# EPC/PCA (Don't know what thread to ask this in)



## Christopher88 (Jan 2, 2010)

I am really prayerfully considering joining an EPC Church. I know they hold to Westminster which I also hold to. My question is what is the difference in EPC and PCA? 

Is there anything I should know from a non bias standard of the EPC that would make joining a bad choice? 

I know this is in the wrong forum section but I don't know where to post this.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 2, 2010)

Honestly it depends on the church. Some EPC churches are real conservative and others are more liberal. I am sure the discussion about avoiding the EPC because they allow the local church to make the choice on female ordination. I would point out that in the south the EPC has limited female ordination. It is not common and frowned upon. I would also point out that no matter what Dr. Keller wants to call it, he is ordaining women as well. Thus I would say the EPC and PCA are basically the same on probably 90% of issues. If it makes a difference, Dr. Pratt sees the two denominations as synonyms. 

My personal opinion would be that if the church you are thinking about attending is conservative and the pastor is doing a good job on expounding the Scriptures, then by all means join.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Jan 2, 2010)

Somebody will have a more complete answer than I, but you will find more variety in the EPC, especially in regard to latitude with female leadership and recognition of spiritual gifts. The ARP partners with the EPC to a point when training church planters, so that's my only experience with the issue.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jan 2, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I would also point out that no matter what Dr. Keller wants to call it, he is ordaining women as well. Thus I would say the EPC and PCA are basically the same on probably 90% of issues. If it makes a difference, Dr. Pratt sees the two denominations as synonyms.


Tim Keller and Redeemer are not representative of the entire PCA nor even a fraction thereof.




Chaplainintraining said:


> My personal opinion would be that if the church you are thinking about attending is conservative and the pastor is doing a good job on expounding the Scriptures, then by all means join.


Until it's no longer conservative and ordains a female pastor...then leave?


----------



## Christopher88 (Jan 2, 2010)

The Church I am attending has a very biblical pastor, he is a biblical teacher. The Church has a strong college/young adult group which is great for me being a college student. 
My belifes are very orthodox. I'm Westminster. reformed . My life style, I vote to the right, I shoot my guns strait, I pray hard. I would call my self a conservative. Now I do not believe that women should be teaching men. 
There is another Church just down the street that is PCA, so if EPC is part of something non biblical then please point me to a Church that is. 

Now from my understanding I thought all Presbyteries were in the same beilifes?


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 2, 2010)

The EPC allows local congregations to make the decision about whether to allow female elders. The PCA absolutely prohibits female elders. It also prohibits female deacons, but that is another discussion entirely!


----------



## Christopher88 (Jan 2, 2010)

So other then female roles, what is the difference?


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 2, 2010)

Sonny said:


> So other then female roles, what is the difference?


 
Well, I'd say having female elders is a pretty significant difference; however, in general, the EPC is considered between the PCA and PCUSA. Which one it is closer to is going to depend on the individual congregation. Probably in most EPC churches, things like the RPW and the confessional sabbatarian position, etc. are going to be valued less than they are even in the PCA, if that matters to you. It will vary, though. Ask your pastor what he believes about subjects of concern to you. If you think your individual EPC congregation is Biblical, then you shouldn't feel the need to leave just because there are other less Biblical EPC churches.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 2, 2010)

PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC

From left to right. From apostasy to orthodoxy. Why dance around the edges when you could commune much more solidly within the pale?


> the EPC has limited female ordination.


Is that like, limited rejection of the Word of God? Bu-yah!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 2, 2010)

Brad said:


> PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC
> 
> From left to right. From apostasy to orthodoxy. Why dance around the edges when you could commune much more solidly within the pale?
> [


 
Good diagram. But as to that last question, if he is already established at an EPC congregation, and it happens to be a good one that is against female elders and doesn't reject the word of God, should he leave the church? It is no small thing to leave a church, if it is a Biblical church...Right?


----------



## Wayne (Jan 2, 2010)

The EPC had been trending in a direction to where female ruling elders were increasingly rare, and I don't believe there were any women teaching elders, at least as recently as a few years ago.

However, now with the establishment of the trans-geographical holding presbytery for the reception of churches leaving the PC(USA), the overall chemistry of the EPC may well change if, at the end of the five year holding term, those PC(USA) churches do come into the EPC. 

One would assume that most of the departing PC(USA) pastors will take an activist posture in favor of women in leadership.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 2, 2010)

SemperEruditio said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > I would also point out that no matter what Dr. Keller wants to call it, he is ordaining women as well. Thus I would say the EPC and PCA are basically the same on probably 90% of issues. If it makes a difference, Dr. Pratt sees the two denominations as synonyms.
> ...



