Figuring out Reformed Denomination Differences

[tim.kooistra]

Hello,

I am a new member who's stumbled upon this board within the last few weeks. I am presently dating a Free Reformed girl, and I personal hail from the United Reformed denomination.

While there are some subtle differences between the two, I have found that URC churches share alot more in common on the surface with the FRC in comparison to the FRC to the HRC, and the URC to the CanRC.

However, I've done some reading, and there are some differences, but I cannot understand in simple language what the differences are. I am trying to figure out these differences, and to ensure that whatever church I may attend, may be as biblically correct as possible, as well as ensuring that the people within the church are as Godly and on fire for Christ in their daily lives as possible.

So if someone can pass on some information to me, that would be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[Jon Peters]

Hello,

I am a new member who's stumbled upon this board within the last few weeks. I am presently dating a Free Reformed girl, and I personal hail from the United Reformed denomination.

While there are some subtle differences between the two, I have found that URC churches share alot more in common on the surface with the FRC in comparison to the FRC to the HRC, and the URC to the CanRC.

However, I've done some reading, and there are some differences, but I cannot understand in simple language what the differences are. I am trying to figure out these differences, and to ensure that whatever church I may attend, may be as biblically correct as possible, as well as ensuring that the people within the church are as Godly and on fire for Christ in their daily lives as possible.

So if someone can pass on some information to me, that would be appreciated.

Thanks!

What is the HRC?

 

[tim.kooistra]

Hello,

I am a new member who's stumbled upon this board within the last few weeks. I am presently dating a Free Reformed girl, and I personal hail from the United Reformed denomination.

While there are some subtle differences between the two, I have found that URC churches share alot more in common on the surface with the FRC in comparison to the FRC to the HRC, and the URC to the CanRC.

However, I've done some reading, and there are some differences, but I cannot understand in simple language what the differences are. I am trying to figure out these differences, and to ensure that whatever church I may attend, may be as biblically correct as possible, as well as ensuring that the people within the church are as Godly and on fire for Christ in their daily lives as possible.

So if someone can pass on some information to me, that would be appreciated.

Thanks!

What is the HRC?

Heritage Reformed Congregations (Heritage Reformed Churches )

 

[JOwen]

The Heritage Reformed Congregations (HRC) and the Free Reformed Churches (FRC) are much closer than the URC is to the FRC. Presently we are at second level correspondence with the HRC with one more level to go before we can call each other's ministers. We can already attend each others communions with freedom, and we share a seminary and professors (PRTS). At this time, the FRC and the URC are at first level correspondence with no real movement forward.

I would say that the major differences would be identified thus:

1. The FRC is not Kuyperian at all, meaning we do not have a root in the CRC. We hail from the Secession of 1843 in Holland, and did not join the Doleantie union of 1886, thus remaining a proper secession church.

2. The FRC follows the line of the Second Reformation in Holland and the Puritan movement in Britain. Following point 1, this means we do not view (contra Kuyper) the congregation as a single entity comprised of believers, but stress the need for regeneration and conversion, even in our children. We view the congregation, while outwardly one, as a mixture of saved and reprobate. Thus preaching is discriminatory, doctrinal, and evangelistic, with an emphasis on the marks of faith. The URC on the other hand (and I generalize here because there are fine exceptions), assumes that the congregation is, by and large, converted. This means that preaching is more educational for the Christian walk, and is less discriminatory in the sermon.

3. Outwardly speaking, the FRC would historically hold to the Common Cup in Communion, head-coverings, exclusive psalmody, and the textus receptus in bible translation. The URC would be much broader on these subjects.

That's it in brief.

 

[Jake]

Check this out: Presbyterian and Reformed Churches

 

[tim.kooistra]

Thank you for that explanation. I knew there were some differences (which you mentioned in point #3) and I had read a little into Kuyper, but looking at the surface, it was rather hard to understand the history behind it and the reasoning behind it.

I appreciate the information greatly.

Thanks!

 

[dannyhyde]

At this time, the FRC and the URC are at first level correspondence with no real movement forward.

I wish there were more movement. Is the FRC thinking of joining NAPARC? I think that would help, as it has with us moving to level two with the RPCNA ("sister church" level . . . accepting memberships, etc.)

. . . we do not view (contra Kuyper) the congregation as a single entity comprised of believers, but stress the need for regeneration and conversion, even in our children. We view the congregation, while outwardly one, as a mixture of saved and reprobate. Thus preaching is discriminatory, doctrinal, and evangelistic, with an emphasis on the marks of faith. The URC on the other hand (and I generalize here because there are fine exceptions), assumes that the congregation is, by and large, converted. This means that preaching is more educational for the Christian walk, and is less discriminatory in the sermon.

I think this is a fair statement, as you say, as a general comment. There is a tendency to be over optimistic in our circles. But as you also say, there are some of us (myself included) who have what I would consider a more realistic view of the congregation, which I think is more consistent with classic Reformed theology, that there are saved and unsaved, elect and reprobate in any given congregation, and that the call of the necessity of repentance and faith needs to be offered over and over again. Of course, a lot of the reason many are so overly optimistic is that they have chucked the classic distinction between the church as visible and the church as invisible.

 

[JOwen]

I wish there were more movement. Is the FRC thinking of joining NAPARC? I think that would help, as it has with us moving to level two with the RPCNA ("sister church" level . . . accepting memberships, etc.)

We are members of NAPARC. Being a very small federation perhaps we are overlooked in the back corner.

I think this is a fair statement, as you say, as a general comment. There is a tendency to be over optimistic in our circles. But as you also say, there are some of us (myself included) who have what I would consider a more realistic view of the congregation, which I think is more consistent with classic Reformed theology, that there are saved and unsaved, elect and reprobate in any given congregation, and that the call of the necessity of repentance and faith needs to be offered over and over again. Of course, a lot of the reason many are so overly optimistic is that they have chucked the classic distinction between the church as visible and the church as invisible.

And this is why you have been invited to teach at PRTS this summer I would imagine. I know when we sit down with URC brothers at NAPARC or ICRC, the delegates are often sympathetic to our view. Part of our struggle as a federation is we are only now emerging from the deep sleep of our Dutch subculture, and we are cautiously trying to find like-minded denominations. If all URC ministers were like Rev. Hyde, I'm sure we would ratchet up the unity talks. Danny would be welcome into the FRC with open arms.

 

[dannyhyde]

Come out of the ecclesiastical corner, my FRC brothers and sisters! Haha.

My apologies for missing that, Jerrold.

 

[yeutter]

As an outside observer let me say how much I appreciate the charity the Dutch Reformed show to each other here on this board. Allow me to observe, that all the different Dutch Reformed groups seem to have different understandings of the covenant.

 

[JOwen]

I never realized the nuances of the covenant until I became Free Reformed. Now I've caught the bug. My Th.M thesis is on the Covenant View of Samuel Rutherford.

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

Come out of the ecclesiastical corner, my FRC brothers and sisters! Haha.

My apologies for missing that, Jerrold.

No problem. We are easy to miss!

 

[Tim]

Since this discussion was motivated by a relationship, it would also be useful to find out if this young lady understands all of the particular distinctives of her denomination, and if she holds to them. If she has grown up in the Free Reformed Church, it is much more likely that she will be completely in line with Free Reformed teaching. From there, you can work out compatibility and understanding of any differences.

All the best with your relationship.