Unity of the Presbyterian

[Christopher88]

If the Presbyterian Church is to be governed as a body of presbyteries to discuss the issues of the faith and church, to be a voice for the bride in maintaining unity; why are there different Presbyterian churches? (PCA, OPC,ARP,PCUSA,EPC.....)

Does this not defeat the purpose of a Presbyterian Government? In essence there is no Presbyterian church, there is Presbyterian A, Presbyterian B, and so forth. Which brings a question to mind; is the Presbyterian government really biblical or is proper government elder ruled within each church?

Looking forward to the discussion.

Edit question; but saved initial for the sake of comparison. Scott tell me if this wording is better for clarification, thanks.

Presbyterian government is to be a body of local presbyteries which meet at certain times during the year to discuss issues of faith and polity; if this is the case why are there many "denominations, sects" of Presbyterian churches? Would it not make sense for example for the OPC to make the claim we are true Presbyterians and all others are not? If a Presbyterian is to unite there should not be the PCA and OPC as neighbors both should unite and form a true form of government.

In essence with using the PCA and OPC as examples; you have the 1860's of the North and the South, one body living in one land as two. That can't work...

 

[Peairtach]

Ideally there should only be one Presbyterian Church for each nation; but we're not in an ideal world.

 

[Scott1]

Chris,
Are you truly not understanding why a mostly apostate communion is not united?

 

[Afterthought]

Does this not defeat the purpose of a Presbyterian Government? In essence there is no Presbyterian church, there is Presbyterian A, Presbyterian B, and so forth.

Huh. The way you put it, it almost sounds like an "independency" but an "independency" among "Presbyterian A" and "Presbyterian B" churches. I wonder then what that would make general assemblies. Or what a "general assembly" is claimed to be (it would almost seem like the "general assembly" would claim to be the assembly of the whole Presbyterian Church that belongs to the nation and so that "Presbyterian A" is the de jure national Church). I have no answers, but I'll be interested in watching the thread!

Ideally there should only be one Presbyterian Church for each nation; but we're not in an ideal world.

Why stop at nations as the ideal? Would it be more ideal for there to be one, global Presbyterian Church? After all, wouldn't each ideal national Presbyterian Church be of the same mind enough to form a global Presbyterian church? After all, wouldn't that--ideally--be where ecumenical councils would come from? Just wondering.

 

[Christopher88]

Chris,
Are you truly not understanding why a mostly apostate communion is not united?

I know why the PCUSA is not considered a church. But why have the OPC and PCA? If reformed Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession (as they should) then issues regarding differences of church issues need to be discussed in an assembly not to separate over issues that could be resolved.


Please note I am not saying I agree or disagree with a Presbyterian government; what I do disagree with is different sects of reformed Presbyterians who are separated yet still claiming Presbyterian.

 

[Edward]

"...[P]articular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

The PCUSA as a denomination is no longer Presbyterian (the official position of the PCUSA is that it is now hierarchical), or I would submit, a church, so it doesn't belong on your list. (I know we've had some good PCUSA folks here, and there may even be some good congregations left, so I want to qualify that I'm speaking of the denomination as a whole, and not exceptional parts thereof.

The EPC borders on not being Presbyterian, either, due to the high level of local autonomy, verging on congregationalism.

The PCA would be the easiest to dispose of - most congregations would fit into either the EPC or the OPC (and some could go either way). A few would need to be dismissed to CREC, leaving only a few that wouldn't fit in anywhere except a YRR organization. Conversely, the PCA has the most diversity on your list, and would make the best candidate for a place to come together.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

I would recommend a study of the history of presbyterianism. This will be very enlightening, and will help to answer the questions you ask.

 

[Edward]

But why have the OPC and PCA?

Because we need someplace to go if the PCA continues on its present path.

 

[Scott1]

Chris,
Are you truly not understanding why a mostly apostate communion is not united?

I know why the PCUSA is not considered a church. But why have the OPC and PCA?

You may want to change your original post to avoid confusion:

to be a voice for the bride in maintaining unity; why are there different Presbyterian churches? (PCA, OPC,ARP,PCUSA,EPC.....)

Please note I am not saying I agree or disagree with a Presbyterian government;

One would assume as you identify yourself as a member of a biblical, reformed presbyterian denomination that you DO believe in presbyterian church government, right?

what I do disagree with is different sects of reformed Presbyterians who are separated yet still claiming Presbyterian.

Where are you getting the word, "sects"- the communions you list, OPC, PCA are denominations, aren't they?

 

[Tyrese]

I would say from the research that I have done is there's enough differences in each of these denominations that keep them apart. Some big differences, some smaller. Lets not forget the RPCNA, Presbyterian Reformed Church, Free Churh of Scotland, and FCS (continuing). Being that I'm not a Presbyterian I don't know everything there is to know about Presbyterianism. But what I do no is that we're all sinners and have our own understandings of the Bible on different issues. And when unresolved disagreements arise division is right around the corner. Somtimes division is neccessary.

