PCA, OPC, and RPCNA, etc...

[xcrunner12]

While looking for a new church i came across alot of smaller presbyterian churches that all subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith etc. such as the OPC, PCA, RPCNA, and others and I was wondering what is keeping these churches from joining together.

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by xcrunner12]

 

[Arch2k]

The RPCNA is the oldest of the denominations, and has certain distinctives that would prevent them from joining either the PCA or OPC, namely exclusive psalmody. The PCA and the OPC have considered joining in the past, and in most areas are in agreement.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The OPC and PCA adhere to the amended 1789 Westminster Confession. The RPCNA adheres to the 1646 Westminster Confession and Testimony. My own denomination adheres to the 1646 Westminster Confession with revision or exceptions. The RPCNA existed long before the OPC and PCA. The 1789 and other amendments have proved to be divisive in the Presbyterian church. There is much to be lamented in the defections and divisions that have plagued the Presbyterian church in America, but we must pray for and work towards the unity of the brethren, and the inter-denominational nature of the Puritan Board, among other things, is, hopefully, by the grace of God, a means to that end.

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The OPC and PCA adhere to the amended 1789 Westminster Confession. The RPCNA adheres to the 1646 Westminster Confession and Testimony. My own denomination adheres to the 1646 Westminster Confession with revision or exceptions. The RPCNA existed long before the OPC and PCA. The 1789 and other amendments have proved to be divisive in the Presbyterian church. There is much to be lamented in the defections and divisions that have plagued the Presbyterian church in America, but we must pray for and work towards the unity of the brethren, and the inter-denominational nature of the Puritan Board, among other things, is, hopefully, by the grace of God, a means to that end.

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

It should be noted that the current RP testimony rejects a portion of WCF chp 23 and mitigates the force of chp 25:6.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Peter

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The OPC and PCA adhere to the amended 1789 Westminster Confession. The RPCNA adheres to the 1646 Westminster Confession and Testimony. My own denomination adheres to the 1646 Westminster Confession with revision or exceptions. The RPCNA existed long before the OPC and PCA. The 1789 and other amendments have proved to be divisive in the Presbyterian church. There is much to be lamented in the defections and divisions that have plagued the Presbyterian church in America, but we must pray for and work towards the unity of the brethren, and the inter-denominational nature of the Puritan Board, among other things, is, hopefully, by the grace of God, a means to that end.

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

It should be noted that the current RP testimony rejects a portion of WCF chp 23 and mitigates the force of chp 25:6.

Yes, the Testimony also rejects WCF 31.2 completely and a portion of WCF 24.4 as well.

 

[jaybird0827]

Eric,

If you haven't done so, be sure that read and study The Confession of Faith, The Shorter Catechism and The Larger Catechism and note the Scripture proofs. This will take time but it is foundational and very important. If possible, try and get hold of the edition that is published by Free Presbyterian Publications. The book is titled Westminster Confession of Faith and the book jacket has a photograph of Westminster Abbey and the tower with the famous Big Ben clock.

Cheers,
J. Sulzmann

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Available here.

 

[SRoper]

"It should be noted that the current RP testimony rejects a portion of WCF chp 23 and mitigates the force of chp 25:6."

"Yes, the Testimony also rejects WCF 31.2 completely and a portion of WCF 24.4 as well."

That doesn't seem much different than the PCA and OPC amendments.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by SRoper
"It should be noted that the current RP testimony rejects a portion of WCF chp 23 and mitigates the force of chp 25:6."

"Yes, the Testimony also rejects WCF 31.2 completely and a portion of WCF 24.4 as well."

That doesn't seem much different than the PCA and OPC amendments.

So does the RPCNA's separate existence now just come down to worship issues (acappella psalmody)?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally posted by SRoper
"It should be noted that the current RP testimony rejects a portion of WCF chp 23 and mitigates the force of chp 25:6."

"Yes, the Testimony also rejects WCF 31.2 completely and a portion of WCF 24.4 as well."

That doesn't seem much different than the PCA and OPC amendments.

So does the RPCNA's separate existence now just come down to worship issues (acappella psalmody)?

No. I believe the RPCNA still has ordained Deaconesses.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally posted by SRoper
"It should be noted that the current RP testimony rejects a portion of WCF chp 23 and mitigates the force of chp 25:6."

"Yes, the Testimony also rejects WCF 31.2 completely and a portion of WCF 24.4 as well."

That doesn't seem much different than the PCA and OPC amendments.

So does the RPCNA's separate existence now just come down to worship issues (acappella psalmody)?

And polity (women deacons).

