Creeping Universalism

Calvinist Dark Lord

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2003
1,589
468
Near Pittsburgh, which is NOT in Scotland!
✟27,806.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
To comment on another posting: I can see ECO and maybe EPC rejoining us. If the EPC continues to accept lots of PCUSA churches, they make that more likely. But there is likely to be a place for folks who hold Westminster strictly for some time. Maybe some of those groups will unify. Others can comment better on that.
Not going to happen.

There is far too much bad blood between the EPC and the PCUSA, even with the present detente between the two groups. Too many congregations had bitter experiences attempting to leave the PCUSA. They would see such a move as a betrayal, and not be a part of it. The PCUSA would essentially inherit an empty shell organisation in Michigan. Some other Reformed Denomination would rise --probably generated by former EPC Congregations-- to take the place of the EPC.

Besides that, the mechanism is in place for individual congregations to return to the PCUSA with all their assets. It need not involve the EPC as a whole. i believe that has happened once or twice already.

This is not to say that the EPC is monolithic. It certainly is not anything like that, and was not designed to be. However from an insider perspective it is more likely that the EPC will start to firm up it's stands on issues that are at present 'not considered vital to the existence of the church' (such as the ordination of female Teaching Elders, tighter subscription requirements to the Westminster Confession, etc). Eventually it will have to take a stand on those and other issues. That stand will of course cause some congregations to depart. That is only to be expected.

The recently disestablished New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery, and the former PCUSA congregations that have joined the denomination have merely put those issues off for a time. It hasn't put an end to them.

There is however one majour difference that you have made allusion to yourself Hedrick. You have in the past spoken with some regret that incidents such as the ruling on Kenyon Case in the PCUSA and other matters have effectively silenced the voice of more conservative factions in the denomination.

That is not the case for the EPC. While we will in the future firm up some ambiguous views, we will not attempt to silence dissent. Even though in Reformed Tradition the Bishopric is Corporate and not vested in one person, it is also not an infallible bishopric. We cannot afford to silence dissent on non critical doctrinal matters. Every voice will be heard. Our congregations know that. They also know that if some issue in the EPC really disturbs them, they are free to go in peace with all of the congregational assets, including property.

It is more likely that PCUSA congregations will continue to defect to the EPC and other denominations as the denominational views continue to ignore or repudiate Reformed tradition and doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
My concern about the EPC is that if it takes too many PCUSA congregations it might no longer possible to "firm up" its position. Perhaps that point hasn't been reached.

I'm not so worried about the PCA. But the EPC seems to be getting PCUSA churches that want to maintain female elders. That would be churches on the more liberal end of those who are leaving. I think that places the EPC more at risk of having its identity diluted than the other denominations.

"Silencing" isn't the issue. It's whether we enforce policies. As far as I know, no one prevented Kenyon from stating his views. The question he was asked was whether he would follow the policy. Are you saying that if you prohibit ordination of female elders, someone could violate that prohibition with no consequences? Could an EPC church ordain gays now with no consequences?

Certainly the "trust clause" is a big difference. There are few clearer violations of Scripture than a denomination suing its own congregation, and trying to control its behavior by using property ownership. Frankly, I'm hoping the court system fixes this for us, but I'd be in favor of removing any leader that uses or advocates using the legal system in that way.
 
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I’m not aware of universalism being a specific issue. ....

Years ago, probably before PCA/EPC was created, many complained on what the PCUSA believed on "deity of Christ". While I did fact checking at the time, I found very little about the claims on "deity of Christ". That brought to my attention that conservatives used a weak claims for their reasons of schisms. The women ordination was a big deal to most all denominations in the early days while the deity of Christ is a weak argument. For ECO to use the weak argument of creeping universalism like the older days reminds me of the old arguments of the deity of Christ. It's a trust issue I have with people. Picking and choosing weak arguments to cover up a much bigger issue, gay ordinations. I've been watching the new denomination wanna-be's create new churches based mostly on 10-A and at the same time cover up the real reasons for schisms. They use weak arguments. Like you said, some things are not big of a deal. I would be embarrassed to be part of the schism based on 10-A or at least the timing of the splits are pretty obvious. I wouldn't want my church to be in a homophobic atmosphere and Calvin claims there is nothing any man does to attain salvation. 10-A could apply to divorced preachers preaching at the pulpit. I mean, neither party of some divorced couple understood why they got divorce. While the Bible focus much on the sexual or adultery, divorcees may not be based on the sexual or adultery. That goes for fornication where the newly lovers can't draw the line on how to behave socially. Now we have gays fitting in the same category with divorces, adultery or fornication. That even includes warriors retired from war who are happy to preach the Gospel while they deeply ponder on what murder and murderer means.

...Some of this represents extreme views that have no wide influence in the PCUSA. Others reflect a very real difference. The PCUSA is not a conservative Church. We follow modern scholarship, we accept gays, we do not hold some traditional Presbyterian views....

