# Presbyterian versus Reformed Churches



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2019)

I am assuming the differences between Presbyterian and Reformed churches are primarily cultural, more than theological. I say this because Presbyterian and Reformed churches often have warm sister church relationships in a number of countries (including mine). And Reformed churches, like Presbyterian churches, appreciate the Westminster Confession of faith. 

Is this a valid observation?


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Aug 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am assuming the differences between Presbyterian and Reformed churches are primarily cultural, more than theological. I say this because Presbyterian and Reformed churches often have warm sister church relationships in a number of countries (including mine). And Reformed churches, like Presbyterian churches, appreciate the Westminster Confession of faith.
> 
> Is this a valid observation?



I don’t even understand how your distinguishing these terms. Reformed according to what/whom? How would a Presbyterian church be terminologically different than a “Reformed” church? Just trying to understand what you mean by P versus R. A church is a theological concept and these adjectives aren’t mutually exclusive. In many ways, they reinforce the shared form of polity and ecclesiology. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 5, 2019)

There's also this: a Presbyterian church that takes subscription seriously is going to have its pastors and elders much more nailed down on some theological particulars. That's simply because, as a later development in Reformed theology, the Westminster Standards are far more detailed than the Three Forms of Unity. The only way Presbyterians get around it is with a looser view of subscription and/or allowances for exceptions. Reformed churches with the TFU generally have stricter subscription with zero allowances for exceptions.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> cultural, more than theological.



There are some theological differences, but minor and workable, in my view. There are more differences in the outworking of polity, which Wes touched on above. 

Here is an address dealing with these issues that I gave to a joint meeting of a URCNA Classis and an OPC Presbytery, discussing how we might draw closer together in ecumenical relations: https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=667&issue_id=131.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 5, 2019)

Sorry, I've got to say it again: _versus!_


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Aug 5, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Sorry, I've got to say it again: _versus!_



It’s been stated, as you note, with more subtlety. I think it’s best to get the subject started before the grammatical corrections. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 6, 2019)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> I think it’s best to get the subject started before the grammatical corrections.


I share your opinion exactly! Let's leave grammar alone for now.

Orthography, though, is another matter entirely.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 6, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Sorry, I've got to say it again: _versus!_


All fixed. I'll try to remember next time 

I noted with interest your desire to correct my grammar but not to contribute to the church discussion I genuinely raised. I did wonder if you come from a noble generation of the Pharisees? Our Lord did say their 'hart' was not in the right place  

I could not resist good brother

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 6, 2019)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> I don’t even understand how your distinguishing these terms. Reformed according to what/whom? How would a Presbyterian church be terminologically different than a “Reformed” church? Just trying to understand what you mean by P versus R. A church is a theological concept and these adjectives aren’t mutually exclusive. In many ways, they reinforce the shared form of polity and ecclesiology.


See the link in post 4


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 6, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> That's simply because, as a later development in Reformed theology, the Westminster Standards are far more detailed than the Three Forms of Unity.


It is interesting that Vos' classic article "The doctrine of the covenant in Reformed theology" says that the Westminster was the first Reformed confession to bring the covenant 'from the side' to the heart of the confession. I think that is significant because it does imply that the WCF is more developed in its understanding of Reformed theology.

As you will know Wes, the Reformed Churches of New Zealand subscribe to the Westminster Confession as well as the Three Forms of Unity. What is surprising though, they do not subscribe to the WLC and the WSC. I am not sure why.

But they have a warm sister church relationship with the OPC so that is an example of churches crossing the Presbyterian Reformed divide.


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 6, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> All fixed. I'll try to remember next time
> 
> I noted with interest your desire to correct my grammar but not to contribute to the church discussion I genuinely raised. I did wonder if you come from a noble generation of the Pharisees? Our Lord did say their 'hart' was not in the right place
> 
> I could not resist good brother


All in good fun, brother. I always appreciate your sense of humour!

A pun is, of course, the highest form of comedy. And you are true master. I respect you for that, especially with your being from New Zealand. As I recall from a recent thread, English is not widely spoken there.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 6, 2019)

Alan D. Strange said:


> There are some theological differences, but minor and workable, in my view. There are more differences in the outworking of polity, which Wes touched on above.


