What would it take to get the Reformed churches to unite?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by kceaster
And contrary to what's been said previously, love does not conquer doctrinal divisions. True love cannot be had or practiced without the unity of the Spirit of Truth. What fellowship can we have with error? None. There are battles to fight and hills to die on. We don't kill each other over the minutia like the Romans have and still do.

The creeds, the three forms of unity, the Westminster Confession and catechisms, and the various other documents that are like them are all in agreement. If we would be unified, we should unify around these. A great company of witnesses have been unified by them. We should carry on their legacy.

In Christ,

KC

MEGA :ditto:

I never understand when an attempt to try to pit "Love" against Truth or "Spirit" against Truth as the solution to disunity. I recall hearing Dr. Bahnsen saying that to pit love against truth is a false dicotomy and it is like saying "I would rather fly an airplane with the right wing instead of the left wing". Absurd! The fact is that truth will divide (and should divide us from error). Even our Lord's word's attest to this fact:

Mat 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
But what would it take for reformed folk to unite into one denomination? Let start with just the Presbyterians for now since they all claim the WCF. What would it take to convince them to unit?

One, for would be to convince them of the sin of divisions and the need for unity.

Two, the need for toleration and liberty of conscience in some matters without throwing a hissy fit and splitting off.

What would be a good long term strategy?

Patrick,

Do you know if there are any current resolutions in the GA of the various presbyterian denominations for a merging of denominations, beyond the eclessiastical fellowship found in NAPARC? I recall someone mentioning that there were talks in the 80's over the OPC/PCA merging. Do you know if this has ever been discussed again? Do any of you the laypersons and ministerial candidates here have regular fellowship with other reformed folk from other denominations (I'm speaking here of Presbyterians).
 
Why can't the other Preby denominations just omit instruments and uninspired hymns, for the sake of unity? It wouldn't be a huge loss, and would satisfy everyone.

[Edited on 3-7-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
 
Originally posted by kceaster

The creeds, the three forms of unity, the Westminster Confession and catechisms, and the various other documents that are like them are all in agreement. If we would be unified, we should unify around these. A great company of witnesses have been unified by them. We should carry on their legacy.

:amen:
 
Why can't we just unify around the Bible? :eek:

I mean, every confession is man made and fallible. So while the Confessions might help maintain unity by giving us guidelines for doctrine, the confessions are not the answer.

Being obedient to the Scriptures - right doctrine with right living - that is the answer.

And who in this thread every suggested love at the expense of truth?

If we have truth without love we are proud, hard and critical. If we have love without truth we are mushy, weak, and unable to truly love. If we have truth WITH love then we will find unity and peace. That is exactly what the Bible tell us.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-7-05 by pastorway]
 
First, a big DITTO to both Pastor Way's post on the previous page and to Kevin's on this one.

For myself, I would only add this: The Standards of Faith, by Westminster and/or Dordt, (and for Baptists its the London pact) are the cumulation of the witness of the Church through the ages. They are indispensible in that way, we can't cut our ties to the Church of the past. And it is our duty to pass it on to the next generation. That part is Biblical, though the documents themselves are not Scripture. Subscription is mandatory. If we hold to the article of the Apostles' Creed, "the holy catholic Church" then we subscribe, like it or not. These documents are to be seen as the witness of the faith from our fathers in the faith to their children, and are not to be trounced upon.

If we cannot appreciate what has been bequeathed to us, then a new document will not make things any better. It tends to replace the documents of the past, and therefore constitutes a starting over, if you will. And that leads only to more division.

As well, the things that are controversial in our day are amply taken care of by these old Standards. As I said before, on most of them we don't even have to get into the controversies themselves, for they are manifestly false from the outset in the fact that they work to incite schism in the Church instead of having trust in the truth and in the brethren, but mostly in God's preserving of His Church. Even after the very first A-4 symposium we already knew it was wrong without having to go indepth about the controversy itself. They circumvented good order, and that's a big no-no. That, in fact, is a bigger no-no in my eyes than the controversy itself. And almost every one of these new 'isms' falls into this category.

In the Dutch churches there is strict subscriptionism. But don't think for a moment that things are any better there. Though I agree with Lawrence, which I usually do, I also see a big problem with the denomination or her officers becoming sacrosanct at the expense individual members. There is almost no such thing as "due process", though it is there in name. I have personally seen that process used to instill and entrench liberalized and erroneous doctrines in the denomination, and used to quash any resistance. Formal subscriptionism, though I agree with it, is no guarantee of anything that the church does not want in the first place.

