PCA vs. OPC
- Thread starter Notthemama1984
- Start date
- Status
That's a bit of a bad analogy since Constitution Party=irrelevant and OPC=relevant. The Paedocommunion/FV thing in the PCA will die down eventually given that the PCA's temperament is very much against that particular direction. It's one of the things that Rev Keister and Tim Keller would definitely agree on.
Really? Everything I've ever seen for the Consitution Party made me think they where Independent and Fundamentalist Baptist types, but I could be wrong.
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
Does not compute. Not mutually exclusive.
Shawn Mathis
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, I guess I should have been more specific
PCA is like the Republican party insofar as they are more "big tent" (as others observed).
---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------
It seems that way don't it? Of course, if they were truly Independent politically they would not not favor a republic (political Presbyterianism!)
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
The "differences" analysis can be overdone, and need to be put in perspective.
The dynamics of a smaller denomination like the OPC (around 30,000 members), and medium sized one like the PCA (around 350,000), with a broader demographic are different, necessarily.
There is more variety of worship practice and slightly more variation in teaching in the larger denomination. Yet, many congregations in both denominations have very similar practices. Don't forget, the two denominations share a common hymnal, psalter and publishing company, Great Commission Publishers.
There is significant interface between the two denominations and officers, pastors, move freely between the two because of substantial doctrine and practice similarity.
We don't want to over represent the macro level differences, nor under represent the micro ones.
The dynamics of a smaller denomination like the OPC (around 30,000 members), and medium sized one like the PCA (around 350,000), with a broader demographic are different, necessarily.
There is more variety of worship practice and slightly more variation in teaching in the larger denomination. Yet, many congregations in both denominations have very similar practices. Don't forget, the two denominations share a common hymnal, psalter and publishing company, Great Commission Publishers.
There is significant interface between the two denominations and officers, pastors, move freely between the two because of substantial doctrine and practice similarity.
We don't want to over represent the macro level differences, nor under represent the micro ones.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
That's a bit charitable. The presbytery as a whole didn't properly act until the denomination pulled out a hammer. And then Wilkins decamped. And a lot of the impetus for action came from outside the presbytery, although there were some faithful men in the presbytery throughout the process.
I wouldn't describe PNW as being aggressive on the subject, either.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I think it could well be argued that regional differences play a role. What I'm referring to is the way that controversy between orthodoxy and liberalism unfolded in the 20th Century and how that differed in the North and the South, among both Presbyterians and Baptists.
During the fundamentalist/modernist controversy in the early 20th Century, the Northern churches succumbed fairly quickly to modernism/liberalism, while the Southern churches like those in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Southern Presbyterians (PCUS) sort of muddled through with more of a general evangelical identity, albeit one in which liberalism and neo-orthodoxy continued to grow in prominence as the years passed, especially in the 2nd half of the century. In the South, this culminated in the "Conservative Resurgence" in the SBC where conservatives retook the convention in the 80's whereas conservatives in the PCUS left in the 1970's and years following for the PCA and in some cases, the EPC. (After most of the conservatives left, the PCUS merged with the Northern mainline Presbyterians in the early 80's to form today's PCUSA.)
Because of this history and how long it took to play out, you had a lot of "conservatives" in the South (i.e. those who formed the PCA as well as the SBC conservatives) who were more social conservatives or broad evangelicals as compared to "fundamentalists" (Baptists) or confessionalists (OPC) in the North, who tended to be more militant. You can see the difference between the GARBC and the SBC as well among Baptists and even among self identified fundamentalists in the North and South.
Back to the North--with the liberals gaining control of the denominational hierarcy in what was then the UPCUSA in the 20's and 30's, Machen and others were forced out. They clearly knew what was at stake and turned to a stricter confessionalism as a result, a confessionalism that some like Machen had arguably not emphasized prior to leaving the mainline church. Otherwise, those who later formed the Bible Presbyterian Church, at least a few of whom were dispensational, likely wouldn't have joined the OPC at all. But within a couple of years, the differences between the Presbyterian confessionalists and the fundamentalists became clear.
Added to this was the "Joining and Receiving" of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) by the PCA in 1982, a group that as a rule was more Northern based and by that time, more broadly evangelical than the early PCA leaders like Morton Smith. The RPCES was originated with a a group that split from the Bible Presbyterians in 1955/56, and some of them no doubt did not want to fight the battles of the 30's and 40's that occurred in the OPC all over again. At that time, Francis Schaeffer was probably the most well known RPCES leader. Covenant Seminary was a RPCES school. The founding of Greenville Seminary was largely a reaction against these broad evangelical or "New School" influences.
Prior to that, the OPC had voted in 1975 to merge with the RPCES but the RPCES in a close vote declined. When the PCA approved the union with the RPCES, they narrowly rejected union with the OPC at the same time, If I recall correctly over concerns regarding the Norman Shepherd controversy and maybe other issues. In 1986 it was the OPC that voted against a merger with the PCA. To my knowledge that was the end of any kind of attempt to merge the two denominations.
