# OPC GA - Changing Language



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 9, 2017)

I was reading through the minutes and I came across this:



> "... presented the recommendation for the committee with the three grounds, to update in narrow and modest ways, the language identified as archaic in the Westminster Standards, with no doctrinal changes."
> 
> OPC 2017 GA, Committee of Christian Education



What is the purpose for this? Personally, I find it somewhat alarming when someone wants to change language because it's "archaic". The Westminster standards was written in the high orthodox period with precise language for a reason. Updating the language alters meaning and preciseness.


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 9, 2017)

Oh, you're reading the PCA GA minutes. Just normal stuff.  


Yes, you are right. No matter what you do, "updating language" changes meaning. It's inevitable.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 9, 2017)

Its a publication, correct? Available for purchase to churches, individuals, etc., for classes, etc. It's a study aid, like many others.

The doctrinal standards of the OPC are titled: "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the OPC." We don't even label them as the "Westminster Confession," both to state clearly what these documents are relative to us, and to avoid criticism for the American revisions retained by us, from those confessing the original WCF.

To "update" the terms of the church's Confession--archaic language or anything--is a constitutional matter, requiring a supermajority of the Presbyteries' approval. No one is moving that way. Even talk about this study edition required years of review at G.A. level, and lots of assurance to commissioners about the purpose for this project.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 9, 2017)

Actually Bruce, it was not just a study version. That was the request sent to them previously to consider. But the Christian Education Committee in response recommended amending the standards to update English morphological changes (i.e. hath to has, doth to does, accepteth to accepts, etc.) and clearly archaic words. I don't think anyone objected to morphological changes. The concern was over how you define "archaic" words and then what to replace them with. Some were obvious like "stews". Others were more complicated, like which translation would you use for the 10 commandments and Lord's Prayer in the catechisms. Because of that, it was referred back to the committee to study it some more and revise their recommendation. The major concern was that our people have modern English translations of the Bible in most pulpits, and very few read 17th century English. So it would be useful to update the English in these narrows ways. Basically, they were advocating an ESV version of the OPC Standards. There were other concerns brought up in objection, but these were the main points. But they were very clear they were not recommending any change in technical or doctrinal terms.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 9, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Its a publication, correct? Available for purchase to churches, individuals, etc., for classes, etc. It's a study aid, like many others.
> 
> The doctrinal standards of the OPC are titled: "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the OPC." We don't even label them as the "Westminster Confession," both to state clearly what these documents are relative to us, and to avoid criticism for the American revisions retained by us, from those confessing the original WCF.
> 
> To "update" the terms of the church's Confession--archaic language or anything--is a constitutional matter, requiring a supermajority of the Presbyteries' approval. No one is moving that way. Even talk about this study edition required years of review at G.A. level, and lots of assurance to commissioners about the purpose for this project.


Updating the English to modern terminology on and by itself though would not be a bad thing, as it would make it easier to be read and understood by those who were not raised up as reformed....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Updating the English to modern terminology on and by itself though would not be a bad thing, as it would make it easier to be read and understood by those who were not raised up as reformed....


It would require the historical events that prompted the WCF in the first place. The church militant calling for and sanctioning such a revision. It is not something just done in an isolated manner. If you want a modern translation see the following:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/doyle-bayn...ssion-paraphrased/ebook/product-17540849.html


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It would require the historical events that prompted the WCF in the first place. The church militant calling for and sanctioning such a revision. It is not something just done in an isolated manner. If you want a modern translation see the following:
> 
> http://www.lulu.com/shop/doyle-bayn...ssion-paraphrased/ebook/product-17540849.html


Think that would be nice to have the church at large within the Reformed Presbyterian churches agree to such a revision...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Think that would be nice to have the church at large within the Reformed Presbyterian churches agree to such a revision...


To do that they would all have to agree and subscribe to the original Westminster standards or some agreed upon version; as it stands, this is the OPC altering the OPC's version of those originals (as has been said).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It would require the historical events that prompted the WCF in the first place. The church militant calling for and sanctioning such a revision.



Good point, but can we take the difficulty a step further? Wasn't it Parliament that called the Assembly? In that case, wouldn't Congress (yikes!) today have to do it?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 9, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Good point, but can we take the difficulty a step further? Wasn't it Parliament that called the Assembly? In that case, wouldn't Congress (yikes!) today have to do it?


