What is the difference between the PCA and OPC?

[Brother John]

Will the brothers in the PCA and OPC please help me to understand the differences and distinctives of each denomination. I am a member of a smaller denomination and was not raised reformed or presbyterian so I do not know much about either denomination. I am looking forward to learning about each. Thank you brothers.

 

[larryjf]

They are very similar.
One difference would be that the OPC holds to a 3 office view: Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, Deacon. While the PCA holds to a 2 office view: Elder, Deacon - with 2 orders within the class of Elder (Teaching and Ruling)

 

[Brother John]

Is there a size difference between the two? What keeps these two denominations from merging?

 

[Webservant]

Will the brothers in the PCA and OPC please help me to understand the differences and distinctives of each denomination. I am a member of a smaller denomination and was not raised reformed or presbyterian so I do not know much about either denomination. I am looking forward to learning about each. Thank you brothers.

From what I have heard, one has the letter "O" in its name and one doesn't.

 

[Scott1]

Is there a size difference between the two? What keeps these two denominations from merging?

These are both biblical, reliably reformed denominations that separated from the larger presbyterian bodies over theological liberalism (the OPC in the 1930's, the PCA in the 1970's).

The OPC is smaller with about 30,000 members, the PCA has about 340,000.

My impression is that the differences are nuanced, probably more differences in emphasis than anything else. I do not want to over emphasize any differences.

On two occassions the two denominations have almost merged.

The OPC has a history of great scholars, many of them.

The OPC may tend slightly more toward traditional music and psalms whereas the PCA may have more variety from church-to-church. The OPC directory of worship is more uniformly set into their services so there would be somewhat more consistency.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/should-opc-pca-merge-into-opca-33039/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/opc-vs-pca-vs-457/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/pca-vs-opc-20245/

 

[Brother John]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/should-opc-pca-merge-into-opca-33039/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/opc-vs-pca-vs-457/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/pca-vs-opc-20245/

Thanks for posting these threads. I found what Dr Clark had to say in one of the above threads to be very intresting. If this is true do those of you who are PCA find it difficult to interact with the less confessional? Are there groups like this in the OPC?

03-28-2007, 11:44 AM
R. Scott Clark
Puritanboard Junior
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,732
Thanks: 0
Thanked 319 Times in 119 Posts

The PCA proposed a "J&R" method to the OPC c. 1986. The OPC was in the midst of her 50th anniversary celebrations, giving folk opportunity to think again about why the OPC was formed in the first place. In this context, the the OPC rejected the "Joining and Receiving" because they wanted a negotiated merger. The PCA, it seems to me, essentially said, "Here are the terms, take 'em or leave 'em." As a result of the failed attempt to unite several (mainly "new life" - infl. by Jack Miller's New Life PC in Phila) OP congregations left for the PCA.

Since then the two denominations have taken on rather different characteristics. The OP is more homogenous. It is much smaller (who ever used the analogy of a small town is on to something). It has probably proportionally more theonomists, supporters of Norm Shepherd/FV, and fundamentalists. It also has proportionally more old school types. The dominant approach to the confession in the OPC seems to be "system" subscription. Until recent years, most of her ministers (as John Muether has noted) came from the same school. With the proliferation of Reformed seminaries, candidates for ministry now come from a variety of backgrounds.

The mainstream of the OPC holds to system subscription and identifies with Old School (and some even with Old Side!) Presbyterianism (Old Princeton, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, Old Westminster etc).

There is a certain amount of fundamentalism (e.g., 6/24 creation defines the Reformed faith) in the OPC and their influence grew considerably after the counter-balancing progressive movement left for the PCA ca. 1989. The recent justification controversy may represent the apex of the fundamentalists revisionists (Kinnaird, FV) and the recent creation and justification reports probably represent the re-assertion of the old school/system approach as the dominant approach to Reformed theology, piety, and practice in the OPC.

