ReadBavinck
Puritan Board Freshman
What is preventing the merger of such similar denominations, e.g. the URCNA and the OPC?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by JohnV
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.
[Edited on 3-1-2006 by JohnV]
Jus Divinum, compared to the Church Order, forms for ordination, and the Form of Subscription of the old CRC. These were in place before the historical events that led to her downfall, so they have to be understood in that light. Office-bearers represented their offices, not themselves or their opinions. They kept quiet during congregational meetings where matters were discussed; they did not voice their opinions. The sense of divine authorization was very palpable in the offices, just like Jus Divinum portrays it.Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by JohnV
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.
[Edited on 3-1-2006 by JohnV]
John-
Where can I read this understanding at? What is your source? I am interested.
I don't know this, but going by Dr. Schaeffer it happened during the time preceding the liberalization of the main Presbyterian church. I don't know Presbyterian history, so I can't pinpoint the time it changed. What I do know is that what Jus Divinum is talking about does not reflect what is presently there.Where/when did this old Presbyterian/modern Presbyterian difference occur?
Would the continental reformed version than be more technically called "congregationalism" as opposed to independency?
Originally posted by JohnV
Jus Divinum, compared to the Church Order, forms for ordination, and the Form of Subscription of the old CRC. These were in place before the historical events that led to her downfall, so they have to be understood in that light. Office-bearers represented their offices, not themselves or their opinions. They kept quiet during congregational meetings where matters were discussed; they did not voice their opinions. The sense of divine authorization was very palpable in the offices, just like Jus Divinum portrays it.Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by JohnV
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.
[Edited on 3-1-2006 by JohnV]
John-
Where can I read this understanding at? What is your source? I am interested.
I don't know this, but going by Dr. Schaeffer it happened during the time preceding the liberalization of the main Presbyterian church. I don't know Presbyterian history, so I can't pinpoint the time it changed. What I do know is that what Jus Divinum is talking about does not reflect what is presently there.Where/when did this old Presbyterian/modern Presbyterian difference occur?
Would the continental reformed version than be more technically called "congregationalism" as opposed to independency?
NO!!! Perish the thought. They would be as much opposed to congregationalism as the ministers of London were. Independency is also out of the question. This doesn't mean that an independent Reformed church cannot exist. It means that ordinarily it would not exist.
Again, look at the old CRC documents. Mutual oversight and responsibility are intrinsic to the order of the church. This does not bespeak congregationalism or independency.