I know Dr. Keller is a only a fraction and does not represent the entire denomination. That was my point. Some EPC churches have female elders, but they do not represent the entire denomination. If you are going to avoid the EPC like the plague over female ordination, then I believe the same should be done with the PCA.

I did not define conservative. I left the OP to assess the situation and make the call.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 2, 2010)

Brad said:


> PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC
> 
> From left to right. From apostasy to orthodoxy. Why dance around the edges when you could commune much more solidly within the pale?
> 
> ...


 
You are making a denomination wide stereotype. You assume that the PCA church down the street would be more conservative, but it could easily be the other way around. There is no need to avoid the EPC without looking at the individual church.


----------



## Christopher88 (Jan 2, 2010)

Just to make a statement, I am not a member of this Church. I attend but have made no real name for my self as of yet. Now I have been reading up on the EPC site, and one thing that does draw a question is that issues such as female leadership is up to the Church. I don't want to have to one day leave the Church because it went to the left. So should I be looking in to the PCA?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Lass (Jan 2, 2010)

Sonny said:


> So other then female roles, what is the difference?


 
As I mentioned above, there is latitude in recognizing spiritual gifts. The ARP isn't on the diagram above, but since we don't recognize most gifts today, we had difficulty working in teams during training.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 2, 2010)

Sonny said:


> Just to make a statement, I am not a member of this Church. I attend but have made no real name for my self as of yet. Now I have been reading up on the EPC site, and one thing that does draw a question is that issues such as female leadership is up to the Church. I don't want to have to one day leave the Church because it went to the left. So should I be looking in to the PCA?


 
In that case, I would visit your local PCA church and see which you find more in accordance with the Word of God. It is probable that the PCA church will be, but not guaranteed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 2, 2010)

I have learned from some posts here there are and have been some biblical, reformed Pastors and church members within the denomination.

But generally, the EPC is not reformed. 

It reduces virtually the whole of the Westminster Standards to "nonessentials" and does not require officers to hold to it, Pastors to teach toward it, or members to learn it. 

Again, there are individual exceptions, but this cannot be considered a confessional, reformed denomination.

It is more of a culturally conservative, broadly evangelical and independent denomination. This is intentional and deliberate on their part.

For example, from their web site:
http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-epc/#q1


> 1. What is unique about the EPC?
> 
> We are unique among American Presbyterians with our self-conscious attempt to balance essential and non-essential matters within a confessional heritage. We are unified in our commitment to the essentials of the historic Christian faith taught in the Bible, but allow liberty of conscience on those matters which are not so plain in or central to the Bible's teaching.



(So, this shallow kind of reasoning leads one to believe and accept "three point" Calvinism, for example or no real Calvinism at all).

They want to be "in the middle" and describe that on their web site. They do not want reformed, biblical theology with Presbyterian government only a "heritage."

The denomination is avoiding dealing with some serious doctrine under its policy of "nonessentials" which cannot remain unresolved for the peace and purity of the church. 

But it is the lack of (confessional) regard for reformed theology that is key to answering your question.

This is what the denomination has chartered itself on, and it is shifting sand.

While not perfect, the PCA is on the other side of the fence- it is officially confessional and governed by the Westminster Standards, and intentionally so, seeing itself as a "continuing church" in the presbyterian and reformed part of the church.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Scottish Lass (Jan 2, 2010)

Don't know how much stock you may put in NAPARC, but the EPC is not a member...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 2, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> Don't know how much stock you may put in NAPARC, but the EPC is not a member...


 The EPC can't be a member, because it allows women elders.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Jan 2, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know how much stock you may put in NAPARC, but the EPC is not a member...
> ...


 
I know, but wasn't sure if everyone else did...


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 2, 2010)

Brad said:


> PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC
> 
> From left to right. From apostasy to orthodoxy. Why dance around the edges when you could commune much more solidly within the pale?
> 
> ...


 
Brad, I like your graphic representation of the relative positions of the various groups. However, I would suggest a modest tweak: either show them as various overlapping lines or as a Logos/libronix "verb river."
Even the PCUSA has some congregations to the "right" of some of the PCA churches. On average, however, you are probably correct that "as a whole" the OPC is where it is relative to the other groups. However, since each congregation is different, it would be useful to see the relative percentage of each denom in each part of the continuum.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 2, 2010)

Brad said:


> PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC
> 
> From left to right. *From apostasy to orthodoxy*. Why dance around the edges when you could commune much more solidly within the pale?
> 
> ...


