I've read Christianity and Liberalism. Machen is spot on. The book might be 99 years old, but it may as well have been written last month, it is so fitting for today.
What’s the difference between the opc and the pca? I’m just learning about what the reformed church is like. I’ve been in nondenominational charismatic churches until now.
OPC is much stricter on confessional standards. In the PCA you have a wide net of homosexual-identifying pastors, reparations advocates, pro-feminism, a lot of Bethel/Hillsong worship, and COVID mandates in worship / COVID worship cancellation. OPC is trending slightly leftward because of the toleration of feminism but is generally confessionally solid on the other issues.
This is very helpful. I’m thinking of visiting a OPC Church this weekend. I started listening to a podcast called reformed forum and found that there was a church about 15 minutes from me. Just wanted to learn more about the OPC b4 we went.
Thank you for providing an accurate and faithful presentation of this faithful God loving and honoring body of believers. I'm a member of a PCA church but my views are more in line with the OPC, I wish there was an OPC congregation near me. And oh, by the way, thanks for presenting the Gospel during this review! :)
@@RepublicofE Don't get me wrong, I love my PCA church and am thankful for it, but there are elements of the OPC I find to be more Biblically faithful for instance their faithful observance of the 4th commandment. I think they are more consistent with regulative worship. I also don't hear for any "wokeism" happening in the OPC as it is creeping into some of the PCA sessions such as the Missouri Valley Presbytery.
"Faithfull and honoring" .... ya gotta own some warts. In my town, the OPC has scattered wreaked souls and families in abundance. I just want to warn others, I don't give a rip about you.
Thank you very much for this. I’m a lifelong member of the OPC, and I’ve been waiting for it. My dad was a pastor in the denomination for almost 40 years, and my uncle worked for Great Commission Publications. Very well done. You summed up the denomination’s positions exactly.
@@hopeantoinenzayisenga7307 Yes, it is a global church, though it may be called by a different name in other countries. We have churches and missionaries from South America to Africa to Asia to Europe. We believe that God has called us to spread the gospel at all people.
As a Reformed Baptist I love the OPC and Dr. Machen. The men he influenced were the men who carried the torch of Biblical inerrancy in the last half of the previous century (RC Sproul being chief among them).
I’m from the Appalachian mountains of eastern Kentucky. One denomination that’s pretty large in our area is the Old Regular Baptist. I’m a Pentecostal pastor so of course I don’t go to one. But been a part of many funerals they have done. Trust me. It’s COMPLETELY Different than any denomination I’ve seen. Love to see a video on them. Their singing is “lined”. Someone will sing “amazing grace how sweet the sound” then the entire congregation will belt it out. The reason is because years ago, most couldn’t read so the one that could lined the songs.
Check out Neon Reformed Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Neon, KY. I was a member in that dear church for many years before I became an ordained minister in the OPC and moved by membership to the Presbytery of the Southwest.
I'm currently a member of Neon Reformed Presbyterian Church. We would love to have you come worship with us. 10 AM and 5:30 PM Sundays, downtown Neon Ky.
You are such a blessing praise God for this channel you are informing people of Truth in other churches thank you thank you so much it really is important to know what other churches believe
I grew up OPC. I saw a lot of fighting over complicated theologic issues and church splits. Never learned the Bible because of the the deep theological issues. I'm learning now.
I attended an OPC church during college. It was interesting because, until then, I didn't know much about denominations. Clearly that changed: I'm a subscriber to your channel. The church was a nice small church surrounded by both a PCA and a PCUSA church, and they were much larger. It was during a search for a new pastor, that I discovered (from a candidate pastor) just how bigoted some Christians could be. It was very eye opening to me.
Very interesting. It seems to me that in the last couple of decades liberal theology has been replaced by social action churches. I'd be interested if you could speak to this.
A really interesting comparison would be between Independent Baptists and Reformed Baptists, because they have on the one hand such strong similarities and yet on the other hand such stark differences.
I’m confused ….@4:00 PCA becomes OPC in 1939 so they could avoid the lawsuit. And yet there are PCA churches to this day…where do they fit in/come from?
The PCA of 1936 was the Presbyterian Church OF America, changing its name in 1939 to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The current PCA is the Presbyterian Church IN America, and started in 1973. I think that's what you were asking about. Two different denominations with very similar, but different, names and the same initials.
This Carl McIntyre you describe in 3.42 sowed the seeds of division and rebellion in my own church in India, the Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church of Kerala with its hq in Pulatheen near Thiruvalla resulting in the establishment of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India in 1961.
Exactly my question. I think it may be what the primitive Baptists believe (I'm not to sure though) which is where they don't believe in missionary (because those who God will call don't actually need to hear the bible) and other stuff like that.
@@RepublicofE after looking into it, I believe that hyper Calvinism is the Belief that God controls everything in life. So no need to preach as God will save who he wants anyways and stuff like that.
@@edwardwright4633 God does control everything, but the hyper calvinists think that this a good reason to not evangelize. It isn’t. Regular Calvinists affirm that God controls everything, but do not believe that that is a reason to forgo evangelization or to not engage in conscious choice, even though God has controlled, does control, and will control everything always
Help me here. Romans 5:14-21 makes it clear that Adam's transgression and condemnation resulted in death coming upon all his race. I do not see in this text that we became "guilty" of Adam's sin, only that we suffer the consequence thereof. In contrast, belonging to Christ, the same humans receive the promise of everlasting life to come. Our Reformed friends must look elsewhere to find proof of their theological doctrine of total depravity. Or do they?
Dr Leighton Flowers goes over this kn his channel, soteriology 101. He is a theologian who dissgrees with calvinism, renaming "traditionalism" into "provisionism". Basically he gives the argument, from a protestant perspective, as to why the calvinists are wrong.
So you believe people have no sin nature and theoretically a person could live a perfect life and merit Heaven by their own goodness? I thought all Christians held to total depravity. Unlike the U, L and the P of TULIP ( I forget what the I stands for), the T is essential to being a Christian. Without the T you don't believe you have any need for God, no need for Jesus' sacrifice. As through one man Adam all sinned. AND I find this law at work I do what I do not want to do. What a wretched man I am! How can you be a Christian and not believe in Total depravity?
I have been in the OPC for 25 years, and none of the pastors I know hold to the Westminster view of the Sabbath. I believe that there is a provision for not adhering to the Westminster view when ordaining officers, provided the candidate has a defensible, different view of the Sabbath from scripture.
Could you perhaps give an example of the kind of Sabbath position they might hold instead. I'm Scottish Presbyterian, where we have wholly informal ties to the OPC going back decades, and for us this would be a highly unusual and controversial position (possibly a discipline or suspension matter) for any minister to hold. Not passing judgment either way, it's a topic I'm interested in myself and am unsure where I stand.
@@Mic1904 I can give you my position; however, I am not ordained, just a layman. I believe that Hebrews 4 teaches that Jesus is our perpetual sabbath. His work is finished. The OT sabbath was a day for remembering that Israel's work was not finished, but at the end of it, rest would come. Christ, the True Israel, finished the work of redemption, and now we are resting in his finished work. In Colossians 2:16, Paul list three types of days about which no one should pass judgement on you: a festival, a new moon, or a sabbath. Some argue that the sabbath that Paul is referring to is not the weekly sabbath. However, that misses the construction of Paul's sentence. "Festivals" were annual events. "New moons" were monthly events. And sabbaths were ... *not* weekly events? No, Paul is saying that whether or not you choose to keep the annual feasts, the monthly celebrations or the weekly sabbath is up to you. Whenever the word "sabbath" is used in the NT, it refers to Saturday (with the exception of Hebrews 4:9, which uses a word-form for "sabbath" not found anywhere else in the Bible). When Paul says in 1 Cor. 16 to take up a collection on the first day of the week, he doesn't call it the sabbath. In Acts 15, when the Jerusalem Council had to determine what parts of the Jewish law the Gentil Christians should keep in order to keep peace with the Jews, that would have been an optimal time to tell the Gentiles to keep the weekly Sabbath. But they didn't. I can't find any support in scripture for changing the sabbath to Sunday, nor do I find any command in the NT for Christians to keep a weekly sabbath. In the OT, there is no record of anyone keeping a sabbath prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments; so the idea that it was a creation ordinance is flimsy, IMO. But what about the Fourth Commandment? Aren't the Ten Commandments the moral law? In my opinion, no. The Jews never divided the Law into moral, civil and ceremonial. Christians did that later when trying to determine which of the OT laws Christians should keep. Somewhere, someone decided that the Ten Commandments were the "moral" law, but I don't find support for that in scripture. So, then, what is the Christian's obligation regarding worship? Hebrews 10:25 obliges us to meet together. History tells us that the early church met on Sunday instead of Saturday. And John uses the interesting expression "Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10. That Greek phrase is not found anywhere else in scripture, but it would seem to indicate the day of Christian worship. So, I believe that the Christian worships everyday, that he rests in the finish work of Christ everyday, and that the church has traditionally gathered for corporate worship on Sunday, the Lord's Day, which we are commanded not to forsake. But after the morning worship service, I see no reason for not enjoying a ball game, eating at a restaurant, working around the house, mowing the lawn, etc. My comments are brief, but I highly recommend this book, if you want 400 pages of better explanations. www.amazon.com/Sabbath-Lords-Day-Theological-Investigation/dp/1579103073
@@tomtemple69 The OPC holds to the Westminster Confession view of the Sabbath. However, pastors and elders may be ordained at the discretion of the local presbytery if they hold a different view. All of the elders at the OPC churches where I have attended hold moreso to the Continental view, or the Heidelberg view.
