15 Aug GS 1980 art 123

Posted at 11:41h in CanRC, GS 1980 by

GS 1980 ARTICLE 123 – Book of Praise (Confessions, Prayers and Forms) Committee II presents:

I. The Belgic Confession

A. Material –  Agenda VIII,

  • B, 8 – Report of the Committee on Translation and Revision of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms, June 1979, June 1980.
  • B, 9 – Additional Report from the Committee (with corrections).
  • B, 15 – Letter from the Church at Barrhead re: The Belgic Confession.
  • 8, 16 – Letter from the Church at London re: The 8elgic Confession.

B. Observations

  • 1. a) The Committee on Translation and Revision of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms has submitted to General Synod the revised Articles 1-23 of the Belgic Confession in accordance with the mandate received from Synod Coaldale 1977, Acts, Article 60, Recommendation 3, a, b, and c.
    • b) The Committee did not complete its mandate and has yet to submit a revision of the Articles 24-37.
    • c) The Committee served Synod with a “Revised” edition of the first 23 articles.
    • d) The Committee recommends also with respect to the Belgic Confes­sion (letter October 30, E, 2) that the revised articles be “checked on language and style by a sub-committee  “
  • 2. The Church at Barrhead requests:
    • a) that the word “souls” in the Title be changed to “man.”
    • b) that the original title, “The Belgic Confession” be retained as a sub­ title (“Commonly known as the Belgic Confession”).
    • c) that in Article IV the word “epistles” be replaced by “letters” to concur with modern usage.
  • 3. The Church at London proposes changes in several articles; a number of these changes have already been incorporated into the Committee’s Revised Edition and will therefore not be mentioned.
    • a) London suggests that in Article II the pronoun “Him” be replaced with “God” and “the creation” by “His creation.” It prefers the word “characters” instead of “letters.”
    • b) London considers that in Article III the word “Himself” is not neces­sary.
    • c) London prefers the term “sacred” to “holy” in Article VI.
    • d) London suggests that consistency be maintained when referring to “Holy Scriptures” in Article VII.
    • e) London prefers the term “incommunicable properties” to ‘”distinctive personal properties” in Article VIII. It also considers that in this article the words “co-eternal” and “co-essential” are not adequately repro­duced in the expression of the Committee, “eternally equal in one and the same essence.”
    • f) London is not pleased with the new rendering “towards us” in Article IX instead of the old version “feel within ourselves.” It is also pointed out that the original “dwelling in” should not be replaced by “indwelling in.”
    • g) London requests that “Scripture” should be plural in Article XI for desired consistency.
    • h) London prefers “several offices” in Article XII to “specific functions.”
    • i) London prefers “righteous judgments” in Article XIII to the proposed “righteous decisions.”
  • 4. Advisory Committee II observes:
  • a) The word “written” has been omitted from the heading of Article III.
    • b) The Committee has deleted the words “fourteen,” “seven letters of the other apostles” and “the apostle John” in Article IV. No reason has been given for these deletions.
    • c) The word “Mohammedans” is used in Article IX.
    • d) The textus receptus of Article XI has “Scriptures” in the plural, while the Committee has rendered this in the singular.
    • e) The Committee has opted for “sleep in their sin” in Article XV instead of the old rendition “rest securely” or the textus receptus “in de zonde gerust slapen.”
    • f) The rendition “trembling all over” in Article XVII appears awkward denoting outward, physical trembling.
    • g) The Committee renders Hebrews 10:14 (R.S.V.) as “for all times.”
    • h) The Committee retains the old version of Article XXII, “When (those benefits) they become ours”

