Why was WCF 10.4 changed in the American Revisions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God.
-WCF 10.4 (1647)
Click to expand...

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,15 and may have some common operations of the Spirit,16 yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:17 much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.18 And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.19
-WCF 10.4 with American Revisions
Click to expand...

I'm just curious. Someone in the know please help me out. :)
 
Whatever you have in the top line is "revised".

The lower "American" is not a revision, but original language.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Whatever you have in the top line is "revision"

The lower "American" is not a revision, but original
Click to expand...

Thank you. In that case, the links here on the PB need to be fixed - They are backwards. However, same question in reverse. Why the change?
 
Just an observation: It seems that "without warrant of the Word of God" is redundant since it is the purpose of the confession to make statements about what the Word of God does/does not teach. The original, on the other hand, is actually saying something non-redundant about the doctrine.
 
For all I know, the rest of the American version on the site do in fact contain the other revisions.

The other version really needs someone like Naphtali Press to answer. Seems like maybe there was once a Southern Pres. version that changed the "harshness" of the original wording to something less offensive.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
For all I know, the rest of the American version on the site do in fact contain the other revisions.
Click to expand...

Oops, I didn't even consider that.

Contra_Mundum said:
The other version really needs someone like Naphtali Press to answer. Seems like maybe there was once a Southern Pres. version that changed the "harshness" of the original wording to something less offensive.
Click to expand...

That seems very probable. Thanks.
 
I think the change here is from a 1903 PCUSA revision that the OPC did not adopt. It is not an original 1788 revision. As noted at the top, the WCF is the form adopted by the OPC. Perhaps Wayne or somebody else can tell me if the PCA's differs.

I don't know how the PCUSA revision ended up in the copy I had for the original WCF. I copied and pasted it from another source.
 
To my knowledge, the Southern Presbyterians [properly, the Presbyterian Church, U.S.] only made one change in their edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, namely in Chapter XXIV--Of Marriage and Divorce, paragraph IV, deleting this final paragraph from the PCUS edition.

The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred, nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.
Click to expand...

I don't have the year of change at hand, but it was at some time before 1899.

That's the only change I'm aware of, but won't speak with authority until I can check records on Monday.
 
The PCA and OPC editions of the Westminster Standards are identical, including the proof texts. If anyone wants to differ on that, I will say authoritatively that as of 2007, both denominations share the exact same text.
 
Looking back, I don't know why I didn't bother checking my hardcopy of the PCA's version of the Standards to begin with. It definitely says "pernicious" and all that. Thanks everyone.
 
:hunter:
What? What did I miss?
"very Pernicious" was dropped by the PCUS in 1939. The Plan of union (1953-54-56), UPCUSA 1958, and current Book of Confessions comply.
 
So I think the question we are all wondering is, how did it end up in the 1647 WCF here on the PB? :detective:
 
"Very pernicious" is the original language; the "American" (as shown on PB, still unchanged, or maybe that is OPC text) must be drawing from pre PCUSA/UPC merger. Or so I would hazard, not looking more into it.
austinww said:
So I think the question we are all wondering is, how did it end up in the 1647 WCF here on the PB? :detective:
Click to expand...
 
NaphtaliPress said:
"Very pernicious" is the original language; the "American" (as shown on PB, still unchanged, or maybe that is OPC text) must be drawing from pre PCUSA/UPC merger. Or so I would hazard, not looking more into it.
austinww said:
So I think the question we are all wondering is, how did it end up in the 1647 WCF here on the PB? :detective:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The American version here on the PB has the "pernicious" as it should, but if you go to the link for the original, it has the PCUS's change instead of the actual original. I smell a conspiracy! :)
 
Call Gary North!
I'm still confused on who has what. What link? Both texts on PB have the original language. The liberals will have dropped "very pernicious." The PCA and OPC I would think would have not (being post 1939).

austinww said:
NaphtaliPress said:
"Very pernicious" is the original language; the "American" (as shown on PB, still unchanged, or maybe that is OPC text) must be drawing from pre PCUSA/UPC merger. Or so I would hazard, not looking more into it.
austinww said:
So I think the question we are all wondering is, how did it end up in the 1647 WCF here on the PB? :detective:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The American version here on the PB has the "pernicious" as it should, but if you go to the link for the original, it has the PCUS's change instead of the actual original. I smell a conspiracy! :)
Click to expand...
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Okay. It has "very pernicious". That is the original language. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

This is creepy. I am reading "to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God" in that link. Now I am just downright spooked! Do we have a Puritan Board poltergeist?
 
I am talking about the link to the original 1647 WCF. It lacks the "pernicious" etc. and replaces it with "contrary to the Word of God." That is what my link that I posted a few posts ago (post #17) says, at least on my screen. However, the link you just posted is the American version, and it reads correctly. Yes, I see the "pernicious" on that one.
 
Last edited:
Creepy. I see:
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.
 
This is absolutely bizarre. I would conclude that I'm just going crazy, only it looks like Semper Fidelis saw what I see given this statement above:

Semper Fidelis said:
I don't know how the PCUSA revision ended up in the copy I had for the original WCF. I copied and pasted it from another source.
Click to expand...
 
Rich may have changed it; but why you still see the "bad text" I dunno.... Maybe it will all be clear in the morning. But such is the Internet. In my recent version of the Solemn League and Covenant I had to account not just for errors that had crept into the printed text over the centuries but for two errors introduced in just the last few years via the most popular Internet version of the text.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Rich may have changed it; but why you still see the "bad text" I dunno.... Maybe it will all be clear in the morning. But such is the Internet. In my recent version of the Solemn League and Covenant I had to account not just for errors that had crept into the printed text over the centuries but for two errors introduced in just the last few years via the most popular Internet version of the text.
Click to expand...

I just cleared my browser history and cookies, exited my browser, signed into the PB again, and clicked on your link again. This time I saw the correct wording. Sorry for putting you through all this just for my stupid browser. :)
 
Stuupid browser (best Homer Simpson voice).:doh:
austinww said:
NaphtaliPress said:
Rich may have changed it; but why you still see the "bad text" I dunno.... Maybe it will all be clear in the morning. But such is the Internet. In my recent version of the Solemn League and Covenant I had to account not just for errors that had crept into the printed text over the centuries but for two errors introduced in just the last few years via the most popular Internet version of the text.
Click to expand...

I just cleared my browser history and cookies, exited my browser, signed into the PB again, and clicked on your link again. This time I saw the correct wording. Sorry for putting you through all this just for my stupid browser. :)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Revisions in the WCF?
Replies
9
Views
2K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
scottmaciver
  • Locked
WCF & Revisions
Replies
8
Views
2K
JimmyH
JimmyH
Parmenas
  • Locked
WCF 10.4 "Common operations of the Spirit"
Replies
1
Views
952
MW
M
chbrooking
  • Locked
WCF 24.4 and the American Revision
Replies
22
Views
4K
Kaalvenist
Kaalvenist
Timmay
Why does the WCF skip Regeneration?
Replies
7
Views
1K
alexandermsmith
alexandermsmith
Back
Top