# Split P Soup?



## J.L. Allen (Jul 3, 2021)

Folks,

Can you name all of the Presbyterian denominations that _currently_ exist? For that matter, can you name all the continental/Dutch Reformed denominations currently in existence? Feel free to name one or more per post and say what you know about them.


----------



## Edward (Jul 3, 2021)

Define denomination. Some of the so-called denominations don't have enough members to make a small church, and last time I looked, one of the so-called denominations was down to one small congregation. 

Define Presbyterian - as noted, some groups with the name don't have enough folks to form a presbytery. 

Defined Reformed. 

Do you include apostate bodies?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 3, 2021)

Edward said:


> Define denomination. Some of the so-called denominations don't have enough members to make a small church, and last time I looked, one of the so-called denominations was down to one small congregation.
> 
> Define Presbyterian - as noted, some groups with the name don't have enough folks to form a presbytery.
> 
> ...


Relatedly, I had a Muslim fellow complain to me that when he went to the US, he saw so many different denominations, while in Islam, there was only Shiite and Sunni.

I wanted to reply, but I find I really lack the cognitive architecture to explain denominations to somebody from the outside. It's definitely harder than you think. He was already on a different subject by the time I could formulate a fitting response anyway.

But how do you explain to someone that, for example, the Presbyterian Church in America can't really be in e.g. Australia, and that's not really a problem? It looks like disunity to outsiders.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Relatedly, I had a Muslim fellow complain to me that when he went to the US, he saw so many different denominations, while in Islam, there was only Shiite and Sunni.
> 
> I wanted to reply, but I find I really lack the cognitive architecture to explain denominations to somebody from the outside. It's definitely harder than you think. He was already on a different subject by the time I could formulate a fitting response anyway.
> 
> But how do you explain to someone that, for example, the Presbyterian Church in America can't really be in e.g. Australia, and that's not really a problem? It looks like disunity to outsiders.


Yeah, it's weird but I get it at the same time. I would have thought that because we all have the same Spirit, that the Spirit would lead His people in unity. Like pastors could just pray before studying a doctrine "God please enlighten us to the correct truth so that we might keep your Church in unity", and that the Holy Spirit would lead people to a unified understanding of doctrine.

But for whatever reasons I think we all have to admit that it was not God's will for the Church to be unified in such a way. We have religious freedoms and many different options of interpreting the Bible, so naturally people will branch off to practice religion the way they see fit. As helpful as it would be for all doctrines to be objective and clear, practicality they are very subjective matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> I had a Muslim fellow complain to me that when he went to the US, he saw so many different denominations, while in Islam, there was only Shiite and Sunni.


He doesn't know very much about Islam, then.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 3, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Yeah, it's weird but I get it at the same time. I would have thought that because we all have the same Spirit, that the Spirit would lead His people in unity. Like pastors could just pray before studying a doctrine "God please enlighten us to the correct truth so that we might keep your Church in unity", and that the Holy Spirit would lead people to a unified understanding of doctrine.
> 
> But for whatever reasons I think we all have to admit that it was not God's will for the Church to be unified in such a way. We have religious freedoms and many different options of interpreting the Bible, so naturally people will branch off to practice religion the way they see fit. As helpful as it would be for all doctrines to be objective and clear, practicality they are very subjective matters.


I don't think division is God's desire. Sin and error divide. There is no good reason we shouldn't have a conservative Presbyterian church in this country instead of so many divisions large, small and tiny. As Durham said, “If union be the great step to edification as dissention and strife are the door that lets in distraction, then division and separation cannot be the cure, but union is the first and great step of edification. Therefore separation cannot be the cure. Separation has ever been the greatest enemy of edification and reformation.” James Durham, “A Sermon on Ephesians 4:11–12,” _Collected Sermons of James Durham: Sixty-one Sermons_ (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, August 2017), 933.

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 3, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't think division is God's desire. Sin and error divide. There is no good reason we shouldn't have a conservative Presbyterian church in this country instead of so many divisions large, small and tiny. As Durham said, “If union be the great step to edification as dissention and strife are the door that lets in distraction, then division and separation cannot be the cure, but union is the first and great step of edification. Therefore separation cannot be the cure. Separation has ever been the greatest enemy of edification and reformation.” James Durham, “A Sermon on Ephesians 4:11–12,” _Collected Sermons of James Durham: Sixty-one Sermons_ (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, August 2017), 933.