And I think this hits the nub of it. What does it take to be united? I think wanting it will really help.

But it's just like the state of the country. All our work and effort to redeem our social order, whether the Church or the state, must begin with devotion to God. Look at the OT, and how the dream of restoration always relied on a hope in God's doing it, while the saints yearned to submit to His leading them into righteousness.

And lastly, central Texas is wherever in Texas you are.
 
Originally posted by sntijerina
Originally posted by puritansailor
But what would it take for reformed folk to unite into one denomination? Let start with just the Presbyterians for now since they all claim the WCF. What would it take to convince them to unit?

One, for would be to convince them of the sin of divisions and the need for unity.

Two, the need for toleration and liberty of conscience in some matters without throwing a hissy fit and splitting off.

What would be a good long term strategy?

Patrick,

Do you know if there are any current resolutions in the GA of the various presbyterian denominations for a merging of denominations, beyond the eclessiastical fellowship found in NAPARC? I recall someone mentioning that there were talks in the 80's over the OPC/PCA merging. Do you know if this has ever been discussed again? Do any of you the laypersons and ministerial candidates here have regular fellowship with other reformed folk from other denominations (I'm speaking here of Presbyterians).

The only serious union movement I know of is that between the CanRC and the URC at present. But I don't know where they are in that process.

The OPC and PCA are probably in the best position for a Presbyterian merger, in that they both subscribe to the same version of the WCF, they both use the same publishing company for their denominational publications. They use the same Trinity Hymnal. They use a joint accrediting agency for their military chaplains. They use the same seminaries for the most part. The infrastructure is all there. And, they did at one time consider merging. But, at least from what I understand as explained from one who was there, "the OPC didn't want to lose their identity." I'm sure there is more to it than that. I know that many in the OPC consider the PCA to be more liberal and the RPCNA is too extreme. Blah Blah Blah. I've been to churches in all three denominations and the differences are not that great overall. It's over the non-essentials, minor things. Sure there's a church here and there that pushes the limits, but that's not the norm. It shouldn't be an obstacle if these guys would just get together and talk and clarify what each other understands about the other.
 
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
So is it truth that instruments and uninspired hymns are mandatory? Or can they be sacrificed by love?

You're missing the point. We must allow people liberty of consience on some things that are not essential. Musical instruments are not an essential to the gospel. It is a matter which can be tolerated and discussed with respect because both sides have valid arguments, whether you agree or not with the other side. I personally would love all reformed churches to be EP and instrument free. But that is not going to keep me from joining a church that disagrees. This is an example of an issue which can be left for individual sessions or presbyteries to work out. And this already takes place in the OPC and PCA as there are a few congregations in their midst who are EP. The minor things we will have to respectfully disagree on for the sake of promoting and living the gospel.
 
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
So is it truth that instruments and uninspired hymns are mandatory? Or can they be sacrificed by love?

Because then you are talking of madatorily sacrificing them, which is no sacrifice at all...it would be legalism.

Already been there and done that with the anabaptists. It then becomes a "should we have instruments in the home" "maybe we won't have anything in church, but only pianos allowed in the home", and on and on and on and on.
 
Originally posted by pastorway

Being obedient to the Scriptures - right doctrine with right living - that is the answer.

Do not the confessions help in this? When we go to explain what right doctrine is we make a statement much like the confessions do. The confessions summarize Bible doctrine and while not infalliable they serve as a learned summary passed down through history attested to by many. I believe this is the best way of unifying around the Bible.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
So is it truth that instruments and uninspired hymns are mandatory? Or can they be sacrificed by love?

You're missing the point. We must allow people liberty of consience on some things that are not essential. Musical instruments are not an essential to the gospel. It is a matter which can be tolerated and discussed with respect because both sides have valid arguments, whether you agree or not with the other side. I personally would love all reformed churches to be EP and instrument free. But that is not going to keep me from joining a church that disagrees. This is an example of an issue which can be left for individual sessions or presbyteries to work out. And this already takes place in the OPC and PCA as there are a few congregations in their midst who are EP. The minor things we will have to respectfully disagree on for the sake of promoting and living the gospel.

Help an ignorant brother out; Define essential and what are examples of certain essenetials that the reformed presbyterian denominations disagree on?
 
Amen to the idea love needs to be but on par with turth. We should treat everyone with charity, especially Christian brethren, even if we cannot agree on all the non-essentials. But I renounce the idea truth should be compromised for the sake of "unity."

