# What is the difference between the PCA and OPC?



## Brother John (Oct 2, 2008)

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 (Oct 2, 2008)

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 (Oct 2, 2008)

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


----------



## Webservant (Oct 2, 2008)

Blev3rd said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2008)

Blev3rd said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2008)

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 (Oct 2, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2008)

Webservant said:


> Blev3rd said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Grymir (Oct 3, 2008)

Webservant said:


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



 You beat me to it!


----------



## georgecmw (Oct 3, 2008)

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 (Oct 3, 2008)

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


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2008)

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 (Oct 3, 2008)

> 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 (Oct 3, 2008)

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 (Oct 3, 2008)

> 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 (Oct 3, 2008)

TimV said:


> 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 (Oct 3, 2008)

brianeschen said:


> 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 (Oct 3, 2008)

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 (Oct 3, 2008)

> 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 (Oct 3, 2008)

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 (Oct 3, 2008)

TimV said:


> > 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 (Oct 3, 2008)

> 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 (Oct 3, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2008)

*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 (Oct 14, 2008)

> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

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 (Oct 14, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


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



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 (Oct 14, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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 (Oct 14, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 14, 2008)

Blev3rd said:


> 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.



OPC is like a record of Chopin's greatest hits.

PCA is like an MP3 of Casting Crowns.

This says nothing of the merits of either format or content 

Cheers,


----------



## jfschultz (Oct 14, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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.



The PCA did have a name change. It was organized in 1973 as the National Presbyterian Church. After receiving a communication from the National Presbyterian Church's session in Washington D.C., the name was changed at the 1974 GA.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 14, 2008)

jfschultz said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



That's why this is the best Reformed board on the Net. I didn't know that! Thanks for the info. OK, let me re-state that they got to keep the name PCA after they were told to give up the NPC name. By 1973, the PCUSA probably didn't care any more that a conservative denomination might be confused with them.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 15, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > 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 know of an OPC that serves grape juice too (meaning only grape juice.) It's the one I'm a member of! I'm sure that many of OPC churches do, but I can't say from personal experience. I would be surprised if the majority of churches in the PCA didn't serve it as well. However, I think it's becoming more common now to offer both. That's what the PCA that I was attending does. I don't know what the other ones around here do. 

Fundamentalism is something difficult to pin down, and can have different meanings depending on who is using the term. I'm also willing to be identified as one depending on who's doing the asking, although there are certainly aspects of Fundamentalism (capital F intended) that I would strongly disagree with. For many liberals and secularists, any Bible believing Christian is equated with being a fundamentalist. This can be seen with the "Conservative Resurgence" in the SBC, which liberals and moderates typically refer to as a "fundamentalist takeover," an idea that Fundamentalists scoff at since the SBC conservatives are much closer to the New Evangelicals that they have been denouncing for decades for their compromise. Most self identified Fundamentalists (i.e. those who identify with the fundamentalist movement) today will say you have to practice second degree separation and separate not only from those who are unorthodox, etc. but also have to separate from those who don't separate from the unorthodox, which includes John MacArthur, Al Mohler, etc. And then you get into all of the lifestyle issues that some like The World's Most Unusual University (BJU) harp on. That's certainly a much narrower usage of the term than what you had in the early 20th century with the fundamentalist-modernist controversy when everyone from William Jennings Bryan to Carl McIntire to J. Gresham Machen was considered a fundamentalist because they upheld what were considered to be cardinal doctrines of the faith and opposed the encroachment of higher criticism in the seminaries and churches. I remember an earlier thread where Dr. Clark said those in the PCUSA Confessing Movement weren't confessional but were basically fundamentalists. I'm sure what he meant was that they were fundamentalists in the early 20th century usage of the term, that they hold to a few fundamentals like the authority of the Bible, the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ but that they certainly aren't confessionalists in the way we would think of. And they're not fundamentalists in the way many think of today either since many won't even practice "first degree" separation from apostasy. 

One way that it could be said that the OPC is more fundamentalist than the PCA is that it is certainly more _separatist_ as a whole. This is largely and perhaps entirely because it is more self-consciously Reformed. It seems some in the PCA may see themselves as evangelicals first and Presbyterian second, and are more willing to work with non-Reformed ministries, whereas those in the OPC typically only cooperate with Reformed ministries, especially on the denominational level. For example, the OPC is active in NAPARC and an international Reformed ecumenical organization, but is not a member of the National Association of Evangelicals as the PCA is. This separatist stance is one thing that drew me to the OPC in the first place.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 15, 2008)

jfschultz said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



That is one thing I have never understood. 

Why was "National Presbyterian Church" even chosen to begin with?


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 15, 2008)

Reading our history, I infer that, at that time, the PCA was formed from many (but not all) churches in the southern and border states. The idea would be the vision was to become a truly national church (like the PCUSA was becoming).


----------



## SemperEruditio (Oct 15, 2008)

TimV said:


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



So the OPC is pro-gun?


----------



## TimV (Oct 15, 2008)

> So the OPC is pro-gun?



The overwhelming majority of both OPC and PCA members hold to a right to keep firearms. Partly from the main culture from which they draw membership, partly from constitutionalist political views and I'm sure there are many other reasons. There are obviously exceptions, and those exceptions also come from different reasons. The OPC I go to now draws heavily on military personnel while the PCA I recently attended has as it's biggest demographic group college students, many of whom are from liberal backgrounds, but one of the Elders (currently on sabbatical from the Session) is addressing the issue by organising hunting trips.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Oct 15, 2008)

TimV said:


> > So the OPC is pro-gun?
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of both OPC and PCA members hold to a right to keep firearms. Partly from the main culture from which they draw membership, partly from constitutionalist political views and I'm sure there are many other reasons. There are obviously exceptions, and those exceptions also come from different reasons. The OPC I go to now draws heavily on military personnel while the PCA I recently attended has as it's biggest demographic group college students, many of whom are from liberal backgrounds, but one of the Elders (currently on sabbatical from the Session) is addressing the issue by organising hunting trips.


So then would a member of the PCA not drawn from the main culture really be a good example as to who you would not likely see in the OPC? After all you would not expect to see this "Northern Progressive" Pastor even in the PCA so why state that you would not expect to see him in the OPC? You would not expect to see him in either based on the fact he does represent the "main" culture.

As far as hunting versus hand gun ownership those are not the same issue. Owning a Glock to "protect" the family versus a rifle to hunt is not the same issue. Not sure whether or not you read the blog but he makes a point about the dichotomy of being pro-life and yet pro-gun. The same issue presents itself when a pro-choice person lobbies to eradicate the death penalty.


----------



## TimV (Oct 15, 2008)

> Not sure whether or not you read the blog but he makes a point about the dichotomy of being pro-life and yet pro-gun. The same issue presents itself when a pro-choice person lobbies to eradicate the death penalty.



I did read the blog, and the point about this so called dichotomy is the main reason I posted it here. Most PCA and OPC Elders are familiar enough with Reformed theology that anyone who sees a dichotomy between being anti abortion and killing an intruder is written off as unlearned.

The current Roman Catholic philosophy that one is inconsistant being both anti abortion and pro death penalty is a twisting of Scripture that very, very few knowledgeable Reformed folk agree with. My personal experience is that positions that are far out in left field are less common in the OPC than the PCA.

When you read



> The handguns manufactured and sold in this country today are designed and built for one purpose and one purpose only; namely the destruction of human life. Thus in my view they have no place and can serve no constructive purpose in a society that strives to value life.



and read this from Exodus 22



> 2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.



you've got your choice whether to believe this Northern Progressive or the simple common sense of Holy Writ.


----------

