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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will resist postmill propagandizing here--it precludes premillennialism while leaving room for A/Post-

Mainly, it speaks of the victory of king Jesus and his returning ONCE.
 
Patrick,

I haven't but I'll have to get it now. Does he state the reasons for refusing to merge?
Click to expand...

He says that many of the opponents of the merger "were not convinced that these sister institutions [RPCES, PCA] affirmed the Westminster Standards in acceptable ways."

By the way, I greatly enjoyed the book. There are many other reasons to read the book than just the issues relating to ecuminicity. Being new to Presbyterianism, I found it educational.

Contents (My comments in italics)

PART 1. ORIGINS
1. Machen and the Crisis of Presbyterian Identity
2. The Founding of the OPC
3. The Division of 1937 (resulting the Confessionalists of the OPC and the Fundamentalists of the Bible Presbyterian Church)

PART 2. MISSIONS
4. Home Missions (Covers the church's struggle with the Church growth/Marketing movement of the 1980's the resolution thereof in the 1988 G.A.).
5. Missions to the Orient (I especially appreciated learning of the work of Bruce Hunt, missionary to Manchuria and Korea. He was imprisoned twice during the second World War for refusing to bow the knee to Japanese Emporer worship. I am now most of the way through his autobiography, For a Testimony (Also published by the OPC). Good read; very sobering...)
6. Eritrea

PART 3. ECUMINICITY
7. The OPC and the New Evangelicalism (This chapter covers the Gorden H. Clark Contraversy )
8. The Peniel Dispute (concerns the sufficiency of the Scriptures)
9. The OPC and Ecuminical Relations

PART 4. THE MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH
10. A "Full-orbed and Consistent" Christian Education
11. Worship and the OPC
12. The Social Witness of the Church

Conclusion: The OPC and the Future

"The Responsibility of the Church in Our New Age" by J. Gresham Machen.


The book is published by the Committee on Christian Education and the Committee for the Historian of the OPC.

\

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Dan....]
 
Bob's got it! :up: I totally agree. We are utterly too indulged to be in touch with what is essential -- meanwhile, there are a few Reformed denominations coming around.

I appreciate Pastor Way's teaching about the TRUTH qualities of true love - rarely do we hear such a tight definition of what love is...I also wanted to hear about God's love in the cross of Christ, though.

Rest assured, if we suffered real persecution for the Faith in this land --- we would not find any use for sermons about Christian living. We would want the pure-straight Stuff- the Gospel - the information about Christ.

(Ever wonder why the PDL stuff isn't popular in 3rd world countries?)

:2cents:

Robin
 
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus

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?
Click to expand...
You are assuming that those who don't hold to EP don't hold to the RPW. That is simply not so. They simply have a different understanding of the RPW regarding the element of song. Do not make the division greater than it is.

Regarding eschatological views, there have been multiple views espoused in every generation. The Reformers were similar but not exact. The opinions were more diverse as the reformed churches progressed though they were predominantly a form of post mil.

Yes the Reformers refused instruments (except Luther I believe) but they viewed it as a badge of popery rather than a circumstance of worship. I am inclined to agree with them but that is no obstacle for fellowship, at least for me. We must worship God the best we understand, our conscience bound to His Word, and He receives our worship, despite our faults, on behalf of Christ. I can allow disagreements on song and have no problem worshipping with brothers who disagree with me, because I know they are seeking to glorify God the best they know how. We must allow for liberty of conscience in some things. The Reformers as faithful as they were, didn't get everything figured out, not even on song. That's why we had a "second" reformation in England and Holland.

The Church sang hymns prior to the Reformation along with the psalms, though at the time of the Reformation, psalmsinging has been confined to the monasteries for the most part. The Gloria Patri is one of those older hymns that comes to mind. I believe some of St. Bernards prose were set to hymns too. After the Reformation, the Continental traditions (including Calvin) allowed for hymns outside the psalms. Calvin allowed the Apostles Creed, Lord Prayer, and 10 commandments to be sung. The Dutch included some more NT "songs" in their liturgy along with a couple contemporary hymns of their time (see the Dort liturgy). The only ones to uphold EP were the Scots. Even the Westminster divines were not unanimous on this issue.
 