I like the OPC. I strongly disagree with infant baptism (I’m saying this after having been baptized as a convert earlier today!) but in most other issues they seem extremely solid, and I wouldn’t discount the things produced by those in the denomination.
I used to as well. I am now convinced that covenant baptism is correct but it took a bit of time looking at the broad flow of scripture rather than zeroing in only on proof texts.
@@mkshffr4936 yup I grew up charismatic Pentecostal, my church taught baptism is after profession of faith and has to be in living water like a river/creek, not still water it wasn't until I heard a presbyterian explain it and looking at the Bible as a whole, not separating from the old testament, I'm more convinced of infant baptism of believers children baptism does not save, nor is it called a "sign" of faith a huge % of people just abhor it since catholics do it even though they don't understand WHY catholics baptize babies
Now if this was the stuff our minister based his sermons on I would have paid more attention. I remember we had a visiting minister that had a PhD in divinity and he gave a doctrinal/historical sermon and I loved it, but then we had to go back to the farmer who was called, and I went back to catching zzzs. (In my home, before the age of 18, Sunday service attendance was not optional, even if you worked the night shift until 8 am that morning.)
@@ChrisJones-ij3xp He was an associate of my grandfather in the start up of the Bible Presbyterian Church. In fact, there's a photo on line of the group with my grandfather standing next to Dr. McIntyre center top. Down in the very left hand corner there's a young guy with an apparent attitude. The name listed for him is Francis A. Schaeffer. They are the men who sent Schaeffer to Switzerland. Dr. McIntyre was definitely a "commanding presence" and tended (from my young perspective) to push people into service that he saw fit for them. He was rather tall, authoritative and certain of his opinions, but that's often what makes a leader in movement. At the time, I was myself considering a ministry within the denomination, but was barely into college at that point in time. He was rather enthusiastic about the idea. He, as well as the rest of the pastors I knew in the BP Church were sticklers on doctrine and required a strong conservative apologetic for what they preached. It was not always correct in my opinion, but it was far better than the general Presbyterian perspective of the time and light years separated from the Liberal denominations. Education, a very broad education in languages, doctrine, comparative religions and the like were highly valued by these men, as was truth as they saw it. Not much more can be asked other than the most central need of loving God and then loving your fellow man. When my grandad died in 1970, it was Carl McIntyre who led the service for him. They had remained good friends for at least 40 years by that point.
Used to see him frequently in the barber shop in Collingswood, NJ way back in the 1980s. The little Italian guy who cut his hair had no idea who he was.
I’ve not really understood the extra warning to an unbeliever to not approach the table; they have the doctrine of hell coming to deceased unbelievers anyway, so what is this?
Hard to say what such a person may hold as their personal views, but obviously if they reject infant baptism, they are not in alignment with the views of the Presbyterian church (even if the church, like the OPC does, allows them to stay) Other differences would be that they are participating in a church with a different church government structure than the Baptist ones have (more accountability over local congregations) and that they are also in a church that is less likely to be premillennial and almost certainly not dispensationalist (while some Reformed people with credobaptist convictions are dispensationalists, like John MacArthur).
Presbyterian here, with many wonderful Reformed Baptist friends. I would say a conservative Presbyterian who rejects infant baptism is a Reformed Baptist who hasn't realised it yet ;) I'm not saying it's totally and utterly impossible that someone could ever accept all the tenants of Presbyterian governance and tradition and other Presbyterian distinctives but just extract and dispose of the infant baptism bit, but I genuinely think it would be rare and difficult. Baptism is such a fundamental and defining issue about who you believe is and isn't part of the visible church and covenant that has domino-effect consequences on all sorts of other matters about what you think a church is and how it should be structured and operated, that I believe it's very difficult to knowingly get rid of such a foundational element but keep the rest of the structure intact. Many of the people I've met attending Presbyterian churches who hold to Baptist views on baptism rarely actually fully understand many of the important Presbyterian distinctives and their roots in paedobaptist doctrine (and I say that without any judgment - there's lots I don't know about lots of things, and many of them will still be Godlier and better servants of the Lord than I).
@@Mic1904 Very well said. Many people quite naturally think in terms of compartmentalized doctrines and proof texting with scripture verses. I know that when I was Baptistic Arminio-Dispy I had that general orientation. One of the really transformative aspects of my shift to the Reformed perspective was that I began to understand and internalize the comprehensive covenant perspective and how it all related to the cohesive flow of scripture and redemptive history as well as the interconnection of all doctrine. I will no doubt be ever learning and growing but that change of perspective was huge.
As someone from an Eastern Orthodox region, watching this video and thinking about this denomination's name made me wonder whether or not concepts developed in post-Protestant Reformation denominations have any ground in Eastern Orthodox contexts, and by that I mean concepts such as 'presbyterian' or 'congregationalist' polities, Wesleyan/Methodist practice, quaker practice, adult-only baptism ala anabaptists, etc. - stuff that may or may not contradict with Eastern Orthodox theology, in contrast to the stuff from post-Protestant Reformation denominations that explicitly contradicts Eastern Orthodox theology. For example, 'presbyter' in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy generally refers to the priest, so would an 'orthodox presbyterian church' in the Eastern Orthodox context just cut the number of ordained clergy from 3 to 2 (presbyters and deacons) and be functionally identical to episcopal polities, or would it seen more similarities with the Protestant intepretation of presbyterian polities? I don't know whether a video exploring this would be feasible, but it would be interesting to see!
“I’m taking my Bible and going down the street and start a new Church and if that don’t work repeat.” The history of Protestantism in one sentence! 🌺☦️🌺
Ah, the old '45,000' number (and its variants). Fear not! An entirely made-up number. Although I grant you, Joshua still has a lot to get through as he makes his way through everything worldwide that calls itself Christendom :P
@@Troy-Moses Fact is, all of the 20,000, 30,000, 33,000, 40,000, 50,000 type numbers are made up, come from faulty (ridiculous) sources, and were always meant to include all of Christendom (including thousands of Catholic and Orthodox 'denominations', faultily counted) as well as alleged Protestants. The real number isn't something we have a particular clear figure for, nor would one even necessarily be an accurate portrayal of how Protestants view what the Church is (e.g. I worship in a Presbyterian church, my friend worships in a Baptist church, we identify each other as part of the universal, catholic and orthodox Church of Jesus Christ). But, I certainly enjoy Joshua's videos, no doubts there! And denominational differences are well worth investigating, but sometimes the differences will be no greater than cultural and local ecclesiastical differences found amongst, say, different liturgical rites of the Catholic Church, or rites of the Orthodox Church, who still see their fellow rites as part of the same Church, communion and fellowship.
@@Mic1904 Yes, I'm familiar with that broad view of the Church, and to a certain degree understand why Protestantism focusses on the similarities we all share, and use that as the unifying factor to define the boundaries of the Church. However, it begs to question: Is this view historically authentic? When and where did it originate? When I was first confronted with this question well over twelve years ago, I could no longer remain within the Protestant sphere; and here is why: the earliest Christians had a well-defined boundary of the Church as a living Organism -- no grey areas... I would encourage you to listen to or read Cyprian of Carthage's treatise, On the Unity of the Church, if you haven't already. Though I sometimes poke fun at my Protestant friends, (as I did above,) I respect all struggling Christians; but am bound to implore them that there is something much, much more, which is only found in Orthodoxy.