As Wes noted, the WCF is a more theologically developed confession than the 3FU, I did wonder if a greater way to achieve unity would be to encourage Reformed Churches to subscribe to the Westminster Standards as well as the 3FU, then you would have more common doctrinal foundations. The Reformed Churches of New Zealand subscribe to the WCF as well as the 3FU. [I guess polity would remain the sticky issue].


Alan D. Strange said:


> Here is an address dealing with these issues that I gave to a joint meeting of a URCNA Classis and an OPC Presbytery, discussing how we might draw closer together in ecumenical relations: https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=667&issue_id=131.


Thank you. I enjoyed the article. You started with Psalm 133. The Psalter of the Reformed Churches of NZ has both the Psalm written by the Free Church of Scotland, as well as the one from the Continental Reformed church (which Kuyper loved). The one from Scotland has been going through my mind these last 2 weeks.

You mentioned the development of covenant theology at the time of the WCF. As I noted in my Vos quote above, covenant theology is clearly more developed in the WCF. Perhaps this is another reason to encourage our good Reformed brethren to subscribe to this confession.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 6, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> As Wes noted, the WCF is a more theologically developed confession than the 3FU, I did wonder if a greater way to achieve unity would be to encourage Reformed Churches to subscribe to the Westminster Standards as well as the 3FU, then you would have more common doctrinal foundations.



Might seem like a nice idea on the surface, but it would definitely not work in the circles I move in. Most Canadian Reformed and Free Reformed (Aus.) people can live with having fellowship with churches holding to the Westminster Standards, but they themselves wouldn't want to be tied down to that level of theological detail. The TFU give a bigger tent. That's why strict subscription works in our churches.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 6, 2019)

Dr Beeke just did an address last week, regarding his church which holds to 6 confessions (Westminster and 3 Forms) 

You can find it at https://ferc.org.sg/RefToday - the 'Opening Address'

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 6, 2019)

I read of a small Korean Reformed denomination that subscribes to both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. At an address to a gathering of international Reformed churches, a pastor in the denomination recognized that, to a Western Reformed Christian, this might look odd, but in a Korean context, where any Reformed churches are few and far between, and where Reformed theology is to most professing Christians entirely unknown, the confessional documents all appear very similar.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 6, 2019)

When I went from Reformed to Presbyterian, I found differences in church polity to be the biggest surprises. I had been raised in the home of a Reformed pastor and felt I knew the ins and outs of how church procedures worked. Suddenly, I was Presbyterian and had to learn all over again. The two were close enough that I would think I knew how things worked, but be mistaken.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Aug 6, 2019)

Stephen, you might find this article interesting which particularly concerns the RCNZ: https://opc.org/OS/html/V4/1e.html

Here's another interesting article on use of the Dutch standards in the OPC:
https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=795

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 6, 2019)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> I don’t even understand how your distinguishing these terms.



From a historical perspective, it would be a distinction between those of a Continental Reformed perspective versus those of a Scottish Presbyterian perspective.

Except for some outliers with confusing names like "Reformed Presbyterian" one can frequently distinguish them by their names - on one side, the URCNA, CRC, RCUS, Free Reformed, etc; and on the other side, the PCA, OPC, EPC, ARP, etc. (Yes, I threw in apostates on both sides for historical reasons).
-----
EDIT: Intended to add PCUSA on the Presbyterian side to make the paren accurate.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 6, 2019)

Edward said:


> on one side, the URCNA, CRC, RCUS, Free Reformed, etc; and on the other side, the PCA, OPC, EPC, ARP, etc. (Yes, I threw in apostates on both sides for historical reasons).



Which, exactly, particularly on the Presbyterian side, are you identifying as 'apostate'? Or better put, which are you saying has renounced or abandoned the Christian faith? Serious charge, that.


----------



## Edward (Aug 6, 2019)

kainos01 said:


> Which, exactly, particularly on the Presbyterian side, are you identifying as 'apostate'? Or better put, which are you saying has renounced or abandoned the Christian faith? Serious charge, that.



