# Should the OPC and PCA merge into the OPCA?



## larryjf

Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Yes


----------



## Zenas

No sirrah.


----------



## wsw201

The OPC has its own problems. Why compound them with the PCA's?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Yes, if we gain something in the bargain, other than size. If Presbyterians could come together in greater faithfulness to the Westminster Standards, stricter subscription, greater adherence to the Regulative Principle in worship and government, more biblical discipline, and a more deliberate effort to do the work of Christ’s church in preaching the gospel, planting churches, evangelism and missions. Yes! In the current culture of the two denominations, no!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well to get that Glenn all one need to do is join the RPCNA!!!


----------



## jaybird0827

wsw201 said:


> The OPC has its own problems. Why compound them with the PCA's?


----------



## larryjf

wsw201 said:


> The OPC has its own problems. Why compound them with the PCA's?



Perhaps so that we can bear one another's burdens? (Gal 6:2)


----------



## BobVigneault

Yes, as the other 'mainstream' denoms are beginning to see the need to return to confessionalism, we need a larger denom that doesn't look like it's a bunch of fractured calvinist cells.


----------



## Zenas

larryjf said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC has its own problems. Why compound them with the PCA's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps so that we can bear one another's burdens? (Gal 6:2)
Click to expand...


Or they spread more rapidly because they no longer have denominational lines to jump.


----------



## Hippo

Off course all true churches "should" merge, denomonational boundaries are not desirable and are a result of our sinful nature.

In practise though we do have differences and denominations are one way of preventing in fighting and enables us to proclaim the gospel rather than to argue internally all the time.


----------



## larryjf

Zenas said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC has its own problems. Why compound them with the PCA's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps so that we can bear one another's burdens? (Gal 6:2)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they spread more rapidly because they no longer have denominational lines to jump.
Click to expand...


Kind of a pessimistic view, don't you think?
Should we not rather view the coming together of them as an opportunity to clear up the problems that exist within each separate denomination?
I don't really see confessional unity as an issue that would spread problems more rapidly through the church.


----------



## BobVigneault

These discussions always remind me of Emo Phillips classic routine from 23 years ago - 



> Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes."
> 
> I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
> 
> He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too!
> 
> Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too!
> 
> What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too!
> 
> Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too!
> 
> Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too!
> 
> Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
> 
> Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
> 
> He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
> 
> I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


----------



## wsw201

larryjf said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps so that we can bear one another's burdens? (Gal 6:2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they spread more rapidly because they no longer have denominational lines to jump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of a pessimistic view, don't you think?
> Should we not rather view the coming together of them as an opportunity to clear up the problems that exist within each separate denomination?
> I don't really see confessional unity as an issue that would spread problems more rapidly through the church.
Click to expand...


Confessional unity shouldn't be an issue but it is. You should have been at the PCA GA in Dallas back in 2001.


----------



## shackleton

Is it possible to get Presbyterians to agree on anything?


----------



## DMcFadden

shackleton said:


> Is it possible to get Presbyterians to agree on anything?





Hmmmmm. Presbyterian groups uniting instead of dividing??? Isn't that against the laws of the Medes and the Presbyterians?


----------



## Guido's Brother

Wasn't this attempted (unsuccessfully) at some point? Back in the early 80s?


----------



## shackleton

Just watch Braveheart to see what happens when Presbyterian's (Scottish clans) try to work together.


----------



## KenPierce

BOb Godfrey used to talk about this a lot: a pan-Reformed synod that would serve the purposes of mission, education, and caring for pastors with benefit plan, as a testimony to our unity in the gospel.

Hadn't heard about that in awhile though, nor does Dr. Godfrey have as high of a public profile as in years past --not sure why.


----------



## Stephen

No! The OPC has turned down several opportunities from the PCA to join. It will never happen, and personally I would not welcome that merger.


----------



## KenPierce

Stephen,

Actually, once the PCA turned it down; once the OPC turned it down.

The PCA has siphoned off the OPC's larger churches, so it can and may happen by attrition (not saying this is a good thing).

Love my brothers in the ARP and OPC, and could easily fellowship and serve alongside them.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I think a stronger NAPARC fellowship would work better than any merger. 

Maybe, like someone noted above, a "United Nations" model organization.


----------



## greenbaggins

DMcFadden said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to get Presbyterians to agree on anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm. Presbyterian groups uniting instead of dividing??? Isn't that against the laws of the Medes and the Presbyterians?
Click to expand...


Reminds me of the old joke of the 5 people marooned on an island: a German, a Frenchman, an Italian, and two Scotsmen. The German set up an astronomical observatory, the Frenchman set up a vineyard and a winery, the Italian set up a bakery, and the two Scotsmen built First and Second Presbyterian Church.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

For some reason this poll makes me think of Psalm 133:1. 

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Yes. They're so close as it is, why divide over relatively minor issues? I think overlooking these differences for the sake of unity is well worth it.


----------



## Davidius

Of course!


----------



## jogri17

what are the dividing issues?


----------



## Zenas

shackleton said:


> Is it possible to get Presbyterians to agree on anything?



Baptism.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Pouring or Sprinkle Zenas?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What has been done concerning the creation debate? I don't consider that a small issue as some do. This is not just a hermeneutical argument in my estimation. It is a confessional issue as well as an issue of Biblical inspiration. At least that is how I see it. I know I am not PCA now but that would be my question concerning the union. The PCA historically has held to a 6/24 creation day. The OPC doesn't if I am not mistaken. 

When I was in the RPCNA I didn't like the thought of the RPCNA flirting with this either. It would have removed the distinguishing marks of its historical stance on EP and the RPW as far as I was concerned. I was not EP but I learned so much and had such an appreciation for the view in a historical context that I didn't want to see it watered down. And it would have been. 

It is a union vs. unity issue.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Amen Martin. As a new 6/24 guy I see now how this affects a whole host of issues that make it nothing less than a vital confessional issue that really strikes at the heart of some major Doctrines.


----------



## etexas

I as a PCA man.....would welcome it, I love my OPC Brethren, are there problems in the PCA, of course, are there problems in the OPC, of course, could a organic union of these structures overcome all the internal problems...NO, why? The Church is made of people, where you have people you have problems including Christians (Saints who yet sin). However, a union would benefit both bodies long term and create a Conservative and Traditional Presbyterian face in the US which would be hard to ignore. Just my.....


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

But how "traditional" could it be with the influx and growing number of "contemporary" anti-RPW PCA churches?


