Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure. I just wanted to be clear, since it seemed you were saying that the Westminster Divines didn't mean that.
Tom,

Does it not matter that the actual reference is used after the word “authentical”? If I remember right the references are not for the entire section of 1.8 but rather split up between the individual sentences of the section. Looking for thoughts.
 
If "every jot and tittle" applies to the manuscript tradition, then we have just lost inerrancy. Because we have different manuscript readings (even in the TR tradition), which means that some jots were missing. Which meant some jots and tittles have failed.

This is why Matthew 5 has nothing to do with this debate.
 
If "every jot and tittle" applies to the manuscript tradition, then we have just lost inerrancy. Because we have different manuscript readings (even in the TR tradition), which means that some jots were missing. Which meant some jots and tittles have failed.

This is why Matthew 5 has nothing to do with this debate.
As probably the least formerly schooled in this thread, I was hesitant to point that out ... but I was thinking it. The Divines could be wrong, or Muller could be wrong, but our Lord cannot be wrong.

Therefore, since out side of the autographa some jots, some tittles are at variance, He couldn't have meant Matthew 5:18 to be interpreted to mean that all of the copies/translations are inerrant.
 
That verse is cited in WCF 1.8.

The Westminster Divines and their Confession, as they asserted in the very same Confession, were not infallible. As much as I adore their work, and confess it as my own confession of faith, their citing of this passage for textual transmission issues is simply not defensible exegetically. It’s just not. Now, that is not to say that their doctrine is wrong; it is just to say their proof text is not relevant to it.
 
Does it not matter that the actual reference is used after the word “authentical”? If I remember right the references are not for the entire section of 1.8 but rather split up between the individual sentences of the section. Looking for thoughts.

That's a good point. It's the same sentence, but you're right to note that "authentical" is a key word here.

In any case, the Westminster Divines were not ignorant of the existence of variations in the manuscripts.

To be clear, I (and others, I think) have not been arguing that the manuscripts are inerrant.
 
Last edited:
Well, at least Muller could be wrong. I don't know what he has specifically said. But there was not a principled objection to putting scripture proofs to propositions; that was a requirement in the assembly debates. They just didn't record these as a matter of procedure (as they explain). They objected from tradition (prior confessions had none) and from the labor and the swelling it would make of the texts due to the number and complexity of the statements and importance they be sufficient due to the use of the WCF and catechisms as standards for the three nations. See their plea against the Parliament's order in Van Dixhoorn's minutes, calendar documents, vol. 5, p. 322. However, it was not unexpected or strange to expect them. Several catechisms even by Westminster divines like Rutherford and Palmer had proof texts.

As to the proof in question, the issue is not just that the Assembly used Matt. 5:18 at that place in CF 1.8, but it has been retained till today. The PCUSA had two revisions of the proofs and it survived both revisions. The PCUS changed proofs but likely retained it also (can't verify as don't have my WCF collection any more). And the OPC has retained the same proof (online version). The OPC has not been shy about changing proof texts. The EPC in their proofs has retained and merged everybody's set of proofs (as they note in their intro).

So sure, these denominations could all be wrong. But I suspect there is an explanation as to what each means in using that verse; at least Westminster's should be something that can be guessed at from period sources; Whitatker, their standard on the subject and from Ussher and others. As said already, in the 1640s they knew about variants. Dickson uses the proof in his exposition I cited way back on page one of this thread.

This is not my subject but I weighed in on the historical question. If someone really wanted to do something new they might tract down why the proof is still retained and why or do some digging to see what a Westminster divine may have said on Matthew 5:18.

Sure. I get that. But as Richard Muller pointed out, they also rejected the idea that Scripture could be casually proof-texted like that. Maybe Muller is wrong. I don't put all my eggs in the historical theology basket at the end of the day.
 
Thanks Patrick; I was speaking about what Muller specifically said about the Westminster assembly and the rejection of proof texting.
 
Well, it’s early in the morning, and I have a little time. This old thread (2007) started by Rich is especially interesting. What is at stake, as I see it, is the understanding—I should even say doctrine—that we have a providentially preserved Bible, and I am referring to the Hebrew and Greek apographs, and only derivatively to faithful translations.

