Dutch Reformed vs. Presbyterian

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by faydawg67117
Are there any differences as far as doctrine and church government is concerned?

There are no fundamental differences theologically, confessionally. The folk who wrote the WCF knew Dort and were deeply influenced by the Heidelberg and the Belgic. They read continental Reformed theology.

On close inspection, virtually all the alleged differences evaporate. Certainly the 16th and 17th century Reformed/Presbyterian folk were not conscious of the sorts of differences folk allege today.

There are differences in ethos, history, and ecclesiology. The Presbyterians tend to focus more on procedure and polity, especially if they are OPC :lol: but there are historic reasons for that (mainly, what happened to Machen in the PCUSA).

There are differences in polity. In Dutch churches the relations between classis and consistory (the local adjudicating body) are described as broader not "higher." In Presbyterian polity, the presbytery is "higher" than the session etc. In Dutch polity, ministers are not members of classis, only of their local congregation. Classis only exists as a delegated body. When it closes business it doesn't exist. In Presbyterian polity, the Presbytery is a body that always exists and frequently meets (again, esp. in the OPC! - I say with affection and reverence). The minister is a member of Presbytery on loan to a local congregation.

There are some liturgical differences too. Most Presbyterian congregations I've visited do not, e.g., have a strong declaration of pardon/absolution, whereas at least some of the Dutch Reformed do. The Presbyterians do not require an evening/afternoon (second service) catechism sermon as the Dutch are supposed to have by the Dort church order.

There are ethnic differences, of course. Presbyterians tend to be of Scots, or Scots-Irish, or other Celtic background and they tend to have been in this country longer than the those affiliated with the CRC or URC. Ethnicity may be a stronger cultural bond among the Dutch than the cultural bonds among Presbyterians, with the exception of the covenanters who seem to have quite strong cultural bond. They tend to know each others families/clans etc as the Dutch do. I don't know if they play Scots bingo as the Dutch play "dutch bingo" (how many names does one have to list before we know a family in common?) but I guess they do.

rsc
 
Two differences come to mind.

The Dutch Reformed do not ordain Ruling Elders as Presbyterians do. They install them. When their term is up they become former Elders.

The Heidelberg Catechism is not explicitly Zwinglian like the Westminster Confession.
 
Originally posted by yeutter
The Heidelberg Catechism is not explicitly Zwinglian like the Westminster Confession.

What exactly are you referring to here?

(If the Lord's Supper, specifically section two of the chapter on it, the context of the rest of that chapter more than confirms that it is not in fact speaking of the Supper in a Zwinglian sense.)
 
Originally posted by yeutter
Two differences come to mind.

The Dutch Reformed do not ordain Ruling Elders as Presbyterians do. They install them. When their term is up they become former Elders.

The Heidelberg Catechism is not explicitly Zwinglian like the Westminster Confession.

Thomas,

I've heard this suggested, but I doubt that it is true, at least its not universally true.

It's true that the Dutch Reformed have term eldership, but they are ordained to their office, at least they have been in my experience.

In the URC there is a little more flexibility and we in Oceanside regard our elders as active and inactive.

I admit to some confusion here. I haven't checked Monsma et al to see what they say about the CO.

It is also true that the Dutch Ref'd don't speak of "teaching" elders. We have three offices, pastor, elder, and deacon. Some Presbyterians (typically in the OPC) do also speak this way, whereas the PCA speaks of ruling and teaching elders.

These, however, are not matters of theology but polity.

As Zwinglianism in the WCF, the divines would be quite surprised, most all of them anyway, to discover they were confessing Zwinglianism!

What exactly do you find Zwinglian in the Standards?

rsc
 
Originally posted by non dignus
Are there different perspectives on the Lord's Day?

I think that the differences that some find are not easily sustained by close examination of both the WCF and HC.

The Dutch are often called "practical sabbatarians," and the suggestion is made that they are less strict on the sabbath in theory, but in practice. That may be, but I think it's hard to prove.

The HC is not as expansive as the WCF on the sabbath, but I don't know that there's much evidence that the writers of the HC would dissent much from the WCF. Ursinus wrote on the sabbath and during the Calvinist regime in Heidelberg/the Palatinate, strict rules about sabbath observance were imposed by the magistrate.

The HC says:

In the first place, God wills that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the holy sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting sabbath.

There is a logical continuity between "begin in this life" and "everlasting sabbath." I.e., this is the Christian sabbath as the LC 116 says. This is briefer than the Standards, but the Standards were filling out their ethics on the same principles taught in the HC.

rsc

[Edited on 2-5-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
 
Any one who thinks that the Dutch Reformed are "practical sabbitarians" and not "strict" like Presbyterians should read Teellink.
 
Thanks for the answers. I have one specific question in regards to church government.

