Do PCUSA believe "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."?

[tulipbee]

I read the PCA believe differently in thier statements reguarding to "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Did the PCUSA say they believe only parts of the bible or did I misuderstand that?

 

[rnmomof7]

I read the PCA believe differently in thier statements reguarding to "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Did the PCUSA say they believe only parts of the bible or did I misuderstand that?

The question is do they believe in God

 

[hedrick]

The PCUSA has members and clergy with a variety of views on Scripture. However I’d say that our leadership accept a view something like this: God revealed himself through history, and through the words of the Prophets and Jesus. The Bible is a human work, witnessing to those events and recording those words. The various books of the Bible differ in purpose, historical background, and style. The same approach won’t work for Psalms, the Gospels, and the Revelation, as these are rather different types of work. Each book should be understood in terms of the author’s intent and the historical situation.

In general the PCUSA does not teach inerrancy. It accepts current critical scholarship, archaeology, historical study, science, etc.

I haven’t been able to find any surveys of PCUSA people asking about belief in the resurrection. A recent survey showed that 97% of our pastors believe in life after death, so presumably they believe in Christ’s resurrection. (Note however that pastors are ministers of churches. The number is slightly smaller for other categories of Presbyterians.)

 

[tulipbee]

Thanks hedrick. I found this:
------------ź
Inerrancy

PCUSA: Does not teach that Scripture is inerrant.

PCA: Teaches that Scripture is inerrant.
---------------

I guess you explained the pcusa positions regaurding this. I'm very concerned that pcusa are taking inerrancy lightly. I learned that the 66 books of hebrew and greek writings goes much deeper than just writings by men. I learned that it was inspired word for word by God. I'm sort of seriously thinking of switching from pcusa to pca but I haven't yet figured out the interpretations of women ordination. What are the ECO's positions on inerrancy?

I also found this:
-----------
Conflicts over inerrancy has caused internal rifts within the Presbyterian movement. In 1973, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) split off from the Presbyterian Church (USA), partly over the matter of inerrancy. The PCA left because the PCUSA "...had shifted from its historic beliefs to a theological liberalism that denied core biblical doctrines, such as the inerrancy and authority of Scripture."
--------

 

[BryanW92]

I'm sort of seriously thinking of switching from pcusa to pca but I haven't yet figured out the interpretations of women ordination.

Unless you have a great desire to become an Elder, it might not even be a problem. My wife and I joined the PCA a year ago and I really thought that she would hate it because women can't be ordained, or serve as Elders or Deacons. But, the funny thing is that women can teach women and children and she has led a series of bible studies almost from the start. She is also a Stephen Minister and is already highly respected in the church.

Meanwhile, since I am not an Elder or Deacon, I cannot teach or lead (and certainly not preach!) or do any of the things that I used to do in my old church (when I was Methodist). So, I am "Donna's husband" in this church and very few people even bother to learn my name. The rules that only men can be Elders and Deacons is more restrictive on the men than on the women, who seem to run their own church within the church.

 

[hedrick]

I guess you explained the pcusa positions regaurding this. I'm very concerned that pcusa are taking inerrancy lightly. I learned that the 66 books of hebrew and greek writings goes much deeper than just writings by men. I learned that it was inspired word for word by God.

It’s not taking inerrancy lightly. It explicitly does not accept inerrancy as a standard. In my view it really never has. As modern views of Scripture became well-known among ordinary churchmen in the late 19th Cent, Presbyterians were involved. There were continuing conflicts during the early 20th Cent, but by the 1930’s the Church clearly permitted both positions, and the seminaries all taught modern views of Scripture.

There are certainly a few very radical Presbyterians, but most are attracted more by folks like N T Wright, i.e. moderate critical scholars, rather than Spong, etc.

I'm sort of seriously thinking of switching from pcusa to pca but I haven't yet figured out the interpretations of women ordination. What are the ECO's positions on inerrancy?

There are three major conservative offshoot groups, OPC, PCA and ECO, dating to the 1930’s, 1973 and 2011.

* OPC ordains women, on a per-presbytery basis. It holds inerrancy, and uses the Westminster standards.

