Did you switch from Dutch Reformed to Presbyterian Reformed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnV

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This thread springs from Bob Howe's thread " Pulling up the stakes and changing camps."

How many members here have formerly been Dutch Reformed and switched to Presbyterian? Or how about the other way around? Why? And are you be happy with the switch? Would you switch back?

Myself, I switched from Dutch Reformed to Presbyterian. I am really at odds with the way the Dutch Reformed approach the idea of office and the way that discipline is done. I thought that the Presbyterian system was much better. But I am finding out that there is really no practical difference. I am sorry I switched, but I can't see going back either. A lot has to do with the local representations of these, but I also think that there is a systemic problem with each, which is resulting in poor local representations.

Any comments or personal experiences?

[Edited on 12/20/2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Well, I don't know if it counts as a switch, but I started out Free Reformed, and am now OPC. That was more a result of geography than ecclesiastical preference. But I can see some weaknesses to both systems. The Dutch seem to be less centralized, and the Presbyterians more centralized, which can be good or bad either way depending on the problem at hand. I have to admit I do think that the Dutch aspect of having the minister be a member of the congregation is more appropriate than the Presbyterian scheme of just having him be a member of the presbytery.

[Edited on 18-12-2004 by puritansailor]
 
If there were any good Dutch Reformed congregations near me I would gladly join them.

At the OPC church I attended there were a few families of Dutch extraction who had come from DR backgrounds.
 
My Mother went to a C.R.C. for several years The pastor his name was Krominga was a pretty solid guy, we went with her for awhile but I was already Presbyterian. It seemed pretty lax. I didn't press any issues while ther I was not a member.
 
I have great respect for the Dutch Reformed historically and certain denominations and institutions in America even today. I am thinking of the Kuyper, Kuiper, Bavinck, Berkhof, Van Til and Groen Van Prinsterer among others in the past and Beeke, the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations and the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in particular today. I also appreciate the historic emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of common grace that has been a part of the Dutch Reformed witness. The application of the RPW is one area where I might differ with the Dutch Reformed historically, but otherwise if I was living the midwest or another place with a strong Dutch Reformed presence I would be quite happy to go Dutch.
 
One former PRC & OPC ruling Elder who is a Dutchman, described the difference to me like this: Reformed has "broader" courts, Presbyterian has "higher" courts. I cant remember other specifics but I take it to mean the Reformed are less centralized, perhaps their classises and assemblies dont hold the same binding power and authority as our presbyteries. If so, I say with some certainty they are in error, the council of Jerusalem's decision was final, and treated as dogma.

Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
 
as a person of dutch extraction(my grandmother is from south africa) I have an affinity with men like kuyper and van til. As the dutch say here in america, mr. myers, it you ain't dutch you ain't much.
The dutch are cool but so are the scotish that's why I married one. Just think of my son's heritage. WOW!!
 
I know I probably shouldn't be disagreeing with that (PRC/OPC) elder, and maybe its just our terminology, but OPC government is "broader" and / or "higher," depending on how you are looking at it. It is federal and representational, but not in the way of USA secular government (constitutional or unconstistutional). In my limited experience, DR churches (in USA) have usually been nearly congregational, with classis serving as a gathering but not (primarily) as a deliberating, decision making body. In this way DR classis is "broader" over against PC presbytery which (viewed this way) is "higher." I would place DR on a continuum somewhere between OPC and SBC.

In contrast the PCUSA has become a "higher"-archical government, which federalism has morphed into aping the secular-centralized federalism. PCA government (Fred, ect., you know better than I can explain...) seems (to me :cheezy grin: ) to be deliberately designed to thwart efforts to pigeonhole it. The PCA functions congregationally at the GA level (a species of "broadness"), corporationaly or beaurocratically at the national administrative level (definitely "higher"), and presbyterially below that. Its the beaurocratic machinery that (in my mind) establishes it denominationally as functionally more "higher" than "broader".

But is proper presbyterianism truly "higher"? It's already been alluded to, but "the presbytery" is the lynchpin of presbyterianism. Presbyterian ministers are members of a church--the church just happens to be as big as, well, as big as the presbytery. The destruction of the national (USA) presbyterian church has left us in a condition like that in the founding of the country: geographically huge presbyteries (except for the PCA--which does have some huge ones), or viewed a little differently, covenantally united churches that are quite spread out. This makes well-functioning presbyterianism often hard to "see".

