Schism and the modern churches, Reformed included

[Jerusalem Blade]

The recent controversies with Redeemed Zoomer, his debate with Pastor Everett Henes, and his views of schism and the PC(USA) have left me wondering about these things.

I understand there is a difference between those who adhere to the 1647 WCF and the later American revision, notably that the former adherents have a different view, their churches ordered on establishmentarian principles, and the latter on ecclesial principles that differ.

I certainly don't want to stir up any discord or even extended discussion between the two views, but I desire understanding of the principles involved.

I want to understand regarding what are to be considered schismatic churches and non-schismatic from the American viewpoint. Folks that planted churches not based on previously established churches would not be considered schismatic, I would think.

My wife and I moved to Cyprus in 2002 so she could take care of ill family members. There was no Reformed church in my city (only one other in the nation — save a house church I could not get to, and after being in non-Reformed churches a while we joined forces with the Reformed pastor in the other city, who helped us plant a church in our city. In 2011 we returned to NYC, and others took over the work.

After a while I left a PCA church there that was departing from sound doctrine, such that I would no longer invite friends to hear false teaching. This false teaching began to spread to other nearby PCA churches, which led my wife and I to eventually join a 1689 church in my area, which I helped co-pastor till the lead pastor could raise up others to help in the ministry.

Then in 2021 we returned to Cyprus, and I began pastoring again. Now I am old and incapacitated and others are standing in for me to pastor.

But all this has me wondering about the legitimacy of churches in these days.

For those who are in the "American system" of church governance — not even necessarily Presbyterian or Reformed — what is and isn't schism?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm slow getting on task today; so still querying AI I asked: "new direction: in American Refomed polity (not necessarily Presbyterian; Dutch Reformed, Reformed Baptist inclusive) what is actual schism; over sharp disagreement like Paul and Barnabas, and actual biblically termed schism?"
It's response (you will note it is tracking prior conversations over Missourit presbytery and the Institutionalist-Progressive-Conservative-Confessional divide in the PCA) I noted in another thread a few minutes ago):
AI:
In American Reformed polity—spanning Confessional Presbyterianism, Dutch Reformed, and Reformed Baptist traditions—there is a critical, high-stakes theological and legal distinction between a sharp disagreement (like Paul and Barnabas) and actual, biblically termed schism.
While the modern church often uses the word "schism" loosely to describe any painful split or loud argument, historic Reformed ecclesiology defines it with microscopic, legal precision.

---

1. Sharp Disagreement (The "Paul and Barnabas" Model)​

In Acts 15:36–41, Paul and Barnabas had a paroxysmos—a sharp, severe, and emotional disagreement over whether to take John Mark on their missionary journey. This resulted in them parting ways and forming two separate missionary teams.
In Reformed polity, this is classified as a separation of administration or labor, not a schism.

• The Core Traits: It is driven by prudential, practical, or personal judgments about how to conduct ministry.
• The Key Factor: Neither Paul nor Barnabas excommunicated the other. Neither declared the other’s ministry to be false, ungodly, or apostate. They recognized each other as faithful brothers in Christ, but acknowledged that they could no longer work under the same local operational framework.
• Modern Reformed Equivalent: A church planting team splitting amicably into two separate congregations due to incompatible leadership styles, or a pastor leaving a presbytery in good standing to join another orthodox Reformed body because of localized ministry philosophies.

---

2. Actual, Biblically Termed Schism​

In historic Reformed theology (articulated by giants like John Calvin, James Henley Thornwell, and the Dutch Reformed Dordt theologians), schism is a severe sin against the unity of the visible Church.
The word comes from the Greek schisma (a tear or rent). In Reformed polity, actual schism occurs in two distinct ways: [1]

A. Inward Schism (Division within the Body)​

Rooted in 1 Corinthians 1:10–13 and 12:25, this is the sin of forming factions, parties, or cliques inside a true church, destroying its peace and love. [2, 3, 4]

• It is the spirit of saying, "I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow the Institutionalists, I follow the Reformers."
• It is a violation of the ordination vow to "study the peace and purity of the church." You are physically present, but spiritually acting as a tearing force against Christ's body.

B. Outward Schism (Unjust Unlawful Separation)​

This is the act of formally breaking away from, or dividing, a true visible church without a valid, biblical warrant.

