Presbyterian

[JM]

What's the difference between presbyterian and reformed? It's it just liturgy?

 

[Irishcat922]

Presbyterianism historically holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith. And the Presbyterial form of church govt. Historically they are anti-liturgical.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Actually the early Reformed Churches were very liturgical. You can still get copies of the liturgies that some of the 16th century Reformed Churches used. They are on the web. Also, Calvin's mentor, Martin Bucer, worked on the Book of Common Prayer at Cranmer's request. The 1552 Book of Common is the Reformed version of the Book of Common Prayer.

You can be Reformed and an Anglican/Episcopalian as well as a Congregationalist. These churches above disagree with the Presbyterians on Church government, but necessarily on other aspects of theology.

Calvinistic Baptist, because of their deny of paedo-baptism on theological grounds that keep them (IMHO) outside the Reformed Camp (but I still love these brethren )

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[chiefsinner]

They had "liturgies" but I wouldn't consider them "liturgical". The liturgies, better put, directories, were forms to be loosely followed for worship. We Presbyterians don't like to use the word "liturgical" because it stirs up thoughts of insense, church calenders, and all other manner of idolatry.

Btw, Calvinistic Baptists are traditionally considered Reformed b/c of their adherence to the dotrines of grace. Even though their view of the sacrament technically isn't Reformed but Anabaptistic. Calvinistic Episcopalians and Independents are considered Reformed, even though their view of church polity decidely isnt (Popish/Anabaptistic respectively).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Even though their view of the sacrament technically isn't Reformed but Anabaptistic

i dont think so. can you explain more what you mean?
i believe it is an eccelsiological not sacramental difference.

 

[StAnselm]

Cajun Huguenot, all the examples you gave are from the (continental) Reformed tradition - though I think the BCP is more Anglican then reformed! And therein lies the difference: when John Knox brought Calvinism to Scotland, some subtle changes came in - e.g. the use of musical instruments was abolished.

It's important to remember that Presbyterian/Reformed churches are distinct not just in doctrines, but also in liturgy and church government. Even if the distinctives have been eroded in recent times.

Many reformed folk these days seem to adhere to an essentially Zwinglian view of the Lord's supper - it being merely a memorial. I think Douglas Wilson says somewhere that most Presbyterians practice wet dedications...

Back to Reformed vs. Presbyterian - there are some other (rather subtle) doctrinal differences, too...

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

R.L. Dabney was a Zwinglian in his view of the sacraments. I love the guy's work but I think he was wrong here. I wish every Reformed/Presbyterian Christian would read Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper by Mathison (R.C. Sproul wrote the preface). It is a must read.

The BCP is Anglican as you say and the Puritans had lots of objections to it. But because Bucer signed off on the 1552 version, I think we have to consider that version Reformed. I don't know who much it has changed since then.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[chiefsinner]

i dont think so. can you explain more what you mean?
i believe it is an eccelsiological not sacramental difference.

Baptists believe baptism is only for professing believers (in a sense that is eccelsiological b/c it deals with who is a member of the church), they also tend to see it only as a physical symbol. There are also eccelsiological differences because they are most often independents.

The Book of Common Prayer, at least in its 1638 version, definiately is not reformed. Come to think of it, the very idea of a prayer book strains the limits of "Reformed".

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Baptists believe baptism is only for professing believers (in a sense that is eccelsiological b/c it deals with who is a member of the church), they also tend to see it only as a physical symbol. There are also eccelsiological differences because they are most often independents.

The Book of Common Prayer, at least in its 1638 version, definiately is not reformed. Come to think of it, the very idea of a prayer book strains the limits of "Reformed".

it deals with who is a member of the church



essentially discussing te visible church boundary
see:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson15_essay.html


---

 

[JM]

What are some of the differences in theology?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

The Book of Common Prayer, at least in its 1638 version, definiately is not reformed. Come to think of it, the very idea of a prayer book strains the limits of "Reformed".

I really don't know anything about the 1638 version of the BOCP, but here is a small part of an article on the 1552 version:
"Archbishop Cranmer received pressure from all manner of Reformists. Various notable foreign reformers, such as Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, had recently fled the Counter Reformation in Europe, and sought refuge in England. They urged Cranmer to produce a genuinely reformed Prayer Book. At the same time, Bishops such as Ridley of London sometimes took their own steps beyond the first Prayer Book. For instance, from 1550 Ridley issued an order that turned all altars in his London diocese into communion tables, symbolising the removal of barriers between officiating priests and participating laity.
The result was that, in 1552, Cranmer produced a new Prayer Book. There has been much historical debate over the authorship and meaning of the Second Prayer Book, because we don't know exactly who drafted it. While Cranmer, obviously played a central role in it, it is possible that Martyr, Ridley, John Knox and Hooper amongst others may all have had some input. Whatever the authorship, the Second Prayer Book was significant because it completely altered the First Prayer Book, and put forward a much more Protestant form of worship."

Coram Deo,
Kenith