My local PCUSA don't seem to show any real interest on those big issues. It's mostly older couples with very little young folks. That doesn't help church growth either. I find it dishonest to claim the liberal churches are declining while all churches are declining as well but gaining new members due to better entertainment or at least doing what modern people want. I still have a hard time watching "Modern Family" TV show, even though I find it funny. "Modern Family" are now building up on excitements of newly legal gay marriage and planning big events on a gay wedding. The way I look at this whole picture is that its ok for parents to promote masturbation to the confused children. I don't think fornication is possible without man and woman. No such thing in same sex. It don't exist to me. Bill Clinton asked the big lawyers to define, "sex" and the layers got silent and Bill Clinton remained President. Thats why I find the Bible involving homosexuality in cultic rituals and not in everyday social life according to cultures at any given time.

....People who want a church with the Westminster Confession as a standard belong elsewhere.....

I find it a problem with the attitudes of, "lets do it anyway, even thought the authors might be wrong". The Particular Baptists as newer Presbys found some old confessions wrong and changed it to fit their beliefs.

...The ECO is the most liberal of the offshoots. ....

10-A is a pretty loud statement for reasons of offshooting. I don't think they will never escape 10-A being the strongest reason. That will always label them in that way.

.....To comment on another posting: I can see ECO and maybe EPC rejoining us. If the EPC continues to accept lots of PCUSA churches, they make that more likely. But there is likely to be a place for folks who hold Westminster strictly for some time. Maybe some of those groups will unify. Others can comment better on that.

Thats why I might want to solve my troublesome struggles to stick with PCUSA even though I might not live to see those changes in the far, far future. You said elsewhere in CF, "If the church doesn't make you comfortable the you should...". I may not ever be comfortable cause schisms seems to be the new sport and a reminder that I might be wrong.

How does one get over, "I might be wrong" mindsets?
 
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not going to happen.

How can you say that if moderations are based on votes. How does positive beliefs help modern thinkers?

... However from an insider perspective it is more likely that the EPC will start to firm up it's stands on issues that are at present 'not considered vital to the existence of the church' (such as the ordination of female Teaching Elders, tighter subscription requirements to the Westminster Confession, etc). ..

Are EPC having second thoughts on Egalitarian Ministries?

I found this picture at an ECO site:

baptism21.jpg


Perhaps their votes will go towards full immersion baptisms only in the near future. Then they might join reformed baptists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Years ago, probably before PCA/EPC was created, many complained on what the PCUSA believed on "deity of Christ". While I did fact checking at the time, I found very little about the claims on "deity of Christ". That brought to my attention that conservatives used a weak claims for their reasons of schisms.

Yes and no. There were some public statements a few years ago at events that were pretty far out there in theology. They didn’t represent a significant set of beliefs in the PCUSA, but the fact that they were made at all at a conference upset a lot of people. Those statements were trumpeted by people like the Layman as reasons that the PCUSA was unacceptable. I think that was silly. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real issues.

A significant number of our pastors, and probably members, hold to typical modern theology on the Incarnation. Depending upon your interpretation, that may or may not hold the “deity of Christ.” I cited N T Wright’s paper above. He thinks Jesus did what only God can do, but that’s a functional claim, not an ontological one. He has called Chalcedon a “confidence trick.” I think it’s pretty typical for 20th/21st Cent theology to use terms involving function and identity rather than nature and ontology. That’s my own approach, certainly. This is reflected even in official doctrinal statements. People who really want traditional theology may consider this a denial of the deity of Christ.

Our national leadership and many of our pastors use a picture of Jesus drawn from current historical Jesus work. In my opinion people who really want 16th and 17th Cent theology are going to feel very uncomfortable in the PCUSA. Conservatives may at times latch onto specifics that are pretty weak. but I think it’s a real issue. The same serious differences occur in ethics, particularly sexual ethics.

That's not to say that this is a big issue for all of our members. Most of our sermons could just as well be given in an ECO church. And of course we have churches of varying theology. The tendencies I mention are present among our national leadership and maybe 1/3 of our churches. But we also have moderately conservative churches. You may well be going to one. Some people want to belong to a denomination with strong doctrinal standards, and are upset if substantial numbers of our people differ from them in basic issues of faith. But not everyone feels that way. I'm in one of the most liberal areas of the country. But our PCUSA Presbytery has a very conservative church. I don't see it as a problem, and I don't think the Presbytery does either. But some pastors and church leaders can't as a matter of conscience by part of a denomination that permits what they consider heresy.
 
Upvote 0

Calvinist Dark Lord

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2003
1,589
468
Near Pittsburgh, which is NOT in Scotland!
✟27,806.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
How can you say that if moderations are based on votes. How does positive beliefs help modern thinkers?
i can say that because there are limits that the EPC cannot constitutionally go beyond...and because unlike the so-called mainline Presbyterian denomination, congregations are free to depart the denomination with all assets in peace.



Are EPC having second thoughts on Egalitarian Ministries?
That debate has been on-going since the formation of the EPC in 1981. While i haven't taken a poll, i believe you will find that the majourity of our congregations do not have female Ruling Elders.

The issue of female Ruling and/or Teaching Elders is left to the judgement of the individual congregation. My present congregation originally had female Ruling Elders, but changed the congregational by-laws in order to forbid them in the future. One of our female Elders left the congregation long before this happened. The other one was named Elder Emeritus, which means that even if she was interested in doing
so--she's quite elderly and infirm-- she cannot serve in the position again.

