TR/KJV Viewpoint and NAPARC Churches?

[jwright82]

I decided to start another thread so as not to derail a different one. As I've said before, I don't really have a dog in this race because I've never studied the issue (I'm busy studying other things at the moment), so I'm ignorant of the finer details.
But I'm always interested in the world of ecclesiastical politics. So I searched the internet on this issue and here's what I found out, I'm open to correction on the facts though. I personally hold to the idea that the ESV Bible I use is one of many translations that are inerent, infallible, authoritative over all aspects of life in some form and that God has ensured the preservation of his Word.
I just never looked into the details of this debate. That said, the future Terminator Overlord's said that:
1. Currently no NAPARC Churches require the TR/KJV view as their official view.
2. Therefore they don't make it binding on church officer's or members.
3. There has to date been no court cases involving this issue as a complaint against a Minister's views/preaching and teaching.
4. And if it was made a formal charge against someone, that it would not go anywhere and likely be dismissed, for different reasons (Dutch vs Scottish confessions). That's that they don't personally hold to this view and are therefore against the confessions.
5. There's been no attempt to make it a binding view in any General Assembly or Synod to date.
Now since I understand how deeply people feel about this issue and have no intention to weigh in on either side, I won't discuss that.
But is there anything that the TR/KJV movement is currently doing to change the view of their denomination's? If so what is it? Or is this a church by church, presbyteri/classis issue?

 

[Jake]

I think FRCNA, HRC, and PRC all are some flavor of KJV or TR preferred. Free Reformed, Heritage Reformed, and Presbyterian Reformed. FRs are 3FU, PRs are WS, and HRs are both. I'm not aware of positions for the other NAPARC denominations.

The RPCNA has an interesting statement as part of their Testimony which I believe support newer translations, though not all interepret it thusly: "Bible translations must combine faithfulness to the original text with the idiom of the native language, and thus will always be imperfect. The Church is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them. Paraphrases, which interpret rather than translate, must be used with great caution."

What all us Westminster-confession denominations have in common is the teachings on Scripture in Chapter 1 of the WCF. I believe there are two main teachings of the WCF that affects Bible translations:

• "[the Scriptures] are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come" — I would argue that older translations increasingly struggle to meet this mark, of being in the common language. Even the WCF, if you were to hand this to the average English speaker, might think "vulgar language" means something different. There are many words that have changed meaning or fallen out of use since the Reformation-era Bibles were published. Some say any "modern English" including "early modern English" is fine to meet this requirement.
• "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"— Some argue that this refers to the Masoretic Text and (some form of) the Textus Receptus. I would not view this as narrowly. I believe God has providentially preserved the text of Scripture, but I believe there may be errors in certain manuscripts and printed Greek texts. I believe this view is mainstream in most NAPARC churches and has been well articulated by B.B. Warfield and others.

 

[SolusChristus]

As for NAPARC churches, Rev. Christian Mcshaffrey of Five Solas OPC in Reedsburg, WI preaches from the Authorized Version/KJV. He is an advocate of and defender of the use of the AV/KJV/Confessional Bibliology (see his website here: https://www.textandtranslation.org/).

When my family and I have visited while on vacation, I have not been policed about which translation I was using (though I was using the KJV). I know this is just one example but there are those within NAPARC who do hold that the TR is the Confessional and Ecclesiastical text and therefore preach from the KJV (and sometimes NKJV). There are also some who say they are "Byzantine preferred" and do not hold to critical text methodology (yes, the TR is a "critical text" but I am using that term here to refer to modern textual criticism a la Nestle-Aland, etc.) even though they may preach from a Critical Text translation.

 

[jwright82]

I think FRCNA, HRC, and PRC all are some flavor of KJV or TR preferred. Free Reformed, Heritage Reformed, and Presbyterian Reformed. FRs are 3FU, PRs are WS, and HRs are both. I'm not aware of positions for the other NAPARC denominations.

The RPCNA has an interesting statement as part of their Testimony which I believe support newer translations, though not all interepret it thusly: "Bible translations must combine faithfulness to the original text with the idiom of the native language, and thus will always be imperfect. The Church is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them. Paraphrases, which interpret rather than translate, must be used with great caution."

What all us Westminster-confession denominations have in common is the teachings on Scripture in Chapter 1 of the WCF. I believe there are two main teachings of the WCF that affects Bible translations:

• "[the Scriptures] are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come" — I would argue that older translations increasingly struggle to meet this mark, of being in the common language. Even the WCF, if you were to hand this to the average English speaker, might think "vulgar language" means something different. There are many words that have changed meaning or fallen out of use since the Reformation-era Bibles were published. Some say any "modern English" including "early modern English" is fine to meet this requirement.
• "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"— Some argue that this refers to the Masoretic Text and (some form of) the Textus Receptus. I would not view this as narrowly. I believe God has providentially preserved the text of Scripture, but I believe there may be errors in certain manuscripts and printed Greek texts. I believe this view is mainstream in most NAPARC churches and has been well articulated by B.B. Warfield and others.

