# PCA vs. OPC



## Notthemama1984

Out of curiosity, what would you consider the distinctives between these two denoms? On paper they seem very close, but I know people who would not cross denom lines. So it would seem that there must be some difference. 

Beyond theological differences, what are the cultural differences?


----------



## Michael

PCA: gets to party in Virginia Beach this year
OPC: has a way better website

Tough call...


----------



## Notthemama1984

Michael said:


> PCA: gets to party in Virginia Beach this year
> OPC: has a way better website
> 
> Tough call...


 
Decisions decisions.....


----------



## Scott1

You may find helpful a search (upper right)- this has been reviewed in great detail.

Overall, two very fine biblical, reformed denominations with high level fraternal relations.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I attempted the search. I didn't find anything. I must have used the wrong definitions.


----------



## au5t1n

Chaplainintraining said:


> I attempted the search. I didn't find anything. I must have used the wrong definitions.


 
What did you search for? I just typed "pca vs opc" into the quick search bar at the top right and got these results: http://www.puritanboard.com/google....w.puritanboard.com/f117/pca-vs-opc-68135/#881

Not that it can't be discussed again. I think, in short, the difference is that the OPC, considered as a whole, is more conservative and confessional than the PCA, and more traditional. Individual congregations in both denominations can be exceptions to that rule. The OPC is smaller and doesn't seem to have a movement equivalent to the PCA's large "cultural engagement"/Kellerite movement (the ones that are always telling you to "seek the peace of the city," by which they mean put your kids in public school and watch R-rated movies--I'm not writing this stuff out loud, am I? ).

Other than that, they are very similar. They share a publishing company.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I typed, "PCA OPC" and it told me that the words were too common.


----------



## CharlieJ

PCA vs. OPC? I'd consider that an Alamo situation. The OPC's fortress mentality and stubborn disposition make every inch a bloodbath, but the PCA's relentless expansionist agenda and sheer numbers finally overwhelm the beleaguered defenses. 

Oh, did I misread the "vs."?


----------



## Andres

Here has been my personal experience - the PCA swings much more broadly within their denomination. What I mean is that you can visit a PCA church one Sunday and it might be conservative and confessional with no instruments other than a piano. The next Sunday you can visit another PCA church and it will have a band up front, with the minister telling jokes in the pulpit etc. On the other hand, every OPC church I've ever visited or known people from has been much more similar to each other. As Austin said, they tend to be more conservative. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can find both good and bad churches within both, I just prefer the benefit of knowing what you're getting in an OPC congregation.


----------



## Philip

The PCA is a conservative mainline reformed denomination. That is to say, it is intentionally a "big tent" within confessional boundaries. The OPC is not---the confessional interpretations allowed there are much stricter. That's my understanding.


----------



## Rufus

austinww said:


> by which they mean put your kids in public school and watch R-rated movies--I'm not writing this stuff out loud, am I? ).



Ha ha, I like Tim Keller but probably won't put my kids in public school (although, I am in one), and I think it depends on the R-rated movie and how to interpret it, on that note I watched R rated war films since I was a toddler....


----------



## Scott1

Chaplainintraining said:


> I typed, "PCA OPC" and it told me that the words were too common.



One popular thread, 2009: 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/differences-between-pca-opc-50617/


----------



## Philip

austinww said:


> the ones that are always telling you to "seek the peace of the city," by which they mean put your kids in public school and watch R-rated movies



Austin, speaking as one who has huge sympathy for this movement, that's a very inaccurate assessment of the culturalist wing of the PCA. I realize that there's a slight facetiousness in the statement, but it belies severe misconceptions about Keller and those like him, who are more artsy, locally conscious, and interested in cultural and physical transformation based on Christian principles.


----------



## MMasztal

Andres said:


> Here has been my personal experience - the PCA swings much more broadly within their denomination. What I mean is that you can visit a PCA church one Sunday and it might be conservative and confessional with no instruments other than a piano. The next Sunday you can visit another PCA church and it will have a band up front, with the minister telling jokes in the pulpit etc. On the other hand, every OPC church I've ever visited or known people from has been much more similar to each other. As Austin said, they tend to be more conservative. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can find both good and bad churches within both, I just prefer the benefit of knowing what you're getting in an OPC congregation.


 
 having belonged to both denomination at different times. I much prefer the OPC.


----------



## Edward

Rufus said:


> I like Tim Keller but probably won't put my kids in public school



Not a fan of Keller, but do use the public schools.


----------



## jennywigg

Hi...I'm new! Just curious about Tim Keller. My hubby and I are recovering Southern Baptists, so we're not completely in the know, but what is it exactly that makes Keller sort of "iffy" in the eyes of some? This isn't the first place I've heard folks speak warily of him. Thanks for any info!

Jennifer
Member
PCA
Mississippi


----------



## lynnie

Has the OPC had any FV problems? Seems like every one I hear of is PCA.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I remember someone on PB stating that it creeped in, but it was on a much smaller scale than the PCA.


