Why so many Reformed-Presbyterian denominations?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
From a presbytery PD:

The position of Executive Presbyter (EP) is a full-time, called and installed position in the Lake Huron
Presbytery. The EP serves as head of staff for the presbytery office and takes the lead in resourcing and
guiding the presbytery with training and leadership development opportunities. The EP helps shape and
build the missional efforts of the presbytery. As part of a team, working with the staff and the presbytery
at large, the EP is responsible for exercising pastoral concern for clergy and congregations in order that
the mission of the presbytery can be accomplished.

Another is a bit more direct: "Responsible for interpreting and facilitating the implementation of the actions of the Presbytery, the Synod and General Assembly." Also see 'Responsibilities' here: http://storage.cloversites.com/pres...nts/Executive Presbyter Job Description_3.pdf

Extensive discussion of the hierarchical nature of the PCUSA here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1611087.html
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
It's amazing how the heart of man always tends to drift towards Prelacy, isn't it?
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Sadly about the 90% of the Reformed faith are in World Communion of Reformed Churches.

I won't concede that point. You are including far too many people under the 'Reformed' banner.
Honest question.
Are those denominations in other countries, particularly the third world, that liberal or not reformed?
What about this list of Reformed denominations and their numbers? Now granted some of the Canadian, American and Korean churches shouldn't be included but, are the rest fairly conservative and are able to be labeled reformed or are there considerably less true reformed church members?
 

Calvinbeza

Puritan Board Freshman
Are those denominations in other countries, particularly the third world, that liberal or not reformed?
What about this list of Reformed denominations and their numbers? Now granted some of the Canadian, American and Korean churches shouldn't be included but, are the rest fairly conservative and are able to be labeled reformed or are there considerably less true reformed church members?

Thze United Church of Canada are member of the World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC)and the World Methodist Council as well, this denomination was formed in 1925 as a result of merger of 2/3 of the Canadian Presbyterian more than 90% of the Canadian Congregationalists and the whole Cnadian Methodist Church? I thought Methodism and Presbyterianism are antaginish theologically.
So such denominations are members of the WCRC.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
It's amazing how the heart of man always tends to drift towards Prelacy, isn't it?

How are we defining "prelacy"? Is it any movement towards bishops and hierarchical structures in the church, or is it a movement towards Anglo-Catholicism?
 

Calvinbeza

Puritan Board Freshman
Technically not mergers of equals - the OPC would have been subsumed into the PCA. PCA balked the first time, OPC balked the second time.

That is also bad that the Reformed community have scrattered so many denominations, conservatives, moderate and liberals, each group could be linked to several denominations- conservatives-PCA, OPC, URCNA, RCUS
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
It's amazing how the heart of man always tends to drift towards Prelacy, isn't it?

How are we defining "prelacy"? Is it any movement towards bishops and hierarchical structures in the church, or is it a movement towards Anglo-Catholicism?

The context would indicate the former, I think...

I would hope not, since that puts Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Anselm, and the like in a rather awkward position.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
I would hope not, since that puts Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Anselm, and the like in a rather awkward position.

Only awkward if we must believe that all of God's Saints must have a perfectly sanctified theology. I neither claim that for myself, nor any of the great saints that have come before me. For now we only see dimly and only know in part.

For myself, I confess (and have taken vows to uphold) that the Biblical form of Church Government is Presbyterian, which elevates no elders above any others, and so I believe that I follow in the same footsteps as Peter ("a fellow elder").

This is not a conviction I hold loosely, but one that I believe is vital to the health and well being of the church that was bought by the blood of Christ.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I would hope not, since that puts Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Anselm, and the like in a rather awkward position.

Only awkward if we must believe that all of God's Saints must have a perfectly sanctified theology. I neither claim that for myself, nor any of the great saints that have come before me. For now we only see dimly and only know in part.

For myself, I confess (and have taken vows to uphold) that the Biblical form of Church Government is Presbyterian, which elevates no elders above any others, and so I believe that I follow in the same footsteps as Peter ("a fellow elder").

This is not a conviction I hold loosely, but one that I believe is vital to the health and well being of the church that was bought by the blood of Christ.

