# New Presbyterian Denomination?



## Reformingstudent (Dec 19, 2006)

This might be old news now but I just heard of it to night. http://www.wpcus.org/

Any thoughts?


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

Formed almost a year ago in January 2006, the WPCUS seeks to be a Presbyterian denomination adhering to the unammended Westminster Confession, catechisms, directory of publick worship and Presbyterian form of government. We also adopt the Directory of family worship. We attempt not to have any peculiarities other than the distinctives of historic Presbyterianism of the Westminster, Reformation Church of Scotland variety. All our documents are online. 

We practice a capella exclusive psalmody (employing the 1650 Scottish metrical psalter), use the Authorised version because of our commitment to the Received Text, hold to the establishment principle, and practice communion seasons in the old Scottish fashion. We are committed to advancing the uniformity of doctrine, worship, government and discipline that was the motivation for the Westminster Assembly.

Doctrinally and practically we are very similar to the Presbyterian Reformed Church, Free Church of Scotland (continuing) and Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. We desire to be an indigenous (sp?) North American Presbyterian Church. We invite any and all to join with us on this basis.

I think that covers it? Did you have a specific question?


----------



## providenceboard (Dec 20, 2006)

ADKing said:


> We attempt not to have any peculiarities other than the distinctives of historic Presbyterianism of the Westminster, Reformation Church of Scotland variety.
> 
> Doctrinally and practically we are very similar to the Presbyterian Reformed Church, Free Church of Scotland (continuing) and Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.



I like the idea of having the distinctive that you don't really have any distinctives.

Why did the ministers not simply join the Presbyterian Reformed Church, Free Church of Scotland (continuing) or the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformingstudent (Dec 20, 2006)

ADKing said:


> Formed almost a year ago in January 2006, the WPCUS seeks to be a Presbyterian denomination adhering to the unammended Westminster Confession, catechisms, directory of publick worship and Presbyterian form of government. We also adopt the Directory of family worship. We attempt not to have any peculiarities other than the distinctives of historic Presbyterianism of the Westminster, Reformation Church of Scotland variety. All our documents are online.
> 
> We practice a capella exclusive psalmody (employing the 1650 Scottish metrical psalter), use the Authorised version because of our commitment to the Received Text, hold to the establishment principle, and practice communion seasons in the old Scottish fashion. We are committed to advancing the uniformity of doctrine, worship, government and discipline that was the motivation for the Westminster Assembly.
> 
> ...



Not really. 
Just surprised to find a new Presbyterian denomination. When you say your church is committed to RT, am I correct in assuming that your church is
KJV only and if so what are your thoughts about the New Geneva study bible (not the R.C. Sproul edition that uses the NKJ text) as it also is supposedly based on the RT if not more so than the KJV. http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva.php


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 20, 2006)

ADKing said:


> Formed almost a year ago in January 2006, the WPCUS seeks to be a Presbyterian denomination adhering to the unammended Westminster Confession, catechisms, directory of publick worship and Presbyterian form of government. We also adopt the Directory of family worship. We attempt not to have any peculiarities other than the distinctives of historic Presbyterianism of the Westminster, Reformation Church of Scotland variety. All our documents are online.
> 
> We practice a capella exclusive psalmody (employing the 1650 Scottish metrical psalter), use the Authorised version because of our commitment to the Received Text, hold to the establishment principle, and practice communion seasons in the old Scottish fashion. We are committed to advancing the uniformity of doctrine, worship, government and discipline that was the motivation for the Westminster Assembly.
> 
> ...




God bless you brethren! I really like the singing and recieved text part!


----------



## CDM (Dec 20, 2006)

providenceboard said:


> I like the idea of having the distinctive that you don't really have any distinctives.
> 
> Why did the ministers not simply join the *Presbyterian Reformed Church*, Free Church of Scotland (continuing) or the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland?



 

This sounds exactly like the PRC.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 20, 2006)

Rev. King,

I was looking at the WPCUS website. They show 5 congregations. Did they forget about you??


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

The WPCUS adheres to the Received Text. We have adopted the KJV as our official pulpit and publications Bible for the sake of uniformity. Our Basis of union states, _"This Church holds to the Ecclesiastical Reformation Received Text (see WCF 1:8), as indicated in the proof-texts of the original Westminster Standards; the Authorised King James Version is the Bible Version endorsed by the Church for public and private worship. In accordance with the DPW, other acceptable translations may be used from time to time; but the official pulpit Bible and publications Bible shall be the Authorised King James Version. "_ I assume that the original Geneva Bible just released would be considered an "acceptable version" as it is based on the RT. However, like I say for the sake of uniformity and undoubtedly because of the greater familiarity and availability, the KJV has been adopted.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

providenceboard said:


> I like the idea of having the distinctive that you don't really have any distinctives.
> 
> Why did the ministers not simply join the Presbyterian Reformed Church, Free Church of Scotland (continuing) or the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland?