The thoughts that Rich brought up some 12 years ago (see link in the previous paragraph) question whether the church—even the Reformation church at the time of the Westminster Assembly—has the authority to decide what the preserved text of Scripture is, and asks, Is this not the same as the pronouncements of Rome declaring the true Scripture? Matthew Winzer in post #6 of that old thread sought to answer that by asserting,

The Protestant view maintains that the Spirit speaking in and by the Word is the supreme judge. We also maintain that the testimony of the church (as ordained of God) may move and induce us to a high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture. The church does not create doctrine, it simply declares what sound doctrine is. In the canonical process, the church does not create Scripture, it simply declares what Scripture is.​

As briefly as I can I would like to present in our own days here in February of 2019 a statement on this. No doubt it will be contested (for among the brethren there are differing views), but it should be made nonetheless, so that men may know the options they have in how they may stand regarding God’s preserved word.

There are those—in what is called the CT camp—who affirm that we do have it, and it is to be found in the plethora of extant manuscripts, and remains to be discerned, then assembled or compiled by scholars expert in the languages and the science of textual criticism. These CT proponents do affirm that the Lord has preserved for us His word, although we must labor to ascertain it. They also see their position as being in accord with the WCF at 1.8, following BB Warfield’s understanding of it. With good consciences and diligent scholarship they make their stands.

Those in the TR camp have a different take, basing their understanding on presuppositions—that is, theological views founded upon Scripture rather than science—with especial focus on the timing of the Reformation and its contest with Rome over the legitimacy of which of their differing views concerning the Faith of Jesus Christ is the true one. Of course one may say, in seeking to rebut the TR view, that it is not an either-or matter, having to choose between Rome or the Reformers. This, then—as I see it—would call into question the very validity of the Reformation’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura, including the apographs—the TR editions—the prime weapon it used against Rome.

If one says that the position of the Reformation is equal to the position of Rome: that the church has the authority to declare what the true Scripture is, whereas neither do, then what is an acceptable alternative to such a declaration? Does this not leave us, now in the 21st century, spiritual orphans, having untethered us from Reformation principles we have hitherto bound ourselves to, and by which we stand?

In a nutshell—after such momentous considerations—these are the TR presuppositions as contrasted to the CT: God preserved the text of Scripture up through the Byzantine church, which due to theological wars in the 300s A.D. (Sabellian, Arminian), suffered some damage (portions changed or removed), which were recovered—by God’s gracious providence—in the Greek editions at the time of the Reformation, through men availing themselves of Latin MSS and other versions, such as the Waldensian editions extant in Geneva in those days.

With regard to the phrase in the WCF at 1.8, “kept pure in all ages”, I would posit the following understanding:

WHAT was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t believe this. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines)? I hold to the third option. This was not a reconstruction of the text here, but a keeping of it.

Thus the WCF and 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic readings of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”—not a one of them, not even a word, ultimately was corrupted, or lost, and “fell to the ground”, but instead kept intact and pure—despite attacks on certain passages, and words. This was actually done in God’s providential preservation at the time of the Reformation, when He also re-established Biblical doctrine at the commencement of the Protestant era.

Rome and its “religious” men were seen by the regenerated men following Luther, Calvin, and the others of the Reformation, as apostate and antichrist, having a Scripture rife with errors and mutilations.

All this to say, and founded upon this understanding—is that we have a Reformed church (albeit with its varying views on relatively peripheral matters) founded upon sound Biblical doctrines and an intact Bible in the original languages given us by God’s promises to preserve His word (no mention of the “textual tradition”) for his people. Here now in the 21st century we can look in retrospect and see how He worked. Our dogma is that of God’s providential preservation, discerned in historical hindsight, whereas the CT folks hold a dogma that, while God did indeed preserve His word for us, the science of textual criticism is needed to discern how He did that.

