Westminster Standards Dependency on TR/KJV

[Jake]

Here are some notable places where the standards follow a KJV reading that differs from most modern versions.

WCF 8.6 "the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world"

WSC 4 "God is a Spirit"

WCF 21.5 "with grace in the heart"

WSC 6 "these three are one"

Only one of these is a textual difference as far as I can tell.

Also, welcome. You must have a long journey to get to an ARP church. I met someone who used to live in ME and attend an ARP church in NB.

 

[MW]

All the only good reason to leave it alone one needs. I mean I guess I'll look it up after I post this. What possible reason was there to tinker with the proof texts?
Also I agree about the "near (we'll probably disagree with my choice of word there) impossibility of writing a confession today" because as you are about to elucidate the world view was different. More congenial to what the church needed.

The reality is that the confessional age assumed a close working relationship between church and state. Many Reformed confessions were produced by national churches that understood themselves as public institutions with a divine mandate to order the religious life of the people. Because of this, the civil magistrate was seen as responsible for maintaining the unity, purity, and public authority of the church's confession. The anomaly of the present day is that churches formed by free association rather than by national establishment continue to hold historic confessions while rejecting the confessional doctrine of the civil magistrate. This shift has consequences. In a voluntarist setting, a confession is no longer a public standard binding a whole people; it becomes a voluntary statement adopted by a self‑selecting group. And because voluntarist churches exist by voluntary association, they also feel free to revise their confessions whenever their own interpretation of Scripture changes. The confession becomes an expression of the community's current convictions rather than a fixed doctrinal constitution.

Yes and no matter where one goes with their exegesis it should be regulated by Scripture primarily but secondarily by our doctrinal tradition. A more or less stable confession regulates that in theory.
I believe it was Carl Trueman who said "yes confessions can change but it should be very hard to do so". It's not a matter to be taken lightly.

Scripture is the norming norm (norma normans). The confession is the normed norm (norma normata). This means that when we hold to a confession, that confession must still be regarded as a real norm, because it sets forth what Scripture teaches. It is not a second authority alongside Scripture, but a subordinate authority under Scripture. The confession functions as a judge over our interpretations and private readings because it expresses what the church has already determined Scripture to teach.

Trueman's point is correct, yet this does not mean what it meant in the confessional age. In the confessional age, confessions were not easily changed because the church itself was not easily changed. The church was an institution, not a voluntary association. It had continuity, stability, and public authority. A confession was a doctrinal constitution, not a voluntary statement. But in a voluntary church, if the church is "true to itself," the confession will change whenever the community's understanding of Scripture changes. The confession becomes an expression of the group's current convictions rather than a fixed doctrinal standard.

The only reason many traditional churches have retained stable confessions is because they are borrowing the institutional stability of the past. The past acts as an anchor against change; but it is an uneasy relationship, because the ecclesiology that produced the confession no longer exists.

This is true as well. I mean look at all the different translations and study Bibles out there. I bet there's a LGBTQ friendly "bible" out there to suit your purposes.
But that's the opposite of the "Word Of God", it makes the text bow to us, rather than the other way around.

I suppose my question is, Why wouldn't you have these things? Not that I want them, but I would like to know what principle is going to resist them. I suspect, again, it is a relationship with tradition that is resisting the change. In modern Bible translation the changes are more or less holding the tradition. The NKJV more so; the NIV, much less so. But, again, it is an uneasy relationship when the spirit of the community rejects certain parts of the tradition and insists on its right to be "true to itself."

 

[jwright82]

The reality is that the confessional age assumed a close working relationship between church and state. Many Reformed confessions were produced by national churches that understood themselves as public institutions with a divine mandate to order the religious life of the people. Because of this, the civil magistrate was seen as responsible for maintaining the unity, purity, and public authority of the church's confession. The anomaly of the present day is that churches formed by free association rather than by national establishment continue to hold historic confessions while rejecting the confessional doctrine of the civil magistrate. This shift has consequences. In a voluntarist setting, a confession is no longer a public standard binding a whole people; it becomes a voluntary statement adopted by a self‑selecting group. And because voluntarist churches exist by voluntary association, they also feel free to revise their confessions whenever their own interpretation of Scripture changes. The confession becomes an expression of the community's current convictions rather than a fixed doctrinal constitution.



Scripture is the norming norm (norma normans). The confession is the normed norm (norma normata). This means that when we hold to a confession, that confession must still be regarded as a real norm, because it sets forth what Scripture teaches. It is not a second authority alongside Scripture, but a subordinate authority under Scripture. The confession functions as a judge over our interpretations and private readings because it expresses what the church has already determined Scripture to teach.

