Presbyteries and Standardization of Bible Version

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem here is that the issue is as much (or more) one of ecclesiology as translation.

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

Pastor Greco,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes -- you took rightly.
 
Do you heed the court's ruling and use the NASB in your church?

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

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

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

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

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

So, if the major Reformed churches said that your Session couldn't use any Bible which was translated largely from the TR would you submit?
 
We set up standards not to divide ... we set them up to clarify what the church believes. It may be that historically, every standard has always been in response to error within the church, yet the purpose was not to alienate, but to educate. If the purpose was to alienate, that would be divisive, and worthy of a charge of being divisive. There are things which are worthy of separating from a body, and there are things were are not. A standard translation is far from worthy of dividing the church when the standards themselves point to the original languages as the primary authority within the church.

You can't have one without the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original question is about the authority of the church, and does it extend to mandating a translation, even to the extent of private worship. My answer to that would be, unless the scripture teaches that there is only one translation into each language, the answer is no. WFC XX.2 forbids what is otherwise a popish practice of requiring what is in addition to what the scriptures teach in matters of faith and worship.
 
Liberty of the conscience is of great importance. If we pronounce edicts on things the Bible does not pronounce as edicts, we are no different than papists. Requiring what God does not require is papist in the extreme.

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

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

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

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

Though if the a GA, not a presbytery, did bind our consciences and require one, or exclude some, I would submit and think it had some benefits.
 
Do you heed the court's ruling and use the NASB in your church?

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

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

Fred,

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

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

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

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

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

That is not Presbyterianism.
 
So you would deny the decision of the court, and enter into private judgment?

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

The presbyterian court itself, recognising its liability to error, has provided for the expression of disagreements which do not flout the authority of the court.
 
But most current presbyterianism allows exceptions, right?

3rd option.
One could except this part anyway.

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

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

Hmmm.....

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

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

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

Who would know what the Bible pronounces as edicts since according to the novel theory which has been presented in this thread the messsage of the Bible is shut up in originals which no person has access to nor the infallible key to unlock them.
 
But Armoubearer, would you then say their can only be one version as standard as long as the current Confession stands?

Abstractly it would be possible to have two versions which say basically the same thing because a rich vocabulary can express the same idea in a number of ways. But in reality the versions available today do not say the same thing because they have arisen as an expression of individual interpretations of Scripture. This leaves confessional people with a choice. Now, how much do they believe their confession, and on what basis do they believe it? A confession which is not based on Scripture represents a magisterial rather than a ministerial tradition and is unreformed. If they accept a translation which offers a different interpretation of Scripture than the one on which their confession is founded they are left without a biblical basis for holding their confession? E.g., the reformers rejected the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen 4:7 which effectively alters the doctrine of original sin; but the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen. 4:7 has been adopted by every modern translation; yet reformed people who accept and authorise these modern translations have not altered their doctrine of original sin; hence reformed people are believing a doctrine on something other than a biblical basis, which is unreformed. Changes in the interpretation of the Bible sets in motion a process which will require an alteration in the doctrinal formulations which are based on them. That is an inescapable reality.
 
1. No. And if they tried to require a certain commercial translation, I'd want to look to see if anyone was getting a kickback.

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

4. Yes. See answer to 2 above.
 
Abstractly it would be possible to have two versions which say basically the same thing because a rich vocabulary can express the same idea in a number of ways. But in reality the versions available today do not say the same thing because they have arisen as an expression of individual interpretations of Scripture. This leaves confessional people with a choice. Now, how much do they believe their confession, and on what basis do they believe it? A confession which is not based on Scripture represents a magisterial rather than a ministerial tradition and is unreformed. If they accept a translation which offers a different interpretation of Scripture than the one on which their confession is founded they are left without a biblical basis for holding their confession? E.g., the reformers rejected the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen 4:7 which effectively alters the doctrine of original sin; but the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen. 4:7 has been adopted by every modern translation; yet reformed people who accept and authorise these modern translations have not altered their doctrine of original sin; hence reformed people are believing a doctrine on something other than a biblical basis, which is unreformed. Changes in the interpretation of the Bible sets in motion a process which will require an alteration in the doctrinal formulations which are based on them. That is an inescapable reality.