Ten times larger than the OP, the PCA is much more diverse. There was an attempted merger between the OPs and the RPCES in the 70s. I believe the merger with the RPCES and the PCA in 1982. The premillennialism of the RPCES also brought into the PCA some of the old fundamentalist influences from the earlier in the 20th century. Having emerged fairly late from the mainline Southern Presbyterian Church, the PCA was rather broader (more inclusive of a variety of positions and approaches to the confession) than the OP. Today, the PCA is probably best described as a coalition of several groups:

1) Conservative (strict) subscriptionists (e.g., Pipa, Smith, Knight) who tend to be Southern Presbyterian along the lines of Dabney and Thornwell;

2) Progressive ("good faith") subscriptionists (e.g., Chapell, Keller) who tend to be Northerners and more closely aligned to and tolerant of American evangelicalism (and to revivalism) than the conservative/strict subscriptionists. This is also tends to be the PPT lot. This group also represents the pastor's group that disbanded a couple of years ago, the name of which I can't recall (led by Tim Keller and others).

3) Evangelicals (e.g., folks with strong ties to evangelical para-church organizations such as Crusade and the like) who have mainly a formal connection to Reformed theology, piety, and praxis. If you asked this group about the "RPW" or other Reformed distinctives you might get a blank stare. In this they are like the "traditionalists" except they are probably more theologically conservative. Both groups are most pietists.

4) Traditionalists (folk whose ties to the old So Presbyterian Church kept them in the PCA after the merger, but who don't identify strongly with the confession). These folk are in the PCA because their family has always been Southern Presbyterian etc. Before folk start screamng, every denomination (including my own) has this group.

5) Revisionists (e.g., a good section of the Louisiana Presbytery!; those advocating the federal vsion, paedocommunion, theonomy etc; those advocating the ordination of females to presbyterial or ministerial office). This group is certainly the smallest but probably the noisiest. This is an eclectic grouping that is not internally coherent (e.g., some of the FV are theonomists, some of the theonomists are not FV and both of those groups would reject the ordination of females). I group them together because these smaller groups are advocating the most radical changes in the PCA.

6) I'm not sure what to call the "system" subscriptionists who identify with the old school such as Will Barker. I don't know how large this group is. Maybe they are the silent majority?

7) The Twin-Lakes Fellowship includes folk from a variety of groups but is led by folk such as Ligon Duncan who tend to be confessional but come from different regions and different approaches to the confession in the interests of promoting the growth and planting of confessionally Reformed churches in the PCA.

These categories aren't meant to be definitive and certainly not pejorative but descriptive. I'm happy to revise these.
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

 

[kalawine]

Will the brothers in the PCA and OPC please help me to understand the differences and distinctives of each denomination. I am a member of a smaller denomination and was not raised reformed or presbyterian so I do not know much about either denomination. I am looking forward to learning about each. Thank you brothers.

From what I have heard, one has the letter "O" in its name and one doesn't.

 

[Grymir]

From what I have heard, one has the letter "O" in its name and one doesn't.

You beat me to it!

 

[georgecmw]

Good morning brethren! - I am a new member to the PB and this is my first post. I'm glad to read inquiries regarding the PCA and OP. I will refrain presently from comment until my feet get a little damper, but will continue to read, with interest, the Board's views of the two denominations. I have been a member of both.

 

[TimV]

In number five he could put add NPP. And take out small case theonomy, as it's not an example of revisionism.

 

[TimV]

An example of a Northern Progressive PCA pastor that you wouldn't likely see in the OPC

Those reasons contribute to my passionate anti-gun stance. I do not believe Christians should support, own, or encourage the use of these weapons of individual destruction. I realize that the Supreme Court recently ruled that citizens have a constitutional right to bear hand guns. I simply disagree with that decision as I don’t believe it promotes the culture of life that we as believers should seek to cultivate in this country.

Blaque Tulip.com: Pro-Life and Pro-Glock?

 

[Scott1]

2) Progressive ("good faith") subscriptionists (e.g., Chapell, Keller) who tend to be Northerners and more closely aligned to and tolerant of American evangelicalism (and to revivalism) than the conservative/strict subscriptionists.