 
Well, as far as I can tell, neither is the EPC entertaining FV theology and it's confusion on the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, the definition of election, justification, the relationship between justification and sanctification, etc, etc... (cue crickets)

I would recommend that one examine the doctrinal position, both as it is written _and_ verbally articulated from the pulpit, of any congregation before one becomes a formal member, be that in regards to an OPC, PCA, EPC, Southern Baptist, or whatever. Doing this with prayerful examination and care should help minimize the potential for encountering significant amounts of grief in your ecclesiastical future.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 3, 2010)

Sonny said:


> The Church I am attending has a very biblical pastor, he is a biblical teacher. The Church has a strong college/young adult group which is great for me being a college student.
> My belifes are very orthodox. I'm Westminster. reformed . My life style, I vote to the right, I shoot my guns strait, I pray hard. I would call my self a conservative. Now I do not believe that women should be teaching men.
> There is another Church just down the street that is PCA, so if EPC is part of something non biblical then please point me to a Church that is.
> 
> Now from my understanding I thought all Presbyteries were in the same beilifes?



Chris:

It's good to "meet" you via the board. I was in Winston-Salem for 20 years so I know of the church you're attending. I suppose things may have changed recently, but I recall them having some female elders and being quite into the charismatic gifts scene once you got beyond the Sunday morning service. So I would not consider them one of the more conservative EPCs. You ought to ask some of the folks in the church's leadership about this, though.

The PCAs in Winston-Salem will be more "conservative," though not as much so as some on this board would like. Still, I would highly recommend any of the PCA churches there. Redeemer PCA would probably have the most college students.

Are you at Wake Forest? Have you hooked up with the RUF (Reformed University Fellowship) group? From everything I hear it's excellent.

PM me if you want to talk more particulars about Winston-Salem.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 3, 2010)

If one were to rank Presbyterian denominations from the most conservative to the least conservative, I would surmise they would rank thusly (first being most conservative):

1. OPC
2. PCA
3. ARP
4. EPC
5. PCUS

This isn't to imply that the EPC is just short of being insanely left. The preceding three are all very conservative, whereas the PCUS is exceedingly liberal. The EPC is far more moderate as far as I can tell. One of the men who did my wedding is an EPC minister. He's very good friends with my father in law and my wife adores him. If people are known by the company that they keep, I would guess he's a pretty solid pastor. Moreover, I also visited Second Presbyterian (EPC) here in Memphis for about 6 months after I was converted. The preaching I heard was fairly solid and confessional.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 3, 2010)

Brad said:


> PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC
> 
> From left to right. From apostasy to orthodoxy. Why dance around the edges when you could commune much more solidly within the pale?
> 
> ...


 
I guess my denomination is damned to Hell...


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 3, 2010)

Take this advisedly, first by recollection, I think on the Tateville web sight, I saw the Presbyterian and reformed denominations ranked like this:

(from "most" to "least")


RPCNA OPC URC PCA ARP..... EPC, CRC.... PCUSA

This of course is quite subjective as I recall the sight acknowledging and there are large differences between individual churches, etc.

Based on their summaries there, I demarcated those
on the left as biblical reformed,
next broadly evangelical,
next mainline apostate.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 3, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Take this advisedly, first by recollection, I think on the Tateville web sight, I saw the Presbyterian and reformed denominations ranked like this:
> 
> (from "most" to "least")
> 
> ...


 These sorts of things are not very useful. Even apart from the variations within denominations, "Reformed" in what sense? If with respect to worship, then the PCA is probably least reformed. If creation, then probably the OPC. If women officers, then the RPCNA.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 3, 2010)

Agreed. Our ARP church here in Pittsburgh is more "Reformed" than the neighboring OPC and especially PCA churches.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 4, 2010)

I'm more Reformed than you. *naa-na-na-na-naaa-naaaaaa*


----------



## Christopher88 (Jan 4, 2010)

I attended Redeemer which is PCA yesterday. Very Gospel centered. I enjoyed how the word of God was key and music was last. There was a prayer of confession, scripture reading way before the sermon, and many generations worshiped with one another. I will be going back next Sunday to find out more.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 4, 2010)

that you find God's will in what church to attend.


----------



## reformedminister (Jan 4, 2010)

Zenas said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC
> ...