* PCA does not ordain women, though it is otherwise probably broader than the OPC. It also holds inerrancy and uses Westminster.

* ECO is the same as the PCUSA except on homosexuality. I.e. it ordains women, and accepts the same set of confessional documents as the PCUSA. That means that it holds pretty much the same doctrine of Scripture. Presumably it would exclude people on the left end of the critical spectrum, but would still accept people who don’t accept inerrancy. E.g. Calvin and N T Wright would be welcome but Spong would not (and his PCUSA equivalent, Shuck).

 

[Gnarwhal]

The question is do they believe in God

Now now, don't be crass.

 

[hedrick]

I finally found a survey that does a reasonable job of answering what PCUSA member and leaders believe about the Bible. Here's a URL for the whole survey: http://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/research/pdfs/bkg-2006-2008-report.pdf. Their summary is: "One in six laity (members, 18%; elders, 17%) but fewer ministers (pastors, 5%; specialized clergy, 2%) believe the Bible is “to be taken literally, word for word.” Instead, majorities of 71% or more choose one of these two statements to describe the Bible: “[It is] the word of God, to be interpreted in the light of its historical and cultural context” or “[It is] the word of God, to be interpreted in the light of its historical context and the Church’s teachings”

They give results for members, elders, pastor and ordained clergy who aren't pastors of churches. Virtually all say it is the Word of God, or contains the Word of God. (The second may seem an odd phrase, but it's common terminology for the view I summarized in posting 3.) Virtually no elders or pastors said anything else. Among members, 2% said it's not the word of God but it's valuable and 2% said they didn't know. Less than 0.5% of members, and none of the leaders, said it has no value today.

On the other end, less than 20% of members and elders said it should be taken literally, and 5% or less of clergy. Taken literally is a pretty ambiguous term, but I think most people responding to a survey like this would like understand that to be a reference to inerrancy.

 

[BryanW92]

Interesting survey results. So, it is or contains the Word of God, has "value", but is not to be taken literally.

It says that more than laity and elders believe that it is the inerrant Word by more than 3 times. It also says that more than half of Pastors believe that it must be interpreted in cultural and historical context, but laity and elders lag behind on that. I would say that the people are being led away from inerrancy towards cultural relevance by the Pastors in the PCUSA. The ones who are willing to accept that, stay. The rest leave, so the percentages of people in a Mainline denomination who favor cultural relevance keep growing as the numbers keep shrinking.

 

[hedrick]

inerrancy towards cultural relevance by the Pastors in the PCUSA.

Please be clear what the question said about culture. It did not ask whether Scripture should be made relevant to current culture. It asked whether it should be interpreted in light of the historical and cultural context of Scripture. This is historical interpretation, which has characterized Reformed exegesis back to Calvin. I believe many conservative exegetes would say the same. The difference would be in specific judgements about how that applies.

A lot depends upon how questions are worded. The follow survey gives the opposite impression about the difference between members and pastors: http://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/research/pdfs/1997_99_full_bgrndreport.pdf. The largest group of both agreed with Scripture as the Word of God which is a powerful motivator. But more members said it was a record of peope's experience with God, and more pastors that it was inspired, without error on matters of faith and morals.

One thing I found interesting is that just about the highest rate of agreement I've seen in any of these surveys was on the question of life after death. 96% of pastors agreed. Elders and members were less sure. I talked with a well-known pastor years ago about this. He said that before he preached his first funeral sermon he scoured Scripture and other sources, because he wanted to be very sure that the assurances he gave grieving members were true. It seems that he's not alone.

Because responses vary depending upon wording and what alternatives are presented, probably the safest thing you can say is that virtually all members and leaders consider Scripture to be the Word of God and inspired, but few think that means inerrancy in the sense of the Chicago Statement.

 

[BryanW92]

Please be clear what the question said about culture. It did not ask whether Scripture should be made relevant to current culture. It asked whether it should be interpreted in light of the historical and cultural context of Scripture. This is historical interpretation, which has characterized Reformed exegesis back to Calvin. I believe many conservative exegetes would say the same. The difference would be in specific judgements about how that applies.

Its the same thing.