We can—and must—discuss these things amicably and without condescension toward those who differ, but with genuine affection, as we are approaching the fight of our lives, for the times are darkening and the storm clouds gather, and we Christians in the West shall no longer be exempt from the suffering our brethren (and sisters!) know in other lands. We need to be an intact church, even though we may differ in lesser matters. Our Bibles “lesser matters”? Well, compared to being united in genuine affection and friendship, yes—for the issue of variants, given the goodness of all our Bibles in the main is indeed an academic and lesser matter. To say otherwise, is to rend the unity of the church, in the approaching time of trial when it is of the utmost importance that we be one people, of one faith, under one King who has said that the most important thing, given orthodoxy of faith, is that we love one another.

I hope this is clarifying, and conduces to unity among us.
 
Last edited:
To say otherwise, is to rend the unity of the church, in the approaching time of trial when it is of the utmost importance that we be one people, of one faith, under one King who has said that the most important thing, given orthodoxy of faith, is that we love one another.

I hope this is clarifying, and conduces to unity among us.
:amen:
 
Following Steve's charitable post, can we clarify the following:

1) Those who use the CT aren't placing God under human reason (or at least no more than Erasmus did when he chose between variant readings)

2) Those who hold to the TR reject Peter Ruckman's wackier teachings (e.g., Origen wrote the LXX, the translators of the KJV corrected the Greek).
 
Well, at least Muller could be wrong. I don't know what he has specifically said. But there was not a principled objection to putting scripture proofs to propositions; that was a requirement in the assembly debates. They just didn't record these as a matter of procedure (as they explain). They objected from tradition (prior confessions had none) and from the labor and the swelling it would make of the texts due to the number and complexity of the statements and importance they be sufficient due to the use of the WCF and catechisms as standards for the three nations. See their plea against the Parliament's order in Van Dixhoorn's minutes, calendar documents, vol. 5, p. 322. However, it was not unexpected or strange to expect them. Several catechisms even by Westminster divines like Rutherford and Palmer had proof texts.

As to the proof in question, the issue is not just that the Assembly used Matt. 5:18 at that place in CF 1.8, but it has been retained till today. The PCUSA had two revisions of the proofs and it survived both revisions. The PCUS changed proofs but likely retained it also (can't verify as don't have my WCF collection any more). And the OPC has retained the same proof (online version). The OPC has not been shy about changing proof texts. The EPC in their proofs has retained and merged everybody's set of proofs (as they note in their intro).

So sure, these denominations could all be wrong. But I suspect there is an explanation as to what each means in using that verse; at least Westminster's should be something that can be guessed at from period sources; Whitatker, their standard on the subject and from Ussher and others. As said already, in the 1640s they knew about variants. Dickson uses the proof in his exposition I cited way back on page one of this thread.

This is not my subject but I weighed in on the historical question. If someone really wanted to do something new they might tract down why the proof is still retained and why or do some digging to see what a Westminster divine may have said on Matthew 5:18.
I was reading some old PB threads also and saw recommended “Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," among some other things. I’m not sure if it deals mainly with the Westminster history or not. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/wcf-1-8-and-ct.40915/ (Long thread)
 
Jacob, re 1) I’m not sure how a CT person would formulate the use of their reason in the text critical enterprise vis-à-vis God. Erasmus chose, after a long period of consulting MSS throughout Europe and the UK, what he perceived were the common readings. I can say this, CT proponents hold they are using God-ordained methods for determining the text, even if some say they are using “the presuppositions of [unbelieving] modern thought”, such as E.F. Hills in Text and Time: A Reformed Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 1 (original title, then changed by publisher to The KJV Defended). Please recognize that I am not engaging in the terms or charges of the debate here, but seeking a common ground whereby we may silence our respective cannons.

2) It is commonly understood that Origen compiled a version of the LXX in his Hexapla, a critical edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, but not that he “wrote it”, i.e., was the source of it. Ruckman errs in that, as portions of the OT in Greek antedate him, though we do not have sound understanding of what did actually exist of the Greek OT before Christ. Certainly some parts of it did. Re the teaching of the late Dr. Ruckman (died in 2016) that “the translators of the KJV corrected the Greek”, it is bizarre, and cannot be established.
 