WOW! I guess mine is damned too! It didn't even make the cut, even though it is just as conservative as the EPC. Although, the CP (Cumberland Presbyterian) Church only claims to be moderately calvinistic, there are some very conservative reformed ministers like myself. The gospel is preached in my church wholeheartedly. I even teach a men's study group, the Puritan Book Club, where we study the works of the Puritans. No comments please on the CP. It is sad that a church is so judged by the affiliation without any regard to other significant factors concerning the individual congregation. A local URCNA church just closed there doors in my city. I gave an open invitation to the leaders and some of it's members to come and visit and for the men to check out our Puritan Book Club. They all sadly declined because we are a CP church, with the full knowledge that I myself embrace Reformed Theology. They would rather meet in a small group and study the Bible than to fellowship with the likes of us. What is wrong with this picture?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 4, 2010)

Rev. Eppard,

Your concerns deserve a much more thorough discussion.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2010)

Sonny said:


> I attended Redeemer which is PCA yesterday. Very Gospel centered. I enjoyed how the word of God was key and music was last. There was a prayer of confession, scripture reading way before the sermon, and many generations worshiped with one another. I will be going back next Sunday to find out more.


 
I didn't want to steer you too much, but that's my old church. There's MUCH to like about it!


----------



## Christopher88 (Jan 4, 2010)

Jack, that is very comforting to know you went there. I am still a young student of the Lord, only 21. So wisdom and guidance from older brothers is very helpful. 
I can't get over how big the sanctuary was. I walked in, and my mouth dropped to the floor. Beautiful Church, I was not expecting beauty because of the outside cover. Beautiful worship, and beautiful place to worship. I am very glad I went there.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 4, 2010)

Chris, I'm a member of Redeemer in WS. I'll message you my contact info if you want to meet up.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jan 4, 2010)

I recently attended my first meeting of presbytery for the EPC and was pleased to witness a thorough examination of prospective TE's on both the Bible and the WCF. At my church, I teach an adult class each week on the doctrines of grace and the session is in full accord with my curriculum which is drawn straight from the Confession. We do not ordain female elders (or deacons) and while there is a stated openess to spiritual gifts, I have yet to witness anything untoward in our time there.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 4, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> I recently attended my first meeting of presbytery for the EPC and was pleased to witness a thorough examination of prospective TE's on both the Bible and the WCF. At my church, I teach an adult class each week on the doctrines of grace and the session is in full accord with my curriculum which is drawn straight from the Confession. We do not ordain female elders (or deacons) and while there is a stated openess to spiritual gifts, I have yet to witness anything untoward in our time there.




I'm glad to hear the local church is strong on reformed theology and the truths confessed in the Westminster Standards.

Others have reported similar experiences (as well as contrary ones) with local congregations in this denomination.

The following section on Wikipedia is not footnoted with primary references. If it is true, this is not at all the basis for a biblical, reformed denomination. Practically, it cannot produce peace and purity based on biblical doctrine over the long term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Presbyterian_Church_(United_States)



> Wikipedia summary of Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)
> 
> Ethos
> 
> ...



If this is true, in effect, all of "Calvinism" and "covenant theology" can be "excepted" up front by teaching elders, ruling elders and deacons. I have heard the Westminster Standards described as these two terms. To make them wholly optional and yet say that would not "violate the system of doctrine contained therein" is nonsensical.

It's kind of like saying you may only have a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, but you don't have to have the peanut butter... or the bread, as long as you still have a peanut butter sandwhich.

To say what they call "C" level issues presumptively do not violate the system of doctrine is almost irrational. E.g. The charismatic movement may teach that new revelation, equal or above that of Scripture comes through unknown tongues and interpretation, and that is an ordinary means of grace today (even though Scripture is complete). This is contrary to Sola Scriptura. It is a first order issue.

How could any teacher of God's Word be bound to the church's doctrine under this system? Granted, it might go by good theology of local majority at a given point in time, but it does not provide a basis for unity, or discipline, it would seem.

Because these kinds of classifications are superficial and arbitrary, it likely would produce no serious exegesis or theological inquiry or doctrinal confession in this denomination. Only a supreme command to let every idea have its own way.

Rather than a basis for unity, this is a foundation for confusion, shallowness, and disorder over the long term. (And that certainly is not reformed theology)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 4, 2010)

Zenas said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > PCUSA...............EPC................PCA.....OPC
> ...


 
C'mon Andrew. We all know the ARP does not actually exist. Just because it is just as big as the OPC does not mean it deserves to be mentioned alongside the big boys.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> > I recently attended my first meeting of presbytery for the EPC and was pleased to witness a thorough examination of prospective TE's on both the Bible and the WCF. At my church, I teach an adult class each week on the doctrines of grace and the session is in full accord with my curriculum which is drawn straight from the Confession. We do not ordain female elders (or deacons) and while there is a stated openess to spiritual gifts, I have yet to witness anything untoward in our time there.
> ...