@@Troy-Moses Appreciate your thoughts on this. Briefly, if I may: "However, it begs to question: Is this view historically authentic?" The common misconception is that Protestantism brashly invented itself as a brand new innovation 500 years ago after 1,500 years of unbroken continuity of doctrine (or, I guess maybe just 1,000 years if you're Orthodox), but the whole point of a question like, 'Is it historically authentic' is that the answer is typically, 'Well, the Reformers clearly thought so and gave their reasons why'. I've rarely seen two Church authors from the time period quote and examine the Early Church Fathers more than Luther and Calvin. While the accusation is that by differing with the Catholic Church of the 1500s, Luther and Calvin automatically differed with the continuous doctrine of the Early Church, the whole point of their position is that they and their contemporaries as Catholics were the ones who had slowly deviated from the faith of the Early Church and it was their desire to return to such a thing: to Reform. As an Orthodox, you face a number of the same issues that a Protestant does in having to face down accusations that doctrines like Papal Supremacy are historically authentic doctrines found in the very foundation of the Church, so simply making a sweeping claim about something being the view of the Church is, as we both know, not really accurate enough. We can all make a fairly good stab at claiming something as historically authentic if we quote-mine enough of the Fathers and massage a few things into our preconceived worldview. "the earliest Christians had a well-defined boundary of the Church as a living Organism -- no grey areas..." I mean, any statement that starts with 'the earliest Christians thought X, Y or Z' as a monolith is already beginning from shaky ground (and feels like a common and necessary starting point that many an Orthodox and Catholic argument has to start from), but yes, not only is this an obvious and inoffensive thing to state about the Church, it's also what Protestants affirm. There is no grey area with us. The church is the church, and outside of it, there is no salvation. There is little I'd disagree with in Cyprian. Indeed, there's often surprisingly little I'd disagree with in most Church Fathers (there will, of course, be some disagreement, since they sometimes disagreed with one another and cannot always be correct on all things while holding differing viewpoints from one another) - though how such matters are interpreted through the lens of the Church in different centuries (including today, in 2022) is certainly a different matter entirely. While Cyprian is obviously right to highlight the dire need for unity in the faith and the consequences of members spiritually starving to death outside of the one Church, literally any Christian of any tradition or denomination can identify the necessary limits of this instruction, for Cyprian himself would surely recognise the need to root out error and to separate oneself from erroneous teaching. Any Orthodox person who decries the needless schism of Protestant denominations must themselves recognise that there are, indeed, justified requirements for separation, else they themselves wouldn't have excommunicated the Bishop of Rome and separated themselves from the West in 1054 (if this sounds accusatory of the Orthodox, it's not - if anything, I lean towards the East on this argument - but if we insist that Protestants are schismatics from the same Church that you yourself are in schism with, I'm not sure how that's going to work...) That's all good with me - I fully accept poking in my direction, and I am known to poke back sometimes. No offense taken. God bless!
This video reminded me that there are many subjects for which there are two popular (and generally considered opposite) beliefs. I some cases, I agree with one of those beliefs but, on several subjects, my personal study of the Bible and church history has led me to I think both of the most popular ways of explaining those subjects are inadequate to explain my personal understanding. IF, for example, THE Calvinist position is that Jesus didn't die for the sins of every human, I don't agree with that AND IF THE Arminian position is that we are saved by our decisions, I don't agree with that either. (Of course, it may be that I misunderstand Calvin, Arminius or both.)
@@CornCod1 I've never been able to reconcile the five solae with the use of creeds and catechisms. (Of course, someone who reads for himself, studies for himself and thinks for himself is an heretic almost by definition.)
@@rogermetzger7335 it is very simple really. Creeds are not a primary source but rather a summation of the biblical teaching on core doctrines. Somewhat like a cliff's notes that is used as a reminder and public confession. The scripture itself is the source of the creed. Sola scriptura defines the final authority.
@@akirafudo4419 It is definitely a subject I am interested in, but yes, there is a language barrier with much of it. I am amazed (and pleased) that the Copts have survived in an often hostile enviromment..
@@thursoberwick1948 I’m a convert but my friends are all Coptic both ethnically,religiously. And they told most of the time it’s peaceful but physical or verbal harassment isn’t rare but more Extreme and violent cases are rarer. But one of my friends lived though the 2008 riots and pogrom as a young girl.
I've never understood the Presbyterian claim that the governing body owns the local church property and you lose the property if you leave the denomination. It's another example of the dictatorial actions of all Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Nowhere does it say anything in the Bible about the denominations keeping the property.
That's just a unique administrative quirk and has nothing to do with doctrines. Maybe some American denominations do that but I've never heard that here in Kenya
@@MrGTO86 Very common in Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. They want to control everything and own everything. One of the many reasons I left the Reformed Church in the US.
@@innovationhq8230 That is not really a thing as far as I can tell. In fact it is almost impossible to define as it encompasses a wide variety of views that came out of the FV conference. Some of the well known teachers such as Doug Wilson don't even really use the term anymore. Rather than try to define the term I simply listen to their actual sermons as I would any other and check it with scripture. I have yet to find anything that our local pastor teaches that is not completely orthodox and what I have seen of Pastor Doug when taken in context seems to be pretty straight. I have certainly found less erroneous teaching than I had to contend with in other evangelical churches of which I have been a part.
@@mkshffr4936 Doug has certainly tried to gloss over his heterodox beliefs by focusing on cultural war. It’s a great recruiting tool to his dominionist theonomic cause. He will never be a Presbyterian though because he’d have to stop the double speak, have a proper ordination, and be accountable.
@@mkshffr4936You people think you're so clever playing dumb. Nobody in their right mind accepts the CREC as a legitimate denomination and nobody in their right mind thinks Doug Wilson is anything more than a cosplay culture warrior.
The scripture and the character of God emphatically declare the inspiration/infallibility and inerrancy scripture .. to believe otherwise, is just unbelief
Interesting and well done. I say this as one with personal knowledge of much that happened in the Presbyterian denomination in the 20's and 30's in the sense of being a descendent of one who was a co-founder of the Bible Presbyterian Church with Dr. Carl Mcintire, whom I did know personally. My grandfather was also an understudy of J. Gresham Machen and I am in possession of a letter from him thanking my grandparents for a Christmas meal. While Dr. Machen stayed in the official Presbyterian Church until he was forced out, as did Dr. Mcintire, my grandfather left a few years earlier because of the rampant "modernism" and politicking which was destroying it at the time. He joined with Dr. Mcintire to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, the same group which sent a very young punk looking kid to Switzerland to open a ministry there. His name was Francis Schaefer... I was raised in the OP church when young and still hold to the tenets of it for the most part, the idea that Israel is not significant in this day and that the "church" has replaced it in God's plan is anathema to me. It breaks God's promise, not to Israel, but to Himself to preserve His name in Israel to the end of the ages. It didn't depend on Israel's cooperation anymore than salvation depends on ours and in effect calls God a liar. Very dangerous to do. My family has been going to Israel for four generations now, starting in 1925 with my grandparents, my parents having lived there for 10 years, all of my 4 brothers and sisters going there (three having lived there as well) and my daughter working on a dig in Megiddo 10 years ago. As a family, we have been watching Israel blossom, to grow strong as the "bones" came together and flesh returned to them. They are the ONLY ancient people driven from their land multiple times, declared destroyed and scattered throughout the world who have been driven back in the last number of decades to worship the same God, speak the same language and embrace their ancient history . If there is a noteworthy evidence to the truth of the Bible in visible form, Israel today is that evidence. They await but one refinement, one which will see most of them killed before the breath of Life comes back into that nation. I firmly believe we are relentlessly approaching that moment when in deep distress they will call once more for deliverance and God will hear. But to think the Church is Israel is repugnant beyond belief...
there are just as many cage stage anti calvinists especially from Leighton Flowers crowd I used to be a part of that and noticed the unhealthy obssession with anti Calvinism and i left that then I was saved and realized I didn't come to God of my own free will
As a life long conservative Presbyterian and member of a 100 year old independent Presbyterian Church; the OPC seemed like a good match. While the talk about biblical truths; they are much more adherents and worshipping of their book of order. After a few years of dealing with lack of community outreach and elder discouraging members from growing spiritually; we asked the OPC to leave. We invited a lovely, God fearing Pentecostal congregation to use our building. I guess we are the very first PresbyCostals. I pray for the OPC, their leaders and those depending on their book of order to get to heaven. It really is about Jesus and not elders.
Some Eastern Orthodox would prefer that "orthodox" be spelled with a little o when it is used as an adjective to describe a brand of Presbyterianism. Orthodox reject Tulip, use the Full Septuagint for their Old Testament, and look to the Seven Ecumenical Councils as authoritative. Clearly, there is no desire to be confused with any Presbyterian group on the part of the Orthodox.
With respect to our Eastern Orthodox friends, even if they believe themselves to be the one true orthodox church, it's not a realistic position to believe they have a monopoly in common parlance on all uses of the English language word 'orthodox', such that any use in any vaguely Christian context is somehow confusing. The Eastern Orthodox Church itself calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church - should we object that it would be less confusing if they used a 'little c' for Catholic, since some Catholics (Latin/Roman, or in communion with Rome) might find this an undesirable or needless confusion.
That does not stop us from cringing when the word Orthodox is used as an adjective to describe Presbyterians. As long as it is unambiguous that we are Zero Point Calvinists further to the Right than Armenians, we will be content with that.