I found this picture at an ECO site:

baptism21.jpg

Nice picture. However i'm EPC, not ECO. It has nothing to do with my denomination. i do not see this particular congregation on the list of congregations in the EPC Presbytery of the Alleghenies.

Perhaps their votes will go towards full immersion baptisms only in the near future. Then they might join reformed baptists.
Mode of baptism has never been an issue in the EPC. All forms are used and permitted, including immersion. i seriously doubt that an infant is going to be immersed however.

As far as i know, mode of baptism is not an issue in ANY Presbyterian denomination.

Seeing as how we hold to traditional Reformed Theology with respect to Baptism and Communion, including infant baptism. Not likely will the Reformed Baptists accept that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calvinist Dark Lord

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2003
1,589
468
Near Pittsburgh, which is NOT in Scotland!
✟27,806.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
My concern about the EPC is that if it takes too many PCUSA congregations it might no longer possible to "firm up" its position. Perhaps that point hasn't been reached.
i'd have to agree that we could have been better prepared for the number of congregations and how quickly they became members. However, if they had some real difficulties with our distinctions, i doubt they would have joined us. Many in the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery did not and chose to remain in the PCUSA. Others went on to other Presbyterian Denominations.

I'm not so worried about the PCA. But the EPC seems to be getting PCUSA churches that want to maintain female elders. That would be churches on the more liberal end of those who are leaving. I think that places the EPC more at risk of having its identity diluted than the other denominations.
i can't say one way or the other, haven't polled the recent new congregations in my own Presbytery --incidentally, this geographical area also contains some of the most conservative Presbyteries in the PCUSA as well, including the one that Walter Kenyon was involved with. i do know that it is a factor in the decision that some former PCUSA congregations made to join the EPC. Whether or not it was a factor or even the deciding factor in the majourity of new congregations i cannot say.

"Silencing" isn't the issue. It's whether we enforce policies. As far as I know, no one prevented Kenyon from stating his views. The question he was asked was whether he would follow the policy. Are you saying that if you prohibit ordination of female elders, someone could violate that prohibition with no consequences? Could an EPC church ordain gays now with no consequences?
That debate goes back to Machen. It seems to be that there was a certain amount of vacillation on which policies were enforced, and which policies were ignored. At about the same time as the Kenyon matter, the issue of Manfred Kaseman was also front and center. Many congregations saw a certain amount of hypocrisy in the disposition of those two issues. As far as i know, Kenyon did not refuse to cooperate with or forbid female Elders. The issue was that he could not in good conscience ordain a female Elder. He was perfectly willing to have somebody else do that task and to work with said Elders.

However, to answer your question, i know of no prohibition against leaders who have same sex preferences. It is merely unrepentant homosexual behaviour that is grounds for a candidate's rejection.

The language of the EPC's Position Paper on the subject is pretty blatant about what is and is not approved.

Certainly the "trust clause" is a big difference. There are few clearer violations of Scripture than a denomination suing its own congregation, and trying to control its behavior by using property ownership. Frankly, I'm hoping the court system fixes this for us, but I'd be in favor of removing any leader that uses or advocates using the legal system in that way.
Actually, i'd go a bit further than that. One tendency that i have found to be a bit disturbing --and it has NOTHING to do with the PCUSA or the EPC's relationship with them--is the tendency to alter by-laws of the denomination to fit legal requirements that can be and often are in violation of the denomination's theological positions, practice and conscience.

My denomination has a Ruling Elder who shall not be named who has consulted on legal matters for the denomination. Many of his recommendations have, i believe, come about because of what the legal exposure might be rather than what the scriptures have to teach about action and persecution.

Mind you, that isn't to say we should have license for lawlessness in the EPC, but rather our attitude should be the same as Peter and John: To obey God rather than men. We should be willing to rejoice in and accept persecution over those matters if and when they come about.
 
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
i can say that because there are limits that the EPC cannot constitutionally go beyond...and because unlike the so-called mainline Presbyterian denomination, congregations are free to depart the denomination with all assets in peace...

Speaking of properties, I've always wanted to ask this Presbyterian section on this. If a single PCUSA church didn't collect enough offerings to pay mortgage or Minster's salary, does the main PCUSA branch, wherever that is or are, help pay for them? Isn't that the point of this type of property ownership? What is the real purpose of the Main PCUSA owning properties or do they get every penny of it if a property is sold?

...Nice picture. However i'm EPC, not ECO. It has nothing to do with my denomination....

I didn't mean to point that picture towards EPC. I was pointing that to all Presbyterians. I think theres a new Jesus movie coming out and seeing the preview, It showed Jesus coming out of the water during Baptism. I'm sure moviemakers will claim that is what happened in history. I'm not sure if we know Jesus was fully immersed.

..That debate has been on-going since the formation of the EPC in 1981. While i haven't taken a poll, i believe you will find that the majourity of our congregations do not have female Ruling Elders....

I didn't know that was less frequent.
 
