[quote:bcc2eebf2c="Me Died Blue"]Patrick, you said, "the OPC is generally ok though I personaly prefer churches that hold more strictly to the WCF than they do." I wholeheartedly agree with you that enforcement of subscription is the only thing that keeps a denomination doctrinally sound, and that the loose approach most Reformed churches have to that today is why there are so many Reformed denominations. Still, I wasn't aware that there [i:bcc2eebf2c]were[/i:bcc2eebf2c] any denominations that hold more strictly to the WCF than the OPC - of which ones are you thinking? I'd say the RPCNA, but that also involves the separate issue of deciding what one believes on EP. [/quote:bcc2eebf2c] Wow, this thread was one of my beginnings responses on the Board. I didn't expect to see it again To you post Chris, the OPC though holding more firmly to the WCF than most, still allows exceptions to doctrines which the Divines clearly intended to be fundamental. The Creation Views are one clear example. As long as you can defend an alternative creation view well in your presbytery interview you will be ordained (Kline was from the OPC). So far they have only drawn the line at evolution. This is the same with the Sabbath. You are allowed to differ from the Westminster view if you can defend it well in presbytery. And EP, though the OPC abandon it long ago, is still the teaching of the WCF no matter which version you read, the English or American. And the OPC for the most part fully acknowledges they as a denomination take exception to that. You may read about that in their Report on Song. You may think that these are only small issues, but the precedent has been set. The path to follow the PCUSA is wide open. And nothing illustrates this more than the Justification controversy over the last 20 years since Sheppard. Thankfully the subscriptin debates are being raised in the PCA and hopefully that will spread to the OPC as well. As for denominations which hold firmly to it, there are only a few micro denominations out there. Virg mentioned the PRC. The RPCNA does hold to it firmly, though they seemed to have lost the art of good preaching in the few sermons I have heard from them. Again, just my opinion thus far. [quote:bcc2eebf2c] Also, you say the recital of creeds in worship in unbiblical. I'm not so sure that can be said. As David Hall points out in his book, [i:bcc2eebf2c]The Practice of Confessional Subscription[/i:bcc2eebf2c], the [i:bcc2eebf2c]Shema[/i:bcc2eebf2c] was being used as a liturgical creed in the synagogue by New Testament times. Psalms functioning as confessions of faith (such as 33, 97, 136) arguably also give biblical justification for the liturgical use of creeds. Furthermore, a possible, though less certain, reference to liturgical creed use can be found in 1 Corinthians 12:3. [/quote:bcc2eebf2c] I will simply respond the same way the Puritans did. Where are we commanded to use Creeds in worship? The Scriptures don't command it. The Regulative Principle does not allow it. Overly simple perhaps but hey I'm a Puritanhead. Personally I think modern worship is much to complex, even in reformed circles. Give me prayers, psalms, good preaching of the Word, and the sacraments. Simple, pure, and easy to accomplish in almost any atmosphere with minimal dependance on material needs.