OPC vs. RPCNA: Differences?

[Northern Crofter]

I'm not sure about that. They are somewhat similar in their Constitution to comment on the WCF and reject certain portions, including rejecting even requiring infant baptism. You can find their Constitution here with comments: https://torontofpc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BCO2.pdf

I can see where you are coming from with not requiring infant baptism = not being faithful to the original WCF, but they do claim to be:

I've heard it argued that the wording in 28.4 - "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized" - allows for their position, but I'm not convinced that was the intent of the Assembly.

 

[Ploutos]

the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized

How one would get from there to "infant baptism is not a requirement" while claiming confessional subscription (if that's indeed what they're doing) would be beyond me.

But I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "are" are.

 

[Jake]

I can see where you are coming from with not requiring infant baptism = not being faithful to the original WCF, but they do claim to be:
View attachment 12130
I've heard it argued that the wording in 28.4 - "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized" - allows for their position, but I'm not convinced that was the intent of the Assembly.

I don't know why they include the original WCF on that page as it doesn't seem that is their constitutional Confession. Their Constitution does not use the original WCF and they also have this on their beliefs page: https://fpcna.org/beliefs/separated-unto-the-gospel/#our-statement-of-faith

Our written statement of faith is set forth in The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Larger Catechism and The Shorter Catechism, as amended and printed in our Book of Church Order. Our amendments of the Westminster Standards modify the statements of the Confession adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America in 1788 in five areas:

They modify and abbreviate the Confession chapter 23, Of the Civil Magistrate, at section 3. They place an Additional Note and an Addendum to the Confession chapter 25, Of the Church. The Additional Note at section 6 reflects the Church’s openness on the eschatological interpretation of the “man of sin.” The Addendum reflects the Church’s position on standards of ecclesiastical and personal separation.

They carry an Additional Statement to the Confession chapter 28, Of Baptism, at sections 3–4, to declare the Church’s policy of admitting to equal standing in membership and ministry believers who hold to credobaptism (the view that it is scriptural to baptize only those who have made a credible profession of personal faith in Christ) with those who hold to paedobaptism (the view that it is scriptural to baptize the infant children of baptized believers).

They place an Additional Statement to the Confession chapter 32.2 and 33.1-3 to reflect the Church’s allowance of a diversity of views in some areas of eschatology. These statements deal with the often debated questions of how to interpret the Bible’s teaching on the subject of the millennium. Our statement of faith gives liberty to adopt a premillennial, postmillennial or amillennial view of prophecy, with the proviso that no prophetic interpretation is acceptable that alters the central truths of the gospel as expounded in other parts of our confessional standards. They add a chapter to the Confession, Of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 34).

Specifically in the FPCNA Constitution they add the following clarification to Chapter 28 on Baptism:

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT ON 28.3–4
We recognize that “the visible church…consists of all those throughout the world
that profess the true religion, together with their children” (WCF 25.2) and that
therefore the children of believing parents stand in a special covenant relationship
to God. This recognition gives us confidence in our ministry of the Word to these
children and in our intercession on their behalf, for we expect God to fulfill His
promise to bring them to saving faith in Christ.
However, though the children of believers are thus identified with the visible
church, we do not receive them into communicant membership of the local church
until they make a personal credible profession of saving faith in Christ. This policy
accords with two distinct views on whether the children of believers are proper
subjects of Christian baptism, and we embrace both views within our fellowship.
We admit into our fellowship those who believe that covenant infants should
receive baptism, the sign and seal of God’s covenant with His people—defining an
infant as a person who has not matured to the point of being able to respond to the
obligations of the gospel call in repentance and faith.
We equally admit into our fellowship those who believe that the sacrament of
baptism, no less than the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, should be administered
only to those who have come to a personal credible profession of saving faith in
Christ. And while “dipping the person into the water is not necessary” (WCF 28.3)
to a valid administration of the sacrament, we recognize that it is a legitimate mode
of baptism.
In dealing with this subject that has long caused bitter divisions among God’s
people, we pledge ourselves to hold our views with a loving tolerance and respect
for differing brethren, all of us being united in repudiating the error of baptismal
regeneration.
We hold that the baptism of professedly Christian bodies that have so
degenerated from the gospel as to be no longer true churches of Christ (WCF 25.5)
is not Christian baptism and is therefore not valid. Included in such bodies are the
Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and all cults and sects
that fail to hold to the central truths of the Christian revelation. By “the central
truths of the Christian revelation” we mean the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of
the Lord Jesus Christ, the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, and justification
by grace alone through faith alone in the merits of Christ alone.
We will seek to instruct converts formerly baptized in bodies that are not true
churches of Christ regarding the message and importance of biblical baptism and
baptize them according to the commandment of Christ (Matthew 28:19–20). Such
baptism is not rebaptism but an initial valid Christian baptism