After reading through this thread, I find it interesting that the RPW keeps coming up. I think we need to think a little harder about what are the elements and what are the circumstances of worship. We have discussed this before but it appears that it might need to be brought up again. If worship is the dividing line then what are the basic necessary elements that can be agreed upon? And it should be noted that the Westminster Directory of Worship was not written to dictate to the churches how a worship service had to be done. The focus was on the necessary elements of worship.

Is EP a necessary element of worship? What about singing the Psalms from a big screen vs a Psalter? Calvin didn't have no big screens! so we shouldn't either?

Fred is correct when he stated that folks in the Reformed camp do not see mergers as all that important, and I don't see it as all that important either.
 
Wayne,
Your comment brought a thought to mind. Mergers are not the same as unity. Unity is much deeper than merely belonging to the same denom. I and my congregation are in much greater unity with other congregations that are not in 'our group'. Unity can and should exist across the lines of preference such as EP, Acapella, leadership structure, etc.

[Edited on 3-9-2005 by LawrenceU]
 
Lawrence, excellent thoughts, important to remember there are degrees of unity. I'd say we are excercising some degree of unity now in our conversing. Wayne, you're right EP has been given undue attention in this discussion. Someone else brought it up I was using it as an example, one of many that prohibits _material_ union between all Reformed Churches. And Fred is correct in saying it doesn't hold the PCA and OPC back from merger as they are both nonEP denoms. I dont know what your getting at with elements vs circumstances. If this is a non-EP argument then let me remind you that only acts and attributes of worship that are nonreligious helps to divinely instituted elements, which are natural to human society may be prescribed by the church. Also I believe your statement about the Westminster Directory of Worship is false. The intent of the Directory was binding uniformity in Worship. The SL&C:

"I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us."

And the ordinance of Parliament adopting the directory:
"...the Directory for worship, herein after mention be established and observed in all the churches in this kingdom..."

The directory then proceeds to describe the elements of worship and other activities associated with worship and how they are properly to be conducted. Eg.

Of the Singing of Psalms
It is the duty of Christians to praise God Publicly by singing of Psalms together in the Congregation and also privately in the Family.
In singing of Psalms the vouice is to be tunable and gravely ordered by the cheif care must be to sing with understanding and with grace in the heart making melody to the Lord...
 
Peter,

I am not familiar with the RPC but the DoW is not binding in the PCA, with the exception of three chapters that are constitutional, and the OPC is in the process of revising their DoW. Neither the PCA or OPC recognized the SL&C as binding. You might want to take a look the PCA DoW and you will note that in chapter 51 they allow the singing of both psalms and hymns.

In the OPC DoW Chapter 3.6, it notes that the Psalms should be used frequently (not exclusively).
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Peter,

I am not familiar with the RPC but the DoW is not binding in the PCA, with the exception of three chapters that are constitutional, and the OPC is in the process of revising their DoW. Neither the PCA or OPC recognized the SL&C as binding. You might want to take a look the PCA DoW and you will note that in chapter 51 they allow the singing of both psalms and hymns.

In the OPC DoW Chapter 3.6, it notes that the Psalms should be used frequently (not exclusively).
Click to expand...

So you don't have a problem with people tampering with their own Confession of Faith and DoW?
 
Gabriel,

I'm not quite following you. What do you mean "tampering with their own Confession and DoW"?

The Church has the authority to establish doctrine for the Church. Confessions and DoW's can be amended, flat out changed or done away with. Only Scripture in unalterable.
 
I'm just asking if you have a problem with the fact that the OPC and PCA have altered the original confession and DoW, which were written based on the Scriptural convictions of their spiritual fathers in the Reformation era? The Confession and DoW are not infallible, but they are supposed to be the clear teaching of Scripture from those who preceded us. If we are following in their footsteps and convictions, it seems like a pretty big step to start to alter and do away with things that they felt strongly convicted about. But, this thread isn't about that, so there's no need to get into it.
 