I totally agree that this should be the ideal. I just don't know what that would look like practically without pastors violating their consciences and how they understand the Bible. If a Presbyterian pastor is studying the Bible very seriously and comes to understand the scriptures teaching a congregational form of government, he is either forced to submit to something he doesn't believe the Bible is teaching or has to make a change. It just seems like there are splits everywhere over everything. Either men are rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit when they are being led to understand a doctrine, or the Spirit is not enlightening men enough to keep them in unity it would seem.

It would seem that men like Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, and Matthew Henry were devoted enough to the things of God to where there should have been unity, but they just didn't understand the Bible in unity.

I honestly don't have the answers, that's just my observation and how my reasoning works. I could be way wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 3, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> He doesn't know very much about Islam, then.


Actually he was extremely knowledgeable. He was a guide in Fes, Morocco, and he was telling me this in a mosque, as he explained the history and purposes of the construction of the building. 

But you're right: I think he was... spinning things a bit. For my benefit.

He also showed me the home of Maimonides, btw, which was really cool to see.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 3, 2021)

I think this should help with the denominations.






List of Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in North America - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Edward (Jul 3, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Relatedly, I had a Muslim fellow complain to me that when he went to the US, he saw so many different denominations, while in Islam, there was only Shiite and Sunni.


Which is, of course, a falsehood. Some counts go up to 73. I had remembered 5 major divisions at some point, but there are more than that. Wikipedia shows 30-some divisions in four major groups. I'll name a few that I recognize.

Sunni
Shiite
Druze
Alewite
Sufi
Ahmadiyya (3 or 4 miles from me) 
Ismaili (they have a good sized Jamatkhana just down the street from me) 









Islamic schools and branches - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Of course, for debate purposes, the Roman Catholics have a couple of dozen denominations under two major divisions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Jul 3, 2021)

Edward said:


> Which is, of course, a falsehood. Some counts go up to 73. I had remembered 5 major divisions at some point, but there are more than that. Wikipedia shows 30-some divisions in four major groups. I'll name a few that I recognize.
> 
> Sunni
> Shiite
> ...


That's not counting various cults like Nation of Islam.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 3, 2021)

Edward said:


> Which is, of course, a falsehood. Some counts go up to 73. I had remembered 5 major divisions at some point, but there are more than that. Wikipedia shows 30-some divisions in four major groups. I'll name a few that I recognize.
> 
> Sunni
> Shiite
> ...


Good luck convincing a Sunni that ahmadiyyas are Muslim, though. And the way this guy had it, Shiites only exist because Ali's followers refused to follow the dictates of the Koran and the decision of the majority, saying in effect they 'didn't matter,' they were so sure Ali was their guy.

I can kind of see their point, for the former: we don't consider Mormons Christian, after all.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Jul 3, 2021)

Edward said:


> Define denomination. Some of the so-called denominations don't have enough members to make a small church, and last time I looked, one of the so-called denominations was down to one small congregation.
> 
> Define Presbyterian - as noted, some groups with the name don't have enough folks to form a presbytery.
> 
> ...


I didn't know I would get a list of various sects of Islam when I made this thread! 

Here are some non-exhaustive definitions I've come up with.

Denomination: a voluntary association in which separate bodies are united by common confession and ideals. (Yes, I would include federations and other associated bodies that do not use the term "denomination" in this, too.)

Presbyterian: churches that designate themselves, with official recognition by at least one other like-minded body within the same association, with adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, and/or Shorter Catechism.

Reformed: churches that designate themselves, with official recognition by at least one other like-minded body within the same association, with adherence to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and/or the Canons of Dort.

If you include apostate bodies, please specify that they are fallen away.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 3, 2021)

J.L. Allen said:


> Here are some non-exhaustive definitions I've come up with.


Also, do you want them to be country specific?


----------



## Edward (Jul 3, 2021)

J.L. Allen said:


> with adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, and/or Shorter Catechism.


Well, that didn't help. What do you mean by "adherence" - that's something that might include the PCUSA or which might exclude the PCA and/or the RPCNA.


----------



## KMK (Jul 3, 2021)

This is my favorite:


----------



## J.L. Allen (Jul 3, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Also, do you want them to be country specific?


Just specify which country they belong to. It can be from anywhere in the world.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Jul 3, 2021)

Edward said:


> Well, that didn't help. What do you mean by "adherence" - that's something that might include the PCUSA or which might exclude the PCA and/or the RPCNA.