But the RPCNA's view of the relationship of the Christian to the State is vastly different from the PCA, OPC, ARP.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

When we were getting some friendly pressure to go into the RPCNA we got a copy of the testimony which, I believe it was by Dr. Bacon, got marked extensively up with "problems" (and not just the ones noted above) and sent back to the RP minister that wanted FPCR to join for his interaction. Silence. Kinda a wish we had a copy of that marked up testimony now.

 

[Peter]

Fred, the impression I get is that perhaps fifty years ago the RPCNA's view of the state was different then the OPC, PCA, or ARP (in so far as these 3 have any developed, uniform view) but now they are practically the same. The RPC still emphasizes national covenanting and anti-pluralism but I think most other thoughtful presbyterians would agree with us here. The women deacons issue is highly controverted. The church is probably half split. I think Chris is right, the RPCNA is basically an accapella, EP OPC. Which still makes it, in my opinion, one of the best denominations in this country and I regard it a great mercy to have been born and to live less than an hour from one of their churches.

 

[blhowes]

I was just doing a little reading about the history of some of the branches of the Presbyterian church. Its interesting reading.

If you were around during some of the 'splits', do you think you would have agreed that the split was the right thing to do? The ones I read about seemed to have good reasons, but were they important enough to form a separate denom?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I asked this question elsewhere:
Machen, et al., were put out of their denomination. For following Christ, I might add. (aside--does anyone who examines the record seriously doubt this?) What were they supposed to do? Not meet for church? Not organize for business? They were obligated to act.

If Machen and those with him were, in fact, still bound to Christ, then in all honesty (and radical irony) by its act of excommunication, the mainline northern denomination had vetoed itself out of existence, leaving Machen and those who would eventually form the OPC to pick up the pieces and carry on. Not much different from Rome casting out the Wild Boar.

The PCUSA has been sputtering on now lifelessly for 70 years. It takes a big momma like that a long time to lose all inertial power.

[Edited on 6-26-2006 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by xcrunner12
While looking for a new church i came across alot of smaller presbyterian churches that all subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith etc. such as the OPC, PCA, RPCNA, and others and I was wondering what is keeping these churches from joining together.

I recommend The Western Branch of American Presbylutheranism

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I asked this question elsewhere:
Machen, et al., were put out of their denomination. For following Christ, I might add. (aside--does anyone who examines the record seriously doubt this?) What were they supposed to do? Not meet for church? Not organize for business? They were obligated to act.

According to Wikipedia:

In 1929, the Board of the seminary reorganized along more liberal lines, and began hiring professors who were significantly more friendly towards modernism and some forms of liberalism.

Machen and a group of other conservatives objected to these changes, forming Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. Then, objecting to theological positions that he believed compromised the distinctives of the Reformed tradition, if not the basic tenets of Christianity itself, Machen pled his case before the General Assembly of the PCUSA. The Assembly refused to take action, and so Machen and several other professors, along with a group of fellow conservatives, formed the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.

In 1934, the General Assembly condemned this action and Machen and his allies were relieved of their positions and effectively thrown out of the denomination.

Can you give some background about what went on? Did they have the authority (or need the authority) to form the missions board and/or the new seminary?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The GA said: refusing to support the denom mission board (give $ to another or setting up a "rival" board and "competing" for mission $) was the same thing as refusing to take communion.

Machen was directed to abandon the IBPFM. He refused, saying their command was both unconstitutional and unbiblical. He was brought up on charges of contumacy. He went to trial, and attempted a defense showing that it would be sinful to support the denominational board. He was refused the right to this defense, and directed to answer whether or not he was ready to submit to the presbytery's authority--yes or no. Naturally he was not simply going to bow on their say-so.

Machen's defense was absolutely correct to call this trial a farce. The charge against Machen, his "sin", was contumacy. But contumacy is an "aggravation" of sin. It is a "refusal to repent"... of SIN, not of just anything. There has to be a sin to repent of. Machen meant to show that his judged action was no sin, therefore, was not guilty of contumacy. Otherwise, its just a human directive to bind the conscience. It would be a SIN to repent of the resistance!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I might add that the Wiki article is very confusedly written. The formation of Westminster Sem. had ZERO to do with Machen's charges. The IBPFM was a separate issue entirely. Machen was objecting to "missionaries" of the church who didn't believe in the Christian gospel!

Not only so, but Machen had no denom. position to be relieved from. He only had his ministerial credentials with that denomination. If that is supposed to be explained by the language "relieved of their positions," it is confused to say the least.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Machen resources:
http://www.opc.org/machen.html