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
i'd have to agree that we could have been better prepared for the number of congregations and how quickly they became members. However, if they had some real difficulties with our distinctions, i doubt they would have joined us. Many in the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery did not and chose to remain in the PCUSA. Others went on to other Presbyterian Denominations....
While reading up on PCUSA leaving for ECO, many suggested those that were leaving PCUSA to join EPC instead of ECO. And after loking at a chart describing the difeerent between EPC and ECO , theres not that much difference. Perhaps ECO wanted women ordination to be bigger than that EPC policies like having every ECO church to allow women ordinations.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
While reading up on PCUSA leaving for ECO, many suggested those that were leaving PCUSA to join EPC instead of ECO. And after loking at a chart describing the difeerent between EPC and ECO , theres not that much difference. Perhaps ECO wanted women ordination to be bigger than that EPC policies like having every ECO church to allow women ordinations.

The ECO uses the PCUSA Book of Confessions, and according to a position paper I found on their site takes a similar view of what it means to be confessional. The EPC uses Westminster, and requires subscription to it by officers (with room for some variations on items not considered essential).

The ECO seems to be the same as the most conservative half of the PCUSA, except for prohibiting ordination of gays. Despite various attempts to say "it's not just about gays" I'm not convinced that this is the case. The EPC seems to hold a more traditional theology.
 
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

Calvinist Dark Lord

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2003
1,589
468
Near Pittsburgh, which is NOT in Scotland!
✟27,806.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why did EPC split PCUSA? (Is that too much to ask or it asking this against the rules?)
The EPC never "split(from??) PCUSA". The EPC was a new denomination which came into existence in 1981. Many of our member congregations --MOST of our member congregations-- came from the PCUSA (or the denominations that reorganised to become the PCUSA in 1983), but the EPC itself was never a part of the PCUSA in any of it's incarnations.

If you're asking why congregations left the PCUSA to join the EPC that will probably get you no useful information. Each member congregation had their own issues with their parent denominations --The PCUSA is not the only denomination from which our member congregations have originated-- that they thought were serious enough to require separation from whichever denomination, if any, they were a member of before joining the EPC.

Be aware that there are many EPC congregations who had no previous denominational affiliation or existence. They are EPC Mission churches, or church plants that became particular congregations later on.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
looks like it split from another church;

presbyterian_churches.jpg



What does the bold lines mean?

The diagram shows the EPC splitting from the UPCUSA, which was the largest of the two churches that became the PCUSA. UPCUSA was the Northern church. PCUS was the Southern church.

I believe the bold lines are the churches that fed into the PCUSA. They may also be the largest ones, though that would have to be checked.

Incidentally, my statement on the minimal difference between ECO and PCUSA may be wrong. One criticism by people leaving the PCUSA for the ECO is that the PCUSA does not believe that salvation is only by Christ. I find it a bit hard to be sure what this criticism means. The simplest understanding would be that many in the PCUSA accept inclusivisim (that it is possible that some non-Christians may be saved), and the ECO does not. However the following article, Prayers or Death Knell? | After Existentialism, Light, suggests that this may be an oversimplification. It is by someone who has moved from the PCUSA to the ECO. He seems to object to prayers published by the PCUSA that suggest that other religions are salvific. It is possible to hold a version of inclusivism that says non-Christian may be saved in spite of their religion by a personal experience of Jesus. The prayers he points to seem to go beyond that.

Unfortunately it's a bit hard to be sure of the exact theology behind the prayers quoted there. Does it mean to say that that the other religions mentioned are on the same level as Christianity? I don't think that's clear, and I'd guess that true pluralism (all religions are equivalent) is unusual in the PCUSA. However one problem with the PCUSA is the our national office tends to be more liberal than our members. I can easily imagine our ecumenical affairs people writing prayers like that, without considering (or maybe even caring) how other Christians will read it. Indeed one concern about the PCUSA isn't so much what its members and pastors actually believe as the fact that the national office tends to do things that don't properly represent the center of gravity of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Calvinist Dark Lord

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2003
1,589
468
Near Pittsburgh, which is NOT in Scotland!
✟27,806.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The diagram shows the EPC splitting from the UPCUSA, which was the largest of the two churches that became the PCUSA. UPCUSA was the Northern church. PCUS was the Southern church.

I believe the bold lines are the churches that fed into the PCUSA. They may also be the largest ones, though that would have to be checked.

Incidentally, my statement on the minimal difference between ECO and PCUSA may be wrong. One criticism by people leaving the PCUSA for the ECO is that the PCUSA does not believe that salvation is only by Christ. I find it a bit hard to be sure what this criticism means. The simplest understanding would be that many in the PCUSA accept inclusivisim (that it is possible that some non-Christians may be saved), and the ECO does not. However the following article, Prayers or Death Knell? | After Existentialism, Light, suggests that this may be an oversimplification. It is by someone who has moved from the PCUSA to the ECO. He seems to object to prayers published by the PCUSA that suggest that other religions are salvific. It is possible to hold a version of inclusivism that says non-Christian may be saved in spite of their religion by a personal experience of Jesus. The prayers he points to seem to go beyond that.