Gabriel,

You are right. We are getting off topic. The short answer is no I don't. Just like I don't have a problem with the addition of the Filiqua to the Nicean Creed.

[Edited on 3/9/2005 by wsw201]
 
I think that whatever way we take for unity, it's going to be hard, not easy. We're all going to have to come to the table with the mind of keeping our own points of view in their places, and to keep Scripture in its place. The Westminster Assembly was not an over-night pajama party; neither was the Great Synod of Dordt; and neither are our General Assemblies. And our GA's don't cover near as much as the Assembly or Synod did. You just can't read the Minutes of the WA between services on Sunday. And these were well-versed, thoughtful men.
 
So, to get back on topic, what would be a good long-term strategy to join the churches? As pointed out, they won't merge unless they see the need. How would we help people to see the need? It must start with people talking. What should they talk about?
 
This is quoted from the "Yet Another EP Thread," which is something I stated earlier in this thread, which in hindsight I see is somewhat ambiguous. This is much clearer.

This was originally posted by Phillip A

This hits on a key aspect of the debate over music, instruments, and hymnody, that is, the issue of liberty of conscience. The question that every "non-EP'er" must ask himself is this - "is is lawful for me to impose, based on my own preference, that which I consider a circumstance (and therefore not necessary) on the consciences of those of my brethren who view the use of instruments as an violation of the RPW, and thereby have their consciences violated on account of my imposition of that which I do not believe is necessary?"

Or, to put it another way,

"Is instrumental music/uninspired hymnody something that is so important that I am willing to violate the conscience of my EP brother in order to have it in the public worship?"

I believe the scriptures are clear on what to do in this instance, i.e. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. Should not rather the one who takes a freer view of worship say to himself, a la 1 Cor 8:12 - "Therefore, if the use of instruments in worship and uninspired hymnody makes my brother stumble, I will never include instruments and uninspired hymns in worship, lest I make my brother stumble."
Click to expand...

Why can this measure not be taken for the sake of unity? Are uninspired Hymns and Instruments essential enough for separation?

Another quote from the thread, this time from lwadkins

I understand that from the EP'ers point of view that they feel that non-EP'ers are not concerned enough with respect and reverence for God in worship, and it seems the non-EP'ers feel that EP'ers try to impose upon them unnecessary strictures that are unbiblical and violate Christian liberty.
Click to expand...

This summary is good but not complete. The EP'ers feel that the non-EP'ers are not concerned enough with respect and reverence for God in worship as well as that the non-EP'ers are trying to impose upon them worship that is unbiblical and that violates their conscious. While the non-EP'ers feel that the EP'ers try to impose upon them unnecessary strictures that are unbiblical and violate the Christian liberty. Both feel as though their conscious is being violated except as I see it, one side is more worried about pleasing God and the other is more concerned about liberty. EP'ers are conservative and Non-Ep'ers are liberal on this issue, and yes both issues they stress are important. My question is, would it be better to be conservative with our sacrifice to God or liberal?

Compromise can be made here. Uninspired hymns restricts the participation of worship while exclusive psalminity restricts no one, but gives all the liberty to participate.
 
Both feel as though their conscious is being violated except as I see it, one side is more worried about pleasing God and the other is more concerned about liberty.
Click to expand...

This is just a bad assumption. it is wrong, too, and cannot be proven without examing the hearts and minds of every person in both camps. It also seems a very proud statement to make representing the EP crowd.

After all, who is the weaker brother here?? The weaker brother is always the one who is offended. Offenses come from being ill informed, by the way. The weaker brother Paul is seeking to protect is believing a lie! Meat offered to idols is harmless because idols are nothing.

And while we do not seek to cause a weaker brother to stumble we also do not leave him weak. We seek to educate and encourage him to maturity.

"Great peace have they which love Thy law, nothing shall offend them." Psalm 119:165

Also please note that this is not a matter of liberty at all. I do not use "uninspired hymns" because I think I am free to, but because I believe I am commanded to worship God by the use of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs! (Eph 5:18-21).

Let's not continue the EP debate here.......