@@claytonbenignus4688 Sorry, friend, this is a ludicrous position. Do you object to the terms 'Orthodox Jew'? What about the boxer who uses the Orthodox stance? What about the teacher whose methods are 'unorthodox' (implying there are orthodox teachers)? What about orthodox sleep (dreamless sleep)? Are you okay with orthodontics (the practice of correcting abnormalities in teeth, making sure teeth follow an orthodox pattern)? You'd be as well telling me that you object to the word 'blue' or the word 'the'. The 'Orthodox' in 'Orthodox Presbysterian' doesn't refer to being part of the Orthodox church. It means that the manner in which they observe Presbysterianism is orthodox in nature according to the definition of Presbysterianism - it's an orthodox practice of Presbysterianism, in the same way that my practice of the cello, pole vaulting, typing, surgery, accounting, Dutch clog dancing or basically anything else on Earth can be deemed orthodox or unorthodox in nature. Your battle here is with the English language (or language as a whole).
If Jesus quoted and resisted satan with the word... and since the Holy Spirit can preserve that source in and perverted world... then, I have tested Joshua 1:8, Psalm 1, James 1... and found my cup runneth over now that I can see God's Way, I can be wise in my decisions in life by going the Way of the Father and the Son. The world wants to deceive the believer that what we have in the English translation of the letters and gospels is not to be trusted. Just pray that your eyes will be opened so you can see what is the great mystery that has been hidden from men but has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostle and prophets. Without God's true Word in a new creations life... a new believer could be deceived by that evil and imposter who has, like Janes and Jambres, who resist the truth. Men of corrupt minds, disapoved concerning the faith. Having a form of Godliness but dening the Power. And from such people, turn away. But they will progress no further. For their folly will be manifested to all. Ones morals dictate ones theology.
Jesus was born a Jew and died of Jew so so by that definition Paul's religion was not the same as Jesus his religion certainly was based on Jesus teachings and what he viewed as further inspiration by Jesus to the Holy Spirit having said that there is distinct differences between what Jesus taught and Paul taught as there is between Paul what Paul taught and James or Paul taught and Peter the differences were not strong enough to be even viewed as denominational differences but there were differences
What is your view on churches that allow un-repentant homosexuals in unholy same sex marriages to become preachers or deacons and administer the Eucharists. Somehow it seems like they are thumbing their noses at God to me.
Due to him maintaining a neutral point of view on this channel, he's not going to answer that. But I would agree that they are defying God and it's questionable whether such places of worship can still be considered churches. Due to Joshua being a teacher at a Baptist seminary though, it's unlikely that he would approve personally.
@@RepublicofE Thank you for your honesty. That is exactly why we bailed out of the episcopal church and from what I understand, the lutheran and methodist churches aren't much better.
@@johns1834 The LCMS is pretty solid. That's my domination and the one I would most recommend. The ACNA was founded as the socially conservative alternative to the Episcopal Church. However, I would advise staying away from any denomination that ordains women, and some of their dioceses do. If you really want an Anglican church, your best bet would be one of the Continuing Anglican denominations that have now completely broken communion with the Anglican Communion and don't ordain women at all. They are also more consistent at teaching a bodily real presence in the Lord's Supper. They all entered into full communion with each other in 2017, however they still consist of about four or five different denominations and I'm not sure if they are planning on merging into one. It's hard to find locations for them as there is no universal Continuing Anglican church locator that I know of and I believe put together they only have about 200 congregations in the United States and Canada. The PCA is pretty solid on most things, however I would caution against joining any church that officially teaches that Jesus literally did not die for everyone. The Global Methodist Church is planning to split from the United Methodists over same-sex marriage. However they will still ordain women, and again that's something to stay away from.
13:35 The Gospel is NOT offered to the lost -- nor to the elect -- because the Gospel is a PROCLAMATION asserting that something is OBJECTIVELY true. The Gospel is NOT an "offer" or "invitation," as if truth is conditional upon my will choosing or not choosing. When one chooses, he does so because he ALREADY BELIEVES. But one is saved by BELIEVING something NEW that he didn't believe before. And that occurs by a Power OUTSIDE of himself, the Holy Spirit of Truth.
As for Israel not being significant, they really should not be taking scripture out of context. Their stand against Israel would explain why they are failing. The gifts of the Spirit are also still active, for them that believe. It's amazing how these denominations take a word and use it to twist scripture.
It is not biblical to dismiss the nation of Israel out of hand as said at 16:50. The so-called "Old Testament" didn't just fade away when the Holy Blood was spilled. Jesus fulfilled the Law and Israel is stronger as a result and will be the centre of the universe in the end. And the Sabbath has always been - and will always be - on the seventh day (Malachi 3:6).
You're surprised that people who believe in the worship of the Holy One of Israel and Creator of the cosmos, and the organization of the church He founded, might aspire to a greater level of discipline than a golf club? (Incidentally, the number of 'rules' here hardly stands out as unique among the various denominations and traditions discussed on this channel).
This is not hard - "For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?" Single men ought not be elders, let alone start denominations. The test of having a right sense of proportion and priorities, to lead the church, is... wait for it... having a wife you consult.
The Bible has no evidence that Jesus ever wanted to offer salvation or his teachings to anyone but the Jews. How does the Presbyterian Church explain this to all of those who are offered salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? If we look back to the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, there is no salvation through Jesus. I believe that is why Jesus is not part of the Jewish religion.
@@edwardbohrer9474 "The most holy Roman church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." -- Council of Florence, A.D. 1444
I've read Christianity and Liberalism. Machen is spot on. The book might be 99 years old, but it may as well have been written last month, it is so fitting for today.
As a member of an OPC church...Very well done.
Faith OPC (Garland Texas)
What’s the difference between the opc and the pca? I’m just learning about what the reformed church is like. I’ve been in nondenominational charismatic churches until now.
OPC is much stricter on confessional standards. In the PCA you have a wide net of homosexual-identifying pastors, reparations advocates, pro-feminism, a lot of Bethel/Hillsong worship, and COVID mandates in worship / COVID worship cancellation.
OPC is trending slightly leftward because of the toleration of feminism but is generally confessionally solid on the other issues.
@@anarchocapitalist Faith OPC Fawn Grove Pa.
@Jason Shoots unlike the other churches lacking faith, love, and belief in the scriptures.
This is very helpful. I’m thinking of visiting a OPC Church this weekend. I started listening to a podcast called reformed forum and found that there was a church about 15 minutes from me. Just wanted to learn more about the OPC b4 we went.
Thank you for providing an accurate and faithful presentation of this faithful God loving and honoring body of believers. I'm a member of a PCA church but my views are more in line with the OPC, I wish there was an OPC congregation near me. And oh, by the way, thanks for presenting the Gospel during this review! :)
Out of curiosity, what specifically do you favor about the OPC over the PCA?
@@RepublicofE Don't get me wrong, I love my PCA church and am thankful for it, but there are elements of the OPC I find to be more Biblically faithful for instance their faithful observance of the 4th commandment. I think they are more consistent with regulative worship. I also don't hear for any "wokeism" happening in the OPC as it is creeping into some of the PCA sessions such as the Missouri Valley Presbytery.
"Faithfull and honoring" .... ya gotta own some warts. In my town, the OPC has scattered wreaked souls and families in abundance. I just want to warn others, I don't give a rip about you.
Thank you very much for this. I’m a lifelong member of the OPC, and I’ve been waiting for it. My dad was a pastor in the denomination for almost 40 years, and my uncle worked for Great Commission Publications. Very well done. You summed up the denomination’s positions exactly.
Let me know how this works is it global church?
@@hopeantoinenzayisenga7307 Yes, it is a global church, though it may be called by a different name in other countries. We have churches and missionaries from South America to Africa to Asia to Europe. We believe that God has called us to spread the gospel at all people.
@@bakingbythebook1404 Where is the headquarter?
@@hopeantoinenzayisenga7307 They are headquartered in Philadelphia in the US.
As a Reformed Baptist I love the OPC and Dr. Machen. The men he influenced were the men who carried the torch of Biblical inerrancy in the last half of the previous century (RC Sproul being chief among them).
I’m truly blessed that in the Lord’s providence He’s lead me to a local OPC after leaving my former non denominational church .
Me too
always love these videos, you truly have an awesome job to get to research and teach this to us! Thank You!
I’m from the Appalachian mountains of eastern Kentucky. One denomination that’s pretty large in our area is the Old Regular Baptist. I’m a Pentecostal pastor so of course I don’t go to one. But been a part of many funerals they have done. Trust me. It’s COMPLETELY Different than any denomination I’ve seen. Love to see a video on them. Their singing is “lined”. Someone will sing “amazing grace how sweet the sound” then the entire congregation will belt it out. The reason is because years ago, most couldn’t read so the one that could lined the songs.
Check out Neon Reformed Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Neon, KY. I was a member in that dear church for many years before I became an ordained minister in the OPC and moved by membership to the Presbytery of the Southwest.