Unfortunately it's a bit hard to be sure of the exact theology behind the prayers quoted there. Does it mean to say that that the other religions mentioned are on the same level as Christianity? I don't think that's clear, and I'd guess that true pluralism (all religions are equivalent) is unusual in the PCUSA. However one problem with the PCUSA is the our national office tends to be more liberal than our members. I can easily imagine our ecumenical affairs people writing prayers like that, without considering (or maybe even caring) how other Christians will read it. Indeed one concern about the PCUSA isn't so much what its members and pastors actually believe as the fact that the national office tends to do things that don't properly represent the center of gravity of the Church.
That would be correct, to a certain point. The EPC pre-existed the PCUSA as you have stated, so they would not have 'come out of' the PCUSA.

The chart is misleading though. At the point the EPC and other denominations formed, their congregations and leadership were no longer part of the Mainline Presbyterian Church. It is absurd to think that the EPC, OPC, PCA, RPCNA or any other denomination that identifies itself as Presbyterian would have 'came out of' the mainline denomination. This would suggest sanction, and no such thing happened.

The closest i have ever heard of the idea of the PCUSA sanctioning a split was when an ascending overture from Butler-Beaver Presbytery, Synod of the Trinity was rejected by the General Assembly. That overture in essence would have recognised two separate churches in the denomination, yet maintained the same denominational structure for administrative purposes. In retrospect, elements of it would have been a very good idea. It might have made life a bit easier for everyone, including the EPC.

The only other thing close to that was the EPC's New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery, which allowed member congregations to maintain it's relationship with the PCUSA or whatever other denomination it was previously affiliated with. That transitional Presbytery is now defunct, having served it's purpose.

i was not aware of the existence of the ECO, and spent some time on their web site. i found some matters of concern ( i don't care for the terminology they use, some of the 'buzz words' are distressing ) and would probably not be inclined to join one of their congregations, even though one of the EPC's more influential pastors is on one of their boards...at least he was an EPC Pastor last time i checked.
 
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

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
....i was not aware of the existence of the ECO, and spent some time on their web site. i found some matters of concern ( i don't care for the terminology they use, some of the 'buzz words' are distressing ) and would probably not be inclined to join one of their congregations, even though one of the EPC's more influential pastors is on one of their boards...at least he was an EPC Pastor last time i checked.

One of the buzz words might be "Holding Each Other Accountable". I looked up the correct wording and first started here. (opposite view here) The PCUSA were buzzing about that.
Please tell us more more about your concerns if you're allowed to.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
...One criticism by people leaving the PCUSA for the ECO is that the PCUSA does not believe that salvation is only by Christ. I find it a bit hard to be sure what this criticism means. The simplest understanding would be that many in the PCUSA accept inclusivisim (that it is possible that some non-Christians may be saved), and the ECO does not. ....

inuit.jpg


Without hearing the Word can be too literal if one means the Word must be spoken from the Bible. I think it's odd to believe that a new baby in the jungles or the deserts or on the moon that grew up not reading or hearing anything about the Bible or the Gospel will not get saved. Only children would think that while they read 'Neverending Story" where they participate inside the story.
I'm not sure that scrabbling and working in an extreme hurriedness to spread the Gospel is correct. This type of modern easybelivism could bring extreme men centerness. We're already involved in Politics and merging state and religion back together. Leave the NEW gay marriage to the reprobates. Let them steal "marriage" from the Bible. If the unbelievers wants to play house like kids, we must trust God to choose whom He chooses. Why convince reprobates to save themselves? Not what the Bible meant even though the arminians created the new terminology that the Bible meant that. Christmas and great holidays already becoming the root of our economy. I lost my job due to no one shopping during the 2008 Wall Street crisis.
If Jesus was here, He'll turn the market tables over in His Father's house, again. Its too wrong to claim the baby/kid/man in the jungles may go to hell cause we didn't scramble hard enough to get the Gospel to him. That would be our fault. We didn't work hard enough. We didn't get what we earned so hard for and at the same time wasting our efforts like it's pure nothingness.

If one looks hard enough deep into what John Calvin really meant, we'll discover that God calls whom He wants to call without our help. He doesn’t need us to share the Gospel to the Jungle boy.

Removing "inclusivism" is equal to adding works.
 
Upvote 0
P

Petruchio

Guest
Without hearing the Word can be too literal if one means the Word must be spoken from the Bible. I think it's odd to believe that a new baby in the jungles or the deserts or on the moon that grew up not reading or hearing anything about the Bible or the Gospel will not get saved. Only children would think that while they read 'Neverending Story" where they participate inside the story.
I'm not sure that scrabbling and working in an extreme hurriedness to spread the Gospel is correct. This type of modern easybelivism could bring extreme men centerness. We're already involved in Politics and merging state and religion back together. Leave the NEW gay marriage to the reprobates. Let them steal "marriage" from the Bible. If the unbelievers wants to play house like kids, we must trust God to choose whom He chooses. Why convince reprobates to save themselves? Not what the Bible meant even though the arminians created the new terminology that the Bible meant that. Christmas and great holidays already becoming the root of our economy. I lost my job due to no one shopping during the 2008 Wall Street crisis.
If Jesus was here, He'll turn the market tables over in His Father's house, again. Its too wrong to claim the baby/kid/man in the jungles may go to hell cause we didn't scramble hard enough to get the Gospel to him. That would be our fault. We didn't work hard enough. We didn't get what we earned so hard for and at the same time wasting our efforts like it's pure nothingness.

