What is the difference between CRTS and the RPCNA?

[xirtam]

Maybe some of you may have known that this question was coming.

What is the difference between the Canadian Reformation Church, along with the CRTS and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America along with the RPTS?

If that is the right question to ask.

 

[Quatchu]

The confessional standards would be be different between the two, CanRC using the 3 Forms of Unity and RPCNA Westminster Standards. RPCNA a cappella and exclusive psalmody, as far as im aware CanRC allows hymns. In the Canadian context you will probable find CanRC mostly consisting of people of dutch descent and RPCNA more of British descent, as I find church's in Canada to be more divided by heritage. More knowledgeable people might be able to help you more.

 

[xirtam]

The confessional standards would be be different between the two, CanRC using the 3 Forms of Unity and RPCNA Westminster Standards. RPCNA a cappella and exclusive psalmody, as far as im aware CanRC allows hymns. In the Canadian context you will probable find CanRC mostly consisting of people of dutch descent and RPCNA more of British descent, as I find church's in Canada to be more divided by heritage. More knowledgeable people might be able to help you more.

Thanks Justin. I have gathered that the CanRC is "using the 3 Forms of Unity and RPCNA (the) Westminster Standards". Why would one push for one over the other? I'm sure that's no easy answer.

 

[Quatchu]

The confessional standards would be be different between the two, CanRC using the 3 Forms of Unity and RPCNA Westminster Standards. RPCNA a cappella and exclusive psalmody, as far as im aware CanRC allows hymns. In the Canadian context you will probable find CanRC mostly consisting of people of dutch descent and RPCNA more of British descent, as I find church's in Canada to be more divided by heritage. More knowledgeable people might be able to help you more.

Thanks Justin. I have gathered that the CanRC is "using the 3 Forms of Unity and RPCNA (the) Westminster Standards". Why would one push for one over the other? I'm sure that's no easy answer.

Knowing people on both sides. It seems most will say the two confessions are identical in much of what they say. It seems more to be a issue of history and language then theology. The dutch used the 3 Forms because it was most excessable to them. The Scottish Presbyterians used Westminster because it was in there language and addressed there cultural context. I have never met some one who held to the WCF because they felt the 3 Forms were erroneous in some way.

 

[xirtam]

Why not all four?

 

[Edward]

You might glance at posts 8 & 9 on this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/canadian-reformed-opc-relations-11343/

And perhaps post 5 here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/rev-bredenhofs-article-federal-vision-canrc-69710/

for some discussion on the Canadian Reformed distinctions.

 

[Quatchu]

Why not all four?

I personally would love to see that, the Reformed Churches of New Zealand hold to both confessions, it would be tricky, do you have Pastors learn both standards, knowing just one is a big job without requiring two? You see interaction in North America through NAPARC, and here at Westminster California students and faculty hold to both confessions.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Maybe some of you may have known that this question was coming.

What is the difference between the Canadian Reformation Church, along with the CRTS and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America along with the RPTS?

If that is the right question to ask.

As was mentioned, the Canadian Reformed Churches have their background in the Dutch Reformation, whereas the RPCNA have roots in the UK, with the Scottish Covenanters. Historically, Reformed churches tracing their roots back to the Netherlands hold to the Three Forms of Unity, whereas Presbyterian churches hold to the Westminster Standards. That's not unique to the CanRC. The United Reformed Churches also hold only to the TFU, same with the Free Reformed Churches.

Because we hold to different confessions and have a much different history, we also have some different practices in terms of church government. We are both Presbyterian in the sense that we recognize rule by elders (presbyters). However, in Reformed church government the only permanent governing body is the consistory. Classes and synods only exist when they are meeting. In Presbyterian church government, the presbytery (roughly equivalent to a Reformed classis) is also a permanent body.

The Three Forms of Unity are older than the Westminster Standards. Because they are further down the line in the development of Reformed theology, the Westminster Standards tend to be more defined on certain points of doctrine and ethics. As a result, subscription to the WS has been a huge issue in Presbyterian church history. It's been an issue in Reformed church history too, but not to the same extent. I'm not sure about the RPCNA, but in many Presbyterian churches, officers can and do take exceptions to certain points in their confessions when they subscribe. In the CanRC, URC, FRC, etc., no exceptions are permitted to the TFU. You subscribe to everything in the TFU or nothing. We can take this approach more easily because the age of the TFU gives our churches a bit more latitude.

Much more could be said, but that's a basic answer to your question.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Why not all four?

Confessions are generally tied to the history of the church itself. It is not like they are document floating (if you will) in space. So churches that confess the 3FU are generally historically tied to the churches that wrote them. Likewise churches that hold to the Westminster Standards are historically tied to the British Isles.