Modernized WCF
- Thread starter itsreed
- Start date
- Status
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, they are. My main concern is that the original is still, 400 years later, very clear. If people can't understand it it's because they lack a background in theology or an adequate reading level, not because the language is overly antiquated. And so what is inevitably going to happen, in anything but the lightest revision, is we're just going to eliminate theological vocabulary and knock down the reading level by shortening the sentences, which you can't do without losing valuable information. The sentences are long for a reason. It wasn't just an arbitrary writing convention of the 17th century.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
There is one on their website here: https://opc.org/documents/MESV.html
I'm unaware if anything newer is in the works.
I'm unaware if anything newer is in the works.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, there is such a committee. They are well at work on it. Alan is on the committee, so he can give a more detailed update on where they are right now. Their mandate is quite narrow and well-defined. It was erected in 2018 with the following members: David Noe, Mark Bube, Glen Clary, J.V. Fesko, James Gidley, John Muether, Alan Strange, with Ryan McGraw and Tony Curto as alternates. Their mandate is limited to the following types of changes (this is from the Minutes of the 86th GA (2019, p. 337):
a.. Morphological changes, such as "executeth" to "executes" and "hath" to "has"; b. Replacing archaic pronouns, e.g., "thou" to "you"; c. Replacing obsolete and/or archaic words, e.g., "stews" in LC 139. This includes, as in the example just given, replacing words that are still current in the language but are used in obsolete or archaic senses in the standards. d. Substituting a modern translation of the Scriptures for the text of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In all cases, the committee is to strive to propose changes that preserve the cadence, memorability, and dignified style of the standards.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
At a small group earlier this year the topic came up. Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant. There's not a lot of language of this type (this was an old euphemism that has long since fallen out of use) but a light revision could be in order.
Lane, is this an aid or is it intended to replace the OPC text of the WCF in their standards?
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
It’s not a crazy idea that covenantal contractual documents ought to be framed in clear language. Of course the accuracy must be maintained at all costs.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
In talking at length with several committee members about this work, they are fully committed to as narrow a reading as possible of their mandate. They would not dream of changing sentence structure (not in the mandate). However, one other thing I did mention to the committee was other revisions on the basis of the new critical editions that have come out.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
It is intended to replace the OPC text. The mandate is very clear: "The committee is authorized to propose only such changes as do not change the doctrine or meaning of the standards."
So it is more than the WCF; e.g., if they are going after "stews" in 139.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
It is the entirety of the WS. Correction: it is the WCF, WLC, and WSC, not the other documents.
Okay. I'm not a fan. But while it has always been the case it will be more true that this will be the standards of the OPC based on the Westminster. No one is rewriting the US constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but I suppose if another country wanted to adopt both they are free to rewrite and call them something else. Obviously we have a revision process in the former in adding amendments, akin to the PCUSA changes. But no one is rewriting the originals or should be and calling them the Westminster.
Last edited:
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
I often do that on the fly anyway. We use the catechisms extensively in family worship.
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
I will grant that "stew" is no longer common terminology. I'm sure most of us here know it means 'brothel,' but most in the wider world would not.
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
That one tripped me up in my licensure exam; showed I hadn’t given the
LC as much attention as I should have.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hopefully they’ll at least have the honesty to not call it the Westminster Confession, but something else, after they change the text.
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, I’d settle for: WCF, OPC version. Similar to nomenclature used in English translations of original biblical languages.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Or just state that the language has been updated like tons of other works.
If we want to be super technical, the OPC never had the Westminster Confession as a doctrinal standard.
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
Call it the "Westminster (Philly) Confession of Faith."
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Correct, and ought not to claim to. The baptists updated the WCF to fit their beliefs, and called the result something different, which was the right thing to do.If we want to be super technical, the OPC never had the Westminster Confession as a doctrinal standard.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Or just the Philadelphia Confession.
Clearly no American Presbyterian denomination wanted to lose the continuity in renaming the standards revered by Presbyterianism. But at minimum, "as adoped by" (which the OPC has in their title), or "as modified by" should be part of the title. That being said, why aren't study guides good enough? I don't understand the push for this. As I said already, we aren't rewriting the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, or Shakespeare; that is what study guides and if rewritten "for Dummies" are for. You can publish a Westminster Confession for Dummies but you surely don't want it to be your doctrinal statement..
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
what difference is this to the many different forms of the Heidelberg Catechism, which all retain its name?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Why not just learn Greek and Hebrew and read the scriptures in the original language instead of producing (fallible) translations of them in modern vernacular language? (Obviously I do not actually advocate this).
To be quite blunt, I do not see updating the language of the WCF as anything even remotely close to updating the substance of the WCF.
If the new thing the OPC makes contains the same ideas as the original WCF as writ, then it's the WCF.
This may be considered minor, but one consequence of this project is that the OPC will then have a different version than the rest of the American Presbyterian denominations.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
I would be shocked if the PCA didn't adopt it.
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
We can fix
- Status
