# Bible Presbyterian and Orthodox Presbyterian



## BertMulder

In 1936 a breach was made, and the Bible Presbyterian Church split off from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. After years of working towards this, at the 80th Bible Presbyterian Synod last year the BPC invited the OPC to full communion. This was agreed to at the OPC General Assembly earlier this year, and was ratified yesterday at the BPC synod,.

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jake

That's great to hear -- thanks for sharing.

Do you know if this is what an aim of the churches "re"-merging?


----------



## Parmenas

All I can say is: Wow, glory and thanks be unto God!

Psalm 133 (Authorized Version)
A Song of degrees of David
1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 
2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; 
3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jomawh

Does anyone know to what extent the BPC still holds to total abstinence from alcohol and its past amicability towards dispensationalism?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parmenas

jomawh said:


> Does anyone know to what extent the BPC still holds to total abstinence from alcohol and its past amicability towards dispensationalism?



It is my understanding that they are advocates of temperance, but they do not require it, unlike the break-away American Presbyterian Church. They are not dispensationalist, they are historic premillenialist and allow their ministers to hold different eschatological views. This is all according to my small and limited understanding.

I sure hope they keep this website functioning!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## yeutter

BertMulder said:


> In 1936 a breach was made, and the Bible Presbyrian Church split off from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. After years of working towards this, at the 80th Bible Presbyterian Synod last year the BPC invited the OPC to full communion. This was agreed to at the OPC General Assembly earlier this year, and was ratified yesterday at the BPC synod,.
> 
> Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised!


Praise be to God for granting the OPC & BPC brethren charity towards each other despite doctrinal differences.

Are the Bible Presbyterians making any progress towards reuniting the various Bible Presbyterian bodies? I know that in North America one Presbytery broke away a few years ago. In Singapore and Thailand the Bible Presbyterian congregations, that we have contact with are divided; and were not in fellowship with any of the BPC bodies in North America


----------



## Jack K

Wighardus said:


> I sure hope they keep this website functioning!



That's a very handy resource!


----------



## Dachaser

Wighardus said:


> It is my understanding that they are advocates of temperance, but they do not require it, unlike the break-away American Presbyterian Church. They are not dispensationalist, they are historic premillenialist and allow their ministers to hold different eschatological views. This is all according to my small and limited understanding.
> 
> I sure hope they keep this website functioning!


There does seem to be an issue with trying to separate Historical pre mil as a viable option among reformed Christians, and Dispensational views, as they seemed to be getting lumped together.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BertMulder

As a member and officer in the BPC, I know that it is correct that they do not hold to dispensational views, that therte is freedom for different eschatological views, and that while they advocate temperance, as all reformed churches, they do not dictate abstinence from alcohol.


----------



## jomawh

BertMulder said:


> As a member and officer in the BPC, I know that it is correct that they do not hold to dispensational views, that therte is freedom for different eschatological views, and that while they advocate temperance, as all reformed churches, they do not dictate abstinence from alcohol.


As I understand it, _historically-speaking _what divided the BPC from the OPC were issues over historic premillennialism (with a certain friendliness to dispensationalism) and abstinence from alcohol. I'm glad to hear that the more biblical position is now espoused in the BPC, but that's all I wanted to know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

I think that in Singapore the BPC is of a four pointer persuasion, and of a dispensational complexion. But open to correction if my analysis after repeated visits is wrong,


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

BertMulder said:


> In 1936 a breach was made, and the Bible Presbyterian Church split off from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. After years of working towards this, at the 80th Bible Presbyterian Synod last year the BPC invited the OPC to full communion. This was agreed to at the OPC General Assembly earlier this year, and was ratified yesterday at the BPC synod,.
> 
> Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised!


so what exactly is meant by full communion?


----------



## Wayne

There was a third issue in the 1938 separation that created the BPC, and that was the use of denominational boards.
The BPC eschewed assembly or Synod-controlled boards and instead set up separate, independent agencies to conduct the various needed ministries.


----------



## yeutter

Cymro said:


> I think that in Singapore the BPC is of a four pointer persuasion, and of a dispensational complexion. But open to correction if my analysis after repeated visits is wrong,


Bible Presbyterianism in Singapore is complicated. There are more then thirty Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore. As Jeff says, Life Bible Presbyterian Church, [the first and largest Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore,] seems to be moderate dispensationalist and tolerant of "four point Calvinism." Additionally Life Bible Presbyterian Church has adopted a King James only position, very much in line with the Dean Burgeon Society and Dr. D. A. Waite. Life Bible Presbyterian Church is very much committed to the philosophy and apologetics of J. Oliver Buswell and opposed to presuppositionalism. Life Bible Presbyterian Church strongly rejects Pentecostalism. Some other Bible Presbyterian Congregations in Singapore reject the King James only position and are tolerant of Pentecostalism. Some other Bible Presbyterian Congregations rejected Pentecostalism but did not share the King James Only position. These congregations have sought to be consistently reformed and rejected the use of instrumental music. These disputes caused the Singapore Bible Presbyterian Church Presbytery to be dissolved in 1988. This schism has spilled over to Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.