Rev 2:25: But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
Phil 3:16: Whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same thing.

The Church ought be progressively sanctifing through history. Her testimony should get clearer and more particular not cloudier and more general as has been the pattern in the last 100 years. The Reformed should not be following the world's love for ecumenicalism. The WCF needs to be upheld, however, as has been pointed out, the WCF like scripture itself, can be professed yet the true meaning denied. New heresies and errors have sprouted up which claim to be in accordance with the confession- the church must witness for the truth by making binding judicial/constitutional proclamations against them.

Take for example instruments in worship- can we have unity with those who attempt to bind our consciences with the commandments of men? At the very least we must refrain from singing with them. Now is this true christian communion?

Psa48 Encompass Zion count her towers and mark her bulwarks well
Consider ye her palaces, to sons her story tell!
 
Tim, it is not essential to salvation to have or not have instruments or "uninspired" hymns. Therefore there is room for disagreement or variations in this area.
 
Excuse me for changing my post, I misread you Coleen. The issue is not essential for salvation- true enough. Nonetheless it is not adiaphora, one party is sinning and it is a hindrance to unity.
 
Originally posted by Peter
Excuse me for changing my post, I misread you Coleen. The issue is not essential for salvation- true enough. Nonetheless it is not adiaphora, one party is sinning and it is a hindrance to unity.

so Peter, what would satisfy you, to allow you to agree to a union of the Presbyterian churches? What is the essential you think there is so much disagreement on to prevent unity among the Reformed?
 
I not sure exactly on what grounds separation can be maintained, but what I definiately disagree with is the notion that the church should recede to a broader testimony by eliminating her creeds and other historical beliefs for the sake of unity. I know you were inquiring about specifics so take the issue that has been brought up - accapella EP. As I've said, I'm not as firm on ecclesiology as I should be, but without the issue resolved (1) the church would be departing from prior biblical attainments (2) what sort of communion would this be anyway? 1/2 the congregation couldn't fully worship, is it wrong for them to separate so they can sing the songs of the Lord? You could have different congregations for different convictions, but what a fragile and volatile unity that would be.
 
The OPC and PCA are probably in the best position for a Presbyterian merger, in that they both subscribe to the same version of the WCF, they both use the same publishing company for their denominational publications. They use the same Trinity Hymnal. They use a joint accrediting agency for their military chaplains. They use the same seminaries for the most part. The infrastructure is all there. And, they did at one time consider merging. But, at least from what I understand as explained from one who was there, "the OPC didn't want to lose their identity." I'm sure there is more to it than that. I know that many in the OPC consider the PCA to be more liberal and the RPCNA is too extreme. Blah Blah Blah. I've been to churches in all three denominations and the differences are not that great overall. It's over the non-essentials, minor things. Sure there's a church here and there that pushes the limits, but that's not the norm. It shouldn't be an obstacle if these guys would just get together and talk and clarify what each other understands about the other.

Patrick,

Have you read "Fighting the Good Fight" by D.G. Hart and John Muether? Chapter 9 of the book discusses the attempted mergers between the OPC and other denominations (RPCGS, RPCES, CRC, PCA). In most of the attempts it was the other denomination that rejected merger. The author only lists two occasions when the OPC rejected mergers (with the CRC and the second attempt with the PCA -1986, the 1981 attempt was turned down by PCA presbyteries).
 
I have finally gotten a chance to take a look at this thread.

I have been around in the PCA for about a decade, have many contacts in the OPC, and know many people in the Reformed world (it is really not that big).

The reason that Reformed churches are not more united is because they do not believe it is important. It is not about instruments, subscription or other things. Yes, those things play a part - but all one has to do is look at the PCA and OPC. They have the same view of the Scriptures, the same Confession (identical), the same written views on worship (i.e. hymnody and instruments are allowed), and a virtually identical Book of Order. In fact, in many places there are churches in both denominations that are virtually similar. Both denominations have "New Life" churches, Old School churches, and the like.

What keeps them apart? Suspicion and "intangibles." If the PCA and OPC can't merge (and it has been tried and failed), don't hold your breath on anyone merging.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Tim, it is not essential to salvation to have or not have instruments or "uninspired" hymns. Therefore there is room for disagreement or variations in this area.

If this is what you think is all we need to consolidate, then we might as well unify with the Baptist, Episcopalians, Methodist, and Lutherans too.

Also I think the RPW issue is somewhat serious. I don't throw a fit at my church when they sing hymns, I just don't sing. But I'd like to sing to God. I believe bringing God the proper sacrafice He wants is an essential issue.