I was not part of the constituting group in January. I joined the church in June. It is my understanding that there were some practical difficulties in the way of joining with the PRC at that time. Our denomination remains committed to uniting (eventually) with brethren like the PRC who share such a similar basis. I would personally be in favor of it. However, sadly enough, splits can happen so much faster than unions, no?


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> Rev. King,
> 
> I was looking at the WPCUS website. They show 5 congregations. Did they forget about you??



Kind of  Really, though...We presently do not have an organized congregation in WA. I was ordained as a presbytery missionary and have worked primarily with our congregations in VT and elsewhere (The Rev. Dallison has just accepted an invitation from the NC congregation and now Parsippany is vacant so I may be going there more often). I spend a good deal of time back east, but have made contact with other groups that are interested. WA is still techincally home until I am settled somewhere else, so it is easier to have it as a signiture than change it frequently. The church hopes to settle me in a pastoral charge as soon as some logistics are worked out.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 20, 2006)

It seems like we Presbyterians. form a new denom. every couple of months why? Is it just so we can follow our particular dogmas?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 20, 2006)

Irishcat922 said:


> It seems like we Presbyterians. form a new denom. every couple of months why? Is it just so we can follow our particular dogmas?


Or, can't get along with anyone else who we disagree with for very long. Someone needs to do a "top ten reasons Presbyterians start new denominations" thread.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 20, 2006)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Or, can't get along with anyone else who we disagree with for very long. Someone needs to do a "top ten reasons Presbyterians start new denominations" thread.


No doubt. It seems a little ridiculous to me. 
I come on the P.B. and every week I find new initials i have to figure out.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

Irishcat922 said:


> It seems like we Presbyterians. form a new denom. every couple of months why? Is it just so we can follow our particular dogmas?



That might be a slight exaggeration, but I understand what you are saying. While there are undoubtedly many bad reasons as even the best of our works are mingled with sin, in our case it was a desire to _return_ to standards and practices that have slowly faded away in too many professedly Presbyterian denominations.


----------



## Croghanite (Dec 20, 2006)

Rev. King,

Where exactly is the congregation in NC located?
I looked it up and it shows it in York, SC.


----------



## Croghanite (Dec 20, 2006)

nevermind I found it...  
too far for me.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

It's up by the border with Virginia. Right now they are meeting in Reidsville. You said you were moving to Charlotte? I would very highly recommed the PRC there. I know the Rev. Worrell personally and he is a good minister.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 20, 2006)

Curious as to what the difficulties were with joining the PRC? And no, you don't find new denoms creeping up that often in Presbyterian churches. Others yes, Presbyterians hardly. As for the comment on "dogmas"...there are some things that are a matter of obedience for some of us. We've had to compromise in the past with other churches due to no options. I'm grateful to not have to do that and even though it calls for traveling, we'll do it if it means we don't have to "re-educate" our kids every Lord's Day after church (well the church says this, but we belief that).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 20, 2006)

Still, too many divisions given how small a body Confessional Presbyterian types make up. 


LadyFlynt said:


> Curious as to what the difficulties were with joining the PRC? And no, you don't find new denoms creeping up that often in Presbyterian churches. Others yes, Presbyterians hardly. As for the comment on "dogmas"...there are some things that are a matter of obedience for some of us. We've had to compromise in the past with other churches due to no options. I'm grateful to not have to do that and even though it calls for traveling, we'll do it if it means we don't have to "re-educate" our kids every Lord's Day after church (well the church says this, but we belief that).


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Still, too many divisions given how small a body Confessional Presbytereian types make up.



Definitely!


----------



## JohnV (Dec 21, 2006)

Maybe, instead of a top-ten list of reasons, we should list the Presbyterian denominations, along with the years they were established, as well as which denomination they seceded from, and the main reason for secession; kind of a family tree of Presbyterianism. Come to think of it, hasn't this already been done? I seem to recall something like that. If so, then we should keep it updated.

The very least this would do is either dispel or prove the idea of constant splittings going on. On the other hand, we could greatly expand upon it so that the history of Presbyterianism is clearer for those of us who still are confused.