----------



## Edward

Does this mean that the OPC is moving away from NAPARC?


----------



## greenbaggins

Edward, I seriously doubt that the OPC will be moving away from NAPARC anytime soon.


----------



## Wayne

Edward, would you explain your question? What prompts you to suspect that might happen?


----------



## RamistThomist

Wayne said:


> Edward, would you explain your question? What prompts you to suspect that might happen?



While not speaking for Edward, I don't think that is what he is saying. I think it means something like the Bible Presbyterian Church would not join NAPARC, but if the BPC is merging with the OPC, that would mean, for the sake of argument, that the OPC is leaving NAPARC.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

No, the OPC is not leaving NAPARC. Nor are we contemplating it. 

I was at there at the GA in 1994 in Harvey Cedars, NJ when Rev. Dr. Kevin Backus came to express regret for the break at the 3rd GA (in May 1937) and the desire for rapprochement. Rather complicated circumstances ensued (there was no small dissension over the next years regarding Dr. Backus's mission) and the BP became embroiled in controversy over reestablishing ties. 

After significant battles, Dr. Backus (who has been, as have I, at the GA's in the intervening years) brought this action on behalf of the BP's, worked on by both of our ecumenicity committees, and matters developed as reported above (by brother. Mulder; fyi, I am flying to Calgary tomorrow for Summit 2017). There was rejoicing at our GA (scarcely a dry eye in the house, as we gave a prolonged ovation at this historic moment) and we continue to rejoice in this latest news from the Synod. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover

With Carl McIntire safely in heaven and, presumably, some of the older BP leaders now also safely ensconced there, it seems that the BPC has been taking the lead to repair some of the ecclesiastical damage done over the last few decades. I'm very glad to see these new developments. Glad to see the OPC and the BPC in full communion once again.

A good friend of mine is an OPC minister of long standing. He was raised in the BPC and grew up in McIntire's church in New Jersey. I once opined to him, after hearing many stories from him about his BPC years, that McIntire seemed like an independent fundamentalist Baptist disguised as a Presbyterian. He did not disagree.


----------



## Jake

The BPC has been an observer at NAPARC many times.


----------



## Romans922

What does full communion mean? Is BPC merging with OPC? Someone please explain the meaning of this and the details.


----------



## BertMulder

Full communion means just that, short of merging the denominations.

"According to our guidelines for ecclesiastical relationships found on our website at http://www.opc.org/relations/rules.pdf Ecclesiastical Fellowship is described as follows: Ecclesiastical Fellowship is a relationship in which the churches involved are Reformed in their confessional standards, church order and life though there may be such differences between them that union is not possible at this time. It is to be implemented where possible and desirable by: a. Exchange of fraternal delegates at major assemblies b. Occasional pulpit fellowship (by local option) c. Intercommunion, including ready reception of each other's members at the Lord's Supper but not excluding suitable inquiries upon requested transfer of membership, as regulated by each session (consistory) d. Joint action in areas of common responsibility e. Consultation on issues of joint concern, particularly before instituting changes in polity, doctrine, or practice that might alter the basis of the fellowship f. The exercise of mutual concern and admonition with a view to promoting Christian unity g. Agreement to respect the procedures of discipline and pastoral concern of one another, h. Exchange of Minutes (Acts) of the major assemblies i. Exchange of denominational church directories (yearbooks) j. Exchange of the most recently published edition of the confessional standards k. Exchange of the most recently published edition of the (Book or Manual of) Church Order l. Exchange of the most recent denominationally published edition of hymnals or Psalters"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward

Wayne said:


> Edward, would you explain your question? What prompts you to suspect that might happen?



If the OPC is going into full communion with a non-NAPARC denomination, it certainly strikes me as a legitimate question as to whether that means the OPC is moving away from NAPARC. While not impossible in this context, it is difficult to face two directions at the same time, and it is logical to wonder whether the direction last faced is the direction in which one is heading.

The question would not have occurred to me if I had read that the BPC was seeking to join NAPARC, but I am surprised that multiple folks can't seem to contemplate the basis of my question. As Chairman Mao taught, "A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wayne

Edward: I'm not being difficult, just dense.