----------



## au5t1n

jennywigg said:


> Hi...I'm new! Just curious about Tim Keller. My hubby and I are recovering Southern Baptists, so we're not completely in the know, but what is it exactly that makes Keller sort of "iffy" in the eyes of some? This isn't the first place I've heard folks speak warily of him. Thanks for any info!
> 
> Jennifer
> Member
> PCA
> Mississippi


 
I'm tempted to answer with the juicy details, but...I didn't really mean to derail the thread. The search function will help. Sorry.


----------



## elnwood

Can we throw another denomination into the mix? Where does the ARP fit with respect to the PCA and OPC?


----------



## Notthemama1984

I am game for expansion.


----------



## au5t1n

elnwood said:


> Can we throw another denomination into the mix? Where does the ARP fit with respect to the PCA and OPC?


 
I know a few things: (1) the ARP is much older than both (by a couple centuries, I believe), (2) the ARP varies a lot, similar to the PCA, but is much smaller, and (3) the ARP used to be exclusive psalmody and probably still has more psalm-singing than the PCA.

Oh, that brings up another difference between the OPC and PCA. There is more psalm-singing in the OPC and a higher incidence of "traditional" instrumentation (piano/organ) than the PCA.


----------



## Zenas

I would put the ARP as more left leaning than the PCA but not as left leaning as the EPC. It is a very rural denomination and, in my experience, dominated by much older people. Congregations vary as well regarding confessional adherence. I know that there are very Confessionally-minded congregations within the denomination along with congregations that don't functionally operate under them.


----------



## MMasztal

elnwood said:


> Can we throw another denomination into the mix? Where does the ARP fit with respect to the PCA and OPC?


 
Well, having been in all three denominations, I’d say the ARP is more like the PCA in that the different ARP churches will also vary in their practices. The APR allows for a bit more automomy, e.g., female deacons if the local presbyteries agree. On the plus side, they effectively dealt with some recent problems at Erskine Seminary.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Andres said:


> Here has been my personal experience - the PCA swings much more broadly within their denomination. What I mean is that you can visit a PCA church one Sunday and it might be conservative and confessional with no instruments other than a piano. The next Sunday you can visit another PCA church and it will have a band up front, with the minister telling jokes in the pulpit etc. On the other hand, every OPC church I've ever visited or known people from has been much more similar to each other. As Austin said, they tend to be more conservative. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can find both good and bad churches within both, I just prefer the benefit of knowing what you're getting in an OPC congregation.



 When we vacation, if I can't find a good confessional Reformed Baptist Church (e.g. ARBCA) then I typically look for an OPC Church. Why? Because in my experience, ARBCA and the OPC are very similar in their confessionalism and its application.

If I were a Presbyterian (and it aint gunna happen ), the most natural choice for me would be the OPC. Much of what I love about the OPC are things I love about ARBCA. 

So, when providentially hindered from attending a RB church, I rejoice to fellowship with the Brethren of the OPC.


----------



## Gage Browning

I think there is more of a sense of urgency or importance in the OPC on "subscription" vs. the lack of importance on "subscription" to the Westminster Standards, imop.


----------



## Philip

One aspect that I find unique to the PCA is the number of churches involved in community development (of which Redeemer is the most prominent, though not the oldest or most successful) such as New City Fellowship in Chattanooga, New Song is Baltimore, and Lagniappe Pres in Bay St. Louis. I would consider these bodies to be among the PCA's greatest assets, certainly among its most active and faithful congregations.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

C. M. Sheffield said:


> If I were a Presbyterian (and it aint gunna happen ),



Even at the risk of persecution by Calvin 

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

In my Country the Reformed Churches of New Zealand [the largest Reformed demonination] recognise the OPC as a sister church. They will not recognise the PCA - I assume because they see the OPC as more confessionally faithful. However, the Grace Presbyterian churches of NZ [which have a looser attachment to the Westminster standards] link up with the PCA.


----------



## Pilgrim

lynnie said:


> Has the OPC had any FV problems? Seems like every one I hear of is PCA.


 
I know of some ministers who left the OPC for the CREC after the FV controversy heated up 5-6 years ago. A year or two prior to that, there was the somewhat related Kinnaird controversy with regard to justification, but I don't think that involved the FV's sacramentalism.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

lynnie said:


> Has the OPC had any FV problems? Seems like every one I hear of is PCA.


 
Lynnie,

If there are FV men in the OPC they are hiding. 
The PCA has a closed trial on Peter Leithart in the NW Presbytery. They also tried to ferret out an FV in the midwest (Souix Lands). And before some in Wilkin's presbytery tried to deal with but he left.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 AM ----------




Gage Browning said:


> I think there is more of a sense of urgency or importance in the OPC on "subscription" vs. the lack of importance on "subscription" to the Westminster Standards, imop.