If one looks hard enough deep into what John Calvin really meant, we'll discover that God calls whom He wants to call without our help. He doesn’t need us to share the Gospel to the Jungle boy.


Keep in mind that your opinion is based on, well, just your opinion. It's quite dangerous, since it denies the necessity of salvation through Christ alone, and, indeed, makes one wonder why Christ even bothered to send preachers if evangelism, which by definition "is with our help", is unnecessary and unwanted.

Why, for example, did God give Paul the dream of the people begging for Paul's help? (Acts 16:9). Was it because it was not necessary to preach? Why did Christ command us to "preach to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?' Why did the Apostles command us to always be ready to give a reason for our hope, and to rebuke, correct, exhort? You see, your statements are a direct contradiction to the express desires of God.

What you are pressing here is, essentially, a kind of heretical hyper-Calvinism that at the root of it, ironically, denies God's sovereignty to "have mercy on whom he will have mercy." This is NOT something that is legitimate theology.

If God chooses to send his preachers to one city, but through His providence forbids it to another, what is it to you, O man? Is God obligated to please your sentiments and give a "fair" chance to everyone, or, perhaps, saving everyone even without the preaching of the Gospel and faith in Jesus Christ? But we who believe in God know that no one is left abandoned without the express ordaining of God, and no man hears the Gospel at random, but it is God who ordains all things, and the spread of His word, and has given us the direct commandment to preach even to the reprobate, despite your claim to the contrary. You either submit to the word of God, or you let your sentiments rule you, but don't confuse the latter with the Gospel.

As for Calvin allegedly supporting your views:

"If we have any humanity in us, seeing men going to perdition, …ought we not be moved by pity, to rescue the poor souls from hell, and teach them the way of salvation?" (from sermon 196 on Deut. 33:18-19; taken from Ref 21 article)

"…nothing could be more inconsistent with the nature of faith than that deadness which would lead a man to disregard his brethren, and to keep the light of knowledge choked up within his own breast." (from commentary on Is. 2:3; taken from Ref 21 article)

"When we know God to be our Father, should we not desire that he be known as such by all? And if we do not have this passion, that all creatures do him homage, is it not a sign that his glory means little to us?" (from sermon 196 on Deut. 33:18-19; taken from Ref 21 article)

"Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, it befits us so to feel as to wish that all be saved. So it will come about that, whoever we come across, we shall study to make him a sharer of peace . . . even severe rebuke will be administered like medicine, lest they should perish or cause others to perish. But it will be for God to make it effective in those whom He foreknew and predestined." (from Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God; taken from the Founders Journal article)

"…there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception….[the Christian's duty is] to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling….[those people insult God] who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation." (from commentary on 1 Tim. 2:4-5; taken from the Founders Journal article)

"God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. " (from commentary on the Synoptic Gospels; taken from the Cork Free Presbyterian Church article)

"It is no small consolation to godly teachers that, although the larger part of the world does not listen to Christ, He has His sheep whom He knows and by whom He is also known. They must do their utmost to bring the whole world into Christ’s fold, but when they do not succeed as they would wish, they must be satisfied with the single thought that those who are sheep will be collected together by their work. "(from commentary on John 10:27; taken from Cork FPC article)

"Thus we may see what St. Paul\’s meaning is when he saith, God will have His grace made known to all the world, and His gospel preached to all creatures. Therefore, we must endeavour, as much as possible, to persuade those who are strangers to the faith, and seem to be utterly deprived of the goodness of God, to accept of salvation. Jesus Christ is not only a Saviour of few, but He offereth Himself to all. As often as the gospel is preached to us, we ought to consider that God calleth us to Him: and if we attend to this call, it shall not be in vain, neither shall it be lost labour…”Therefore, we may be so much the more assured that God taketh and holdeth us for His children, if we endeavour to bring those to Him who are afar off. Let us comfort ourselves, and take courage in this our calling: although there be at this day a great forlornness, though we seem to be miserable creatures, utterly cast away and condemned, yet we must labour as much as possible to draw those to salvation who seem to be afar off. And above all things, let us pray to God for them, waiting patiently till it please Him to show His good will toward them, as He hath shown it to us. "(from sermon on 1 Timothy 2:3-5; taken from the Cork FPC article)

"If the gospel be not preached, Jesus Christ is, as it were, buried.Therefore, let us stand as witnesses, and do Him this honour, when we see all the world so far out of the way; and remain steadfast in this wholesome doctrine…Let us here observe that St. Paul condemns our unthankfulness, if we be so unfaithful to God, as not to bear witness of His gospel; seeing He hath called us to it.” (from sermon on 2 Timothy 1:8-9; taken from the Cork FPC article)

"It is enough for us to bear this only in mind, that the gospel does not fall like rain from the clouds, but is brought by the hands of men wherever it is sent from above… But hence we also learn how much ought all good men to desire, and how much they ought to value the preaching of the gospel, which is thus commended to us by the mouth of the Lord himself. (from commentary on Romans 10:14; taken from the Cork FPC article)

"…we are called by the Lord on this condition, that every one should afterwards strive to lead others to the truth, to restore the wandering to the right way, to extend a helping hand to the fallen, to win over those who are without…. (from commentary on Hebrews 10:25; taken from the Cork FPC article)

"…the principle thing we have to look to is to teach the ignorant and to show them the way of salvation. (from a sermon on Ephesians 4:29-30; taken from the Cork FPC article)

Neither the scripture, nor Calvin, supports your Hyper-Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
....Neither the scripture, nor Calvin, supports your Hyper-Calvinism.

five-fingers.jpg


We'll let the votes of most voters stand inside the moderation of the PCUSA. Its better for many to leave the church and divide themselves for a new or young denomination thats likely not stand in the future who are repeating historical mistakes.

