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

[tulipbee]

I found this : When the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was formed in 1788, it adopted (with minor revisions) the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms (1647), as its secondary standards (the Bible itself being the only infallible rule of faith and practice).

My guess is that there are two versions now. I wouldnt want to proclaim the gospel that Jesus died for every man meaning all are saved or we need to earn salvation . Faith precedes regeneration is wrong.

 

[ztalbott]

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.

It seems like you are WANTING a certain answer. One thing about the PCUSA, as with the Reformed movement throughout history, is that there simply aren't dogmatic proclamations like the Catholics make, etc. As another poster has already pointed out there are a variety of views in the PCUSA, but the ordination vows/promises for Teaching Elders, Ruling Elders and Deacons affirm the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The PCUSA Book of Confessions contains confessions that contradict each other in some parts (just like the Bible contains writings that can contradict each other). It is a witness to our Reformed heritage that the people of the church have understood God speaking to the people in different ways at different times relating to different issues throughout history. God is not black and white. The Bible is not black and white. But what are the overaching themes of God's covenant with humankind that run throughout the Bible and throughout the reformed confessions? That is going to be the focus of the PCUSA. And no you won't find a belief in "Biblical Inerrency" (a rather new term and new concept in itself). You can take the Bible seriously and seek the Holy Spirit's guidance as you read and not believe the Bible is "inerrent." There a many writings on this subject, and it's something that can't really be contained in an online forum. One of the best books on Biblical inerrency from the mainline is by Adam Hamilton... Making Sense of the Bible. And before someone jumps on me and says "He's a Methodist! They aren't reformed!" I'm well aware of that, and in the subjects he breaches in this book there isn't anything anti-reformed either. But it's one of the best for someone who is serious about wanting to know the history of inerrency and the opposite of that (which has been the mainstay of the Protestant church for centuries until recently). But for those who have their minds made up, who are just looking for some sort of "debate" without being open to learning new things, well then really this entire thing is pointless. ;-)

 

[hedrick]

My guess is that there are two versions now. I wouldnt want to proclaim the gospel that Jesus died for every man meaning all are saved or we need to earn salvation . Faith precedes regeneration is wrong.

Universal atonement isn't universalism. That is, saying that Christ died for everyone doesn't say that everyone is saved. It's possible to throw God's gift back in his face.

As Ztalbott says, the PCUSA tends to avoid extreme statements. I suspect our typical de facto position is similar to the classic Lutheran one: That God reaches us through grace, with no merit on our part, but that saying God has specific people he sets out to damn is going beyond the evidence. For the later Luther, damnation was intrinsically mysterious, an inherent contradiction which we shouldn't claim to understand. But it was not due to any intent for God to limit the atonement.

 

[ztalbott]

Universal atonement isn't universalism. That is, saying that Christ died for everyone doesn't say that everyone is saved. It's possible to throw God's gift back in his face.

As Ztalbott says, the PCUSA tends to avoid extreme statements. I suspect our typical de facto position is similar to the classic Lutheran one: That God reaches us through grace, with no merit on our part, but that saying God has specific people he sets out to damn is going beyond the evidence. For the later Luther, damnation was intrinsically mysterious, an inherent contradiction which we shouldn't claim to understand. But it was not due to any intent for God to limit the atonement.

Well said, and amen.

 

[tulipbee]

God doesn't give gifts to those He knows they are going to throw it back at him.

 

[tulipbee]

Universal atonement isn't universalism. That is, saying that Christ died for everyone doesn't say that everyone is saved. It's possible to throw God's gift back in his face.

As Ztalbott says, the PCUSA tends to avoid extreme statements. I suspect our typical de facto position is similar to the classic Lutheran one: That God reaches us through grace, with no merit on our part, but that saying God has specific people he sets out to damn is going beyond the evidence. For the later Luther, damnation was intrinsically mysterious, an inherent contradiction which we shouldn't claim to understand. But it was not due to any intent for God to limit the atonement.

I don't think its hyper calvinist to say jesus only died for those God drew and gave to jesus. I believe that kind of belief is in the older version of the westminster confession. It cant be God drew every man. God doesn't need to draw those he didn't choose .

 

[Cush]

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.


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).

The OPC does not ordain women: http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=155&pfriendly=Y&ret=L3FhLmh0bWw/cXVlc3Rpb25faWQ9MTU1

Here's the statement of belief for the OPC: http://www.opc.org/beliefs.html

"Those pastors, elders, and congregations who first left the PCUSA in 1936 to form the OPC had, before leaving, struggled for decades against the toleration of unbelief and the growing power of anti-Christian modernist heresy in the "broadening church" (to borrow the language used by a highly regarded PCUSA historian). They considered that their commitment to the church (an expression of their commitment to Christ) required them to labor for her reformation.