I don't think there is a big difference between OPC and PCA subscription to the Confessional standards. It's not a case of "strict" versus "progressive" (loose)subscription as best I understand it.

The PCA requires (BCO 21-4) candidates:

to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith in any of their statements and/or propositions.

The procedural aspects of this are relatively new in the PCA. They do not reflect "progressive" (loose) subscription.

While the system does allow for conscience bound exceptions, as presbyterianism has historically, this system is expressly a rejection of "progressive" (loose) subscription. Exceptions are recorded, evaluated by a spiritual "jury of peers" and are often rejected by presbyteries. Most presbyteries grant few or no exceptions and in current practice, some presbyteries, even after "granting" an exception do not permit it to be taught.

I am aware from puritan board there are a few presbyteries that are granting more exceptions than others or may, at a given time, grant improper exceptions. There is also General Assembly review and judicial redress to enforce the standards.

I really think both the OPC and PCA are strict, literal and faithful to the standards. The PCA is much larger and has more to deal with but this is a difference in logistics, not a fundamentally different view of the Westminster Standards.

 

[brianeschen]

I do not know how this is handled in the OPC, but I was shocked that it is not even considered an exception to the Westminster Standards in the PCA (or maybe just my presbytery) to reject a six day creation. The Standards seem to be morphing into suggestions. I do not know if that is considered "loose" subscription or not.

 

[TimV]

The Standards seem to be morphing into suggestions. I do not know if that is considered "loose" subscription or not.

I wonder how much is deliberate tearing down from the inside and how much is due to the quick growth of the PCA which has led to some Presbyteries simply having no idea of what confessional Presbyterianism is. After our Session ordained and put in charge of missions a young man who refused to baptise his kids and who himself was never baptised, I told the RA that he shouldn't have done that since the guy wasn't even Presbyterian. He answered "what do you mean?" and our sister church didn't care either.

But as has been mentioned above, there is a judicial system that really works, so fixing broken things can be done, if there is a will to do it.

 

[brianeschen]

But as has been mentioned above, there is a judicial system that really works, so fixing broken things can be done, if there is a will to do it.

That is my prayer for this denomination. I was greatly encouraged at the General Assembly.

 

[Scott1]

I do not know how this is handled in the OPC, but I was shocked that it is not even considered an exception to the Westminster Standards in the PCA (or maybe just my presbytery) to reject a six day creation. The Standards seem to be morphing into suggestions. I do not know if that is considered "loose" subscription or not.

I'm not familiar with the inner-workings of the presbyteries.

My understanding is that the six day view, since it is the view of the Westminster Confession (Chapter IV)would need to be "excepted" on the record and evaluated by a presbytery. That would eventually get a "high level" review by the Committee on Presbytery Records.

There was a study committee of the denomination that said four views are "acceptable" as not being per se violations of the fundamentals of the system of doctrine. This study report is to be given "due and serious consideration" by church courts (eg. presbyteries), but is not absolutely binding, even in it's conclusion. It is intended as a reference help for the sometimes complicated issues involved for presbyteries dealing with the issue.

Individual presbteries could grant an exception, but it would need to be recorded as an exception. If that is not being done, there are processes to bring it to attention for review.

 

[Pilgrim]

For the uninitiated, please note that Dr. Clark's definition of fundamentalism is far different than what most other people would recognize as fundamentalism. Basically if you are 6/24 on creation (and especially if you argue that 6/24 is required by the WCF) he dubs you a fundamentalist since WSCAL is apparently dominated by the late Dr. Meredith Kline's framework view on creation. Why he is so concerned that those who are not confessional not appropriate the terms Calvinist and Reformed yet feels free to use the term fundamentalist in a way that few others recognize (i.e. labeling confessionalists who don't think the framework view is confessional as fundies) is a question you'll have to ask him. Since I am no longer Presbyterian I really don't have a dog in the hunt, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Otherwise, I think his survey of the differences between the OPC and PCA are very helpful.