• The Reformed Rule of Separation: Calvin and the Reformed confessions (like the Belgic Confession, Article 28) argue that you are only legally and biblically permitted to separate from a church if that church has ceased to be a true church—meaning it has completely abandoned the preaching of the pure gospel, the right administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline.
• The Definition of the Sin: If a church is still a true church (even if it is imperfect, messy, or struggling with a bad presbytery), tearing oneself away from it or starting a rival communion over non-essential, non-doctrinal matters is the sin of schism. It is a rebellion against the lawful courts of Christ's church. [5]

---

The Reformed Test: Schism vs. Faithful Reformation​

Because Reformed Christians love church history and church law, they created a strict test to determine whether a split is a sinful schism or a holy, necessary reformation:

Action	The Motive / Cause	Is it Schism?	Historical Example
Separating over Hersy / Apostasy	The mother church has abandoned the true Gospel and can no longer be reformed.	No. This is a faithful exit. The mother church committed spiritual adultery; the exiters are maintaining the true church.	1936: Machen leaving the PCUSA to form the OPC. 1517: The Protestant Reformation.
Separating over Administrative Disagreements	Splitting a church because you dislike a building project, a worship style, or a localized procedural ruling.	Yes. Tearing the visible body of Christ over prudential matters is a sin.	Local church splits over budgets or carpet color.
Bypassing Courts to Form Factions	Creating underground parties to subvert church courts while remaining in the denomination.	Yes. This is inward schism, actively undermining the lawful government of the church.	Factionalism that destroys local sessions.

The Irony for the Institutionalists​

This distinction exposes the core flaw of the institutionalist camp you have been tracking.
Institutionalists often accuse conservative reformers of being "schismatic" because the reformers are willing to fight, bring lawsuits to the SJC, and risk breaking the peace of the denomination.
But historic Reformed polity turns that accusation on its head:

• The Reformers' View: The true schismatics are the progressives and the institutionalists who protect them. By introducing false views on sexuality into RUF or using clever tricks to sneak functional female officers into the diaconate, they are the ones introducing a tearing force into the visible body.
• The Ultimate Verdict: To the confessional mind, fighting to enforce the Book of Church Order and biblical truth is not schism—it is the fulfillment of the vow to guard the peace of the church by purifying it. The ones who allow rot to grow are the ones tearing the fabric of the visible church.

If you'd like, I can write a detailed comparative analysis document outlining how the Westminster Standards, the Belgic Confession, and Reformed Baptist 1689 Covenantalism legally define the boundaries of a lawful church exit versus a sinful schism. Let me know if you would like me to generate that overview.

[1] https://www.encyclopedia.com
[2] https://nccumc.org
[3] https://thehistoricfaith.com
[4] https://sb.rfpa.org
[5] https://opc.org

Further query: Some divisions are long standing; ARP, PCUSA, RPs (to use Presbyterians); but if James Durham's rule for a national presbyterian church holds in some way to a volountary group of churches in the USA, what do we do with his statement that there is an absolute necessity for a rent church to unite (with all qualifies and assumptions we are talking churches not divided by serious error, or churches that have passed to synagogues of Satan)?
AI:
You are invoking the absolute crown jewel of classic Scottish Presbyterian irenics. James Durham’s A Treatise Concerning Scandal (specifically Part Four, Concerning Scandalous Divisions) is the definitive text on this exact crisis. [1, 2]
When Durham lays down the "absolute necessity for a rent church to unite," he is writing as a dying man in 1659 watching his beloved Church of Scotland rip itself to pieces over the Protesters vs. Resolutioners controversy—a bitter administrative and political dispute that did not involve heresy. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Durham's radical, spine-chilling thesis is this: If two church bodies recognize each other as true churches de jure (meaning they possess the true gospel, sacraments, and a valid ministry), their continued visible separation is an ongoing, active sin of schism. [7]
If Durham’s rule is applied to the modern American Reformed context (ARP, PCA, OPC, RPCNA), it creates an immediate, agonizing tension for confessional elders. [8, 9, 10, 11]

---

1. The Immediate Indictment of the American System​

Under Durham’s paradigm, the modern conservative American Presbyterian landscape is structurally sinful.

• The Fragmented Reality: The PCA, OPC, ARP, and RPCNA all sit in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC). They share pulpits, recognize each other's ordinations, and declare each other to be faithful, true sister churches.
• The Durham Verdict: Durham argues that the moment you say, "You are a true church of Christ," you lose all biblical right to remain structurally separate from them. If you remain divided, it implies you think they are actually a synagogue of Satan—or you are prioritizing your unique histories, property deeds, and localized traditions over the visible body of Christ. [7, 12]

2. Durham’s Blueprint for Healing the Rent​

To obey the absolute necessity of union, Durham places an staggering burden on church officers. He outlines exactly what must happen to heal a rent church:

• Mutual Forbearance on Non-Essentials: Durham argues that for the sake of union, churches must tolerate differences in application, localized church order, and administrative preferences. [13]
• Burying Historical Grievances: The unique identities of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (Seceder) tradition or the Covenanter (RPCNA) tradition—while historically rich—cannot justify a divided table today if the core doctrinal differences have been functionally rendered non-essential by time and shared confessions.
• Mutual Defalcation (Stepping Down): In cases of division over administrative actions, Durham argues that leaders on both sides must be willing to sacrifice their personal prestige, step down from their offices if necessary, and compromise on past judicial sentences to pave the way for a unified court.

