Ask a Presbyterian

[kenrapoza]

Although I wouldn't want to lump all liberals together and flatten out all the differences (because there are certainly different types), there are some underlying characteristics of liberal Christianity.

First it is usually an eroding of the Bible's authority - usually through higher criticism. The next logical step is calling into question the Bible's teachings, especially those that are culturally unpopular, and then the end is typically a wholesale rejection of the substance of the historic Christian faith. This includes the deity of Christ, the depravity of man, the penal substitutionary atonement, etc, etc...As J Gresham Machen pointed out - Christianity and full-blown liberalism are two different religions. Christianity is about sin and grace, whereas liberalism is about moralism and uplift. Churches that sell out the gospel need to change their mission in order to justify their existence, that is why they jump on the social activism bandwagon.

It is these aspects that allow disparate liberal denominations to band together despite their supposed deep theological differences. As a case in point: The ELCA is in full communion with the ECUSA, the UMC, the UCC, and is purusing the same with the PC(USA). Now, Lutheran theology is different from Presbyterian theology is different from Anglican theology is difference from Methodist theology - and the UCC doesn't even have a theology! So how can they be in full communion with one another? Simple, because their not concerned about their doctrines.

On the flip side, conservative protestants tend to have much more in common with each other than with liberal protestants. Doctrine for doctrine, conservative protestants usually have more in common with the Roman Catholics than with the liberal protestants!

So, conservative presbyterians will generally be much more comfortable with conservative baptists and evangelicals than they are with liberal presbyterians. Remember, we are Presbyterian by conviction, but that is only secondary to being Christian. It is all about Jesus! Not about our banner or denomination. Our denomination is only good so far as it is Biblical, if our church body ever abandons the faith, then we are not to choose it over Christ. Now the other problem with many evangelical churches is not that they reject the gospel, but they often lose sight of it and fall into pietism. There are pitfalls on each side, we must be vigilant and ever mindful to keep Christ and his gospel front and center.

 

[Christos Anesti]

On a blog I read the following which I found a little suprising. I'm not sure if it's an accurate representation of Calvin though. Can anyone help me on this one? Do Calvinists accept the Nicene faith?

Calvinism is committed to the eternal distinction of the divine persons, but not to eternal generation and procession. Just because you are committed to Nicene Orthodoxy on this point doesn’t mean that a Calvinist is.


Calvin, for one, rejected Nicene subordinationism in favor of the autotheos of each divine person. And his precedent has been taken up by such Reformed theologians as Warfield, Murray, Helm, and Frame. This marks a higher Christology and pneumatology than Nicene Orthodoxy.

 

[AMR]

On a blog I read the following which I found a little suprising. I'm not sure if it's an accurate representation of Calvin though. Can anyone help me on this one? Do Calvinists accept the Nicene faith?

Calvin was a vigorous defender of eternal generation of the Son. Both Nicea and Chalcedon upheld the eternal generation. Moreover, it is repeated, often verbatim, in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Denying this is tantamount to denying God as revealed by Christ.

Two books on the topic I recommend are:

1. Gerald Bray's The Doctrine of God

2. Robert Letham's The Holy Trinity

Will be the best $30 (for both!) that you can spend.

AMR

 

[Willtor]

On a blog I read the following which I found a little suprising. I'm not sure if it's an accurate representation of Calvin though. Can anyone help me on this one? Do Calvinists accept the Nicene faith?

If I recall, in Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin said that he believed that the Son was begotten of the Father from Eternity. However, he was unconcerned with whether the Father was always begetting. This does not mean that he believed that the Father does not always beget the Son, but he was unwilling to take a stand in favor of it.

I'm afraid I don't have Institutes unpacked (from moving) so I can't cite chapter and verse, but his discussion on this is definitely in Book I.

 

[Willtor]

Ah, I'm afraid I was misremembering. Here is the exact quote:

"At the same time, studying the edification of the Church, I have thought it better not to touch on various topics, which could have yielded little profit, while they must have needlessly burdened and fatigued the reader. For instance, what avails it to discuss, as Lombard does at length, (lib. 1 dist. 9,)Whether or not the Father always generates? This idea of continual generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen, that from eternity there were three persons in one God."