 

[TimV]

Individual presbteries could grant an exception, but it would need to be recorded as an exception. If that is not being done, there are processes to bring it to attention for review

That's interesting. Very. The last PCA sermon I heard on the topic was how since there is a "contradiction" in the two creation accounts, Genesis was to be taken metaphorically. I doubt even half of PCA Elders have thought out all the ramifications of exceptions.

 

[Pilgrim]

I have been a member of the OPC and have attended an OPC presbytery meeting. After relocating about a year ago, I also attended a PCA church for several months and also attended a PCA presbytery meeting. As I've noted earlier the PCA presbytery meeting I attended earlier this year went down in such a way as to cause me to reexamine my whole position at which point I realized that I was wrong to have ever joined a Presbyterian church at all. What happened was that a ministerial candidate was being examined for ordination. He came out of the most prominent FV church in the PCA today (this after Wilkins and AAPC withdrew) yet to my recollection was not asked any questions specifically about the FV during his examination, although some of the questions touched on some of the issues involved. He took 4 exceptions. One was on the Sabbath, which I understand is quite common in the PCA, as was another of his exceptions, the teaching of the standards on the 2nd commandment and images. Another exception was on paedocommunion. This was not too surprising to me given his background. It didn't surprise me too much that this wasn't a huge issue with many of the presbyters since my understanding is that there are some other men in this Presbytery who also take this exception. What really shocked me was that he took exception to the language in the WCF prohibiting marriage to Roman Catholics. This man seemed to think that RC's were no different than "other evangelicals." This exception did cause many of the TE's to question him, which revealed that he didn't see why RC's couldn't come to the table in a PCA church and also that he was largely ignorant of what RC's actually teach and believe, despite the fact that he would be ministering in a heavily Roman Catholic city. Yet he was approved for ordination by approximately 75% of the elders present. I expressed my concern to one of the RE's only to be told that he believed that there are RC's who are saved, which is completely beside the point. I realize this candidate wouldn't have made it out of committee in many PCA presbyteries. The point I'm making is that from what I know of the OPC, I doubt he would have been ordained in any OPC presbytery, although I could be wrong. My understanding is in both the PCA and OPC certain candidates couldn't be ordained in some presbyteries but would be welcomed with open arms in others. My sense is that with the PCA being a broader church, the range of allowable exceptions that exists from presbytery to presbytery is wider than in the OPC.

 

[Pilgrim]

Individual presbteries could grant an exception, but it would need to be recorded as an exception. If that is not being done, there are processes to bring it to attention for review

That's interesting. Very. The last PCA sermon I heard on the topic was how since there is a "contradiction" in the two creation accounts, Genesis was to be taken metaphorically. I doubt even half of PCA Elders have thought out all the ramifications of exceptions.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the sense I got is that some RE's are basically ready to rubber stamp almost all TE candidates because they don't feel competent to evaluate the issues and/or take on a seminary trained candidate or out of deference to the judgment of the TE's within their presbytery. This may exist to some degree in the OPC as well, but I doubt it is as pronounced, especially since the OPC as a rule is more self consciously Reformed than are most PCA churches. Of course, I realize that other PCA presbyteries go about things differently than the one I described earlier.

 

[TimV]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the sense I got is that some RE's are basically ready to rubber stamp almost all TE candidates because they don't feel competent to evaluate the issues or out of deference to the judgment of the TE's within their presbytery.

That's an aspect. Another is guarding the sand box. Keeping a qualified man out because he could sway Session voting habits is much more common in the PCA than in the OPC.

 

[CharlieJ]

For the uninitiated, please note that Dr. Clark's definition of fundamentalism is far different than what most other people would recognize as fundamentalism. Basically if you are 6/24 on creation (and especially if you argue that 6/24 is required by the WCF) he dubs you a fundamentalist since WSCAL is apparently dominated by the late Dr. Meredith Kline's framework view on creation.