Mr. Browning, I think that would be a nice summary. I have never been a member of the PCA but have "rubbed shoulders" with them. I have attended three Presbytery meeting and witnessed four floor exams and two committee exams. All the men examined on the floor took exceptions to the Sabbath (playing on the Lord's day, etc.). I recall two taking exception to images of Christ. And one who could not answer--because he was unsure--if the Lord's Supper had "infused justifying grace" (!)--he passed anyway.

Now, I know of a minister 15 years ago who was passed on Hebrew without basic knowledge of 'vav' (very important)--those who wanted him passed 'tutored' him in one night. This was an OPC presbytery. So, the OPC ain't perfect either!

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> The PCA is a conservative mainline reformed denomination. That is to say, it is intentionally a "big tent" within confessional boundaries. The OPC is not---the confessional interpretations allowed there are much stricter. That's my understanding.


 
Philip, I think that is another way of putting the difference. I know old-school presbyterian ministers in the PCA and that would fit their description. They know they have more "battles" than the OPC (check out Wes White's site for documented goin's on in the PCA; search for Keller for those interested).

I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.

---------- Post added at 08:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> PCA vs. OPC? I'd consider that an Alamo situation. The OPC's fortress mentality and stubborn disposition make every inch a bloodbath, but the PCA's relentless expansionist agenda and sheer numbers finally overwhelm the beleaguered defenses.
> 
> Oh, did I misread the "vs."?


 
Johnson, I hope this was a joke.


----------



## au5t1n

Shawn Mathis said:


> I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.



I like that! And RPCGA = Geneva. haha. Just kidding. Sorta.


----------



## Philip

Shawn Mathis said:


> I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.



That's a bit of a bad analogy since Constitution Party=irrelevant and OPC=relevant. The Paedocommunion/FV thing in the PCA will die down eventually given that the PCA's temperament is very much against that particular direction. It's one of the things that Rev Keister and Tim Keller would definitely agree on.


----------



## Rufus

Shawn Mathis said:


> I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.



Really? Everything I've ever seen for the Consitution Party made me think they where Independent and Fundamentalist Baptist types, but I could be wrong.


----------



## raekwon

Andres said:


> What I mean is that you can visit a PCA church one Sunday and it might be conservative and confessional [...] The next Sunday you can visit another PCA church and it will have a band up front, with the minister telling jokes in the pulpit etc.


 
Does not compute. Not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

P. F. Pugh said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bit of a bad analogy since Constitution Party=irrelevant and OPC=relevant. The Paedocommunion/FV thing in the PCA will die down eventually given that the PCA's temperament is very much against that particular direction. It's one of the things that Rev Keister and Tim Keller would definitely agree on.
Click to expand...

 
Well, I guess I should have been more specific  
PCA is like the Republican party insofar as they are more "big tent" (as others observed).

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------




Rufus said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Everything I've ever seen for the Consitution Party made me think they where Independent and Fundamentalist Baptist types, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

 
It seems that way don't it? Of course, if they were truly Independent politically they would not not favor a republic (political Presbyterianism!)


----------



## jandrusk

At least as far as church government goes the PCA is _functionally_ congregational while the OPC is Presbyterian.


----------



## Scott1

The "differences" analysis can be overdone, and need to be put in perspective.

The dynamics of a smaller denomination like the OPC (around 30,000 members), and medium sized one like the PCA (around 350,000), with a broader demographic are different, necessarily.

There is more variety of worship practice and slightly more variation in teaching in the larger denomination. Yet, many congregations in both denominations have very similar practices. Don't forget, the two denominations share a common hymnal, psalter and publishing company, Great Commission Publishers. 

There is significant interface between the two denominations and officers, pastors, move freely between the two because of substantial doctrine and practice similarity.

We don't want to over represent the macro level differences, nor under represent the micro ones.


----------



## Edward

Shawn Mathis said:


> And before some in Wilkin's presbytery tried to deal with but he left.



That's a bit charitable. The presbytery as a whole didn't properly act until the denomination pulled out a hammer. And then Wilkins decamped. And a lot of the impetus for action came from outside the presbytery, although there were some faithful men in the presbytery throughout the process.

I wouldn't describe PNW as being aggressive on the subject, either.


----------



## Pilgrim

I think it could well be argued that regional differences play a role. What I'm referring to is the way that controversy between orthodoxy and liberalism unfolded in the 20th Century and how that differed in the North and the South, among both Presbyterians and Baptists.

During the fundamentalist/modernist controversy in the early 20th Century, the Northern churches succumbed fairly quickly to modernism/liberalism, while the Southern churches like those in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Southern Presbyterians (PCUS) sort of muddled through with more of a general evangelical identity, albeit one in which liberalism and neo-orthodoxy continued to grow in prominence as the years passed, especially in the 2nd half of the century. In the South, this culminated in the "Conservative Resurgence" in the SBC where conservatives retook the convention in the 80's whereas conservatives in the PCUS left in the 1970's and years following for the PCA and in some cases, the EPC. (After most of the conservatives left, the PCUS merged with the Northern mainline Presbyterians in the early 80's to form today's PCUSA.) 