 
Not sure where the wiki quote was from, but this leveling of beliefs is not unlike other confessional denominations. You have three groups, 1) essential non-wavering views 2) accepted exceptions to the Westminster Standards (the recreation clause comes to mind), and 3) views that are not covered by the Standards but are not heretical (think eschatology for example. One pastor could be amil, another postmil, and another historic premil. All are still confessional and none are heretical)


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jan 4, 2010)

The exception clause according to the Wiki quote (and according to my understanding of the EPC) is subject to this restriction: "so long as these exceptions do not violate the system of doctrine contained therein." Thus, there are no provisions (officially, at least) for a rejection of Calvinism or covenant theology. As to the third tier, the EPC may be open in varying degrees to charismatic expressions of worship; however, they are not (to my knowledge) open to "new revelation." Nonetheless, as the denomination is organized to be broader than others, the ultimate verdict must be rendered on a church-by-church basis.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 4, 2010)

> *Chaplainintraining*
> Not sure where the wiki quote was from, but this leveling of beliefs is not unlike other confessional denominations. You have three groups, 1) essential non-wavering views 2) accepted exceptions to the Westminster Standards (the recreation clause comes to mind), and 3) views that are not covered by the Standards but are not heretical (think eschatology for example. One pastor could be amil, another postmil, and another historic premil. All are still confessional and none are heretical)



I'm not completely sure about the quote, either as its assertions are not footnoted by original sources.

But looking at the web site, it seems to intentionally describe doctrine in these terms.

This is not at all the system of any of the biblical reformed denominations. Not at all.

In the PCA, for example, there is no presumptive right of any exception. I have never heard of and cannot imagine the five points of Calvinism being excepted as doctrine. That would undermine the whole of the Westminster Standards.

The recreation clause regarding sabbath is not presumptively granted here (as in their "C", or affirmatively stated "B" so long as it does not contradict the system of doctrine). In the PCA these are determined by Presbytery, and I can tell you not all Presbyteries would allow this. Others that do press on "light" verses "heavy" recreation, etc.)

But the point is, no biblical reformed systems says Calvinism and covenant theology may be excepted as long as it does not contradict the system, nor states vague theological movements ("charismatic movement") and pre-emptively exempts them from doctrinal scrutiny.

As for millennial views, the PCA, for example does not classify them in any such way. My understanding of this (and this is not an area I have studied or am very certain of) is that amill and postmill both fit within the Westminster Standards as they are, and that maybe historic premill does- probably though that would require a requested exception).

I don't see an amill or premill view, being only one part of eschatology are anything on the order of
"Calvinism"
"covenant theology"
"charismatic movement"
or "women's ordination"

This seems to me to be a formula for confusion and avoidance.

It's certainly not reformed, where the unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 4, 2010)

The "B" sections are not guaranteed either. They are evaluated individually at presbytery and it is up to the presbytery to accept the exceptions. 

Also I can't imagine an EPC pastor not being a five pointer. I am not sure where you are thinking that one could be. 

One of the local minsiters graduated from DTS and he told me how he was grilled for nearly two hours straight during oral exam on the difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology. These things are not taken lightly.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 4, 2010)

The fact that you are basing your assumptions on a wiki quote that is not footnoted and surely not ordained by the EPC, should throw up red flags.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 4, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> The exception clause according to the Wiki quote (and according to my understanding of the EPC) is subject to this restriction: "so long as these exceptions do not violate the system of doctrine contained therein." Thus, there are no provisions (officially, at least) for a rejection of Calvinism or covenant theology. As to the third tier, the EPC may be open in varying degrees to charismatic expressions of worship; however, they are not (to my knowledge) open to "new revelation." Nonetheless, as the denomination is organized to be broader than others, the ultimate verdict must be rendered on a church-by-church basis.


 
Thanks for your response.

But "B" seems to imply that a teaching elder could repudiate the "L" of tulip and teach accordingly, is that correct?

All the "five points" are necessarily biblically and logically related to and dependent on one another (they sure are in the Westminster Standards). So to even profess this a level of nonessentials in a reformed church does not comport.

And what does the "charismatic movement" mean (that's on the web site)- is that Oral Roberts "seed faith" theology? "healing evangelists?" "prayer cloths" "personal special revelation?"

Another issue with this is presbyterianism does not operate autonomously at the local level. There are varying degrees of practice and liberty for individual congregations, but it is especially focused with doctrinal authority at the presbytery level.

It would be inconceivable that a presbyterian system would exempt "the five points" in its soteriology anywhere, but even more so that that would be determined by a particular church, rather than the presbytery?