Book I Chapter 13

The quote surprised me when I first read it and I thought that he was talking about the Son and the Spirit as being always generated. But now that I see it again in its context (the chapter is not short, but it's worth a read for Calvin's view on the Trinity), it looks to me like he was talking about the Father generating other Persons. I haven't read Lombard, so I don't know for sure.

Sorry, sorry. I'm afraid my last post was misleading, then.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Thank you for the responses.

 

[Albion]

Since the preceeding questions seem to have been handled, I have a question I'd like to ask and I hope this is not the wrong place to do it.

Could you please give me your candid overview of the smaller Presbyterian bodies in the USA? In particular, I am interested in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the PCA, probably in that order of interest.

I would be appreciative of any doctrinal differences, and differences in practice, but also in those more subtle things that the people of every denomination know but which rarely gets into the textbooks and handbooks that attempt to explain what each one is like. The style, attitude, little things that may actually matter to a visitor, and so on. Thank you very much.

 

[kenrapoza]

Since the preceeding questions seem to have been handled, I have a question I'd like to ask and I hope this is not the wrong place to do it.

Could you please give me your candid overview of the smaller Presbyterian bodies in the USA? In particular, I am interested in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the PCA, probably in that order of interest.

I would be appreciative of any doctrinal differences, and differences in practice, but also in those more subtle things that the people of every denomination know but which rarely gets into the textbooks and handbooks that attempt to explain what each one is like. The style, attitude, little things that may actually matter to a visitor, and so on. Thank you very much.

To start off with, this is a link to a good chart that Patrick (AMR) has posted previously:

Presbyterian and Reformed Churches

Here are some things that I've found:

OPC: This is typically one of the most conservative and confessionally oriented Presbyterian denominations in the country. It was started in 1936 by J Gresham Machen who also found Westminster Theological Seminary prior to being booted out of the PCUSA. I think that you will find that much of this denomination is heavily influenced by the theology of Westminster Seminary, being very strong on Biblical Thelogy/typology and presuppositional apologetics. There tends to be less leeway in this denomination than others regarding doctrine, practice, and "feel". Typically church services will be either intentionally covenantal or "traditional", but always formal. Some hold to exclusive psalmody, but not all, so you may sing hymns in the service, but not contemporary praise songs. I've found that OPC congregations tend to be on the smaller side. Some significant people in this church body: J Gresham Machen, Meredith G Kline, Darryl Hart (at Old Life Theological Society). Both the OPC and the PCA are members of NAPARC.

PCA: This is my denomination, and I am really loving it. Like the OPC, this church body tends to be faithful to the Westminster Confession, on the whole anyways. However, subscription to doctrinal standards tends to be a little less strict than in the OPC, even though this is a conservative denomination. The PCA is a younger church body (1973) and is a very fast growing denomination. The "feel" of the PCA tends to vary a little bit because it is a little more of a grassroots Presbyterian denomination. In others words, this church body was formed by many congregations coming together after leaving the growing liberalism of the "Southern" Presbyterian church. These congregations had somewhat different leanings, and so today you can find PCA congregations that tend to be strictly confessional (like mine), some that tend more towards broad evangelicalism (e.g., Scottie Smith in Tennessee), and others that are more "Reformed Missional" (e.g., Tim Keller in Manhattan). So you will see some variety, some services will be intentionally covenantal (like mine), some will be "traditional" and some will be contemporary or blended. Both the OPC and the PCA subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Some significant people: Tim Keller, J Ligon Duncan, James Montgomery Boice, Phil Ryken, R.C. Sproul (although his current congregation is independent), John Gerstner, Vern Poythress, D James Kennedy, Donald Gray Barnhouse and others.

EPC: This denomination I have less experience with. They also hold to he Westminster Standards, but tend to be less strict than the OPC or PCA. A major example is that there is allowance for female Pastors in the EPC, unlike the other two more conservative church bodies. Many of the congregations that are leaving the PC(USA) because of the liberal leadership are moving to this denomination because they view it as almost a "halfway house" between the mainline and the confessional reformed churches. Another major example, from what I understand, is that there is also tolerance of less "Calvinistic" theologies. Service types in this church body will also be varied, you'll probably see at least as much, if not more, contemporary praise and worhip styles. You could probably say that this denomination is more broadly evangelical than the other two. There is an EPC elder who is pretty active in the Semper Reformanda forum, he is HeyMikey-- (the -- are two numbers but I can't remember what they are). He is a brilliant Christian who is extremely knowledgable. If you have more questions about the EPC, he would be a good resource.