Yes I agree with you. ChatGPT did reference the denomination's you mentioned having a preference for the TR/KJV view but it's not binding. And your view is the mainstream view, according to ChatGPT. Which I share.
I was just curious if there exists any groups that are pushing for this view to be official in their denomination's. Or there isn't. I just know how some people feel that this is a Confessional issue and if it is then that warrants in some way changing the denomination's official/unofficial view and practice.
If so, then is anything being done? If not then the better, let people debate it out wherever.

 

[jwright82]

As for NAPARC churches, Rev. Christian Mcshaffrey of Five Solas OPC in Reedsburg, WI preaches from the Authorized Version/KJV. He is an advocate of and defender of the use of the AV/KJV/Confessional Bibliology (see his website here: https://www.textandtranslation.org/).

When my family and I have visited while on vacation, I have not been policed about which translation I was using (though I was using the KJV). I know this is just one example but there are those within NAPARC who do hold that the TR is the Confessional and Ecclesiastical text and therefore preach from the KJV (and sometimes NKJV). There are also some who say they are "Byzantine preferred" and do not hold to critical text methodology (yes, the TR is a "critical text" but I am using that term here to refer to modern textual criticism a la Nestle-Aland, etc.) even though they may preach from a Critical Text translation.

Yeah I figured it was a church by church basis thing. I just wanted to hear from others on it. Thanks.

 

[Edward]

. I personally hold to the idea that the ESV Bible I use is one of many translations that are inerent, infallible,

I think you go too far there in saying that the translations are inerrant and infallible. That goes beyond what Westminster teaches us. And beyond the underlying discussion as to which texts are the best to be used as the basis for the translation.

 

[jwright82]

I think you go too far there in saying that the translations are inerrant and infallible. That goes beyond what Westminster teaches us. And beyond the underlying discussion as to which texts are the best to be used as the basis for the translation.

I agree. It's an Evangelical "turn of phrase". Yeah I'm studying all this stuff now so I'm aware of that stuff. But thanks for the correction.

 

[MW]

I think you go too far there in saying that the translations are inerrant and infallible. That goes beyond what Westminster teaches us. And beyond the underlying discussion as to which texts are the best to be used as the basis for the translation.

It is easy to say, but hard to articulate. One should be careful to qualify that the thing being translated is the inspired and infallible word of God. But in people's haste to assure us the translation must be human and fallible they often leave this part out. The Westminster divines drew a distinction between the words and the sense of the translation. The sense of Scripture, translated faithfully, is the inspired and infallible word of God. When the Hebrew of the Old Testament is put in Greek in the New Testament it is claimed that such and such said these things by the Holy Ghost or that the Holy Ghost says these things. The qualities of the word of God do not wash out in the translation.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The Church is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them.

This has long been an issue with me - very few churches/denominations advise their flocks as to which translations are the most faithful/trustworthy. This was once the norm - the Geneva was authorised by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1579; the KJV/AV was, of course (it's in the name), authorised for use in churches in 1611 (by the same king).

I've heard in the past that there are a few present denominations that do make such an endorsement, but from what I can tell no NAPARC member officially mandates or recognizes a particular version/translation. If I recall correctly, the PCA and OPC explicitly state that they do not have one official or exclusive version of the Bible, leaving it to pastors and local church sessions to decide what to use.

Isn't it odd that all of our confessions begin by stating that Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is to be the rule of faith and life, and yet we fail to direct people to faithful texts? Take the end of WCF 1.8: "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." Wouldn't the person reading this for the first time naturally ask, "Okay, so which translation should I use?" or "Which translation(-s) does this denomination use?" And yet all of our NAPARC denominations are silent on the issue. I'm not saying (1) each denomination needs to have their own original translation or, (2) they have to make one single existing translation the exclusive one (though I believe there is some wisdom in that), but at least decide which ones to recommend for people to use (and then also use them from the pulpit).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This has long been an issue with me - very few churches/denominations advise their flocks as to which translations are the most faithful/trustworthy. This was once the norm - the Geneva was authorised by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1579; the KJV/AV was, of course (it's in the name), authorised for use in churches in 1611 (by the same king).

I've heard in the past that there are a few present denominations that do make such an endorsement, but from what I can tell no NAPARC member officially mandates or recognizes a particular version/translation. If I recall correctly, the PCA and OPC explicitly state that they do not have one official or exclusive version of the Bible, leaving it to pastors and local church sessions to decide what to use.