It was meant to be broad. Feel free to contribute based on that.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Jul 3, 2021)

@Edward 

Different church bodies conceive of adherence differently, and I understand that. However, if they, rightly or wrongly, have a self-conception that includes what they believe to be confessional adherence, then that's what I'm interested in. I hope that helps. Maybe it doesn't, but that's the best I can do since there is such a wide birth between church bodies.


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Jul 3, 2021)

The North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) includes the major (conservative) denominations/federations for the US and Canada. There may be smaller ones around, but they would be pretty small, indeed. From what I've seen, "reformed" churches are either mainline, independent, or belong to one of the NAPARC bodies.



Interchurch Relations Contacts – NAPARC

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 4, 2021)

Australia:
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Free Reformed Churches of Australia
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Australia

New Zealand:
Reformed Churches of New Zealand
Grace Presbyterian Churches of New Zealand [tend to have a 'loose' subscription to the WCF]

Scotland:
Free Church of Scotland 
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)

Austria and Switzerland:
The Evangelical Reformed Church of the Westminster Confession in Austria and Switzerland

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jul 4, 2021)

Australia:

Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Southern Presbyterian Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church
Korean Presbyterian Churches in Oceania


----------



## Edward (Jul 4, 2021)

On the Presbyterian side of the fence in the US:

PCUSA - apostate; multi-confessional
ECO (COEP) - tolerant of apostasy; multi-confessional
EPC - tolerant to a fault
PCA - tolerant to a fault
RPCNA - with an asterisk for their "Testimony"
OPC
ARP
RPCGA
KPCNA
Bible Presbyterian
Free Church of Scotland (micro in US, but part of a real denomination)
Free Church (Continuing) (micro in the US, but part of a real denomiation)


Omitting for now the Cumberlands and CREC; which require further discussion, and the micro denominations (which require an updated assessment of viability). Also omitting most of the Koreans, which I know little about.

Edit: 
Micros listed in a post below


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 4, 2021)

What is the difference between the FCOS and the FCOS (continuing)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 4, 2021)

I have not read it but Reformation Heritage Books have published "Presbyterian and Reformed Churches: A Global History"
​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 4, 2021)

Also in Australia: Australian Free Church, in which our own Rev. Matthew Winzer labors.


----------



## Edward (Jul 4, 2021)

Micro "denominations" in the US, more or less alphabetical order, with notes and links:

*American Presbyterian Church* - 2 Congregations http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/apc/apc-chuches/

*Covenant Presbyterian Church* - 13 Congregations https://covenant-presbyterian.org/churches

*Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church* – 2 US Congregations; one in Suriname https://www.covref.org/pages/church-directory.htm

*Free Presbyterian Church *- 12 Congregations in the US; additional 10 in Canada and Mexico https://fpcna.org/directory/

*Presbyterian Reformed Church* – 7 Congregations https://presbyterianreformed.org/#

*Reformed Presbyterian Church - Hanover Presbytery* – 15 member congregations, plus 2 affiliated https://rpchanover.org/churches-within-the-hanover-presbytery/

*Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States* – deceased, had 3 congregations at the end

*Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly* – 12 Congregations http://www.rpcga.org/churches/

*Vanguard Presbytery* - 18 Congregations https://vanguardpresbytery.com/affiliations/

*Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States* – 1 Congregation per an old PB thread, weblink to the denomination seeks to download something to your computer; has a Facebook page. Debate at the time was whether it was cult-like or merely schismatic.

_Note1 In passing I saw that some congregations may be claimed by more than one of the micros above. 

Note 2 Links do not indicate endorsement. Indeed, as long time PBers know, I have a fairly low opinion of Micros. 

Note 3 No easily located website, no mention here. _


----------



## MChase (Jul 4, 2021)

Edward said:


> Micro "denominations" in the US, more or less alphabetical order, with notes and links:
> 
> *American Presbyterian Church* - 2 Congregations http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/apc/apc-chuches/
> 
> ...



The quotation marks are unnecessary and childish. Some of said denominations are in NAPARC. I wonder if you’d have told John Murray he was perpetuating the problem of micro-presbyterianism and sectarianism.


----------



## PaulCLawton (Jul 4, 2021)

_Associated Presbyterian Churches_, eight congregations in Scotland, and one in Canada.


