# What are the Words of Institution in your church?



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 23, 2015)

Sorry I seem to have double-posted. See below.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 23, 2015)

There are a wide variety of expressions of the Words of Institution (WOI) for the Lord’s Supper in the churches, and this is due in part to differing confessional standards, and also to versions of the Scripture, in which they appear in differing forms.

I am disappointed in my own denomination, the PCA (and its sister, the OPC) for its history of changing the WOI, as it more and more cleaves to modern versions of the Bible which omit the word “broken” (κλώμενον), and departs from the practices and standards of the Reformation and _its_ formulations based on the Scripture they of that time held as inspired and infallible—and which they used as their primary weapon against the doctrinal and ecclesial claims of Rome. If there were more conservative Presbyterian or Reformed churches in my area I would like to visit them, but there are none I know of.

I note that the Westminster divines agreed to use the Textus Receptus-based King James 1611 (almost identical with Geneva 1599) readings in all their Scripture proofs for the WCF and the LC, which were faithfully represented in the OPC’s (and PCA’s, theoretically) official 2005 edition of the Westminster Standards (see here also for the publication history).

Other early Bibles that retained the traditional reading for the Words of Institution were the Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, among others, including the Dutch Staten Vertaling 1637 Bible, and Luther’s German 1545.

Here are the instances where the traditional Scripture reading of 1 Corinthians 11:24—“ Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you…”—is given in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism Scripture proofs: 

*WCF* Article 29
proof text (pt) a 1 Cor 11:23-26
pt c 1 Cor 11:24-26
pt e 1 Cor 11:23-27
pt m 1 Cor 11:24-26

*WLC*
Q&A 168 proof text (pt) m, 1 Cor 11:23-26
Q&A 169 pt r 1 Cor 11:23-26
Q&A 170 pt u 1 Cor 11:24-29
Q&A 171 pt k 1 Cor 11:24,25
Q&A 177 pt f 1 Cor 11:23-26

It does appear some in the modern church have departed from both the Reformation _form_ of the Words of Institution, and the Scripture it based this on. Now this difference between the versions of Scripture brings us back to the old Critical Text (CT) – Textus Receptus (TR) contention, and we’ve probably all had our fill of that! But for historical perspective’s sake I want to note that Rome’s primary counter-reformation strategy was—ultimately—against the Reformer’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which Scripture was the Textus Receptus, and brought into the Confession at 1:8, which, in part, reads,
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.​ 
The texts Rome used against the Reformers were those Vatican Scriptures we now use ourselves! It seems we have been assimilated like the Borg of Star Trek was wont to do with the weapons of its enemies.

_________

About my allegation that modern versions and—albeit unwittingly—their users seem to capitulate to Rome, consider:

This from a writing by Will Kinney alleging an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Society on jointly producing the critical text:
Kinney: “I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.

“If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text. In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:​
‘The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.’​
“And then, from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: 

*“Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible*

Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on _Divine Revelation, _the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture _(Dei Verbum, _n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the _Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible _(1968; new revised edition 1987).

“[Kinney]: The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, ‘Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation ... This signals a new age in the church.’ - Patrick Henry, _New Directions in New Testament Study_ (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.”

“United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis

[Excerpt:] MARCH 15, 2013 - The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.

‘Pope Francis embodies several “first ever” aspects: he’s the first Jesuit pope, the first Latin American pope, and the first to choose St Francis of Assisi as the patron of his papacy. He combines modesty, not least in his lifestyle, with fervent engagement for the poor, and traditional Catholic theology with courageous advocacy for human rights.

‘He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.

‘ “As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.” ’​ 
[End Kinney]
________

I suppose after ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) sidling up to Rome is no big deal anymore in the Reformed communities, seeing as some of our “best and brightest” have blazed the trail. But not all of us are on-board with this agenda. And I think the Westminster divines would object strenuously to this capitulation were they among us today.

