Churches begin leaving PCUSA
- Thread starter Jim the Puritan
- Start date
No problem, but I know the 4 largest churches in my presbytery have already said they want out.
Upvote
0
I think it's sad on one hand that the division is happening, but it will probably be great for Christianity in the long run.
The gay issue is just the symptom of a much, much deeper issue: the question of "what makes a person a Christian and what doesn't." Liberals and Conservatives have disagreed over the greatest issue of all: salvation (how to be saved). And now the gay issue is finally bringing it to a head.
I'm glad on the other hand the gay issue is bringing it to a head. Maybe we can finally have a Conservative/Liberal dialogue about the Biblical definition of salvation itself. Then, and only then, can we decide whether gays can be saved or not.
Upvote
0
I mostly agree (although I'd note that it's more basic than how to be saved -- we also disagree about what salvation is). However I'm not so sanguine about the possibility of a useful discussion. A number of presbyteries tried it before the vote on gays. My own experience, and those reported by others, is that while we can be friendly with each other, the basic assumptions are just so different that's it's hard to see what to talk about other than reasserting our beliefs about what Christianity means. I've even started to see some editorials from conservatives saying that it's a mistake even to be friendly. After all, Elijah wasn't friendly with the priests of Baal.
We really do each believe that the other has perverted Christ's teachings. Conservatives are saying that clearly. Liberals tend not to use language so judgmental. I think that leads conservatives to suspect that liberals aren't making a decision that is as principled and as strongly based on Scripture, and that if they can just get people to pray and read Scripture enough, they'll be able to put things back the way they were. Unfortunately politeness doesn't mean lack of conviction. It's not going to work that way.
Of course many congregations have a mix of people, and people who are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. That's one thing that makes a split painful. If conservatives could in good conscience operate in a liberal denomination, I'd prefer it, and that would allow for a range of grays. But I understand why they don't feel they can.
While I'd prefer to see the two groups stay together, when one group's core belief is that they can't tolerate what the other group considers important, it's hard to see how that can possibly happen. We had a discussion in our church after the decision. We had one man in tears (of joy, I guess, although I think it was more pent-up emotion from the last 14 years). Our church has a number of members with gay family members, and they consider it really important for the Church to support them. (I understand that conservative believe the way to support gay family members is to get them to accept that they have to change. But my point isn't to argue the merits, but rather to make it clear how our congregation and I think many others feel about it.) We were already considering ignoring G-6.0106b (which since the 2008 AI would in theory be legal). There's no way our congregation could consider going back to it. It would be just as big a disaster for us as the current decision is for the more conservative congregations. In a situation like that, we may just have to split and wait a few generations. That happened at least twice already, once with the old side / new side split, and once over slavery. In both cases we eventually got back together.
I realize it will be painful to downsize the denomination, but doing the right thing is better than doing the easy one.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There are definite limits. While one can (in appropriate forums) advocate atheism, CF does not permit defending homosexuality in any forum.
Upvote
0
I really see hope of bringing conservatives and liberals together. What is the basis of this hope? Biblical archaeology.
The last 100 years has brought us a wealth of information. In fact, the last edition of the BDAG Greek/English lexicon boasts 15,000 new citations! And the shocker is, when we apply the newly discovered meanings of the words, we actually find it easy to reconcile Paul with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Once we finally translate Paul's writings using the historical meanings of the words, we instantly bridge the gap. Christians will no longer have to choose between Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and Paul's writings because they will be perfectly unified.
Next week Dr. William Berg (PhD Ancient Languages, Princeton University) and I will be donating to the public domain a translation of Galatians that is based on the historically documented meanings of the words. We are then going to talk to the pastors of Presbyterian USA to encourage them to use it as a tool to heal the divide between the conservatives and liberals. Conservatives and liberals both will be stunned at the lost parallels between Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and Paul's most crucial writings (Galatians and Romans). Conservatives will no longer be able to claim that Paul somehow replace Jesus' Sermon on the Mount because it will be obvious that Paul himself taught the very same things!
Upvote
0
I'll watch with interest. But remember, you're dealing with people who reject current scholarship.
Upvote
0
The nice thing is that the BDAG has updated so many of the words, and many Christian scholars look up to the BDAG. I expect them to test everything in the translation, and I want them to!
