WCF Proof Texts

[hammondjones]

A couple of related questions on the WCF proof texts.


1) I understand that the original document did not have proof texts. What does that imply about the importance of the proof texts to the document? Are they considered part of the Confession, or more or less adjunct?

2) If we note that while the proof texts for the Covenant of Works refer to Moses (Lev 18:5, Deut 27:26), the quotes of Moses are indirect (by way of the Apostle), is it then fair to suggest that the Divines are appealing to the repetition of the CoW at Sinai, but avoid quoting Moses directly, so as not to suggest that the Mosaic administration itself was of works? Or would that be reading too much into the choice of proof text?

Hope that's clear.
Thanks

Chapter VII - Of God's Covenant with Man

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]


[2] GAL 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

[3] ROM 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world...

[4] GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

While the Westminster Divines had reasons against proof texting and told parliament so, when ordered to add them, they did so, debating and approving them, writing them in their copies of a printed edition printed for their use as they went (I know Van Dixhoorn and other have looked for any surviving copies that would match up to this action; so far not successfully; they repeated the process with the LC and SC). I would not read something specific or an intent into their productions where the wording itself or the minutes do not support it.

 

[psycheives]

I understand that John Murray and the OPC revised the proof texts. Does anyone know which copy is the old one and which one is Murray's new version and could you please post links? I'd be interested in seeing the differences/changes made.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Without checking my notes I think the most recent OPC proof texts are in the new edition of their standards they produced in 2005 (which is now the PCA version but the PCA has never approved any set of proof texts). The OPC proofs a based on the PCUSA proofs (I forget of 1896 or as late as 1903 or later). These were changed somewhat by the OPC but I don't have the history and changed again (at least the LC) for the 2005 revision. I don't recall the Murray connection to the proofs.

 

[psycheives]

Murray was against the PCUSA 1903 WCF and advised OPC/Machen to revert back to an older verson. Murray used the Tercentenary Edition of the WCF based upon the original manuscript by Cornelius Burges in 1646 because variations had occurred and this *might* have been the version OPC reverted back to as it seemed to be suggested by Iain Murray's "Life of John Murray" book.

In 1950, Professor Murray was chosen as the OPC 17th GA's "Chairman of the Committee on Texts and Proof Texts" to submit recommended revisions at the 18th GA in 1951. In 1956, the 23rd GA approved the revised proof texts (completed after 5 years of work).

So now I'm curious which version we generally use today? The older PCUSA version from 1903? OPC's 1956 version? Or now the 2005 version? And I wonder what the differences are.

 

[MW]

1) I understand that the original document did not have proof texts. What does that imply about the importance of the proof texts to the document? Are they considered part of the Confession, or more or less adjunct?

The proofs reflect a kind of consensus in the exegetical tradition -- the results of exegesis, it has been said. They do not indicate a specific interpretation. One still needs to go back and look at how the texts are handled in the exegetical tradition, but there is an acceptance that the texts speak to the propositions in one way or another. (I am still yet to see a work which successfully categorises the different kinds of connections between the proofs and the propositions.)

is it then fair to suggest that the Divines are appealing to the repetition of the CoW at Sinai

No, that is not a fair conclusion, especially considering the fact that the Confession and Catechisms themselves only refer to the fallen condition of man in terms of the covenant of grace.

How would the divines have used these texts? They saw a "works" principle in these texts which continues to have a moral bearing on men as fallen. But the "works" principle is never made a distinct post-fall "covenant" in and of itself. It is the moral obligation which continues from the original covenant of works. The "moral law" which was promulgated on Mount Sinai was the same which was given to Adam in the covenant of works. So a certain analogy exists by which to make deductions by good and necessary consequence.

 

[hammondjones]

Thanks!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The proofs reflect a kind of consensus in the exegetical tradition -- the results of exegesis, it has been said. They do not indicate a specific interpretation. One still needs to go back and look at how the texts are handled in the exegetical tradition, but there is an acceptance that the texts speak to the propositions in one way or another. (I am still yet to see a work which successfully categorises the different kinds of connections between the proofs and the propositions.)

This is a very succinct and helpful articulation of how the "proof texts" were used. Unfortunately our modern tradition of "proof texting" gives people the impression that everybody has always used Scripture texts in the same manner. Most today have a very shallow apprehension of exegetical and theological disciplines and are only able to draw connections that are on the apparent surface of the text. Their eyes will glaze over if something takes a little bit of work to connect multiple propositions together.

In another thread I alluded to the fact that even translation from the original language requires more than simply knowledge of word definitions, syntax, and grammar to establish what the text is communicating. When you start moving out from the words and the syntax to exegesis that even requires a set of inter-connected disciplines as well. It's often very hard to communicate how certain Biblical ideas are arrived at because it requires a lot of groundwork and knowledge that most people are not able to always follow.

A work that made those connections would be impressive indeed.

 

[MW]

A work that made those connections would be impressive indeed.

Yes, definitely. Much hard and intricate work would be required, but I am sure it would be very rewarding.