C. Considerations

  • 1. a) The Committee has completed its mandate regarding the Articles 1-23 of the Belgic Confession and should therefore be discharged for this portion of its task.
    • b) The Articles 1-23, having been corrected or revised by Synod 1980, can be provisionally adopted subject to linguistic review (see Observation 1, d).
    • c) Since the Committee has served Synod with a final “Revised” edition of the Articles 1-23, a number of requests or suggestions from the Churches need no longer be dealt with. These suggestions have already been incorporated by the Committee into its Revised Draft.
    • d) Synod agrees, in accordance with the grounds adduced by the Com­mittee, that the textus receptus of the Belgic Confession is the authorized Dutch and French text of Dort 1618-1619.
    • e) It is indeed essential to appoint a new Committee of language experts so that the churches may receive Forms (and Prayers) which are lin­guistically correct. In this way also the Revised first 23 Articles of the Belgic Confession can be checked regarding style and language before their final adoption by a future General Synod.
  • 2. a) It is indeed desirable that the title “The Belgic Confession” be retained in the form of a sub-title (“Commonly known as the Belgic Confession”) since this would help in preserving the church-historical bond.
    • b) It is in agreement with modern Bible translations (e.g. the R.S.V.) that the word “epistle” be replaced by “letter,” cf. I Corinthians 5:9; II Cor­inthians 3:2; Colossians 4:16, etc.
  • 3. a) The title of Article II makes London’s proposal (to replace “Hirn” by “God”) unnecessary. The preference for the word “characters” (over “letters”) Is not substantiated, whereas the word “letters” seems to correspond more with “written” in Article III.
    • b) Careful reading of Article III shows that the word “Himself” should be retained since it refers to God’s own writing of the Law “with His own finger.”
    • c) The word “holy” in Article VI conforms with modern English e.g. “The Holy Bible,” and there is no reason why it should not replace the word “sacred.”
    • d) The context will determine whether the word “Scripture” should be rendered in the singular or the plural. In the case of Article VII the textus receptus shows a singular.
    • e) The Committee’s translation in Article VIII is questionable, even if the word “incommunicable” has become somewhat obsolete in modern English. Another version is preferred.
    • The Committee’s translation which replaces the word “co-eternal and co-essential” in Article VIII is inaccurate (better – “equally eternal”).
    • f) The translation “feel within ourselves” in Article IX is in accordance with the textus receptus. The Committee has not given reasons for the change in the expression “towards us.”
    • There is a notable change from “the testimonies of Holy Writ” to “the three Persons.”
    • “Indwelling in” is an unnecessary repetition of “dwelling in.” However, indwelling is a proper verb.
    • g) In the textus receptus the word “Scripture” in Article XI is used as a plural (see also Consideration d above).
    • h) “Specific task and function” in Article XII is a circumscription of the word “arnbten” (French: offices) but is acceptable since it refers to created objects and beings other than man, so that by their use man may fulfill his office.
    • i) The rendering “judgments” is literally more in accordance with the textus receptus.
  • 4. a) The textus receptus requires that the last part of Article IV should read as follows, “The fourteen letters of the apostle Paul, namely … Phil­ernon, and one to the Hebrews; seven other letters: James, I and II Peter, I, II and III John, Jude; and the Revelation to the apostle John.” The number “fourteen” should be replaced by “thirteen,” since no scholar of repute considers the letter to the Hebrews as having been written by Paul (The Committee has also made this obvious). The words “and one” should then be replaced by “the letter to the Hebrews,” as shown by the Committee.
    • b) The word “Mohammedans” is no longer an accurate expression and should be replaced in Article IX by “Muslims.”
    • c) There is no reason why the singular is used for “Scripture” in Article XI of the Revised Committee Report.
    • d) The expression “sleep in their sin” in Article XV is a somewhat weak translation of the textus receptus. The addition of the word “peace­fully” conveys the literal meaning.
    • e) The Committee has made an attempt in Article XVII to translate the textus receptus which speaks of the total fear of man immediately after the fall.
    • However, this proposal, “trembling all over,” lends itself to the idea as if the trembling was only physical. Since this trembling was in body and soul (for man “made himself wholly miserable”) it may be better to have it read, “fleeing from him in utter fright” or “in complete trepidation.”
    • f) The quotation from Hebrews 10:14 (R.S.V.) should read “for all time.”
    • g) The textus receptus in Article XXII has “geworden zijnde.” It is more accurate to translate “benefits have become ours.”