So let's shorten the scale. "To the church in Any-opolis, Greetings." Any-opolis has a 2000 member presbyterian Church. Logistically, practically and legally it is not possible for them to all meet together. So, it has five meeting places, where meet regularly 800, 600, 400, 150, and 50 persons respectively, for Sunday worship. This church has 15 active and retired ministers (or TE's). As individuals they do not hold membership in any one of those particular churches (as do all other members, including RE's) but in the CHURCH of Any-opolis. Their ministerial authority extends to judgments that cross all subordinate jurisdictional lines, to matters that belong to them or are referred to them, not to just any old thing they feel like meddling in. [edit](And let's not forget that they do not function AT PRESBYTERY autonomously either, but in conjunction with RE representatives from all the member churches.)[/edit] Individually, if they have been called by a particular church, then they rule in that particular church in conjunction with the whole session of that church, of which session they are a constituent member. But then their office includes more than that particular church.

Patrick, here's where I disagree with your judgment:
I do think that the Dutch aspect of having the minister be a member of the congregation is more appropriate than the Presbyterian scheme of just having him be a member of the presbytery.
Click to expand...
Without presbytery (and ministerial membership therein), the uniqueness and genius of presbyterianism is lost. Presbytery is really a species of the local church. It actually works to defeat tyranny in the church. I am not saying it always works the way it is supposed to! If a minister was a member in that particular church where he had a special call, then that church would (quite properly) function as the court of original jurisdiction over him. He would be subject (as is true in congregational settings) to sessional and congregational authority. His ministerial peers (who share his scope of authority, very important!) would only have review authority of previous decisions for or against him. And perhaps this is how DR structure works--I cannot say because of my ignorance.

So, from within presbyterianism, "broader" definitely is the better category, and the system of courts (presbytery, synod, General assembly) is better viewed as concentric circles instead of a step-pyramid, or even an inverted pyramid.

[Edited on 12-18-2004 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Originally posted by bigheavyq
as a person of dutch extraction(my grandmother is from south africa) I have an affinity with men like kuyper and van til. As the dutch say here in america, mr. myers, it you ain't dutch you ain't much.
The dutch are cool but so are the scotish that's why I married one. Just think of my son's heritage. WOW!!
Click to expand...

Dutch-Scottish is extra cool. In my family, it's a French Huguenot-Scottish Covenanter combo. By the grace of God, we are what we are!
 
Thank you, all. You can tell by my name that I am likely Dutch all the way through. And that would be right, except for the fact that I have never been to Holland. I was the first of my immediate family to be born here in NA. So I am referring solely to the Dutch Reformed churches here in NA when I refer to DP. That is what my experience it limited to in that corner, but its heritage is deeply rooted in the Dutch churches.

It is odd that names like Kuyper and Van Till have been mentioned. To the Dutch each of these names is different: Kuyper is controversial, and Van Till is a non-entity almost. The DR are deeply divided over Kuyper; and I don't know hardly anyone from the DR who cares about what apologetics is, much less what Presuppositionalism is. And I discern that things like that are just not possible in the DR setting, at least not from their theological framework. But a lack of analysis is a fairly recent cultural failing, not primarily a theologically rooted one, as I understand it.

I can appreciate the comment that the Presbyterian system would be deemed "higher", but the Dutch considered "broader". And I can see how the context of a minister being a member of the congregation is part of that overall broad structure. I can see how the "higher" which has the minister being a member of Presbytery, go together too. In fact, that was part of what attracted me to the PR. The former leaves original authority in the hands of local ruling bodies as much as possible; while the latter seems to have an aura of original authority residing in the Presbytery, not the eldership. Practically speaking, that could make either a strictly "academic" authority (i.e., PR), or a "lowest common denominator" authority (i.e., DR). The "conjunction", to which Bruce refers, could be positive or negative, because the RE and TE office could be either a respectful collaboration, or a "Good ol' boys club" just as much as the eldership in the DR have been in some places.

The concept of the minister becoming a mini Pope, which is all too common in the DR, ought not to happen in the PR setting, but that all depends not so much on where the minister has his membership as on whether the elders are really godly men at heart, taking their calling seriously. I've known DR elders who take their calling very seriously, but are really churchmen at heart, not really godly men at heart. And so they form a protective ring around their minister, occasioning the development of a kind of popery. What I mean is that one can argue against the Bible at will, but not against the minister, much like the Catholics. This has been my experiance in one Dutch church.

