alex, I hope you are well!

. . . .

Just to clarify the intention in sharing: My limited aim was to provide a resource that speaks to Erasmus' estimation of the Vaticanus. I think what the article points out is that Erasmus saw Vaticanus as having been inferior to more reliable sources, nevertheless, using it for broader textual critical purposes.

Hugues Pierre said, "Erasmus himself seems to have denied the variants from the Vaticanus manuscript." You replied, "I've seen this claim made but not substantiated. He appears to have been very interested in the manuscript."

The above article should provide clarity for any interested in this topic.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

I don't think this concept of the "received" copies is one you'll find in any of their writings. But my primary problem with the TR position is that it holds to a number of readings that are indeed ex nihilo and ignore actual copies. 1 John 5:7 is a famous one but the last couple of verses of Revelation is problematic as they are readings which have only ever been in printed texts, never in any manuscripts.


Perhaps you don't argue this but the "TR position" has so many variations and quite a few of its proponents argue that pure means pure, therefore you can't have a text with any uncertainty. They use this to argue against the Critical Text (e.g., "you can't have a mostly pure" text) while ignoring the variants within their acceptable printed line.


His statement concludes with "we may adhere to all". However, precisely what copies and what variants he meant by that statement isn't of particular importance to my point, which was they didn't appeal to any kind of TR as the modern TR proponents do. That wasn't a concept.


Undoubtedly, and those are appropriate. But once again, there is no concept here of appealing to the line of printed text (and only their underlying "received copies"). After all, Owen praised Walton's work of collating all known variants as a worthy endeavor. They were making judgments of textual criticism based on the merits of the texts themselves. Not purely on some concept of "received". Turretin in particular argues for certain passages based on it appearing in most of the copies, or the best copies---a methodology which is antithetical to today's TR proponents.


I've seen this claim made but not substantiated. He appears to have been very interested in the manuscript. Even so, Erasmus' opinions on this aren't really relevant are they?


Where did they state this? Or is this a supposition? And why did they continue to look at manuscripts after this had apparently been "received" and decided?

Again, these are concepts which are unique to the modern TR position. You have to read those concepts back into the people of that era. Their views in their writings is quite clear: they looked at all the copies they could, they evaluated all the variants they could, and made judgments on them and in many cases disagreed with what was in the "received text" of the day in favor of alternate readings, and yet still maintained that the Scriptures were kept pure in all ages.

I'm going to excuse myself from further comment.

Logan, thank you for your time and consideration. I have been happy to have this conversation with you.

Here are found my final thoughts.

1. Regarding the received copies, I used the expression according to Bridge's quote you provided. It's a mere fact that the Reformed have "received copies" or "most approved copies" and that they rejected "corrupted" and "stigmatized" copies. The approved copies were obviously used for the compilation and printing of the TR (i.e Owen's story regarding Beza).

2. Concerning the method employed by the Reformed, nobody has denied the use of critical textual methods. Yet, I deny the strong discontinuity you claim regarding the modern pro TR people. A respected authority like Richard Muller could affirm that the first generation of Reformed considered the Erasmus Greek Text as definitive and that the following generations tried to follow their paths in front of the raising of many textual difficulties. In fact, Owen and Turretin wrote precisely to defend the printed Hebrew and Greek texts they possessed. The process of establishing a printed Greek New Testament had a beggining and an end. And at the end, every one was happy with the text, until the last part of 19th century.
The newness in the apologetic of modern TR people relates to the changes in adversity and arguments (something true of many others doctrines). Today, the confesionnal status of the TR is denied, whence arises the necessity to prove it by arguments obviously unused by the Reformed of past centuries, since it wasn't an issue for anyone.

3. Concerning the Comma and last verses of Revelation, either the Reformed had copies containing these verses (as they affirmed, i.e Turretin claims that all Greek copies have the Comma; David Martin wrote an entire book in defense of it with many manuscripts evidences etc.) or you must conclude that they didn't practice textual criticism as you claim they did. In either case, the criticism seems to be irrelevant for your argument.