Again, I want to focus on the issue of the OP, and that is the Words of Institution and the _significance_ of their original form. Let me quote, first, Charles Hodge:
Charles Hodge _Commentary_ on 1 Cor 11:24:

Broken for you. In Luke it is, given for you. In Matthew and Mark these words are omitted. In some manuscripts the word (κλώμενον), broken, is wanting in this passage; so that it would read simply for you, leaving the participle to be supplied from the context. *Broken or given for you means slain, or given unto death for you. The sacrificial character of the death of Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordinance. It is the commemoration of his death, not as a teacher, or a benefactor, but as a sacrifice; so that if this idea be kept out of view the sacrament loses all its significance and power. *[bold italicized emphasis added]

​John Calvin on 1 Cor 11:24:
Calvin _Institutes_ 4.17.

1. …But as this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, he exhibits its figure and image in visible signs adapted to our capacity, nay, by giving, as it were, earnests and badges, he makes it as certain to us as if it were seen by the eye; the familiarity of the similitude giving it access to minds however dull, and showing that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine. We now, therefore, understand the end which this mystical benediction has in view—viz. to assure us that the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us, so that we may now eat it, and, eating, feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one sacrifice,—that his blood was once shed for us so as to be our perpetual drink. This is the force of the promise which is added, "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you" (Mt. 26:26, &c.). The body which was once offered for our salvation we are enjoined to take and eat, that, while we see ourselves made partakers of it, we may safely conclude that the virtue of that death will be efficacious in us. Hence he terms the cup the covenant in his blood. For the covenant which he once sanctioned by his blood he in a manner renews, or rather continues, in so far as regards the confirmation of our faith, as often as he stretches forth his sacred blood as drink to us.

3. To all these things we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands. For these are words which can never lie nor deceive—Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation. *And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy of the sacrament, consists in these words, It is broken for you: it is shed for you.* It would not be of much importance to us that the body and blood of the Lord are now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption and salvation. [emphasis added]

Calvin _Commentary_ 1 Cor. 11:24

_Which is broken for you_ Some explain this as referring to the distribution of the bread, because it was necessary that Christ’s body should remain entire, as it had been predicted, (Ex 12:46,) _A_ _bone of him shall not be broken_. As for myself — while I acknowledge that Paul makes an allusion to the breaking of bread, yet I understand the word _broken_ as used here for _sacrificed_ — not, indeed, with strict propriety, but at the same time without any absurdity. For although _no bone was broken_, yet the body itself having been subjected, first of all, to so many tortures and inflictions, and afterwards to the punishment of death in the most cruel form, cannot be said to have been uninjured. This is what Paul means by its being _broken_. This, however, is the _second _clause of the promise, which ought not to be passed over slightly. For the Lord does not present his body to us simply, and without any additional consideration, but as having been _sacrificed _for us. The _first _clause, then, intimates, that the body is presented to us: this _second _clause teaches us, what advantage we derive from it — that we are partakers of redemption, and the benefit of his sacrifice is applied to us. Hence the Supper is a mirror which represents to us Christ crucified, so that no one can profitably and advantageously receive the supper, but the man who _embraces _Christ crucified.

Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 39: Corinthians, Part I: Chapter 11​ 

Despite Calvin’s thoughts above (and Turretin’s to follow), some object because it is written of Him that none of His bones shall be broken (Cf. John 19:36). Yet we have many other uses of the word broken besides taken or snapped apart and separated; from the _American Heritage Dictionary_:

Broken: 

2. Having been violated: _a broken promise_
6. a. Subdued totally; humbled: _a broken spirit_; b. Weakened and infirm: _broken health_
7. Crushed by grief: _died of a broken heart_
*9. Not functioning; out of order*: _a broken washing machine [or *a broken body and its life*]_