I'm currently a member of Neon Reformed Presbyterian Church. We would love to have you come worship with us. 10 AM and 5:30 PM Sundays, downtown Neon Ky.
My wife and I are hoping to be at Neon RPC sometime in the early New Year! They are such a loving welcoming body of believers! 10/10 would recommend
You are such a blessing praise God for this channel you are informing people of Truth in other churches thank you thank you so much it really is important to know what other churches believe
Thanks!
Excellent presentation, sir. You have a clear radio voice.
Thank you! I have been hoping that you would research the OPC and share with us.
I think that would be outside the scope of his "encyclopedia" videos.
Excellent research and presentation of the basic organization and beliefs of the OPC. Thank you!
Great video!! Thanks for all the hard work!! Just waiting for the URCNA
This is an excellent description of this denomination.
Good stuff. My denomination (United Reformed Church in North America) has very close ties with the OPC.
Love these videos I'm currently looking for a good church but so many different denominations! It's hard to check out even one
Please do a video on the RPCNA (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America)
Planning on this in 2023.
I grew up OPC. I saw a lot of fighting over complicated theologic issues and church splits. Never learned the Bible because of the the deep theological issues. I'm learning now.
Finally a reasonable explanation for Cessationism.
I attended an OPC church during college. It was interesting because, until then, I didn't know much about denominations. Clearly that changed: I'm a subscriber to your channel. The church was a nice small church surrounded by both a PCA and a PCUSA church, and they were much larger. It was during a search for a new pastor, that I discovered (from a candidate pastor) just how bigoted some Christians could be. It was very eye opening to me.
Very interesting. It seems to me that in the last couple of decades liberal theology has been replaced by social action churches. I'd be interested if you could speak to this.
A really interesting comparison would be between Independent Baptists and Reformed Baptists, because they have on the one hand such strong similarities and yet on the other hand such stark differences.
I learned just how pivotal baptism being done is for practically ALL denominations.
3:55, Statement of the OPC.
I’m confused ….@4:00 PCA becomes OPC in 1939 so they could avoid the lawsuit. And yet there are PCA churches to this day…where do they fit in/come from?
they are separate
Pca was created much later, the reason they're separated though both similar is because the PCA churches are very southern for the most part.
@@jdkayak7868 there had been talk of merging.
The PCA of 1936 was the Presbyterian Church OF America, changing its name in 1939 to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The current PCA is the Presbyterian Church IN America, and started in 1973. I think that's what you were asking about. Two different denominations with very similar, but different, names and the same initials.
@@philpockras4408 Thanks:)
This Carl McIntyre you describe in 3.42 sowed the seeds of division and rebellion in my own church in India, the Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church of Kerala with its hq in Pulatheen near Thiruvalla resulting in the establishment of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India in 1961.
McIntire started a church in India?
@@williampaulbeaugruendler7901 Exactly a villain for many in Kerala, 🇮🇳
He lived nearby and I would go to the same barbershop as I did so I would see him occasionally. I never spoke to him.
Good job as always. Could explain what is meant by hyper Calvinism?
Exactly my question. I think it may be what the primitive Baptists believe (I'm not to sure though) which is where they don't believe in missionary (because those who God will call don't actually need to hear the bible) and other stuff like that.
I know that the Westboro Baptists are described as hyper-Calvinist on Wikipedia.
I'm unsure what it means myself.
@@RepublicofE after looking into it, I believe that hyper Calvinism is the Belief that God controls everything in life. So no need to preach as God will save who he wants anyways and stuff like that.
@@juffjim4437 Thanks for looking that up for us and providing the explanation.
@@edwardwright4633 God does control everything, but the hyper calvinists think that this a good reason to not evangelize. It isn’t. Regular Calvinists affirm that God controls everything, but do not believe that that is a reason to forgo evangelization or to not engage in conscious choice, even though God has controlled, does control, and will control everything always
Help me here. Romans 5:14-21 makes it clear that Adam's transgression and condemnation resulted in death coming upon all his race. I do not see in this text that we became "guilty" of Adam's sin, only that we suffer the consequence thereof. In contrast, belonging to Christ, the same humans receive the promise of everlasting life to come. Our Reformed friends must look elsewhere to find proof of their theological doctrine of total depravity. Or do they?
You've pretty much explained Eastern Orthodox theology on this subject, which I agree with
Dr Leighton Flowers goes over this kn his channel, soteriology 101. He is a theologian who dissgrees with calvinism, renaming "traditionalism" into "provisionism". Basically he gives the argument, from a protestant perspective, as to why the calvinists are wrong.
So you believe people have no sin nature and theoretically a person could live a perfect life and merit Heaven by their own goodness? I thought all Christians held to total depravity. Unlike the U, L and the P of TULIP ( I forget what the I stands for), the T is essential to being a Christian. Without the T you don't believe you have any need for God, no need for Jesus' sacrifice. As through one man Adam all sinned. AND I find this law at work I do what I do not want to do. What a wretched man I am! How can you be a Christian and not believe in Total depravity?
Great summary! Thank you!
I have been in the OPC for 25 years, and none of the pastors I know hold to the Westminster view of the Sabbath. I believe that there is a provision for not adhering to the Westminster view when ordaining officers, provided the candidate has a defensible, different view of the Sabbath from scripture.
Could you perhaps give an example of the kind of Sabbath position they might hold instead. I'm Scottish Presbyterian, where we have wholly informal ties to the OPC going back decades, and for us this would be a highly unusual and controversial position (possibly a discipline or suspension matter) for any minister to hold. Not passing judgment either way, it's a topic I'm interested in myself and am unsure where I stand.
@@Mic1904 I can give you my position; however, I am not ordained, just a layman. I believe that Hebrews 4 teaches that Jesus is our perpetual sabbath. His work is finished. The OT sabbath was a day for remembering that Israel's work was not finished, but at the end of it, rest would come. Christ, the True Israel, finished the work of redemption, and now we are resting in his finished work.
In Colossians 2:16, Paul list three types of days about which no one should pass judgement on you: a festival, a new moon, or a sabbath. Some argue that the sabbath that Paul is referring to is not the weekly sabbath. However, that misses the construction of Paul's sentence. "Festivals" were annual events. "New moons" were monthly events. And sabbaths were ... *not* weekly events? No, Paul is saying that whether or not you choose to keep the annual feasts, the monthly celebrations or the weekly sabbath is up to you.
Whenever the word "sabbath" is used in the NT, it refers to Saturday (with the exception of Hebrews 4:9, which uses a word-form for "sabbath" not found anywhere else in the Bible). When Paul says in 1 Cor. 16 to take up a collection on the first day of the week, he doesn't call it the sabbath.
In Acts 15, when the Jerusalem Council had to determine what parts of the Jewish law the Gentil Christians should keep in order to keep peace with the Jews, that would have been an optimal time to tell the Gentiles to keep the weekly Sabbath. But they didn't.
I can't find any support in scripture for changing the sabbath to Sunday, nor do I find any command in the NT for Christians to keep a weekly sabbath. In the OT, there is no record of anyone keeping a sabbath prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments; so the idea that it was a creation ordinance is flimsy, IMO.
But what about the Fourth Commandment? Aren't the Ten Commandments the moral law? In my opinion, no. The Jews never divided the Law into moral, civil and ceremonial. Christians did that later when trying to determine which of the OT laws Christians should keep. Somewhere, someone decided that the Ten Commandments were the "moral" law, but I don't find support for that in scripture.
So, then, what is the Christian's obligation regarding worship? Hebrews 10:25 obliges us to meet together. History tells us that the early church met on Sunday instead of Saturday. And John uses the interesting expression "Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10. That Greek phrase is not found anywhere else in scripture, but it would seem to indicate the day of Christian worship.
So, I believe that the Christian worships everyday, that he rests in the finish work of Christ everyday, and that the church has traditionally gathered for corporate worship on Sunday, the Lord's Day, which we are commanded not to forsake. But after the morning worship service, I see no reason for not enjoying a ball game, eating at a restaurant, working around the house, mowing the lawn, etc.
My comments are brief, but I highly recommend this book, if you want 400 pages of better explanations. www.amazon.com/Sabbath-Lords-Day-Theological-Investigation/dp/1579103073
No, they are required to hold to the Confessions, Members are not however.
@@BatMite19 doesn't the OPC hold to an 8th day sabbath? that is why its on sunday, the 8th day?
@@tomtemple69 The OPC holds to the Westminster Confession view of the Sabbath. However, pastors and elders may be ordained at the discretion of the local presbytery if they hold a different view. All of the elders at the OPC churches where I have attended hold moreso to the Continental view, or the Heidelberg view.
Seems very accurate and biblically based. Only disagreement with them would be their reformed theology
u need to shed that dispensationalist pre trib rapture belief lol
I like the OPC. I strongly disagree with infant baptism (I’m saying this after having been baptized as a convert earlier today!) but in most other issues they seem extremely solid, and I wouldn’t discount the things produced by those in the denomination.
