# Question on denominations



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 25, 2008)

Can any PB member let me know which of the N-American Presbyterian Churches adhere to the Westminster Standards in an unequivocal way.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 25, 2008)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Can any PB member let me know which of the N-American Presbyterian Churches adhere to the Westminster Standards in an unequivocal way.




RPCUS, and I'm sure there are others on this board who are part of others that do.....


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 25, 2008)

Certainly not the PCA. There's one you can exclude.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 25, 2008)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Can any PB member let me know which of the N-American Presbyterian Churches adhere to the Westminster Standards in an unequivocal way.



Do you mean all of the primary Westminster Standards (ie., Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms) or all official Westminster Standards (including Directory of Public Worship, Form of Presbyterian Church Government, etc.)? And are you referring to the original Westminster Confession (1646) or later amended versions?


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 25, 2008)

If your question emphasis is on "unequivocal" I'm not sure because Presbyterianism historically allowed differences or "scruples" to be taken against the standards.

I am aware there has been a lot of discussion historically about "subscription" and, in this generation about "strict," "good faith," and "loose" subscription.

I would think the PCA and the OPC would meet your definition.

The PCA constitution allows "exceptions" that must be put on the record, evaluated and voted on by their presbytery requiring the candidate for office to:



> _"state the specific instance in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in *any of their statements and/or propositions*."_ BCO 21-4


These are subject to review by several mechanisms in the denomination as well as enforcement through church courts.

The OPC, as I understand it similarly holds to them. There are other denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) that do also.


----------



## TimV (Jul 25, 2008)

> These are subject to review by several mechanisms in the denomination as well as enforcement through church courts.



That's the key. In the PCA the courts still work. One could hope that more people would vigorously use them. One of the greatest feelings of vindication I ever experienced was when I won a PCA court case launched against me by the Session over something to do with the WCF and PCA BCO.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 25, 2008)

Brad said:


> Certainly not the PCA. There's one you can exclude.



 Not so fast! Don't through the baby out with the water from the baptismal font. There are some PCA churches and Presbyteries which still hold unashamedly and unequivocally to the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 25, 2008)

Although I am a Reformed Baptist, 1689 LBCF, I am duly impressed with the Free Presbyterian Church. Free Presbyterian Church - Main Page


----------



## etexas (Jul 25, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly not the PCA. There's one you can exclude.
> ...


Big Ditto! As a PCA man I am blessed to be in a PCA that is quite faithful to the Standards.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jul 25, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Our church does. We're becoming "indigenously American," what with the recent institution of the Presbytery of the United States, so I guess you can refer to us as a North American Presbyterian church.
> 
> Margaret



I do not think that it is fair for a Scottish denomination's foreign presbytery to stake claim on North America. If the Free Church (c) wants to be indigenous, it should drop the 'of Scotland'. 

Don't get me wrong- I LOVE and RESPECT the FCS(c), but it is NOT North American. If it were, the seminary students would not have to spend a year in Scotland before ministering. 

Again- Love and respect. I have been greatly influenced and blessed by the ministry of the Free Church. This is not an attack.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 25, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly not the PCA. There's one you can exclude.
> ...


Really? Then what about the admonishment to faithfully fulfill all lawful vows contained in Chapter 22 of the WCF? The vows of ordination of officers in the PCA contains this promise:


> Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?


Where are these supposedly zealous and faithful officers when it comes to defending the peace and purity of our denom against the sundry syncretisms and denials of our standards?

When valuable time and brethren must be consumed with such silliness as resisting attempts by those who would adulterate our denom with overtures to ordain women as deacons at our GA rather than deal with substantive and scriptural matters like driving out the 'moneychangers' of "good faith subscription" and "erasure from the rolls" among a plethora of dilutions, it sure seems that I hear the bells tolling in the background.

I'm glad you have such confidence. I fear it is misplaced. Otherwise it seems we would see more men standing up without regard to "persecution or opposition", or maybe financial uncertainty.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 25, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Not so fast! Don't through the baby out with the water from the baptismal font. There are some PCA churches and Presbyteries which still hold unashamedly and unequivocally to the Westminster Standards.



Indeed, there are some in certain places. But if we allow differing teachings to both be within the "bounds of the confession" we are not confessional as a G.A. It's hit and miss as far as local churches and presbyteries go, but we're not old school as a denomination. Try coming out to Nor-Cal presbytery. Three old school churches out of a buncha. There rest are BRs, not TRs.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## TimV (Jul 25, 2008)

> Try coming out to Nor-Cal presbytery. Three old school churches out of a buncha. There rest are BRs, not TRs.



Three? I can believe it. I think there are 49 now total, and except for two Elders I don't know of any in NorCal that have even read the BCO. But the church courts still work, believe me. The biggest problem is wimpy men who see problems but don't do anything about it. NorCal will turn around. It's not so much the many Elders don't like the BCO or WCF; it's just that they've never really had it taught to them.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 25, 2008)

*So I'm Not Alone*



Reformed Baptist said:


> Although I am a Reformed Baptist, 1689 LBCF, I am duly impressed with the Free Presbyterian Church. Free Presbyterian Church - Main Page



I love their preaching. John Greer and Alan Cairns are two of my favourites.

I didn't realize so many of the FPC sermons were available online. I now demand that you spend the hours necessary and download them all to my computer. You also need to buy me a new iPod and a terabyte drive for my computer. I await these in the mail. And no, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Not so fast! Don't through the baby out with the water from the baptismal font. There are some PCA churches and Presbyteries which still hold unashamedly and unequivocally to the Westminster Standards.
> ...