I hope this helps for now!

Ken

 

[Albion]

To start off with, this is a link to a good chart that Patrick (AMR) has posted previously:

Presbyterian and Reformed Churches

Here are some things that I've found:

OPC: This is typically one of the most conservative and confessionally oriented Presbyterian denominations in the country. It was started in 1936 by J Gresham Machen who also found Westminster Theological Seminary prior to being booted out of the PCUSA. I think that you will find that much of this denomination is heavily influenced by the theology of Westminster Seminary, being very strong on Biblical Thelogy/typology and presuppositional apologetics. There tends to be less leeway in this denomination than others regarding doctrine, practice, and "feel". Typically church services will be either intentionally covenantal or "traditional", but always formal. Some hold to exclusive psalmody, but not all, so you may sing hymns in the service, but not contemporary praise songs. I've found that OPC congregations tend to be on the smaller side. Some significant people in this church body: J Gresham Machen, Meredith G Kline, Darryl Hart (at Old Life Theological Society). Both the OPC and the PCA are members of NAPARC.

PCA: This is my denomination, and I am really loving it. Like the OPC, this church body tends to be faithful to the Westminster Confession, on the whole anyways. However, subscription to doctrinal standards tends to be a little less strict than in the OPC, even though this is a conservative denomination. The PCA is a younger church body (1973) and is a very fast growing denomination. The "feel" of the PCA tends to vary a little bit because it is a little more of a grassroots Presbyterian denomination. In others words, this church body was formed by many congregations coming together after leaving the growing liberalism of the "Southern" Presbyterian church. These congregations had somewhat different leanings, and so today you can find PCA congregations that tend to be strictly confessional (like mine), some that tend more towards broad evangelicalism (e.g., Scottie Smith in Tennessee), and others that are more "Reformed Missional" (e.g., Tim Keller in Manhattan). So you will see some variety, some services will be intentionally covenantal (like mine), some will be "traditional" and some will be contemporary or blended. Both the OPC and the PCA subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Some significant people: Tim Keller, J Ligon Duncan, James Montgomery Boice, Phil Ryken, R.C. Sproul (although his current congregation is independent), John Gerstner, Vern Poythress, D James Kennedy, Donald Gray Barnhouse and others.

EPC: This denomination I have less experience with. They also hold to he Westminster Standards, but tend to be less strict than the OPC or PCA. A major example is that there is allowance for female Pastors in the EPC, unlike the other two more conservative church bodies. Many of the congregations that are leaving the PC(USA) because of the liberal leadership are moving to this denomination because they view it as almost a "halfway house" between the mainline and the confessional reformed churches. Another major example, from what I understand, is that there is also tolerance of less "Calvinistic" theologies. Service types in this church body will also be varied, you'll probably see at least as much, if not more, contemporary praise and worhip styles. You could probably say that this denomination is more broadly evangelical than the other two. There is an EPC elder who is pretty active in the Semper Reformanda forum, he is HeyMikey-- (the -- are two numbers but I can't remember what they are). He is a brilliant Christian who is extremely knowledgable. If you have more questions about the EPC, he would be a good resource.

I hope this helps for now!

Ken

Thank you, Ken. I am out of my background on much of this, particularly when it comes to certain terms. Could you explain to an outsider what you mean by covenantal vs traditional? Also, is there some suggestion that the OPC is somewhat cool to outsiders, puritannical, grimly legalistic ot something along those lines? That's what is said of the smaller bodies of some other denominations, you know. I hate to describe anyone like that because it can be so unfair, and I think you are sensitive to such loose characterizations too, but is that part of the picture, do you think?

If you'd care to answer those points, I'd be grateful. Meanwhile I'll take a look at the link you provided. I appreciate that you offered it.

 

[kenrapoza]

Thank you, Ken. I am out of my background on much of this, particularly when it comes to certain terms. Could you explain to an outsider what you mean by covenantal vs traditional? Also, is there some suggestion that the OPC is somewhat cool to outsiders, puritannical, grimly legalistic ot something along those lines? That's what is said of the smaller bodies of some other denominations, you know. I hate to describe anyone like that because it can be so unfair, and I think you are sensitive to such loose characterizations too, but is that part of the picture, do you think?

