The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian

Anyone have any thoughts on the new Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian church. I understand it is a break-away from the Reformed Presbyterian Church

Here's a link to that denomination's website: http://erpchurch.org/

I thought that might help those who aren't familiar with it.

Pilgrim, thanks for the link.

So, the new denom start-up premise is in error.

IMO, there is no chance of the PCA adopting the NPP, FV, Auburn Avenue theology. Since I'm not as familiar with the OPC I can't say from any knowledge, but I doubt it would hold sway with them as well.

It appears as if this new denom is an over-reaction, and there must be other reasons for the start-up.

My impression is that what they are seeing in both the OPC and PCA isn't an official embracing of these heretical teachings, but rather a failure to discipline those who are teaching it within the denomination. Because, to the best of my knowledge which is admittedly limited, neither denomination has come out with an "official" ruling that clearly rejects and condemns these heresies for what they are. Thus, there is no basis upon which to discipline any individual who is ordained or appointed to office who does embrace and/or teach them. This issue has been going on for quite a number of years and if I were to guess, I'd say these people who are wanting a new denomination are simply "foreseeing" what has happened in most every generation where damnable heresies aren't quickly refuted and those promoting them expelled. Even in our own recent history, we have seen the demise of once conservative denominations due to their failure to discipline heretics and thwart heretical teaching, e.g,. PCUSA, PCA, and the CRC.

That's my

EDIT: I apologize for the typo above where "PCA" appears in the last sentence which should have been RCA.

While I agree that the PCA hasn't yet dealt fully with the NPP and Auburn controversies, I wouldn't yet announce it's demise. I have been frustrated with the slowness of the denomination to tackle them, but I do believe that there are good men working very hard to bring about a definitive ruling.

In our day we are seeing less discipline of those who teach strange doctines even in the conservative churches because of the influence of post-modern thinking. PM thinking believes everyone can have their own view or opinion - ie. there is not right or wrong. This is breading a new liberalism in the church of today.

Back in 1923 J. Gresham Machen (founder of the OPC) publicly identified the marks of the liberalism of that time. Machen said that liberalism is chiefly characterized by "it's attach upon the fundamentals of the Christian faith." These fundamentals include the Biblical doctrine of God, and the Biblical doctrine of man. He also wrote that in the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Chrisianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called "modernism" or "liberalism." These words were written in the previous century.

Paul Elliott writes in his new book The Marks of Neo-Liberalism: "The OPC's neo-liberalism today shares the core characteristics of the PCUSA's old liberalism in the 1920s and 1930s. The OPC is repeating the mistakes of history. Satan has not corrupted the OPC with precisely the same forms of error that he employed three generations ago. The church would perhaps be on its guard for that. Today the error is expressed in different words and with contemporary points of emphasis. But it has the same destructive force, and confronting it requires the same spiritual alertness and resolve."

The history of the church tells us that a church's descent toward full apostasy usually begins subtly and gains momemtum gradually. The downgrade always has a beginning, it always has root causes, and it almost always reaches a point of crisis where true believers in Christ must face a test of loyalties.


Wes

OVERTURE 2 from Rocky Mountain Presbytery (to B&O, AC)
“Erect Study Committee on New Perspective, Etc.”

Whereas, there has been a growing debate and discussion within the Presbyterian Church in America and its courts over a number of years on issues arising from viewpoints concerning the doctrines of justification, sanctification, covenant and related others, variously known as Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, Shepherdism and Auburn Avenue Theology; and

Whereas, there has been disagreement and confusion regarding what these various viewpoints actually teach; and

Whereas, questions have been raised regarding these viewpoints and their conformity to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards of the Presbyterian Church in America; and

Whereas, some of these viewpoints have brought confusion on theological definitions and concepts that appear to strike at the heart of the gospel and the vitals of religion; and

Whereas, Church courts have the responsibility to determine questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to bring injury to the peace, purity, or progress of the Church (BCO 11:4); and

Whereas, a significant number of churches, Sessions and Presbyteries within the Presbyterian Church in America have experienced disruption of their peace, purity and progress as a result of the controversy surrounding these viewpoints.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Rocky Mountain Presbytery overtures the 34th PCA General Assembly to erect an ad interim committee (RAO 8-1) to study the above named viewpoints and their formulations, and other similar viewpoints which are deemed by the committee to pertain to the above named viewpoints. Further, to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards.

And further, that the expenses for this ad interim study committee be funded through the Administrative Committee (RAO 8-4).

Adopted by Rocky Mountain Presbytery at the stated meeting on September 22, 2005.

Attested by /s/ Kevin Allen, Stated Clerk

http://www.byfaithonline.com

See the "Edit" to my reply to John_C here: My edited response.

In His grace,

go_tribe,

Yes, this is a positive thing but it only goes to prove the point since those who drafted that document are of the same mind as myself, i.e., the DENOMINATION as a whole has not dealt with these heresies in a prudent nor timely matter nor has it addressed the individuals who are promoting them within the denomination. This has been going on for years. Consequently, the longer the denomination(s) drags its feet, the more opportunity these men have of teaching their heresies and infecting the churches, schools and seminaries with it. If history repeats itself, one can expect that by the time the PCA and other denominations affected by this problem get around to actually doing something about it, the damage done will be irreversible.