----------



## etexas

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> But how "traditional" could it be with the influx and growing number of "contemporary" anti-RPW PCA churches?


I am unsure of how many or how long the "contemporary" PCA churches will have momentum! There is a BIG Back to Traditions Movement in the PCA.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Glad to hear it. I am hoping to help stave off the contemporary things in the ARP.


----------



## bookslover

Almost every OPC person I've spoken to in the last 12 years (since I joined the OPC in 1996) has expressed relief that the OPC did not join the PCA during the "joining and receiving" movement back in the 1970s and has remained a separate denomination.

The usual reason given is differences in denominational cultural tone, so to speak, between the two denominations. There is, for instance, a perception among some in the OPC that the PCA is more interested in being "big" than in being theologically consistent. As one person put it to me once, "No matter where you are theologically, the PCA has a presbytery for you!"

I've also heard murky stories about how disappointed some of the people in the OPC churches that did join the PCA are in how that ended up. Instead of feeling like they'd merged their churches into the PCA, it felt more like a takeover, as if the PCA had just swallowed up their OPC church.

This is all just anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I've heard it fairly consistently through the years. There's definitely a sense of bitterness among some OPCers.

My sense is that, if it were put to a vote today, many, if not most in the OPC would turn it down flat - unhesitatingly.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is not the thread for it (maybe) but I am genuinely curious as to the OPC's "milieu" and the general "vibe" in the OPC. In honesty I am drawn much more to the OPC given what I hear on these boards having no real experience with either.


----------



## Josiah

I think that perhaps a union could happen, perhaps in our lifetime, perhaps not. I think that before any union occur Iron should sharpen Iron and we should resolve any issues before us both biblically and Confessionally. Whether this will happen in our lifetime is up to God in his Providence. I have read alot of wonderful comments and Posts (Pro/Con) in this thread and would have to conclude that I dont believe we are ready for union yet. I pray that when/if we do decide to unite that it would not be in the form of a "joining and recieving" and that a strong, robust, thoroughgoing Reformed and Presbyterian church might result. 

I am eagerly awaiting to see the results of the PCA's 36's GA.


----------



## raekwon

Frankly, we need more unity within the PCA before we think about merging with another denomination.


----------



## Josiah

I hope Pastor Bruce (Contra-Mundum) will post on this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In my humble opinion
It won't happen in the present climate/ configuration/ makeup of the two denominations.

The time it might have happened was in the 70s, with the first J&R overture. When the PCA voted down their own invitation to the "liberal" OPC, that was really the first, and the last chance of that kind of merger happening. The OPC had already voted itself out of existence, and suddenly it's brief "out-of-body" experience was over.

When the PCA, now waxed fat and kicking, renewed its advances in the 80s, the OPC demurred somewhat, preferring a true courtship, and a marriage, rather than absorption, and unity with the borg. The PCA was the big time, and they said my way or the highway sweetie. The OPC declined.

That's the history. A merger in the 70s, side-by-side with the merger that brought in the RPCES to the PCA fold would have brought greater balance to the new, larger denomination. But swallowing the RPCES alone created a new denomination, a new dynamic, with a center now moved "leftward". Basically, the OPC wanted to go back to mirror its efforts begun in the 60s to merge with the RPCES: painfully slow, and tied to constitutional fusion.

The PCA continues to experience internal tensions. Unlike the OPC, the PCA has been growing since its creation, by all kinds of means. The OPC split within a couple years, and within 20 had another deep division, leaving a largely homogeneous, but small, doctrinally heavy-mass core. The PCA will, I believe, split sooner or later. I do not say this with any gusto. I just think it will happen. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the latest GA reconfiguration will accomplish. It may retard the centrifugal forces or accelerate them. It is probably too soon to tell.

The larger side of the split would be about 10 years from a merger with the EPC, and eventually whatever came out of the PCUSA C-C movement. It is possible that the strict-constructionist or 'TR' side, the smaller side, would seek a merger with the OPC. The smaller side would have two obvious courses of action: 1) settle down, figure out its own identity, and then look for a merger if it wanted one; or 2) try for a merger as quickly as possible.

It would even be possible to conceive of its merging with the ARPs instead. I think the size of this grouping would be a factor in its direction, for several reasons. Where the churches are geographically centered would also be significant. For example, what if practically the whole MVP left (again, like they did from the PCUS)? But they were isolated largely from the rest of the departees? This would be a BIG reason to consider a merger with the ARP denomination, also a Southern Church mainly.

OK. I wrote this b/c one of you asked me for a thought, and I wished to oblige, but I really don't have anything coherent to say. I apologize. Bottom line, I don't see much likelihood of the OPC and PCA merging in the near future. Mainly for structural and pragmatic reasons, but with a dash of doctrine and history thrown in for flavor.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Do you think the PCA's biggest problem is its "Good Faith" Subscription?


----------



## KenPierce

I think it has more to do with different denominational cultures as the result of vastly different histories, which are somewhat ineffable things.

Frankly, the OPC has better polity, in my limited knowledge of it.

If it ever does happen, the *worst* name would be the Orthodox PResbyterian Church in America --talk about off-putting.

I think less modifiers are better than more (nothing like RPCNA, RPCGA, RPCES, etc), which are completely useless in the culture as defining terms, and something more winsome like Evangelical Reformed Church (with the hopeful inclusion of the URC!).


----------



## KenPierce

The PCA's biggest problem is not good faith subscription.

The PCA's biggest problem is that it is in need of [was: bereft] of spiritual life.

The problem with subscription will always be the dishonesty of presbyters and candidates

Tie the subscription language as tightly as you might, and it will still fray, because of the human heart. Witness all the "strict" subscriptionists who, themselves, take exceptions. Only, they don't think they're exceptions. As human nature is wont to do, they simply decide their exceptions not to be exceptions, and therefore declare no exceptions.

The most infamous example: The late Gordon H. Clark. Pre-mil, thinks God is the author of evil, etc etc etc.


----------



## Stephen

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do you think the PCA's biggest problem is its "Good Faith" Subscription?



Perhaps, but I see the bigger problem may be related to its history. The PCA was formed when it came out of the PCUS as a reaction against liberalism, not as a desire to be distinctly Reformed. Do not misunderstand me, the PCA is Reformed, but it was not started with a vision to be distinctly Reformed. Some in the PCA would disagree with my assesment, but this is the feeling of some, and has even been stated by men who had been in the denomination for many years.