The wordings I post are tricky, so read carefully:

The Calvinist position isn't that ...if a non-elect person truly repented... God would refuse them salvation anyhow.

That's hyper-Calvinism.


The PCUSA's position, instead, being that a non-elect person will not truly repent !

Important difference.


The Gospel message is what Berkhof

labels a "bona fide calling" (Systematic

Theology
; Pt. 4, Ch. 5, Sec. 2.b; Louis

Berkhof).


This being: A sincere offer of salvation by God to all who hear that Gospel.

That ain't a new or novel doctrine. The Canons of Dort in 1619:


"All who are called through
the Gospel are called seriously"

(CoD; HoD-3-4, A-8)


If a non-elect person were to sincerely believe and genuinely repent, the Lord WOULDN'T say, 'Oh, sorry, just joking !'.


"Pardon is prepared for all
sinners who only turn to seek
after it"
(Institutes; Bk. 3,
Ch. 24, Sec 16; John Calvin)


The reprobate aren't reprobate because there's nothing they can do to be saved.

The reprobate are reprobate because they don't want to be saved ! ( At least not on God's terms. )

What the Holy Spirit does in regeneration is almost wholly volitional.

We're given no new knowledge when we're regenerated. [ Albeit new knowledge results from regeneration. ]

No facility gets altered. We still have only five fingers on each hand.

What's changed is our will (or, if you want, desires).

So the primary thing holding back the unregenerate person from redemption ISN'T that redemption is only offered to regenerate people.

The primary thing holding back the unregenerate person from redemption is that they don't want to be redeemed (on God's terms).



Otherwise "God is undoubtably ready
to pardon whenever the sinner turns"
(Institutes; Bk. 3, Ch. 24, Sec. 15;
Calvin).



"salvation is offered to every
creature under heaven who
hears the gospel" (Systematic
Theology
; Pt. 3, Ch. 8, Sec. 1;
Charles Hodge)




Hence: "Everyone is equally capable of
receiving salvation" (Commentary on
1 Timothy
; 2:4; John Calvin).


Probably the most pertinent point of divergence between you, I and the Reformation is found in the doctrine of Original Sin.

The Reformation believes, and Calvinism teaches, that Mankind was corrupted in all it's parts due to The Fall. This resulting in our Total Depravity and consequent inability to "accept Jesus" or "come to God".

NCT ( like the other semi-Pelagian systems, Romanism and Arminianism ) rejects the Scriptural doctrine of Total Depravity and thus slips into the heretical denial of Original Sin.

If historical and orthodox Calvinism holds to doctrines of Total Depravity and Original Sin, exactly where does hyper-Calvinism come in ?

Well, there's several flavors of your posts on hyper-Calvinism. Thus we cannot make a one-view-fits-all generalization.

Classical hyper-Calvinism disavows the command of Scripture to make a Gospel proclamation. The logic being that predestination negates the necessity.

Normative Calvinism can dispute this without resorting to Arminian -and even Romanist- autosoteric schemes.

Other, more contemporary hyper-Calvinists (e.g., Outside the Camp) raise secondary doctrines to primary importance. Or -more accurately- they deny that there are secondary doctrines. Everything is an essential Doctrine of the Faith !

Such groups will deny that pedobaptists can Christian (or, obversely, others will claim that only pedobaptists are Christian.

It isn't that these doctrines aren't important. Just that these doctrines are not critical.

There definitely are critical doctrines. Yet NOT every doctrine !

You didn't address such things. New and young denominations want a "Calvinism" that is semi-Pelagian. ( Just as the 17th. Century Remonstrants did. )

Their strategy being to mischaracterize all Calvinism as "hyper- Calvinism". The only Calvinism which ain't is suspiciously like Arminianism ...and even Romanism !

There's numerous definitions of "hyper-Calvinism".

But the best one the Tulipbee have seen is by Phillip R.
Johnson (click HERE).

The historical definition of a "hyper-Calvinist" was someone who denied the necessity of the Gospel Call to all willing to hear it.

As Dr. Johnson observes, this is less true of hyper-Calvinists today. However, Johnson's emphasis on denial of the Free Gospel Offer doesn't much differ.

Tulipbee's position being that -if a person doesn't deny the Gospel Call to all willing to listen- then it don't make a whole lot of difference if they do deny the Free Gospel Offer.

Tulipbee also differs with Johnson on a couple other relatively minor points. Like the Gospel Call involving "pleading".

Dr. Johnson may mean this in a forensic sense [i.e., as in a court "pleading"]. But 'pleading with' someone to have faith ...as in begging them.. is foreign to any account in Scripture !