Oops - I had intended to throw in the PCUSA on the Presbyterian side for balance. Good catch on that. 

On the Reformed side? The CRC, of course.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 7, 2019)

Edward said:


> Oops - I had intended to throw in the PCUSA on the Presbyterian side for balance.


----------



## Berean by Grace (Aug 7, 2019)

I am a Reformed Baptist who reads and studies the Westminster Confession much more than the 1689 LBC. I go so far as to read and study Presbyterian materials more than Baptist Reformed. Just my two cents!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 7, 2019)

Berean by Grace said:


> I am a Reformed Baptist who reads and studies the Westminster Confession much more than the 1689 LBC. I go so far as to read and study Presbyterian materials more than Baptist Reformed. Just my two cents!


Would that be due to the fact that has been written so much more material on that position, as contrasted with that written from our Baptist Reformed?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 7, 2019)

Jack K said:


> When I went from Reformed to Presbyterian



'Reformed' is Presbyterian. To be reformed is to hold to a Presbyterian church gov't.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jack K (Aug 7, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> 'Reformed' is Presbyterian. To be reformed is to hold to a Presbyterian church gov't.



I am not using those words descriptively. For the purposes of this thread, which is contrasting the Continental Reformed tradition with the Scottish Presbyterian one, I am using the shorthand of simply referring to those two traditions as_ Reformed_ and_ Presbyterian_, as the thread title does.

Used that way, the Reformed version of Presbyterianism that I grew up in had polity differences from the Scottish version we typically think of when we say_ Presbyterian_. For example, those Dutch Reformed folk didn't think in terms of the minister being an elder, or consider a session/consistory distinct from the diaconate, or invite all their ministers to attend the regional presbytery/classis meetings, or take it as a sign of confessional rigor if a church refused to hold Christmas services (such refusal was, in fact, a violation of denominational rules). There are several notable differences like these.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Berean by Grace (Aug 7, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Would that be due to the fact that has been written so much more material on that position, as contrasted with that written from our Baptist Reformed?


Possibly, yet I do listen to the Dividing Line. So. ... there.... Reformed Baptist.... James White's The God Who Justifies is a great book!


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 9, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Might seem like a nice idea on the surface, but it would definitely not work in the circles I move in. Most Canadian Reformed and Free Reformed (Aus.) people can live with having fellowship with churches holding to the Westminster Standards, but they themselves wouldn't want to be tied down to that level of theological detail. The TFU give a bigger tent.


Wes, there is an easy way to motivate Australians to do this. You simply say if the Kiwi's can do it (ie, the RCNZ) then the Aussies certainly should be able to do it  It is a strategy to motivate Australians; they don't like been told the Kiwi's are ahead 

Seriously, I appreciate that there are some difference of conviction between Reformed demoninations but I am a little surprised that some are reluctant to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. For example you stated:


Guido's Brother said:


> as a later development in Reformed theology, the Westminster Standards are far more detailed than the Three Forms of Unity.


I added:


Stephen L Smith said:


> It is interesting that Vos' classic article "The doctrine of the covenant in Reformed theology" says that the Westminster was the first Reformed confession to bring the covenant 'from the side' to the heart of the confession. I think that is significant because it does imply that the WCF is more developed in its understanding of Reformed theology.


If the doctrine of the covenant is foundational to Reformed Theology (and it is) it seems to me Reformed Churches would want to subscribe to a confession that gives Covenant Theology an important place in the confession.


Guido's Brother said:


> That's why strict subscription works in our churches.


I am a little confused - I am not sure what the difference is between subscribing to the 'fuller' statements of the Westminster Standards and strict subscription to the Three Forms of Unity.

As a matter of interest I have often said if you want a rich study of Reformed theology, one that will give theological and spiritual maturity, a great way to do this is to study the WLC along with the Heidelberg Catechism.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 9, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> All in good fun, brother. I always appreciate your sense of humour!
> 
> A pun is, of course, the highest form of comedy. And you are true master. I respect you for that, especially with your being from New Zealand.