How would a minister be accountable for teaching a "three point" Calvinism and "progressive" dispensationalism, along with a charismatic/pentecostal theology that says the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a separate work of grace, i.e. that the Holy Spirit does not come in full measure at salvation or is somehow limited until evidenced by speaking in an unknown tongue or a "charismatic" gift?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 4, 2010)

http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/pastoral-letters/receiving-and-adopting-the-westminster-standards/


> From the EPC web site
> 
> The 1789 formula of subscription has served American Presbyterians well for over 200 years. Amidst significant doctrinal diversity, schism and reunion, the historic subscription vow has stood the test of time as a median position between the extremes of strict subscription (every word) and a minimal subscription requiring \"essentials of Christianity only.\" The historic moderate doctrinal position of Presbyterianism has allowed diversity in expressing the Reformed faith while at the same time affirming our distinctives as Reformed people committed to the doctrines of grace.



This is not an accurate description of American Presbyterianism, "a median position." Not even close.

None of the biblical, reformed Presbyterian denominations base their confession and unity on this vague kind of basis.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> > The exception clause according to the Wiki quote (and according to my understanding of the EPC) is subject to this restriction: "so long as these exceptions do not violate the system of doctrine contained therein." Thus, there are no provisions (officially, at least) for a rejection of Calvinism or covenant theology. As to the third tier, the EPC may be open in varying degrees to charismatic expressions of worship; however, they are not (to my knowledge) open to "new revelation." Nonetheless, as the denomination is organized to be broader than others, the ultimate verdict must be rendered on a church-by-church basis.
> ...


 

I cannot imagine a 4 pointer being accepted. As for charismatic movement, the EPC does not require a cessationist view (although most would fall in this category). They allow the belief that God can use the same gifts that are spoken of in Scripture for his glory. An example would be a pastor preaching in English, but a man who only knows Spanish is miraculously hearing the Gospel in Spanish and comes to faith through that message. We strictly abhor all things charismatic in the TBN sense of the word. 

Your example of a three point progressive dispensational charismatic theology goofy sacramentology must speak in tongues pastor is over the top and would not happen in the EPC.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Evangelical Presbyterian Church > What It Means To "Receive and Adopt" the Westminster Standards
> 
> 
> > From the EPC web site
> ...



I am not a historian of American Presbyterianism so I cannot add anything to either side of this argument except, "I dunno."


----------



## Archlute (Jan 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Evangelical Presbyterian Church > What It Means To \"Receive and Adopt\" the Westminster Standards
> 
> 
> > From the EPC web site
> ...


 


Much historical writing is an issue of interpreting documents and events. You could always go to school, gain a PhD in ecclesiastical history, study for ordination in the EPC, and then set them all straight.

Apart from that, I fail to find attempts at telling entire denominations what is or is not a correct view of their own history a very fruitful endeavor, nor suggesting that the EPC is neither biblical nor Reformed in their standing. 

As was mentioned earlier, every Reformed denomination has it's weak spots, and even within one's denomination of choice you must still take each congregation on a case by case basis.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 4, 2010)

http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/


> EPC web site
> 
> ....
> When the EPC started in 1981 we determined that on the basic essentials of the Christian faith, we would not disagree, but on anything that was not essential, such as the issue of ordaining women as officers or practicing charismatic gifts, we would give each other liberty. Above all, we committed ourselves to loving each other and not engaging in quarrels and strife. The result is that when we get together in our regional and national meetings, we spend most of our time in worship and fellowship and almost none in arguing with each other.
> ....



The denomination represents itself as unified on "the basic essentials of the Christian faith," not on the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards.

I realize there can be much difference between particular churches, although whatever is meant by "practicing charismatic gifts" or "ordaining women as officers" cannot be prevented at any of them.

But the denomination polity is representing itself not unified or grounded on their Confession of Faith, the Westminster Standards.

There seems to be an implication that the statement and propositions of doctrine therein are really not important, because "loving each other" and not "engaging in quarrels or strife [over doctrine?] is more important. Rather than being concerned with the doctrine of the church... "we spend most of our time in worship and fellowship and almost none in arguing with each other."

Big difference from the biblical, reformed Presbyterian denominations.



> *Chaplainintraining*
> I cannot imagine a 4 pointer being accepted.



This is not what I'm inferring from the public face of the denomination or from others who are in or have been in this denomination.

Does anyone have information about whether the EPC is accepting of "four" or "three" point Calvinism under its self-proclaimed "liberty in nonessentials?"



> the EPC does not require a cessationist view (although most would fall in this category).



Any idea what this means?

Would this mean one in teaching authority could hold and teach that new revelation equal or above that of Scripture ordinarily comes outside of Scripture in the form of speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue during corporate worship?

Could a biblical, reformed denomination possibly say that has "non-essential" implications for Sola Scriptura?