If there is a conflict between two brothers/sisters in a church that can not be resolved between them and the session can't resolve it, it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that Presbyterians can appeal to a higher court all the way to the GA. In a similiar situation how would this be handled in a Dutch Reformed denomination?

[Edited on 2-5-2006 by faydawg67117]
 
Originally posted by faydawg67117
Thanks for the answers. I have one specific question in regards to church government.

If there is a conflict between two brothers/sisters in a church that can not be resolved between them and the session can't resolve it, it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that Presbyterians can appeal to a higher court all the way to the GA. In a similiar situation how would this be handled in a Dutch Reformed denomination?

[Edited on 2-5-2006 by faydawg67117]

The Dutch have a parallel system of consistory (local), classis (regional), (sometimes also a regional synod), and (national) synod.

The Dort church order provides avenues for complaint and appeal through the broader assemblies. Overtures are written and published to the assemblies in a similar way as in Presbyterian bodies. Some Dutchmen might be a little more reluctant than Presbyterians to pronounce on doctrinal issues absent a specific case, but this isn't absolute.

So, if there is a conflict, it should go to consistory. If no resolution, then it can be appealed to classis, failing there, it can be appealed to Synod.

The URC CO is at http://www.urcna.org

rsc
 
Zwinglianism

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by yeutter
The Heidelberg Catechism is not explicitly Zwinglian like the Westminster Confession.

What exactly are you referring to here?

(If the Lord's Supper, specifically section two of the chapter on it, the context of the rest of that chapter more than confirms that it is not in fact speaking of the Supper in a Zwinglian sense.)

Chris;
You and Dr. Clark are right. I used too strong of language in calling the Westminster explicitly Zwinglian. You are correct that when the Westminster is read in context expresses Calvin's view not that of Zwingli. I should of said the Westminster is open to a Zwinglian interpretation in a way the Three Forms of Unity are not.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

.

It's true that the Dutch Reformed have term eldership, but they are ordained to their office, at least they have been in my experience.

In the URC there is a little more flexibility and we in Oceanside regard our elders as active and inactive.

rsc

Do you ordain elders with the laying on of hands in the United Reformed Church?

In the Protestant Reformed Church and the Canadian Reformed Church I have heard the term former elder used. I also know of a case in the Canadian Reformed Church where a 'former elder' was nominated to the office of deacon.

Maybe the URC, PRC, CRC, and Netherlands Reformed Congregations share the Church order of Dordt but have developed differently in how they impliment it.
 
Originally posted by yeutter
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by yeutter
The Heidelberg Catechism is not explicitly Zwinglian like the Westminster Confession.

What exactly are you referring to here?

(If the Lord's Supper, specifically section two of the chapter on it, the context of the rest of that chapter more than confirms that it is not in fact speaking of the Supper in a Zwinglian sense.)

Chris;
You and Dr. Clark are right. I used too strong of language in calling the Westminster explicitly Zwinglian. You are correct that when the Westminster is read in context expresses Calvin's view not that of Zwingli. I should of said the Westminster is open to a Zwinglian interpretation in a way the Three Forms of Unity are not.

For what it's worth, in an essay published via Princeton Seminary, Lyle Bierma argued that there were Zwinglian elements in the HC on the Supper. I don't agree, but my point is that folks are capable, if they will, of finding Zwingli in the HC as well as the WCF.

It comes down to what counts as "Zwingian," I suppose.

rsc
 
Originally posted by yeutter
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

.

It's true that the Dutch Reformed have term eldership, but they are ordained to their office, at least they have been in my experience.

In the URC there is a little more flexibility and we in Oceanside regard our elders as active and inactive.

rsc

Do you ordain elders with the laying on of hands in the United Reformed Church?

In the Protestant Reformed Church and the Canadian Reformed Church I have heard the term former elder used. I also know of a case in the Canadian Reformed Church where a 'former elder' was nominated to the office of deacon.

Maybe the URC, PRC, CRC, and Netherlands Reformed Congregations share the Church order of Dordt but have developed differently in how they implement it.

Yes, this is true. I don't mean to imply that all URC's think as we in Oceanside do. I don't know that to be the case.

Art. 6 of the URC CO envisions elders participating in the ordination of ministers. More is made of ministerial ordination than of that of elders, but if elders are considered "unordained" what are they doing participating in the minister's ordination? It may be that the Dutch practically reserve the verb "to ordain" for the ministerial office, and think implicitly of elders having a slightly different sort of ordination.

Art. 13 of the URC CO indicates some ambivalence when it equates ordination with installation:

Elders and deacons shall be elected to a term specified by the Consistory, and upon subscribing to the Three Forms of Unity by signing the Form of Subscription, shall be ordained or installed with the use of the appropriate liturgical form before entering upon their work.
Emphasis mine - rsc

rsc
 
I grew up in the Dutch Reformed setting, and I don't recall anything about a three office view. My first introduction to that came from my affiliation with Presbyterians, not the Dutch.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
I grew up in the Dutch Reformed setting, and I don't recall anything about a three office view. My first introduction to that came from my affiliation with Presbyterians, not the Dutch.