You can always come to a Baptist church (not SBC or Free Will Baptist). We don’t baptize babies.
I used to as well. I am now convinced that covenant baptism is correct but it took a bit of time looking at the broad flow of scripture rather than zeroing in only on proof texts.
@@claryp1509 No, only Arminian theology. maybe particular baptist.
@@mkshffr4936 yup I grew up charismatic Pentecostal, my church taught baptism is after profession of faith and has to be in living water like a river/creek, not still water
it wasn't until I heard a presbyterian explain it and looking at the Bible as a whole, not separating from the old testament, I'm more convinced of infant baptism of believers children
baptism does not save, nor is it called a "sign" of faith
a huge % of people just abhor it since catholics do it even though they don't understand WHY catholics baptize babies
Here’s one way to put it: We OPCers baptize infants because it rests entirely on God and His covenant performance alone, not on our agreement with it.
How about a video on Predestination?
well done, is there any better church in the US, to combat theological liberalism?
Very neat! Thank you!
Now if this was the stuff our minister based his sermons on I would have paid more attention. I remember we had a visiting minister that had a PhD in divinity and he gave a doctrinal/historical sermon and I loved it, but then we had to go back to the farmer who was called, and I went back to catching zzzs. (In my home, before the age of 18, Sunday service attendance was not optional, even if you worked the night shift until 8 am that morning.)
I love your videos. Can you cover the Chinese Bible Church. Its fast growing in the bay area and east coast.
I met McIntyre decades ago, when he was quite old,even though I'm not a Presbyterian
LOL, I knew him personally in the 1960's and afterwards...
@@cdc3 Really? I never got to meet him. What was he like to know?
@@ChrisJones-ij3xp He was an associate of my grandfather in the start up of the Bible Presbyterian Church. In fact, there's a photo on line of the group with my grandfather standing next to Dr. McIntyre center top. Down in the very left hand corner there's a young guy with an apparent attitude. The name listed for him is Francis A. Schaeffer. They are the men who sent Schaeffer to Switzerland.
Dr. McIntyre was definitely a "commanding presence" and tended (from my young perspective) to push people into service that he saw fit for them. He was rather tall, authoritative and certain of his opinions, but that's often what makes a leader in movement.
At the time, I was myself considering a ministry within the denomination, but was barely into college at that point in time. He was rather enthusiastic about the idea. He, as well as the rest of the pastors I knew in the BP Church were sticklers on doctrine and required a strong conservative apologetic for what they preached. It was not always correct in my opinion, but it was far better than the general Presbyterian perspective of the time and light years separated from the Liberal denominations. Education, a very broad education in languages, doctrine, comparative religions and the like were highly valued by these men, as was truth as they saw it. Not much more can be asked other than the most central need of loving God and then loving your fellow man.
When my grandad died in 1970, it was Carl McIntyre who led the service for him. They had remained good friends for at least 40 years by that point.
Used to see him frequently in the barber shop in Collingswood, NJ way back in the 1980s. The little Italian guy who cut his hair had no idea who he was.
Did I mess something? Where is the information on Machen, his sermon, and the movement that followed?
Joshua, why not do some research and a video on the continuing influence of Robert L Dabney?
I’ve not really understood the extra warning to an unbeliever to not approach the table; they have the doctrine of hell coming to deceased unbelievers anyway, so what is this?
Love your channel!!!
Thanks! Very helpful.
An upload at 1 a.m.?? Oh my.
So what exactly is the difference between a Reformed Baptist, vs a conservative Presbyterian who rejects infant baptism?
Hard to say what such a person may hold as their personal views, but obviously if they reject infant baptism, they are not in alignment with the views of the Presbyterian church (even if the church, like the OPC does, allows them to stay)
Other differences would be that they are participating in a church with a different church government structure than the Baptist ones have (more accountability over local congregations) and that they are also in a church that is less likely to be premillennial and almost certainly not dispensationalist (while some Reformed people with credobaptist convictions are dispensationalists, like John MacArthur).
@@ReadyToHarvest Just to clarify Presbyterian polity has more accountability than the Congregational polity of the typical Baptist church.
@@mkshffr4936 Yes, that's what I was trying to say but my answer is a bit ambiguously worded.
Presbyterian here, with many wonderful Reformed Baptist friends. I would say a conservative Presbyterian who rejects infant baptism is a Reformed Baptist who hasn't realised it yet ;)
I'm not saying it's totally and utterly impossible that someone could ever accept all the tenants of Presbyterian governance and tradition and other Presbyterian distinctives but just extract and dispose of the infant baptism bit, but I genuinely think it would be rare and difficult. Baptism is such a fundamental and defining issue about who you believe is and isn't part of the visible church and covenant that has domino-effect consequences on all sorts of other matters about what you think a church is and how it should be structured and operated, that I believe it's very difficult to knowingly get rid of such a foundational element but keep the rest of the structure intact. Many of the people I've met attending Presbyterian churches who hold to Baptist views on baptism rarely actually fully understand many of the important Presbyterian distinctives and their roots in paedobaptist doctrine (and I say that without any judgment - there's lots I don't know about lots of things, and many of them will still be Godlier and better servants of the Lord than I).
@@Mic1904 Very well said. Many people quite naturally think in terms of compartmentalized doctrines and proof texting with scripture verses. I know that when I was Baptistic Arminio-Dispy I had that general orientation.
One of the really transformative aspects of my shift to the Reformed perspective was that I began to understand and internalize the comprehensive covenant perspective and how it all related to the cohesive flow of scripture and redemptive history as well as the interconnection of all doctrine.
I will no doubt be ever learning and growing but that change of perspective was huge.
EARLY MORNING LAUNCH! WOOOOOOOOO!
As someone from an Eastern Orthodox region, watching this video and thinking about this denomination's name made me wonder whether or not concepts developed in post-Protestant Reformation denominations have any ground in Eastern Orthodox contexts, and by that I mean concepts such as 'presbyterian' or 'congregationalist' polities, Wesleyan/Methodist practice, quaker practice, adult-only baptism ala anabaptists, etc. - stuff that may or may not contradict with Eastern Orthodox theology, in contrast to the stuff from post-Protestant Reformation denominations that explicitly contradicts Eastern Orthodox theology. For example, 'presbyter' in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy generally refers to the priest, so would an 'orthodox presbyterian church' in the Eastern Orthodox context just cut the number of ordained clergy from 3 to 2 (presbyters and deacons) and be functionally identical to episcopal polities, or would it seen more similarities with the Protestant intepretation of presbyterian polities?
I don't know whether a video exploring this would be feasible, but it would be interesting to see!
its called orothodox because they base every single tradition by what the whole Bible says
that is why they baptize infants
it's nice to see this church split off to truly pursue god's word without liberal infiltration
“I’m taking my Bible and going down the street and start a new Church and if that don’t work repeat.” The history of Protestantism in one sentence! 🌺☦️🌺
Not how that works. But how's your current schism going, friend?
An extremely biblical and based denomination. If ever I move to the US, this sounds like a church where I would feel right at home.
When I think orthodox, I'm reminded of what Henry Ford said about the first cars, any color as long as it's black.
Excellent 💜
I'm trying very hard to keep up, Joshua... And we still have about 45,000 more Protestant denominations to cover.
Ah, the old '45,000' number (and its variants). Fear not! An entirely made-up number. Although I grant you, Joshua still has a lot to get through as he makes his way through everything worldwide that calls itself Christendom :P
@@Mic1904 Okay, 20,000? 5,000? Even 1,000 would still be a lot to cover. What is a more accurate number you think?
@@Troy-Moses Fact is, all of the 20,000, 30,000, 33,000, 40,000, 50,000 type numbers are made up, come from faulty (ridiculous) sources, and were always meant to include all of Christendom (including thousands of Catholic and Orthodox 'denominations', faultily counted) as well as alleged Protestants.
The real number isn't something we have a particular clear figure for, nor would one even necessarily be an accurate portrayal of how Protestants view what the Church is (e.g. I worship in a Presbyterian church, my friend worships in a Baptist church, we identify each other as part of the universal, catholic and orthodox Church of Jesus Christ).
But, I certainly enjoy Joshua's videos, no doubts there! And denominational differences are well worth investigating, but sometimes the differences will be no greater than cultural and local ecclesiastical differences found amongst, say, different liturgical rites of the Catholic Church, or rites of the Orthodox Church, who still see their fellow rites as part of the same Church, communion and fellowship.
@@Mic1904 Yes, I'm familiar with that broad view of the Church, and to a certain degree understand why Protestantism focusses on the similarities we all share, and use that as the unifying factor to define the boundaries of the Church. However, it begs to question: Is this view historically authentic? When and where did it originate? When I was first confronted with this question well over twelve years ago, I could no longer remain within the Protestant sphere; and here is why: the earliest Christians had a well-defined boundary of the Church as a living Organism -- no grey areas...