When I say that people are saying that it should be interpreted in light of cultural context, I'm saying that they believe that they should frame it in modern culture.

I won't put words in your mouth, so I will use my Progressive Methodist pastor's words and say that he has told me that it must be interpreted in the cultural context of the time it was written and understood that God gives it new meaning as culture changes.

Same thing. He said that scripture as written is not inerrant because culture changed. I disagree. People are still sinners God is still God. The work of Christ on the cross is still the same work. We just want to believe that we are more nuanced and sophisticated now, so we have a better understanding of what is and is not sin today than those 1st century primitives did who put pen to paper to write down the gospels.

 

[BryanW92]

One thing I found interesting is that just about the highest rate of agreement I've seen in any of these surveys was on the question of life after death. 96% of pastors agreed. Elders and members were less sure. I talked with a well-known pastor years ago about this. He said that before he preached his first funeral sermon he scoured Scripture and other sources, because he wanted to be very sure that the assurances he gave grieving members were true. It seems that he's not alone.

That was encouraging. I know a few Methodist pastors who do not share that point of view. They've reduced the afterlife to some kind of buddhist "shared entity" experience and that your actual afterlife is just what you accomplished and left behind. They say that talk of heaven often diminishes the desire to do works on Earth.

 

[tulipbee]

If the pastor believes the bible isn't perfect then they will preach more about its imperfection and spread through congregation and ill bd stuck with everyone belivng opposite of me. I would think that if its in the book of order or statements that the bible is the word of God, then we would have a standard to follow. These surveys doesn't help and no standards would be forced and confusion sets in.

 

[tulipbee]

I would think it important to know the Bible is 100% inspired by God but we also know God doesn't expect t us to keep the rules cause we can't anyway. So we say that we want. We repent through public confessions and go back to doing what we confessed about. That would mean the pastors can pretty much preach anything. What gets me is they go back and deny going back.

 

[hedrick]

I would think it important to know the Bible is 100% inspired by God but we also know God doesn't expect t us to keep the rules cause we can't anyway. So we say that we want. We repent through public confessions and go back to doing what we confessed about. That would mean the pastors can pretty much preach anything. What gets me is they go back and deny going back.

Quite the contrary. We deal with imperfect information all the time. All of what we know about history is based on imperfect information. We make decisions in our lives. Even our justice system makes decisions. People have lots of experience with evaluating information. Even understanding the Bible as a human witness, I can see God leading the Jews to understand him better, and Jesus shows me a way of life I wouldn’t know otherwise.

But if you tell me the Bible is perfect, I have no idea how to deal with that claim. There’s no justification for it, except phrases from the Bible taken out of context. Furthermore, it causes me to have to abandon significant parts of science, history, and archaeology. I have to accept actions that don’t agree with Jesus teaching, but which people thought God was telling them to do. (This refers particularly to the early parts of the OT.) So this creates unnecessary problems, without any benefit. It doesn’t make Jesus any more God’s son.

Furthermore, inerrancy seems to commit people to some concept of applying Biblical teachings “literally” which no one could possibly carry out consistently. Now it’s really a mistake to speak of this as inerrancy. When we allow women to wear hats, we’re not claiming that the Bible inaccurately portrays Paul’s teaching. We’re not even claiming that Paul was wrong. We’re just saying that what he was trying to accomplish should be accomplished differently today. So there’s no claim here of errors. However it seems that people who accept inerrancy also accept this kind of illusion of literal application.

Everyone makes these kinds of cultural adjustments. It’s just that after a few decades people stop thinking about them, and read through the relevant Biblical passages without noticing that they aren’t being applied literally. In my opinion this kind of obliviousness is a bad idea. It’s better to do adjustments consciously, so we can exercise appropriate judgement.

All the survey results suggest that the Church will end up accepting homosexuality fairly quickly. I’m going to be interested to see whether this leads people to change the way they interpret Scripture. My theory is that in 20 years evangelicals will accept gays, still claim to be applying Scripture literally, and simply read over Rom 1 without noticing it. That’s not an approach I recommend.

 

[ztalbott]

I read the PCA believe differently in thier statements reguarding to "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Did the PCUSA say they believe only parts of the bible or did I misuderstand that?