Disagree - Clark did not say 6/24 was Fundamentalist, only the belief that "6/24 defines the Reformed faith." Your parenthesis is more accurate than your text.

Agree - Clark's definition of Fundamentalist is puzzling. Self-identified Fundamentalists would be left scratching their heads. I think that separatism rather than creation would be the main character of Fundamentalism. Use of potentially harmful substances and a culture-specific understanding of worldliness would also be major Fundamentalist concerns.

 

[Brother John]

More questions?

I appreciate everyone's comments, its helping me to understand a little more about the two denominations. I do have a few new questions that have arisen from reading the posts.

Is there less of a federal vision problem in the OPC?

Does the OPC allow men to take exceptions with the WCF at there ordination exams (I am assuming from a few of the above posts that the PCA does)?

Is the OPC tied more to the northern presbyterians and the PCA to the southern presbyterians?

Is the PCA truly looser with the confession than the OPC?

Thanks

 

[Josiah]

Is there less of a federal vision problem in the OPC?

Depends on who you talk to . I have not seen/heard any influence of the FV NPP variety on OPC churches I have visited in WA state. I cant speak as a whole for my denomination or Presbytery, but For what it's worth many folks in my denomination (TE's, RE's, Lay Persons) had not heard of these false teachings before the trial of a ruling elder our denomination named John Kinnaird. The only time I have ever come across anything like this in my time in OP was when a friend had some tapes by Norman Shephard. I asked him about and he seemed a little defensive (at that time I didnt know anything about).

Does the OPC allow men to take exceptions with the WCF at there ordination exams (I am assuming from a few of the above posts that the PCA does)?

I believe so, but I am not sure. Perhaps someone who knows more could speak to this.

Is the OPC tied more to the northern presbyterians and the PCA to the southern presbyterians?

Yes. 34 ministers, 17 ruling elders, and 79 laymen met in Philadelphia on June 11, 1936, to constitute the Presbyterian Church of America After leaving the northern mainline church. see this

I cant remember what year the PCA left the southern Presbyterian church. Was it 1979? They left (I think) a few years before the Southern Presbyterian Church was swallowed up by the Northern Mainline church.

Is the PCA truly looser with the confession than the OPC?

The PCA and the OPC are in a sister church relationship and are both charter members of NAPARC. Both are confessional and reformed. That being said, both churches have their difficulties and need the prayers and support of those of us in these two churches. I know thats pretty vague answer, but I feel like this question has been like . I would suggest reading the history of both churches and looking at General Assembly actions to find out about how they have approached certain issues.

Thanks

Your welcome

 

[Semper Fidelis]

For the uninitiated, please note that Dr. Clark's definition of fundamentalism is far different than what most other people would recognize as fundamentalism.

I think we could be a bit more charitable to Dr. Clark. Even though Machen was opposed to the anti-intellectual movement within fundamentalist circles, he would have been classified by some at the time of the modernist controversy as a fundamentalist. Call him a fundamentalist with a small f. The OPC still publishes a book called The Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy. Even Rev. Winzer was willing to be identified as a fundamentalist in a certain sense of the term.

I think Dr. Clark's general observation of the OPC is not inaccurate. You've got much more of a generational connection to the founding of the OPC with some leaders in the OPC whose fathers or grandfathers helped found the OPC. I knew of at least one OPC that was still serving grape juice during the Lord's Supper because some of its members were part of the temperance movement.

I seriously doubt Dr. Clark intended to call the OPC more fundamentalist simply because it rains on a "Kine parade". If anything, that would hardly make much sense as Dr. Kline himself was an OPC minister and Westminster was started as the OPC seminary.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As to the question in the OP, one difference between the OPC and the PCA is that the PCA got to keep its name after being founded:

...On June 11, 1936, Machen and a group of conservative ministers, elders, and laymen met in Philadelphia to form the Presbyterian Church of America (not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America which was organized some forty years later). The PCUSA filed suit against the fledgling denomination for their choice of name, and in 1939, the denomination adopted a new name as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

 

[fredtgreco]

For the uninitiated, please note that Dr. Clark's definition of fundamentalism is far different than what most other people would recognize as fundamentalism.