John,

BC Art. 31 is pretty explicit:

We believe that the ministers of God's Word, the elders, and the deacons ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teaches. Therefore every one must take heed not to intrude himself by improper means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord.
As for the ministers of God's Word, they have equally the same power and authority wheresoever they are, as they are all ministers of Christ, the only universal Bishop and the only Head of the Church.
Moreover, in order that this holy ordinance of God may not be violated or slighted, we say that every one ought to esteem the ministers of God's Word and the elders of the Church very highly for their work's sake, and be at peace with them without murmuring, strife, or contention, as much as possible.

In which of the Dutch Churches did you grow up?

Ed Clowney defended the three office view among American Presbyterians.

Derke Bergmsa has written an excellent exegetical defense of the three-office view in J. Armstrong ed., The Compromised Church. My pastor, Rev Danny Hyde is publishing an essay on this in a collection ed. by Rev Michael G. Brown to be published by the Outlook. There might be an essay on this in the Mark Brown, ed. collection of essays also.

rsc
 
Dr. Clark:

I grew up in the CRC. It was made clear to me that there was on office of elder, but that there was a distinction between elder and minster. Ministers indeed were to be respected as ministers of the gospel, with equal authority, while elders who also had the respect due to the office whereever they went, exercised that authority over the ones in their congregation, but also as delegated by Classis for the oversight of neighbouring churches.

The point seemed to be that no minister may lord it over a congregation; that the elders were to be sure that the preaching and pastoring was done in accordance with the rules of office. A minister may want to persuade his elders of a particular point of view, but he had not authority to press it, for the elders ruled that part. He was to submit to their authority of rulership as much as the elders were to submit to his spiritual leadership. And the Form of Subscription made the limitations clear enough for all to understand.

So though there may be a wider distinction within the office than normally thought, the office was one, not two. That's how I remember it. And I took pains to know how it was.
 
Thanks for the answers Dr. Clark. I am looking for a reformed church in my area and the best we've been to so far has been a dutch congregation. Most likely we'll continue to attend and might become members if all goes well.

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by faydawg67117]
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
There are differences in polity. In Dutch churches the relations between classis and consistory (the local adjudicating body) are described as broader not "higher." In Presbyterian polity, the presbytery is "higher" than the session etc. In Dutch polity, ministers are not members of classis, only of their local congregation. Classis only exists as a delegated body. When it closes business it doesn't exist. In Presbyterian polity, the Presbytery is a body that always exists and frequently meets (again, esp. in the OPC! - I say with affection and reverence). The minister is a member of Presbytery on loan to a local congregation.

Dr. Clark,

I don't think I understand this. How does the membership of the minister effect the broader vs. higher understanding? I think I'm missing the nuances of broader vs. higher. Would you please unpack this a little for me?

Thanks,
Christopher
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Art. 13 of the URC CO indicates some ambivalence when it equates ordination with installation:

Elders and deacons shall be elected to a term specified by the Consistory, and upon subscribing to the Three Forms of Unity by signing the Form of Subscription, shall be ordained or installed with the use of the appropriate liturgical form before entering upon their work.
Emphasis mine - rsc

rsc

Could this wording be a result of allowing for the case where a man is re-elected to the office? They would merely be installed vs. being (re-)ordained. The PCA has this idea explicitly in their BCO.
 
I think so, Tom. If you look at the form for ordaining a minister you will find, in brackets, "or install", or something like that. Also, in the Church Order you will find that the elders are to serve terms, usually three years; and that in such cases a third of the elders are to retire each year, so that there will be at least two thirds serving consecutive years at all times. Thus the word "install" would also refer to elders who are elected to office again.
 
OK, I think I've got it all figured out: the difference between the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterian Reformed. Here goes -

In Presbyterianism you have what is commonly called the "apples and oranges" fallacy. That is, you can't compare apples to oranges; or there has to be a relationship between the things compared. This is a hard and fast rule, pretty well. If you can separate things into "apples" and "oranges" categories, then the logic falls apart.

Well, in Dutch reasoning there is not such fallacy. How do I know this? Well, the word for oranges is sinaasappel, and everyone knows enough Dutch to know that the last part of that word, "appel", is apple. So in Dutch they are related. Hence, there is a relationship. Hence, no "apples and oranges" fallacy.

Go ahead, ask a Dutchman if you can compare apples to oranges. He'll say, "Yaah, you ken. I like appels a whole lot more den sinaasappels. 'Cept at Sinter Klass, den I like sinaasappels more." End of story! And everyone knows that you can't change a Dutchman's mind once he has it made up.
 