But when, in 1935 and 1936, the modernists and broad-church proponents succeeded in defrocking from the ministry the very men who had labored to call the church back to fidelity to her Confession and to the Christ of the Bible, it was clear that the time had come to leave. As a denomination the PCUSA not only refused to be disciplined on the basis of the Word of God, but rather imposed discipline on those who had sought scriptural reformation. (Echoes of the Papal Bull excommunicating Martin Luther for standing on the Word of God for the purity of the Gospel of Christ!)"

Read More at :https://www.christforums.org/forum/.../reformed-presbyterian/1164-leaving-the-pcusa

 

[hedrick]

I don't think its hyper calvinist to say jesus only died for those God drew and gave to jesus. I believe that kind of belief is in the older version of the westminster confession. It cant be God drew every man. God doesn't need to draw those he didn't choose .

One characteristic of the PCUSA is that it’s willing to live with Scriptural evidence that defies easy systemization. Scripture is equally clear that God calls specific people, and that he loves everyone and desires all to be saved.

Here’s a good review of the common positions: http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/today/predestination-2/. You will notice that it does not propose any solution, because there isn’t any. We just have to live with the fact that knowing what we know, there’s no wonderful solution. That’s better than to produce artificial resolutions by ignoring or mischaracterizing Scripture.

 

[hedrick]

The OPC does not ordain women: http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=155&pfriendly=Y&ret=L3FhLmh0bWw/cXVlc3Rpb25faWQ9MTU1

apologies. I was thinking of the EPC.

 

[BryanW92]

It's possible to throw God's gift back in his face.

That always concerned me when I was a Methodist. If we all have God's grace and the Holy Spirit, then what causes people to throw God's gift back in his face?

1) The Holy Spirit did not do his job. If that is true, then why? God is perfection and if God is giving grace to all, then a perfect Holy Spirit would be equally persuasive.
2) Some people are stronger than God's influence. It isn't about "stronger sin" because horrible monsters can and do find Jesus, and many nice, moral people do not. So, it has to just be strength of character that permits a person to have the Holy Spirit in residence and to still tell him, "No thanks. Go knock on someone else's door."

So is it possible that God gave grace to all and gave the Holy Spirit to all, but the election part comes into play when God tells the Holy Spirit what to do in each person. He is to be a ball of fire in one person and to just be persuasive enough to keep another person from chopping up babies and selling them for parts. In a few people, he tells the Holy Spirit to just extinguish his light because this person will be an object lesson for centuries.

 

[hedrick]

Your argument is completely logical, but the result isn’t Scriptural. There are lots of cases where God chose people for specific functions, but none suggesting that he has chosen people to be damned. I’ve looked at a number of exegeses of Romans. While Calvin was a fine exegete, I’m convinced he was wrong in this case, failing to take into account the overall argument that Paul was making.

There’s only so far you can separate an omnipotent and omniscient God from what actually happens. At some level he has to know what’s going to happen and at least allow it, and the different between allow and choose for God isn’t so clear. But to say that he specifically limits the amount of inspiration for a given person in order to damn him is going beyond anything in Scripture.

 

[tulipbee]

Your argument is completely logical, but the result isn’t Scriptural. There are lots of cases where God chose people for specific functions, but none suggesting that he has chosen people to be damned. I’ve looked at a number of exegeses of Romans. While Calvin was a fine exegete, I’m convinced he was wrong in this case, failing to take into account the overall argument that Paul was making.

There’s only so far you can separate an omnipotent and omniscient God from what actually happens. At some level he has to know what’s going to happen and at least allow it, and the different between allow and choose for God isn’t so clear. But to say that he specifically limits the amount of inspiration for a given person in order to damn him is going beyond anything in Scripture.

You said ths bible contains errors or not inerrant and yet you say its not scriptural. Whats up with that?

 

[hedrick]

You said ths bible contains errors or not inerrant and yet you say its not scriptural. Whats up with that?

My position has always been that the Bible is a human document that is witness to God’s actions in history. But that imperfection doesn’t make a document useless, anymore than imperfection in the sources makes it impossible for us to do history or other intellectual tasks.

 

[BryanW92]

.

 

[BryanW92]

Your argument is completely logical, but the result isn’t Scriptural. There are lots of cases where God chose people for specific functions, but none suggesting that he has chosen people to be damned. I’ve looked at a number of exegeses of Romans. While Calvin was a fine exegete, I’m convinced he was wrong in this case, failing to take into account the overall argument that Paul was making.