---

3. The Grand Paradox of the Current PCA Crisis​

This is where Durham’s thesis collides brutally with your view of the Missouri Presbytery and the SJC.
If an institutionalist reads James Durham, they will try to weaponize him against you. They will say: "Look at Durham! He says union and peace are an absolute necessity. Therefore, we must tolerate Missouri Presbytery's differences, look past their private committee exams, and avoid a massive, church-splitting SJC trial for the sake of denominational peace." [3, 7, 14]
But Durham includes a massive, non-negotiable qualifier that completely blows up the institutionalist defense:

The Shield is Not for False Doctrine​

Durham explicitly notes that the absolute duty to unite only applies when the division is purely over personnel, administrations, or prudential policies. He writes an entire section (Concerning Doctrinal Scandals) stating that when a faction introduces scandalous errors that compromise the purity of the faith or the biblical qualifications of office, it is a completely different category of disease. [1, 2, 7]

• The Truce is Void: You cannot have a "Durham-style" union with a faction that is actively subverting the biblical doctrine of sanctification and human sexuality.
• The Purity Prerequisite: Historic Presbyterianism holds that purity is the root of true peace. If you attempt to force an absolute structural union over a rotting foundation of progressive theological compromise, you are not creating a "united church"—you are building a house of cards over a sinkhole.

What Do We Do With Durham Today?​

If we take Durham seriously, the conservative grassroots have a clear, two-pronged mandate:

1. Pursue Holy Realignment: We must actively seek structural union with truly faithful, confessional bodies (like the OPC or ARP), because our ongoing division from brothers who share the exact same faith and practice is a scandal before the world. [8, 9, 12]
2. Purge the Compromise First: We cannot use Durham's call for unity as an excuse to tolerate the subversion of church order in Missouri. If the SJC fails to enforce BCO 21-4(e), the "rent" is already real. At that point, attempting to preserve the institution at the expense of biblical truth isn't Presbyterian unity—it is a suicide pact for the denomination. [3, 14]

You cannot heal a rent church by pretending the tearing forces don't exist. True Durhamite unity requires a shared, unyielding submission to the absolute lordship of Christ and the purity of His Word.

[1] https://quod.lib.umich.edu
[2] https://www.abebooks.com
[3] https://puritanboard.com
[4] https://www.naphtali.com
[5] https://heritagebooks.org
[6] https://jamesdicksonbooks.com
[7] https://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org
[10] https://opc.org
[11] https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com
[12] https://www.reformationscotland.org
[13] https://theaquilareport.com
[14] https://ap.org.au

 

[CGS]

1. The Immediate Indictment of the American System​

Under Durham’s paradigm, the modern conservative American Presbyterian landscape is structurally sinful.

• The Fragmented Reality: The PCA, OPC, ARP, and RPCNA all sit in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC). They share pulpits, recognize each other's ordinations, and declare each other to be faithful, true sister churches.
• The Durham Verdict: Durham argues that the moment you say, "You are a true church of Christ," you lose all biblical right to remain structurally separate from them. If you remain divided, it implies you think they are actually a synagogue of Satan—or you are prioritizing your unique histories, property deeds, and localized traditions over the visible body of Christ. [7, 12

This is interesting. I know you are very familiar with Durham's views. Do you think AI is accurately portraying his views here?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This is interesting. I know you are very familiar with Durham's views. Do you think AI is accurately portraying his views here?

Yes. Durham wrote Concerning Scandal from within the context of a national church; one protestant nation one protestant church. This is part of Reformed Zoomer's problem in trying to take Durham, Rutherford, et al., and use them selectively to mandate PCUSA only; not that the Scots wouldn't view the American scene as a divided church, but why pick the PCUSA and not the RPs or ARP who are as old but the PCUSA remained separate from over psalmody etc., or Rome itself based on that reasoning and subsequent of his statements.

 

[Christodulus]

not that the Scots wouldn't view the American scene as a divided church

And to be fair they’d be right.

 

[jwright82]

And to be fair they’d be right.

Very true and a good example of the unintentional consequences of the intersection of the law of the state and Biblical principles.

 

[jezk]

And to be fair they’d be right.