And from Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Vol. 3, 19[SUP]th[/SUP] Topic, The Sacraments, Question 24, The Breaking of Bread; pp. 444, 445.
From the mystical signification of this rite. For a ceremony instituted by Christ, which has an evident and divinely expressed signification of the grace and blessings of God cannot be considered indifferent, but must be said to be necessary. Now it is evident that this is the case with the breaking of bread. Christ commanded the disciples to eat bread; not any kind, but what they saw was broken by him; and to eat it in remembrance of his death, represented by the breaking of the bread. And no one can deny that this breaking had an evident signification of the grace of God and of his blessings (to wit, the breaking of the body of Christ on the cross and the saving fruits which flow thence to us, which the apostle testifies when, relating the words of institution, he says that the body of Christ is broken, “which is broken for you” [_to hyper ymōn klōmenon, _1Cor. 11: 24], in order to show more clearly the analogy of the breaking of bread to the breaking of his body). However, that Paul calls the passion of Christ the breaking of his body does not mean that his body and bones were broken properly on the cross, as the bones of the two thieves, which the evangelists expressly deny from the old prophecy, “A bone of him shall not be broken.” Rather it is said on this account—the bread, which is the sacrament of the body of Christ, is properly broken sacramentally, attributing to the thing signified what properly belongs to the sign. Nor can it be said that the analogy of breaking does not hold good because the bones of Christ were not to be broken according to the analogy of the paschal lamb. It is one thing for the bones to be broken; another for the body to be lacerated by various wounds through a breaking of continuity and by the separation of the soul from the body. Again, a breaking may be real or mystical. The bones of Christ were not to be really broken, and in fact were not broken, but still no less was his heart mystically lacerated and broken by the griefs and torments which he endured on the cross, most of all from the sense of the wrath and curse of God resting upon him on account of our sins. Hence it is said, “Reproach has broken [his] heart” (Ps. 69:20); his soul is said to have been full of heaviness (_perilypos_); and agony and amazement _(ekthambēsis) _are ascribed to him by the evangelists to designate the intense suffering of his mind.

​One of the egregious aspects of the omission of the full phrase “Take, eat: this is my body, broken (κλώμενον) for you” is that these words were spoken / given to Paul directly by the risen Lord Jesus: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” (1 Cor 11:23a), and to expunge a word given by Christ expressly for the institution of His communion feast is shocking. We should keep in mind how Calvin put it: “*And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy of the sacrament, consists in these words, It is broken for you: it is shed for you.*” And Hodge also: “*Broken or given for you means slain, or given unto death for you. The sacrificial character of the death of Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordinance. It is the commemoration of his death, not as a teacher, or a benefactor, but as a sacrifice; so that if this idea be kept out of view the sacrament loses all its significance and power.*”

Spurgeon has this terse comment on 1 Corinthians 11:23-24*.*
_For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me._

*"These are the words of the Lord Jesus himself, and therefore they come to us with all the weight of his infallible authority."* 

(1 Corinthians 11 Commentary - Spurgeon's Verse Expositions of the Bible)​ 

It has rightly been said that the words of institution—the words spoken by the Lord Jesus—are what give the elements of His supper their spiritual reality, and not anything inherent in the bread or wine themselves.

Were the Reformers wrong in the specific foundation they based their doctrine of Sola Scriptura on, and was Rome right after all? Is this merely old and irrelevant history? Or better yet, are modern Presbyterian and Reformed churches building upon mistaken ideas and error? And is Rome the more doctrinally sound with regard to the New Testament manuscripts? Make no mistake about it, these are essentially Roman Catholic manuscripts asserting that the Reformation formulation of the WOI err when it has the words, “Take, eat: this is my body, broken for you”. This is a highly significant test case for the issue.

_________

The following list of mss, lectionaries, and ancient fathers I think is originally from the Trinitarian Bible Society, though I cannot find the original tract.

1 Corinthians 11:24, take, eat, this is my body, which is BROKEN for you... in some broken is omitted, the most important aspect of the verse. 

It is omitted in Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), but is reinserted by one of its correctors. Likewise, it is omitted in Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), but is reinserted by one of the correctors. Its also omitted in Alexandrinus (A) and cursives 33 and 1739. Zohrab, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Pelagius, and Fulgentius likewise omit it. 