Because of this history and how long it took to play out, you had a lot of "conservatives" in the South (i.e. those who formed the PCA as well as the SBC conservatives) who were more social conservatives or broad evangelicals as compared to "fundamentalists" (Baptists) or confessionalists (OPC) in the North, who tended to be more militant. You can see the difference between the GARBC and the SBC as well among Baptists and even among self identified fundamentalists in the North and South. 

Back to the North--with the liberals gaining control of the denominational hierarcy in what was then the UPCUSA in the 20's and 30's, Machen and others were forced out. They clearly knew what was at stake and turned to a stricter confessionalism as a result, a confessionalism that some like Machen had arguably not emphasized prior to leaving the mainline church. Otherwise, those who later formed the Bible Presbyterian Church, at least a few of whom were dispensational, likely wouldn't have joined the OPC at all. But within a couple of years, the differences between the Presbyterian confessionalists and the fundamentalists became clear.

Added to this was the "Joining and Receiving" of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) by the PCA in 1982, a group that as a rule was more Northern based and by that time, more broadly evangelical than the early PCA leaders like Morton Smith. The RPCES was originated with a a group that split from the Bible Presbyterians in 1955/56, and some of them no doubt did not want to fight the battles of the 30's and 40's that occurred in the OPC all over again. At that time, Francis Schaeffer was probably the most well known RPCES leader. Covenant Seminary was a RPCES school. The founding of Greenville Seminary was largely a reaction against these broad evangelical or "New School" influences. 

Prior to that, the OPC had voted in 1975 to merge with the RPCES but the RPCES in a close vote declined. When the PCA approved the union with the RPCES, they narrowly rejected union with the OPC at the same time, If I recall correctly over concerns regarding the Norman Shepherd controversy and maybe other issues. In 1986 it was the OPC that voted against a merger with the PCA. To my knowledge that was the end of any kind of attempt to merge the two denominations. 

I don't keep up with Presbyterian happenings closely anymore, but I think I saw something a while back where some in the PCA want to pull out of NAPARC.

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------




Edward said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And before some in Wilkin's presbytery tried to deal with but he left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bit charitable. The presbytery as a whole didn't properly act until the denomination pulled out a hammer. And then Wilkins decamped. And a lot of the impetus for action came from outside the presbytery, although there were some faithful men in the presbytery throughout the process.
> 
> I wouldn't describe PNW as being aggressive on the subject, either.
Click to expand...


Some of the men in the Louisiana Presbytery at that time were, like Wilkins, former if not current theonomists who also embraced the FV to varying degrees. I think at least one or two of those pastors might have left as well, although I think Auburn Ave. was the only church to leave.


----------



## Rufus

Shawn Mathis said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that way don't it? Of course, if they were truly Independent politically they would not not favor a republic (political Presbyterianism!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans make the mistake of calling the U.S. a "Democracy" rather than a Republic .
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

P. F. Pugh said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bit of a bad analogy since Constitution Party=irrelevant and OPC=relevant. The Paedocommunion/FV thing in the PCA will die down eventually given that the PCA's temperament is very much against that particular direction. It's one of the things that Rev Keister and Tim Keller would definitely agree on.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, the people in the PCA who have more of a broad evangelical stance probably would think it is an apt comparison given the small numbers in the OPC when compared with the PCA and with evangelicalism as a whole. There have always been those, even within conservative Presbyterianism, who have viewed the OPC and those of similar mind as being chirping sectaries who carp on the sidelines while the world goes to hell. 

Of course, many in the OPC would not identify themselves as evangelical at this point since the term has largely been divorced from its historical meaning. A lot of PCA members, perhaps a sizeable majority (?) especially in the South have never even heard of the OPC. Baptists and evangelicals who have any clue about other denominations have usually heard of the PCA (as distinct from the PCUSA) but probably 90% have never heard of the OPC. A sizeable number of Calvinistic Baptists have either never heard of the OPC. Those who have (especially those who are not ARBCA-type strict confessionalists) would tend to think the Const. Party comparison is right on, especially if they see a Const. Party vote as a wasted vote. 

Another difference is that the PCA is a member of the NAE whereas the OPC only fellowships with other Reformed churches. With regard to congregationalism, the way the PCA supports missionaries is not much different than the way independent churches do, with PCA missionaries having to go around to individual churches to raise support. Ironically, the way that the Southern Baptist Convention supports missionaries is more connectional than the PCA (they are supported by Cooperative Program $$ that is sent to HQ by the churches) and is more like the OPC in that regard.


----------



## Philip

Pilgrim said:


> Added to this was the "Joining and Receiving" of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) by the PCA around 1982, a group that as a rule was more Northern based and by that time, more broadly evangelical than the early PCA leaders like Morton Smith. The RPCES was originated with a a group that split from the Bible Presbyterians in the early 60's, and some of them no doubt did not want to fight the battles of the 30's and 40's that occurred in the OPC all over again. At that time, Francis Schaeffer was probably the most well known RPCES leader. Covenant Seminary was a RPCES school. The founding of Greenville Seminary was largely a reaction against these broad evangelical or "New School" influences.