Moreover it would require Congress to be like-minded about liturgy, discipline, and government within the church. We have no Church of US as did England, so there is little likelihood.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 9, 2017)

Thank you, Patrick. I would like to see no verbal changes. Nor do I think this move should be made without moving to amend the constitution. "Cosmetic" change is still change. I hope this idea is eventually deep-sixed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hammondjones (Jun 9, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> which translation would you use for the 10 commandments and Lord's Prayer in the catechisms.



Wouldn't seem to be many options for that, what with the "for thine is the kingdom..."


----------



## Edward (Jun 10, 2017)

If someone doesn't have an agenda, aren't they trying to re-invent the wheel? A fairly decent Westminster Confession in modern English came out in the 1980s https://www.amazon.com/Westminster-...d_wg=7FOfg&psc=1&refRID=3SWRQNKHERVX5M04209H; if they need something more understandable, they could use that* as a supplement* instead of tinkering with what they have now. I think there was a Shorter that came out about the same time https://www.amazon.com/Westminster-Shorter-Catechism-Modern-English/dp/0875525482 probably this one is the one of which I am thinking.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 10, 2017)

See also Baynard's modern versions of various confessions:
https://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?keyWords=baynard&type=


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 10, 2017)

I would not be opposed to the narrow changes they had in mind. If they started revising more technical and doctrinal terms I would object. Some have argued to leave the standards alone and just provide a modern language study version, which I would be fine with too. But then you could end up with a de facto confession/catechism that in practice supersedes the official one, especially when they are committing the catechism to memory. Van Dixhoorn made an important point that if we modernize too much, our ministers and elders would no longer be conversant in 17th-19th century works in which most of our tradition is written, thus cutting them off from our historical roots. It's an important point, at least for officers. But many members in our congregations are already cut off from that tradition simply because they don't read at all, much less 17th century Reformed works. At what point does the shift in English language warrant a re-translation to bridge the gap and keep the Reformed faith accessible to the average layman? It's not an easy question to answer, but we will have to answer it sooner or later.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 10, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Personally, I find it somewhat alarming when someone wants to change language because it's "archaic".



Here's an old quote from Calvin on 2 Timothy 1:13

_Hold the form of sound words._ Some explain it thus: “Let thy doctrine be, as it were, a pattern which others may imitate.” I do not approve of that view. Equally removed from Paul’s meaning is Chrysostom’s exposition, that Timothy should have at hand the image of virtues engraven on his heart by Paul’s doctrine. *I rather think that Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; for ὑποτύπωσις—the word which Paul employs on this occasion—denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes.* Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree, is exceedingly injurious.

Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (pp. 201–202). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
​My 2 cents...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 10, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> Here's an old quote from Calvin on 2 Timothy 1:13
> 
> _Hold the form of sound words._ Some explain it thus: “Let thy doctrine be, as it were, a pattern which others may imitate.” I do not approve of that view. Equally removed from Paul’s meaning is Chrysostom’s exposition, that Timothy should have at hand the image of virtues engraven on his heart by Paul’s doctrine. *I rather think that Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; for ὑποτύπωσις—the word which Paul employs on this occasion—denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes.* Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree, is exceedingly injurious.
> 
> ...


And yet Calvin also advocated translating those Greek sound words into the common tongue of his day. This discussion in the OPC is not about changing doctrine, but making that same doctrine clearer to modern English speakers. Let's not go beyond the narrow scope of the proposed changes which this thread was focused on.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 11, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> And yet Calvin also advocated translating those Greek sound words into the common tongue of his day. This discussion in the OPC is not about changing doctrine, but making that same doctrine clearer to modern English speakers. Let's not go beyond the narrow scope of the proposed changes which this thread was focused on.




I agree with Mr. Walsh in principle and this is one concern in the back of my mind. I also agree that what was proposed was not to change doctrine. 

Words give meaning to precise language for doctrinal reasons. One concern in this thread was about the modern layman. However, let's just look at a simple example: 

Thou, thee, thy/thine (genetive), and thine (possessive) 

There seems to be lost meaning when you replace these with "you" or "yours". "Whereas 'you' does not differentiate between subject and object form, or singular and plural form, 'thou' does." (Westminster Reference Bible, xxiv)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 11, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> This discussion in the OPC is not about changing doctrine, but making that same doctrine clearer to modern English speakers.



Neither was Calvin speaking of changing doctrine. Unless I misunderstand Calvin, I think he was saying the even the very words that were assembled by competent (authorized) people are to be faithfully passed on word-for-word. The Westminster Confession was authored by many competent divines over a long period, during a Reforming time in the history of the Church. (And they knew it) We should not take lightly changing even the _form of sound words_.