I would encourage you to go to the PCUSA constitution (specifically the Book of Order) and read what we believe about scripture. You can download both parts of our Constitution (the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order) for free from PCUSA.org. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the foundation on which we build our faith and doctrine, and they are authoritative under the teachings of Jesus Christ and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tulipbee]

I would encourage you to go to the PCUSA constitution (specifically the Book of Order) and read what we believe about scripture. You can download both parts of our Constitution (the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order) for free from PCUSA.org. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the foundation on which we build our faith and doctrine, and they are authoritative under the teachings of Jesus Christ and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The PCUSA book of order states they somewhat follow the wesminster confessions but I got a quote in my weekly PCUSA newsletter:
He died not for men, but for each man.

If each man had been the only man made, He would have done no less.

~C.S. Lewis

So that means Jesus died for every man and no one is hellbound. The PCA wont print quotes like that, right?

Perhaps PCUSA don't follow the confessions they list in the book of order.

 

[tulipbee]

Furthermore, inerrancy seems to commit people to some concept of applying Biblical teachings “literally” which no one could possibly carry out consistently. Now it’s really a mistake to speak of this as inerrancy. When we allow women to wear hats, we’re not claiming that the Bible inaccurately portrays Paul’s teaching. We’re not even claiming that Paul was wrong. We’re just saying that what he was trying to accomplish should be accomplished differently today. So there’s no claim here of errors. However it seems that people who accept inerrancy also accept this kind of illusion of literal application.

If God is perfect while He inspires the writers to write His perfect Word, then all of the Bible is perfect. Each writer wrote so differently and made notes the sounded like it was written in error. The Bible contradicted each other cause of the writers speaking in thier own beliefs. God perfectly wrote through each men but to us it sounded like the bible has errors. God inspired each writer as if He wrote all of the bible. Each writer wrote in a way that they can't possibly be alone. God guided every stroke of every pen. Even though the writers list laws we must follow like wearing hats, they wrote with pure perfection as if God was under each letter. While we bicker on it not being written by God, God wrote something else underneath every letter. Today we don't understand how it appears not to be of error and at the same time theres perfection underneth and between the lines. I had an 'ah ha' monent, last week, cause some fringe christians were challenging me that the bible is wriiten in errors. If God was with the writers then He is everywhere and there is nowhere He is not. According to the new mathematical discoveries as claimed in http://www.theomatics.com God made the writers write each letter to work in harmony with the rest of the books. While we bicker about the bible and not burn it, God wrote with hidden numerical facts we don't see on the surface . When we see the hidden facts by the pens of God, we find that no man can ever write like they did without God. That means to me that the perfect bible is being preserved cause it appears it has errors but far in the future, our supercomputers will find things in the bible we never knew it was there. You want to keep the bible cause it appears imperfect and want to preserve it like the rest of the regular books. If we know the bible was flawless and with perfection, then all the Bibles would have been destroyed.
Why not claim there are no errors in the bible, cause God said so, while we don't know for sure due to the new discoveies in the link I provided?

 

[tulipbee]

I would like to see links where the PCA claims the bible is without errors.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think CS Lewis was specifically arguing about the extent of the atonement, but was making a point about how we should think of our own relationship with him. That makes it hard to know what the people writing that newsletter actually believed about the extent of the atonement.

However the predecessor denomination of the PCUSA modified Westminster in 1903, to add a statement that God loves the whole world and desires all men to be saved. I think that disclaims limited atonement. At the very least it was intended to allow people who hold to an unlimited atonement.

In 1903, Westminster was the only standard. People were required to subscribe to it in strong enough terms that it was necessary to modify it when beliefs changed. When we moved to the Book of Confessions, part of the deal was that subscription to any individual confession was in a looser sense. However more recent confessions have been added so that people can know what we do actually believe.

The Confession of 1967 says "The risen Christ is the Savior for all men. Those joined to him by faith are set right with God and commissioned to serve as his reconciling community. Christ is head of this community, the church, which began with the apostles and continues through all generations." I think this is a bit more explicit about an unlimited atonement.