Phillip

[Edited on 3-10-05 by pastorway]
 
Guys, I wish you could step back a take a look at the big picture on this EP debate. History does not paint a reliable picture for EP. The entire argument for either view, hinges entirely upon the intepretation of "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" in ephesians and colossians. The other threads always end up here which is why rehashing this debate has become fruitless until we receive further light on that issue. Are either side willing to impose your view upon anothers conscience because of the disputed interpretation of this one phrase??? I'm EP, but honestly, I am not willing to stake a claim on such uncertain grounds. I love the historical beauty and simplicity of EP in some of the Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians. I also see the dangers in the non-EP view, because in the end, the standard becomes rather arbitrary as to what hymns you will allow. Even charasmatic mantras are "scriptural" songs. Yet I cannot deny the pious devotion to God in uninspired hymns. The point? Charity brothers. The disagreement is over the element of song in the RPW, not the RPW as a whole. Both desire to glorify God in worship to the best of their understanding. You don't have to agree with every point, in order to worship with your brothers. I sing hymns in the churches I attend, because worship is a corporate activity and I know those whom I sing with are endeavouring in faith to worship God in sincerity even though we may disagree. I trust God will lead me into greater understanding, and He will also lead the Church into greater understanding.

"We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him."
1 Cor. 8:1-3
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Now, please back to the strategy for union. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Lots of prayer! Seems that there cannot even be unity in discussing this topic :um:.

[Edit: Mr. Bushey :ditto:]

[Edited on 3-10-2005 by Jonathan]
 
The current popular trend for unity is to remove any disputed doctrines or practices. This of course results in a statement of faith that is meaningless, for it seems that there is someone to dispute nearly everything.

It is my opinion that much of this disputation can be overcome by educating Christians in the distinctives of their faith. Even there you run into the problem of anti-intellectualism which has been exacerbated by the public bickering of prominent leaders in the church over doctrines and practices. Thus the common refrain "œDoctrine divides."

Anyway you could go on listing the obstacles to unity ad infinitum. Instead let´s contemplate overcoming these obstacles. It would seem that the only answer in a practical sense was already attempted by the Westminster Divines among others; a statement of biblical truth that can be adhered to as an accurate summary of God´s word. In times past it was required that you submit to the churches interpretation in such matters if you wished to be a member of the church. Now though, it is seldom really required and in the case that it is required it is no longer a stigma to belong to no church, or hop to the next church on the list.

To complicate matters the tares are growing alongside the wheat and in many instances it is difficult to tell them apart. That means that many of the dissenters to unity may not even be of the flock (the invisible church).

This all is very simplistic of course, but it leads me to the conclusion that we can attain only a degree of unity before the compromises for more unity would corrupt us to the point we would no longer be a church.

Primarily it seems to be a problem of submission. How many times have we seen intelligent people refuse to see the truth simply because they didn´t want it to be true?

From where I stand all I can do for Church unity is pray, stand on those doctrines and practices I know to be true, show good Christian charity in areas where there is doubt, and show a loving attitude towards those with whom I agree and also those with which I disagree. But the foundational beliefs of the Christian faith must not be comprised, even for so called unity.

Man, this meandering likely doesn´t make any sense, but I tried.
:)
 
A coming of Christ certainly, hopefully by His Spirit in a season of revival. Churches seem to unite more in those seasons.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Guys, I wish you could step back a take a look at the big picture on this EP debate. History does not paint a reliable picture for EP.
Click to expand...

History doesn't paint a reliable picture for non-EP...

The entire argument for either view, hinges entirely upon the interpretation of "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" in ephesians and colossians.
Click to expand...

We need to go to historical context on this issue, but from what I've heard these three categories are all contained in the Psalms.

I'm EP, but honestly, I am not willing to stake a claim on such uncertain grounds.
Click to expand...
If you won't make a claim, how are you EP?

The point? Charity brothers. The disagreement is over the element of song in the RPW, not the RPW as a whole. Both desire to glorify God in worship to the best of their understanding. You don't have to agree with every point, in order to worship with your brothers.
Click to expand...