Isn't it odd that all of our confessions begin by stating that Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is to be the rule of faith and life, and yet we fail to direct people to faithful texts? Take the end of WCF 1.8: "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." Wouldn't the person reading this for the first time naturally ask, "Okay, so which translation should I use?" or "Which translation(-s) does this denomination use?" And yet all of our NAPARC denominations are silent on the issue. I'm not saying (1) each denomination needs to have their own original translation or, (2) they have to make one single existing translation the exclusive one (though I believe there is some wisdom in that), but at least decide which ones to recommend for people to use (and then also use them from the pulpit).

The OPC clearly made its formal declaration. You don't purge something you approve of.

 

[jwright82]

It is easy to say, but hard to articulate. One should be careful to qualify that the thing being translated is the inspired and infallible word of God. But in people's haste to assure us the translation must be human and fallible they often leave this part out. The Westminster divines drew a distinction between the words and the sense of the translation. The sense of Scripture, translated faithfully, is the inspired and infallible word of God. When the Hebrew of the Old Testament is put in Greek in the New Testament it is claimed that such and such said these things by the Holy Ghost or that the Holy Ghost says these things. The qualities of the word of God do not wash out in the translation.

Nice point.

 

[jwright82]

This has long been an issue with me - very few churches/denominations advise their flocks as to which translations are the most faithful/trustworthy. This was once the norm - the Geneva was authorised by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1579; the KJV/AV was, of course (it's in the name), authorised for use in churches in 1611 (by the same king).

I've heard in the past that there are a few present denominations that do make such an endorsement, but from what I can tell no NAPARC member officially mandates or recognizes a particular version/translation. If I recall correctly, the PCA and OPC explicitly state that they do not have one official or exclusive version of the Bible, leaving it to pastors and local church sessions to decide what to use.

Isn't it odd that all of our confessions begin by stating that Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is to be the rule of faith and life, and yet we fail to direct people to faithful texts? Take the end of WCF 1.8: "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." Wouldn't the person reading this for the first time naturally ask, "Okay, so which translation should I use?" or "Which translation(-s) does this denomination use?" And yet all of our NAPARC denominations are silent on the issue. I'm not saying (1) each denomination needs to have their own original translation or, (2) they have to make one single existing translation the exclusive one (though I believe there is some wisdom in that), but at least decide which ones to recommend for people to use (and then also use them from the pulpit).

So do you think that each denomination should have a translation they unofficially endorse to members and for the sermon? But not make it official and binding?

 

[MChase]

This has long been an issue with me - very few churches/denominations advise their flocks as to which translations are the most faithful/trustworthy. This was once the norm - the Geneva was authorised by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1579; the KJV/AV was, of course (it's in the name), authorised for use in churches in 1611 (by the same king).

I've heard in the past that there are a few present denominations that do make such an endorsement, but from what I can tell no NAPARC member officially mandates or recognizes a particular version/translation. If I recall correctly, the PCA and OPC explicitly state that they do not have one official or exclusive version of the Bible, leaving it to pastors and local church sessions to decide what to use.

Isn't it odd that all of our confessions begin by stating that Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is to be the rule of faith and life, and yet we fail to direct people to faithful texts? Take the end of WCF 1.8: "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." Wouldn't the person reading this for the first time naturally ask, "Okay, so which translation should I use?" or "Which translation(-s) does this denomination use?" And yet all of our NAPARC denominations are silent on the issue. I'm not saying (1) each denomination needs to have their own original translation or, (2) they have to make one single existing translation the exclusive one (though I believe there is some wisdom in that), but at least decide which ones to recommend for people to use (and then also use them from the pulpit).

Brother - the HRC, FRC, and PRC all limit what translations can be used from the pulpit. In the FRC, the NKJV is allowed alongside the KJV, while the other two only allow for the KJV. When I was in the PRC, the KJV was the universal translation used in homes and personal devotions as well. The case in the FRC is a bit different, at least in the congregation I am in, but the KJV is still given deference for public meetings. So I do not think it is quite fair that NAPARC is entirely silent on the issue; the FRC & HRC are relatively small in comparison with other bodies, but combined are ~half the size of the URC, and the seminary allows for these bodies to punch above their weight as it were.

That being said, I do fear that something is in the process of being lost; folks will use the KJV but the reasons why are not always clearly taught. I also fear that some of the folks who traditionally were holding the line on this are starting to give in a bit. I purchased an ebook from RHB today, Holy Meditations from Manton, and I was extremely disappointed to see that they removed all references to the authorized version.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Churches can — and do — do that (advise what Bible translation is the best, and what the church holds to), but here on PB have we not agreed among ourselves not to do that?