----------



## jw (Jul 4, 2021)

Presbyterian Uber Reformed Evangelicals (P.U.R.E) in Mexico City, Mexico.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Edward (Jul 4, 2021)

MChase said:


> Some of said denominations are in NAPARC.


Some? I see one, with 5 US groups. One of which has loaned REs because it appears to have none, Another has no pastor and no REs, but does have a Deacon per the denominational website. 



MChase said:


> I wonder if you’d have told John Murray he was perpetuating the problem of micro-presbyterianism and sectarianism.


It was my understanding that Murray was OPC. Is that incorrect? Was he ordained in one of the Micros?


----------



## MChase (Jul 5, 2021)

Edward said:


> Some? I see one, with 5 US groups. One of which has loaned REs because it appears to have none, Another has no pastor and no REs, but does have a Deacon per the denominational website.
> 
> 
> It was my understanding that Murray was OPC. Is that incorrect? Was he ordained in one of the Micros?


Murray was instrumental in founding the PRC. I’m not sure what exactly the point is about assessor elders and congregations without a minister. The OPC has the practice of elders within the presbytery working on other sessions in the absence of ruling elders on the ground.

What is the goal of your post? To disparage groups seeking to uphold the confession and stand for fidelity to Presbyterianism? Where do you suggest the PRC go? We don’t sing hymns, so the PCA and OPC won’t have us. (One OPC minister has gone so far as to say a psalm singer wouldn’t even be allowed to be a member in his congregation.) We have been in talks with the FCC US presbytery for some time, but joining denominations isn’t something that happens over night. In the US, the PRC and FCC are the only groups that hold to the confession without exception.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Christopher Robin (Jul 5, 2021)

> In the US, the PRC and FCC are the only groups that hold to the confession without exception.



Now that's arguable, of course, and I'm new around here but I bet the point has been debated ad nauseum for many years, so I'm not asking for nor encouraging further debate on exclusive psalmody, but I do have a question:

Does the Regulative Principle of Worship say, "Whatever is not _explicitly_ commanded in the _New Testament_ is forbidden?" If that is your interpretation, then perhaps you've got the paedobaptism thing wrong. If you baptize covenant children of believers - not _explicitly_ commanded _in so many words_ in the New Testament (but arrived at by good and necessary consequence), then you violate your own understanding of the RPW, don't you?

Mind you, I'm new, recently "converted" to Westminster (WCF) from London (LBCF), so treat me as one who asks a sincere question, not rhetorically.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jul 5, 2021)

MChase said:


> In the US, the PRC and FCC are the only groups that hold to the confession without exception.



Minor point, there is also 1 FPCOS congregation in the US (in Santa Fe, Texas), as well as 2 congregations in Canada. FPCOS also hold to the Westminster Standards without exception and to a capella exclusive psalmody.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 5, 2021)

Christopher Robin said:


> Now that's arguable, of course, and I'm new around here but I bet the point has been debated ad nauseum for many years, so I'm not asking for nor encouraging further debate on exclusive psalmody, but I do have a question:
> 
> Does the Regulative Principle of Worship say, "Whatever is not _explicitly_ commanded in the _New Testament_ is forbidden?" If that is your interpretation, then perhaps you've got the paedobaptism thing wrong. If you baptize covenant children of believers - not _explicitly_ commanded _in so many words_ in the New Testament (but arrived at by good and necessary consequence), then you violate your own understanding of the RPW, don't you?
> 
> Mind you, I'm new, recently "converted" to Westminster (WCF) from London (LBCF), so treat me as one who asks a sincere question, not rhetorically.


Moderating: Brother Christopher that is a good question, but please start a new thread in the worship forum if you wish to discuss. This thread should stick to the OP!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Moderating: Brother Christopher that is a good question, but please start a new thread in the worship forum if you wish to discuss. This thread should stick to the OP!


And that's another question: how do some people have the attention span to stick to the OP? I never have.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Jul 5, 2021)

MChase said:


> What is the goal of your post?


To list out the Presbyterian bodies in the US. Along with some key issues of some of them. And I consider a "take my ball and go home" attitude to be an issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Jul 5, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> But how do you explain to someone that, for example, the Presbyterian Church in America can't really be in e.g. Australia,


I was focused on other issues the other day, and didn't address this.

Why not? The PCA has a couple of presbyteries in Canada, and Southeast Alabama presbytery has several congregations in Germany, one in Norway, and it looks like they have works underway in Guam and Okinawa now. Why not Australia. And a couple of the Scottish (now, looks like 3, I missed one) denominations have active works in the US. Our Sunday School class even has regular attenders in the Middle East. 