 

[Logan]

I suppose one might quibble on what it means to hold or not hold to the 1646 Confession (zero caveats allowed?) but the RPCNA holds to the 1646 and amplifies or clarifies with the testimony in a parallel column. I like this approach as it makes it clear where there are differences with the original confession and there are three:

1. The laws of consanguinity, WCF 24:4:
The RPCNA rejects the sentence "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own" commenting that this prohibition is not warranted by Scripture.

2. The Pope as the Antichrist, WCF 25:6:
The RPCNA caveats this by testifying "Many antichrists will be present in the world throughout history. Prior to Christ's coming the final 'man of lawlessness' will be revealed. He will be destroyed by Christ."

The two above I would say are fairly minor. The more significant one is this:
3. Portions of the establishment principle. WCF 23:3 states:
"The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

The RPCNA rejects the crossed out portion, but comments:
"Both the government of the nation and the government of the visible church are established by God. Though distinct and independent of each other, they both owe supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. The governments of church and state differ in in sphere of authority in that due submission to the government of the visible church is the obligation of members thereof, while due submission to civil government is the obligation of all men. The governments of church and state also have different functions and prerogatives in the advancement of the Kingdom of God. The means of enforcement of the civil government are physical, while those of church government are not. Neither government has the right to invade or assume the authority of the other. They should cooperate to the honor and glory of God, while maintaining their separate jurisdictions."

So it does not deny that the magistrate is to further the kingdom of God, but clarifies the spheres where each have authority. The state should strive to keep purity in the state and the church should strive to keep purity in the church. It goes on to say:

"Though responsible for maintaining conditions favorable to the spread of the Gospel, civil government should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the user of force or by persecution. It should guarantee to all its subjects every human right given by God to men. It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction."

The testimony's stance seems pretty reasonable to me and the concern over it being different from the 1646 seem out of proportion to reality.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The testimony's stance seems pretty reasonable to me and the concern over it being different from the 1646 seem out of proportion to reality.

I largely agree with your last statement. But the question asked in this thread was:

So do any churches in USA use the unaltered WCF?

Your answer is essentially saying that the RPCNA largely adheres to the unaltered WCF which I find a bit of odd semantic gymnastics - how is that in essence any different than altering the WCF as other US-based denominations have done? I have bigger issues with the RPCNA "Testimony" having replaced its traditional judicial testimony, but I always have found it strange to have a document testifying against parts of ones confession. Are you thinking the advantage is that you can always change the "Testimony" to unreject something?

I suppose one might quibble on what it means to hold or not hold to the 1646 Confession (zero caveats allowed?)

I think the options are "fully subscribe to" or "largely subscribe to." I don't think you can say anything other than that the RPCNA largely subscribes to the WCF.

If a minister takes exceptions when ordained (which the RPCNA allows), he is said to largely subscribe to the Confession. If he takes no exceptions he is said to fully subscribe to it. The oddity in the RPCNA is when a minister (or a member) takes (or states) exceptions to the 3 exceptions (rejections) in the "Testimony" - in such a case he fully subscribes to the WCF and largely subscribes to the RPCNA standards.

 

[Rom]

It is undeniable that the RPCNA has altered the Original Confession with its rejections - does not matter if they publish the original text, they do not hold to it. They should own that though, after all, they think that is the truth of God's Word. I do not understand why it is something they want to argue against. In some Presbyteries men were rejected from being ordained because they "rejected the rejections" of the Testimony. So, no, they do not hold to the Original Confession, even if the changes appear slight to some.

In fact, in order to affect closer union with American Presbyterians, and as the RPs are indigenous to the States, they might as well consider adopting the 1788 American Revised Confession. But right now the RPCNA are "neither fish nor fowl" and so, cannot unite with any denomination.