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 4, 2010)

> EPC web site
> 
> ....
> When the EPC started in 1981 we determined that on the basic essentials of the Christian faith, we would not disagree, but on anything that was not essential, such as the issue of ordaining women as officers or practicing charismatic gifts, we would give each other liberty. Above all, we committed ourselves to loving each other and not engaging in quarrels and strife. The result is that when we get together in our regional and national meetings, we spend most of our time in worship and fellowship and almost none in arguing with each other.
> ....


Who could possibly consider such a denomination even remotely Reformed, or even marginally acceptable for a Christian to join themselves to? You guys have gotta be kidding! What is the attraction? It is not engaging in "quarrels and strife" to refuse to corrupt the Church.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 4, 2010)

To the original post, I think any one of the biblical reformed denominations would be a first choice for you.

Now, there is a purpose for the EPC, and it has been used by some, even here on the board toward good ends.

But it is essentially, a "broadly evangelical" denomination, conservative in culture, independent tending, that does not intend to major on reformed doctrine. (Again, there are individuals, even some particular churches who would, but the denomination polity and connectivity is deliberately not that).

This denomination is providing a "safe haven" for churches escaping the falling away from almost every area of biblical truth and practice in the mainline denomination. Those faithful churches have been contending for very basic things, even the deity of Christ in the face of that, and they are to be commended for that.

But, let's face it, long ago most quit contending for the biblical reformed distinctives, Calvinist soteriology, covenant theology, the statements and propositions of doctrine as a system in the Westminster standards, even church discipline.

So, in your original post, looking toward building a future... And acknowledging imperfections and some variation between churches, I would absolutely presume a biblical, reformed denomination...PCA.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 4, 2010)

The problem with the kinds of comparisons being made is that the acceptable (or at least empirically demonstratable) differences in ANY denomination are at least as great as the purported differences between them.

For example, I would wager that practically ALL of the BAPTISTS on the PB are more "reformed" than SOME members of any of the denominations listed in the graph. That Bill or Dennis bunyan might be closer to Reformed orthodoxy than outlier X, Y, or Z in a particular (otherwise conservative) Reformed denomination, is why these comparisons keep missing the mark. Their is no substitute for doing your own due dilligence. 
1. Examine the particular denomination to see what they claim to believe.
2. Examine the concrete congregation to see if it actually holds in that particular instance.
3. Prayerfully make the wisest choice of congregations that you can in your community.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 4, 2010)

> 1. Examine the particular denomination to see what they claim to believe.
> 2. Examine the concrete congregation to see if it actually holds in that particular instance.
> 3. Prayerfully make the wisest choice of congregations that you can in your community.



Excellent advice.

And I'd say that even if Bill had offered it.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 4, 2010)

I love ya'll so I say this with affection:

You people are nuts if you marginalize the EPC.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 4, 2010)

One of the best Reformed preachers in the Pacific NW is a senior EPC minister who is also an RTS grad. If I had retained my assignment to Ft. Lewis I would have bypassed every other Reformed and Presbyterian congregation in the area for that one without a second thought, and there are quite a few of them up around Seattle/Tacoma.

One of the best Reformed preachers in the entirety of the United States is the senior minister at 4th Pres. (EPC) in Bethesda, MD. 

Writing off the EPC as a viable option for a family looking for a Reformed church would be very unwise, indeed.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 5, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> The problem with the kinds of comparisons being made is that the acceptable (or at least empirically demonstratable) differences in ANY denomination are at least as great as the purported differences between them.
> 
> For example, I would wager that practically ALL of the BAPTISTS on the PB are more "reformed" than SOME members of any of the denominations listed in the graph. That Bill or Dennis bunyan might be closer to Reformed orthodoxy than outlier X, Y, or Z in a particular (otherwise conservative) Reformed denomination, is why these comparisons keep missing the mark. Their is no substitute for doing your own due dilligence.
> 1. Examine the particular denomination to see what they claim to believe.
> ...


Dennis, would you refer someone to an ABC Church? EPC would be a Presbyterian equivalent.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 5, 2010)

EPC would be more BGC than ABC. ABC is more PC(USA) than EPC.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 5, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Evangelical Presbyterian Church > About the EPC
> 
> 
> > EPC web site
> ...


 
I gave you an example of tongues that is accepted in the EPC. We are not allowing new revelation.

Secondly, the fact that I am in the EPC, am under care of the EPC, have gone to presbytery meetings in the EPC, have seen oral exams in the EPC, and have personally spoken to numerous pastors in preparation for the oral exams in the EPC, but yet you still bypass what I am telling you and ask if someone else knows anything is quite disrespectful. I may not know each and every presbytery or congregation, but I am not ignorant of what goes on in the EPC.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 5, 2010)

Thanks, Boliver.