I don't keep up with Presbyterian happenings closely anymore, but I think I saw something a while back where some in the PCA want to pull out of NAPARC.
---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------
Some of the men in the Louisiana Presbytery at that time were, like Wilkins, former if not current theonomists who also embraced the FV to varying degrees. I think at least one or two of those pastors might have left as well, although I think Auburn Ave. was the only church to leave.
During the fundamentalist/modernist controversy in the early 20th Century, the Northern churches succumbed fairly quickly to modernism/liberalism, while the Southern churches like those in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Southern Presbyterians (PCUS) sort of muddled through with more of a general evangelical identity, albeit one in which liberalism and neo-orthodoxy continued to grow in prominence as the years passed, especially in the 2nd half of the century. In the South, this culminated in the "Conservative Resurgence" in the SBC where conservatives retook the convention in the 80's whereas conservatives in the PCUS left in the 1970's and years following for the PCA and in some cases, the EPC. (After most of the conservatives left, the PCUS merged with the Northern mainline Presbyterians in the early 80's to form today's PCUSA.)
Because of this history and how long it took to play out, you had a lot of "conservatives" in the South (i.e. those who formed the PCA as well as the SBC conservatives) who were more social conservatives or broad evangelicals as compared to "fundamentalists" (Baptists) or confessionalists (OPC) in the North, who tended to be more militant. You can see the difference between the GARBC and the SBC as well among Baptists and even among self identified fundamentalists in the North and South.
Back to the North--with the liberals gaining control of the denominational hierarcy in what was then the UPCUSA in the 20's and 30's, Machen and others were forced out. They clearly knew what was at stake and turned to a stricter confessionalism as a result, a confessionalism that some like Machen had arguably not emphasized prior to leaving the mainline church. Otherwise, those who later formed the Bible Presbyterian Church, at least a few of whom were dispensational, likely wouldn't have joined the OPC at all. But within a couple of years, the differences between the Presbyterian confessionalists and the fundamentalists became clear.
Added to this was the "Joining and Receiving" of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) by the PCA in 1982, a group that as a rule was more Northern based and by that time, more broadly evangelical than the early PCA leaders like Morton Smith. The RPCES was originated with a a group that split from the Bible Presbyterians in 1955/56, and some of them no doubt did not want to fight the battles of the 30's and 40's that occurred in the OPC all over again. At that time, Francis Schaeffer was probably the most well known RPCES leader. Covenant Seminary was a RPCES school. The founding of Greenville Seminary was largely a reaction against these broad evangelical or "New School" influences.
Prior to that, the OPC had voted in 1975 to merge with the RPCES but the RPCES in a close vote declined. When the PCA approved the union with the RPCES, they narrowly rejected union with the OPC at the same time, If I recall correctly over concerns regarding the Norman Shepherd controversy and maybe other issues. In 1986 it was the OPC that voted against a merger with the PCA. To my knowledge that was the end of any kind of attempt to merge the two denominations.
I don't keep up with Presbyterian happenings closely anymore, but I think I saw something a while back where some in the PCA want to pull out of NAPARC.
---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------
Some of the men in the Louisiana Presbytery at that time were, like Wilkins, former if not current theonomists who also embraced the FV to varying degrees. I think at least one or two of those pastors might have left as well, although I think Auburn Ave. was the only church to leave.
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems that way don't it? Of course, if they were truly Independent politically they would not not favor a republic (political Presbyterianism!)
Most Americans make the mistake of calling the U.S. a "Democracy" rather than a Republic.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Actually, the people in the PCA who have more of a broad evangelical stance probably would think it is an apt comparison given the small numbers in the OPC when compared with the PCA and with evangelicalism as a whole. There have always been those, even within conservative Presbyterianism, who have viewed the OPC and those of similar mind as being chirping sectaries who carp on the sidelines while the world goes to hell.
Of course, many in the OPC would not identify themselves as evangelical at this point since the term has largely been divorced from its historical meaning. A lot of PCA members, perhaps a sizeable majority (?) especially in the South have never even heard of the OPC. Baptists and evangelicals who have any clue about other denominations have usually heard of the PCA (as distinct from the PCUSA) but probably 90% have never heard of the OPC. A sizeable number of Calvinistic Baptists have either never heard of the OPC. Those who have (especially those who are not ARBCA-type strict confessionalists) would tend to think the Const. Party comparison is right on, especially if they see a Const. Party vote as a wasted vote.
Another difference is that the PCA is a member of the NAE whereas the OPC only fellowships with other Reformed churches. With regard to congregationalism, the way the PCA supports missionaries is not much different than the way independent churches do, with PCA missionaries having to go around to individual churches to raise support. Ironically, the way that the Southern Baptist Convention supports missionaries is more connectional than the PCA (they are supported by Cooperative Program $$ that is sent to HQ by the churches) and is more like the OPC in that regard.
From what I can tell, though, the denomination as a whole has tended toward more not less confessionalism in the thirty years since then. If Covenant College is any indication of the stance of the denomination, then it's very clearly reformed (though your mileage may vary on certain confessional stances, particularly in the art department).