----------



## Croghanite (Dec 21, 2006)

ADKing said:


> It's up by the border with Virginia. Right now they are meeting in Reidsville. You said you were moving to Charlotte? I would very highly recommed the PRC there. I know the Rev. Worrell personally and he is a good minister.



Indeed. I have visited that congregation and enjoyed the service and people very much. I can see myself joining that Church.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 21, 2006)

JohnV said:


> Maybe, instead of a top-ten list of reasons, we should list the Presbyterian denominations, along with the years they were established, as well as which denomination they seceded from, and the main reason for secession; kind of a family tree of Presbyterianism. Come to think of it, hasn't this already been done? I seem to recall something like that. If so, then we should keep it updated.
> 
> The very least this would do is either dispel or prove the idea of constant splittings going on. On the other hand, we could greatly expand upon it so that the history of Presbyterianism is clearer for those of us who still are confused.



there are several.
http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
appears to be the most complete.
the graph at:
http://history.pcusa.org/pres_hist/connection2_900.jpg

i've been trying to add what online resources i find on the topic to:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap12.html
a Sunday School class on "Split P soup"
if anyone has lists that i missed, tell me so i can add them to this page.
tia,


----------



## ADKing (Dec 21, 2006)

rmwilliamsjr said:


> there are several.
> http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
> appears to be the most complete.
> the graph at:
> ...



See also BJ Mora's webpage http://homepage.mac.com/bjmora/rpdenom/Reflist.html

Some of the short explanations on the tateville website are not very precise or accurate. Apart from that caveat it is a helpful resource.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 21, 2006)

ADKing said:


> See also BJ Mora's webpage http://homepage.mac.com/bjmora/rpdenom/Reflist.html
> 
> Some of the short explanations on the tateville website are not very precise or accurate. Apart from that caveat it is a helpful resource.



 For example, the Presbyterian Reformed Church is not "King James Only" in the sense understood by many relating to the KJVO movement -- only in reference to the pulpit Bible that is used. It is generally a helpful list as are the others noted here. MeDiedBlue also has a helpful list of Presbyterian church websites elsewhere.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 21, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> For example, the Presbyterian Reformed Church is not "King James Only" in the sense understood by many relating to the KJVO movement -- only in reference to the pulpit Bible that is used. It is generally a helpful list as are the others noted here. MeDiedBlue also has a helpful list of Presbyterian church websites elsewhere.



Yes, that was one of the examples I was thinking about. They also claim that American Reformation Presbyterian Church denies common grace. Is that correct??? Chris should be able to answer that. It makes them sound like the Protestant Reformed. Their website says, 

_We reject the teaching of some that God has been gracious to all men and affirm with Scripture that God's grace is particular and effectual to his people alone._ I didn't interpret that as a denial of common grace as such, but I am open to correction.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 21, 2006)

Eating crow...didn't realize there were that many.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 21, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> For example, the Presbyterian Reformed Church is not "King James Only" in the sense understood by many relating to the KJVO movement -- only in reference to the pulpit Bible that is used. It is generally a helpful list as are the others noted here. MeDiedBlue also has a helpful list of Presbyterian church websites elsewhere.



That list is here. It also includes all the confessional Continental Reformed denominations I could find, as well as a couple of the remnant of denominations that still hold to the 1689 confession and the 39 Articles in a truly confessional manner.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 21, 2006)

re:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=219522&postcount=12

thank you for your excellent effort in compiling these lists.
do you have a webpage that i can link to rather than this discussion group posting?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 21, 2006)

ADKing said:


> Yes, that was one of the examples I was thinking about. They also claim that American Reformation Presbyterian Church denies common grace. Is that correct??? Chris should be able to answer that. It makes them sound like the Protestant Reformed. Their website says,
> 
> _We reject the teaching of some that God has been gracious to all men and affirm with Scripture that God's grace is particular and effectual to his people alone._ I didn't interpret that as a denial of common grace as such, but I am open to correction.



I question the accuracy of that particular website also. I asked my pastor to clarify this. Dr. Bacon writes me that [It] depends upon what one means by "common grace." If one simply means that God is good and all his gifts are good, then I agree. But if one means that he has a secret wish to do something he has not willed to do, I think that is nonsense. ​


----------



## bookslover (Dec 23, 2006)

ADKing said:


> Definitely!



This is an interesting thread. May I take a moment to notice that this year, 2006, marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the OPC (1936)?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 23, 2006)

bookslover said:


> This is an interesting thread. May I take a moment to notice that this year, 2006, marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the OPC (1936)?



Indeed. Check out this thread and this.


----------