I would also add to Johnson's list of "hyper-Calvinism" those who claim all Biblical teachings are doctrinally equal. That there's neither priority in Scriptural dogma, or some Scriptural dogma more clear (or less clear) than others.

Every hyper-Calvinist who I have interacted with has insisted that the smallest point of Biblical doctrine (and often the least clear point, as well !) is of the same significance as any central dogma based upon the most clear and repeated Biblical teaching !

One thing that's untrue:

That "hyper-Calvinism" involves the dogma of Limited Atonement.

Tulipbee ain't going to waste time debating this, or put up with your spurious charge ! Limited Atonement is an orthodox and normative dogma in Calvinism. Any view to the contrary is sub-Calvinist.

Limited Atonement, then, only being permitted to be argued against from the Arminian (or other semi-Pelagian) position.

We shall not entertain any further the ridiculous theory that Calvinism contains some doctrine of universal atonement. But Arminians (and other semi-Pelagians) may argue against Limited Atonement here as an argument against Calvinism.

Petruchio, there are no "hypers" posting in this topic. If you need me to review again what "hyper-Calvinism" is, I'll be happy to, if I have the time.

But you should refrain from calling people here "hypers" who ain't.

Important Point:

The idea behind the General Calling ain't saving the reprobate.

They're reprobate !

Nor is any of this hyper-Calvinism.

The hyper-Calvinists repudiate the whole idea of a "general call" made to those who are not Elect.

The PCUSA, historical Calvinists affirm the General Calling ! We uphold doctrines of BOTH a limited atonement and a broad proclamation of the Gospel to everyone willing to listen.

But ...for God-haters who love sin, self, and Satan... the Gospel isn't "Good News" ...it's bad news.

This being all of us until (and if) we are regenerated by the instantaneous, supernatural, and monergistic acting of the Holy Spirit.
 
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
P

Petruchio

Guest
The wordings I post are tricky, so read carefully:

The Calvinist position isn't that ...if a non-elect person truly repented... God would refuse them salvation anyhow.

That's hyper-Calvinism.

You've misunderstood me. I was writing against you since you seemed to be denying that salvation is through Christ only. When you said that:

"Without hearing the Word can be too literal if one means the Word must be spoken from the Bible. I think it's odd to believe that a new baby in the jungles or the deserts or on the moon that grew up not reading or hearing anything about the Bible or the Gospel will not get saved. Only children would think that while they read 'Neverending Story" where they participate inside the story.
I'm not sure that scrabbling and working in an extreme hurriedness to spread the Gospel is correct."

Let's order this out:

1) "I think it's odd to believe that a new baby in the jungles or the deserts... will not get saved."

This seems to suggest that those who have never heard the Gospel, can be saved without having faith in Jesus Christ.

You then write:

"Why convince reprobates to save themselves? Not what the Bible meant even though the arminians created the new terminology that the Bible meant that. Christmas and great holidays already becoming the root of our economy. I lost my job due to no one shopping during the 2008 Wall Street crisis."

2) "Why convince reprobates to save themselves?"

Except for the phrase "save themselves," which certainly I would agree that no one can save themselves, but you seem to be suggesting that it is not necessary to preach to them.

This would be Hyper-Calvinism, a denial for the need of Gospel preaching, unless I jumped the gun and misunderstood your point. Keep in mind this thread consisted of that other fellow promoting his Universalism-with-conditions, who argued that even those who had heard the Gospel but rejected it could be saved because, as he said, "I still think that nothing here removes the possibility of non-Christians having the law, or Christ, written in their hearts."

This is grave error, and the idea that unbelievers who have never heard the Gospel can be saved, despite never coming to any knowledge of Christ, is the beginning of it.

This is what I interpreted your post as supporting, but if I am wrong, I apologize. Certainly I am with you entirely in that no one can be saved, unless it is given to them by the Father. I simply supposed you were agreeing with the "Inclusivism" (Universalism) promoted in this thread. But now I think, perhaps, you were not, and I jumped the gun. Please clarify for me, and I will apologize for it.

What the Holy Spirit does in regeneration is almost wholly volitional.

We're given no new knowledge when we're regenerated. [ Albeit new knowledge results from regeneration. ]

No facility gets altered. We still have only five fingers on each hand.

What's changed is our will (or, if you want, desires).

Not only is our will changed, but we are spiritually renewed so that we, who were formerly dead, are now living and able to perceive the things of the Spirit. That is why you cannot imagine an atheist somewhere of being a member of the elect through some "unconscious" faith, based on his good works, or of some tribe out on some island somewhere of being "unconscious" Christians, since all those whom the Holy Spirit moves upon, call Christ LORD, and naturally give up their pagan gods and submit to the true God (Eph 2:1-5), since such is the purpose of salvation to begin with (John 15:16).

Probably the most pertinent point of divergence between you, I and the Reformation is found in the doctrine of Original Sin.

The Reformation believes, and Calvinism teaches, that Mankind was corrupted in all it's parts due to The Fall. This resulting in our Total Depravity and consequent inability to "accept Jesus" or "come to God".

We don't disagree on this matter at all. In fact, if anyone disagrees with it, it is the "Inclusivists," or, rather, the crafty Universalists, who infect the body of Christ and destroy all Gospel preaching.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0