Thank you for the kind words. I will keep working on my Grammar as well as my Granddad 



Tom Hart said:


> As I recall from a recent thread, English is not widely spoken there.


Now my good brother are you trying to start another New Zealand vers*e*s Canada debate 
Or are you acknowledging that Canadaians are a little confused as to whether they are Americans vers*u*s if they live in North America


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 9, 2019)

Jake said:


> Stephen, you might find this article interesting which particularly concerns the RCNZ: https://opc.org/OS/html/V4/1e.html


Thank you. That was very informative. The author remains a good and esteemed friend of a number of ministers in the RCNZ.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 10, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I added:
> 
> If the doctrine of the covenant is foundational to Reformed Theology (and it is) it seems to me Reformed Churches would want to subscribe to a confession that gives Covenant Theology an important place in the confession.
> 
> I am a little confused - I am not sure what the difference is between subscribing to the 'fuller' statements of the Westminster Standards and strict subscription to the Three Forms of Unity.



Aye, there's the rub. Covenant theology would be one of the big reasons why many CanRC/FRCA ministers would not want to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. A lot of our guys (but not all) are monocovenantalists and the thinking is that this is allowable within the framework of the TFU, but not with the Westminster Standards. 

With regard to your confusion: most churches that have subscription to the Westminster Standards allow exceptions. This is almost inevitable when these confessions have so much detail. Our churches have subscription to the TFU and we allow absolutely no exceptions. You're either all in or you're out. Because there's more wiggle-room in the TFU, that works fine.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Aug 10, 2019)

I do find it interesting that the RCNZ only subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but not the catechisms. I believe generally in Scottish churches the Confession of Faith has been subscribed to, but in most American churches the catechisms have been subscribed to as well. Certainly the catechisms add a bit more specificity in regards to what is being subscribed to.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 10, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am assuming the differences between Presbyterian and Reformed churches are primarily cultural, more than theological. I say this because Presbyterian and Reformed churches often have warm sister church relationships in a number of countries (including mine). And Reformed churches, like Presbyterian churches, appreciate the Westminster Confession of faith.
> 
> Is this a valid observation?


In my corner of the Reformed world, the biggest difference between us Presbyterians (e.g. FCC, PRC) and the continental Reformed (FRCNA, HRC) is that they celebrate holy days and use organs, while we don't.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 11, 2019)

John Yap said:


> Dr Beeke just did an address last week, regarding his church which holds to 6 confessions (Westminster and 3 Forms)
> 
> You can find it at https://ferc.org.sg/RefToday - the 'Opening Address'


Thank you John. I found this very edifying and informative.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 11, 2019)

William Perkins: The international Reformed churches are true churches despite their differences


----------



## PaulCLawton (Aug 11, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> ... A lot of our guys (but not all) are monocovenantalists...



It took me a long time after beginning to attend a Reformed church (and then becoming a member) to realize this is the case. Out of ignorance I did not realize this was an actual position or that anyone thought this way, and I would be confused during conversations with certain ministers, almost as if we were talking past each other - not really arguing, but I was missing a piece of the puzzle. I still remember where I was sitting when a URCNA minister said "I'm not a covenant of works guy" and it was as if a fog had lifted and I understood that conversation and a dozen previous much more clearly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall (Aug 11, 2019)

Jake said:


> I do find it interesting that the RCNZ only subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but not the catechisms. I believe generally in Scottish churches the Confession of Faith has been subscribed to, but in most American churches the catechisms have been subscribed to as well. Certainly the catechisms add a bit more specificity in regards to what is being subscribed to.


The practice of holding to the *WCF*, *WSC*, and *WLC* but not the *Directory for Public Worship* or the other Westminster Standards might be as arbitrary as holding to the *WCF* without *WSC* and *WLC*
Why is either distinction made?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 11, 2019)

You will hear some Dutch mono-covenantalists argue that the Three Forms of Unity do not teach a covenant of works. Granted, the precise term covenant of works/creation/nature is not expressly used. Still, the claim is spurious as the major elements of the covenant of works are taught in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 3, which affirms that Adam was created with the potential of attaining "eternal happiness" prior to the Fall. The Belgic Confession, moreover, refers to Adam violating "the commandment of life" (Article 14), which is an allusion to eternal life as the reward for perfect obedience.