But given what you've written, what then about OPC involvement in the ICRC, while the PCA eschews that and opts for the WRF?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The PCA is (or was) in the NAE, while at the same time it is (and was) in NAPARC. Is there the same level of _*?!*_ when those two organizations are taken into consideration, relative to the PCA?

The history of the OPC and the BPC is one of previous unity, and of faction, and division. Time marches on, and the OPC has grown (modestly). Meanwhile, what is left of the BPC--which left the OPC _larger _than the rump OPC, and is now quite small--is willing to move in the direction of reconciliation. It does so, understanding that the OPC has made other friends in the meantime.

And the OPC understands this too. It is not aiming at dropping it's other friends, just because a parted brother wants healing--a healing of a serious kind.


----------



## Wayne

By the way, I applaud the BPC/OPC move towards greater unity in the Gospel.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

bookslover said:


> With Carl McIntire safely in heaven



I now caught the connotations of that remark. Just googling some of McIntyre's antics (like when he was forbidden to use any radio stations on land, he rented a ship and parked it off the coast) makes for a fun evening.


----------



## Edward

Contra_Mundum said:


> The PCA is (or was) in the NAE, while at the same time it is (and was) in NAPARC. Is there the same level of _*?!*_ when those two organizations are taken into consideration, relative to the PCA?



Well, some might well say that the PCA's ties to the NAE show which way it is facing, and it does appear to be traveling the direction it is facing. So I would take your point as supporting, not undermining, my starting point. 



Wayne said:


> what then about OPC involvement in the ICRC, while the PCA eschews that and opts for the WRF?



Probably less telling than the NAE position. But again points up that folks may be facing different directions these days. 



greenbaggins said:


> Edward, I seriously doubt that the OPC will be moving away from NAPARC anytime soon.



Thanks for addressing my question.


----------



## Dachaser

BertMulder said:


> As a member and officer in the BPC, I know that it is correct that they do not hold to dispensational views, that therte is freedom for different eschatological views, and that while they advocate temperance, as all reformed churches, they do not dictate abstinence from alcohol.


They would hold to a Pre Mil viewpoint, but allow for other positions then., correct?


----------



## BertMulder

that is correct


----------



## Pilgrim

yeutter said:


> Praise be to God for granting the OPC & BPC brethren charity towards each other despite doctrinal differences.
> 
> Are the Bible Presbyterians making any progress towards reuniting the various Bible Presbyterian bodies? I know that in North America one Presbytery broke away a few years ago. In Singapore and Thailand the Bible Presbyterian congregations, that we have contact with are divided; and were not in fellowship with any of the BPC bodies in North America



The Presbytery that broke away a few years ago did so precisely because they opposed the move toward closer relations with the OPC. Eschatology, etc. notwithstanding, you can't practice secondary separation and be in communion with a church (the OPC) that is essentially in communion with neo-evangelicals like the PCA that are in the NAE.

It is my understanding that with the exception of the 2 or 3 APC churches, most of the other former BPC congregations are currently in the PCA as a result of the Joining and Receiving of the RPCES in the early 80s. 

In Singapore, it is my understanding that a broader evangelical group broke away from the fundamentalists, who as has been stated are KJVO, etc. From what I've gathered, the fundy BPCs in Singapore are teaching something called Verbal Plenary Preservation (i.e. the KJV) in addition to Verbal Plenary Inspiration.


----------



## Pilgrim

For those in the know, are there still pre-tribulationists in the BPC?

I know that there are some in the Atlantic Synod (or whatever the name is of the group that broke away about 10 years ago over the BPC's moves toward reconciliation with the OPC.) For example, Collingswood BPC (Mcintire's old church which is among those who left the BPC at that time) has that position prominently stated on their website. They uphold the unity of the covenant of grace so would probably deny that they are Dispensationalists.

This was the eschatological view of men like Francis Schaeffer and James Montgomery Boice, among others. (Schaeffer and Boice were both pre-trib and not post-trib as is often erroneously assumed.) Buswell was mid-trib, which some would also say is inconsistent with historic premil. Allan Macrae, one of the original faculty members of WTS who left in 1937 (over Vantillianism, strong opposition to premil at WTS and in the new denomination, alcohol, etc.) was also pre-trib. One of the leaders in the BPC in Singapore has referred to this as a covenantal ecclesiology and a dispensational eschatology. However weird or inconsistent we may think that is, I guess if you have to boil it down in a sentence, that's not a bad way to put it.

Based on what I've seen, it appears that there is more diversity on eschatology in the BPC than there used to be. I've come across BPC ministers on Sermon Audio who appear to be partial preterist postmils or amils.