----------



## Stephen

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What has been done concerning the creation debate? I don't consider that a small issue as some do. This is not just a hermeneutical argument in my estimation. It is a confessional issue as well as an issue of Biblical inspiration. At least that is how I see it. I know I am not PCA now but that would be my question concerning the union. The PCA historically has held to a 6/24 creation day. The OPC doesn't if I am not mistaken.
> 
> When I was in the RPCNA I didn't like the thought of the RPCNA flirting with this either. It would have removed the distinguishing marks of its historical stance on EP and the RPW as far as I was concerned. I was not EP but I learned so much and had such an appreciation for the view in a historical context that I didn't want to see it watered down. And it would have been.
> 
> It is a union vs. unity issue.



I agree with you on the creation issue. It is not a small issue, but it is a source of contention in the PCA. Yes, many in the OPC would follow Kline's framework view, which is very problematic, but unfortunetly many in the PCA do not hold to creation made in the space of six days. I am thankful that there are presbyteries in the PCA who will not receive a candidate who does not hold to six day creation. The LORD bless you, Randy as you battle with your health issues. I am praying for you.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Contra_Mundum said:


> ...The PCA will, I believe, split sooner or later. I do not say this with any gusto. I just think it will happen. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the latest GA reconfiguration will accomplish. It may retard the centrifugal forces or accelerate them. It is probably too soon to tell.
> 
> The larger side of the split would be about 10 years from a merger with the EPC, and eventually whatever came out of the PCUSA C-C movement. It is possible that the strict-constructionist or 'TR' side, the smaller side, would seek a merger with the OPC. The smaller side would have two obvious courses of action: 1) settle down, figure out its own identity, and then look for a merger if it wanted one; or 2) try for a merger as quickly as possible.



My observation has been twenty percent or so of the PCA would fit better within the OPC; up to twenty percent of the OPC would fit well into the present PCA. If they could find agreement on the women in office issue, the reconstituted PCA would fit with the EPC. A large segment of the ARP would also fit into this PCA-EPC mix; a few congregations would find the OPC or RPCNA attractive. The RPCNA would be a better merger partner for the reconstituted OPC, hopefully firming up the OP's commitment to the RPW.


----------



## etexas

KenPierce said:


> The PCA's biggest problem is not good faith subscription.
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is that it is bereft of spiritual life.
> 
> The problem with subscription will always be the dishonesty of presbyters and candidates
> 
> Tie the subscription language as tightly as you might, and it will still fray, because of the human heart. Witness all the "strict" subscriptionists who, themselves, take exceptions. Only, they don't think they're exceptions. As human nature is wont to do, they simply decide their exceptions not to be exceptions, and therefore declare no exceptions.
> 
> The most infamous example: The late Gordon H. Clark. Pre-mil, thinks God is the author of evil, etc etc etc.


Edit Out.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

etexas said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is not good faith subscription.
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is that it is bereft of spiritual life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I think a comment that the PCA is Bereft of Spiritual life lacks charity, and is over the top.
Click to expand...




For an intelligent, factually based, coherent discussion, it would be best if people kept their baseless, inflammatory comments to themselves. I'm sure there are spiritually lifeless PCA churches, but I have yet to encounter one in visits to several hundred of them. 

And who's to say the difficulty with a union between the OPC and PCA is due to problems with the PCA?


----------



## larryjf

raekwon said:


> Frankly, we need more unity within the PCA before we think about merging with another denomination.



Good point.
I wonder if the internal disunity has the same root as the cross-denominational disunity...lack of strict subscription to the Westminster Standards.

The stricter the subscription to the Standards the more unity there will be, since unity in a church must be based on doctrine.


----------



## KenPierce

etexas said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is not good faith subscription.
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is that it is bereft of spiritual life.
> 
> The problem with subscription will always be the dishonesty of presbyters and candidates
> 
> Tie the subscription language as tightly as you might, and it will still fray, because of the human heart. Witness all the "strict" subscriptionists who, themselves, take exceptions. Only, they don't think they're exceptions. As human nature is wont to do, they simply decide their exceptions not to be exceptions, and therefore declare no exceptions.
> 
> The most infamous example: The late Gordon H. Clark. Pre-mil, thinks God is the author of evil, etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I think a comment that the PCA is Bereft of Spiritual life lacks charity, and is over the top.
Click to expand...


Okay, maybe the best way to say it is that what the PCA really needs is revival. Didn't mean to  Sometimes given to overstatement --the great sin of preachers. Please forgive me.

I am concerned, however, that, in many places, including here, there is a lot of spiritual barrenness, and little spiritual hunger. ANd that begins with me.


----------



## KenPierce

ColdSilverMoon said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is not good faith subscription.
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is that it is bereft of spiritual life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I think a comment that the PCA is Bereft of Spiritual life lacks charity, and is over the top.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For an intelligent, factually based, coherent discussion, it would be best if people kept their baseless, inflammatory comments to themselves. I'm sure there are spiritually lifeless PCA churches, but I have yet to encounter one in visits to several hundred of them.
> 
> And who's to say the difficulty with a union between the OPC and PCA is due to problems with the PCA?
Click to expand...


Mason, brother, to call it baseless and inflammatory is, alas, both baseless and inflammatory.

I have been a minister in the PCA in various settings for 12 years. I am very concerned about its future. I have given my life to it. I think I have some standing from which to diagnose our problems.

My main point is that subscription isn't the answer --real revival is.

That is my prayer, and that is where i direct my labors.

Bereft was too strong a word, and I retract it.

But, our eyes are wandering. No doubt about that.


----------



## larryjf

KenPierce said:


> My main point is that subscription isn't the answer --real revival is.



Yes, revival is needed on many fronts.
But that doesn't mean that subscription to the doctrinal standards are irrelevant. 

Certainly we shouldn't just sit around and wait for a revival, but rather conform ourselves more diligently to the Word of God and to its faithful exposition as found in the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

larryjf said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> My main point is that subscription isn't the answer --real revival is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, revival is needed on many fronts.
> But that doesn't mean that subscription to the doctrinal standards are irrelevant.
> 
> Certainly we shouldn't just sit around and wait for a revival, but rather conform ourselves more diligently to the Word of God and to its faithful exposition as found in the Westminster Standards.
Click to expand...


----------



## KenPierce

larryjf said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> My main point is that subscription isn't the answer --real revival is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, revival is needed on many fronts.
> But that doesn't mean that subscription to the doctrinal standards are irrelevant.
> 
> Certainly we shouldn't just sit around and wait for a revival, but rather conform ourselves more diligently to the Word of God and to its faithful exposition as found in the Westminster Standards.
Click to expand...