From what I can tell, though, the denomination as a whole has tended toward more not less confessionalism in the thirty years since then. If Covenant College is any indication of the stance of the denomination, then it's very clearly reformed (though your mileage may vary on certain confessional stances, particularly in the art department). 



Pilgrim said:


> Some of the men in the Louisiana Presbytery at that time were, like Wilkins, former if not current theonomists who also embraced the FV to varying degrees. I think at least one or two of those pastors might have left as well, although I think Auburn Ave. was the only church to leave.



I don't know of many FVers and converts from reformed theology to RCism who haven't gone _via_ theonomy---and because the PCA is leaning away from such ideas, I think it safe to say that FV is not a major threat to the peace of the denomination.


----------



## interalia

raekwon said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that you can visit a PCA church one Sunday and it might be conservative and confessional [...] The next Sunday you can visit another PCA church and it will have a band up front, with the minister telling jokes in the pulpit etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not compute. Not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


Nice...saved me the effort of a larger post.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

P. F. Pugh said:


> I don't know of many FVers and converts from reformed theology to RCism who haven't gone _via_ theonomy---and because the PCA is leaning away from such ideas, I think it safe to say that FV is not a major threat to the peace of the denomination.


 
Care to flush this out with some facts? Because men like James Jordan, Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson, etc... repudiated Theonomy before the men themselves, or anyone else, even heard of FV. Greg Bahnsen wrote a scathing attack on James Jordan's methodology and the first Reformed denomination to speak against FV was the RPCUS, an explicitly Theonomic denomination.

The "Theonomy leads to FV" canard has proven to be false repeatedly on this site and many others.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/greg-bahnsen-james-jordans-interpretive-maximalism-66074/


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The causal connection is Jordan, not Theonomy.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Scott1 said:


> The dynamics of a smaller denomination like the OPC (around 30,000 members), and medium sized one like the PCA (around 350,000), with a broader demographic are different, necessarily.



Scott, that is exactly true. And I am glad you made what was implicit explicit. 

In fact, the regional (and even Presbytery-wide) difference can be such that one may need to put more weight on deciding between individual churches more than deciding between denominations. I know for a fact that come ministers have suggested to members moving away to another part of America to join the sister denomination because of such wide-disparity.

---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> James Jordan, Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson, etc... repudiated Theonomy before the men themselves, or anyone else, even heard of FV.



Glaser, you got me here. I haven't watched the internet for these issues for a while. Where and when did Jordan, et.a. repudiate theonomy? 

thanks,


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

You must not have been paying very much attention. Jordan repudiated Theonomy back before there was an Internet.

It took me all of two seconds of looking on the Biblical Horizons website to find an article by James Jordan from 1990 repudiating Bahnsen and Rushdoony's Theonomy. In this article he references a 1988 article where he criticizes Bahnsen/Rushdoony.

No. 9: What Is “Interpretive Maximalism”? by James B. Jordan January, 1990


----------



## Scott1

Pilgrim said:


> Prior to that, the OPC had voted in 1975 to merge with the RPCES but the RPCES in a close vote declined. When the PCA approved the union with the RPCES, they narrowly rejected union with the OPC at the same time, If I recall correctly over concerns regarding the Norman Shepherd controversy and maybe other issues. In 1986 it was the OPC that voted against a merger with the PCA. To my knowledge that was the end of any kind of attempt to merge the two denominations.
> 
> I don't keep up with Presbyterian happenings closely anymore, but I think I saw something a while back where some in the PCA want to pull out of NAPARC.




You're missing out on a lot of excitement, then.

To put this into perspective, the second proposed joining and receiving missed by one vote (that's on 3/4 super majorities). That's still a lot of favorable sentiment.

Also the "pull out" you mention was merely a footnote in a denominational agency proposed strategic plan.

The footnote was outrageous- and was removed quicker than a cat on a hot tin roof.  (the reaction so strong, it likely will not be brought up at a General Assembly again in our lifetime)

There has been and remains a close affinity between the two denominations, and with NAPARC.


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The "Theonomy leads to FV" canard has proven to be false repeatedly on this site and many others.



I did not say that theonomy leads to FV, I said that most come to FV through theonomic thinking. I was unaware that Wilson et al had abandoned theonomy as such (I still hear theonomic libertarianism lite coming out of the Moscow crowd). I am by no means accusing all theonomists of being FV or of their position leading to such. In my opinion, FV is not a set of doctrines, but a personality, and one that I see in many of the theonomists that I know.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

P. F. Pugh said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Theonomy leads to FV" canard has proven to be false repeatedly on this site and many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that theonomy leads to FV, I said that most come to FV through theonomic thinking. I was unaware that Wilson et al had abandoned theonomy as such (I still hear theonomic libertarianism lite coming out of the Moscow crowd). I am by no means accusing all theonomists of being FV or of their position leading to such. In my opinion, FV is not a set of doctrines, but a personality, and one that I see in many of the theonomists that I know.
Click to expand...