These observations are confirmed by consulting Zacharias Ursinus's _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ and in his own _Large Catechism_ (see here). Also, I have heard/read that the co-author of the Heidelberger, Casper Olevianus, was one of the major figures in the development of the covenant of works (though I would need to look into this one a bit further). Not to mention the fact that there are a whole host of Dutch and other Continental Reformed divines, writing in the era of confessional formulation, positively affirming a prelapsarian covenant of works, and that the denial of the doctrine was one of the errors of the Remonstrant Arminians.

Mono-covenantalists are either hopelessly ignorant or else they are blatant liars when they try to maintain that the covenant of works is something exclusive to the Westminster tradition. Either way, there ought to be no quarter given to their dangerous error. I make no apology for using such strong language against them, as they have undermined the gospel and are to be blamed for the rise of the Federal Vision.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 11, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Mono-covenantalists are either hopelessly ignorant or else they are blatant liars when they try to maintain that the covenant of works is something exclusive to the Westminster tradition. Either way, there ought to be no quarter given to their dangerous error. I make no apology for using such strong language against them, as they have undermined the gospel and are to be blamed for the rise of the Federal Vision.



I don't view it as being that simple. Personally, I'm no longer a monocovenantalist. However, within the framework of the Three Forms of Unity, there's often been a view that there's enough latitude for monocovenantalism. Almost all of the monocovenantalists I know are not undermining the gospel and many are critical of FV as well. They've arrived at their view through sincere exegesis of the Scriptures.

Monocovenantalism exists in the Canadian Reformed Churches, the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, and the United Reformed Churches of North America -- maybe others too. These churches have fraternal relationships with a fair number of Presbyterian churches, including the OPC. It seems to me that you'd have to level a fairly harsh criticism at the OPC and others for "giving quarter to this dangerous error."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 12, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Almost all of the monocovenantalists I know are not undermining the gospel and many are critical of FV as well.



If they are mono-covenantalists, they are undermining the gospel - even if it is not their intention. I recognise that many mono-covenantalists oppose the Federal Vision, but they are failing to take an axe to the root of the tree if they do not jettison the very error that gave rise to the FV in the first place. Mono-covenantalism is the tree and the FV is the fruit; cut down the tree and the fruit will stop growing. Wilhelmus à Brakel observed that if you go wrong with the covenant of works, you will go wrong with the covenant of grace. Not separating the two covenants will inevitably lead to the confusion of the two covenants, as works will be introduced into the covenant of grace. and the law will be confused with the gospel. Thus, it is easy to see why the denial of the covenant of works led to aberrant views of justification.



Guido's Brother said:


> They've arrived at their view through sincere exegesis of the Scriptures.



So have Baptists and Lutherans, but that does not stop me from calling their errors anti-Reformed. In fact, at least in the case of Baptists and Lutherans they are being honest about the unconfessional nature of their views.



Guido's Brother said:


> Monocovenantalism exists in the Canadian Reformed Churches, the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, and the United Reformed Churches of North America -- maybe others too. These churches have fraternal relationships with a fair number of Presbyterian churches, including the OPC. It seems to me that you'd have to level a fairly harsh criticism at the OPC and others for "giving quarter to this dangerous error."



I judge theological questions without respect of persons or denominations. Once you start affirming that certain "conservative" denominations are beyond criticism, then you have begun to walk down a very dangerous path. The Federal Vision is the pernicious fruit of both mono-covenantalism and Paradox Theology, both of which were tolerated by the OPC. The OPC's confessional standards teach a covenant of works in the most explicit terms imaginable. They have no excuse for their unfaithfulness on this issue.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Aug 12, 2019)

Daniel, I will readily admit that I shy away from the use of the term_ covenant of works_ when describing the conditions between God and Adam prior to the fall.