I have found, though, much to my chagrin, that matters are even worse in the OPC, where I now am. I wouldn't compare the minister I had with the Pope as much as with Stalin. To this date I have not yet had a visit from my church in regard to settling things right between us. They really don't want me there because I'm not Reformed in their way, and tey don't care about whether or not I am a member in the true Church. And even now I am on trial over some trumped up charges; and they are literally bending over backwards to hide the facts of the case. They have done things that I would never have dreamed any church would do, not even the Arminian churches. Though I originally thought that things like what happened in the DR churches would never happen in the PR churches, in fact the opposte seems to have taken place, that things happening to me there are unthinkable in the DR setting. But that's not really true either, though. I am inclined to think that things are much more insidious and "cleanswept" in the DR setting, though I think their theological distinctive is much more preferable in my opinion.

As you can tell, I am speaking from some sad experiences. This is how it is, but this is not how it ought to be. And no church is as it wants itself to be, but continues to strive for holiness. So I hope that you understand that I am airing this with the hope that we all strive to see our own weaknesses, and not try to cover them up or justify them, or to pin one against the other; but rather to work to better the church.

It does not stop where it is right now, unless Christ comes (that's the ingrained Amil in me speaking. ) I certainly hope that I am not going through all this only so that the church can be judged; I would think and hope that it is for our mutual benefit. If I didn't think that, I could have just packed up and left for another church long ago. There just isn't anything temporal in it for me to go through this, except that I have to remain faithful to the faith in whatever setting I am in. It's all part of the same vows and mutual responsibilities we share in our respective Reformed settings.

So I would say that there are things in either setting that need work. We can't do any of that unless we see what needs mending. We can't go on if we are driven by outward expediencies at the cost of inward fidelity. And if I can't talk about these things here, I just can't talk about it at all. And I think it needs talking about. Not to point fingers at others, but to recognize the real state of the Church in love and for our mutual upbuilding.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Patrick, here's where I disagree with your judgment:
I do think that the Dutch aspect of having the minister be a member of the congregation is more appropriate than the Presbyterian scheme of just having him be a member of the presbytery.
Click to expand...
Without presbytery (and ministerial membership therein), the uniqueness and genius of presbyterianism is lost. Presbytery is really a species of the local church. It actually works to defeat tyranny in the church. I am not saying it always works the way it is supposed to! If a minister was a member in that particular church where he had a special call, then that church would (quite properly) function as the court of original jurisdiction over him. He would be subject (as is true in congregational settings) to sessional and congregational authority. His ministerial peers (who share his scope of authority, very important!) would only have review authority of previous decisions for or against him. And perhaps this is how DR structure works--I cannot say because of my ignorance.
Click to expand...

I see your point. I guess it just seems weird that a minister is not considered officially part of the congregation yet everyone else is. It seems that potentially, the people could be stomped on by the minister or presbytery, and the minister could get away with it as long as he is buddy -buddy with the guys at presbytery. Of course I have witnessed first hand the ability for the "little guy" to bring a concern before his session and have it reach the GA in the OPC scheme. And John has illustrated abuses by the DR system too. I suppose we will never get it perfect down here until our cheif elder Jesus returns.
 
Bruce and Patrick:

But does the Presbytery really know what is going on in individual congretations if all they have to rely on is personal contact with the RE's and TE's? Doesn't this necessitate personal contact with the people within the concenticity of the Presbytery? What keeps a minister and his elders from doing as they please, and getting away with it by reporting as they please? I know, Bruce, that you mentioned congregational authority, and that helps, to be sure. But it can still be that the few or even one can be picked on by the many.

Clearly the systems don't work where people put their own agendas overtop of their duties of service. But it is also true that no church is perfect, and that faults can be brushed under the carpet without regard to justice for the one hurt by it. "Oh, he's just a troublemaker" may be all that Presbytery hears of the case. Are they not obligated to look into it themselves, if it within their concentrical boundary?
 
Originally posted by JohnV
Bruce and Patrick:

But does the Presbytery really know what is going on in individual congretations if all they have to rely on is personal contact with the RE's and TE's? Doesn't this necessitate personal contact with the people within the concenticity of the Presbytery? What keeps a minister and his elders from doing as they please, and getting away with it by reporting as they please? I know, Bruce, that you mentioned congregational authority, and that helps, to be sure. But it can still be that the few or even one can be picked on by the many.

Clearly the systems don't work where people put their own agendas overtop of their duties of service. But it is also true that no church is perfect, and that faults can be brushed under the carpet without regard to justice for the one hurt by it. "Oh, he's just a troublemaker" may be all that Presbytery hears of the case. Are they not obligated to look into it themselves, if it within their concentrical boundary?
Click to expand...