Got it!
12_4_39.gif
12_4_44.gif
 
Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
There are differences in polity. In Dutch churches the relations between classis and consistory (the local adjudicating body) are described as broader not "higher." In Presbyterian polity, the presbytery is "higher" than the session etc. In Dutch polity, ministers are not members of classis, only of their local congregation. Classis only exists as a delegated body. When it closes business it doesn't exist. In Presbyterian polity, the Presbytery is a body that always exists and frequently meets (again, esp. in the OPC! - I say with affection and reverence). The minister is a member of Presbytery on loan to a local congregation.

Dr. Clark,

I don't think I understand this. How does the membership of the minister effect the broader vs. higher understanding? I think I'm missing the nuances of broader vs. higher. Would you please unpack this a little for me?

Thanks,
Christopher

Broader means that there's more emphasis on the local consistory as the court of original jurisdiction, in legal terms. The consistory delegates representatives to classis and to synod (in the simplest scheme). In the Presbyterian system, the any minister or elder is automatically a member of Presbytery and can go (in the OPC, as I understand it) at will. One *is* a member of presbytery. One is delegated to classis, but is a member of consistory.

The idea behind "broader" is that it is a decision temporarily constituted making body that is made up of representives from a varieties consistories, but it is not "above" consistory. Consistory does not work for Classis, but Classis works for consistory. Ditto for Synod.

Clearer?

rsc
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The idea behind "broader" is that it is a decision temporarily constituted making body that is made up of representives from a varieties consistories, but it is not "above" consistory. Consistory does not work for Classis, but Classis works for consistory. Ditto for Synod.

That is interesting. I was aware of the differences of the minister's membership, but had never heard the differences in the relationship of congregation and representative body expressed this way before. In Dutch Reformed polity, how exactly does the notion of Classis not being "above" the consistory practically affect the issue of discipline (especially of ministers)?
 
Originally posted by faydawg67117
Are there any differences as far as doctrine and church government is concerned?

Technically, it should be "Three Forms vs. Presbyterian" as we are speaking of confessional practices here not nationalities. :) I have great Three Forms friends that are not Dutch ;)

Kind regards,

Jerrold
 
Originally posted by JOwen
Originally posted by faydawg67117
Are there any differences as far as doctrine and church government is concerned?

Technically, it should be "Three Forms vs. Presbyterian" as we are speaking of confessional practices here not nationalities. :) I have great Three Forms friends that are not Dutch ;)

Kind regards,

Jerrold

I suppose "Continental Reformed" might be a more accurate description as well.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by JOwen
Originally posted by faydawg67117
Are there any differences as far as doctrine and church government is concerned?

Technically, it should be "Three Forms vs. Presbyterian" as we are speaking of confessional practices here not nationalities. :) I have great Three Forms friends that are not Dutch ;)

Kind regards,

Jerrold

I suppose "Continental Reformed" might be a more accurate description as well.


I'd think so, although Continental is still speaking of Europe where Presbyterian speaks of a structure.
 
The Dutch ( not to mean ethnic ) also hold to the Presbyterian form of government. It is remarkable how much the early Presbyterian form appeared like the Dutch form.

I think that in considering the differences we need to look at three aspects, in general, and then go to more particular instances from there. There is the subtle differences in doctrinal emphasis, and second, the differences in heirarchical or authoritative administration, and lastly the practical implications of day-to-day practice as a result of their distinct historical heritages.

For myself I have been confused as to who has jurisdiction over the pastors. Do the elders have rule over the pastors, since to them belongs the rule of the church? Or does Presbytery alone have rule over the pastors? Whose place is it to exercise oversight? In other words, when a pastor goes beyond his office and errs in doctrine, whose fault is it when it is let go? The Session or the Presbytery?

I have also had problems understanding the structure which seems to centre attention on the Presbytery. In the Dutch churches ( again, I don't mean it as an ethnic description ) the focus is on the congregation: i.e., a Classis ( roughly equivalent to the Presbytery ) is not justified unless there are congregations to delegate authority to it; but in Presbyterian circles it seems that a congregation is not justified unless there is a Presbytery to authorize it. It has been said in other discussions that a congregation is not legitimately Presbyterian unless there is a Presbytery; compared to the Dutch view that a Classis is not legitimately a Classis unless it is delegated out of the individual congregations. It seems that a Presbytery can conceivably exist without authorization from the congregations, while in the Dutch community a congregation can conceivably exist without authorization from a Classis.

I think this belongs in the day-to-day operation aspect of the differences, but involves the authoritative aspect more. But after I read Jus Divinum I have taken this to also include the doctrine of office and of Divine authorization. I see all three in these two problems.

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by JohnV]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top