It's good you have been able to discern a biblical testimony where you are in the EPC, and that is encouraging. (I was not aware that is the denomination you are going into)

There are some solid, biblical people on the Board who are in denominations even less reformed, and for that we are all grateful. Many of us came out of denominations that were, are unbiblical or in the process of falling away, let alone not being reformed.

We won't distract the thread here with the real issues of the purpose of unknown tongues and interpretation in corporate worship- it's much more than whether God "can" still do miracles, though that is the way the debate is often framed. It's the purpose, and how it is received, in light of completed special revelation (Scripture).

But, we can't kid ourselves. We are defining "reformed" down if we include denominations like this. 

While NAPARC is not perfect, and not an expression of every single denomination we might consider reformed, it is attempting to define itself that way for the purpose of high-level relations between reformed denominations and their members. But there are reasons EPC is not in NAPARC (and they are much more than women's ordination, important though that is).

The reformed churches coming from the Reformation intended to reform the whole of their faith and practice back toward Scripture. They were not afraid of the details, or engaging them.

The EPC, as a denomination, is intentionally not chartered this way, valuing more highly "getting along" over determining or contending for the special revelation of God summarized as the doctrine of Scripture in the Westminster Standards.

Just having a "Statement of Essentials" at the front of the Book of Church Order,
http://www.epc.org/mediafiles/epc-book-of-order-2009-2010.pdf

says something major.

Consider this- every single one of the statements in the “essentials” is already in the Westminster Standards. That’s why every single statement and proposition of doctrine in them (the Westminster Standards) is footnoted with Scripture. It is a systematic doctrine of the whole of Scripture which the church “confesses.”

“Confession” is part of what makes one reformed.

It’s difficult to see the particular church in a vacuum. This is particularly true for Presbyterians where courts are based on presbyteries, synods and general assemblies. The connectional polity, and the denomination as a whole matter. It’s not merely about the present majority theological opinion at one local church, though that is important also.
It's about what the denomination confesses in the light of special revelation of God through Scripture, and being willing to "confess" that and center church faith, practice and discipline around that.

That's why, to the original post, I would strongly recommend first investigating a biblical, reformed denomination to serve in as teacher of God's Word, a denomination like the PCA.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 5, 2010)

Just as a slight defense of the EPC the PCA is hardly a place of unfettered Reformed Orthodoxy.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 5, 2010)

Adam pointed out earlier that the PCA has its own problems. I think we would agree that FV is unconfessional, unscriptural, and heretical, but the PCA hasn't stamped it out. In fact a few times they have heard the case and ruled in favor of FV. So using your own criteria for denominations, the PCA shouldn't be considered reformed either. 

I have no problem guessing that you are more likely to find a conservative PCA church than an EPC church. I just wanted to clarify that I am not saying the EPC is without its problems, only that to discard the EPC as a whole as an unreformed and no different than all the other churches in the area is unwarranted.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 5, 2010)

Brad said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the kinds of comparisons being made is that the acceptable (or at least empirically demonstratable) differences in ANY denomination are at least as great as the purported differences between them.
> ...



I think Ben is closer to the mark here. I would compare the ABC to the PCUSA and EPC to either the CBA or BGC.

But again, almost ANY denomination has churches to the far right and the far left. Even mainstream ABC has KJV Only fundys in it (primarily in West Virginia). So, judging by a "denomination" is complicated.

Personally, I left the ABC along with 150 other congregations in the southwest because we deemed it unfaithful to the Gospel. However, one of the leaders of our movement (indeed he was on the board that voted to recommend severing our relationship with the national body) ended up taking a pastorate in a conservative ABC church in Ohio. So, go figure!

But, the comparisons are flawed for another reason: connectionalism or the lack thereof. It is a lot easier on the conscience to be "part" of a group that practices independence and autonomy than one that is highly connectional. Theoretically, my conservative friend can pastor his conservative ABC church in Ohio with indifference to the ABC. That would be much more difficult to justify in a more highly connectional polity.

Frankly, I have friends in the ABC who are to my theological right but hang on out of misplaced (in my opinion) loyalty and a sense of wanting to be "salt and light." I suppose that this is what keeps people like Packer in the Anglican communion???

Finally, in a very non-connectional polity such as the ABC, one can rather easily direct mission dollars so that you virtually de-fund the national structure while cherry picking the entities, institutions, and missionaries you support. Not the most honorable way to go, mind you, but practiced regularly by the conservatives still in the ABC.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 5, 2010)

Third times the charm.


----------