I don't know of many FVers and converts from reformed theology to RCism who haven't gone via theonomy---and because the PCA is leaning away from such ideas, I think it safe to say that FV is not a major threat to the peace of the denomination.
interalia
Puritan Board Freshman
Nice...saved me the effort of a larger post.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Care to flush this out with some facts? Because men like James Jordan, Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson, etc... repudiated Theonomy before the men themselves, or anyone else, even heard of FV. Greg Bahnsen wrote a scathing attack on James Jordan's methodology and the first Reformed denomination to speak against FV was the RPCUS, an explicitly Theonomic denomination.
The "Theonomy leads to FV" canard has proven to be false repeatedly on this site and many others.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/greg-bahnsen-james-jordans-interpretive-maximalism-66074/
The causal connection is Jordan, not Theonomy.
Shawn Mathis
Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott, that is exactly true. And I am glad you made what was implicit explicit.
In fact, the regional (and even Presbytery-wide) difference can be such that one may need to put more weight on deciding between individual churches more than deciding between denominations. I know for a fact that come ministers have suggested to members moving away to another part of America to join the sister denomination because of such wide-disparity.
---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------
Glaser, you got me here. I haven't watched the internet for these issues for a while. Where and when did Jordan, et.a. repudiate theonomy?
thanks,
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
You must not have been paying very much attention. Jordan repudiated Theonomy back before there was an Internet.
It took me all of two seconds of looking on the Biblical Horizons website to find an article by James Jordan from 1990 repudiating Bahnsen and Rushdoony's Theonomy. In this article he references a 1988 article where he criticizes Bahnsen/Rushdoony.
No. 9: What Is “Interpretive Maximalism”? by James B. Jordan January, 1990
It took me all of two seconds of looking on the Biblical Horizons website to find an article by James Jordan from 1990 repudiating Bahnsen and Rushdoony's Theonomy. In this article he references a 1988 article where he criticizes Bahnsen/Rushdoony.
No. 9: What Is “Interpretive Maximalism”? by James B. Jordan January, 1990
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
You're missing out on a lot of excitement, then.
To put this into perspective, the second proposed joining and receiving missed by one vote (that's on 3/4 super majorities). That's still a lot of favorable sentiment.
Also the "pull out" you mention was merely a footnote in a denominational agency proposed strategic plan.
The footnote was outrageous- and was removed quicker than a cat on a hot tin roof.
(the reaction so strong, it likely will not be brought up at a General Assembly again in our lifetime)There has been and remains a close affinity between the two denominations, and with NAPARC.
Last edited:
I did not say that theonomy leads to FV, I said that most come to FV through theonomic thinking. I was unaware that Wilson et al had abandoned theonomy as such (I still hear theonomic libertarianism lite coming out of the Moscow crowd). I am by no means accusing all theonomists of being FV or of their position leading to such. In my opinion, FV is not a set of doctrines, but a personality, and one that I see in many of the theonomists that I know.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
1) That is the thing. Nearly all of the "Founders" of the FV movement repudiated Theonomy in the 1990's and earlier before FV was even around. FV had its beginnings in James Jordan's "Interpretive Maximalism" that Theonomic leaders like Greg Bahnsen criticized. There are zero causal links between the hermeneutics of Federal Vision and Theonomy, mostly because they are in disagreement with one another. (As James Jordan himself notes in the Biblical Horizons article I linked above)
Shawn Mathis
Puritan Board Sophomore
You are right. I became Reformed in 1995.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Which is my point. Jordan has not been Theonomic since well before you became Reformed, which is why you have not heard anything on the Internet about his views on Theonomy.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Just remember where where you're headed...
Many similarities except the difference between the first two and the third is-
wine (former temperance)
women (deaconess)
and song (exclusive psalms)
Just remember where where you're headed...
Many similarities except the difference between the first two and the third is-
wine (former temperance)
women (deaconess)
and song (exclusive psalms)
It took me a minute to realize why that is funny.
D Clair Davis
Puritan Board Freshman
Both OPC and PCA are committed to God's Word and the blessed gospel of Grace. On the local level, go where you hear the gospel for your life the clearest. On the denom level, hard for a small church to be comfortable in a much bigger one. The RPCES gave its Covenant seminary to the PCA and its Francis Schaeffer outlook. For me the bigger story right now are the 140 congregations finally leaving the PCUSA and not feeling at home in either, but only in the EPC. How can we send a welcome to women without ordaining them? DCD
You don't ordain them, if any PCUSA women pastors churches join the EPC than they should leave the women's ordination behind and become laywomen.
I pray for the best with those leaving the PCUSA.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
When 1400 of us split from a PCUSA church, we had women who had been ordained as elders in the PCUSA who became lay leaders in our church. There was early discussion as to whether to head to the PCA or the then new EPC, but the overwhelming consensus was PCA. We now have several thousand women who don't seem to feel unwelcome.
And having clicked on your link, what is the PCEA? Presbyterian Church of East Africa? And now I'm trying to recall whether I've met you, or just heard about you from some folks we both know.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What they should do and what they will do are two different things unfortunately.
- Status