I think your reductio ad absurdum about translating Greek to the vulgar languages misses the point completely. It was with great care over time, and by many hands that this process was to be carried out.

I am only saying that if these "minor" changes are to be made, they should be made with major care, by many men, over time.

Do you think I have miss understood Calvin? If not. Do you think he was misguided in his concern?

I am coming off a personal experience in my church where a single elder paraphrased the WSC Q. What is prayer?, in such a way that it was unrecognizable to my children and me. I later told the elder that I did not think one man was ever competent to modernize the Standards, no matter how hard they tried. They would inevitably get something wrong. 

Someday the Standards will be updated. Someday when the Church is in a similar Reforming time. I do not think we live in such times today.

I have no more to say. I am just suspicious of anyone messing with the language of the Standards in our present day and age. 

As to translation:
All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (...) shall be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, _out of the best allowed translation_, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.

The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (p. 482). Philadelphia: William S. Young. - From the Directory for the Public Worship of God.​


----------



## Miguel (Jun 11, 2017)

It would be useful for who as English as second language!!


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I would not be opposed to the narrow changes they had in mind. If they started revising more technical and doctrinal terms I would object. Some have argued to leave the standards alone and just provide a modern language study version, which I would be fine with too. But then you could end up with a de facto confession/catechism that in practice supersedes the official one, especially when they are committing the catechism to memory. Van Dixhoorn made an important point that if we modernize too much, our ministers and elders would no longer be conversant in 17th-19th century works in which most of our tradition is written, thus cutting them off from our historical roots. It's an important point, at least for officers. But many members in our congregations are already cut off from that tradition simply because they don't read at all, much less 17th century Reformed works. At what point does the shift in English language warrant a re-translation to bridge the gap and keep the Reformed faith accessible to the average layman? It's not an easy question to answer, but we will have to answer it sooner or later.


Very good points, but my concern would be that since the Confessions ina nd by themselves were not inspired as the scriptures were, would not the updating in grammar and vocabulary to modern terms not interfere with their essential meanings and understandings? Also, has not the reformed/Christian faith advanced in its theology over the years, or perhaps better to say it that we can have additional and future applications of the scriptures to modern times in areas not even a consideration or concern during time of their writings?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Also, has not the Reformed/Christian faith advanced in its theology over the years,




That's debatable...


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 12, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> very few read 17th century English


I frankly don't understand this. Is it really that difficult for people to understand the Westminster Standards, or the King James Version for that matter? I grant that one will occasionally run into a word he doesn't know, but that can be remedied, in our day, by a simple Google search. Other than laziness, what prevents people from understanding the standards?



> they were not recommending any change in technical or doctrinal terms


If someone can't understand the nontechnical "archaic" words, how can he be expected to understand the technical ones? It seems that if someone is educated enough to understand what it means that God is "without body, parts, or passions," then he will be able to understand the less technical language.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> I frankly don't understand this. Is it really that difficult for people to understand the Westminster Standards, or the King James Version for that matter? I grant that one will occasionally run into a word he doesn't know, but that can be remedied, in our day, by a simple Google search. Other than laziness, what prevents people from understanding the standards?
> 
> If someone can't understand the nontechnical "archaic" words, how is can he be expected to understand the technical ones? It seems that if someone is educated enough to understand what it means that God is "without body, parts, or passions," then he will be able to understand the less technical language.




Think that the common biblical understanding has really been watered down though, so much so that some modern versions even remove theological terminology, as most were not able to really grasp and understand them...


----------



## Edward (Jun 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> would not the updating in grammar and vocabulary to modern terms not interfere with their essential meanings and understandings?



Not necessarily. It depends on the technical care taken. I find the two modern documents which I referenced up thread helpful. But that doesn't mean that just any modern version would fall in that category.


----------



## MW (Jun 12, 2017)

There is no such thing as a changeless change. Words are symbols of meaning. Even if there is no change of apparent meaning in the alteration of a word, there will be a change of association and attendant circumstances in the new connection that is made between words, besides what takes place in terms of resonance and clarity.

Perhaps the most objectionable aspect of introducing a new word into a time-honoured document is its lack of historical proof. A new word opens the door for people to make of it what they will, whereas an old word can be shown to be used in specific ways that determine its meaning.