I hear ya! I like here in Southern New England just fine.

http://www.snepres.org/home.php


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 26, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Try coming out to Nor-Cal presbytery. Three old school churches out of a buncha. There rest are BRs, not TRs.
> 
> 
> 
> Three? I can believe it.



I should also mention that there are other elders not necessarily part of these three churches who will be faithful, and will fight. But, again, few and far between. Lack of teaching may be an issue, but it is culpable ignorance. Why would someone presume to govern the church if he can't govern himself well enough to understand his own oath? It's beyond me.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 26, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> > Can any PB member let me know which of the N-American Presbyterian Churches adhere to the Westminster Standards in an unequivocal way.
> ...



I mean those who do not pay mere lip service to Calvinism.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 26, 2008)

Well - I haven't got what I am after. Can anyone recommend anything to me on the history of American Presbyterianism post-1929? Please e-mail me, if need be, with info. I don't want an argument. Any help appreciated!


----------



## Grace Alone (Jul 26, 2008)

I am in an Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) church and we are going through Williamson's study book on the WCF right now. I went to a conference this week and heard Sinclair Ferguson speak, and I can certainly say they give more than lip service to Calvinism. Although I am sure there are individual churches that are stronger than others as in all denominations.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 26, 2008)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Well - I haven't got what I am after. Can anyone recommend anything to me on the history of American Presbyterianism post-1929? Please e-mail me, if need be, with info. I don't want an argument. Any help appreciated!



I recommend D.G. Hart's book on Machen for a good history on what was happening right around the date you have given.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 26, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Although I am a Reformed Baptist, 1689 LBCF, I am duly impressed with the Free Presbyterian Church. Free Presbyterian Church - Main Page
> ...



I attended Cairns' church for a while and considered their seminary, Geneva Reformed. My best friend is Free Pres. They are WCF with stated exceptions - they allow their ministers freedom on paedo/credobaptism and eschatology (but not dispensationalism). However, they are also KJV-only and tend to be teetotalers. So, an eccentric bunch, but they love the Lord.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 29, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > Our church does. We're becoming "indigenously American," what with the recent institution of the Presbytery of the United States, so I guess you can refer to us as a North American Presbyterian church.
> ...



I agree with Nathan here. The FCSC is not an indigenous North American church. The name alone tells us that. It actually puzzles me why they are so keen to start congregations here. Would it not be better to join with the PRC or RPCNA? Is there much difference between them?
Anyway, just my


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 29, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> > Can any PB member let me know which of the N-American Presbyterian Churches adhere to the Westminster Standards in an unequivocal way.
> ...



True.



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> > Can any PB member let me know which of the N-American Presbyterian Churches adhere to the Westminster Standards in an unequivocal way.
> ...



This also would be true of the RPCUS. (But only in the original autographs.  )


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 29, 2008)

21st Century Calvinist said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Galatians220 said:
> ...


Yeah! And what's with all those dutch reforemd churches, too? Either assimilate or get back on the boat!


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jul 29, 2008)

Brad said:


> Yeah! And what's with all those dutch reforemd churches, too? Either assimilate or get back on the boat!



Agreed! Thankfully, I belong to a *Canadian* Reformed church.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 29, 2008)

Guido's Brother said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah! And what's with all those dutch reforemd churches, too? Either assimilate or get back on the boat!
> ...


----------



## Galatians220 (Jul 29, 2008)

21st Century Calvinist said:


> *I agree with Nathan here. The FCSC is not an indigenous North American church. The name alone tells us that. It actually puzzles me why they are so keen to start congregations here. Would it not be better to join with the PRC or RPCNA? Is there much difference between them?*
> *Anyway, just my *




The PRC is not interested in the Detroit metropolitan area. I am unaware of any RPCNAs convenient to me.

There are also reasons that I could not join a PRC, but I like to keep them to myself. 

This is a very dark area spiritually and I tried for years to find some congregation I could join. The FCSC alone was interested in building a congregation _here_. 

I apologize for my suggestion above. Please accept my heartfelt apology if you were offended by it. I meant no harm, and the post will be deleted.

Thank you.

Margaret


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 29, 2008)

Dear Sister,
I am in no way offended. Please don't delete your post on my account. I thank you for responding to my query, that is helpful for my understanding. I am sorry if I have opened up some wounds for you.
I am particularly sensitive where the FCSC is concerned, but I was in no way intending to bait you or denigrate the work being done in your area.
Grace and Peace


----------



## Ivan (Jul 30, 2008)

Reformed Baptist said:


> I attended Cairns' church for a while and considered their seminary, Geneva Reformed. My best friend is Free Pres. They are WCF with stated exceptions - they allow their ministers freedom on paedo/credobaptism and eschatology (but not dispensationalism). However, they are also KJV-only and tend to be teetotalers. So, an eccentric bunch, but they love the Lord.



I could live with that. Free Pres interests me.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 30, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I attended Cairns' church for a while and considered their seminary, Geneva Reformed. My best friend is Free Pres. They are WCF with stated exceptions - they allow their ministers freedom on paedo/credobaptism and eschatology (but not dispensationalism). However, they are also KJV-only and tend to be teetotalers. So, an eccentric bunch, but they love the Lord.
> ...



That way you could be Presbyterian and still Credo. Sounds like a good plan.


----------



## calgal (Jul 30, 2008)

Brad said:


> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> > Brad said:
> ...


----------