LArry,

Didn't say subscription was irrelevant. As I have pointed out in other threads, good faith has actually strengthened some presbyteries in regard to subscription --requiring candidates to state their differences, and then requiring the presbyteries to publish a rationale as to why the granted exception does not strike at the vitals of the system.

Believe me, I am a confessional guy, by nature. I don't think it's irrelevant at all --must not be expressing myself well today.

Bad for a sermon-writing day!!!


----------



## Josiah

larryjf said:


> Yes, revival is needed on many fronts.
> But that doesn't mean that subscription to the doctrinal standards are irrelevant.
> 
> Certainly we shouldn't just sit around and wait for a revival, but rather conform ourselves more diligently to the Word of God and to its faithful exposition as found in the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Mushroom

Someone awhile back made the joke that there must be eschatological implications to the day that Presbyterians finally exhaust all possible combinations of the letters P, C, O, R, A, N, U, & S in their denominational acronyms. Maybe there's some truth to that.

I voted yes, but as a PCA member maybe I shouldn't have, so as not to saddle my OPC brothers with the syncretism and compromise afflicting my beloved PCA.

Nevermind. I withdraw my vote and abstain. What, me worry?

Oh, for an OPC congregation within a fifty mile radius.....


----------



## ServantOfKing

It is sad how fragmented the church on the whole is today. It would be great to see a merger. Every church has problems, sinful people comprise churches.


----------



## Gloria

ColdSilverMoon said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is not good faith subscription.
> 
> The PCA's biggest problem is that it is bereft of spiritual life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I think a comment that the PCA is Bereft of Spiritual life lacks charity, and is over the top.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For an intelligent, factually based, coherent discussion, it would be best if people kept their baseless, inflammatory comments to themselves. I'm sure there are spiritually lifeless PCA churches, but I have yet to encounter one in visits to several hundred of them.
> 
> And who's to say the difficulty with a union between the OPC and PCA is due to problems with the PCA?
Click to expand...


I was thinking this VERY thing as I read through the posts. Another thing came to mind as well--elitism.


----------



## KenPierce

Gloria said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I think a comment that the PCA is Bereft of Spiritual life lacks charity, and is over the top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For an intelligent, factually based, coherent discussion, it would be best if people kept their baseless, inflammatory comments to themselves. I'm sure there are spiritually lifeless PCA churches, but I have yet to encounter one in visits to several hundred of them.
> 
> And who's to say the difficulty with a union between the OPC and PCA is due to problems with the PCA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking this VERY thing as I read through the posts. Another thing came to mind as well--elitism.
Click to expand...



I don't know how I, who have been a member of the PCA for 15 of my 36 years of life, and a minister in her for 12, who sought her out from the dry ground of the liberal Reformed Church in America, and left behind kith and kin to serve within her, can be charged with elitism, or baseless, inflammatory comments.

I bet, if you talked to the pastors of the churches in the PCA, 80% of them would share my heart cry for revival. All you need to do is compare Jonathan Edwards's Distinguishing Marks of the Work of a Spirit of God with your average PCA experience to see the problem.

It's not that revolutionary, folks. Really.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Yes.


----------



## Josiah

Bladestunner316 said:


> Yes.



I wondered when you would comment on this thread. I figured you might because of all of our discussions relevant to this topic. Why do you think we ought to "merge"?


----------



## etexas

I live in a small town (100,000), we have a PCA and an OPC, we enjoy frequent joint services, Prayer meetings, and Bible Study. I guess from what I have seen where there is this loving fellowship it lifts my heart. I find it a joyful thing, perhaps I dare dream too much (having seen OPC and PCA in Christian fellowship) that with work such a thing could happen.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

100,000, small town?


----------



## bookslover

ServantOfKing said:


> It would be great to see a merger.



Seeing as the PCA is so much larger than the OPC, would it be a true merger (meaning that some characteristics of the OPC would survive) or would it be a case of the PCA just swallowing the OPC whole to the point that, in time, it would be hard to tell that there had ever been an OPC?


----------



## Josiah

bookslover said:


> ServantOfKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great to see a merger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as the PCA is so much larger than the OPC, would it be a true merger (meaning that some characteristics of the OPC would survive) or would it be a case of the PCA just swallowing the OPC whole to the point that, in time, it would be hard to tell that there had ever been an OPC?
Click to expand...


I dont think it would be a true merger. My hope is that like our church during the early years (30's and 40's) that she will take a strong stand for the Calvinism of the WFC and that those who are not satisfied with that stand would decide to move on to perhaps the EPC (or elsewhere). This would make a union more likely.

Am I right?


----------



## KenPierce

bookslover said:


> ServantOfKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great to see a merger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as the PCA is so much larger than the OPC, would it be a true merger (meaning that some characteristics of the OPC would survive) or would it be a case of the PCA just swallowing the OPC whole to the point that, in time, it would be hard to tell that there had ever been an OPC?
Click to expand...


Richard,

I think your fears are well-founded. Just from a cultural wisdom standpoint, the PCA would simply engulf the OPC. Interestingly enough, we will probably watch this happen before our eyes with the New Wineskins phenomenon in the EPC.

Human sin and pride enter into the mix, too. I wonder if the URC, with its strong ethnic contingent and corresponding pride (and, beloved, before I am accused of anything, let me note than I am Dutch, so I know of whence I speak), would ever join. I am sure their better angels (Godfrey, Clark, Horton, etc) would be much in favor of a supra-Reformed synod working towards full union. But, there will be cultural forces that hold them back.

In the meanwhile, I think the real life and vitality of the Reformed movement right now is found in across-denominational-line fraternal relationships of likeminded folk: Banner of Truth conferences, T4G etc. I don't think denominational union between Reformed Baptists, Presmatics (CJ Mahaney), and us stodgy Presbyterian types would work, functionally. For one thing, the Baptists are all congregational! But, real Christian brotherhood among these men will be used of God, I believe, to further his kingdom and encourage his weary people who minister in the midst of denominations which hold to a form of godliness, but sometimes appear absent of his power.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I agree and  Ken. I think groups like ACE and T4G, etc... will help us work together in some-type of combined missions, grouping the resources of the smaller denominations and congregations into an organized outreach of the gospel, not just to far flung places but to our neighbors across the street and next-door. I think if taken deliberately and slowly we can function in a stronger and more connected NAPARC-type organization.