However, its found in the Abschrift (9th century copy of Bezae (D)), G, K, P, the majority of Byzantine manuscripts, the majority of ancient Lectionary copies and a considerable number of other independent Byzantine cursives: 81, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 626, 630, 1241, 1731mg, 1877, 1881, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2127, 2492, 2495. It is also found in copies of the Peshitta and Harcleian Syriac, the Old Latins Claromontanus and Palatinus (5th century) and Boenerianus (9th century), the Ulifas Gothic (AD 330), and the Armenian of Uscan. It is cited in the 4th century by Ambrosiaster, Basil, and Chrysostom, in the 5th by Euthalius and Theodoret, and in the 8th century by John of Damascus. The word given for which broken is often replaced is not found in any Greek manuscript, and seems to have derived from some copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and Coptic.

With regard to where the apostolic autographs and reliable copies of them were, I quote from Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text_, the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] chapter, “The History of the Text”:
So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two (Mark and Romans)—as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven New Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held *none*. The Aegean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst—the text in Egypt could only be second hand, at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable copies would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200 someone looking for the best text of the N.T. would presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to Egypt.​ 
_______

Looking at the two exemplars of the critical text mss, on the (highly contested) notion that the oldest are the best:

Codices Vaticanus c. 325–350, and Sinaiticus c. 330–360, both with the highest Alexandrian pedigrees and venerable age.

Looking now at two early church fathers living in the same time period, and with access to many more manuscripts than we have today:

Athanasius (approx. 298-373), John Chrysostom (approx. 347-407). Both of these men attest to the presence—I daresay the *prevalence*—of the reading “my body, broken for you” in their day. Nothing like a living witness over a paper whose pedigree is questionable!

From the Preface (pp. xv-xviii) of the Rev. Charles Forster’s, _A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of The Three Heavenly Witnesses_ (Deighton, Bell, and Co., London, 1867):
In a recent critical edition of St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, based on an avowedly emendated text, of which it has been pronounced by high classical authority that ‘the errors are sown broadcast through out the two volumes,’ I was startled and shocked by one alarming emendation : namely, the expunction of the word κλώμενον, from 1 Cor. xi. 24. As this word occurred in the Eucharistic form of words directly revealed by our Lord himself from heaven to St. Paul, my attention was riveted by the daring boldness of such a break in such a text. Knowing by long and large experience the value of internal evidence in such cases, — that the true touchstone was the _interna bonitas_ of the context, — I immediately examined it, and found, as I had anticipated, the received reading κλώμενον triumphantly confirmed by its antecedent, 1 Cor. x. 16, viz., τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, both terms belonging to the institution of the Eucharist; and the one preparing the way for the other. Entirely convinced myself of the integrity of the received text by this evidence, after a long life spent in the study of St. Paul's style, I prepared to vindicate the Textus Receptus : my only difficulty being how to bring home to the minds of others the convictions of my own. With this view I tasked myself to simplify the proof: certain of the unsoundness of the proposed emendation, and of its evil theological bearings. The slenderness of the grounds on which so grave a change was adventured, almost passed credibility. The editor's avowed process was a balance of the MS. authorities; and, holding the scales with trembling hand, he pronounced the balance to incline _slightly_ against the κλώμενον, and on the strength of this evanescent preponderance, decided against, and struck out, a word which (if genuine) the Lord God had spoken ! Shocked by the levity and irreverence of a mode of textual criticism like this, (however unconsciously so on the part of its employer,) my whole soul was bent on its confutation and exposure. But it pleased Providence, most unexpectedly, to spare my pains, by the recovery of this God-breathed text, in its unrationalistic integrity, in the page of the great Athanasius. Every catholic spirit will sympathize in the emotion with which I perused the unmutilated verse, essentially identical with that in our Textus Receptus, as it is cited by this glorious champion of the catholic faith, whose words deserve to be written in letters of gold:​



​
*[*translation: *“Through his body he delivers us a mystery saying: This is my body, [the one] that for your sake is broken: and the blood of the new covenant (not the old) [the one] that for your sake is shed.” *

