As far as this thing the Testimony, if a document has interpretive status and rejects part of the confession, it's an equal authoritative document, call it a testimony, commentary or think of it as second confession document that literally sits in parallel with the original confession. The ARP has authoritative footnotes that reject portions, the PCA/OPC change the text, the RP has a commentary that changes or expands the meaning of the confession. They all say in some way they hold to the WCF with exceptions. One may have a preference to method, but at the end of the day they all reject or change the meaning of the original WCF some way.
There is definitely a reform movement within the RPCNA, and ministers coming in are taking exceptions to the Testimony’s exceptions/additions to the WCF. A few other things the Testimony addresses are tithing, the impropriety of participating in door prizes, and the use of alcohol (in effect recommending though no longer mandating abstinence). It seems that once the formalizing and elevating of commentary to the level of confessionalism began, it was easy to keep going.
I agree; but it should be clear when the name is changed, as like in the OPC I think, to "as adopted by"; but I think changes should be made clear, particularly given the splittering and multitude of changes over the years.If changes to the Confession are authorized, I think it would serve the purpose of accuracy to alter the text very carefully, but preserve the original reading in a footnote and note the date the change was introduced. People think they're reading "The Westminster Confession of Faith" at times when they really aren't.
BTW, what is a door prize?
At many events, tickets are handed out at the door (entrance) to everyone who attends. Sometime during the event, a drawing is made from those tickets for a winner. They are called "door prizes" becuse most of the time all you have to do to win them is walk through the door. Many times the ticket to the event itself is used for the drawing.
It's been a while, a long while, since I've read Mason on lots, but I think it is the idea irrespective of money, that the lot used trivially is an abuse of one of the ways by which God makes His will known.Why would that be considered immoral? Is it like a ballot where you have to pay for a ticket, which many would see as a form of gambling?
It's been a while, a long while, since I've read Mason on lots, but I think it is the idea irrespective of money, that the lot used trivially is an abuse of one of the ways by which God makes His will known.
Here's an example I like of the RP approach. In WCF 1:8 there is a statement, "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."
Some have interpreted this to mean that the Received Text (related to the family of Greek New Testaments that were in use at the time of the Reformation) is the preserved word of God for all generations, and tend to eschew the studies of Warfield and other Reformed theologians have made since the 17th century on this topic in relationship to additional manuscript evidence that continues to be unearthed and studied. The RP Testimony adds this note to this section of the WCF:
"The Church is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them."
Other denominations simply keep the WCF in tact, but in practice use translations like the ESV and NASB. Many in the RPCNA use the ESV and NASB, but now have a less ambiguous Confessional basis on which to do so thanks to the clarification in the Testimony based on additional learning over the centuries.
If changes to the Confession are authorized, I think it would serve the purpose of accuracy to alter the text very carefully, but preserve the original reading in a footnote and note the date the change was introduced. People think they're reading "The Westminster Confession of Faith" at times when they really aren't.