----------



## etexas

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> 100,000, small town?


 Well, I do only live about an hour and a half away from the DFW area, so to me those are BIG Cities!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I had a good friend of mine in the Marines who was from Lubbock and he always spoke about his "small town had nothing to do".


----------



## AdamM

In regard to "cultures" in my experience the confessional folks in the PCA tend to be New Side/Old School while the OPC is more Old Side/Old School. Looking in from the outside that might not seem meaningful, but at the practical level it's a significant difference.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

*What problems?*



jaybird0827 said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC has its own problems. Why compound them with the PCA's?
Click to expand...


As an Reformed Baptist on the ARBCA side, we often tell Presbyterians that ARBCA is similar to the OPC as the Founders SBC is to the PCA. So you have piqued my curiosity in wanting to know what "problems" you're referencing about the OPC.


----------



## wsw201

servantofmosthigh said:


> jaybird0827 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC has its own problems. Why compound them with the PCA's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As an Reformed Baptist on the ARBCA side, we often tell Presbyterians that ARBCA is similar to the OPC as the Founders SBC is to the PCA. So you have piqued my curiosity in wanting to know what "problems" you're referencing about the OPC.
Click to expand...


For one the OPC is in the process of re-working our DoW in response to a number of churches who are starting to do their own thing claiming that the DoW is not all that clear. The new revised DoW is suppose to make it crystal clear. The OPC also has issues with FV/NPP, theonomy, Sheperdism, etc, etc, though not on the scale of the PCA (mostlikely because the OPC is smaller).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

How much is "theonomy" a "problem" in the OPC?


----------



## MOSES

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> How much is "theonomy" a "problem" in the OPC?



In my state with 5 OPC's 4 of them have pastors who are theonomic leaning. 1 pastor is very anti-theonomic, which happens to be my pastor (even though I'm a big time theonomist).


----------



## wsw201

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> How much is "theonomy" a "problem" in the OPC?



One of our members use to live in SoCal and said that if you weren't a Theonomist then you were on the outside looking in.


----------



## Josiah

wsw201 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much is "theonomy" a "problem" in the OPC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our members use to live in SoCal and said that if you weren't a Theonomist then you were on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...


That is bizzare. In the 2 or 3 years since I became a member of my OPC I have *never* met another OP/theonomist with the exception of on the PB. Most people (I know of) out here are either not comfortable with it, or opposed to it. 

What about the FV/NPP? I have not heard of any TE's holding office and preaching it from the pulpit. Are there ministers in our church who are teaching these things?


----------



## bookslover

wsw201 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much is "theonomy" a "problem" in the OPC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our members use to live in SoCal and said that if you weren't a Theonomist then you were on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...


That sounds like something a theonomist would have said back in the 1980s or early 1990s when theonomy was the "next big thing." I think most people in the OPC have made up their minds about theonomy by now. There are some theonomic churches in the OPC, but they were theonomic during the height of the movement and have remained so. Unlike what some people were probably predicting at the time, theonomy has not, and will not, take over the OPC (or the PCA, for that matter). They have their enclave, if you will, but that's about it.

Nowadays, we're in the midst of pondering (sigh...) the next "next big thing" - the FV/NPP crowd.

Ten or fifteen years from now, I'll be wondering what the next next "next big thing" is...


----------



## Zenas

Is theonomy even really an "issue"? 

On the whole I am concerned for the PCA. As I understand it, Covenant Seminary is producing more and more long-day creationists that fall outside of the Confession and are taking more and more exceptions to it, and it's permissible. As an outsider looking in, there seems to be some sort of status quo of complacency and there just seems to be something altogether fishy about it. I can't put my finger on what exactly what it is, perhaps because it's many things, but it seems like the PCA is becomming more and more infected with a contemporary evangelical taint that I would think was altogether foreign within a confessional, Reformed denomination. 

I'm in one of the small Presbyterian denominations. We'll probably be ok as long as we don't bleed members faster than we take them on, and our existence is only so long as God has provided. The PCA need not worry about bleeding members, however, but with every member they take on, it seems as if they are sacrificing a part of their identity. With the PCA being the largest conservative Presbyterian denomination in America, that worries me terribly. 



As for talk of the ARP merging with anybody, fat chance. You come argue with the ladies in my church about giving up the denomination that their great-great-great-great uncle's cousin's father was pastor in.


----------



## fredtgreco

Zenas said:


> Is theonomy even really an "issue"?
> 
> On the whole I am concerned for the PCA. As I understand it, Covenant Seminary is producing more and more long-day creationists that fall outside of the Confession and are taking more and more exceptions to it, and it's permissible. As an outsider looking in, there seems to be some sort of status quo of complacency and there just seems to be something altogether fishy about it. I can't put my finger on what exactly what it is, perhaps because it's many things, but it seems like the PCA is becomming more and more infected with a contemporary evangelical taint that I would think was altogether foreign within a confessional, Reformed denomination.
> 
> I'm in one of the small Presbyterian denominations. We'll probably be ok as long as we don't bleed members faster than we take them on, and our existence is only so long as God has provided. The PCA need not worry about bleeding members, however, but with every member they take on, it seems as if they are sacrificing a part of their identity. With the PCA being the largest conservative Presbyterian denomination in America, that worries me terribly.
> 
> 
> 
> As for talk of the ARP merging with anybody, fat chance. You come argue with the ladies in my church about giving up the denomination that their great-great-great-great uncle's cousin's father was pastor in.



Every denomination has this problem. _Every_ one. If you think the ARP is exempt from this kind of mentality, your sampling for observation is too small.


----------



## AVT

I'm certainly not an expert on the nuances of the ARP, OPC or even my own PCA.

However, it seems to me the PCA and OPC are very close, slight differences of emphasis, but very close theologically. Being 11x larger and one generation younger, there are bound to be some differences.

I also feel close to the ARP and except for the local option of determining "person" to allow ordaining women as deacons, think it is a sound denomination.

Hopefully, I'm not naive, but I just do not see signs of theological drift in the PCA as a whole. We have managed a whole lot of growth by absorption, evangelism and covenant family fruitfulness. The Federal Vision challenge was big and while there was a lot of harm done by it, we seem to have met it deliberately (albeit slowly) and head on. A 95% vote on a study committee with clear guidelines is remarkable. Think of it, how often do you have 95% agreement and clear guidelines that are neither more nor less restrictive than they need to be.

I am confident we will meet the challenge of women's ordination in the same way, deliberative (albeit more slowly than many would prefer) and head on. Already, there are encouraging signs on this.