John Battle of Western Reformed Seminary is a post-trib premil. I read a journal article of his several years ago in which he said that when he was appointed head of that seminary several decades ago, it was controversial due to his not being pre-trib. He said that pre-trib was practically an article of faith in the BPC by the early 80s. I have it saved somewhere, but I'm not sure where. It was on the seminary's website. Dr. Battle also favorably reviewed Barry Horner's "Future Israel" which is almost a companion piece to MacArthur's "Why Self-respecting Calvinists Should Be Premillennial" although Horner does not emphasize rapture views, and as noted, Dr. Battle is post-trib. (Dr. Waldron confessed that as he was reading that book, he wanted to throw it across the room due to Dr. Horners invective against "replacement theology," anti-semitism, etc.)

I can't imagine any OPC Presbytery ordaining or agreeing to a transfer of a man who would favorably endorse such a book since many would consider it tantamount to dispensationalism regardless of what one's views on the unity of the covenant of grace are. This alone would prevent a full merger, I would think.

As I understand it, this was one reason why the RPCES (which included many former BPC churches that had moved away from separatist fundamentalism although often not from things like premil, teetotalism, rejection of the RPW, rejection of the spirituality of the church, etc.) ultimately voted down the proposed merger with the OPC in 1975. The theological issues of the 30s and 40s remained unresolved in 1975. And unless the BPC has largely abandoned all of those distinctives, they remain unresolved. From time to time we see it stated here and elsewhere that any form of premil is unconfessional and that premils should not be ordained, etc. (I don't know how prevalent that view is in the OPC today.)

It does appear that what is left of the BPC has abandoned secondary separation, or this move toward full communion with the OPC never would have happened.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> For those in the know, are there still pre-tribulationists in the BPC?
> 
> I know that there are some in the Atlantic Synod (or whatever the name is of the group that broke away about 10 years ago over the BPC's moves toward reconciliation with the OPC.) For example, Collingswood BPC (Mcintire's old church which is among those who left the BPC at that time) has that position prominently stated on their website. They uphold the unity of the covenant of grace so would probably deny that they are Dispensationalists.
> 
> This was the eschatological view of men like Francis Schaeffer and James Montgomery Boice, among others. (Schaeffer and Boice were both pre-trib and not post-trib as is often erroneously assumed.) Buswell was mid-trib, which some would also say is inconsistent with historic premil. Allan Macrae, one of the original faculty members of WTS who left in 1937 (over Vantillianism, strong opposition to premil at WTS and in the new denomination, alcohol, etc.) was also pre-trib. One of the leaders in the BPC in Singapore has referred to this as a covenantal ecclesiology and a dispensational eschatology. However weird or inconsistent we may think that is, I guess if you have to boil it down in a sentence, that's not a bad way to put it.
> 
> Based on what I've seen, it appears that there is more diversity on eschatology in the BPC than there used to be. I've come across BPC ministers on Sermon Audio who appear to be partial preterist postmils or amils.
> 
> John Battle of Western Reformed Seminary is a post-trib premil. I read a journal article of his several years ago in which he said that when he was appointed head of that seminary several decades ago, it was controversial due to his not being pre-trib. He said that pre-trib was practically an article of faith in the BPC by the early 80s. I have it saved somewhere, but I'm not sure where. It was on the seminary's website. Dr. Battle also favorably reviewed Barry Horner's "Future Israel" which is almost a companion piece to MacArthur's "Why Self-respecting Calvinists Should Be Premillennial" although Horner does not emphasize rapture views, and as noted, Dr. Battle is post-trib. (Dr. Waldron confessed that as he was reading that book, he wanted to throw it across the room due to Dr. Horners invective against "replacement theology," anti-semitism, etc.)
> 
> I can't imagine any OPC Presbytery ordaining or agreeing to a transfer of a man who would favorably endorse such a book since many would consider it tantamount to dispensationalism regardless of what one's views on the unity of the covenant of grace are. This alone would prevent a full merger, I would think.
> 
> As I understand it, this was one reason why the RPCES (which included many former BPC churches that had moved away from separatist fundamentalism although often not from things like premil, teetotalism, rejection of the RPW, rejection of the spirituality of the church, etc.) ultimately voted down the proposed merger with the OPC in 1975. The theological issues of the 30s and 40s remained unresolved in 1975. And unless the BPC has largely abandoned all of those distinctives, they remain unresolved. From time to time we see it stated here and elsewhere that any form of premil is unconfessional and that premils should not be ordained, etc. (I don't know how prevalent that view is in the OPC today.)
> 
> It does appear that what is left of the BPC has abandoned secondary separation, or this move toward full communion with the OPC never would have happened.


Interesting, as their group would seem to be pretty much the same in their eschatology as the standard Dispensational Christian would be.


----------