And with the largest PCA church being Korean, one might suspect that it wasn't the language that was the problem for the Francophone congregations in Canada that split. And in Australia they even speak a form of English.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 5, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> And that's another question: how do some people have the attention span to stick to the OP? I never have.


I think some wandering is certainly allowed. Depends on the topic! and sometimes the preference of the original poster.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 5, 2021)

Edward said:


> To list out the Presbyterian bodies in the US. Along with some key issues of some of them. And I consider a "take my ball and go home" attitude to be an issue.


There are disadvantages to small size; and it is especially a factor in governance and discipline, just as there are advantages to more immediately draw tighter adherence to orthodoxy. And it is certainly possible there is more of a separatist thinking and unbiblical impatience to some micros that have formed. But on taking the ball and leaving generally, it seems to me the only difference between those larger groups that left heterodoxy for orthodoxy like the PCA and OPC and some micros, is the size of the teams and where the red line was. They've all decided to leave something and refuse to join anything existing at the time.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Edward (Jul 5, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> , it seems to me the only difference between those larger groups that left heterodoxy for orthodoxy like the PCA and OPC and some micros, is the size of the teams and where the red line was.


Valid point as to the PCA. Perhaps the OPC as well, although I can't think of any really viable merger partners for them at the time. Maybe the PCUS? ARP? 

And the PCA - RPC,ES joinder certainly shows that mergers aren't without their own problems


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 5, 2021)

Edward said:


> Valid point as to the PCA. Perhaps the OPC as well, although I can't think of any really viable merger partners for them at the time. Maybe the PCUS? ARP?
> 
> And the PCA - RPC,ES joinder certainly shows that mergers aren't without their own problems


Not sure of any other, but certainly the ARPs and RPs were around, though the ARP might have been yet to fight off its liberal slide.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2021)

MChase said:


> Where do you suggest the PRC go? We don’t sing hymns, so the PCA and OPC won’t have us.


So your saying the PCA would not embrace you singing Psalms only? Why do you say this? The PCAs DOPW is not binding and you would certainly be free to be an EP body in the PCA and likely even the OPC, as far as I know. Of course you may be privy to some official response that I do not have. It may not be the “ideal” denomination, but I do agree with Edward that there are too many micro splits and we need more consolidation. There ARE lines to divide over, but sometimes hairs are being split while meekness and unity are being laid aside tooooo early. To be transparent I am EP/AO myself and I do see this as extremely important. That being said, there seems to be several EP/AO denominations that should combine. I do know of an OPC congregation that is EP.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 5, 2021)

I always remember Brakel’s below comment when thinking about separation (TCRS, Vol. 1, pg. lxviii):


> “Who would not weep when he thinks upon Zion and perceives that the Lord is departing from her?” Yet, departure from a church which is that corrupt is not permitted! “May we say that she is no longer the church of Christ due to her corruption? Shall we despise her? Shall we walk away from her? No, that is foolishness. It is certain that a corrupt church is nevertheless a church and that from the beginning until the present God has always permitted His church to be filled with many corruptions. Therefore, he who despises a church for its corruption acts contrary to God‟s Word and all experience, thereby denying her to be a church.”



Separation can be necessary, but I think it happens way too often and I think many reformed bodies need to be consolidated. Really this can be applied internally and externally regarding larger & smaller denominations. Some inter-denominational church “plants” should more honestly be categorized as “splits”.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MChase (Jul 5, 2021)

Grant said:


> So your saying the PCA would not embrace you singing Psalms only? Why do you say this? The PCAs DOPW is not binding and you would certainly be free to be an EP body in the PCA and likely even the OPC, as far as I know. Of course you may be privy to some official response that I do not have. It may not be the “ideal” denomination, but I do agree with Edward that there are too many micro splits and we need more consolidation. There ARE lines to divide over, but sometimes hairs are being split while meekness and unity are being laid aside tooooo early. To be transparent I am EP/AO myself and I do see this as extremely important. That being said, there seems to be several EP/AO denominations that should combine. I do know of an OPC congregation that is EP.