While Christianity is never "secure" due to our sin and falleness, I'm really thankful for all the PCA is doing well- and there is much of it. I would be happy to join and receive the OPC- they have a lot to offer us and we have almost as much to offer them. However, I would want them to be fully comfortable with our doctrinal subscription system and other issues and maybe even they can help "keep us straight" in that. I think the system of stating exceptions line by line to the exception, putting them on the record, recording them by presbyteries and then a high level review at the General Assembly has a lot of checks and balances and is actually making both candidates and presbyteries be *more* careful about taking exceptions. This procedure is still relatively new and we are working the bugs out but it is increasing accountability.

Yes, liberalism can and will rear its predictable ugly head as man drifts from focus on God to focus on self and we always need to be on guard. However, there are still an awful lot of good people involved in our Seminary who really care about preserving God's truth. I count Bryan Chappel and Sean Michael Lucas as some of them and am thankful they are there.

Maybe I am too optimistic, but hopefully realistic, that while the PCA is not perfect, it is getting a lot right!


----------



## Zenas

fredtgreco said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is theonomy even really an "issue"?
> 
> On the whole I am concerned for the PCA. As I understand it, Covenant Seminary is producing more and more long-day creationists that fall outside of the Confession and are taking more and more exceptions to it, and it's permissible. As an outsider looking in, there seems to be some sort of status quo of complacency and there just seems to be something altogether fishy about it. I can't put my finger on what exactly what it is, perhaps because it's many things, but it seems like the PCA is becomming more and more infected with a contemporary evangelical taint that I would think was altogether foreign within a confessional, Reformed denomination.
> 
> I'm in one of the small Presbyterian denominations. We'll probably be ok as long as we don't bleed members faster than we take them on, and our existence is only so long as God has provided. The PCA need not worry about bleeding members, however, but with every member they take on, it seems as if they are sacrificing a part of their identity. With the PCA being the largest conservative Presbyterian denomination in America, that worries me terribly.
> 
> 
> 
> As for talk of the ARP merging with anybody, fat chance. You come argue with the ladies in my church about giving up the denomination that their great-great-great-great uncle's cousin's father was pastor in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every denomination has this problem. _Every_ one. If you think the ARP is exempt from this kind of mentality, your sampling for observation is too small.
Click to expand...


I think every denomination has problems, but not necessarily the same problems.

The ARP seems just as complacent but no one is taking advantage of the complacency as they seem to be in the PCA. This could be an illusion, as changes or disturbances in the PCA will undoubtedly carry more note than the equivalent in the ARP, but I would think I would catch anything crazy comming down the line from my Pastor.


----------



## Zenas

ATV, that sounds encouraging and I hope the PCA stands firm in the face of female ordination. As I said, I am concerned for the PCA and want to see the PCA prosper. I could easily see myself as a member in a PCA church in the near future when I have to move futher in town away from my current church. (Not that I live all that close now.) They are undoubedtly the largest, most visible conservative Presbyterian denomination, and I'd love to see them remain solid. We need no more PCUSA's.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I think by far the biggest problem in the PCA (as well as in some ARP churches) is the swift movement away from Reformed, RPW-worship, to non-denominational happy-clappy praise song/solo's worship.


----------



## Zenas

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I think by far the biggest problem in the PCA (as well as in some ARP churches) is the swift movement away from Reformed, RPW-worship, to non-denominational happy-clappy praise song/solo's worship.





My pastor, former PCA guy, has been slowly steering our congregation as far away from the latter as he can since he got here. I'm not sure how it was before he came (they were without a pastor for 7 years or some obscene amount of time), as I wasn't converted or attending yet, but some of the traditions and practices that still carry over make my skin crawl.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What kind of stuff exactly?


----------



## SRoper

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I think by far the biggest problem in the PCA (as well as in some ARP churches) is the swift movement away from Reformed, RPW-worship, to non-denominational happy-clappy praise song/solo's worship.



Was the PCA ever strong on "Reformed, RPW-worship"? I have limited experience, but it seems to me that those churches that have "traditional" worship seem to be more Anglican than Reformed in their worship. You can have contemporary tunes and be in line with the RPW or you can have traditional tunes and be miles from it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Very true SRoper. The content of the uninspired hymns and songs should be sacrosanct.


----------



## rjlynam

Leave them separate. The "steel sharpens steel" theory would apply here. Nothing like a little competitiveness among siblings, eh?

What would be more interesting to me than an OPC and PCA merger would be to see all the Baptists coordinate a massive "Joining and Receiving".


----------



## HaigLaw

Hippo said:


> In practise though we do have differences and denominations are one way of preventing in fighting and enables us to proclaim the gospel rather than to argue internally all the time.



Yes, and it would take years, perhaps decades, to work out all those differences, and those in the OPC with strongly-held beliefs would not agree ahead of time to be outvoted by the PCA's greater numbers. So it's not gonna happen, regardless of 56% of the PB's current voters thinking it should.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

wsw201 said:


> For one the OPC is in the process of re-working our DoW in response to a number of churches who are starting to do their own thing claiming that the DoW is not all that clear. The new revised DoW is suppose to make it crystal clear. The OPC also has issues with FV/NPP, theonomy, Sheperdism, etc, etc, though not on the scale of the PCA (mostlikely because the OPC is smaller).



Sorry for my ignorance, but what do your abbreviations mean?

1. DoW (Department of War?) 
2. FV/NPP (I'm guessing you mean "Federal Vision" and "New Perspective on Paul.")


----------



## Casey

servantofmosthigh said:


> Sorry for my ignorance, but what do your abbreviations mean?
> 
> 1. DoW (Department of War?)


Directory of Worship, aka, Directory for the Public Worship of God.


> 2. FV/NPP (I'm guessing you mean "Federal Vision" and "New Perspective on Paul.")


You got it.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Wow, I didn't know OPC had issues with theonomy or NPP. As for FV, that's not the same as NPP, is it? I always associated FV with Doug Wilson, and NPP with N.T. Wright.

As for theonomy, then are Chalcedon Foundation and its founder R.J. Rushdoony still considered OPC? I thought they were kicked out of the OPC because of their revisionism and theonomy. But if the OPC embrace theonomy, then they're still OPC?

As for DoW, I never heard of that term before. I'm going to have to research more about that.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Just to add...