Well John in theory, the Presbytery is suppose to be able to know an individual congregation if necessary. My pastor recently went to a presbytery meeting assembled strictly to investigate a pastor/congregation dispute a couple weeks ago. Probably to late to do anything, but they still heard the congregations point of view. Sometimes they will send some delegates to problem areas to investigate/mediate if necessary. Plus, all session meeting minutes are suppose to be recorded and reviewed by the presbytery each time they meet, but this task is usually delegated to a committee. So there are some safe gaurds, but still flaws. The system really depends upon men who are willing to submit to Christ and his church leadership. If one really wants too, he can find a loop hole anywhere, or the presbytery can grow lax in enforcement. But this is probably a similar problem in Dutch circles too.
 
Patrick:

In Dutch circles each church/congregation is an original entity, and is expected to govern itself. However, each year, and perhaps twice a year sometimes, delegates from the local Classis meet with the consistory/council of the church, which would be elders and deacons in the first half of the meeting, and elders alone in the second half. I don't know if this is always this way in every Classis, but that's how it was in ours. But delegates do a "church visit" in every Classis.

These visits are advertized in the bulletin of the church well in advance of and up to the actual meeting date. If a member of the congregation has a matter to take up with these delegates he may do so. He must meet with the Consistory first, so that the matter can be screened to be genuine. If, for example, a member has an axe to grind with the council, but hasn't taken it up with the council, or with an individual elder but it hasn't reached the Council level yet, then it is illigitimate. All the Council may do is rule whether or not it is legitimate, not argue the case one way or the other. After screening, a member has a right to go to these delegates and take up the matter, just between him and the delegates. That can take as long as it takes to discuss it.

And, like you said, there are weaknesses in this system too.

What I was asking about it that there seems to be an inconsistency in the Presbyterian system. It places the local congregation underneath the Presbytery, but the Presbytery doesn't seem to have direct supervision over it. Also, it seems to me, there are two kinds of churches: the local congregation made up of ordinary folk, and the regional one made up of ministers only. Its as if ministers are not equal in authority to elders, since ministers are members of a higher court but elders of a lower court, jurisdictionally speaking. It's a systemic problem, and not just a problem that runs afoul because of human weakness. The Dutch system does not have that inconsistency, for there is only one kind of church, and it is self-governed. Of course, it fails when the men and the congregation become unfaithful. But that is not necessarily a systemic failing of the church.
 
Oddly enough, I'm the opposite of almost everyone on this board...I switched from PR to DR.

Although my reasons for this switch are personal rather than theological, I am glad that I'm now in a Dutch Church for theological reasons. Dutch theologian Klaas Schilder has been quite a force in my life as of late.

Inasfar as differences in church government issues are concerned, it's only the beginning.
 
Tom:

I too attend a CanRC church lately. I have problems with their singing. I am used to singing the bass or tenor lines, and now I can't even sing the melody line often. Too many times I just sit there and listen and read along while the congregation sings. And even on those songs where I know the melody line I can't sing my base because they use all different arrangements which are strange to my ears.

But there are deeper reasons that I don't feel at home there. And I won't take them up here. But the Dutch worship litany sure is nice to get back to. I think I missed that the most.

What did you find to be the major difference that makes the Dutch nicer than the Presbyterian you went to before? What theological difference did you notice?
 
John,

It good to hear that you are enjoying church, even though the singing sometimes leaves much to be desired. I know what you're talking about. I guess I just got used to paying more attention to the words of the Psalms as opposed to the 16th century music the CanRC insists on. However that's not to say that none of the melodies are totally unenjoyable.

What makes my Dutch experience more enjoyable? FOr starters, I enjoy the liturgy. I love the fact that time is taken to actually respond to God. I creed, the 10 Words and all of the liturgical forms have now become things I look forward to. I also like the fact that they sing slowly as well. It gives me more time to "put my soul" into the lyrics as it were.

Theologically, I've found them to be more of a home to me as well. Issues like exclusive psalmody, Invisible Church/Pluriformity and the Covenant of Works were all things I struggled with during my time with the RPCNA. In the CanRC these issues are dealt with in a more constructive way, at least in my opinion.

However, on a more personal note, going to the CanRC of Brampton has made me to live in the Covenant more, as it were. With my former minister (who I respect and pray for) I sometimes felt guilty for mot feeling guilty after sermons. While it was never his intention, this made me engage in some fairly morbid introspection. Perhaps it's just the fact that my present minister is older, but his preaching forces me to examine myself in a more constructive way. Oddly, this has led to more sanctification.