At the very least, Rev. Winzer, I deeply appreciate this reminder that our confessional formulations must be wholly rooted in scripture, and that our exegesis of individual passages can have far reaching implications. Again, at the very least, this drives me to ensure that I understand why the old divines interpreted certain passages the way they did, especially as they saw them in relationship to other teachings and portions of scripture.
 
...E.g., the reformers rejected the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen 4:7 which effectively alters the doctrine of original sin; but the Anabaptist interpretation of Gen. 4:7 has been adopted by every modern translation; yet reformed people who accept and authorise these modern translations have not altered their doctrine of original sin; hence reformed people are believing a doctrine on something other than a biblical basis, which is unreformed. Changes in the interpretation of the Bible sets in motion a process which will require an alteration in the doctrinal formulations which are based on them. That is an inescapable reality.

For those interested here is the difference:

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

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

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

King James Version
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
 
The minister is not permitted to flout the authority of his court.

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

Rev. Winzer,

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

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

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

The Practice allows for all office-bearers to register appeal, dissent and even protest against unconstitutional actions of any church court.
 
Times change, not convictions

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

It is a source of gratification to the Old School Presbyterian Church, that she has been able to do thus much to preserve the English Version of the Scriptures from arbitrary changes. She has an interest in the so-called Version of King James beyond that of almost any other denomination of Christians... The Presbyterians also contribute far the largest portion to the funds of the American Bible Society, and have the largest representation in it, though without any seeking of their own. The duty of the American Bible Society plainly is, to publish the English Version as it came from the hands of the translators, with no other changes than the adoption of the modern for the obsolete orthography, and the correction of printers' blunders which may have been made... An improved version has not yet appeared in the English tongue. When it has been produced and obtained the approbation of the people of God, it will be time to take measures for its publication and diffusion.
 
Next, all office-bearers vow that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the confession of their faith. There are no reservations or exceptions. Thus the church's doctrinal constitution includes the Confession as a faithful and conscientious interpretation of the Scriptures. Therefore the act of accepting a Bible which repudiates the biblical basis of the Westminster Confession of Faith is unconstitutional.

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

Obviously these would include the received translations at the time the Confession was written, such as the Geneva and the AV, and hypothetically any subsequent translation which did not alter the text or interpretation upon which the confessional formulation was based.
 
Is there a list of Bibles that are permissible to be used for teaching in your denomination, or is this your personal interpretation of your denominational standards?
 
Is there a list of Bibles that are permissible to be used for teaching in your denomination, or is this your personal interpretation of your denominational standards?

The Authorised Version is the standard English Bible used in the pulpit and recommended to others.
 
Matthew,
I was disturbed by the following quote out of the article you cited. (Sorry I don't know how to do the fancy quoting of other cites as you guys do):

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

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

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

No translation is right 100% of the time. At least I've never seen it -- but then maybe I'm wrong in my evaluation of their error. I hope you see the dilemma.

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

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

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

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

In many ways this connects to having a confessional doctrinal standard and Samuel Rutherford makes the connection between subscribing to the latter and having a vernacular translation. A confession is Scripture in its various doctrines put into the form of a doctrinal statement. It is not Scripture verbatim but it is Scripture in its doctrine. You are not required to sign up to the confession as the absolutely perfect way of expressing these truths. In other words the wording is not infallible as with Scripture but this does not take away from the fact that it is teaching what Scripture teaches. Likewise you do not necessarily assert that every word and choice of the translators is absolutely perfect but this does not take away from the fact. If we need a binding common confession how much more do we need a common translation of Scripture on which the confession is founded. Of course we appeal to the original languages from both but that does not mean that we cannot identify a clear common standard as the best for the purposes of teaching and unity.
Hope this helps
 
Charles Hodge, 'The American Bible Society and its New Standard Edition of the English Version,' in The Princeton Review, July, 1857, p. 507.

As there is nothing in this world so sacred as the word of God, and nothing so precious to all who use the English language as the English version of the Bible, it is the instinct, as well as the duty of the Church (i. e. of the people of God) to guard its integrity with the greatest vigilance, and to watch with a solicitude, amounting even to jealousy, the conduct of those who are charged with its publication and distribution.
 
To my shame, I really need to learn more about the history of the Presbyterian church in my own country...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top