There's been talk in some circles for years of a split between the Reformed/Pipa/Smith/Greenville/Knox school and the Evangelical/Chappell/Keller/Covenant school in the works. I still don't see it, but if it does happen perhaps the Modern-Evangelical PCA could join a much enlarged EPC, and the Reformed PCA be part of a three-way merger with the OPC and ARP, especially if the ARP would do what the RPCES did with their women deacons and let them rotate out, as well as dropping the extra chapters from the Westminster Confession.

Incidentally, the church I am a member of now came out of an ARP church that petitioned the General Synod a few years ago to rescind deaconesses. It failed, but maybe there's hope.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

In my short time in the ARP I do not know that many churches that have deaconesses. It seems to be a rare thing.


----------



## Scott1

jtate732 said:


> Just to add...
> 
> There's been talk in some circles for years of a split between the Reformed/Pipa/Smith/Greenville/Knox school and the Evangelical/Chappell/Keller/Covenant school in the works. I still don't see it, but if it does happen perhaps the Modern-Evangelical PCA could join a much enlarged EPC, and the Reformed PCA be part of a three-way merger with the OPC and ARP, especially if the ARP would do what the RPCES did with their women deacons and let them rotate out, as well as dropping the extra chapters from the Westminster Confession.
> 
> Incidentally, the church I am a member of now came out of an ARP church that petitioned the General Synod a few years ago to rescind deaconesses. It failed, but maybe there's hope.



I'm certainly not an expert on this but I recall a paper by Mr Kellar that defined the "original contract" in the PCA as to faith and practice, much of which is either inferred from what was written down or was unwritten. His paper included things that would indentify the denomination like:

ordaining women in ruling authority-no
Reformed doctrines of Grace (Calvinism)-yes
open charismatic corporate worship-no

I don't see any blocks advocating such now, even among those you mention. There may be other issues such as come from a general falling away from biblical truth but not along the lines you mention. As I understand it, the EPC would fall opposite on all the issues above.


----------



## bookslover

At our OPC General Assembly this year, one of the fraternal delegates was Clair Davis from the PCA. Fraternal delegates are allowed 10 minutes to speak before the GA. Davis rambled on for about 40 minutes, and no one got up to challenge him, mainly because (reports the TE I know who was there and told me this), there were so many of his former students among the commissioners.

Anyway, Davis was waxing nostalgic over the old "joining and receiving" actions of 30 years ago or so. He said that there should have been more understanding on both sides regarding what was happening, and he (apparently) wished that it had gone through so that the two denominations could have been joined (read: PCA swallows OPC).

The upshot of the whole thing (according to my TE buddy) was that, between Davis ignoring his 10 minute limit, and him waxing nostalgic over the "joining and receiving" movement, with its implied rebuke to the OPC over its failure, some of the OPC commissioners were upset. The general feeling was, "Well, that speech just set PCA and OPC relations back 10 years!"

Must have been interesting...


----------



## Zenas

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> In my short time in the ARP I do not know that many churches that have deaconesses. It seems to be a rare thing.



We "technically" allow for them but now that we have more men in the church, we no longer have any on the board.


----------



## MMasztal

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What has been done concerning the creation debate? I don't consider that a small issue as some do. This is not just a hermeneutical argument in my estimation. It is a confessional issue as well as an issue of Biblical inspiration. At least that is how I see it. I know I am not PCA now but that would be my question concerning the union. The PCA historically has held to a 6/24 creation day. The OPC doesn't if I am not mistaken.



I was in the OPC since 1987 before moving to FL and joining the ARP. A few years ago, the OPC decided to allow for some difference of opinion as to each one's belief regarding creation. There are many 6/24 members as there are those who hold to an old earth theory.


----------



## MMasztal

larryjf said:


> Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America



I'd say yes, if the new denomination were to adopt OPC practices. In my experience in the south, the PCA is a real mixed bag, unlike the OPC and I think many compromises would need to be made.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Zenas said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my short time in the ARP I do not know that many churches that have deaconesses. It seems to be a rare thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We "technically" allow for them but now that we have more men in the church, we no longer have any on the board.
Click to expand...


We have one deaconess but she functions more as a Parish nurse.


----------



## CharlieJ

Has anyone read John Frame's _Evangelical Reunion_? It has a chapter or appendix on the PCA/OPC venture.

You can find it here: Frame Books


----------



## SolaGratia

CharlieJ said:


> Has anyone read John Frame's _Evangelical Reunion_? It has a chapter or appendix on the PCA/OPC venture.
> 
> You can find it here: Frame Books



Wait a minute! Did not JF left the OPC for the PCA?


----------



## Josiah

SolaGratia said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone read John Frame's _Evangelical Reunion_? It has a chapter or appendix on the PCA/OPC venture.
> 
> You can find it here: Frame Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute! Did not JF left the OPC for the PCA?
Click to expand...


John Frame, from the dedication of the book cited above _Evangelical Reunion_:





> And during the last of my twenty-two years, 1988-89, I spent much time pondering, together with my local congregation, whether they and I should stay in the OPC or to seek transfer into a somewhat larger denomination (200,000 members, 1000 churches), the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). We did make that transfer; I and the church are now PCA. But we did not make it without a lot of Scripture searching, heart searching, emotional agony, and intellectual labor[3].



A similar exodus is re-counted in: Fighting The Good Fight 



> Another important distinctive of New Life was its pragmatic understanding of Presbyterian polity. In 1987 New Life of Jenkintown and its daughter churches (in northeast Philadelphia and suburban Fort Washington) formed a "New Life Network" in order to create "vital fellowship beyond our local church boundaries." The network was to feature joint worship services, pulpit exchanges, staff coordination, and mutual prayer and financial support. Curiously, all of these were normally the functions of a presbytery. Many in the Presbytery of Philadelphia, already disappointed at New Life's lukewarm support for presbytery efforts, saw the "New Life Network" as divisive—in effect, a "presbytery within a presbytery."
> 
> Not long after the formation of the New Life Network, the member churches withdrew from the OPC and "voluntarily realigned" with the Presbyterian Church in America, believing that the PCA's more aggressive church planting programs were more conducive to the "outgoing" philosophy of New Life. In a letter to the congregation, the session of New Life of Northeast Philadelphia posed the question, "where does our church ‘fit, most strategically, in light of our ministry, our location, and the times in which we live?" The session's answer was that "our affiliation with the PCA is clearly the better option for us." Such options were possible because of New Life's independent mindset that falsely contrasted Presbyterian polity with higher commitments, as evidenced in their claim, "Our loyalty is not ultimately to any denomination, however good it is: neither the OPC nor the PCA. Our loyalty is to Christ and his kingdom."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

That last quote is not of a Presbyterian but of a Congregationalist.