It is certain that psalms glorify God in song. Uninspired hymns however are not certain. So why do most PCA churches sing more uncertain songs for God's pleasure than certain? Granted our status to God and salvation do not hinder on bringing uncertain songs, but why not just do what we KNOW pleases God than what we THINK pleases God
but if we want to please God why don't we just stick to what we know for certain pleases Him?
Click to expand...

Uninspired Hymns are a result of the church modifying from the apostolic traditions and from the reformation traditions. There have been quotes given to you by Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, Calvin, etc. supporting EP and no instruments. Could you provide quotes supporting uninspired Hymns and instrument use by apostolic church fathers and respected reformers? EP is in the Westminster confession were any of those who composed the confession not EP?

I sing hymns in the churches I attend, because worship is a corporate activity and I know those whom I sing with are endeavouring in faith to worship God in sincerity even though we may disagree.
Click to expand...

Sincerity justifies disobeying God? If your brother is disobeying God it's ok to disobey God with them out of love for them? EP'ers view Non-Ep'ers as doing disobeying God by adding to what he has commanded. If your conviction is this then why would you sing uninspired hymns? If it's not your conviction and you just like it...

then why can't we just sing psalms for the sake of unity? It satisfies both sides. We know for certain psalms are sound, we don't know for certain that uninspired hymns are sound. Uninspired hymns are what needs more light to justify. So why must we have them? Why must they replace psalms? My Church never sings psalms but only hymns.

Can I get a direct response to this statement in bold?


btw pastorway, you claimed Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, and several apostolic church fathers as well as weaker brothers.

[Edited on 3-10-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

[Edited on 3-10-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
then why can't we just sing psalms for the sake of unity? It satisfies both sides. We know for certain psalms are sound, we don't know for certain that uninspired hymns are for sound. Uninspired hymns are what needs more light to justify. So why must we have them? Why must they replace psalms? My Church never sings psalms but only hymns.

Can I get a direct response to this statement in bold?
Click to expand...
No one is arguing to replace the psalms, certainly not me. And you need to reread my post. By "claim" I meant, I'm not willing to impose EP on another's conscience because the foundation for either side of the arguement is so depenedant about one disputed phrase in the NT. And both sides have valid arguments exegetically. It simply is not worth fighting about, despite my conviction that EP is right and in my view safer, and more reflects the pilgrim nature of the church, whom as long as she has her Bible, she has a ready made hymn book no matter what culture or time she lives.

btw pastorway, you claimed Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, and several apostolic church fathers as well as weaker brothers.
Click to expand...

The historic position of the Continental Reformed Churches was not EP. Again, I have referenced this stuff over and over again in the other EP threads. Only Scotland maintained the practice and the doctrine. The New England Puritans did for a short time until Watts appeared. Calvin was not EP. He allowed other hymns (i.e. apostles creed, 10 commandments, Lord's Prayer). See his Genevan liturgy. The Dutch did the same. See the Dort liturgy, which included the same songs Calvin allowed, along with the NT "songs" (i.e. Mary, Zach. etc.). Luther certainly was not EP at all. His own hymns were sung right along with the psalms. Even the Westminster Divines were not unanimous on this issue, as some argued that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refered to more than just psalms (i.e. Poole, Baxter, etc.). I suggest you do a little more research. The EP argument will not be won on the grounds of history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

rbcbob
  • Locked
What is it to be Reformed?
Replies
2
Views
4K
Simply_Nikki
Simply_Nikki
TaylorOtwell
  • Locked
Question Regarding Netherlands Reformed Churches / Heritage Reformed Churches
Replies
16
Views
22K
BertMulder
BertMulder
Me Died Blue
  • Locked
Hungarian Reformed Churches
Replies
0
Views
3K
Me Died Blue
Me Died Blue
S
  • Locked
Protestant Reformed Churches
Replies
7
Views
5K
satz
S
D
  • Locked
Why are Reformed churches the minority?
2 3 4
Replies
102
Views
12K
Ask Mr. Religion
Ask Mr. Religion
Back
Top