If you'd care to answer those points, I'd be grateful. Meanwhile I'll take a look at the link you provided. I appreciate that you offered it.

No problem! I think that people will probably use terminology differently. When I refer to a service as convenantal, I mean that it is a liturgy that is organized around the Word of God and the person of Christ - we gather together as God's covenant people. It is not necessarily traditional or contemporary because it is not demographic driven, God's covenant people are from every nation, tribe and tongue, they are young and old, rich and poor.

Let me give you an example of my church's liturgy, this explanation was written by my Pastor in a footnote that's part of an introduction booklet:

"...worship begins when God calls us (actually, commands us!) to His worship by His Word. We respond by praising Him in prayer and song. God calls us to repentance through His Law, we respond by confessing our sins. He then declares to us the promise of the Gospel, and we respond in prayer and song; He then speaks to us in the sermon, we respond in prayer and praise; He calls us to communion through the Lord's Supper, and we come in faith to His Table, confessiont our faith, etc."

To some people, this will "look" traditional, but we don't do anything for the sake of tradition, we do it intentionally to magnify God's Holiness and exalt Christ.

Regarding impressions of the OPC, I haven't really run into those stereotypes personally, but that's because there are very few OPC churches where I live. However, it wouldn't surprise me if some evangelicals did feel that way. Those particular criticisms are not uncommon of the Reformed in general. We tend to stress doctrinal precision and purity, but that's because we are concerned with worshipping God in spirit and in truth, it is through His Word that we can know Him at all, so we must guard that revelation very carefully. However, this does create the impression among more emotive Christians (such as Pentecostals) that we are "cool", "puritannical", stodgy or uncaring. However, I've found the exact opposite to be true. The folks that I have come to know in both the PCA and the OPC are actually the warmest and most welcoming Christians I have ever met. They are much warmer than the ones the non-denominational evangelical church I was at for 12 years before!

I think you're right that those criticisms tend to be leveled at the smaller denominations, but it's usually because those church bodies are more conservative and have broken away from the larger liberal churches over concerns for doctrinal purity. You will probably run into similar feelings about the LCMS or WELS (conservative Lutheran church bodies).

I hope that this sheds a little more light on the subject for you!

Ken

 

[Albion]

No problem! I think that people will probably use terminology differently. When I refer to a service as convenantal, I mean that it is a liturgy that is organized around the Word of God and the person of Christ - we gather together as God's covenant people. It is not necessarily traditional or contemporary because it is not demographic driven, God's covenant people are from every nation, tribe and tongue, they are young and old, rich and poor.

Let me give you an example of my church's liturgy, this explanation was written by my Pastor in a footnote that's part of an introduction booklet:

"...worship begins when God calls us (actually, commands us!) to His worship by His Word. We respond by praising Him in prayer and song. God calls us to repentance through His Law, we respond by confessing our sins. He then declares to us the promise of the Gospel, and we respond in prayer and song; He then speaks to us in the sermon, we respond in prayer and praise; He calls us to communion through the Lord's Supper, and we come in faith to His Table, confessiont our faith, etc."

To some people, this will "look" traditional, but we don't do anything for the sake of tradition, we do it intentionally to magnify God's Holiness and exalt Christ.

Regarding impressions of the OPC, I haven't really run into those stereotypes personally, but that's because there are very few OPC churches where I live. However, it wouldn't surprise me if some evangelicals did feel that way. Those particular criticisms are not uncommon of the Reformed in general. We tend to stress doctrinal precision and purity, but that's because we are concerned with worshipping God in spirit and in truth, it is through His Word that we can know Him at all, so we must guard that revelation very carefully. However, this does create the impression among more emotive Christians (such as Pentecostals) that we are "cool", "puritannical", stodgy or uncaring. However, I've found the exact opposite to be true. The folks that I have come to know in both the PCA and the OPC are actually the warmest and most welcoming Christians I have ever met. They are much warmer than the ones the non-denominational evangelical church I was at for 12 years before!