I would encourage you to listen to or read Cyprian of Carthage's treatise, On the Unity of the Church, if you haven't already.
Though I sometimes poke fun at my Protestant friends, (as I did above,) I respect all struggling Christians; but am bound to implore them that there is something much, much more, which is only found in Orthodoxy.
@@Troy-Moses Appreciate your thoughts on this. Briefly, if I may:
"However, it begs to question: Is this view historically authentic?"
The common misconception is that Protestantism brashly invented itself as a brand new innovation 500 years ago after 1,500 years of unbroken continuity of doctrine (or, I guess maybe just 1,000 years if you're Orthodox), but the whole point of a question like, 'Is it historically authentic' is that the answer is typically, 'Well, the Reformers clearly thought so and gave their reasons why'. I've rarely seen two Church authors from the time period quote and examine the Early Church Fathers more than Luther and Calvin. While the accusation is that by differing with the Catholic Church of the 1500s, Luther and Calvin automatically differed with the continuous doctrine of the Early Church, the whole point of their position is that they and their contemporaries as Catholics were the ones who had slowly deviated from the faith of the Early Church and it was their desire to return to such a thing: to Reform. As an Orthodox, you face a number of the same issues that a Protestant does in having to face down accusations that doctrines like Papal Supremacy are historically authentic doctrines found in the very foundation of the Church, so simply making a sweeping claim about something being the view of the Church is, as we both know, not really accurate enough. We can all make a fairly good stab at claiming something as historically authentic if we quote-mine enough of the Fathers and massage a few things into our preconceived worldview.
"the earliest Christians had a well-defined boundary of the Church as a living Organism -- no grey areas..."
I mean, any statement that starts with 'the earliest Christians thought X, Y or Z' as a monolith is already beginning from shaky ground (and feels like a common and necessary starting point that many an Orthodox and Catholic argument has to start from), but yes, not only is this an obvious and inoffensive thing to state about the Church, it's also what Protestants affirm. There is no grey area with us. The church is the church, and outside of it, there is no salvation.
There is little I'd disagree with in Cyprian. Indeed, there's often surprisingly little I'd disagree with in most Church Fathers (there will, of course, be some disagreement, since they sometimes disagreed with one another and cannot always be correct on all things while holding differing viewpoints from one another) - though how such matters are interpreted through the lens of the Church in different centuries (including today, in 2022) is certainly a different matter entirely. While Cyprian is obviously right to highlight the dire need for unity in the faith and the consequences of members spiritually starving to death outside of the one Church, literally any Christian of any tradition or denomination can identify the necessary limits of this instruction, for Cyprian himself would surely recognise the need to root out error and to separate oneself from erroneous teaching. Any Orthodox person who decries the needless schism of Protestant denominations must themselves recognise that there are, indeed, justified requirements for separation, else they themselves wouldn't have excommunicated the Bishop of Rome and separated themselves from the West in 1054 (if this sounds accusatory of the Orthodox, it's not - if anything, I lean towards the East on this argument - but if we insist that Protestants are schismatics from the same Church that you yourself are in schism with, I'm not sure how that's going to work...)
That's all good with me - I fully accept poking in my direction, and I am known to poke back sometimes. No offense taken. God bless!
Correction: The book of church order DOES require members to baptize their infants.
Citation please?
This video reminded me that there are many subjects for which there are two popular (and generally considered opposite) beliefs. I some cases, I agree with one of those beliefs but, on several subjects, my personal study of the Bible and church history has led me to I think both of the most popular ways of explaining those subjects are inadequate to explain my personal understanding.
IF, for example, THE Calvinist position is that Jesus didn't die for the sins of every human, I don't agree with that AND IF THE Arminian position is that we are saved by our decisions, I don't agree with that either. (Of course, it may be that I misunderstand Calvin, Arminius or both.)
Ah, then you are a Confessional Lutheran, at least in your soteriology!
@@CornCod1 I've never been able to reconcile the five solae with the use of creeds and catechisms. (Of course, someone who reads for himself, studies for himself and thinks for himself is an heretic almost by definition.)
@@rogermetzger7335 it is very simple really. Creeds are not a primary source but rather a summation of the biblical teaching on core doctrines. Somewhat like a cliff's notes that is used as a reminder and public confession.
The scripture itself is the source of the creed. Sola scriptura defines the final authority.
Do one in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, please.
Planning on this in 2023.
@@ReadyToHarvest Thank you, sir!
Can you do a video on the Coptic church it’s part of the oriental orthodoxy.
He's done some material on Oriental Orthodoxy. The main problem is that not enough has been written on Coptic Christianity in English.
@@thursoberwick1948 I know but it be really nice to do a separate video for them/us
@@akirafudo4419 It is definitely a subject I am interested in, but yes, there is a language barrier with much of it. I am amazed (and pleased) that the Copts have survived in an often hostile enviromment..
@@thursoberwick1948 I’m a convert but my friends are all Coptic both ethnically,religiously. And they told most of the time it’s peaceful but physical or verbal harassment isn’t rare but more Extreme and violent cases are rarer. But one of my friends lived though the 2008 riots and pogrom as a young girl.
Born and raised in the OPC.
Have he ever mention what church denomination he is?
I think he said SBC
He's an independent baptist
Hey ! You down with OPC!
You know me!
I've never understood the Presbyterian claim that the governing body owns the local church property and you lose the property if you leave the denomination. It's another example of the dictatorial actions of all Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Nowhere does it say anything in the Bible about the denominations keeping the property.
That's just a unique administrative quirk and has nothing to do with doctrines. Maybe some American denominations do that but I've never heard that here in Kenya
@@MrGTO86 Very common in Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. They want to control everything and own everything. One of the many reasons I left the Reformed Church in the US.
@@GermanShepherd1983 Not common in OPC
I am CREC but would be very comfortable in the OPC.
Do you believe in Federal Vision and if not are you comfortable with all the Federal Visionists in CREC?
@@innovationhq8230 That is not really a thing as far as I can tell. In fact it is almost impossible to define as it encompasses a wide variety of views that came out of the FV conference. Some of the well known teachers such as Doug Wilson don't even really use the term anymore. Rather than try to define the term I simply listen to their actual sermons as I would any other and check it with scripture.
I have yet to find anything that our local pastor teaches that is not completely orthodox and what I have seen of Pastor Doug when taken in context seems to be pretty straight. I have certainly found less erroneous teaching than I had to contend with in other evangelical churches of which I have been a part.
@@mkshffr4936 Doug has certainly tried to gloss over his heterodox beliefs by focusing on cultural war. It’s a great recruiting tool to his dominionist theonomic cause. He will never be a Presbyterian though because he’d have to stop the double speak, have a proper ordination, and be accountable.
@@wcfbradenton4591 You are not the only one making such vague accusations.
@@mkshffr4936You people think you're so clever playing dumb. Nobody in their right mind accepts the CREC as a legitimate denomination and nobody in their right mind thinks Doug Wilson is anything more than a cosplay culture warrior.
So, five-pointers...
The scripture and the character of God emphatically declare the inspiration/infallibility and inerrancy scripture .. to believe otherwise, is just unbelief
Interesting and well done. I say this as one with personal knowledge of much that happened in the Presbyterian denomination in the 20's and 30's in the sense of being a descendent of one who was a co-founder of the Bible Presbyterian Church with Dr. Carl Mcintire, whom I did know personally. My grandfather was also an understudy of J. Gresham Machen and I am in possession of a letter from him thanking my grandparents for a Christmas meal.
While Dr. Machen stayed in the official Presbyterian Church until he was forced out, as did Dr. Mcintire, my grandfather left a few years earlier because of the rampant "modernism" and politicking which was destroying it at the time. He joined with Dr. Mcintire to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, the same group which sent a very young punk looking kid to Switzerland to open a ministry there. His name was Francis Schaefer...
I was raised in the OP church when young and still hold to the tenets of it for the most part, the idea that Israel is not significant in this day and that the "church" has replaced it in God's plan is anathema to me. It breaks God's promise, not to Israel, but to Himself to preserve His name in Israel to the end of the ages. It didn't depend on Israel's cooperation anymore than salvation depends on ours and in effect calls God a liar. Very dangerous to do.
My family has been going to Israel for four generations now, starting in 1925 with my grandparents, my parents having lived there for 10 years, all of my 4 brothers and sisters going there (three having lived there as well) and my daughter working on a dig in Megiddo 10 years ago. As a family, we have been watching Israel blossom, to grow strong as the "bones" came together and flesh returned to them. They are the ONLY ancient people driven from their land multiple times, declared destroyed and scattered throughout the world who have been driven back in the last number of decades to worship the same God, speak the same language and embrace their ancient history . If there is a noteworthy evidence to the truth of the Bible in visible form, Israel today is that evidence. They await but one refinement, one which will see most of them killed before the breath of Life comes back into that nation. I firmly believe we are relentlessly approaching that moment when in deep distress they will call once more for deliverance and God will hear.