Now, that said, it is generally lamentable that having the same confession has not allowed many of us Presbyterians to unite -- I think of those of us who do adhere to the Original WCF or those denominations who have adopted the American Revision and yet are all still are apart from one another. There are some reasons for that, but still, lamentable.

 

[Logan]

It is undeniable that the RPCNA has altered the Original Confession with its rejections - does not matter if they publish the original text, they do not hold to it. They should own that though, after all, they think that is the truth of God's Word. I do not understand why it is something they want to argue against.

I do own that. I'm not arguing against it. I stated there were differences and enumerated them.

When people say "the RPCNA doesn't hold to the original WCF", I want it to be absolutely clear what that means, because without clarification people make assumptions, and assumptions matter.

 

[Ploutos]

I do own that. I'm not arguing against it. I stated there were differences and enumerated them.

When people say "the RPCNA doesn't hold to the original WCF", I want it to be absolutely clear what that means, because without clarification people make assumptions, and assumptions matter.

If I understand correctly, you are arguing that the RPCNA holds to the 1646 WCF, but not in unaltered form or not without exceptions - correct?

I don't think anybody was saying otherwise. The question was which denominations hold to the 1646 in its entirety and without exception. Admittently that question itself is far from the original point of this thread.

 

[Rom]

I do own that. I'm not arguing against it. I stated there were differences and enumerated them.

When people say "the RPCNA doesn't hold to the original WCF", I want it to be absolutely clear what that means, because without clarification people make assumptions, and assumptions matter.

I am not talking about you. Many who say they are Covenanters say the RPCNA holds to the original Confession.

But I am curious, what assumptions are these people you allude to making?

 

[EvanF]

I suppose one might quibble on what it means to hold or not hold to the 1646 Confession (zero caveats allowed?) but the RPCNA holds to the 1646 and amplifies or clarifies with the testimony in a parallel column. I like this approach as it makes it clear where there are differences with the original confession and there are three:

1. The laws of consanguinity, WCF 24:4:
The RPCNA rejects the sentence "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own" commenting that this prohibition is not warranted by Scripture.

2. The Pope as the Antichrist, WCF 25:6:
The RPCNA caveats this by testifying "Many antichrists will be present in the world throughout history. Prior to Christ's coming the final 'man of lawlessness' will be revealed. He will be destroyed by Christ."

The two above I would say are fairly minor. The more significant one is this:
3. Portions of the establishment principle. WCF 23:3 states:
"The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

The RPCNA rejects the crossed out portion, but comments:
"Both the government of the nation and the government of the visible church are established by God. Though distinct and independent of each other, they both owe supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. The governments of church and state differ in in sphere of authority in that due submission to the government of the visible church is the obligation of members thereof, while due submission to civil government is the obligation of all men. The governments of church and state also have different functions and prerogatives in the advancement of the Kingdom of God. The means of enforcement of the civil government are physical, while those of church government are not. Neither government has the right to invade or assume the authority of the other. They should cooperate to the honor and glory of God, while maintaining their separate jurisdictions."

So it does not deny that the magistrate is to further the kingdom of God, but clarifies the spheres where each have authority. The state should strive to keep purity in the state and the church should strive to keep purity in the church. It goes on to say:

"Though responsible for maintaining conditions favorable to the spread of the Gospel, civil government should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the user of force or by persecution. It should guarantee to all its subjects every human right given by God to men. It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction."

The testimony's stance seems pretty reasonable to me and the concern over it being different from the 1646 seem out of proportion to reality.

That first exception, about WCF 24:4, seems odd to me, and it's an exception also taken by my congregation in our constitutional documents, on which point I do not agree. I don't intend to derail this thread with that discussion, but may I quote your post in a new thread for this topic?

 

[MW]

They should own that though, after all, they think that is the truth of God's Word.

This is what makes such an in-depth "Testimony" problematic, and I sense it has outgrown the original purpose of the Testimony for seceding churches. It is like having to own an "Exposition" of the Confession alongside the Confession itself. At some point authority has to come back to the church courts which adopt the Confession as the basis of unity. It is already a task to gain consent on the Confession without adding minor details of explanation to the process.