Also, the translation doesn't end up with some bizarre result, other than perfectly harmonizing Paul with Jesus. And the perfect harmonization is the ultimate evidence that this is what the text originally said in the first century.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Martin Luther (Father of the Protestant Reformation) for one. He claimed that John was the only true Gospel. He couldn't reconcile salvation by faith with Jesus' teachings in Matthew.
John Calvin took another approach. When Jesus said that treating others the same way you want to be treated is the Law, John Calvin wrote in his commentary that that doesn't mean it's the entire Law.
Yet ironically, Paul wrote that only the Old Testament commandments based on the Golden Rule are the Law:
He who loves others has fulfilled the Law. For dont be unfaithful, dont murder, dont steal, dont covet, and if there be any other commandment it is recapitulated in this one statement, in the saying, Love your neighbor as yourself. - Romans 13:8-9
It turns out that all of Paul's theology hinges on this understanding of the Law - an understanding rejected by Martin Luther and John Calvin.
Upvote
0
I assume you are referring to his commentary on Romans. His statement that it's not the entire Law is because that passage in Romans speaks only of loving neighbors and does not refer to loving God. He thinks this makes sense, because the commandments given are all from the second table of the Law. I believe he's quite right that Paul is here treating the part of the Law talking about our responsibility to other humans. That is certainly not the entire Law.
Calvin believes Paul did this because the section started out looking at our duty to rulers. Hence the context was the second table.
That's not to say that Calvin's treatment of this passage is perfect. I don't believe he has made as good use as he might of 20/21st Cent scholarship on Paul. Paul's attitude towards the Law is complex. I think Calvin is at times a bit too quick to dismiss the Law as something that's there only to make us guilty.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'm referring to his commentary on Matthew (Matthew 7:12 to be exact).
And yes, just as Calvin rejects a face value reading of Jesus' Golden Rule, he rejects a face value reading of Paul's teaching in Romans 13:8-9 which matches the Golden Rule, and he rejects a face value reading of the Gentiles who are vindicated before God for following the ethical requirements of the Law (commentary on Romans 2), and he rejects a face value reading of...
Calvin consistently rejected dozens of salvation by love passages in order to myopically hold onto salvation by faith alone. It's why I can't take the guy seriously. Any time the Bible says something he didn't agree with, the answer was simple, the Bible doesn't mean what it says. His commentaries are overflowing with examples of that.
Romans 13 doesn't give room for Calvin's 'interpretation' (i.e. rejection). Paul says the Law is fulfilled by loving others. In Greek, he was saying that a person who loves others has kept the entire Law. I understand Calvinists must reject what is written to hold onto their doctrine. That's okay with me. But I'll never understand why Calvinists poo poo people who do decide to accept what's written.
I'm not saying you are doing that. You've been very civil, and thank you for that. But on this forum I get attacked up one side and down the other, and it's usually because I'm accepting dozens of passages at face value.
Let me give you an example of something that is in the Greek text of Galatians that is not found in any Bibles people can purchase at 'Bibles R US':
For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters — only not freedom to give free rein to the flesh, but you are enslaved to each other through love because the whole law is fulfilled in one statement: You will love your neighbor as yourself. - Galatians 5:13-14
In Paul's theology, Christians are freed from the Works of the Torah because of their enslavement to love of others. This is a critical distinction. And it is one that Paul got from Jesus.
But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you. - Luke 11:41
How many Christians know that it's our commitment to love of others that frees us from the Works of the Torah? We are not freed from the Works of the Torah unless we love our neighbors as ourselves. This is one more place where Paul and Jesus taught the same thing, and it's in the Greek text, and it's not in modern conservative Bibles... hmmm.
In the short letter of Galatians alone, there are more than one dozen things that are in the Greek text that are not in modern conservative English 'translations.' All one dozen of these support the Presbyterian USA theology.
Upvote
0
I maintain that for Paul, faith is an overall orientation for our lives, which is based on love. Jesus doesn't use the term faith in quite the way (at least not normally), but has the same basic concept of the Christian life.
As I commented, Calvin doesn't have the benefit of 20th Cent work. At times he tends to take a view of faith that's narrower, and he may be misreading Paul. But we're not dealing but that situation in these two passages.