In comparison to what? Consider the 7 churches in Revelation. Were they divided? If so, in what sense? They were "the seven churches of Asia minor" but in no sense was there a "Turkey national church." One can ask about the frame of reference for this debate without necessarily being a Munsterite.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In the OP I said, "I want to understand regarding what are to be considered schismatic churches and non-schismatic from the American viewpoint." And, "For those who are in the 'American system' of church governance — not even necessarily Presbyterian or Reformed — what is and isn't schism?"

Bringing Durham and his views into this negates the essence of my query. I do not want to back that far in history. When I say "American system" and "American viewpoint" it should be clear I want to keep out of the discussion the original 1647 WCF, and consider only the revised American WCF.

It is the churches in America (and kindred elsewhere) who adhere to the revised American WCF that are my concern. This could pertain to some in Canada, the UK, and EU etc.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

And I should add to this concern, not only those churches who adhere to the revised American WCF, but, as is the case with the Protestant Reformed Church in America (which holds to the Three Forms of Unity). I also hold to this Confession.

In Article 36 of the Belgic Confession, where it states that the civil magistrate is to “protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship”, thereby giving the state power over the church, I take the same objection as the Rev. David J. Engelsma has, as noted below,

[From, “The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government” pp 11, 12, where Rev. David J. Engelsma speaks of his status vis-a-vis Article 36 of the Belgic Confession]:

“The Belgic Confession (1561) treats the duty of the magistrates in Article 36. The ‘office’ of the magistrates, according to this article, is

“ ‘not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed, and the kingdom of Christ promoted.’ ” [The Belgic Confession, AD 1561, in The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Baker, repr. 1983), p. 432.]​

Rev. Engelsma then goes on to say,

“I note here that the Protestant Reformed Churches have relieved me [DJE] of my obligation to submit to the teaching of the particular section of the Belgic Confession quoted above. Otherwise the ‘Formula of Subscription’ requires me to regard this teaching, as all other teachings in the ‘Three Forms of Unity,’ as in harmony with the Word of God and forbids me militate against this doctrine.​

​

“A footnote qualifies Article 36 of the Belgic Confession at the point of the article’s assertion [re the duties of the state]… The footnote reads, in part: ‘This phrase, touching the office of the magistracy in its relation to the Church, proceeds on the principle of the Established Church….it is contrary to the New Dispensation that authority be vested in the State to arbitrarily reform the Church, and to deny the Church the right of independently conducting its own affairs as a distinct territory alongside the State.’ [‘The Doctrinal Standards, Liturgy, and Church Order,’ in The Psalter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 36.]’ ”​

I bring this up as it deals with a like situation in Reformed churches holding to the 3FU, as in the American churches holding to the 1788 (and later) revisions of the 1647 WCF.

But what I really want to get at — I repeat — are the principles where schism is not even an issue for us as for those in earlier times, such as where Durham's views held legitimate weight.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Naphtali.com has a lot of good material on this subject, especially from Rutherford and Durham, so I am going to answer this with reference to those resources because I think they give us some important distinctions that are often lost in these discussions.

The first thing I would say is that we need to distinguish between sinful division, non-union, separation, and schism. They are not all the same thing.

The American revision of the Confession certainly changes the relationship between the civil magistrate and the Church, but it does not eliminate the older Reformed concern for the visible unity of the Church. WCF 25 still speaks of one catholic visible Church, and WCF 26 still speaks of the communion saints are obligated to maintain as God gives opportunity.

But Rutherford is very helpful precisely because he does not reason from "there is separation" to "therefore there is schism."

In Against Separatism, Rutherford distinguishes separation in the Church from separation from the Church, total from partial separation, and negative from positive separation. More importantly for this discussion, he distinguishes non-union from separation.

He writes:

"There may be causes of non-union with a church, which are not sufficient causes of separation."

That seems particularly relevant to the American denominational situation.

He also makes the point that:

"A collateral and sister church ... is not said to separate from another."

In other words, the fact that two churches are not organically united under the same judicatory does not, by itself, establish that one has schismatically separated from the other.

Durham is also useful here. In the material at Naphtali, his distinction between heresy, schism, and division is especially important. Schism is a rupture of the Church's union and communion in government or worship. Division can involve real and even sinful dissension without necessarily amounting to formal schism.

Paul and Barnabas are an obvious biblical example. Their disagreement was sharp. There may well have been sin involved in the manner of it. But Scripture does not therefore present Paul as establishing a schismatic Pauline church over against a Barnabite church.

That is the distinction I think we need to preserve:

Every schism is sinful, but not every sinful division is schism.

That does not let modern Reformed denominations off the hook. I think there is plenty of room to criticize the way we become comfortable with institutional division. Historical inertia, personality, pride, ethnic history, institutional interests, and simple unwillingness to do the hard work of union can all become sinful obstacles to greater visible unity.