That sounds a lot like the Roman view of development of doctrine.

So if I start attending a Reformed Anglican church and believe that the idea of an overseer is a wise one, does that reflect the "such is the human heart"?
 

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
That is also bad that the Reformed community have scrattered so many denominations, conservatives, moderate and liberals, each group could be linked to several denominations- conservatives-PCA, OPC, URCNA, RCUS

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Only awkward if we must believe that all of God's Saints must have a perfectly sanctified theology. I neither claim that for myself, nor any of the great saints that have come before me. For now we only see dimly and only know in part.

For myself, I confess (and have taken vows to uphold) that the Biblical form of Church Government is Presbyterian, which elevates no elders above any others, and so I believe that I follow in the same footsteps as Peter ("a fellow elder").

This is not a conviction I hold loosely, but one that I believe is vital to the health and well being of the church that was bought by the blood of Christ.

That sounds a lot like the Roman view of development of doctrine.

So if I start attending a Reformed Anglican church and believe that the idea of an overseer is a wise one, does that reflect the "such is the human heart"?

This is not the Roman view of development of doctrine. Rather it is a recognition that even the best of men might have a theology that is flawed due to the traditions that they have inherited, and that the Church is not immune from corruption (see: Protestant Reformation).

None of us are immune from this. If you note, I appeal to Peter - who is an Apostle, and so I maintain that the early church was Presbyterian. For a good treatment of the subject, please see Thomas Witherow's short work "The Apostolic Church: Which is it?" You can read it for free here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/westmi...lic-church-which-is-it-by-dr-thomas-witherow/

It is a very helpful work, and I hope it is a blessing to you.

As for the question of whether it is a "wise decision", I maintain there are no wise decisions that are unbiblical. You would have to maintain that the office of bishop is one that finds its grounds in the Scriptures, and not simply through human wisdom. Please read Witherow if you have a chance.

If you will note my signature - I am an elder in a church whose ancestors fought for "Christ's Crown and Covenant", and would have died rather than affirm that the King of England is the Head and King of Christ's Church. So no, I would not find it wise to affirm anything about the Anglican form of Church Government.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Only awkward if we must believe that all of God's Saints must have a perfectly sanctified theology. I neither claim that for myself, nor any of the great saints that have come before me. For now we only see dimly and only know in part.

For myself, I confess (and have taken vows to uphold) that the Biblical form of Church Government is Presbyterian, which elevates no elders above any others, and so I believe that I follow in the same footsteps as Peter ("a fellow elder").

This is not a conviction I hold loosely, but one that I believe is vital to the health and well being of the church that was bought by the blood of Christ.

That sounds a lot like the Roman view of development of doctrine.

So if I start attending a Reformed Anglican church and believe that the idea of an overseer is a wise one, does that reflect the "such is the human heart"?

This is not the Roman view of development of doctrine. Rather it is a recognition that even the best of men might have a theology that is flawed due to the traditions that they have inherited, and that the Church is not immune from corruption (see: Protestant Reformation).

None of us are immune from this. If you note, I appeal to Peter - who is an Apostle, and so I maintain that the early church was Presbyterian. For a good treatment of the subject, please see Thomas Witherow's short work "The Apostolic Church: Which is it?" You can read it for free here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/westmi...lic-church-which-is-it-by-dr-thomas-witherow/

It is a very helpful work, and I hope it is a blessing to you.

As for the question of whether it is a "wise decision", I maintain there are no wise decisions that are unbiblical. You would have to maintain that the office of bishop is one that finds its grounds in the Scriptures, and not simply through human wisdom. Please read Witherow if you have a chance.

If you will note my signature - I am an elder in a church whose ancestors fought for "Christ's Crown and Covenant", and would have died rather than affirm that the King of England is the Head and King of Christ's Church. So no, I would not find it wise to affirm anything about the Anglican form of Church Government.

I am fairly certain that the situation is not the same as 1688. The British monarch is not the head of American communions, so your last paragraph is irrelevant to my claim.

I maintain there are no wise decisions that are unbiblical.

Who doesn't claim this? My claim is that Scripture posits the allowance of an overseer over elders, de facto if not de jure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top