Trueman's point is correct, yet this does not mean what it meant in the confessional age. In the confessional age, confessions were not easily changed because the church itself was not easily changed. The church was an institution, not a voluntary association. It had continuity, stability, and public authority. A confession was a doctrinal constitution, not a voluntary statement. But in a voluntary church, if the church is "true to itself," the confession will change whenever the community's understanding of Scripture changes. The confession becomes an expression of the group's current convictions rather than a fixed doctrinal standard.

The only reason many traditional churches have retained stable confessions is because they are borrowing the institutional stability of the past. The past acts as an anchor against change; but it is an uneasy relationship, because the ecclesiology that produced the confession no longer exists.



I suppose my question is, Why wouldn't you have these things? Not that I want them, but I would like to know what principle is going to resist them. I suspect, again, it is a relationship with tradition that is resisting the change. In modern Bible translation the changes are more or less holding the tradition. The NKJV more so; the NIV, much less so. But, again, it is an uneasy relationship when the spirit of the community rejects certain parts of the tradition and insists on its right to be "true to itself."

Very true and a fantastic analysis of the pros and cons of each approach.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

So Matthew, with the OPC and PCA of today – and its revisions re the civil magistrate and the antichrist / man of sin – do you see those church bodies in danger as a result? Are not these changes done without changing the Scripture text?

And then, the Three Forms of Unity, which I hold, taking one exception re Art. 36 of the Belgic Confession and the right of the civil magistrate to order the church. I don't believe any Scriptures were changed in the effecting that confessional change. Are not these respective changes still solidly established?

One Scripture I would think supports these modified confessions is Jesus in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world..." What is your view of that?

 

[cthorn14]

Also, welcome. You must have a long journey to get to an ARP church. I met someone who used to live in ME and attend an ARP church in NB.

Thanks. You are correct, the only ARP church in New England that I know of is near Worcester MA. We recently moved from Virginia and hope to transfer to the OPC as the Lord wills.

 

[MW]

So Matthew, with the OPC and PCA of today – and its revisions re the civil magistrate and the antichrist / man of sin – do you see those church bodies in danger as a result? Are not these changes done without changing the Scripture text?

And then, the Three Forms of Unity, which I hold, taking one exception re Art. 36 of the Belgic Confession and the right of the civil magistrate to order the church. I don't believe any Scriptures were changed in the effecting that confessional change. Are not these respective changes still solidly established?

One Scripture I would think supports these modified confessions is Jesus in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world..." What is your view of that?

You say they change the Confession without changing the Scripture text. Obviously men change their mind as to what the Scriptures teach. The point of this thread is to show where a change of the text of Scripture leads to a change of doctrinal understanding in some cases. Changing a confession is not the same thing as changing Scripture. A church has the authority to declare its mind about how it understands a doctrine. And men have the right of private judgment to examine the church's decisions in the light of Scripture.

As for your particular examples, it seems to me you want to bring extraneous debates into this thread and try to prove me wrong on something that is not the topic of the thread. You could always start another thread if you want a fresh debate on these things.

My view of John 18:36 is derived from our Lord's own explanation of His words: "now is my kingdom not from hence." But it is in the world and it recognises the lawful authority that is given to rulers concerning religious matters. As our Lord also says to the one who was judging Him concerning a religious dispute with the Jews: "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above."

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

As for your particular examples, it seems to me you want to bring extraneous debates into this thread and try to prove me wrong on something that is not the topic of the thread. You could always start another thread if you want a fresh debate on these things.

Not so, Matthew. I was sincerely desiring to know your views on this for my own clarity, if there was not a change of Scripture in the changing of the WCF. I asked because you seemed clear-sighted to me in this. I was not looking to debate.

 

[MW]

Not so, Matthew. I was sincerely desiring to know your views on this, if there was not a change of Scripture in the changing of the WCF. I asked because you seemed clear-sighted to me in this. I was not looking to debate.

My historical judgment, for what it's worth, is that the changes you mention did not arise because the churches discovered new Scripture light, but because men's views of religion and liberty underwent a shift. There was a subjective turn in the modern period. Religion increasingly came to be viewed as something exclusively inward and private. Epistemology followed the same path: instead of grounding knowledge in objective revelation, men tried to ground it in something within themselves, whether it be intuition, common sense, moral sentiment, or the autonomous rational subject. Once that inward turn took hold, the older confidence in objective truth naturally weakened. If religion is primarily inward experience, then one can hardly maintain the boldness to tell others what the truth is, or what God requires of nations. At the same time, the Enlightenment had reshaped the intellectual climate. People believed it was their right to be "free‑thinkers," and the idea of curtailing thought with religious dogma was increasingly seen as oppressive or even immoral.

The Reformers spoke of the Papacy as the antichrist with objective confidence. They did so because they believed Scripture gave them a clear standard by which to identify him. It was a doctrinal conclusion grounded in Scripture and ecclesiastical history. And their separation from Rome -- coming out of her -- was an act of obedience to the will of Christ. But the intellectual and political landscape did not remain stable. As the 19th and 20th centuries came around, the most oppressive regimes were not ecclesiastical but secular and statist. They persecuted Christians of all traditions, including Protestants and Roman Catholics. This changed the moral view of the West. The Papacy no longer appeared as the archetype of tyranny. In its place came the modern state.