This is an age of historic revisionism and radical progressivism. A conservative who values the treasures of the past will naturally look on the idea of updating or refreshing a master-piece with a high degree of concern, especially in a matter involving sacred vows.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 12, 2017)

Is it a bad thing for them to replace thou's and hath's etc? I don't see how it's changing doctrine at all.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 12, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Is it a bad thing for them to replace thou's and hath's etc? I don't see how it's changing doctrine at all.




It's not so much of a bad _thing_ as it is a bad _time_. If more people knew the Standards, they would not want to see them changed. There is a history attached to the older language.

I wonder how many on the PB still recite the Lord's Prayer in King James English. I go to a PCA church that has standardized on the ESV. But when it comes to reciting the Prayer, everyone speaks King James. There is a reason for that. It is history.

If I had a vote, I would cast it against change until we find ourselves in a Reforming time again.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 13, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Is it a bad thing for them to replace thou's and hath's etc? I don't see how it's changing doctrine at all.


I think that the Confessions should reflect and speak into each generation, as the English has indeed been changed and transformed a lot since time of their creation, so just as the scriptures are allowed to be updated and modernized with modern translations, why not them also? Since i am a Baptist, mainly referring to the 1689 Confession......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 13, 2017)

Edward said:


> Not necessarily. It depends on the technical care taken. I find the two modern documents which I referenced up thread helpful. But that doesn't mean that just any modern version would fall in that category.


Good point, as I think that there are two issues here, as some may want to merely update to modern English terminology, while others may wish to have a full rewrite...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 14, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> Neither was Calvin speaking of changing doctrine. Unless I misunderstand Calvin, I think he was saying the even the very words that were assembled by competent (authorized) people are to be faithfully passed on word-for-word. The Westminster Confession was authored by many competent divines over a long period, during a Reforming time in the history of the Church. (And they knew it) We should not take lightly changing even the _form of sound words_.
> 
> I think your reductio ad absurdum about translating Greek to the vulgar languages misses the point completely. It was with great care over time, and by many hands that this process was to be carried out.
> 
> ...



Ed, my point was that there is no agenda in the OPC to change the sound words but on the contrary to preserve them and make them more readable to modern English readers, something I think Calvin would approve of. We have modern English Bible versions. We have modern English updates of 17th century works. Why are the standards of the OPC somehow immune from that process of clarification? And where in Scripture are we told to only do such things in a "reforming" age? How much of Scripture itself was written during times of great moral decline and rebellion, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel? What prevents a faithful church from improving the readability of their standards even in age when the surrounding culture is less Christian? Wouldn't that instead be a motivation to be more clear, now that the assumptions of cultural Christianity have fallen away, and to remove the unnecesary verbage which does make it more burdensome to read for modern readers? We live in a awkward time where the surrounding culture is declining, and yet Reformed scholarship is also growing. Is it a coincidence that God has given us such gifts at this point in time?

Again the recommendation of the committee was extremely narrow, confined to morphological changes and clearly archaic words, not a wholesale revision of doctrinal and technical terms. Would it really change the meaning significantly to change "hath" to "has" or "stews" to "brothels"? Also, the process of amending the standards is deliberately slow and careful in the OPC. Plus, we have many notable scholars of Reformation and Post-Reformation theology serving as teaching and ruling elders in our denomination, more than perhaps at any point in OPC history. There has been a great resurgence of study in that field. I personally am confident that great care would be taken to consider the historic importance of even these narrow kinds of changes. Furthermore, the Christian Education commitee was told to consult other denominations with whom we have fraternal relations about this recommendation before bringing it back.

Just to outline the process, a special commitee would have to be erected by the GA to work on these changes (and likely that committee would be stacked with relevant scholars). Then that commitee would have to report back to the GA when their work was complete. Their work would be evaluated by the GA. Many hands would be working on it, not only in committee but before the whole GA. This part could take years (especially in the OPC). And these changes would not be approved until there was a two-thirds vote in favor. Then it would have to go to the presbyteries, and two-thirds of the presbyteries would have to approve it. Then it would have to go to another GA and receive a two-thirds vote to pass. Again, this process would take years (2 years, bare minimum if the commitee did perfect work and the first GA vote approved it immediately).

You cite your own experience of a pastor misquoting the catechism as giving you caution. But that error is much harder to do in the process outlined above. I have my own concerns as well, having to pastor many people who never went beyond a high school education and who really do struggle to read that older language. We cannot jettison the doctrinal and technical terms, but we can remove other unnecessary impediments to their efforts to study them, just as we do with the Scriptures. Obviously, you can see that I favor something like this, not because I want doctrinal decline, but because I want the doctrine I love so much to be more readable to my people so they may benefit from it. We are not discarding what our forefathers said, but building on it.