----------



## Josiah

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> That last quote is not of a Presbyterian but of a Congregationalist.





Daryl Hart is a congregationalist? Forgive my ignorance, but I have never heard of such about D.G. Hart, could you explain.


----------



## yeutter

*pluriformity of the Kirk*

I am no longer a Presbyterian and therefore did not vote.
Maybe my remarks are slightly off the topic, but, I think get to the heart of the issue.
I have never been satisfied by any arguement I have heard for the pluriformity of the Church. Our fellowships should be so broad that Church discipline can not be escaped joining a congregation of some other reformed communion. How we do this without compromising the purity of teaching?


----------



## kceaster

I believe it all comes down to worship. Unless the two denominations see eye to eye on that, there's little chance in coming together.

It'll be interesting to see how the Psalter/Hymnal project goes. I have been told there are some in the PCA who would be miffed if the OPC makes one for themselves and leaves the PCA out of it. But a joint venture like the red Trinity seems out of the question. That hymnal is the way it is because of the PCA's influence. Many from the OPC and PCA wanted all 150 Psalms, but that got shot down. That right there is very telling. It casts a long shadow on the Regulative Principal, and the DPW. We could probably get over the differing views on the offices, but the DPW, I really don't see the OPC bending on that one. Unless of course, there is a split in the OPC over it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## CharlieJ

I guess a related question to the OP, and one that is somewhat necessary in considering this issue is, 

"Does the doctrine of the catholicity of the Church obligate or strongly impel us to seek organizational unity wherever the purity of the gospel and marks of a true Church would not be endangered?"

If the answer is yes, then the OPC and the PCA should consider it their duty to come to some agreement and make things work. To borrow an analogy from John Frame, they are already married and have unscripturally separated. 

If the answer is no, then any "merging" would be essentially optional. It would be a very careful endeavor, only conducted after much deliberation and an extremely high level of agreement.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

jtate732 said:


> Just to add...
> 
> There's been talk in some circles for years of a split between the Reformed/Pipa/Smith/Greenville/Knox school and the Evangelical/Chappell/Keller/Covenant school in the works. I still don't see it, but if it does happen perhaps the Modern-Evangelical PCA could join a much enlarged EPC, and the Reformed PCA be part of a three-way merger with the OPC and ARP, especially if the ARP would do what the RPCES did with their women deacons and let them rotate out, as well as dropping the extra chapters from the Westminster Confession.
> 
> Incidentally, the church I am a member of now came out of an ARP church that petitioned the General Synod a few years ago to rescind deaconesses. It failed, but maybe there's hope.



I would love to know where this talk is coming from. The PCA certainly is more evangelical-reformed than confessional. GPTS and Pipa clearly are more confessional. In my estimation GPTS is trying to "recover the confessions" in the PCA. Even in this climate I do not see a major split in the PCA happening in the near future. Perhaps you might mean Keller's, New Life, and other's preference for networking instead of denominational loyalty. (Something the Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel encourages.)


----------



## DeoOpt

Stephen said:


> No! The OPC has turned down several opportunities from the PCA to join. It will never happen, and personally I would not welcome that merger.



I beg your pardon Sir Stephen, and to think I was begining to like you. <<In all jest.

I know why dont the OPC & PCA merge and during service The OPC sits on one side and the PCA sits on the other and when the service is over we hash out our differances.


----------



## pilgrim3970

Not being a presbyterian, I don't have a vested interest in this.

However, I do wonder if it might not be beneficial to the various presbyterian and reformed bodies to maybe go the route of an association or federation. Each maintains autonomy but there is still some mutual accountablility and cooperation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Is that not what NAPARC is for?


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

I am curious at what NAPARC does.


----------



## pilgrim3970

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is that not what NAPARC is for?




ah... was not familiar with NAPARC.


----------



## Ricardus

All this talk of union sounds like too much inbreeding. We should be more worried about getting our theology and polity right and while doing that some real mission work. Here in the DFW (Texas) area we have a very large influx of Hindus (Indians from India), Buddhists (Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and etc.) and Muslims (India, Middle East, and etc.) It is no longer a question of will we send missionaries to convert the heathen over there but will we bother to evangelize locally. I have begun the study of Arabic and Sunni Islam so that I can have fruitful discussions with the local imam on Ibn Taymiyya and other topics. He was very surprised! It's like a Muslim visiting this site to do research on Calvin and Bullinger. After studying these issues it reminded me of the silly statements made by Richard Pratt on how similar "Decretal theology" was to the Islamic brand of "fatalism". RTS Orlando has a distinctly different taste from that of RTS Jackson as Westminster East from that of Westminster in California. We can't even get our professors to agree; how do we expect whole denominations to do so? Unity for the sake of unity will never work.


----------



## Scott1

pilgrim3970 said:


> Not being a presbyterian, I don't have a vested interest in this.
> 
> However, I do wonder if it might not be beneficial to the various presbyterian and reformed bodies to maybe go the route of an association or federation. Each maintains autonomy but there is still some mutual accountablility and cooperation.



I think this is the purpose of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC). Both the PCA and OPC are members.


----------



## beej6

Dr. Godfrey (Westminster-California) floated the idea of having all the NAPARC churches unite as a federation.

I personally thought that the OPC and URCNA had the best chance of uniting, being more similar in size and, historically, more militant in their Reformed identity (having come out of the nearly apostate PCUSA and CRC denominations).


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

beej6 said:


> I personally thought that the OPC and URCNA had the best chance of uniting, being more similar in size and, historically, more militant in their Reformed identity (having come out of the nearly apostate PCUSA and CRC denominations).



I wouldn't mind a union of the OPC/URC. They are similar in many ways and it would be nice to see a British and Continental Reformed joint body. Have a Westminster and 3FU denomination ever united? Would they adopt both systems? Perhaps compromise and adopt the Westminster Confession and Heidelberg Catechism? (The Quebecker Reformed Church does this.)


----------



## DMcFadden

beej6 said:


> I personally thought that the OPC and URCNA had the best chance of uniting, being more similar in size and, historically, more militant in their Reformed identity (having come out of the nearly apostate PCUSA and CRC denominations).



That is a fascinating observation. Those who left liberal denominations have a certain commonality of experience that others cannot understand. But, didn't many in the PCA also leave a more liberal denomination???


----------