If the PCA, OPC, ARP, RPCNA, and other Reformed bodies have no substantial confessional or practical reason for remaining apart, then that ought to bother us. We should not turn denominational history into a theological virtue.

But that is different from saying that the mere existence of multiple Reformed denominations means that each one is necessarily a schismatic body.

Durham was writing within the setting of a national Scottish Church, and that context obviously shaped the institutional form in which he expected visible unity to appear. We can apply his moral and ecclesiological principles without pretending that seventeenth-century Scotland and the modern American church situation are institutionally identical.

Rutherford himself gives us room to think in terms of relations among "sister churches." That is important. His ecclesiology is strongly catholic, but catholicity does not require us to collapse every true church into one national judicatory before we can say that it is not in schism.

So I think the better question is not simply, "Are these churches divided?"

Of course they are.

The better questions are: What is the nature of the division? Was there a rupture of an existing lawful ecclesiastical union? Is this merely non-union between sister churches? Are there continuing reasons for the separation? And, even where the technical charge of schism does not apply, has our continued division nevertheless become sinful because we refuse to pursue greater unity?

Rutherford and Durham give us categories to answer those questions. They do not give us a basis for treating every instance of denominational plurality as though "division" and "schism" were interchangeable terms.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I agree with Rich that we can use 17th century national church Presbyterian writers in a 21st century volountary American context.

The better questions are: What is the nature of the division? Was there a rupture of an existing lawful ecclesiastical union? Is this merely non-union between sister churches? Are there continuing reasons for the separation? And, even where the technical charge of schism does not apply, has our continued division nevertheless become sinful because we refuse to pursue greater unity?

The PCUS and UPCUSA merged having both reached at that point a similar level of apostasy. Nothing in their systems prevented it. The one barrier Durham noted against a possiblity of healing a division was if the systems of government were not the same; he thus ruled out thinking in terms of mergers of Episcopals, Presbyterians and Congregationlists. To make an application. The faithful splinters of those two, the OPC and PCA, should merge.The OPC is the PCA writ small; in truth and in error. The conservatives are aligned, the anti Sabbatarians are just as pervasive. The OPC is not some haven of orthodoxy for the PCA, unless more biblical polity is what one is seeking. There would be the one issue. The OPC is actually Presbyterian. The PCA is a hybrid. The PCA would need to fix that and adopt the OPC's court system, jettison the SJC, and the weak GA. 2.5 office and 3 office views would need accomodating. Liberty of conscience and highhanded ideas of church authority would need shoring up against. It would be hard but there really isn't a significant enough reason for the division; and the OPC is nearly zero growth rate; and it has a pulpit problem (according to AI). A merger could aid those things. And while the PCA certainly does not need more antiSabbatarians, it does need more confessionalists and conservatives.

 

[Persequeor]

I certainly hope this is within the bounds of this topic. I have long struggled with Durham and Rutherford over a personal situation. Some 30 years ago, my church left one NAPARC denomination for another, I agreed with their reasons, and helped them with the transition. But I resigned because I could not in good faith promise to uphold the version of the WCF of the other denomination, (not the original vs the modern, but some additional chapters). We still have good relations, they stay in contact, there was no sharp disagreement, and I accept that denomination as brothers; it was merely my conscience. I still worry about my actions, though. This thread is helpful, my decision notwithstanding. Yet still I worry about what I might have done to others, or to the church as a whole-or whether I have committed something egregious. Thanks for all the comments.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I certainly hope this is within the bounds of this topic. I have long struggled with Durham and Rutherford over a personal situation. Some 30 years ago, my church left one NAPARC denomination for another, I agreed with their reasons, and helped them with the transition. But I resigned because I could not in good faith promise to uphold the version of the WCF of the other denomination, (not the original vs the modern, but some additional chapters). We still have good relations, they stay in contact, there was no sharp disagreement, and I accept that denomination as brothers; it was merely my conscience. I still worry about my actions, though. This thread is helpful, my decision notwithstanding. Yet still I worry about what I might have done to others, or to the church as a whole-or whether I have committed something egregious. Thanks for all the comments.

On the one hand, it is not a good idea to go against conscience, and if you were not allowed to scruple or take exception, what else could you do? If I have in mind the right denomination, they did remove those chapters some 20 years later. So at least it is no longer a problem.

 

[cthorn14]

Serious question: what is presently separating the ARP from PCA/OPC?

 

[Persequeor]

Thanks!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Serious question: what is presently separating the ARP from PCA/OPC?