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I have finally gotten a chance to take a look at this thread.


What keeps them apart? Suspicion and "intangibles." If the PCA and OPC can't merge (and it has been tried and failed), don't hold your breath on anyone merging.

Fred,

Do you think when the younger bucks who are in seminary now come of age in their pastorship (say 10-20 yrs from now or so) then will you see a different presbyterian church, perhaps more eager to unify?
 
Originally posted by Dan....

Patrick,

Have you read "Fighting the Good Fight" by D.G. Hart and John Muether? Chapter 9 of the book discusses the attempted mergers between the OPC and other denominations (RPCGS, RPCES, CRC, PCA). In most of the attempts it was the other denomination that rejected merger. The author only lists two occasions when the OPC rejected mergers (with the CRC and the second attempt with the PCA -1986, the 1981 attempt was turned down by PCA presbyteries).

Dan,

Sounds like a good book. I'd like to read this one. I'll have to add that to my pile of books to read (it's getting quite big now).
 
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Tim, it is not essential to salvation to have or not have instruments or "uninspired" hymns. Therefore there is room for disagreement or variations in this area.

If this is what you think is all we need to consolidate, then we might as well unify with the Baptist, Episcopalians, Methodist, and Lutherans too.

Also I think the RPW issue is somewhat serious. I don't throw a fit at my church when they sing hymns, I just don't sing. But I'd like to sing to God. I believe bringing God the proper sacrafice He wants is an essential issue.

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

I never said that this is all there is....I was simply responding to your posts about this particular area. It's an area I don't believe there should be an issue about. Each church should be allowed freedom in this particular area as I do not see it as either scriptural or un-scriptural for instruments and hymns. Again, to bind up this area in a ridiculous manner could lead to legalism. Now I can understand stating that it must be God-centered and God-honoring music....that is not legalism.
 
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Tim, it is not essential to salvation to have or not have instruments or "uninspired" hymns. Therefore there is room for disagreement or variations in this area.

If this is what you think is all we need to consolidate, then we might as well unify with the Baptist, Episcopalians, Methodist, and Lutherans too.

Also I think the RPW issue is somewhat serious. I don't throw a fit at my church when they sing hymns, I just don't sing. But I'd like to sing to God. I believe bringing God the proper sacrafice He wants is an essential issue.

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

This is what I think Colleen means,
Set the WCF (BC,HC,SoD) as the broad parameter of unity--if anyone departs from that, then make it an issue of fellowship.
 
Originally posted by Dan....
Patrick,

Have you read "Fighting the Good Fight" by D.G. Hart and John Muether? Chapter 9 of the book discusses the attempted mergers between the OPC and other denominations (RPCGS, RPCES, CRC, PCA). In most of the attempts it was the other denomination that rejected merger. The author only lists two occasions when the OPC rejected mergers (with the CRC and the second attempt with the PCA -1986, the 1981 attempt was turned down by PCA presbyteries).

I haven't but I'll have to get it now. Does he state the reasons for refusing to merge?
 
Of course I feel a little left out since I do not hold to the WCF! :um:

But in thinking about this and the argument that we need strict subscription to the confession(s) for unity I believe we can disprove this argument by simply identifying each denomination that already holds to the WCF (in some form) and yet differs significantly with other denominations holding to that very same confession. What divides them?

And take the example already given of the PCA and OPC. Here where I am (central Texas, aka Deep in the Heart of Texas, pert' near the middle of the State) there is a vast difference between PCA and OPC churches. The PCA are mostly (not all, but most) more liberal, seeker sensitive, contemporary worship, non RPW while the OPC almost looks like a conservative fundamental church in comparison. If I had to chose between PCA and OPC for a church to attend I would be at the OPC next week without a doubt.

Even though these churches are holding, even some strictly, to the same confession, etc, there is still a difference between local congregations in practice! So we need more than the confession(s)!

And while it is good to strive for and desire unity, we must also remember that Christ is the Sovereign Lord of His Church, and if He willed it to be completely unified here and now it would be! Why has He allowed and how is He using the divisions then?

Food for thought.