 

[Caroline]

I don't think we should mistake variations in denomination for a failure of unity. The OPC and PCA, for example, typically get along well. We've hosted PCA ministers at meetings of our Presbytery for various reasons. Sometimes it is more like different families. People have certain historical ties. The Smiths may get along well with the Mortensens, but that doesn't mean they are going to merge their families into one Smith-Mortensen clan, unless by happenstance of marriages and so on it becomes convenient. Similarly, I think the OPC and PCA could join, but unless some compelling reason develops for it, I see no particular reason they should join.

 

[Edward]

I would also point out that the OPC, ARP, and PCA are members of NAPARC (along with 9 other denominations), recognizing that each is part of the larger catholic church.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Organizational unity is attractive. It would be great if everyone wanted to join, under a single banner, an efficient union.

But the most important ecclesiastic efforts in this world are not toward organic union, as if that was the ideal condition. Organic union is coming, and it will be perfectly realized in the eschaton. For the present, we're going to have to be contented with degrees of organic union, submission to one's brethren in the Lord, and a common agreement to good-order-and-discipline.

Beyond our limited ability (due to sin) to live as covenanted brethren, we should rejoice that there are also degrees of cooperation. Degrees of recognition. Quite honestly, churches that are in some sense indistinguishable as far as organization and Confession go, may still be incompatible in organic ways, due to culture-shock, or simple linguistic barriers.

The Presbyterian Church of Brazil is reasonably "conservative," while dwarfing the OPC in size. They also don't speak English (for the most part), nor do we speak Portuguese. It's great that they'd rather be associated with the OPC, rather than the mainline denomination in this country. But the two individually healthy bodies don't need to be under a common system of discipline simply for the sake of prestige.

Unity is for the sake of Christ, and for discipline. It should be pursued to the extent that such matters are promoted. Meanwhile, unity of mind and heart can exist, even where that commonality is reflected more in principle than by formal covenant. A non-judicial "council" can be a real means to a good end of emphasizing what vital things bring churches together, that nevertheless value the benefits of their pluriform identities.

Many times, formal (political) unity is sought for tawdry ends, in order to bring legitimate freedom to heel. Other times, unity is prized to the point that a necessary division (doctrinal, logistical, or other) is forestalled. The "picture" of unity is not an ultimate good.

Diversity in perfect harmony with unity is embodied in the Trinity. They are one, and it is three.

 

[Christopher88]

Chris,
Are you truly not understanding why a mostly apostate communion is not united?

I know why the PCUSA is not considered a church. But why have the OPC and PCA?

You may want to change your original post to avoid confusion:
I will work on how to word my question in the coming hours.

to be a voice for the bride in maintaining unity; why are there different Presbyterian churches? (PCA, OPC,ARP,PCUSA,EPC.....)

Please note I am not saying I agree or disagree with a Presbyterian government;

One would assume as you identify yourself as an ordained church planter for a biblical, reformed presbyterian denomination that you DO believe in presbyterian church government, right?
I am neither a church planter or elder, just a layman with questions. I neither agree or disagree with a Presbyterian church government. What I do affirm in an elder ruled church government, if that means Presbyterian yes, though I do not according to my understanding see elder ruled as the same thing as Presbyterian.

what I do disagree with is different sects of reformed Presbyterians who are separated yet still claiming Presbyterian.

Where are you getting the word, "sects"- the communions you list, OPC, PCA are denominations, aren't they?

A denomination would be, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc... yet if the OPC and PCA are Presbyterian then they must be different sects of the same denomination, correct? Or are you saying the PCA and OPC are two different denominations which claim to be Presbyterian?

Is there not one correct Presbyterian church and others fell away from the Presbyterian faith but still hold to the name as is the case with the PCUSA.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It is worth remembering that the RPCNA and the ARP come from a different "family tree" than the PCA, EPC, and OPC.

Whereas the three later denominations broke away from the "mainline" PC(USA) for various and sundry reasons (the two latter from the "Northern" branch and the former from the "Southern" branch) and should be considered "Continuing" churches, the ARP and RPCNA were never a part of what again is known as the "mainline" Presbyterian denomination.

It is a bit confusing, but explains why the RP's and ARP's exist separately from the PCA/EPC/OPC.

 

[Scott1]

yet if the OPC and PCA are Presbyterian then they must be different sects of the same denomination, correct?

1 sect
a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is not a sect.

Same with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which your signature line says you church plant for.

Both are Christian denominations.

 

[Peairtach]

Why stop at nations as the ideal? Would it be more ideal for there to be one, global Presbyterian Church? After all, wouldn't each ideal national Presbyterian Church be of the same mind enough to form a global Presbyterian church? After all, wouldn't that--ideally--be where ecumenical councils would come from? Just wondering.

That was never a Presbyterian ideal. Each national church was to be Reformed nation by nation. There would be co-operation between different national churches, but not supranational GAs, Synods or Presbyteries governing many national churches.

That kind of thing would usurp Christ's place.

 

[Christopher88]

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is not a sect.

Same with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which your signature line says you church plant for.

Both are Christian denominations.

Scott,
So there are many denominations of Presbyterian? Which would say there is no one set Presbyterian church, but many Presbyterian Churches. Presbyterian is simply a form of government within each Presbyterian denomination. Am I on the right track?