It may be a very contentious subject, but here we may irenically but vigorously promote our view, while not delegitimizing others'. There are a number of views held to here, and well-thought-out, and we value our fellowship, while "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3 KJV). Is there not wisdom here in doing this? We are not a church, though a distinct, unique community of saints.

 

[TooManySystematics]

Wouldn't the person reading this for the first time naturally ask, "Okay, so which translation should I use?" or "Which translation(-s) does this denomination use?" And yet all of our NAPARC denominations are silent on the issue.

I don't believe this is quite accurate. The CanRC have their an entire committee set up which, among other things, makes recommendations to the churches regarding commonly used bible translations. Over the years they've weighed in on the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV.

 

[Northern Crofter]

So do you think that each denomination should have a translation they unofficially endorse to members and for the sermon? But not make it official and binding?

They should provide guidance to their flocks - most people in the pew don't have the time or ability to determine which text or texts are best. It would seem that there is no other matter of first importance as the text of Scripture. At the least they should endorse a translation(-s), but why not also endorse the underlying texts, and why not make it binding? Anyone can read whatever translation they want, but having a denomination/Church stand behind one provides not only uniformity but also bears testimony to the doctrine that Scripture is inspired and kept pure.

While we confess that "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth [of Scripture], and divine authority... is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts" (WCF 1.5), and that the "authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church" (WCF 1.4), we also confess that "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture" (WCF 1.5).

I don't personally come away with a "high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture" when the testimony of the Church is "use whatever text you want, they all have the basics." Maybe it's just me because I don't think that way ("use whatever ______ you want, they all have the basics.") about any area of my life that I can think of (food, motor oil, technology, soap, firearms, etc.). I'm not an expert in any of those areas, but I want what I believe is truly the best so I listen to the testimony of others who have gone before me, observe how they function, and make the best choice I can. Shouldn't the Scriptures be the first "product" to be evaluated in such a manner? If so, who better to testify than the eldership as a ruling body?

 

[jwright82]

They should provide guidance to their flocks - most people in the pew don't have the time or ability to determine which text or texts are best. It would seem that there is no other matter of first importance as the text of Scripture. At the least they should endorse a translation(-s), but why not also endorse the underlying texts, and why not make it binding? Anyone can read whatever translation they want, but having a denomination/Church stand behind one provides not only uniformity but also bears testimony to the doctrine that Scripture is inspired and kept pure.

While we confess that "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth [of Scripture], and divine authority... is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts" (WCF 1.5), and that the "authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church" (WCF 1.4), we also confess that "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture" (WCF 1.5).

I don't personally come away with a "high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture" when the testimony of the Church is "use whatever text you want, they all have the basics." Maybe it's just me because I don't think that way ("use whatever ______ you want, they all have the basics.") about any area of my life that I can think of (food, motor oil, technology, soap, firearms, etc.). I'm not an expert in any of those areas, but I want what I believe is truly the best so I listen to the testimony of others who have gone before me, observe how they function, and make the best choice I can. Shouldn't the Scriptures be the first "product" to be evaluated in such a manner? If so, who better to testify than the eldership as a ruling body?

Ok, thanks for your personal opinion. But your response seems to imply that the denomination "should" make it binding. That they should come down on one side of this debate, your side. Therefore leaving it an open question is wrong if I understand you correctly. Scripture should be the first and most important subject for the church and NAPARC Churches have decided to leave the question of which translation open, I agree with that.
Plus there's practically no way to enforce your opinion on any denomination within NAPARC Churches. Telling people who do not agree with you what they should do probably ain't gonna get you very far.
I mean starting a movement within your church to persuade people to agree with you and adopt whatever translation you think is the best is probably the only option you got.
But I think you and I are approaching the question from two different angles, if I understand you. You're approaching it from the angle of "the way things should be" and the reality on the ground is not that. Without a road map for getting from here to there I'm suspicious of the whole thing.
Where as I'm starting from the way things are and asking "what reason do I have to change that, it seems to be working fine"? An individual can think whatever they want, that's fine and encourage others to do the same.

 

[MW]

But I think you and I are approaching the question from two different angles, if I understand you. You're approaching it from the angle of "the way things should be" and the reality on the ground is not that. Without a road map for getting from here to there I'm suspicious of the whole thing.
Where as I'm starting from the way things are and asking "what reason do I have to change that, it seems to be working fine"? An individual can think whatever they want, that's fine and encourage others to do the same.

If you go back to the other thread, I think it will give you the reason you are looking for. The fact is that the versions have not been tested for their Confessional fidelity. They have come in ad hoc under the justification that something more modern was needed. If one looks more closely at the Confession and the versions it becomes evident that the versions are not supporting the Confession at various points. So the question remains for the church and its ministry, How confessional will it be, and what kind of confessionalism will it maintain into the future. I think you will find that some make conscience of teaching confessional doctrines; others, not so much.