There’s only so far you can separate an omnipotent and omniscient God from what actually happens. At some level he has to know what’s going to happen and at least allow it, and the different between allow and choose for God isn’t so clear. But to say that he specifically limits the amount of inspiration for a given person in order to damn him is going beyond anything in Scripture.

I know that the result of my argument isn't scriptural. The end result wasn't supposed to be. But forget about that for a second and help me understand why an all-powerful God who allegedly wants everyone to come to him can fail so miserably in a majority of people? The Wesleyans, who hang their whole theology on free will, cannot explain it without getting into a works vs grace feedback loop.

It is scriptural to say that God gives different gifts to different people. Does he differentiate when he gives the gift of being able to know him as well?

 

[hedrick]

I know that the result of my argument isn't scriptural. The end result wasn't supposed to be. But forget about that for a second and help me understand why an all-powerful God who allegedly wants everyone to come to him can fail so miserably in a majority of people? The Wesleyans, who hang their whole theology on free will, cannot explain it without getting into a works vs grace feedback loop.

I said already that we can’t remove some kind responsibility from an omnipotent and omniscient God. I objected to a more specific account. We know that God wants all to be saved. We know that he accepts a situation where not everyone is. Beyond that I don’t think we know. We don’t know how God thinks, or how he decides to do what he does. We know only what he has told us of himself. This is why Calvin cautions so carefully in his chapter on predestination that we should not go beyond what Scripture says. I believe your posting did that.

I think there is a difference between saying that God makes choices that he knows will result in a certain set of people rejecting him, and saying that God sets out with a list of people he wants to damn and makes sure that they are.

 

[BryanW92]

I think there is a difference between saying that God makes choices that he knows will result in a certain set of people rejecting him, and saying that God sets out with a list of people he wants to damn and makes sure that they are.

OK. I agree with that. I went a little far in saying that he makes sure you fail, but all I really intended to say is that he chooses who will get the wisdom, discernment, whatever that is required to make a sinner find Jesus. The rest get to reap the rewards in this life of living in a world with the Holy Spirit (which are substantial because most people fail to consider what life would be like in a world where no one but a few priests and prophets has the counsel of the HS), but their afterlife is in question.

 

[tulipbee]

My position has always been that the Bible is a human document that is witness to God’s actions in history. But that imperfection doesn’t make a document useless, anymore than imperfection in the sources makes it impossible for us to do history or other intellectual tasks.

I believe, like some do, that every single letter of the 66 book Bible were instructed by the Holy Spirit. Thats pretty much the Spirit wrote the books Himself like carving the ten commandments tablet. While the bible is perfect, God made it appear in error to certain humans. I'm sure people bickered about the writings as soon as it was written. If theres a pure truth thread running through the different writings then many denominations have the truth threads as well . In other words, like we disagree with perfect letters of the books, that pure truth thread runs through it. While we have so many different denominations that we think its not from God, I believe there some sort of truth thread running through them. They all claimed to be lead by the holy spirit just like the writers claimed they were lead by the Spirit. I view God so much differently than most here do, its like night and day. Those small bickering shows we don't know how God works. I bicker too but I know every letter is from the Spirit , Himself. I believe God is doing all the work in everything even though that don't sound right to most. We can hear God right through those different writers and different denominations if we know how to listen.

 

[tulipbee]

Looking into:
inerrant - free from error in every detail
infallible - free from error in what is being communicated
----
Inerrancy means that the Bible is without flaw or contradiction on ANY subject including science and history

Infallibility means that the Bible is without error on subjects of faith and practice but NOT on science or history. This is also called Limited Inerrancy.

So that means the PCA believes in inerrant
While
ECO believes in infallible.

So the PCA don't change anything in the bible while the ECO can change what the bible really meant. So that would mean the PCusa is doing the same thing as ECO.

Right?

 

[tulipbee]

Universal atonement isn't universalism. That is, saying that Christ died for everyone doesn't say that everyone is saved. It's possible to throw God's gift back in his face.

As Ztalbott says, the PCUSA tends to avoid extreme statements. I suspect our typical de facto position is similar to the classic Lutheran one: That God reaches us through grace, with no merit on our part, but that saying God has specific people he sets out to damn is going beyond the evidence. For the later Luther, damnation was intrinsically mysterious, an inherent contradiction which we shouldn't claim to understand. But it was not due to any intent for God to limit the atonement.

Why would God give the gift of Faith to the person He knows is going to get it thrown back at His face? That's claiming God is dumb.