I think we could be a bit more charitable to Dr. Clark. Even though Machen was opposed to the anti-intellectual movement within fundamentalist circles, he would have been classified by some at the time of the modernist controversy as a fundamentalist. Call him a fundamentalist with a small f. The OPC still publishes a book called The Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy. Even Rev. Winzer was willing to be identified as a fundamentalist in a certain sense of the term.

I think Dr. Clark's general observation of the OPC is not inaccurate. You've got much more of a generational connection to the founding of the OPC with some leaders in the OPC whose fathers or grandfathers helped found the OPC. I knew of at least one OPC that was still serving grape juice during the Lord's Supper because some of its members were part of the temperance movement.

I seriously doubt Dr. Clark intended to call the OPC more fundamentalist simply because it rains on a "Kine parade". If anything, that would hardly make much sense as Dr. Kline himself was an OPC minister and Westminster was started as the OPC seminary.

Rich,

Even with charity, Chris has a point here. RSC is like a broken record on the issue of creation. Somehow, with a complete lack of any evidence (viz. David Hall's research) Klinean Framework hypothesis is within the historical Confessional system, and yet almost no deviations from covenant theology are.

Don't get me wrong, I am right with RSC on covenant theology. But he shoots himself in the foot with his attempts to shoe-horn Framework into the Confession. I wish he would just be honest here, and not conjure up "fundamentalist" bogey-man (which is the meaning that comes across when he writes on it).

 

[brianeschen]

As to the question in the OP, one difference between the OPC and the PCA is that the PCA got to keep its name after being founded:

...On June 11, 1936, Machen and a group of conservative ministers, elders, and laymen met in Philadelphia to form the Presbyterian Church of America (not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America which was organized some forty years later). The PCUSA filed suit against the fledgling denomination for their choice of name, and in 1939, the denomination adopted a new name as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

I was trying to put my finger on what the difference was . . . thanks.

Were there not different times at which the two (OPC and PCA) attempted a merge, or am I mistaken? What keeps them from uniting?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

For the uninitiated, please note that Dr. Clark's definition of fundamentalism is far different than what most other people would recognize as fundamentalism.

I think we could be a bit more charitable to Dr. Clark. Even though Machen was opposed to the anti-intellectual movement within fundamentalist circles, he would have been classified by some at the time of the modernist controversy as a fundamentalist. Call him a fundamentalist with a small f. The OPC still publishes a book called The Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy. Even Rev. Winzer was willing to be identified as a fundamentalist in a certain sense of the term.

I think Dr. Clark's general observation of the OPC is not inaccurate. You've got much more of a generational connection to the founding of the OPC with some leaders in the OPC whose fathers or grandfathers helped found the OPC. I knew of at least one OPC that was still serving grape juice during the Lord's Supper because some of its members were part of the temperance movement.

I seriously doubt Dr. Clark intended to call the OPC more fundamentalist simply because it rains on a "Kine parade". If anything, that would hardly make much sense as Dr. Kline himself was an OPC minister and Westminster was started as the OPC seminary.

Rich,

Even with charity, Chris has a point here. RSC is like a broken record on the issue of creation. Somehow, with a complete lack of any evidence (viz. David Hall's research) Klinean Framework hypothesis is within the historical Confessional system, and yet almost no deviations from covenant theology are.

Don't get me wrong, I am right with RSC on covenant theology. But he shoots himself in the foot with his attempts to shoe-horn Framework into the Confession. I wish he would just be honest here, and not conjure up "fundamentalist" bogey-man (which is the meaning that comes across when he writes on it).

Fair enough. I guess I just had trouble reading all of the above into the quote inside this particular thread and I don't think we need to import it all if it's not in a particular post. There are a lot of people in the OPC that would like to see it become more Klinean. I don't believe the OPC has ever officially ruled the framework hypothesis as un-Confessional.