This is not to say that I can claim the CanRC's blessing upon every area oy my theology. Moreover, I think that it's time to uncircle the wagon, if you know what I mean.

Is Rev. deBoer the minister at the church you attend? Or Vermuelen? In any event, I think that we're in the same Classis. I've heard both preach and there both good. Have a great Christmas John.
 
Tom:
If you read this before Christmas, then know that I wish you all the benefits of the grace that Christ came down to win for us each and as His Church.

Rev. deBoer is the minister where I am right now.

My brother left the CanRC over the union thing, as he is a member of a labour union, and needs to be in his line of work. Its not an issue here, at least not yet.

I found that the main difference in the preaching between your former and my former pastors, who are friends, and what I am used to in the Dutch churches, which is what we're getting at the CanRC now, is that the RPC (my minister is formerly RPC:GA) was shallower theologically, but searched deeper into Scripture, while the Dutch are deeper theologically but can sometimes be downright boring as to exposition of Scripture in comparison. But that is good, as I think that some pastors can look too deeply for things that really aren't there and pass over the obvious things that are there.

I agree with you about the liturgy. Although the OPC church where I am a member claims to be Theonomic, they do not read the law. And assurance of pardon is not even thought of. They have a FRC aversion to Presumptive Regeneration, which they take to mean Baptismal Regeneration. Instead of the law, they go through an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, a few verses at a time each morning service, or an exposition of the commandments, section by section according to the Larger Cathechism. But in three years there I've heard the whole law read once, maybe twice.

So I agree with you that the CanRC service is both better and not better. The question would be, if you uncircle the wagon, where will you camp for the night?
 
Im a member at a United Reformed Church. Im curious in the URC evening worship our pastor goes through one of the 3 forms of unity confessions "catechismal preaching" in the OPC do they go through WCF in the evening worship.
John you would know this?
 
Ruben:

As a matter of fact the OPC mother church that I am formally a member of goes through the Confession and the Larger Catechism in turn. Its actually a mini sermon by a ruling elder. A normal sermon is about forty-five minutes to an hour long, while a mini sermon is about fifteen to twenty minutes long. A two-hour service is not that uncommon.

This particular church switched from RCA to OPC. But they are mostly refugees from the FRC originally. There is somewhat of a Dutch background there, but not the depth that a URC would have. The URC carry on the CRC practice of Catechism sermons; this church is doing this because its a whole new set of Confessional documents, and this is a good way to get to know them. The OPC mission church, through which I joined the OPC along with her, has never had a catechism or Confessional sermon that I know of. We started off with Bible Study evenings, going through the WCF, but that got left behind so we could concentrate on other things deemed more important.

There is another local OPC church that I've gone to a few times, and I don't think they've ever had a Catechism sermon either.

I'm fairly new to the OPC, and don't really know what the practice is throughout the denomination. In the CRC there was uniformity, which the URC carries on only in part. Being in one church used to tell what all the churches were like. I don't think that is the norm in the OPC.
 
The OPC I am a member of never had a sermon on the Confession or Catechisms thoguh once and a while they got mentioned. Usually we would review a few catechism questions or a section of the WCF in adult Sunday school before the Bible study portion of the class.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
Tom:
If you read this before Christmas, then know that I wish you all the benefits of the grace that Christ came down to win for us each and as His Church.

Rev. deBoer is the minister where I am right now.

My brother left the CanRC over the union thing, as he is a member of a labour union, and needs to be in his line of work. Its not an issue here, at least not yet.

I found that the main difference in the preaching between your former and my former pastors, who are friends, and what I am used to in the Dutch churches, which is what we're getting at the CanRC now, is that the RPC (my minister is formerly RPC:GA) was shallower theologically, but searched deeper into Scripture, while the Dutch are deeper theologically but can sometimes be downright boring as to exposition of Scripture in comparison. But that is good, as I think that some pastors can look too deeply for things that really aren't there and pass over the obvious things that are there.

I agree with you about the liturgy. Although the OPC church where I am a member claims to be Theonomic, they do not read the law. And assurance of pardon is not even thought of. They have a FRC aversion to Presumptive Regeneration, which they take to mean Baptismal Regeneration. Instead of the law, they go through an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, a few verses at a time each morning service, or an exposition of the commandments, section by section according to the Larger Cathechism. But in three years there I've heard the whole law read once, maybe twice.

So I agree with you that the CanRC service is both better and not better. The question would be, if you uncircle the wagon, where will you camp for the night?
Click to expand...


