I have been reading the OPC Modern English Version of the Westminster Confession. At times, it appears to me, to add substantive comment. I understand the document is not constitutional, but if people are being introduced to the Confession through this version it is going to have an influence. Has there been any discussion or analysis of the changes it introduces?
OPC Modern English Version
- Thread starter MW
- Start date
- Status
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'd be interested to know this as well. I've never really heard much discussion about it, and I used to be a member of the OPC. But perhaps a few churches use it to introduce their people to the confession? They published the hardcover edition of their official version of the Westminster Standards a few years ago, along with proof texts in the KJV (in part because the Confession and Catechisms reflect the wording of the AV at times.) So that would appear to be the emphasis at this point.
Likewise, there has been at least one attempt at rendering the 2nd London Baptist Confession in Modern English. I think that Dr. Reeves used to have it on his website when it was a work in progress, but I may be mistaken. EDIT: I found another one that was published by Carey Publications in 1975.
Likewise, there has been at least one attempt at rendering the 2nd London Baptist Confession in Modern English. I think that Dr. Reeves used to have it on his website when it was a work in progress, but I may be mistaken. EDIT: I found another one that was published by Carey Publications in 1975.
I don't believe the modern English version WCF has generated much interest or use. It is a teaching-aid at best.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I have used this as a resource in new member's classes before. Is this what you are refering to?
From the description provided it would appear to contain the text I am referring to. In your use of this text have you picked up on the substantive changes? E.g., 1:3, "any manner different," 2:1, "passive properties," etc. Changes like these appear to me to give a specific interpretation of the words which the original does not necessarily convey.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I have picked up on it, yes. It has provided for some interesting discussion for sure as the "modernizing" unintentionally changes some of the teachings of the confession.
Quatchu
Puritan Board Sophomore
Its also useful when teaching those who's first language is not English. We had a couple at our church and the wife and had grown up in Taiwan but immigrated when a child. Despite the fact she had a high level of English the older English version of the confession was impossible for her to understand, and so she used the modern translation.
Fender tele 67
Puritan Board Freshman
I just received this version of the confession along with I guess you might say the original from my Pastor. I am new to the reformed faith and find it easy to understand.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Matthew:
You are right that in modernizing it, albeit for teaching purposes (which, as testified herein, has an important function), there are arguable changes. Perhaps this is inevitable in such an enterprise, but it was not without controversy in the OPC.
I've been on the Committee on Christian Education since 1998 and this was published five years before I came on. So I was not involved with it on the Committee. But there were members of the Committee who did not approve of it and who opposed it on the floor of the General Assembly. I remember there being quite a debate on the floor of the GA, specifically over the passages that you cite (and others), and that some of us, though we did not oppose such a project for teaching purposes, did oppose the MEV in the form that it was presented. I confess that I voted against it for these very sorts of concerns.
One of things that helped it pass was the concession that on every page it would have a disclaimer that this was not the Confession of the Church but was for study purposes only, or words to that effect. But I recall quite an extensive debate, led in the negative, in no small part, by the redoubtable John P. Galbraith. Thought that some folks might find that history interesting.
Peace,
Alan
You are right that in modernizing it, albeit for teaching purposes (which, as testified herein, has an important function), there are arguable changes. Perhaps this is inevitable in such an enterprise, but it was not without controversy in the OPC.
I've been on the Committee on Christian Education since 1998 and this was published five years before I came on. So I was not involved with it on the Committee. But there were members of the Committee who did not approve of it and who opposed it on the floor of the General Assembly. I remember there being quite a debate on the floor of the GA, specifically over the passages that you cite (and others), and that some of us, though we did not oppose such a project for teaching purposes, did oppose the MEV in the form that it was presented. I confess that I voted against it for these very sorts of concerns.
One of things that helped it pass was the concession that on every page it would have a disclaimer that this was not the Confession of the Church but was for study purposes only, or words to that effect. But I recall quite an extensive debate, led in the negative, in no small part, by the redoubtable John P. Galbraith. Thought that some folks might find that history interesting.
Peace,
Alan
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked