17 comments

1. Dr. Clark, especially your Presbyterian readers may be interested in looking at this examination of OPC standards: https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2024/04/about-close-confessional-communion.html
   It argues for confessional membership on the basis of Scripture, confessed doctrine of the church, and confessed doctrine of the Supper.
   May the Lord grant repentance and reformation to the OPC that she might faithfully teach and practice confessional communion as He requires.

   Reply ↓

   • Baus,

     I’ve known the OPC since 1980. I’ve never heard or read them to understand their own polity this way.

     Reply ↓

     • Exactly. They do not understand it that way.
       That’s why they need to repent and reform, and start teaching and practicing confessional membership/communion as the Lord requires.

       Reply ↓

       • If they, who wrote and adopted the language, all understand that language to say one thing and you understand it to say nearly the opposite, might it be that you’re wrong?

         Reply ↓

         • The argument I present has 3 parts.
           1. Scripture. God wrote that, and it teaches confessional membership/communion.
           2. Doctrine of the church. This is based on what Scripture teaches, and it shows that the OPC is contradicting itself by not teaching and practicing the confessional membership/communion it entails.
           3. Larger Catechism. It teaches confessional membership/communion, and those who originally wrote and adopted it, however briefly, taught and practiced it.
           This all demonstrates that the OPC is wrong to not teach and practice confessional membership/communion. That’s the conclusion. Do you think that conclusion is wrong? Isn’t that the same conclusion you affirm?

         • I don’t think you’re accounting for the way the OPC receives the standards. Every ecclesiastical body has to receive the standards as did the first body to receive them, the Church of Scotland. They explained that they received them to teach Presbyterian polity. Nothing in chapters 25 or 31 expressly states or necessarily implies Presbyterian polity but that’s how the Standards were received. The OPC speaks of the animus imponentis, the intent of the body imposing the Standards on the church. E.g., the OPC doesn’t receive the “in the space of six days” as requiring 6-24 creation.

           The original way of subscribing the Standards was, I’ve argued, more like quia than quatenus but that hasn’t been the case since the 18th century in the New World or anywhere else.

           So, rather than speaking about what the OPC does, you should speak about what you think the OPC should do.

         • Dr. Clark, you write:
           “So, rather than speaking about what the OPC does, you should speak about what you think the OPC should do.”

           Yes, my post intends to do exactly that.
           I am *contrasting* what the OPC teaches and practices with what, according to Scripture (and Reformed teaching about Scripture), they *should* teach and practice.
           That’s what I’m explaining in that post.
           End of first paragraph above the embedded video tried to make that clear. I wrote: “this close/confessional view is described in contrast to usual OPC practice, and some Scriptural and doctrinal support for it [the former] is presented.”

         • This isn’t just a matter of practice. It’s a principled approach to confessional reception.

         • “This isn’t just a matter of practice. It’s a principled approach to confessional reception.”
           Yes, we agree.
           That the OPC has received the confessional teaching in such a way as to reject confessional membership/communion is an error of which it must repent, and it should reform its teaching according to Scripture, as I have argued.

         • Baus,

           Your original claim seemed to be that the OPC holds your view but doesn’t seem to realize it. Now you say, as I did earlier, that they don’t but they should.

           I think we agree.

   • The blog post I link (at honest2blog) explains that the OPC doesn’t, but *should* , hold to confessional membership/communion. I hope your readers will take time to read/listen and consider how it reinforces the view you (Dr. Clark) support.

     Reply ↓

2. This concern was a primary reason why I left an OPC church for a URC church. I’ve witnessed how a large demographic of non-confessional membership affects the culture, especially in church sponsored Bible study groups.

   I once asked my former pastor a question concerning the vows spoken by new members; particularly which errant doctrines held would be cause for discipline? He told me that it would be views that are contrary to the Apostles’ Creed, which I personally think is too broad a category. Is this viewpoint that of other NAPARC churches?

   Reply ↓

   • This is the view of most American Presbyterian churches. The question arises, however, what does the Apostles’ Creed teach? The Heidelberg Catechism is an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. Does it teach infant baptism? The Reformed churches say yes. The churches that formed the rule of faith (regula fidei) understood it so, as did the church when she formed and adopted the Apostles’ Creed, which is the developed form of the rule of faith.

     Reply ↓

3. Interesting. Is it good practice, when someone is doing confession of faith, to have them promise to ascribe to the three forms of unity within a reformed congregation, or is it sufficient just to have them ascribe to the apostles Creed? In my way of thinking, the apostles Creed is rather broad and many different denominations, confess the apostles’s creed.

   Reply ↓

   • In the URCNA when people make public profession of faith they take these 4 vows:

     Vows

     You are now requested to answer sincerely the following questions:

     1. Do you wholeheartedly believe the doctrine contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and taught in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation, and do you promise by the grace of God to continue steadfastly in this profession?
     2. Do you openly accept God’s covenant promise, which has been signified and sealed to you in your baptism, and do you confess that you despise and humble yourself before God because of your sins, and that you seek your life, not in yourself, but only in Jesus Christ your Savior?
     3. Do you declare that you love the Lord, and that it is your heartfelt desire to serve Him according to His Word, to forsake the world, to put to death your old nature, and to lead a godly life?
     4. Do you promise to submit to the government of the church, and also, if you should become wayward, either in doctrine or in life, to submit to its admonition and discipline?

     _________, what is your answer?

     Each individual then answers: I do.

     It is understood in our churches that the clause “as taught in this Christian church” means, “as confessed in the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism.”

     When we say “doctrine” in vow 4 we of course refer to the three forms. Those are our doctrinal standards.

     We ask our officers to subscribe the three forms, but we do not ask our lay members to subscribe the three forms but we do require them to assent to them and we would not ordinarily admit to membership those who reject our confession. On these question see the URCNA pastoral advice on the level of doctrinal commitment necessary for membership in the URCNA.

     Reply ↓

     • Yes. Could it be considered a step backward/a mistake to remove “confessions “ and/or “articles of faith and replace it with just the apostles creed?

       Reply ↓

       • Hi JP – I am not Dr. Clark, but I believe the answer is yes. (And I think Dr. Clark would agree.) The way P&R churches understand and interpret (confess) the Apostle’s Creed does vary when compared to other Protestant denominations.

         Check out this article for a more abstract discussion about the topic of wether the word ‘Reformed’ actually means anything or not. https://heidelblog.net/2017/02/a-wonderful-illustration-of-the-necessity-of-an-objective-definition-of-reformed/

         Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.