But to think the Church is Israel is repugnant beyond belief...
I think my grandfather might have been the politicking running for senate around that time DKH.
I had a lot of OPC friends. There are a lot of "cage-stage" Calvinists and they embrace the Puritan name, Mathers and all.
I find there to be a lot of "cage stage" Arminians as well. It is not unique to Calvinists.
there are just as many cage stage anti calvinists especially from Leighton Flowers crowd
I used to be a part of that and noticed the unhealthy obssession with anti Calvinism and i left that
then I was saved and realized I didn't come to God of my own free will
There is no equal to Machen now. Maybe one will appear.
As a life long conservative Presbyterian and member of a 100 year old independent Presbyterian Church; the OPC seemed like a good match. While the talk about biblical truths; they are much more adherents and worshipping of their book of order. After a few years of dealing with lack of community outreach and elder discouraging members from growing spiritually; we asked the OPC to leave. We invited a lovely, God fearing Pentecostal congregation to use our building. I guess we are the very first PresbyCostals. I pray for the OPC, their leaders and those depending on their book of order to get to heaven. It really is about Jesus and not elders.
you are generalizing all of them based on one congregation?
haha i thought this would be a strange crossover between the orthodox and presbyterian church
There have been one or two churches out of the Orthodox tradition who have evolved parallel to Protestantism.
@@thursoberwick1948 interesting
Fragmentation is the fate of protestantism.
Lots of of Catholic schisms.
Semper reformanda. The pope is apostate.
Sedevacantism? Antipopes? Your current leader has forced abortion-derived jags on everyone working in the Vatican.
Some Eastern Orthodox would prefer that "orthodox" be spelled with a little o when it is used as an adjective to describe a brand of Presbyterianism. Orthodox reject Tulip, use the Full Septuagint for their Old Testament, and look to the Seven Ecumenical Councils as authoritative. Clearly, there is no desire to be confused with any Presbyterian group on the part of the Orthodox.
In this case though it is not an adjective, it is a proper noun.
@@ReadyToHarvest True... English 101.
With respect to our Eastern Orthodox friends, even if they believe themselves to be the one true orthodox church, it's not a realistic position to believe they have a monopoly in common parlance on all uses of the English language word 'orthodox', such that any use in any vaguely Christian context is somehow confusing. The Eastern Orthodox Church itself calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church - should we object that it would be less confusing if they used a 'little c' for Catholic, since some Catholics (Latin/Roman, or in communion with Rome) might find this an undesirable or needless confusion.
That does not stop us from cringing when the word Orthodox is used as an adjective to describe Presbyterians. As long as it is unambiguous that we are Zero Point Calvinists further to the Right than Armenians, we will be content with that.
@@claytonbenignus4688 Sorry, friend, this is a ludicrous position. Do you object to the terms 'Orthodox Jew'? What about the boxer who uses the Orthodox stance? What about the teacher whose methods are 'unorthodox' (implying there are orthodox teachers)? What about orthodox sleep (dreamless sleep)? Are you okay with orthodontics (the practice of correcting abnormalities in teeth, making sure teeth follow an orthodox pattern)? You'd be as well telling me that you object to the word 'blue' or the word 'the'. The 'Orthodox' in 'Orthodox Presbysterian' doesn't refer to being part of the Orthodox church. It means that the manner in which they observe Presbysterianism is orthodox in nature according to the definition of Presbysterianism - it's an orthodox practice of Presbysterianism, in the same way that my practice of the cello, pole vaulting, typing, surgery, accounting, Dutch clog dancing or basically anything else on Earth can be deemed orthodox or unorthodox in nature. Your battle here is with the English language (or language as a whole).
If Jesus quoted and resisted satan with the word... and since the Holy Spirit can preserve that source in and perverted world... then, I have tested Joshua 1:8, Psalm 1, James 1... and found my cup runneth over now that I can see God's Way, I can be wise in my decisions in life by going the Way of the Father and the Son. The world wants to deceive the believer that what we have in the English translation of the letters and gospels is not to be trusted. Just pray that your eyes will be opened so you can see what is the great mystery that has been hidden from men but has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostle and prophets. Without God's true Word in a new creations life... a new believer could be deceived by that evil and imposter who has, like Janes and Jambres, who resist the truth. Men of corrupt minds, disapoved concerning the faith. Having a form of Godliness but dening the Power. And from such people, turn away. But they will progress no further. For their folly will be manifested to all. Ones morals dictate ones theology.
Jesus was born a Jew and died of Jew so so by that definition Paul's religion was not the same as Jesus his religion certainly was based on Jesus teachings and what he viewed as further inspiration by Jesus to the Holy Spirit having said that there is distinct differences between what Jesus taught and Paul taught as there is between Paul what Paul taught and James or Paul taught and Peter the differences were not strong enough to be even viewed as denominational differences but there were differences
What is your view on churches that allow un-repentant homosexuals in unholy same sex marriages to become preachers or deacons and administer the Eucharists. Somehow it seems like they are thumbing their noses at God to me.
Due to him maintaining a neutral point of view on this channel, he's not going to answer that.
But I would agree that they are defying God and it's questionable whether such places of worship can still be considered churches.
Due to Joshua being a teacher at a Baptist seminary though, it's unlikely that he would approve personally.
@@RepublicofE Thank you for your honesty. That is exactly why we bailed out of the episcopal church and from what I understand, the lutheran and methodist churches aren't much better.
@@johns1834 The LCMS is pretty solid. That's my domination and the one I would most recommend.
The ACNA was founded as the socially conservative alternative to the Episcopal Church. However, I would advise staying away from any denomination that ordains women, and some of their dioceses do.
If you really want an Anglican church, your best bet would be one of the Continuing Anglican denominations that have now completely broken communion with the Anglican Communion and don't ordain women at all. They are also more consistent at teaching a bodily real presence in the Lord's Supper. They all entered into full communion with each other in 2017, however they still consist of about four or five different denominations and I'm not sure if they are planning on merging into one. It's hard to find locations for them as there is no universal Continuing Anglican church locator that I know of and I believe put together they only have about 200 congregations in the United States and Canada.
The PCA is pretty solid on most things, however I would caution against joining any church that officially teaches that Jesus literally did not die for everyone.
The Global Methodist Church is planning to split from the United Methodists over same-sex marriage. However they will still ordain women, and again that's something to stay away from.
@@RepublicofE Thank you for your response, but we are very happy with where we are now.
@@johns1834 I found out that one of our local churches is led by a trans-man living with a woman. Also a chaplain to a children's hospital.
13:35 The Gospel is NOT offered to the lost -- nor to the elect -- because the Gospel is a PROCLAMATION asserting that something is OBJECTIVELY true. The Gospel is NOT an "offer" or "invitation," as if truth is conditional upon my will choosing or not choosing.
When one chooses, he does so because he ALREADY BELIEVES. But one is saved by BELIEVING something NEW that he didn't believe before. And that occurs by a Power OUTSIDE of himself, the Holy Spirit of Truth.
As for Israel not being significant, they really should not be taking scripture out of context.
Their stand against Israel would explain why they are failing.
The gifts of the Spirit are also still active, for them that believe.
It's amazing how these denominations take a word and use it to twist scripture.
It is not biblical to dismiss the nation of Israel out of hand as said at 16:50. The so-called "Old Testament" didn't just fade away when the Holy Blood was spilled. Jesus fulfilled the Law and Israel is stronger as a result and will be the centre of the universe in the end. And the Sabbath has always been - and will always be - on the seventh day (Malachi 3:6).
It is not God's will that any should perish, but all should come to repentance
More rules than a golf club
You're surprised that people who believe in the worship of the Holy One of Israel and Creator of the cosmos, and the organization of the church He founded, might aspire to a greater level of discipline than a golf club? (Incidentally, the number of 'rules' here hardly stands out as unique among the various denominations and traditions discussed on this channel).
Another split P…
The Tower of Bible.
This is not hard - "For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?" Single men ought not be elders, let alone start denominations. The test of having a right sense of proportion and priorities, to lead the church, is... wait for it... having a wife you consult.
The Bible has no evidence that Jesus ever wanted to offer salvation or his teachings to anyone but the Jews. How does the Presbyterian Church explain this to all of those who are offered salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? If we look back to the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, there is no salvation through Jesus. I believe that is why Jesus is not part of the Jewish religion.
John 12:32 "When I (Jesus) am lifted up from the earth I will draw all peoples to myself "
You speak way to fast, back and forth, back and forth. 😳
No salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Catholic Church does NOT say that!
@@edwardbohrer9474 "The most holy Roman church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." -- Council of Florence, A.D. 1444
Yeah, but not the roman one.
Thanks!