Ironically, this loss of temporal power is part of the Papacy's prophetic identification. Its humiliation by secular states and the hostility of the kings who once served her are the kinds of developments Scripture foretells. The kings who formerly supported her eventually turn against her. Nevertheless, the effect was the opposite. As Rome weakened politically, the older Protestant polemics against the Papacy began to sound weak. And as democratic ideals spread, strong doctrinal claims began to be viewed with suspicion. Calling the Papacy "the antichrist" sounded intolerant and uncharitable.

Add to this the fact that Protestants and Roman Catholics increasingly found themselves united in political movements aimed at resisting civil oppression and defending democratic freedoms. They had a common enemy in totalitarianism. The two could not walk together before because they were not agreed; now they walked together because they faced a shared external threat.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

So Matthew, with the OPC and PCA of today – and its revisions re the civil magistrate and the antichrist / man of sin – do you see those church bodies in danger as a result? Are not these changes done without changing the Scripture text?

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for replying. I thought my question re the confessions and Scripture (including the TFU) was pertinent to the thread, but I guess we have different concerns. So I'll let that be. No debate.

 

[jwright82]

Would anyone be able to point me to a list of all the places in the Westminster confessions/catechisms where the primary content or the proof texts are dependent on the TR/KJV? For example, I know the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 KJV) was cited as a proof text for the Trinity in several Reformed confessions and catechisms. But the JC is omitted from translations based on the CT. And the Westminster Standards explicitly reference the doxology “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever” (Matt. 6:13) – disputed/omitted by modern critical texts – in two catechism questions (WLC #196 and WSC #107). I would like to have an all-inclusive list of every instance where the Westminster standards are dependent on the use of the TR/KJV. Or in other words… a list of all the instances where using some translation other than the TR/KJV would put one somewhat “out of sync” with the Westminster Standards. Hope this makes sense.

Not looking to rehash the debate of the TR vs modern translations. Just trying to get a better understanding of how the Westminster Standards are dependent upon and synced up with the TR/KJV in many places.

Thank you!

The Westminster Divines and the Alexandrian Codex - Affinity

Abstract It has been assumed by those on both sides of the ‘Textus Receptus’ debate that the Westminster Divines did not have access to any of the Alexandrian manuscripts which later saw the dominance of the ‘Received Text’ overturned in critical editions of the Greek New Testament from the...

www.affinity.org.uk

Interesting paper on this subject that you or anyone else might be interested in. It touches on this issue and uses some historical evidence to weigh in on what the divine's may have thought.

 

[MW]

The Westminster Divines and the Alexandrian Codex - Affinity

Abstract It has been assumed by those on both sides of the ‘Textus Receptus’ debate that the Westminster Divines did not have access to any of the Alexandrian manuscripts which later saw the dominance of the ‘Received Text’ overturned in critical editions of the Greek New Testament from the...

www.affinity.org.uk

Interesting paper on this subject that you or anyone else might be interested in. It touches on this issue and uses some historical evidence to weigh in on what the divine's may have thought.

S

Thread 'Free Church Fathers v. Textus Receptus'

Apr 3, 2025

The following article, while presumably of general interest, hopefully also helps correct some wrong claims/assumptions about the Free Church founders and textual criticism made on these forums over the years:

Garnishing the Sepulchres of the Righteous: Textual Criticism in the Free Church Fathers (Foundations Issue 87)

For example:

MW, 22 May 2010: "The conservative Free Church professors tended towards what is today called a Byzantine majority text position."

(The article also interacts with Rev. John Keddie's characterisation of Smeaton's text critical position, quoted...

• Steelo
• Replies: 49
• Forum: Translations and Manuscripts

One can start at post 24 for interaction on the particular article you have referenced. Or one might go back to the beginning to see the failure to establish historical context in relation to the Free Church Fathers.

 

[jwright82]

S

Thread 'Free Church Fathers v. Textus Receptus'

Apr 3, 2025

The following article, while presumably of general interest, hopefully also helps correct some wrong claims/assumptions about the Free Church founders and textual criticism made on these forums over the years:

Garnishing the Sepulchres of the Righteous: Textual Criticism in the Free Church Fathers (Foundations Issue 87)

For example:

MW, 22 May 2010: "The conservative Free Church professors tended towards what is today called a Byzantine majority text position."

(The article also interacts with Rev. John Keddie's characterisation of Smeaton's text critical position, quoted...

• Steelo
• Replies: 49
• Forum: Translations and Manuscripts

One can start at post 24 for interaction on the particular article you have referenced. Or one might go back to the beginning to see the failure to establish historical context in relation to the Free Church Fathers.

Thanks.