I am not terribly sure about the PCA’s position on the matter, though I would assume it would be quite similar in many ways to the OPC to which I am more familiar, having formerly been a member. As far as I can tell, certain presbyteries EP is tolerated. I can think of New Jersey and San Francisco as a couple of examples. However, as far as I can tell the allowance for EP seems to be only insofar as a minister or congregation comes to such conclusions after having been in the OPC. I have it on pretty good authority that a man holding both EP and the establishment principle would have quite the time getting ordained in the OPC.

I don’t know of anyone denying that there is a duty to minimize and eliminate schism. The big question is what path to go forward on. I don’t think these are particularly easy questions. However, I do not think that giving up principles that I and others hold quite dearly for the sake of perceived unity is the right path. I think the Westminster standards are a wonderful thing, and I am not ready to give them up for external unity. I would be overjoyed around external and visible unity on the constitutional basis of the standards.

My last point is somewhat related to the point Chris made. The PRC has been around longer than the PCA. Is size the only thing that makes the PRC schismatic and makes the PCA a-okay? What about the OPC? Why didn’t they give up their hymn singing and wine and join the RPCNA back in the day? To single out groups because of an arbitrary limit on size is well arbitrary. Let’s keep things in perspective. My parents attend a church in Dallas with enough members to make up multiple presbyteries in any NAPARC denomination. Why is a denom of 10 congregations schismatic, but a denom of 100 not?

Just a note: not specifically replying to you, but the first part of my response was seeking to be an answer to what you were asking.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 5, 2021)

So can anybody start a presbyterian denomination? If not who could stop them?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 5, 2021)

All sorts of folks unordained or not can start anything they want in this country. Look at the CREC. Buyer beware.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Edward (Jul 5, 2021)

MChase said:


> My parents attend a church in Dallas with enough members to make up multiple presbyteries in any NAPARC denomination.


Doesn't narrow down things much. But a related question could be debated. Are the multi-campus megachurches really presbyteries? Some of them have campus counts that would classify them as micro denominations if they were Presbyterians.


----------



## MChase (Jul 6, 2021)

Edward said:


> Doesn't narrow down things much. But a related question could be debated. Are the multi-campus megachurches really presbyteries? Some of them have campus counts that would classify them as micro denominations if they were Presbyterians.



No, not functionally or in principle. When you have 2 (maybe 3) elders for 5-7k souls, you’re not a Presbyterian. They are congregational in principle. However, I think someone like Mark Dever dismantles this sort of pseudo-congregationalism quite ably.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jul 6, 2021)

jw said:


> Presbyterian Uber Reformed Evangelicals (P.U.R.E) in Mexico City, Mexico.



There was a split. 

The new work is called SPURIOUS - Scottish Presbyterian Uber Reformed Independent (for now) Old-Light United Secession Church (Continuing).

The lady in question spoke positively about Increase Mather, who was responsible for the revocation of the Massachusetts Bay Charter. Downhill from there.

Reactions: Informative 2 | Funny 4


----------



## Edward (Jul 6, 2021)

MChase said:


> When you have 2 (maybe 3) elders for 5-7k souls


Try 30+ Pastors/Ministers for 15,000+ claimed members.


----------



## MChase (Jul 6, 2021)

Edward said:


> Try 30+ Pastors/Ministers for 15,000+ claimed members.



To be clear, I was speaking of my parents church. They have roughly 9k weekly attendance and 3 elders.


----------



## Edward (Jul 6, 2021)

How many campuses? @MChase .


----------



## MChase (Jul 6, 2021)

Edward said:


> How many campuses? @MChase .



2

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 6, 2021)

Why are Presbyterians so prone to splits? I agree that the system of presbyterial government is founded on and agreeable to the word of God, but you do wonder what causes such fragmentation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Jul 6, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Why are Presbyterians so prone to splits? I agree that the system of presbyterial government is founded on and agreeable to the word of God, but you do wonder what causes such fragmentation.


_Only by pride cometh contention_, (Prov. 13)

A recent series on the Unity of the Church:








Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian


Rev. Todd Ruddell | Wylie, Texas




www.sermonaudio.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Jul 7, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Why are Presbyterians so prone to splits? I agree that the system of presbyterial government is founded on and agreeable to the word of God, but you do wonder what causes such fragmentation.


Obviously answering this question poses no risk of opening a can of worms!

I think it's worth _questioning_ whether Presbyterians are, pound for pound, more likely to split than Baptists or other groups. But whatever a good comparative study might reveal, a proneness to division in any group arises from a combination of several factors. Obviously one large and correct answer is "sin," but more than that can be said.