The brackets with the word [the one = “τò” in Greek] is not necessary to translate because it is self-explained by the word “that” which follows. (Translation by P.D. in Athens)*]*​
Comment is needless. The exposure of the professed emendation is so overwhelming, as (were not the integrity of inspired Scripture at stake) almost to awaken pity for the unlucky emendator. St. Athanasius’s MSS. of the Greek Testament were older by two or three centuries than the oldest of the MSS. now extant. His text of the Greek Testament is evidence final and beyond appeal. And his reading, κλώμενον, is a death-blow, not only to the rash emendation at issue, but to the false principle of judging texts solely by the evidence of existing Greek MSS.[SUP]1[/SUP]

Footnote[SUP]1[/SUP]: Since remarking the palpable reciprocity between the κλῶμεν of 1 Cor. x. 16, and the κλώμενον of 1 Cor. xi. 24, I find that St. Chrysostom authenticates both readings, by showing that the act of ‘breaking’ entered vitally into the Apostolic administration of the Eucharist ; and that St. Chrysostom, equally with St. Athanasius, in 1 Cor. xi. 24, read κλώμενον in his Greek MSS. 

Source: <http://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/A_new_plea_for_the_authenticity_of_t.pdf>​ 
The source of the Greek quote noted, “St. Athanas. ap. Galland. Bibl. Patr. tom. v. p. 169” is likely:

Concerning St. Athanasius in Andrea Gallandi’s, _Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum_, volume 5, page 169. (published 1765-81 in Venice). It is a fourteen volume collection of 380 ecclesiastical writers of the first seven centuries. Gallandi gathered together the smaller and less known writings. Greek originals were printed in good type with Latin translations, and copious notes relative to the authors and their works were added.

__________

 John Chrysostom’s Homily 27 on 1st Corinthians  CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 27 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom):
“Next also he proceeds to recount the very things that were done, saying, ‘He took bread, and, when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you.’ If therefore you come for a sacrifice of thanksgiving, do thou on your part nothing unworthy of that sacrifice: by no means either dishonor your brother, or neglect him in his hunger; be not drunken, insult not the Church.” [emphasis added]​ 
This following are the words from the Greek Orthodox Church’s Greek/English publication, The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the liturgy always done in the Greek Orthodox churches from ancient times: The priest: “Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.” The people: “Amen.”

The point is that these two early church fathers, using manuscripts _at least_ as early as the two early mss, Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, showing the equally ancient attestation of this widely traditional reading, excepting in the Roman Catholic “church”.

Are we so easily swayed by “progress” and the “new thing” that we depart from the old and sure paths of the Reformation and its ancient Bible?

At any rate, this has been on my chest for a long time, and I wanted to express my thoughts on the matter. Alas, I had to vote for the “This is my body, which is for you” option in the poll!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 23, 2015)

The scripture proofs cited by the Westminster Assembly were by reference only and full texts were added later by book printers (i.e. never officially), but they would have been referring to their authorized English translation (KJV).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 23, 2015)

Chris, thanks for that information. As regards the OPC publication of the Standards in 2005 (see my 3rd paragraph from the top above), theirs was an official act:
The Sixty-eighth General Assembly (2001) approved the proof texts (with corrections) for publication. One additional change was made by the Seventy-first General Assembly (2004).

The Assembly in 2001 also authorized the Committee on Christian Education to publish the doctrinal standards of the OPC, with the proof texts prepared by the various committees over the years. All the texts and proof texts have now been assembled in a 464-page book (including a Scripture index), and is expected to be presented to the Seventy-second General Assembly meeting in June.

With all the proof texts written out for easy reference, this volume provides an excellent resource for studying the teachings of the Bible.​


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 23, 2015)

If I recall correctly, the PCA has never adopted proof texts, either the American PCUSA-OPC modified proofs or the original Assembly proof texts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 25, 2015)

Well, I'm surely glad to see that the vast majority of folks here (at least those who responded to the poll) are in churches who have the Words of Institution right!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 26, 2015)

The second option in the poll, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me" _is_ Biblical, coming as it does from the WOI in Luke 22:19. The meaning, as Hodge notes above, is "given as a sacrifice for you for the forgiveness of sins".


----------