An afterthought: would it not be more productive to silence our cannons against the friendly factions in our own camp, and train them judiciously against the school of Bart Ehrman and those cadres (of atheists, Muslims, etc) he is training to attack the foundational documents of the church, and his gross misrepresentations of church history and the formation of the canon of the NT? Our intelligence and energy—of which we have plenty, by the grace and word of God—would be better spent thus, it seems to me.
 
and train them judiciously against the school of Bart Ehrman and those cadres (of atheists, Muslims, etc) he is training to attack the foundational documents of the church

To a large degree, yes. But my approach to Ehrman would be different from the TR family. I hold to the CT and its presuppositions. So this only punts the problem back
 
I was reading some old PB threads also and saw recommended “Edward Freer Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesisatical Text," among some other things. I’m not sure if it deals mainly with the Westminster history or not. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/wcf-1-8-and-ct.40915/ (Long thread)
The article in question can be read at the link provided in my earlier post:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ion-of-tr-tradition.97375/page-5#post-1190355
 
An afterthought: would it not be more productive to silence our cannons against the friendly factions in our own camp, and train them judiciously against the school of Bart Ehrman and those cadres (of atheists, Muslims, etc) he is training to attack the foundational documents of the church, and his gross misrepresentations of church history and the formation of the canon of the NT? Our intelligence and energy—of which we have plenty, by the grace and word of God—would be better spent thus, it seems to me.
Perhaps and I do agree. However, the fact that always brings this back up for my own conscience are those in the reformed camp and even the Puritan Board camp who claim that unless you use the KJV (some allow for NKJV too), then it should not be called the “Word of God” in the same way. Who make claims like “the ESV or CSB is terrible” or “such and such modern translation brutalizes the Word of God” (specifically the conservative modern translation) or “Unless you prefer the KJV you should take exception to the Westminster Standards” vs. most of us, who I would presume would view it as a matter of varying degrees of translation quality of the Word of God (I could be wrong). Steve, it does not seem you hold these views, but I have been wrestling with this for several months now (as one largely ignorant) and those attitudes has been one of the largest stumblings for me. Still thinking through it all.
 
Thanks Patrick; I was speaking about what Muller specifically said about the Westminster assembly and the rejection of proof texting.
Perhaps it is this quote:

"the pattern of citing biblical proofs found in the confessional standard was not a form of rank proof-texting, as has sometimes been alleged of the Westminster Standards and of the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox in general. Rather, the confession and the catechisms cite texts by way of referencing an exegetical tradition reaching back, in many cases, to the fathers of the church in the first five centuries of Christianity and, quite consistently, reflecting the path of biblical interpretation belonging to the Reformed tradition as it developed in the sixteenth century and in the beginning of the seventeenth"
[Quoted from this: https://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Worship-Interpretation-Directory-Westminster/dp/1596380721]

As cited in:
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...tion-and-the-directory-of-public-worshi-1.php
 
Thanks; Jacob (@BayouHuguenot) would have to confirm since he raised the particular comment by Muller. I wonder if there is a specific tradition w.r.t. using Matthew 5:18 regarding preservation of the text of Scripture that may inform their use of it at WCF 1.8?
Perhaps it is this quote:

"the pattern of citing biblical proofs found in the confessional standard was not a form of rank proof-texting, as has sometimes been alleged of the Westminster Standards and of the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox in general. Rather, the confession and the catechisms cite texts by way of referencing an exegetical tradition reaching back, in many cases, to the fathers of the church in the first five centuries of Christianity and, quite consistently, reflecting the path of biblical interpretation belonging to the Reformed tradition as it developed in the sixteenth century and in the beginning of the seventeenth"
[Quoted from this: https://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Worship-Interpretation-Directory-Westminster/dp/1596380721]

As cited in:
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...tion-and-the-directory-of-public-worshi-1.php
 
For the record, I meant Trueman instead of Muller. I had in mind a Trueman lecture. Muller might have said the same thing. I think he did. In any case, it doesn't change my larger point.
 
If "every jot and tittle" applies to the manuscript tradition, then we have just lost inerrancy. Because we have different manuscript readings (even in the TR tradition), which means that some jots were missing. Which meant some jots and tittles have failed.