1. Wherever there are decided convictions about a multitude of matters, there will be that many more demands on charity and patience. In an environment where no one cares about details of doctrine, or worship practices, or government, many of those occasions for disagreement pass by unnoticed. The lack of conflict or division there doesn't necessarily arise from greater holiness, but simply from obliviousness.

2. Agreement about distinctives sometimes masks defects of character. If another fellow and I are both zealous for many of the same points, and yet one or both of us is just contentious, we will find something to contend about eventually. I think this is one reason why very "like-minded" groups sometimes blow up suddenly.

3. A strong emphasis on the distinctiveness of Presbyterianism (or any variety) can lead to general principles of Christianity and indeed of common sense being overlooked or neglected. Then the reality of a broader context with some really important shared commitments and some genuine good to be grateful for is missing. 

4. _Idealists_ in temperament have to deal with continual frustration about reality, and that wears people down over time unless they learn to walk by faith and trust that God will bring about an ideal end through what seems like a very imperfect process.

When I speak in this way, I can anticipate that some readers may get the perception that I think the solution is to care less for precision and correctness, to dilute zeal, and to be more pragmatic. But that isn't what I mean at all. Instead, I think the prescription is that we need to expand our convictions and zeal to include all that the Lord teaches. It's true that many don't have any zeal for some of the Bible's content; but the answer is not for us to focus our zeal exclusively on those neglected portions of Scripture. If I am as zealous for humility and charity as I am for my distinctive doctrine and practice, then what division happens is more likely to be truly necessary.

Now there are some factors that may add pressure in Presbyterian circles (though they will apply in many other circles as well).

5. Presbyterianism gives something to split from--you can find someone to blame.
6. Presbyterianism keeps congregations involved in one another's affairs, which gives interfering busybodies an opportunity to ply their trade.
7. Presbyterianism has mechanisms to resolve differences, but then disagreements about the implementation of the mechanisms can lead to fresh waves of conflict.

This also is not to attack Presbyterianism as a system of church government. If Scripture can be wrested to our own destruction, so can practices commanded in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## The Original Secession (Jul 7, 2021)

Y'all ain't even got to the interesting Dutch varieties like the Old Reformed, Free Old Reformed, and Old Reformed (Unconnected).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jul 9, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Why are Presbyterians so prone to splits? I agree that the system of presbyterial government is founded on and agreeable to the word of God, but you do wonder what causes such fragmentation.



As a former Baptist, there can be deeply-felt fragments amongst otherwise doctrinally-similar yet independent churches. They just don't get put down on paper.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 9, 2021)

Only God can, and will, cause his ministers to see eye-to-eye (Isaiah 52:8). How we need to pray for this!
"Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion."

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 9, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Only God can, and will, cause his ministers to see eye-to-eye (Isaiah 52:8). How we need to pray for this!
> "Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion."


Jerry, I don't think that's what Isaiah 52:8 has in mind. In English the idiom to see "eye to eye" means to agree with someone, but in Hebrew it means to see clearly and indisputably or, as we might say, to see with their own eyes (see NASB). See Jeremiah 34:3 for demonstration: the point is not that they will agree with the King of Babylon but they will see him with their own eyes. Your main point is nonetheless valid: unity is a gift of the Lord's Spirit.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 9, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Jerry, I don't think that's what Isaiah 52:8 has in mind. In English the idiom to see "eye to eye" means to agree with someone, but in Hebrew it means to see clearly and indisputably or, as we might say, to see with their own eyes (see NASB). See Jeremiah 34:3 for demonstration: the point is not that they will agree with the King of Babylon but they will see him with their own eyes. Your main point is nonetheless valid: unity is a gift of the Lord's Spirit.


Thank you, Dr. Duguid. I would say it's still the doctrinal unity of the ministers in view: the watchmen shall lift up the voice in unison; they will sing the same song; what they see clearly will be the same indisputable thing. In context, Calvin on 52:8-- "Eye to eye, that is, openly. This extends, indeed, to spiritual conversion... but let us not on that account depart from the literal sense, so as not to include also the benefit which the Lord conferred on the ancient people, for when he restored the Jews to liberty and employed the ministry of Zerubabbel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, these things were fulfilled. Yet at the same time they ought to be continued down to the coming of Christ, by which the Church was gathered out of all parts of the world. But we ought also to go forward to Christ's last coming, by which all things shall be perfectly restored."

Reactions: Like 2


----------