Phillip
 
Originally posted by Peter
I not sure exactly on what grounds separation can be maintained, but what I definiately disagree with is the notion that the church should recede to a broader testimony by eliminating her creeds and other historical beliefs for the sake of unity. I know you were inquiring about specifics so take the issue that has been brought up - accapella EP. As I've said, I'm not as firm on ecclesiology as I should be, but without the issue resolved (1) the church would be departing from prior biblical attainments (2) what sort of communion would this be anyway? 1/2 the congregation couldn't fully worship, is it wrong for them to separate so they can sing the songs of the Lord? You could have different congregations for different convictions, but what a fragile and volatile unity that would be.
I understand your passion for EP. But I don't understand how that issue alone should divide the church. I know it does. But historically, there has been disagreement in the reformed churches about EP. Only the Scottish maintained the practice (and some of there descendents today). But the other reformed churches did not hold to it (i.e. Switzerland, Germany, Holland). The psalms certainly played a central role, but not exclusive. Understanding that there has always been disagreement on this issue, how would it be a step back from prior biblical attainments when the division is as old as the Reformation? These other churches would agree with you on everything else regarding the RPW. Could you not allow liberty of conscience in this one area and allow respectful, brotherly disagreement? Kinda like eschatology?
 
Originally posted by pastorway
If I had to chose between PCA and OPC for a church to attend I would be at the OPC next week without a doubt.

Pastor Way,

Now here is someting we can agree on, going to the OPC next week. :lol:
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Peter
I not sure exactly on what grounds separation can be maintained, but what I definiately disagree with is the notion that the church should recede to a broader testimony by eliminating her creeds and other historical beliefs for the sake of unity. I know you were inquiring about specifics so take the issue that has been brought up - accapella EP. As I've said, I'm not as firm on ecclesiology as I should be, but without the issue resolved (1) the church would be departing from prior biblical attainments (2) what sort of communion would this be anyway? 1/2 the congregation couldn't fully worship, is it wrong for them to separate so they can sing the songs of the Lord? You could have different congregations for different convictions, but what a fragile and volatile unity that would be.
I understand your passion for EP. But I don't understand how that issue alone should divide the church. I know it does. But historically, there has been disagreement in the reformed churches about EP. Only the Scottish maintained the practice (and some of there descendents today). But the other reformed churches did not hold to it (i.e. Switzerland, Germany, Holland). The psalms certainly played a central role, but not exclusive. Understanding that there has always been disagreement on this issue, how would it be a step back from prior biblical attainments when the division is as old as the Reformation? These other churches would agree with you on everything else regarding the RPW. Could you not allow liberty of conscience in this one area and allow respectful, brotherly disagreement? Kinda like eschatology?

the RPW can be paralleled to eschatology views? What does the westminster say about eschatology?

Was the apostolic church united in eschatology views, were the reformers? I have quotes from many a apostolic father (such as augustine) and from Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, Spurgeon, and even Wesley refuting instruments (I might have ep quotes too, I need to check on that.)

I have never heard of uninspired hymns being sang prior since the reformation. Do you have any proof or quotes to back up that statement?

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Peter
I not sure exactly on what grounds separation can be maintained, but what I definiately disagree with is the notion that the church should recede to a broader testimony by eliminating her creeds and other historical beliefs for the sake of unity. I know you were inquiring about specifics so take the issue that has been brought up - accapella EP. As I've said, I'm not as firm on ecclesiology as I should be, but without the issue resolved (1) the church would be departing from prior biblical attainments (2) what sort of communion would this be anyway? 1/2 the congregation couldn't fully worship, is it wrong for them to separate so they can sing the songs of the Lord? You could have different congregations for different convictions, but what a fragile and volatile unity that would be.
I understand your passion for EP. But I don't understand how that issue alone should divide the church. I know it does. But historically, there has been disagreement in the reformed churches about EP. Only the Scottish maintained the practice (and some of there descendents today). But the other reformed churches did not hold to it (i.e. Switzerland, Germany, Holland). The psalms certainly played a central role, but not exclusive. Understanding that there has always been disagreement on this issue, how would it be a step back from prior biblical attainments when the division is as old as the Reformation? These other churches would agree with you on everything else regarding the RPW. Could you not allow liberty of conscience in this one area and allow respectful, brotherly disagreement? Kinda like eschatology?

Again, this is not really an issue. There are a few PCA and OPC churches that are EP. And to be frank, concern over this issue would make precious little difference in the visible unity issue. The number of EP churches is about 1/100th of non-EP WCF espousing Presbyterian Churches, which in turn is but a small percentage of Protestantdom. In fact, given that, and the fact that the RPCNA (which is a good number of the EP churches) has (in my opinion) the even greater hurdles of women officers and the RPNCA Testimony, make this issue near the bottom of unity discussions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top