 
1) That is the thing. Nearly all of the "Founders" of the FV movement repudiated Theonomy in the 1990's and earlier before FV was even around. FV had its beginnings in James Jordan's "Interpretive Maximalism" that Theonomic leaders like Greg Bahnsen criticized. There are zero causal links between the hermeneutics of Federal Vision and Theonomy, mostly because they are in disagreement with one another. (As James Jordan himself notes in the _Biblical Horizons_ article I linked above)


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> You must not have been paying very much attention. Jordan repudiated Theonomy back before there was an Internet.



You are right. I became Reformed in 1995.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Shawn Mathis said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must not have been paying very much attention. Jordan repudiated Theonomy back before there was an Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. I became Reformed in 1995.
Click to expand...

 
Which is my point. Jordan has not been Theonomic since well before you became Reformed, which is why you have not heard anything on the Internet about his views on Theonomy.


----------



## EKSB SDG

I'm enjoying this discussion. I saw someone mention about expanding the field here. Sounds good to me -- particularly as a former PCA member, current OPC member, and Lord willing future RPCNA member.


----------



## Scott1

EKSB SDG said:


> PCA member, current OPC member, and Lord willing future RPCNA member.





Just remember where where you're headed...

Many similarities except the difference between the first two and the third is-

wine (former temperance)
women (deaconess)
and song (exclusive psalms)


----------



## au5t1n

Scott1 said:


> EKSB SDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> PCA member, current OPC member, and Lord willing future RPCNA member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just remember where where you're headed...
> 
> Many similarities except the difference between the first two and the third is-
> 
> wine (former temperance)
> women (deaconess)
> and song (exclusive psalms)
Click to expand...

 
It took me a minute to realize why that is funny.


----------



## Wayne

Nice wrap up, Chris, particularly for one outside the PCA and Presbyterianism. I took the liberty of tweaking one of your dates.


----------



## D Clair Davis

Both OPC and PCA are committed to God's Word and the blessed gospel of Grace. On the local level, go where you hear the gospel for your life the clearest. On the denom level, hard for a small church to be comfortable in a much bigger one. The RPCES gave its Covenant seminary to the PCA and its Francis Schaeffer outlook. For me the bigger story right now are the 140 congregations finally leaving the PCUSA and not feeling at home in either, but only in the EPC. How can we send a welcome to women without ordaining them? DCD


----------



## Rufus

D Clair Davis said:


> Both OPC and PCA are committed to God's Word and the blessed gospel of Grace. On the local level, go where you hear the gospel for your life the clearest. On the denom level, hard for a small church to be comfortable in a much bigger one. The RPCES gave its Covenant seminary to the PCA and its Francis Schaeffer outlook. For me the bigger story right now are the 140 congregations finally leaving the PCUSA and not feeling at home in either, but only in the EPC. How can we send a welcome to women without ordaining them? DCD


 
You don't ordain them, if any PCUSA women pastors churches join the EPC than they should leave the women's ordination behind and become laywomen. 

I pray for the best with those leaving the PCUSA.


----------



## Edward

D Clair Davis said:


> For me the bigger story right now are the 140 congregations finally leaving the PCUSA and not feeling at home in either, but only in the EPC. How can we send a welcome to women without ordaining them?



When 1400 of us split from a PCUSA church, we had women who had been ordained as elders in the PCUSA who became lay leaders in our church. There was early discussion as to whether to head to the PCA or the then new EPC, but the overwhelming consensus was PCA. We now have several thousand women who don't seem to feel unwelcome.

And having clicked on your link, what is the PCEA? Presbyterian Church of East Africa? And now I'm trying to recall whether I've met you, or just heard about you from some folks we both know.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Rufus said:


> You don't ordain them, if any PCUSA women pastors churches join the EPC than they should leave the women's ordination behind and become laywomen



What they should do and what they will do are two different things unfortunately.


----------



## Pilgrim

Wayne said:


> Nice wrap up, Chris, particularly for one outside the PCA and Presbyterianism. I took the liberty of tweaking one of your dates.



Thanks. I was too lazy to look up the dates on the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (not today's EPC) and the RPCES. I learned that history when I was in Presbyterian circles a few years ago. It was mainly gleaned from a couple of longtime pastors (both of which have served in a relatively large number of Pres/Ref denoms,) John Muether and others. I've occasionally delved into the PCA Historical sites as well, which are very helpful.

I have a B.A. in history so I seem to continue to gravitate toward history. Maybe I have "missed my calling" and should have gone into church history? Well, I suppose it's never too late.