 

[Rom]

This is what makes such an in-depth "Testimony" problematic, and I sense it has outgrown the original purpose of the Testimony for seceding churches. It is like having to own an "Exposition" of the Confession alongside the Confession itself. At some point authority has to come back to the church courts which adopt the Confession as the basis of unity. It is already a task to gain consent on the Confession without adding minor details of explanation to the process.

Indeed. The RPCNA Testimony (of 1980) bears no resemblance to historic Testimonies. The Irish Synod's Testimony functions quite different.

The Testimony also adds statements like the following which have to be owned as fundamental law. It is strange to put these things into a Confessional Document.

1. Shoehorned into "Communion of the Saints" (WCF 26): "Because drunkenness is so common,
   and because the intemperate use of alcohol is constantly being promoted by advertising, business practices, and social pressure, Christians must be careful not to conform to the attitudes and the practices of the world with regard to alcoholic beverages. To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages" (RPT 26.6)
2. "The use of tobacco is detrimental to health and is to be avoided because of the responsibility to preserve the body which is a temple of God." (RPT 26.7)
3. Shoehorned into "Of the Church" (WCF 25): "...Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon." (RPT 25.8)

Also, here is a modification to the Confession not listed in the rejections that @Logan mentioned above. The RPT 21.8 - "The presentation of tithes and offerings is warranted as part of worship." That is an expansion of the elements of worship listed in the Original Confession of Faith.

The RP Testimony itself says that "earlier documents are to be interpreted by the later ones" which shows that the Testimony supersedes the Confession of Faith. It is difficult to state that the RPCNA holds to the Original Confession with all of this mixed into it.

 

[MarrowMan]

I’m not aware of claims in the RPCNA to hold to the original Confession in totality. Largely, yes. Totality? No.

The issue of the Testimony’s contributions to fundamental law beyond the WCF is a point well taken, however.

 

[Andres]

I was also a member in both the OPC and RPCNA over the years. Congregations vary within both denominations, but overall my personal experience was the RP's seem to be more consistent on their view of Sabbath keeping. Obviously the a capella EP position of the RP's has been mentioned but beyond that I have found the OPC to lean more high church in their liturgy than the RPCNA in that the OPC worship services often include recitations of creeds and confession of sin, etc. RPCNA placed a much heavier emphasis on their own covenanter history so a heavier emphasis on covenanting and Christ's mediatorial kingship over the civil magistrate. The preaching is about on par for both denominations. I did appreciate the RP's having their own seminary and many other denominational specific ministries, even if I did not always agree with how things were run. The RP's have a lengthy history which is great but can sometimes cause the negative problem of relying on history and tradition too much.

 

[Jake]

The RP's have a lengthy history which is great but can sometimes cause the negative problem of relying on history and tradition too much.

I have seen this in the ARP Church—sometimes more reliance on history and tradition than where we are now.

I'm curious how you feel this is in the FCoS(C). Obviously the denomination has only existed as such since 2000 but claims continuity with a body even older than the RPCNA.

 

[DanSSwing]

I'm not sure about that. They are somewhat similar in their Constitution to comment on the WCF and reject certain portions, including rejecting even requiring infant baptism. You can find their Constitution here with comments: https://torontofpc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BCO2.pdf

I thought it was only the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster that does not require infant baptism while the FPCNA is more traditionally Presbyterian on that issue? (that is, regarding their church leaders in particular, not simply members in general)

 

[Andres]

I have seen this in the ARP Church—sometimes more reliance on history and tradition than where we are now.

I'm curious how you feel this is in the FCoS(C). Obviously the denomination has only existed as such since 2000 but claims continuity with a body even older than the RPCNA.

The FCC does have a respect and appreciation for our history and our fathers in the faith, particularly their examples in godliness and piety. By God's grace I have not noticed there to be any problems.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I thought it was only the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster that does not require infant baptism while the FPCNA is more traditionally Presbyterian on that issue? (that is, regarding their church leaders in particular, not simply members in general)

I think the FPCNA was the just the American congregations of the FPCU.

I'm curious how you feel this is in the FCoS(C). Obviously the denomination has only existed as such since 2000 but claims continuity with a body even older than the RPCNA

They would both claim the same link back to the original Reformation era CoS.