So, when it comes to "binding" decisions, it is really the "conscience" that does the binding in the first place. If one believes the Confession is 100% biblical he should have no difficulty in teaching the Confession to others, and in recommending a version that facilitates this. If one is in a church that is full subscription with no exceptions taken it would be reasonable to do the same. Even from a moral point of view, if one thinks a version is "best," then he has a responsibility to recommend what is "best" to others. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The issue is, that people have different criteria for determining what is best. As I said, the modern versions came in under the criteria of readability without giving serious consideration to confessional fidelity.

 

[John Nyberg]

As I said, the modern versions came in under the criteria of readability without giving serious consideration to confessional fidelity.

Are the NKJV and MEV good options for someone looking for readability and confessional fidelity?

 

[MW]

Are the NKJV and MEV good options for someone looking for readability and confessional fidelity?

Whatever one reads, especially when it comes to the Scriptures, familiarity is useful to become accustomed to syntactical and semantic patterning. So readability is largely the result of familiar patterns. NKJV and MEV have the advantage of translating the MT and TR with a generally conservative translation philosophy. But here one will also find modern exegetical trends infiltrating the translation and leading one away from the confessional exegetical tradition. As an example, I will refer to Heb. 2:16 since there was a recent discussion on it. Both translations follow the innovation that was introduced in the 16th century as opposed to the traditional reading of the text.

 

[jwright82]

If you go back to the other thread, I think it will give you the reason you are looking for. The fact is that the versions have not been tested for their Confessional fidelity. They have come in ad hoc under the justification that something more modern was needed. If one looks more closely at the Confession and the versions it becomes evident that the versions are not supporting the Confession at various points. So the question remains for the church and its ministry, How confessional will it be, and what kind of confessionalism will it maintain into the future. I think you will find that some make conscience of teaching confessional doctrines; others, not so much.

I agree, if I understand you correctly. It's up to the individual churches. It would seem, unless I missed something, that's what NAPARC Churches have done also. And until some group is successful in changing it's church or denomination it will remain that way.

So, when it comes to "binding" decisions, it is really the "conscience" that does the binding in the first place. If one believes the Confession is 100% biblical he should have no difficulty in teaching the Confession to others, and in recommending a version that facilitates this.

Agreed, individuals should do that but individuals do disagree about matters of conscience. Keep it on an individual basis or a church can recommend it I'm fine with all that. And I have no problem with a denomination declaring one way or the other on this.

If one is in a church that is full subscription with no exceptions taken it would be reasonable to do the same. Even from a moral point of view, if one thinks a version is "best," then he has a responsibility to recommend what is "best" to others. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The issue is, that people have different criteria for determining what is best. As I said, the modern versions came in under the criteria of readability without giving serious consideration to confessional fidelity.

Ok, except for your last statement which I can't opine on, I completely agree. So I think that the answer to my question is "no one is doing anything to change their denomination and it's only a convincing one person at a time" scenario.
But the reality is the same, NAPARC Churches do not (if ChatGPT is correct) see this as a problem for confessional subscription. In fact that's a different conversation than I'm trying to have.
I'm curious on what if anything the one side is doing to change things? It seems it's a person by person basis, nothing wrong with that.

 

[MW]

I agree, if I understand you correctly. It's up to the individual churches. It would seem, unless I missed something, that's what NAPARC Churches have done also. And until some group is successful in changing it's church or denomination it will remain that way.

I'm not sure what you intend by NAPARC churches. "NAPARC" itself is not a church. So one will need to be careful not to fall into the trap of treating it as if it has a quasi denominational authority. None of the actions of these churches falls under NAPARC beyond the qualifications necessary to be part of the affiliation. That affiliation must be broader than any one church. So there is nothing of a "representative" nature in calling them NAPARC churches. In fact, this is the problem with ecclesial bodies forming under a non ecclesial organisation. Christ does not act as the rightful head of the body except in some vague, voluntaristic sense.

Agreed, individuals should do that but individuals do disagree about matters of conscience. Keep it on an individual basis or a church can recommend it I'm fine with all that. And I have no problem with a denomination declaring one way or the other on this.

I think you are missing the point. The "conscience" itself is bound, not free. If one is convicted the confession is biblical it is ultimately God speaking in His word that is the constraining factor. As for "freedom," the kind of freedom you are seeking is already there. Nobody can force an individual, church, or denomination to do otherwise than what they are doing. It remains within the realm of persuasion.

Ok, except for your last statement which I can't opine on, I completely agree. So I think that the answer to my question is "no one is doing anything to change their denomination and it's only a convincing one person at a time" scenario.