In many ways, I think I still sound Presbyterian: I am happy to say that much of what the Bible describes pre-fall sounds very covenantal. I might say something like, "This has the feel of a covenant." And although there is already much evidence pre-fall that God is a gracious God, I don't say the covenant of grace was in effect yet; that is a post-fall covenant in my mind. I will say that the command not to eat of the tree is a works-based demand, and that Adam's failure was a works-based failure.

But still I feel some unease using the_ covenant of works_ term. That may be in part due to my upbringing on the Continental Reformed side of things, where the term gets less use, so that it was unfamiliar to me until I started studying Presbyterianism. But it is also due to the fact that despite the covenantal feel, Scripture does not use the word _covenant_ in Genesis 2 and 3 to describe those pre-fall demands. So I feel better when I stop short of declaring it one outright. I don't deny it, but I use the label cautiously.

I'm wondering if you think that's a problem, and why, or if you think that sounds like an acceptable approach.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 12, 2019)

Jack K said:


> Daniel, I will readily admit that I shy away from the use of the term_ covenant of works_ when describing the conditions between God and Adam prior to the fall.
> 
> In many ways, I think I still sound Presbyterian: I am happy to say that much of what the Bible describes pre-fall sounds very covenantal. I might say something like, "This has the feel of a covenant." And although there is already much evidence pre-fall that God is a gracious God, I don't say the covenant of grace was in effect yet; that is a post-fall covenant in my mind. I will say that the command not to eat of the tree is a works-based demand, and that Adam's failure was a works-based failure.
> 
> ...



Jack, I will try to say more tomorrow (DV). I just do not have time at the minute to answer the question(s) thoughtfully enough.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 15, 2019)

Jake said:


> I do find it interesting that the RCNZ only subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but not the catechisms.


Good point. I am raising this with a couple of RCNZ ministers at the moment.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 15, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Aye, there's the rub. Covenant theology would be one of the big reasons why many CanRC/FRCA ministers would not want to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. A lot of our guys (but not all) are monocovenantalists and the thinking is that this is allowable within the framework of the TFU, but not with the Westminster Standards.


I meant to respond to this but had a busy week. After reflecting on your comments I thought of my pleasure in reading Witsius "Economy of the Covenants" and the covenant theology in Bavinck's "Reformed Dogmatics" and also his "Saved by grace". Witsius and Bavinck were Dutch (not Scottish Presbyterians). Yet surely they reflect the covenantal maturity of the WCF.

The other interesting fact is that the 1689 Baptist Confession has a well developed covenant theology (chapter 7). It clearly develops the pactum salutis, historia salutis and the ordo salutis. One could be bold here and suggest Reformed Baptists, because of their understanding of the pactum salutis, historia salutis and the ordo salutis, have a more developed covenant theology than paedobaptist monocovenantalists. I acknowledge that comment is strange, but I think that is an implication of not subscribing to ch 7 of the WCF.


Guido's Brother said:


> They've arrived at their view through sincere exegesis of the Scriptures.


So did the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 15, 2019)

Jake said:


> Stephen, you might find this article interesting which particularly concerns the RCNZ: https://opc.org/OS/html/V4/1e.html


I just heard that the beloved brother that wrote this recently died https://www.hixsonbrothers.com/obit...B7Y6XGLPuPSGCKAFZhHV3IFcC4vjek0nITQBIWtHw7qUQ


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 15, 2019)

We can all have our opinions here on whether monocovenantalism is in or out, but at the end of the day the reality is that, for several Reformed federations, monocovenantalism has long been regarded as in the bounds of the Three Forms of Unity. So long as that consensus prevails within those federations, it's not realistic to expect them to adopt the Westminster Standards and then require the same strict subscription to them that they currently use with the TFU. That's my point.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 15, 2019)

Jack K said:


> But still I feel some unease using the_ covenant of works_ term. That may be in part due to my upbringing on the Continental Reformed side of things, where the term gets less use, so that it was unfamiliar to me until I started studying Presbyterianism.



While it may be true that the modern continental Reformed are more reticent to use the term covenant of works, historically that was not the case. The covenant of works is present in virtually every major work of Reformed dogmatics that I have read from Ursinus to Bavinck. 