D. Recommendations

  • 1. To thank the Committee for the work done thus far.
  • 2. To charge the Committee:
    • a) To consider incorporating the emendations suggested to Synod 1980 into the draft to be presented to General Synod 1983.
    • b) To continue the revision of the remaining Articles 24-37 of the Belgic Confession in accordance with the textus receptus of Dort (1618-1619) and to submit a completed, linguistically corrected draft to the next Synod with copies to the Churches nine months prior to its convo­cation.
  • ADOPTED
  • 3. To pass on to the Committee the following suggested emendations:
    • a) To use the words “Commonly known as the Belgic Confession” as a sub-title to “True Christian Confession.”
    • b) To replace the word “epistle” by “letter” in the articles applicable.
    • c) To render Article IV as follows,” … the thirteen letters of the apostle Paul … Philemon; the letter to the Hebrews; the seven other letters … and the Revelation to the apostle John.”
    • d) To use the word “Scripture(s)” in the singular or plural as it appears in the textus receptus.
    • e) To re-consider the translation of the words “incommunicable,” “co­ eternal” and “co-essential” in Article VIII.
    • f) To render the beginning of Article IX as follows, “All this we know from the testimonies of Holy Scripture as well as their effects, primarily from those which we feel within us.” To change the wording “indwell­ing in” to “dwelling in.” To use the name “Muslims” rather than “Mohammedans.”
    • g) To adopt the more literal translation, “sleep peacefully in their sin” in Article XV.
    • h) To change the Committee’s proposal, “trembling all over” to “fleeing from Him in utter fright.”
    • i) To amend the words “for all times” to “for all time” in accordance with Hebrews 10:14 (R.S.V.) in Article XXI.
    • j) To amend the words in Article XXII, “When those benefits become ours” to “When those benefits have become ours  “
    • k) To reconsider the translation “decisions” in Article XIII.  
  • ADOPTED

II. The Canons of Dordt

A. Material – Agenda VIII,

  • B, 8 – Report of the Committee on Translation and Revision of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms, June 1979, June 1980, October 1980.
  • B, 9 – Additional Report from the Committee (with corrections).
  • B, 17 – Letter from the Church at Brampton re: The Canons of Dordt.
  • B, 18 – Letter from the Church at London re: The Canons of Dordt.

B. Observations

  • 1. a) The Committee on Translation and Revision of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms has in accordance with its mandate (Synod Coaldale 1977, Acts, Article 60, 3, a, b, c) served Synod with “a newly translated text of the Chapters 1-V of the Canons of Dordt” (Letter October 30, 1980).
    • b) The Committee has used as the basis for its translation “the original and authentic” Dutch and Latin texts established by the Synod of Dordtrecht (1618-1619). The Committee has given “equal weight to the Latin and Dutch texts and decided each case on its merits” (Letter June, 1979).
    • c) The Committee points out that since the “sub-headings were not part of the official text, they should be printed in italics.”
    • d) In Chapter I, 6 the Committee has taken away the reference to Acts 15:18, and in I, 7 it has added the words “in Christ” to “chosen” in agreement with the Latin and Dutch texts.
    • e) The Committee was not able to complete the revision of the Rejection of Errors of the Canons of Dordt “in time for this Synod” (Letter, October 30, 1980, sub B).
  • 2. The Church at Brampton has served Synod with various remarks concern­ing the language and grammar of the Committee’s draft proposal (Second through Fifth Head of Doctrine).
  • 3. The Church at London has made various remarks which have already been dealt with by the Committee (Letter October 30, C, 1).

C. Considerations

  • 1. It is obvious that the Committee in presenting the revised text of the Chapters 1-V of the Canons of Dordt to Synod, would like these articles to be adopted, subject to final correction by a sub-committee appointed to check on the linguistic quality of the translation.
  • 2. It is equally obvious that Synod has certain questions and remarks regarding the presented text (see Appendix) and that these remarks should be dealt with before the translation is finalized for use in the churches.
  • 3. Since the Committee is yet to finalize the “Rejection of Errors” and to submit also that revision for scrutiny to the mentioned sub-committee, it is possible that the Advisory Committee’s suggestions regarding the Chapters 1-V be considered for the final draft of the translation of the Canons of Dordt.
  • 4. In proposing to subject the final draft to linguistic correction, the Com­mittee itself has already answered the request of the Church at Brampton.

D. Recommendations

Synod decide:

  • 1. To thank the Committee on Revision and Translation of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms for the work done thus far on the Canons of Dordt.
  • 2. To pass on the remarks of the Advisory Committee regarding the newly translated text of the Chapters I-V to the Committee for consideration or incorporation into the final draft.
  • 3. To charge the Committee to complete the revision of the Rejection of Errors and to present the whole, corrected by a sub-committee of linguis­tic experts, to the Churches nine months prior to the next Synod and to the next General Synod for final adoption for use in the Churches.
  • ADOPTED

III. The Prayers

A. Material –  Agenda VIII,

  • B, 8 – Report of the Committee on Translation and
  • Revision of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms, June 1979, June 1980, October 1980.
  • B, 9 – Additional Report from the Committee (with corrections).
  • B, 19 – Letter from the Church at London re: Prayers. B, 20 –  Letter from the Church at Cloverdale re: Prayers.
  • B, 21 – Letter from the Church at Barrhead re: Use of the Lord’s Prayer.