Why do you think the denomination is above the individual person when it comes to moral liability? There is something you might want to investigate. It would be easy for an individual to hide behind his institution, but an institution is still a moral entity accountable to God.

 

[jwright82]

I'm not sure what you intend by NAPARC churches. "NAPARC" itself is not a church. So one will need to be careful not to fall into the trap of treating it as if it has a quasi denominational authority. None of the actions of these churches falls under NAPARC beyond the qualifications necessary to be part of the affiliation. That affiliation must be broader than any one church. So there is nothing of a "representative" nature in calling them NAPARC churches. In fact, this is the problem with ecclesial bodies forming under a non ecclesial organisation. Christ does not act as the rightful head of the body except in some vague, voluntaristic sense.

Ok, correct. But I think my mistake is semantic not substance. Would it be better for me to say "the denomination's that are members of NAPARC?"

I think you are missing the point. The "conscience" itself is bound, not free. If one is convicted the confession is biblical it is ultimately God speaking in His word that is the constraining factor. As for "freedom," the kind of freedom you are seeking is already there. Nobody can force an individual, church, or denomination to do otherwise than what they are doing. It remains within the realm of persuasion.

I'm not seeking any "freedom" for anything. I made no policy recommendations of any kind. I happened to say that I agree with how those denomination's handled it. I never advocated "forcing" anyone to do anything. I think you may be assuming that I'm saying something I'm not.
My only question is, given the reality what (if anything) is anyone doing to change it? Or are they, like me, happy with the way things are?

Why do you think the denomination is above the individual person when it comes to moral liability? There is something you might want to investigate. It would be easy for an individual to hide behind his institution, but an institution is still a moral entity accountable to God.

This only makes sense if I'm taking, I guess, the opposite side of the debate that I have no interest in discussing. I get the impression that you're trying to convince me of your side of that debate that I'm not interested in discussing.
Why would I think that the denomination is above moral liability? Or the individual? Again that only makes sense if you're trying to convince me of your position in a debate I'm not interested in.
This thread is not about arguments for one side or the other but given the reality what are individuals doing to change things, if anything?

 

[MW]

Ok, correct. But I think my mistake is semantic not substance. Would it be better for me to say "the denomination's that are members of NAPARC?"

I would want to know what "accreditation" is coming through the designation NAPARC. It is nothing that Christ gives the church, and all ecclesial authority derives from Him. The idea of belonging to NAPARC, basically, is irrelevant unless you specify why this matters to you.

I'm not seeking any "freedom" for anything. I made no policy recommendations of any kind. I happened to say that I agree with how those denomination's handled it. I never advocated "forcing" anyone to do anything. I think you may be assuming that I'm saying something I'm not.
My only question is, given the reality what (if anything) is anyone doing to change it? Or are they, like me, happy with the way things are?

Obviously the people who disagree with using less reliable translations will think that it needs to be changed. You might be happy with the way things are, but they do not appear to be. My question will then be, Why shouldn't one be allowed to advocate for a position that is "seemingly" allowed. Does the broadness of differences require that broadness must remain the status quo? At that point the status quo has taken on an authority that is prejudicing a particular position, and so the "allowance" is really just a forbearance.

This only makes sense if I'm taking, I guess, the opposite side of the debate that I have no interest in discussing. I get the impression that you're trying to convince me of your side of that debate that I'm not interested in discussing.
Why would I think that the denomination is above moral liability? Or the individual? Again that only makes sense if you're trying to convince me of your position in a debate I'm not interested in.
This thread is not about arguments for one side or the other but given the reality what are individuals doing to change things, if anything?

Your question asked about individual persuasion as opposed to denominational persuasion. From where I stand, they are both moral agents and culpable for their errors; hence both are open to be persuaded otherwise.

 

[jwright82]

I would want to know what "accreditation" is coming through the designation NAPARC. It is nothing that Christ gives the church, and all ecclesial authority derives from Him. The idea of belonging to NAPARC, basically, is irrelevant unless you specify why this matters to you.

None. That happens to be the search that I did. It's also a bias of the fact that I don't really care what denomination's outside of that organization do.

Obviously the people who disagree with using less reliable translations will think that it needs to be changed. You might be happy with the way things are, but they do not appear to be.

Fair enough. Then to extend the conversation, what are some options that they could do? Honestly, if what I queried is correct, bringing charges in the courts appears to be a bust, different reasons for Scotch Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed Churches.
So some kind of overture or whatever to settle it is the only option given reality right now. But persuading individuals is probably the best option. Then once a majority is on board one would have the votes to make it official and face relatively easy passage or do nothing because the majority already agrees.

My question will then be, Why shouldn't one be allowed to advocate for a position that is "seemingly" allowed.