I think you're right that those criticisms tend to be leveled at the smaller denominations, but it's usually because those church bodies are more conservative and have broken away from the larger liberal churches over concerns for doctrinal purity. You will probably run into similar feelings about the LCMS or WELS (conservative Lutheran church bodies).

I hope that this sheds a little more light on the subject for you!

Ken

Thanks again--it certainly does help. In fact, you hit the right notes as though you were reading my mind. I didn't want to say "Dutch Reformed" or "WELS" but you got the point; and I was also thinking about what the format of the service might be like. You addressed that. I know that it is not just like the Episcopal/Anglican liturgy, but its structure overall could be described using almost the same wording your pastor did about the Presbyterian service. I would have called that the "traditional" service, in the sense of being the historic one.

You've done me a big favor and settled a lot in two posts. I may have other questions, but I can't think of them right now.

 

[kenrapoza]

I'm glad it was helpful. Feel free to ask any time!

 

[General Mung Beans]

On average is the PCA more conservative than the Southern Baptist Convention?

 

[Willtor]

On average is the PCA more conservative than the Southern Baptist Convention?

They both self-describe as conservative, but the term "conservative" is a little ambiguous. Is the doctrine of the Real Presence (in communion) conservative? Is credo-baptism conservative? What polity is conservative?

The short is, both are conservative but it's probably impossible to compare "more or less" conservative in a way with which both would agree.

 

[kenrapoza]

On average is the PCA more conservative than the Southern Baptist Convention?

As the previous post mentioned, it's kind of hard to say because it's almost like comparing apples to oranges. In Reformed terms, we often speak of being confessional rather than merely conservative. The idea in this term is that we try to faithfully adhere to our confession of faith (Westminster Standards in our case) as our doctrinal standard.

However, The SBC tends to be much broader than the PCA, and in this sense I think it would be appropriate to consider it a little less conservative. For example you can be in the SBC and be either a Calvinist or an Arminian, a Dispensationalist or a Covenant/New Covenant believer, etc, etc. When a particular denomination contains such different folks as Jerry Falwell and Rick Warren, Pat Robertson and Charles Stanley, then you know they're pretty broad!

To be fair, the PCA is also influenced by broad evangelicalism, but we require our ministers to subscribe to a more in-depth and encompassing doctrinal standard. So, even though the PCA is fairly "broad" for a Reformed denomination, it is still more consistent than some others. And typically, we are very "conservative" on the basics that divide liberal Christians from conservative Christians (such as Biblical inerrancy).

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The PCA is conservative as in Confessional if that makes sense.
Secular and political conservatism has no place in the PCA....so it has no official presence.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Thanks for the answers. I meant in the sense of things that are general Christian issues (ie salvation, ecumenicalism, worship styles, moral standards).

 

[kenrapoza]

Thanks for the answers. I meant in the sense of things that are general Christian issues (ie salvation, ecumenicalism, worship styles, moral standards).

In that case I would say that the PCA is probably a little more conservative than the SBC. But like we said earlier, it's not exactly an "apples to apples" comparison.

 

[Anoetos]

The earlier list was helpful. As Presbyterians go, the PCA is a LOT more conservative than the PC(USA).

It's often said that the OPC (my own church) is more conservative than the PCA and I guess that's true in a way; we tend to be more traditional generally (or, as I heard one PCA person put it, we're "stuck in the 1930's"). But I don't think there's much divergence between us on doctrine, except maybe on the issue of female deacons, a subject on which, I am ashamed to say, I do not know if the PCA General Assembly has made ruling but I think its a bit of a hot topic for them atm.

 

[kenrapoza]

The earlier list was helpful. As Presbyterians go, the PCA is a LOT more conservative than the PC(USA).

It's often said that the OPC (my own church) is more conservative than the PCA and I guess that's true in a way; we tend to be more traditional generally (or, as I heard one PCA person put it, we're "stuck in the 1930's"). But I don't think there's much divergence between us on doctrine, except maybe on the issue of female deacons, a subject on which, I am ashamed to say, I do not know if the PCA General Assembly has made ruling but I think its a bit of a hot topic for them atm.

Yes, doctrinally the OPC and the PCA tend to be very similar. But you may find different emphases and sensibilities between the two. The debate over female deacons at last GA was actually pretty interesting, you can listen to the mp3 of it online. The two speakers were Tim Keller and J Ligon Duncan.