This is why Matthew 5 has nothing to do with this debate.
You are indeed correct, as Jesus would have been speaking towards His ministry/mission to fulfill all aspects of the OT Law in order to have salvation finished/accomplished upon His Cross...
 
Interesting. Here is Trueman, using Muller. This actually should blunt the casual casting of the Matthew 5:18 as a proof text at WCF 1.8 as some absurdity and the legitimacy of my prior question of looking for the fuller backdrop of this "exegetical marker," to use the term of Muller/Trueman:
For example, one common complaint about the Westminster standards is that they are based upon proof texts. The concern seems to be that Reformed theology has thus been built on simplistic, decontextualized reading of isolated texts. Many, of course, will be aware that the divines themselves did not want the proof texts included and that they were overruled in this by Parliament. That in itself should give pause for thought about how such texts function. Yet [Richard] Muller has explored this issue further and demonstrated that the divines were not only competent exegetes themselves and that Reformed Orthodoxy is exegetically grounded but also that proof texts in the seventeenth century were not intended as simple, blunt answers to complex questions. Proof texts operated rather as exegetical markers, directing the reader to the key verse but doing so in the expectation that the reader would check the classical expositions of that verse.​
 
Following Steve's charitable post, can we clarify the following:

1) Those who use the CT aren't placing God under human reason (or at least no more than Erasmus did when he chose between variant readings)

2) Those who hold to the TR reject Peter Ruckman's wackier teachings (e.g., Origen wrote the LXX, the translators of the KJV corrected the Greek).
Would also just like to add to your points that divine inspiration was only to the originals themselves, as there would be no such thing as secondary/derived versions of inspiration.
 
Interesting. Here is Trueman, using Muller. This actually should blunt the casual casting of the Matthew 5:18 as a proof text at WCF 1.8 as some absurdity and the legitimacy of my prior question of looking for the fuller backdrop of this "exegetical marker," to use the term of Muller/Trueman:
For example, one common complaint about the Westminster standards is that they are based upon proof texts. The concern seems to be that Reformed theology has thus been built on simplistic, decontextualized reading of isolated texts. Many, of course, will be aware that the divines themselves did not want the proof texts included and that they were overruled in this by Parliament. That in itself should give pause for thought about how such texts function. Yet [Richard] Muller has explored this issue further and demonstrated that the divines were not only competent exegetes themselves and that Reformed Orthodoxy is exegetically grounded but also that proof texts in the seventeenth century were not intended as simple, blunt answers to complex questions. Proof texts operated rather as exegetical markers, directing the reader to the key verse but doing so in the expectation that the reader would check the classical expositions of that verse.​

That's what I was trying to say. The divines wouldn't have crudely based their whole view on inspiration on a rather tortured use of Matthew 5. They were too smart for that. I think Matthew 5 can sort of function as a pious application that God has indeed safeguarded his word, but to apply the verse to the manuscript process is basically to torpedo inerrancy.
 
Hello Jacob,

I don't understand what you are saying here:

"But my approach to Ehrman would be different from the TR family. I hold to the CT and its presuppositions. So this only punts the problem back"​

Please explain.
 
And further, is not Chris' post 174, quoting Trueman referencing Muller, saying the exact opposite of what you have said in post 177? That is, the Confession passages the proof texts accompanied were exegetically grounded, and the proofs were given with the "expectation that the reader would check the classical expositions of that verse." For the expositions (notably of Matt 5:18, as well as others) made clear the pertinence of those proof verses to the Confession's statements.
 
Last edited:
And further, is not Chris' post 174, quoting Trueman referencing Muller, saying the exact opposite of what you have said in post 177?

Looks like it.
That is, the Confession passages the proof texts accompanied were exegetically grounded,

Which is different from basing it on surface level proof texts.
For the expositions (notably of Matt 5:18, as well as others) made clear the pertinence of those proof verses to the Confession's statements.

People are welcome to use Matt 5:18 to that effect. I wouldn't do it, since you lose inerrancy if you tie it to the manuscript process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top