John,

I hope you had an enjoyable Christmas.

The CanRC seems to have taken a really strong stance against "Unionism" which as a whole I too am opposed to, but I think that to drive people out on account of this issue is a little odd to be honest.

I totally agree with your assessment of the differing preaching styles. At least with my minister it seems as though he spends far less time actually opening up the tet and more time explaining where the message of the text fits into the whole picture of the Gospel. But then the Dutch are big on Historical Redemptive Preaching.

But to shift this discussion almost totally (perhaps I should have started a thread) there is a sharp divide even within Dutch circles. It seems as though the Dutch Reformed denoms can be divided into two catagories, Experiential and Non-Experiential. The Experientialists (FRC, NRC, HNRC) seem to place a high premium on experience, knowing our sins and misery experientially. The Non-Experientialists (CanRC, RCUS, URC) seem to place a high value on the objective Gospel facts...and generally deny common grace. Living in the Covenant is very important to them.

Whadda ya think?
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
I have to admit I do think that the Dutch aspect of having the minister be a member of the congregation is more appropriate than the Presbyterian scheme of just having him be a member of the presbytery.

[Edited on 18-12-2004 by puritansailor]
Click to expand...

:amen:

I find that fact a little odd myself.
 
Originally posted by Richard B. Davis
But to shift this discussion almost totally (perhaps I should have started a thread) there is a sharp divide even within Dutch circles. It seems as though the Dutch Reformed denoms can be divided into two catagories, Experiential and Non-Experiential. The Experientialists (FRC, NRC, HNRC) seem to place a high premium on experience, knowing our sins and misery experientially. The Non-Experientialists (CanRC, RCUS, URC) seem to place a high value on the objective Gospel facts...and generally deny common grace. Living in the Covenant is very important to them.
Click to expand...

It is true the FRC and HNRC do emphasize what they call "experiential" or "experimental" Reformed preaching but that is nothing new really. The Reformers, Puritans, and Presbyterians (and even some Dutch folk like A'Brakel, Voetius, and Lodenstein) have been doing it the whole time. It just means that the doctrines of grace are not just intellectual truths. They are experienced in everyday life. And it's not just a focus on sin and misery but also on love to Christ, joy in the Spirit, and all those other fruits in our salvation experience. I think you may find less of an emphasis on this in the CRC, CanRC, and URC because of their views on presumptive regeneration (and please don't start a debate on PR in this thread!) and objective covenant faithfulness ideas. At least that has been my initial observations in my Dutch fellowships.


[Edited on 31-12-2004 by puritansailor]
 
How does the CanRC view on PR effect the preaching? I can't speak for other denoms but we actaully condemn presumptive regeneration, and our undies are in such a twist about it that we're actually thinking about breaking ties with the OPC about it (I know, I've opened a huge can of worms). Just wondering...
 
Originally posted by Richard B. Davis
How does the CanRC view on PR effect the preaching? I can't speak for other denoms but we actaully condemn presumptive regeneration, and our undies are in such a twist about it that we're actually thinking about breaking ties with the OPC about it (I know, I've opened a huge can of worms). Just wondering...
Click to expand...

That is very interesting. The OPC doesn't really endorse it at all. And the Can. Reformed folks I know do believe PR. Looks like I'll have to do some more research. I do believe that Schilder did hold to a form of PR though.
 
The CanRC does not believe in PR at all. However we do believe in an Unconditional Covenant meaning that our children are members of the Covenant by means of their Baptism and being born to believing parents. This, in fact, is why all of those Dutch Immigrants who came to Canada formed the CanRC and did not join the PRC, who hold the opposite view. Hokesema and Schilder had many heated exchanges about this.
 
Hmmm.... That is very interesting. I guess the couple I knew were not representative of the CanRC. I'll have to read more of Schilder. I got a little book of his on the covenant, but it's more of his articles I think responding to Hoeksema than a systematic treatise. I just wish I had more time.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Dutch Reformed vs. Presbyterian
2
Replies
35
Views
26K
Myshkin
M
Me Died Blue
  • Locked
Major Dutch Reformed denominations
Replies
6
Views
3K
Mayflower
M
Y
  • Locked
A Question for Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed
Replies
6
Views
2K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Bladestunner316
  • Locked
From Dispensational to Reformed church
Replies
5
Views
2K
Bladestunner316
Bladestunner316
V
  • Locked
Reformed Presbyterian Historical Archives
Replies
0
Views
2K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Back
Top