Women deacons in the ARP. Solve that and then the ARP can invite the others to join them; they're as old as the original PCUSA after all. It might be objected that the ARP is still more a regional church compared to the PCA which is more national. But the pca does need to get over its fear of biblical polity simply because the PCUS was heavy handed and abusive and ditch the unbiblical pragmatic episcopal-congregational business model hybrid they created.

 

[cthorn14]

Women deacons in the ARP. Solve that and then the ARP can invite the others to join them; they're as old as the original PCUSA after all.

I wonder if WCF 23 would be a barrier for any. However, it seems like practically, officers move between the denominations without changing their view. The ARP at 23.3 is a bit hard to parse.

 

[CGS]

Women deacons in the ARP. Solve that and then the ARP can invite the others to join them

Totally agree that we need to prohibit women deacons in the ARP. I know there have been attempts to get rid of women deacons, but so far, they have all failed. One clarifier though...the decision to have/not have women deacons is left up to the session of each individual church. I have been a member of two ARP churches...neither the former one, nor the one I currently attend allows women deacons. I'm not sure what % of our churches do allow them.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I wonder if WCF 23 would be a barrier for any. However, it seems like practically, officers move between the denominations without changing their view. The ARP at 23.3 is a bit hard to parse.

I don't think it rises to any high degree of a problem. I can't stress just how much PCA polity is the main barrier. A weak non judicial only legislative GA is not biblical. Episcopal star chambers that are quasi impossible for even the GA to overrule, however benign, are not biblical.

 

[CGS]

I wonder if WCF 23 would be a barrier for any. However, it seems like practically, officers move between the denominations without changing their view. The ARP at 23.3 is a bit hard to parse.

Have you ever read this?

What Does the ARP Confess About the Civil Government? — seventeen82

Reverend Benjamin Glaser notes the ARP’s stance on the civil government in relation to the PCA.

www.seventeen82.com

 

[cthorn14]

Have you ever read this?

What Does the ARP Confess About the Civil Government? — seventeen82

Reverend Benjamin Glaser notes the ARP’s stance on the civil government in relation to the PCA.

www.seventeen82.com

Yes, good article. I fully agree with Pastor Glaser’s call to go back and examine the confessions closely; this has been an area of interest for me as well. However, the 1788 Confession does still maintain a "nursing fathers" view of the civil magistrate, if more limited in scope. Notably, Thornwell wanted Christ in the constitution.

It seems to me that the degree of difference really turns on what the ARP Confession means by "civil rights". Perhaps Pastor Glaser would be willing to write a follow-up article unpacking that phrase and its implications?

 

[CGS]

Yes, good article. I fully agree with Pastor Glaser’s call to go back and examine the confessions closely; this has been an area of interest for me as well. However, the 1788 Confession does still maintain a "nursing fathers" view of the civil magistrate, if more limited in scope. Notably, Thornwell wanted Christ in the constitution.

It seems to me that the degree of difference really turns on what the ARP Confession means by "civil rights". Perhaps Pastor Glaser would be willing to write a follow-up article unpacking that phrase and its implications?

As Pastor Glaser notes, our confession still maintains the establishment principle (although with modified language) as opposed to the voluntaryism of the PCA's confession. But as Chris said, "I don't think it rises to any high degree of a problem" in regard to a merger.

And just a bit of clarification... Thornwell wanted Christ in the constitution of the Confederate States of America. However, he failed to make that happen. Maybe that's why we lost the war?

 

[cthorn14]

As Pastor Glaser notes, our confession still maintains the establishment principle (although with modified language) as opposed to the voluntaryism of the PCA's confession. But as Chris said, "I don't think it rises to any high degree of a problem" in regard to a merger.

Yes, although "establishment principle" can function as something of an umbrella term. The ARP confession teaches something stronger than 1788 -- a positive moral duty of magistrates to promote the Christian religion. However, I am not convinced ARP 23.3 teaches a formally established national church. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Greater structural union among the PCA, OPC, ARP, RPCNA, and other Reformed bodies might be desirable. What I am less convinced of is that the absence of that structural union is necessarily schismatic, or that putting everyone under one General Assembly is always the highest expression of catholicity.

There is something to be said for relative peace among sister churches.

Suppose the PCA and OPC merged tomorrow because we concluded that remaining structurally separate was itself sinful. We would immediately have to settle questions of polity, courts, Sabbath practice, office, subscription, exceptions, and any number of other matters about which good and confessional men presently disagree. Perhaps those things could all be worked through. But it is at least possible that forcing organic union would produce considerably more clamor, litigation, factionalism, and disruption than allowing two sister denominations to remain in close communion with one another.

I'm not sure I see how the latter is necessarily more "schismatic."