I didn't imply they shouldn't. I know I never explicitly said that. If I ever implied it please point it out to me. I believe I denied it at least once.

Does the broadness of differences require that broadness must remain the status quo? At that point the status quo has taken on an authority that is prejudicing a particular position, and so the "allowance" is really just a forbearance.

Again it seems here that you're arguing for a specific position. I'm not. Your question again makes no sense unless you assume I'm arguing the opposite of what you're. I'm not, don't take a side in that one.
Do you feel that this is a two sided and only two sided debate? Also I don't see how a status quo that allows different positions prejudices anything. Wouldn't privileging one position over the other prejudice that one? If that's the case then it seems that the denomination's are to blame for the problem.
If I'm following you correctly then the only option is for the denomination's to adopt your view as the only view so as not to prejudice that view. But some how that's not prejudicial to the opposing views. I'm sure that I'm misunderstanding you here so please correct me.
Unless of course you're trying to convince me of your view and I'm viewing your response through the lense of my questions. But since I don't have any inclination to weigh in on that debate, we're viewing it from two different angles.

Your question asked about individual persuasion as opposed to denominational persuasion. From where I stand, they are both moral agents and culpable for their errors; hence both are open to be persuaded otherwise.

Fair enough and very true. And it would appear that the answer to my question is, no one is doing anything other than trying to convince individuals of their position.
I'm not against people persuading others of anything. I don't have a dog in that race. I get the impression that you're really trying to turn this into a debate about that issue and I'm not.

 

[MW]

None. That happens to be the search that I did. It's also a bias of the fact that I don't really care what denomination's outside of that organization do.

OK. So I will discard the NAPARC reference as irrelevant.

Fair enough. Then to extend the conversation, what are some options that they could do? Honestly, if what I queried is correct, bringing charges in the courts appears to be a bust, different reasons for Scotch Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed Churches.
So some kind of overture or whatever to settle it is the only option given reality right now. But persuading individuals is probably the best option. Then once a majority is on board one would have the votes to make it official and face relatively easy passage or do nothing because the majority already agrees.

One would not bring charges where there has been a long standing practice. It requires something to be passed in the court itself. One would overture the court for a committee to take the matter in hand and to give advice the court as to the "confessionality" of these versions. Then there would be something substantial upon which to decide what to do next.

I didn't imply they shouldn't. I know I never explicitly said that. If I ever implied it please point it out to me. I believe I denied it at least once.

My mistake. Sorry. I am clearly not understanding what you mean by keeping it on an individual basis. Were you still referring to trying to change other's opinions?

Again it seems here that you're arguing for a specific position. I'm not. Your question again makes no sense unless you assume I'm arguing the opposite of what you're. I'm not, don't take a side in that one.
Do you feel that this is a two sided and only two sided debate? Also I don't see how a status quo that allows different positions prejudices anything. Wouldn't privileging one position over the other prejudice that one? If that's the case then it seems that the denomination's are to blame for the problem.
If I'm following you correctly then the only option is for the denomination's to adopt your view as the only view so as not to prejudice that view. But some how that's not prejudicial to the opposing views. I'm sure that I'm misunderstanding you here so please correct me.
Unless of course you're trying to convince me of your view and I'm viewing your response through the lense of my questions. But since I don't have any inclination to weigh in on that debate, we're viewing it from two different angles.

If everyone is free to advocate for his view on every level it is all irrelevant. But what happens in reality is that a "broad" view which allows for diversity gains the status quo. That then gets appealed to as a person's right for his practice; and then anything that challenges the practice by advocating something different is seen as an "attack" on the person's right. It is as if the official decision to grant liberty has determined that the diverse position is true. So then it becomes impossible to advocate for reform and bring the status quo back to something more narrow. My perspective is as one ensuring full and equal advocacy is allowed and that the truth of each practice is subject to the same test of truth.

Fair enough and very true. And it would appear that the answer to my question is, no one is doing anything other than trying to convince individuals of their position.
I'm not against people persuading others of anything. I don't have a dog in that race. I get the impression that you're really trying to turn this into a debate about that issue and I'm not.

I'm not debating the issue with you, but trying to show you what might make this a "binding" issue from one side, and hence not as "free" as you would make it.

 

[jwright82]

OK. So I will discard the NAPARC reference as irrelevant.

Fair enough.

One would not bring charges where there has been a long standing practice. It requires something to be passed in the court itself. One would overture the court for a committee to take the matter in hand and to give advice the court as to the "confessionality" of these versions. Then there would be something substantial upon which to decide what to do next.

Very practical and informative, thanks.

My mistake. Sorry. I am clearly not understanding what you mean by keeping it on an individual basis. Were you still referring to trying to change other's opinions?