Sorry to be so long, but I really do think we need to be clear on what was really recommended and discussed in the OPC, and also what was not up for negotiation. If something more radical were proposed I would share your caution, but that was simply not the case here.

Every blessing,

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Ed, my point was that there is no agenda in the OPC to change the sound words but on the contrary to preserve them and make them more readable to modern English readers, something I think Calvin would approve of. We have modern English Bible versions. We have modern English updates of 17th century works. Why are the standards of the OPC somehow immune from that process of clarification? And where in Scripture are we told to only do such things in a "reforming" age? How much of Scripture itself was written during times of great moral decline and rebellion, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel? What prevents a faithful church from improving the readability of their standards even in age when the surrounding culture is less Christian? Wouldn't that instead be a motivation to be more clear, now that the assumptions of cultural Christianity have fallen away, and to remove the unnecesary verbage which does make it more burdensome to read for modern readers? We live in a awkward time where the surrounding culture is declining, and yet Reformed scholarship is also growing. Is it a coincidence that God has given us such gifts at this point in time?
> 
> Again the recommendation of the committee was extremely narrow, confined to morphological changes and clearly archaic words, not a wholesale revision of doctrinal and technical terms. Would it really change the meaning significantly to change "hath" to "has" or "stews" to "brothels"? Also, the process of amending the standards is deliberately slow and careful in the OPC. Plus, we have many notable scholars of Reformation and Post-Reformation theology serving as teaching and ruling elders in our denomination, more than perhaps at any point in OPC history. There has been a great resurgence of study in that field. I personally am confident that great care would be taken to consider the historic importance of even these narrow kinds of changes. Furthermore, the Christian Education commitee was told to consult other denominations with whom we have fraternal relations about this recommendation before bringing it back.
> 
> ...


The Confessions were not inspired by God as Holy Scripture, so they should be OK to been updated to modern terminology times...


----------



## kceaster (Jun 16, 2017)

I have two concerns about changing the "archaic" language. First, it may tend to lose a vital connection to the past. We need to remember the Reformation, just as much as Israel needed to remember the wilderness wanderings. For you military men, reform should remind you to "form again" or get into the well known militant formation you learned from the very beginning of your military training. Taking away the language of the standards may distance us ever farther from things we need to remember, and by which we ever need to be more trained. Perhaps what is needed is more "muscle memory" when it comes to the heavy lifting of spiritual truth.

And that leads me into my second concern: the balance we must observe between making things easier, and taking the challenge out of it. The scriptures are to be seen like Thorin Oakenshield rightly viewed Erebor (sorry for those of you on whom this example is lost, but see 'The Hobbit'). Things need to be reclaimed from time to time, because, "...what was once known is now lost." And those reclamation projects may be very difficult (we have an adversary stronger, and more evil than Smaug, the dragon). But shouldn't it be so? What a mine is the Bible, and how precious are its stones and gems! How deeply may we delve? It is endless. What treasures may we find? It is filled with infinitely more wealth than that of Solomon. But such treasure will not easily be obtained, though its truths are simple enough for a child to understand.

That's why I love the 1st chapter of the confession, because it balances the perspicuity of the scriptures with the fact that we know absolutely nothing of them without the Spirit's illumination. Any one may come to a proper understanding of salvation, but only the Spirit can give them that understanding (1 Cor 2:11). And, the Spirit doesn't just use the words of Scripture, but the whole history of its interpretation, as long as it aligns with the true meaning. The same even goes with a man made confession. 

To me, that begs the question: do we need easier language, or more reliance upon the Interpreter and Illuminator of all spiritual truth?