In Romans, he paraphrases Paul as "He who loves his neighbor as himself, performs his duty towards the whole world." This is what you're saying. In the rest of that section he maintains that the Law fleshes out what the implications of love are. I think that's quite a reasonable reading of Paul. The only thing he says about love not being the whole law is because the passage talks only about the 2nd table of the law and the love of neighbor, and thus omits the love of God. However in addition to saying that love is the only thing we need to do, and that doing love is fulfilling the Law, he also says that fulfilling the Law is doing love. That is, he believes that the Law tells us what it means to do love. I think if you take a broad enough view of the Law, i.e. if you use Jesus' glosses on the Law in Mat 5, that he is right. And in general the Reformed tradition reads the 10 commandments *very* broadly, as including not just the specific things prohibited, but a whole set of positive requirements to care for our neighbor. If this is what Calvin means by fulfilling the Law then I think he's right that it provides guidance on acting lovingly. And I believe the existence of the Sermon on the Mount shows that Jesus also thinks it's useful to provide specific guidance, and not just say "love your neighbor" without providing any help on how to do that.
Now for his commentary on Mat 7:12. First, he starts out by saying that the passage is editorial, a summary by Matthew of Jesus' teaching, and thus presumably not an actual quotation from Jesus. Calvin is *not* a fundamentalist.
Second, he doesn't talk about salvation by love because the passage doesn't talk about it. It says specifically do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not love others. Now that may come down to the same thing, but there's a different focus. He may be slightly over-interpreting it, but what he sees in it is a requirement for justice. You protest that he denies that this is the whole law when the passage says it is. But what he actually says is that while love (or justice, in this case) isn't the entire law, but it is the *object* of the entire law. I believe he's right about that. If Jesus felt that it was enough to tell people to love, and didn't think they needed guidance on how to act lovingly, why would he have given the Sermon on the Mount? That is an exposition of how we should treat people, i.e. it give guidance on how to carry out the demands of love. Calvin is saying, in both the Romans comment and here, that the entire requirement for us is love, but that the Law gives us guidance on how to act lovingly. In the Matthew commentary he says
The point isn't that the Law adds requirements beyond love, but that it is *about* love, about how to carry out love. So just saying "love your neighbor" isn't the whole content of the Law, because the Law gives more details. It is not inconsistent with Jesus to believe that God has given us guidance about how to live out love. Hence Matthew is right to summarize the teachings above by 7:12, but it is, after all, a summary. Jesus felt it appropriate to give the whole Sermon on the Mount, not just a summary. (Not that he necessarily gave the Sermon in exactly the form recorded in Matthew, a point that Calvin also makes.)
Since this thread is about changes in the PCUSA, I should note that the liberals in the PCUSA do *not* want to drop all guidance on sexual issues. The most detailed attempt to explain the viewpoint underlying the recent change was a 1991 working paper on sexual ethics. While there is much there to offend conservatives, it maintains that sexual ethics must be based on justice, and that there are many sexual relationships that are abusive. Even the modern PCUSA maintains that we need careful guidance about how to live out love.
As I commented, Calvin doesn't have the benefit of 20th Cent work. At times he tends to take a view of faith that's narrower, and he may be misreading Paul. But we're not dealing but that situation in these two passages.
In Romans, he paraphrases Paul as "He who loves his neighbor as himself, performs his duty towards the whole world." This is what you're saying. In the rest of that section he maintains that the Law fleshes out what the implications of love are. I think that's quite a reasonable reading of Paul. The only thing he says about love not being the whole law is because the passage talks only about the 2nd table of the law and the love of neighbor, and thus omits the love of God. However in addition to saying that love is the only thing we need to do, and that doing love is fulfilling the Law, he also says that fulfilling the Law is doing love. That is, he believes that the Law tells us what it means to do love. I think if you take a broad enough view of the Law, i.e. if you use Jesus' glosses on the Law in Mat 5, that he is right. And in general the Reformed tradition reads the 10 commandments *very* broadly, as including not just the specific things prohibited, but a whole set of positive requirements to care for our neighbor. If this is what Calvin means by fulfilling the Law then I think he's right that it provides guidance on acting lovingly. And I believe the existence of the Sermon on the Mount shows that Jesus also thinks it's useful to provide specific guidance, and not just say "love your neighbor" without providing any help on how to do that.
Now for his commentary on Mat 7:12. First, he starts out by saying that the passage is editorial, a summary by Matthew of Jesus' teaching, and thus presumably not an actual quotation from Jesus. Calvin is *not* a fundamentalist.