In fact, I think catholicity has to be larger than the question of whether all Presbyterians can fit under one denominational roof.

I want to have a catholic spirit toward the OPC, ARP, RPCNA, and the rest of NAPARC. But I also want to have a catholic spirit toward faithful Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, and independent churches. I obviously don't mean some sort of "mere orthodoxy" big tent where doctrinal differences cease to matter. I am a Presbyterian because I believe Presbyterian doctrine and polity are biblical. Our Confession means something, and officers ought actually to believe what they vow to receive.

But our Confession is not the boundary marker for the Church of Jesus Christ.

I actually think we can become schismatic in spirit when we begin to define Christian communion so narrowly that only those who confess every article exactly as we do are treated as truly belonging to Christ's visible Church.

Our own practice demonstrates that we don't really believe that.

A Baptist minister can come to understand Covenant Theology, receive a call in the PCA, be examined by Presbytery, subscribe to our Standards, and be received and installed. We don't say, "Well, you were a Baptist, so whatever you thought you were doing before wasn't Christian ministry. Let's ordain you for the first time." We recognize that Christ had a real minister before he became a Presbyterian, albeit one who was confused about some significant things.

That seems to me to be an important expression of catholicity.

It is also one reason I tend to divide by two, three, or four when somebody points to some controversy inside the PCA and concludes that the whole denomination is hopelessly corrupt.

Catholicity is harder when the Church is bigger than your local congregation.

If my conception of the visible Church is basically my congregation and the dozen men I trust, then maintaining purity is comparatively easy. Somebody becomes problematic and we remove him. Another congregation becomes problematic and we stop associating with it. Another Presbytery does something foolish and we declare the denomination compromised. Pretty soon we have achieved remarkable "purity" by reducing the visible Church to everyone we already agree with.

That can look like zeal for purity while actually cultivating a profoundly schismatic disposition.

It is much harder to belong to a large communion and recognize that Christ has sheep in congregations I don't particularly like, under elders whose judgment I sometimes question, and even in Presbyteries where serious problems have arisen.

That doesn't mean tolerating error. It means doing the work.

If a minister teaches something contrary to our Standards, use the courts of the Church. If a Presbytery fails in its duty, there are complaints, references, appeals, reviews, and sometimes judicial process. Those things can be slow and frustrating. But part of having a catholic doctrine of the Church is recognizing that I don't get to act as "Pope for a day" and simply announce that I would get rid of that Presbytery in a heartbeat.

There are sheep there.

There are faithful ministers there.

There are congregations there that may have nothing whatsoever to do with whatever error has brought the Presbytery into controversy.

There are also courts of the Church that have responsibilities toward all of them.

It is easy from the outside to say, "I'd clean that mess up tomorrow." It is much harder to actually exercise discipline while protecting the innocent, following due process, preserving congregations, correcting error, and seeking the repentance and restoration of those involved.

That, to me, is where Durham remains very useful. His concern for unity does not mean indifference to purity. But neither does his concern for purity mean that every defect, bad officer, bad decision, or unresolved controversy becomes an excuse to rend the Church.

So I'm quite willing to say that unnecessary denominational division can be sinful and that Presbyterian bodies ought to pursue greater cooperation and, where appropriate, organic union.

I'm just not willing to make one organizational structure the test of whether we possess a catholic spirit.

There may actually be circumstances in which several sister denominations, recognizing one another's churches, ministers, sacraments, and discipline, cooperating where they can, and maintaining real ecclesiastical fellowship while peacefully bearing with differences, exhibit more Christian catholicity than one enormous denomination perpetually at war with itself.

And beyond NAPARC, I want my doctrine of the visible Church to be large enough to recognize that Christ has faithful churches and ministers among Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and others with whom I have substantial disagreements.

I can believe they are wrong without believing they are not the Church.

Perhaps that is one of the most useful distinctions in this whole discussion. Catholicity does not require pretending our differences are insignificant. It requires loving and recognizing Christ's Church even where those differences remain.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you, Rich, for your candid and godly overview of the situation. It is very helpful. So when it come to the PC(USA), and other like liberal, unrepentant assemblies, do we designate them apostate?

I appreciate your views of catholicity, and sister churches – and even though I do not know how to reconcile all the things that trouble me – those are important. I see – looking at "the big picture" – I am out of my depth, and ignorant, as how to resolve things. I am glad – and grateful – our Lord is gracious and patient with us!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thank you, Rich, for your candid and godly overview of the situation. It is very helpful. So when it come to the PC(USA), and other like liberal, unrepentant assemblies, do we designate them apostate?