Jack K said:


> But it is also due to the fact that despite the covenantal feel, Scripture does not use the word _covenant_ in Genesis 2 and 3 to describe those pre-fall demands. So I feel better when I stop short of declaring it one outright. I don't deny it, but I use the label cautiously.



Scripture does not use the term Trinity, but we know that the doctrine of the Trinity is deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. The same is true of the covenant of works. I think that Romans 5 is pretty clear that in order to justice to the analogy between Christ and Adam as Federal heads you have to view the arrangement with Adam as a covenant of works if you are to understand the work of Christ as the Federal head of the covenant of grace.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 15, 2019)

Jake said:


> I do find it interesting that the RCNZ only subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but not the catechisms. I believe generally in Scottish churches the Confession of Faith has been subscribed to, but in most American churches the catechisms have been subscribed to as well. Certainly the catechisms add a bit more specificity in regards to what is being subscribed to.





Henry Hall said:


> The practice of holding to the *WCF*, *WSC*, and *WLC* but not the *Directory for Public Worship* or the other Westminster Standards might be as arbitrary as holding to the *WCF* without *WSC* and *WLC*
> Why is either distinction made?



The Catechisms, Form of Government and Directory of Worship were adopted by the Church of Scotland, along with the Confession, at the time of their composition. However, under the reign of the papist Charles II the Recissory Act was passed which repealed all these documents from the statute books. After the time of persecution was brought to an end with the Glorious Revolution, and the Revolution Settlement, only the Confession was reinstated, as the subordinate standard of the Church of Scotland. And so to this day it is the Confession which office bearers particularly subscribe. However, the Catechisms (at least) are considered as part of the constitution of the Reformation Church of Scotland:

"FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND DEED OF SEPARATION OF 14TH AUGUST 1893

Deed of Separation by Ministers and Elders from the Church Calling Herself the Free Church of Scotland

WE, the undersigned Ministers and Elders of the Free Church of Scotland, *considering that the constitution of said Church as settled in 1843 is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647, the First and Second Books of Discipline, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms*, the Claim Declaration and Protest of 1842, the Protest of 1843, the Act of Separation and Deed of Demission executed in the last mentioned year, the Formula appointed to be subscribed by probationers before receiving license, and by all office-bearers at the time of their admission, together with the Questions appointed to be put to the same parties at Ordination and Admission, and the Acts of Assembly of the Church of Scotland prior to 1843..."

"FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND MEMORANDUM ON THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND ENABLING BILL 1920

I. Statement re the Free Presbyterian Church, and its History and Constitution.

3.  This Church’s constitution is the same as that of said original Free Church of Scotland, embodying the Westminster Confession of Faith, the First and Second Books of Discipline, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Claim, Declaration and Protest of the Church of Scotland in 1842, the Protest of 1843, and the other recognised standard documents."


----------



## Jack K (Aug 15, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The covenant of works is present in virtually every major work of Reformed dogmatics that I have read from Ursinus to Bavinck.



Yes, I was raised on Berkhof, and he defends both the doctrine and the terminology. Still, the label didn't register in my mind until I found myself around Presbyterians and heard it more often. That's not an argument for or against it, just one man's observation. Also, it may have more to do with the particular people I spent time with, and not really reflect a widespread difference between Presbyterians and Reformed. I've assumed the term is more common today among Presbyterians, but I don't know that for sure.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think that Romans 5 is pretty clear that in order to justice to the analogy between Christ and Adam as Federal heads you have to view the arrangement with Adam as a covenant of works if you are to understand the work of Christ as the Federal head of the covenant of grace.



Oh, I certainly agree that Scripture, in Romans 5 and many other places, makes the pre-fall conditions in the garden sound covenantal. Hosea 6:7 even calls it a covenant, depending on how one translates the word_ adam_ there. But how much is lost if I merely say that, but stop short of labelling it_ The Covenant of Works_? That is my question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 20, 2019)

Alan @Alan D. Strange I'm curious. How do you handle this issue at Mid-America Seminary. No doubt you are training future pastors for both Presbyterian and Reformed churches.


----------

