The OPC is overwhelmingly Republican/Independent and follows Scripture as its only rule for faith and practice.
No Alter Christus; no co-redeemers; no magic trinkets; no works-based salvation; no levitating Lord's Supper; no world-wide, multi-billion dollar payouts for rapists priests, etc.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
I am curious are they now using another version of the Westminster Confession?
If a member can show they have a valid argument on the basis of their reading of Scripture would that readng by accepted even if it was in conflict with the Confession? If yes, how does the OPC establish whether a belief is heretical? I am asking this with all respect and do not mean in any way to come across as being argumentive.
In the case of the Anglican Church even the seemingly most innocent of changes in the 1979 BOC lead to some very serious theological consequences. An example of this is the 1979 service for Baptisms.
Be careful even the most orthodox of sects are targets for the liberal (especially gay) agenda and one of their chief weapons is by changing language to suit their meaning and not the classic Christian meaning understood for 2 millenium.
No salvation by grace through faith - except for the born lucky - no free will, no responsibility for one's choices - rapist or otherwise -. no salvation theology in common with the rest of Christianity: Protestant or Catholic. No real presence in Holy Eucharist as known by the Apostles, early Church, current Church and many Protestant Churches.
In short: a different god who is the author of sin, a different Christ, a different gospel, a different salvation, a different Christian faith.
Calvinism and you're welcome to it.