B. Observations

  • 1. The Committee on Translation and Revision of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms presents Synod with a “revised text of the Prayers” with a request “to give tentative approval of the text of the prayers as sub­ mitted for provisional use in the Churches” (Report, October 30, sub A, 5).
  • 2. The Committee informs Synod that it wanted to “stay as closely as possi­ ble to the prayers as found in the Book of Praise (pp. 475-495)” and there­ fore “did not use the new Dutch version of the prayers, which extensively differs from the old version.”
  • 3. The Committee further notes, “In our revision we:
    • a. updated the language and broke up long sentences;
    • b. shortened the pr”ayers wherever this was possible without damage to the contents;
    • c. added some petitions related to our present day needs. We did so par­ ticularly in the prayer for all the needs of Christendom;
    • d. left out some expressions which tried to convey the scriptural truth of the remaining sinfulness of the believer, but proved exegetically untenable; for example on page 475, line 5ff. of the Book of Praise we read: “We are deeply conscious of the fact that on account of our original sin, we are unclean before Thee and children of wrath.” The words:”… on account of our original sins, we are unclean before Thee and children of wrath” were left out, because we were unclean … by original sin, but by God’s grace are not so any longer, Ephesians 2:3;
    • e. left out the text preceding and following the prayer before and after meals, because these texts are not part of the prayers themselves. On account of the private character of these prayers we also left out the Lord’s Prayer with which they close in the old version.
    • The Lord’s prayer in the public prayers was originally meant to be used in unison by the congregation.”
  • 4. The Church at London has come with critical remarks on six of the revised prayers.
  • 5. The Church at Cloverdale has come with extensive comments on almost all of the revised prayers.
  • 6. The Church at Barrhead proposes to leave out in all … prayers the Lord’s Prayer which was not given “to use it in its entirety as an addition to our prayer which already deals at length with the particular occasion.”

C. Considerations

  • 1. Synod Coaldale 1977 did not specifically include in its mandate a request for the revision of the prayers; neither is it clear that these prayers are to be included under the “Liturgical Forms” (Acts, Article 60, sub 4-6).
  • It is nevertheless commendable that the Committee decided to include in its mandate “a revised text of the prayers.”
  • 2. Since no specific mandate for revision of the prayers was given by Synod Coaldale 1977, the Committee had to formulate and explain its own rules for revision (Observations 2 and 3 a-e). It remains questionable whether such rules which touch the entire updating of the Book of Praise should be drafted by a committee and not by a Synod which appoints the committee.
  • 3. Synod, being faced with letters from the Churches at London and Cloverdale, containing extensive criticism/remarks on the revised prayers, may be thus forced to do the work of the Committee.
  • 4. Since the Committee requests that the final draft, also of the prayers, is to be submitted to a sub-committee “consisting of experts in the English language and one member of the Committee,” Synod itself need not yet adopt a final revision of the prayers as presented.
  • 5. Since the Committee itself has already stated that “we also left out the Lord’s Prayer with which they close in the old version,” the proposal of the Church at Barrhead with respect to the Prayers has been answered. Synod concurs with the Committee’s suggestions in this respect.
  • 6. Synod is not convinced of the validity of the omission of Observation 3, d (see: the Forms of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper).

D. Recommendations

Synod decide:

  • 1. a) Not at this time to approve the submitted texts of the prayers for provi­ sional use in the Churches;
    • b) To request the Committee on Translation and Revision of the Confes­sional and Liturgical Forms to present the next Synod with a complet­ed, linguistically corrected, final draft of the prayers.
  • 2. To update not only the language of the prayers fully in accordance with the requirements of present-day English, but also the contents with respect to present-day circumstances, taking into account also the new Dutch version of the prayers.
  • 3. To continue to abide by the rules set in Observation 3, c and e.
  • 4. To pass on the proposals of the Churches at London and Cloverdale to the Committee for consideration.
  • ADOPTED
Print page