In Christ,
KC

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 16, 2017)

kceaster said:


> I have two concerns about changing the "archaic" language. First, it may tend to lose a vital connection to the past. We need to remember the Reformation, just as much as Israel needed to remember the wilderness wanderings. For you military men, reform should remind you to "form again" or get into the well known militant formation you learned from the very beginning of your military training. Taking away the language of the standards may distance us ever farther from things we need to remember, and by which we ever need to be more trained. Perhaps what is needed is more "muscle memory" when it comes to the heavy lifting of spiritual truth.
> 
> And that leads me into my second concern: the balance we must observe between making things easier, and taking the challenge out of it. The scriptures are to be seen like Thorin Oakenshield rightly viewed Erebor (sorry for those of you on whom this example is lost, but see 'The Hobbit'). Things need to be reclaimed from time to time, because, "...what was once known is now lost." And those reclamation projects may be very difficult (we have an adversary stronger, and more evil than Smaug, the dragon). But shouldn't it be so? What a mine is the Bible, and how precious are its stones and gems! How deeply may we delve? It is endless. What treasures may we find? It is filled with infinitely more wealth than that of Solomon. But such treasure will not easily be obtained, though its truths are simple enough for a child to understand.
> 
> ...


The answer would probably be a combination of both of those answers....


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jun 17, 2017)

I knew that this proposal of the Committee on Christian Education (CCE) to the OPC GA would not be without controversy. There has never been a time in American Presbyterian history in which amendment of the Standards was sought, not to change doctrines, but purely for purposes of morphological and other linguistic updating. Thus we realize that we are trodding a new path here, though not a radical one; rather, we call for very minimal and modest revision that seeks to retain not only the doctrine of the Standards but also the expressions of such. 

The Committee labors under no misconceptions that, limited though the task is, it remains a daunting one. In our report to the GA, we appended a paper detailing the challenges of such. But we think that it is worth it: to have our own Standards in a language that itself does not present unnecessary impediments. We do recognize (for the comfort of all good confessionalists!) that in retaining theological terminology, the Standards will continue to need exposition. And we would not have it otherwise. We believe that the Word and that Standards are not meant to be unexposited. 

At the same time, we also believe that "hath" and "doth" and certain obscure words ("stews" is a common example) need updating so as not to mark our Standards "quaint" and needlessly distance them from us linguistically, giving them the feel of a museum piece, rather than a vibrant expression of the church's historic and living faith. I realize that all that I say here is highly debatable and I appreciate all you good brothers and sisters here who love our Standards and are rightly jealous for them. I would not expect you to be other than wary when hearing about confessional changes, even of the slightest sort. I am thankful for your zeal for the truth as expressed in the Standards. We stand as one with you in this.

The GA recommitted this to the CCE, and if the GA determines to head in this direction, it will be a slow and deliberative process with every part thoroughly debated and needing, as Patrick has noted, at every point, super majorities of the GA, the presbyteries, and a subsequent GA. Why bother with all this for non-doctrinal changes? Because we love our Standards and want certain obscurities cleared up, which we believe needlessly linger from a bygone era. It is not our theology (or the expression of it in the Standards) that we regard as passe, simply certain obsolete expressions contained therein, which, we believe, if updated, would better serve the confessing church and the world to which it gives this witness. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2017)

To be honest Alan, I have little sympathy for this idea. But it also does not make sense to me. The OPC retains the KJV for proof texts correct? So, is the next move to jettison the historic scripture version relied upon to draft the original Westminster Standards which is filled with _haths_? Or maybe I'm mistaken; I thought the OPC retained the KJV for the proof texts. The OPC will do what it wants but I do think the more of this there is the more distant and disjunctive the OPC makes itself from other sister Presbyterian bodies that remain faithful to the standards.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jun 17, 2017)

Chris:

I am unsurprised, my dear brother, at your opposition! Perhaps it will grow on folk after a while. 

Yes, the OPC has adopted proof texts, which are largely the proof texts of the Westminster Assembly, that are in the KJV. This is part of the reason for the GA's recommitting the matter to the CCE: to consider all of these sorts of ramifications. 

Additionally, our denomination, through our Committee on Ecumenicity and Interchurch Relations, will be consulting with those denominations that hold to the Westminster Standards, particularly the PCA that holds the precise same version as do we (you adopted our working-through of the proof texts several years ago). 

I personally believe that the PCA (and perhaps other bodies that hold the Standards) will welcome this work, if, in fact, we determine to proceed. I don't believe that it will render us disjunctive, but others will ultimately appreciate it and join us. Much, of course, remains to be done before such ever comes to pass, which it surely will sooner or later. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2017)

Well, it does not sound any better yet.  And the PCA needs to start believing its standards more before changing them.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jun 17, 2017)

Chris,

I agree that all of us would do well to believe our Standards more fully and adhere to them more faithfully. That sentiment, however, does not really address what is proposed, since such cosmetic changes would not deter that one bit (and might, in fact, be at least one way of affirming its ongoing relevance). 

Peace,
Alan


----------

