Talk:Protestant Reformed Churches in America

	Reformed Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reformed Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Reformed Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Reformed ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityReformed Christianity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV???[edit]

This article is lacking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.179.126 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce[edit]

User:82.26.18.252 and I have a disagreement about these changes. I want to remove them, s/he wants to retain them. I have no affiliation with this denomination whatsoever, past or present. I merely keep watch here for spam, neutrality, etc.

I reverted these edits because some of them are simply unnecessary or unhelpful (e.g. "like the NIV", to which we could append numerous other translations, cf. WP:MOS#Subset_terms).

The most significant change is the sentence: "While the PRC approves of most of the Westminster Confession of Faith, it does not endorse it or allow those to adhere to the entire Westminster Confession of Faith, to become members." (Thankfully, the spelling is corrected from previous revisions, but not the grammar -- "to adhere" should be "who adhere.") My problem with this sentence is that (almost?) no one adheres to the entire WCF. For instance, most people take an exception on the Sabbath, appealing to Calvin's view. Others have minor quibbles here and there (John Frame reportedly has a list of 100+ such quibbles).

Add to this the exposition of PRCA's position of divorce: "The implications of this position are that those who divorce and remarry (while their first spouse is still alive) are considered adulterers by the PRC, even if they were the innocent party and the remarriage produced children and grandchildren."

This is unsupported by citations, and to me, this combined with the bit about the "entire" WCF read like the author is trying to stake out a morally higher ground for those who were denied membership or disagree with the policy on divorce. Hence, I reverted, and I favor doing so again. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flex and I had a disagreement about these changes. I have noted his/her objections and while I don't agree with some of them, I have modified my previous entry here and addressed almost all of these changes in an attempt to alleviate the concerns presented:

Changes which have been labelled unhelpful (such as including the reference to a specific Bible version, "like the NIV"), I have changed to "modern Bible versions". I have addressed his/her "most significant change" relating to the Wesminster Confession of Faith by being more specific. I addressed two particular areas (marriage and divorce and the covenant of works) within the Westminster Confession of Faith that would prohibit membership in the PRCA. With regards to the position of the PRCA on the subject of divorce, I have added a reference from a publication written by a senior minister within the PRCA, that is freely distributed among the churches of this denomination. This reference is quite open in calling remarriage while ones spouse is still alive, adultery. I am not aware of any material from the PRCA which takes an opposing position and would welcome User:Flex to present such a reference so that I can make this article more factual.

Articles in Wikipedia are meant to provide factual information that is relevant to the topic, and should never be used to pursue an agenda that is abusive in promoting or demoting a particular church denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.18.252 (talk • contribs)

I have no interest in abusing or promoting this denomination, and not every fact belongs here. I want its article to be as accurate and neutral as possible. I have made some further adjustments, so let me know what you think. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offer[edit]

Before anyone starts working on anything related to the controversy "Offer", check-out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_offer_of_the_gospel#Offert, where I've included information regarding the historical use of the term.

tooMuchData

23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)--> —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Consistency[edit]

The article treats the abbreviation "PRC" as singular in some places, while plural in others. Dejbren (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]