For those who have decided to form a new denomination, I see them as having made a judgment call. They are not willing to wait until the very end when things will have gotten to the point of no return and a split would be inevitable. My personal feeling is that they have made a good choice. As an aside and my personal observation, this is but yet another example where the Presbyterian form of government looks good on paper but in reality it doesn't work.

In His grace,

Kim,

There's certainly nothing wrong with that Overture. It's reads well, raises the right questions, and is the right thing to do. However, now we will have to wait and see if a Study Committee is assigned, then for their work to be completed, and then see what the Study Committee recommends.

This could take a year or more for the Study Committee to do its work and report back to the Presbytery. Then if the Study Committee's report is approved it will be included in the agenda for the next General Assembly. It will be discussed on the floor at the next General Assembly and a decision will be made there if action should be taken on a denominational level. Hopefully this effort will result in a clear statment which seperates truth from error and keeps the church from the slippery slope of liberalism.


Wes

Thanks for directing me to the edited post. I had missed that.

And I do very much agree with your assessment of the PCA's foot dragging on this issue.

I think that history does, at least in America, back up your opinion of the working realities of Presbyterian church government. It takes a long time to go through the paces and what happens, from my limited observation, is that while the issues are being systematically brought to the General Assembly though channels, inroads are being made within the local churches and before the GA can rule, it's already too late.

I don't really see this as much a problem with Presbyterian church government as it is a problem with the increased speed at which these heresies are able to be spread on the internet and thus to the local churches. I just don't think the men who are in positions to deal with these issues have yet fully grappled with the necessity for speed and decisiveness in this day of instant information.

That's a theory based on my very limited observations as a member of the PCA.

I think most members (if not all) of this discussion group are in agreement with our rejection of NPP/Auburn Avenue/Federal Vision teaching, but is forming a new denomination really the way to respond to it? Let's be honest. This whole debate takes place mostly in discussion groups such as this one and I wonder how many of the typical "men in the pew" are really aware of it. I am, but like anybody reading this thread, these things matter to us and we keep ourselves informed. Although I am not seminary trained, I humbly consider myself more theologically aware and perceptive than most laymen due my own study. And when I listened to a taped debate between Michael Horton and Douglas Wilson on this very issue, I was confused. It is a complicated issue that very few laymen are even aware of and I doubt that the discussion in the fellowship hall after church on Sunday is about the NPP/AA/FV controversy.

So I ask myself and this august body of Highwaymen (and women), How many people is the ERPC going to attract to form their churches? If in fact this denomination is being created largely in reaction to the NPP/Auburn Ave./Federal Vision debate, only those malcontents within the PCA and OPC will leave and join the ERPC.

Forming a new denomination from these folks sounds like a losing proposition to me, but I'm just giving my opinion. How do the other folks in this group feel about it?

I think you are correct. There are other reasons for these men with their churches forming a new denomination. What are they, I do not know. I do suspect that they do not play well with others.

The FV, AA, NPP stuff gets its legs via the internet. Except for the churches the adherents minister, most churchmen have no idea what it is about. The terms Federal Vision, Covenant Faithfulness, & New Perspective of Paul are just not in the vocabulary of most. They would be suspicious of it just by the terms, themselves.

John C said:



But John, don't you think that's where the danger lies? The pew sitter may never have heard of these titles, but if the doctrines are being passed off in the pulpit, label or no, the laity is more likely to just accept it as true. Also, more and more people are turning to the internet for information. I think the fact that this thing "gets its legs via the internet" is alarming.

Truth is worth contending for; I believe that we should fight NPP/AA/FV. We need identify it by its error with a Biblical response and a firm denominational stance.

I have mixed feelings about a new denomination, I DO think these aberrant doctrines need to be addressed in the strongest terms within Reformed denominations.

John,

I agree with gotribe that the danger lies in the subtlety that those promoting and teaching these heresies use. I seriously doubt that those in authority in the various local congregations come right out and say that they think that the Reformers and Puritans were wrong in the matter of justification by faith and that the WCF and other confessions that are in agreement with its statement on justification by faith alone need updating. The majority of laymen, I fear, are basically pew-potatoes and simply accept what the Elders/Pastor teach them.

Even a cursory reading of Church history will show that nearly every heresy that has gained a foothold in the Church did so gradually over a period of years, mainly due to the lack of action and discipline on the part of the governing bodies. For example, when Gresham Machen began a new work which was to eventually become the OPC, one need not doubt that many were perplexed and questioned the need to form yet another denomination. Well, I'm sure you know what happened to the Presbyterian Church when Liberalism and neo-Orthodoxy gained the upper hand.

There are those who believe that the "ship" is going down and can't be saved. Others believe that despite the noticeable lilt, things will be just fine if you just wait it out. To be perfectly honest, there aren't many examples where a denomination/church started down the slippery slope and succeeded in making its way back to the top.

Lastly, the seeds of this heresy have been planted already, not only in individual churches but also in the seminaries you will find professors who are at least sympathetic to NPP, etc. and who are teaching their students to be "open-minded" to it. In the Church you will find those who are willing to fight the good fight, even when the situation appears to be against all odds. Others believe they are reading the "signs" of an unstoppable downfall. May the Lord give the needed wisdom and strength to those who chose to stay and fight. But let's not be too quick to judge those who would rather run and live to fight another day.

In His grace,