---------- Post added at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 AM ----------




D Clair Davis said:


> Both OPC and PCA are committed to God's Word and the blessed gospel of Grace. On the local level, go where you hear the gospel for your life the clearest. On the denom level, hard for a small church to be comfortable in a much bigger one. The RPCES gave its Covenant seminary to the PCA and its Francis Schaeffer outlook. For me the bigger story right now are the 140 congregations finally leaving the PCUSA and not feeling at home in either, but only in the EPC. How can we send a welcome to women without ordaining them? DCD



This is a bit of a bunny trail, but I know that a good many complementarians in the EPC feel some angst about this large influx of egalitarians and female officers into their denomination, although most of them are thankful for the number of churches that have left the PCUSA. 

Of course the EPC has always allowed for latitude on the issue, but in many respects it's been on paper only. My understanding is that prior the establishment of the New Wineskins Presbytery for the former PCUSA churches, there have only ever been a small number of female TE's and a great many churches had a policy against female RE's as well. I believe at least two Presbyterys forbid women elders altogether, if not all women officers. If and when the transitional New Wineskins Presbytery is dissolved and the former PCUSA churches become normalized (for lack of a better word) and become members of the various regional presbyteries if that is what they want to do (assuming they are approved) if the envelope starts getting pushed with female elders, I think we'll likely see a number of more conservative EPC congregations looking to move elsewhere. Maybe to the PCA or ARP. Some of them are at least mildly charismatic so I don't know how that would play in those denominations.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pilgrim said:


> I believe at least two Presbyterys forbid women elders altogether, if not all women officers.



I wish all female officers were forbidden, but I am not aware of any Presbytery that states as such. The Central South (who I am a part of) has stated that they will not allow for a female TE, but I think that is as far as they have gone.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Pilgrim said:


> Of course the EPC has always allowed for latitude on the issue, but in many respects it's been on paper only. My understanding is that prior the establishment of the New Wineskins Presbytery for the former PCUSA churches, there have only ever been a small number of female TE's and a great many churches had a policy against female RE's as well. I believe at least two Presbyterys forbid women elders altogether, if not all women officers. If and when the transitional New Wineskins Presbytery is dissolved and the former PCUSA churches become normalized (for lack of a better word) and become members of the various regional presbyteries if that is what they want to do (assuming they are approved) if the envelope starts getting pushed with female elders, I think we'll likely see a number of more conservative EPC congregations looking to move elsewhere. Maybe to the PCA or ARP. Some of them are at least mildly charismatic so I don't know how that would play in those denominations.




There's already been some tension between the EPC and ARP in our joint church-planting program. We used to be paired together for some of the assessments, but it was often difficult to get the groups to agree on worship, goals, etc. So now we meet together in general sessions but break out separately for some of the practical assessments.


----------



## Scott1

As the original post concerns two close biblical, reformed denominations, it might be helpful that the latter comparisons with the EPC might be a very different discussion.

Perhaps another thread for that.

(If previous threads are a guide, be sure to fasten your seat belts, first.)


----------



## Pilgrim

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe at least two Presbyterys forbid women elders altogether, if not all women officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish all female officers were forbidden, but I am not aware of any Presbytery that states as such. The Central South (who I am a part of) has stated that they will not allow for a female TE, but I think that is as far as they have gone.
Click to expand...


I thought it was RE's too, but apparently that's not the case. If you allow female RE's then the back door has been left open and there is no grounds whatsoever (other than tradition or prejudice, which usually doesn't last long) for forbidding female TE's (a distinction I am not convinced is biblical anyway, but I digress.) Even a large number of female RE's may be enough for some churches to leave since that has been somewhat rare in some Presbyteries in the past. 


Other than concerns over losing church property, a commitment to egalitarianism may have been the single biggest issue keeping more conservative congregations in the PCUSA until the past few years.

Of course, there are tons of churches, Presbyterian, Baptist, nondenom, etc. who are officially comp. but who have women teaching coed adult Sunday School, who have women "sharing" from the pulpit (which sometimes includes reading and teaching from the Bible) but they either can't or won't see how this contradicts Paul's teaching. Anything goes with many of them so long as no woman has the official title of pastor. 

Edit: Since I already posted this I'm not going to delete it (unless the mods choose otherwise,) but I won't comment anymore on the EPC since it's hijacking the thread. No doubt I'm one of the main offenders of all time on the PB in hijacking threads.


----------



## SRoper

P. F. Pugh said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to use a political analogy (please don't stone me!); OPC=constitution party, PCA=republican party. In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bit of a bad analogy since Constitution Party=irrelevant and OPC=relevant. The Paedocommunion/FV thing in the PCA will die down eventually given that the PCA's temperament is very much against that particular direction. It's one of the things that Rev Keister and Tim Keller would definitely agree on.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not sure Keller would agree. From his writing he seems to see the FV as within the big tent of the PCA.


----------



## Philip

SRoper said:


> I'm not sure Keller would agree. From his writing he seems to see the FV as within the big tent of the PCA.



Where exactly does he do this? From my understanding, he's usually placed on the other side of the spectrum from Wilson et al.