 

[Afterthought]

That was never a Presbyterian ideal. Each national church was to be Reformed nation by nation. There would be co-operation between different national churches, but not supranational GAs, Synods or Presbyteries governing many national churches.

That kind of thing would usurp Christ's place.

Very interesting, thank you! Could you elaborate a bit on that last point on how such would usurp Christ's place? I have a vague idea of what you are getting at, but I'm having trouble making it clear and precise.

 

[yeutter]

In the late 1970s a large group of conservatives in what was then the UPCUSA were forced out over the issue of womens ordination, [the Walter Wynn Kenyon case], and blatant heresy/denial of the divinity of Christ in Capital Union Presbytery, [the Marvin Kaseman case]. With a few notable exceptions, the men that led their congregations out of the UPCUSA went to the PCA rather then the OPC. Some of the brethren were quite clear that they regarded the OPC as too devoted to Cornelius VanTil and his apologetics. Others said that men who largely agreed with Gordon Clark would not be welcome in the OPC. Could issues like this have been breached? Probably. I hold this up as a relatively contemporary example of why the OPC & PCA exist side by side.

 

[RamistThomist]

By not having an overarching body ruling the sub-bodies on earth.

That was never a Presbyterian ideal. Each national church was to be Reformed nation by nation. There would be co-operation between different national churches, but not supranational GAs, Synods or Presbyteries governing many national churches.

That kind of thing would usurp Christ's place.

Very interesting, thank you! Could you elaborate a bit on that last point on how such would usurp Christ's place? I have a vague idea of what you are getting at, but I'm having trouble making it clear and precise.

 

[Afterthought]

Got it. Thank you.

 

[Peairtach]

It's Christ's prerogative to rule as King and Head over His worldwide Church by His Word, Spirit and Providence. Organisations such as the Papacy that claim formal and authoritative worldwide supremacy usurp Christ's prerogative.

Local and national authorities under Christ are fine. A worldwide body claiming to control the whole scene, would be "sitting as God in His Temple".

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[earl40]

It's Christ's prerogative to rule as King and Head over His worldwide Church by His Word, Spirit and Providence. Organisations such as the Papacy that claim formal and authoritative worldwide supremacy usurp Christ's prerogative.

Local and national authorities under Christ are fine. A worldwide body claiming to control the whole scene, would be "sitting as God in His Temple".

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Good observation, though could we not add the apostles to the authority, while they were alive, in that Jesus gave them His authority?

 

[Peairtach]

Good observation, though could we not add the apostles to the authority, while they were alive, in that Jesus gave them His authority?

Good point. Hence what the Apostle's said, and the Jerusalem Council, was authoritative for the whole Church.

But we do not have Apostles any more. Christ rules by His Word, including the authoritative Apostolic words of the New Testament, by His Spirit and in His Providence.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But we do not have Apostles any more. Christ rules by His Word, including the authoritative Apostolic words of the New Testament, by His Spirit and in His Providence.

I'd rather say we still have the original Apostles.

They "...being dead, still speak," Heb.11:4.

They rule the church, under Christ, from heaven, Lk.22:28-30; Rev.4:4.

 

[Peairtach]

But we do not have Apostles any more. Christ rules by His Word, including the authoritative Apostolic words of the New Testament, by His Spirit and in His Providence.

I'd rather say we still have the original Apostles.

They "...being dead, still speak," Heb.11:4.

They rule the church, under Christ, from heaven, Lk.22:28-30; Rev.4:4.

Good point.

I tend to forget about the Apostles' and saints' involvement from glory.

 

[N. Eshelman]

It is worth remembering that the RPCNA and the ARP come from a different "family tree" than the PCA, EPC, and OPC.

Whereas the three later denominations broke away from the "mainline" PC(USA) for various and sundry reasons (the two latter from the "Northern" branch and the former from the "Southern" branch) and should be considered "Continuing" churches, the ARP and RPCNA were never a part of what again is known as the "mainline" Presbyterian denomination.

It is a bit confusing, but explains why the RP's and ARP's exist separately from the PCA/EPC/OPC.

Yeah for Seceders!

 

[earl40]

But we do not have Apostles any more. Christ rules by His Word, including the authoritative Apostolic words of the New Testament, by His Spirit and in His Providence.

I'd rather say we still have the original Apostles.

They "...being dead, still speak," Heb.11:4.

They rule the church, under Christ, from heaven, Lk.22:28-30; Rev.4:4.

Good point.

I tend to forget about the Apostles' and saints' involvement from glory.

Involvement in the words that are recorded in scripture given to us in His word.

 

[jandrusk]

Just focusing on the OPC and PCA, they are two distinct Presbyterian denominations. You do not need to have a single Presbyterian church in order for it to be a valid form of church government. As has been said there are I think some necessary distinctions (Methods of implementing Presbyterianism) and I actually think it's good thing to have them separated. I think the unity between the PCA and the OPC along with some of the other reformed denominations are such as there is plenty of room for them. I also think it's good in relation to the preservation of Presbyterianism in this nation; if you had only a single Presbyterian denomination you then would have a single point of failure. If that denomation fell, Presbyterianism would cease to exist in that nation.