What I mean is that there seems to be two options, a denomination wide change or convincing individuals or groups. I don't see another way.

If everyone is free to advocate for his view on every level it is all irrelevant. But what happens in reality is that a "broad" view which allows for diversity gains the status quo. That then gets appealed to as a person's right for his practice; and then anything that challenges the practice by advocating something different is seen as an "attack" on the person's right. It is as if the official decision to grant liberty has determined that the diverse position is true. So then it becomes impossible to advocate for reform and bring the status quo back to something more narrow. My perspective is as one ensuring full and equal advocacy is allowed and that the truth of each practice is subject to the same test of truth.

That's true if both claims are claiming the same sort of thing. If one claim is about a particular position being the truth in a debate then that's one thing. But a claim about the nature of the discussion is only a truthful claim about the discussion. Agreeing to disagree as a saying wouldn't make any sense if all views are somehow "True".
Hence claiming that multiple views are allowed is a truthful claim about the allowable views, not which one is true or not. Think about other disputed disagreements in the church where the church allows multiple views.
I think that you may be concerned about the problem of allowing multiple views on a subject makes all the views true, where only one or none is the truth. But as you say all views are subject to the same test of truth and God willing we'll get there.

I'm not debating the issue with you, but trying to show you what might make this a "binding" issue from one side, and hence not as "free" as you would make it.

I guess then the problem is reducing the discussion to a discussion about which one is true? After all we have an obligation to believe what is true, which is what the Bible says and the summery of that teaching in the confessions.
So freedom in this case amounts to binding by denying that there's a truthful position, which we're required to believe. If I'm following you here?

 

[MW]

What I mean is that there seems to be two options, a denomination wide change or convincing individuals or groups. I don't see another way.

In a full and free advocacy of one's view all means can be utilised. It is understood to be subject to the individuals and denominations accepting the need for change. But if the denomination has slipped in accepting translations that are not consistent with their own doctrinal standards, it follows that there should be a denomination wide change back towards a position of consistency. Or it may be that the denomination itself doesn't hold its confessional position to be so binding. Then that would be the point to be addressed.

That's true if both claims are claiming the same sort of thing. If one claim is about a particular position being the truth in a debate then that's one thing. But a claim about the nature of the discussion is only a truthful claim about the discussion. Agreeing to disagree as a saying wouldn't make any sense if all views are somehow "True".

Two people agree to disagree by mutual consent. An authoritative ruling is another animal.

Hence claiming that multiple views are allowed is a truthful claim about the allowable views, not which one is true or not. Think about other disputed disagreements in the church where the church allows multiple views.
I think that you may be concerned about the problem of allowing multiple views on a subject makes all the views true, where only one or none is the truth. But as you say all views are subject to the same test of truth and God willing we'll get there.

Yes, we shouldn't allows a "safe space" where one can hold his view protected from the truth by the power of an authoritative ruling. The status quo must be challengeable.

I guess then the problem is reducing the discussion to a discussion about which one is true? After all we have an obligation to believe what is true, which is what the Bible says and the summery of that teaching in the confessions.
So freedom in this case amounts to binding by denying that there's a truthful position, which we're required to believe. If I'm following you here?

Yes. Conscience is bound in the case of those who hold to what is "best." The "best" part of it is not a matter of human wisdom but of the divine word itself. So it is not "free" to them.

 

[MW]

We have had our "Bible version wars" here, and it has been counterproductive (destructive actually). With no equivocation I take the stand on the TR / KJV side, that it is the only fully God-honoring Scripture, but I do this in a manner which does not delegitimize what I consider errant views.

As soon as you call them errant views you have delegitimized them wherever "truth" is the standard of judgment. Sure I am, that a man can respect another person while still holding him to be in error, and the very attempt to reclaim him from his error is the greatest respect that can be paid to him, because it effectively says that here is a man who will listen to truth. But the idea of burying the truth to save someone's feelings is actually disrespectful because it says their feelings matter more to them than the truth, which is a slur against their character.

 

[MW]

It is not about "feelings" vs. truth, but about how we treat one another when we differ in very important things. There are few things as important as our Bibles! Yet the Lord's "standard of judgment" is that we "Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3 KJV), and is more important to Him – i.e., it overrides – what we think is truth in various matters.

He then expresses wherein that unity consists -- one faith, one baptism. So if there is a difference in faith and a difference in baptism it is not unity, although somebody might try to present it as that. It simply becomes a coalition of differing parties. I think it is more respectful to treat people as having a genuine difference from ourselves and discussing the difference rather than covering it over in an attempt to make it appear as something it is not. That affords them the dignity of having convictions as well as a willingness to be persuaded by the truth. And as Christians we hold that we are being transformed by the renewing of our minds, so addressing the mind with transforming truths is hopeful.