Second, he doesn't talk about salvation by love because the passage doesn't talk about it. It says specifically do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not love others. Now that may come down to the same thing, but there's a different focus. He may be slightly over-interpreting it, but what he sees in it is a requirement for justice. You protest that he denies that this is the whole law when the passage says it is. But what he actually says is that while love (or justice, in this case) isn't the entire law, but it is the *object* of the entire law. I believe he's right about that. If Jesus felt that it was enough to tell people to love, and didn't think they needed guidance on how to act lovingly, why would he have given the Sermon on the Mount? That is an exposition of how we should treat people, i.e. it give guidance on how to carry out the demands of love. Calvin is saying, in both the Romans comment and here, that the entire requirement for us is love, but that the Law gives us guidance on how to act lovingly. In the Matthew commentary he says
Our Lord does not intend to say, that this is the only point of doctrine laid down in the law and the prophets, but that all the precepts which they contain about charity, and all the laws and exhortations found in them about maintaining justice, have a reference to this object.
The point isn't that the Law adds requirements beyond love, but that it is *about* love, about how to carry out love. So just saying "love your neighbor" isn't the whole content of the Law, because the Law gives more details. It is not inconsistent with Jesus to believe that God has given us guidance about how to live out love. Hence Matthew is right to summarize the teachings above by 7:12, but it is, after all, a summary. Jesus felt it appropriate to give the whole Sermon on the Mount, not just a summary. (Not that he necessarily gave the Sermon in exactly the form recorded in Matthew, a point that Calvin also makes.)
Since this thread is about changes in the PCUSA, I should note that the liberals in the PCUSA do *not* want to drop all guidance on sexual issues. The most detailed attempt to explain the viewpoint underlying the recent change was a 1991 working paper on sexual ethics. While there is much there to offend conservatives, it maintains that sexual ethics must be based on justice, and that there are many sexual relationships that are abusive. Even the modern PCUSA maintains that we need careful guidance about how to live out love.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Are PCUSA practitioners allow to comment here in this section?
I wonder what the church (see OP) will rename themselves. PCA has already been taken. Perhaps just "Presbyterian " will do.
I still puzzle over the name "Christian Church".
Upvote
0
After being bombared by a Seventhday Adventist's theories (work bossman) and having lunch with him and another vender friend, I asked that friend at the table if he believes all those SDA stuff and while he wanted to be a peaceful man, he asked me if it would mattered a million years from now.
I still question if this would matter a million years form now.
Perhaps this is a peaceful way to approach complicated issues. If one doesn't know for sure about the issue, why continue to make the issue grow bigger. I believe it's gotten far out of hand that there may not be a turning point.
Perhaps PCUSA found that turning point.
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Since you are non-denom, posting in a restricted area, Presbyterian board, I ask that you provide references with links to your many assertions. Your flat our rejection of John Calvin seems to be rooted more in opposition to his theology according to your preconceived notions than what he actually wrote and until you can actually give in-context quotations to back up your assertions, you have about as much credibility with me as Dave Hunt...which is none, zero, zilch. Keep in mind, theology debate is for general theology, I just want some facts to back up your claims.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Monseigneur_Gentilhomme
Newbie
Bien, I do not like using the terms liberals and conservative. They are meaningless. Usually it is defined as a liberal is anyone who disagrees with me and a conservative is anyone who believes what I believe to a unnecessary extreme.
I prefer to do what Presbyterians have always done and call ourselves confessionalists. Any congregation denomination that can affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith as being a true and faithful teaching and interpretation of the word of God and can affirm it without reservation(maybe keeping a bit of liberty on the issue of the sabbath) is someone I would love to see succeed in Reformed ministry.
But I have the same amount of time for presbyterian conservatives who reject the WCF and want to be like evangelical pietists as I do for liberals who affirm the legitimacy of homosexual relationships.
I prefer to do what Presbyterians have always done and call ourselves confessionalists. Any congregation denomination that can affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith as being a true and faithful teaching and interpretation of the word of God and can affirm it without reservation(maybe keeping a bit of liberty on the issue of the sabbath) is someone I would love to see succeed in Reformed ministry.
But I have the same amount of time for presbyterian conservatives who reject the WCF and want to be like evangelical pietists as I do for liberals who affirm the legitimacy of homosexual relationships.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