----------



## D Clair Davis

I'm at Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, in NTP. Your welcoming women into lay leadership is a good resolution, and just right, I think. It's when there's room for women only in casserole duty that there's a problem. The EPC seems more welcoming, why? DCD


----------



## Edward

I looked at your picture on the school web site, and don't recall having met you. (My eyes aren't that good, but in that picture, you look a bit like Brad Bradley). I've probably just heard your name mentioned in connection with a casual discussion of the seminary. I'm sure that we'll run across each other sooner or later.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

"who have women teaching coed adult Sunday School"

Chris, thanks for bringing that up. One of the exams I witnessed in the PCA had a man who agreed with that position. He, of course, nuanced it but 
that was the sum of it. He also passed.


----------



## SRoper

P. F. Pugh said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure Keller would agree. From his writing he seems to see the FV as within the big tent of the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly does he do this? From my understanding, he's usually placed on the other side of the spectrum from Wilson et al.
Click to expand...


Oh he's not FV by any stretch, but I understand him as allowing the FV within the diversity of the PCA. Take for example this passage from "What's so Great About the PCA" (2010):



> So the PCA has fair representation of all the historic branches of Presbyteriansim. There are some Old Siders, a lot of classic 'Princeton' Old Schoolers, a lot of conservative New Schoolers, and some interesting combinations. Consider the Federal Vision, which is (to my mind) doctrinalist and (conservative) culturalist, combined with a strong anti-pietism. Most strongly opposed to them is the Old Side (doctrinalist, very anti-pietist, very anti-culturalist) approach of Westminster, California. Also, in the last two decades, a social reformist branch has grown up that combines the 'high church' emphases of Reformed thinkers of the Mercersburg School (essentially Old Side in its communal sensibilities) with the social justice impulses of the New England revivalists. Despite a similar commitment to church tradition and the sacraments, its members are more politically liberal than those sympathetic to the Federal Vision.



Or this quote from the same:



> This idea of a ‘big tent’ Presbyterianism which is nonetheless conservative (unyielding on Biblical inerrancy and Reformed soteriology but open to both Old School and New School emphases) explains the PCA’s history well. When the PCA began, it put behind itself the controversies that had fractured smaller Reformed bodies in Scotland, the Netherlands, and the U.S.—it allowed confessional exceptions on the Sabbath, it did not press any one millennial view on anyone. As controversies came along—over Mission to the World’s cooperative agreements, Mission to North America’s church growth methods, confessional subscription, the days of creation, theonomy, the federal vision—in each case the PCA “reaffirmed her loyalty to the broad middle of the Reformed tradition.”


----------



## Philip

SRoper said:


> Oh he's not FV by any stretch, but I understand him as allowing the FV within the diversity of the PCA. Take for example this passage from "What's so Great About the PCA" (2010):


 
Not necessarily. I also recall him (in the same article) as describing Charles Finney as being within the pietist wing of the Reformed tradition, but that doesn't mean that he would consider Finney to be within the big tent. I think he's simply describing the elements of the PCA that gave rise to FV.


----------



## LadyCalvinist

I'd like to reply to this thread. I was a new member of a PCA church when the church went through a split. The associate pastor and two elders and a number of others would eventually leave the PCA for a nearby OPC church. I don't know what the dispute was about, but within a few years the PCA church included praise songs in the morning service and completely contemporary music in the evening service.

The OPC church started to use at least one selection from the Trinity Psalter each morning worship. Also, I found some people in the PCA church who were shocked that we were calvinistic in our doctrines, whereas the OPC church was more explicitly calvinistic and sabbatarian. I guess I would say of the OPC that I think it is more hard-core calvinist than PCA. HOwever, I must say that the PCA church was more involved in evangelizing than the OPC. 

Also, just after I left the PCA church, they installed female deaconnesses.

None of these differences matter to me now as I am happily RPCNA.


----------



## SRoper

P. F. Pugh said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he's not FV by any stretch, but I understand him as allowing the FV within the diversity of the PCA. Take for example this passage from "What's so Great About the PCA" (2010):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. I also recall him (in the same article) as describing Charles Finney as being within the pietist wing of the Reformed tradition, but that doesn't mean that he would consider Finney to be within the big tent. I think he's simply describing the elements of the PCA that gave rise to FV.
Click to expand...


The only reference to Finney I could find was in a footnote:



> Under the influence of Charles Finney, many New Schoolers earlier in the century had moved away from traditional Reformed views such as total depravity and the imputation of Adam's sin.



This doesn't seem at all parallel to the FV quotes. If Keller is not assuming that the FV is just another branch of the PCA, it is difficult to determine exactly what his point is.


----------



## Philip

SRoper said:


> This doesn't seem at all parallel to the FV quotes. If Keller is not assuming that the FV is just another branch of the PCA, it is difficult to determine exactly what his point is.



Maybe I'm just trying to be charitable to Keller, but it seems to me that he's simply suggesting that the verdict is still out on FV.


----------