I appreciate your views of catholicity, and sister churches – and even though I do not know how to reconcile all the things that trouble me – those are important. I see – looking at "the big picture" – I am out of my depth, and ignorant, as how to resolve things. I am glad – and grateful – our Lord is gracious and patient with us!

I think that is where the "more or less pure" language of WCF 25 makes the answer a little tricky.

At the level of the PC(USA) General Assembly, I have no hesitation speaking of profound apostasy. When a denomination officially approves and publicly teaches things that contradict Scripture on basic matters of faith and morals, those are not merely isolated errors by individual ministers. The assembly itself is acting wickedly and saying things in the name of Christ that offend heaven.

But I would hesitate to move immediately from "the General Assembly is apostate in significant respects" to "therefore every congregation in the PC(USA) is no church of Christ and every ordinance administered there is invalid."

MacPherson is useful here. He points out that the Scottish divines were remarkably reluctant to unchurch a body merely because it had become grievously corrupt. They could speak very strongly against Rome and separate from its corruptions while still recognizing that something of the Church remained there. They even distinguished between an ordinance being unlawfully administered and being invalid. (Naphtali)

That seems applicable here. A PCA Session receiving someone from a PC(USA) congregation could determine that his Trinitarian baptism was perfectly valid. Likewise, there may remain particular congregations in that denomination where the Word is substantially preached, the sacraments are administered, and genuine believers are being shepherded. Recognizing that does not amount to approving the denomination's General Assembly.

The Confession itself gives us a spectrum: particular churches are "more or less pure," the purest are subject to mixture and error, and some can finally degenerate so far as to become "no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." MacPherson emphasizes that the older Reformed writers did not collapse those categories into simply "pure church" or "false church." (Naphtali)

So I would probably say that apostasy can characterize an assembly or denomination broadly without requiring us to declare every congregation beneath it ecclesiastically nonexistent.

There may come a point where a particular congregation itself has so abandoned the Gospel that WCF 25.5 applies. But I don't think the wickedness of the highest judicatory automatically settles the status of every congregation or the validity of every sacrament administered within it.

That is one reason the older Reformed distinctions are so useful. They allow us to condemn corruption without having to pretend that Christ has no sheep, no ministry, and no valid ordinances anywhere within a grievously corrupted communion.

 

[Christodulus]

In comparison to what? Consider the 7 churches in Revelation. Were they divided? If so, in what sense? They were "the seven churches of Asia minor" but in no sense was there a "Turkey national church." One can ask about the frame of reference for this debate without necessarily being a Munsterite.

There was a Roman imperial “national church”.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Totally agree that we need to prohibit women deacons in the ARP. I know there have been attempts to get rid of women deacons, but so far, they have all failed. One clarifier though...the decision to have/not have women deacons is left up to the session of each individual church. I have been a member of two ARP churches...neither the former one, nor the one I currently attend allows women deacons. I'm not sure what % of our churches do allow them.

Which churches, not how many churches, may be more of an issue.

Here is the list of officers, including at least eleven women deacons, at First Presbyterian of Columbia SC, which is the largest church of the denomination and whose recent pastors have included some of the most important men in the Reformed world, both in the US and internationally.

First Presbyterian Church - Columbia - Officers

www.firstprescolumbia.org

This is in no way a criticism of First Presbyterian of Columbia. I personally knew Dr. John R. de Witt, who back in the 1990s had been a financial supporter of my work during the CRC fights. I respect a number of the other men who have served that church and have served with Banner of Truth, though Dr. de Witt was the only man on that list who I have known personally.

Full disclosure: while my opposition to women elders and pastors is a matter of public record dating back to the early 1990s with the CRC fights, I have supported deaconesses (which I think is a better term than women deacons) all the way back to the 1980s. I think the ARP is right to allow local option on this issue. I fully understand why, in the current ecclesiastical and cultural context, a church may believe it's a bad idea to have women in any official office of the church.

 

[EvanF]

There was a Roman imperial “national church”.

At the time of John's Revelation?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Consider the 7 churches in Revelation. Were they divided? If so, in what sense? They were "the seven churches of Asia minor" but in no sense was there a "Turkey national church.

Hello J.E.,

In the time of Revelation's 7 churches they were divided according to city / location – although there were more than just 7, as 7 was a symbolic number of divine completeness.

We know from Paul, writing to the Colossians, there was a church in Laodicea – that even had an epistle Paul wrote to them, which epistle we know nothing of (Col 4:16 KJV).

The situation is slightly different in Galatia, for there Paul speaks "unto the churches of Galatia" (Gal 1:2 KJV), a region where he and his fellow workers planted churches in a number of cities.

So in the earliest churches, there was one to a city, when there was one. So you are right when you say there was no "Turkey national church".