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

TaylorSexton · Nov 11, 2016

The OPC, one of the most conservative Presbyterian denominations, most definitely does not ordain women.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 15, 2016

hedrick said:
Paul accepted slavery. We don’t.

You're an intelligent guy, Hedrick, so you understand that there are different kinds of slavery; therefore your comment is misleading.

Paul does not accept race-based chattel slavery. In fact, he does not even address it. The slavery which Paul (rightly) "accepted" was indentured servitude, and also those who had become bondservants willingly. Some were sold into slavery because of the debts that they had incurred. Slavery or service was a way in which to pay off that debt. It was just in that regard.

Slavery was like credit card debt in those days, and all debts should be paid.

TaylorSexton · Nov 15, 2016

hedrick said:
"God-breathed" is misleading.

I have no idea how. Just look at the component parts of the word.

hedrick · Nov 15, 2016

TaylorSexton said:
I have no idea how. Just look at the component parts of the word.

Words don't necessarily mean what their parts do. Goodbye comes from God be with you, but in normal usage is not a religious statement. Inspired is consistent with a variety of models of inspiration.

TaylorSexton · Nov 15, 2016

hedrick said:
Words don't necessarily mean what their parts do.

Of course, that would be an exegetical fallacy to say they always do. However, you were careful (and rightly so) to say they don't necessarily do. For example, εκβαλλω certainly does mean what the sum of its parts communicate. Can you prove that this particular word in question does not mean the sum of its parts, other than the fact that to say it does would disagree with your own preconceived theology?

hedrick · Nov 15, 2016

I normally use TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the NT) for questions of word meaning. They cite general Greek usage as well as usage by the Jewish community. There's no reason to think that it implies a specific theory of inspiration. Because this translation is specific to the NIV, it doesn't seem to have broad acceptance even among evangelical translators.

TaylorSexton · Nov 15, 2016

hedrick said:
...this translation is specific to the NIV...

Not quite. The ESV also uses it on their text. The HCSB and NASB also have it footnoted.

Besides, translations don't have any bearing on what something means, especially a technical term such as θεόπνευστος (which is also a hapax legomena).

Can you answer my question, or no? We cannot forget the theological background of the man riding this passage when we are thinking about the components of this word. It was chosen deliberately.

hedrick · Nov 15, 2016

If by your question, you mean "Can you prove that this particular word in question does not mean the sum of its parts, other than the fact that to say it does would disagree with your own preconceived theology?" of course not. I can never prove to you that I'm trying to take an objective view. I can only say that I'm using the most detailed lexicon I have, which includes evidence on usage in Greek and Jewish cultures.

As to theological background, the context of 2 Tim 3:16 isn't a discussion of the mode of inspiration. It's talking about the usefulness of Scripture. Both in 3:15 and 3:17. It certainly says that Scripture comes from God to bring us salvation. If you want to use "breathed by God" as giving a theory of inspiration, it would seem to imply dictation, the words coming directly from God. You may believe that, but that's not a traditional Reformed view. At least not outside parts of the prophets and Jesus' teachings.

TaylorSexton · Nov 16, 2016

hedrick said:
I'm trying to take an objective view.

As am I, friend. Please do not imply that I am questioning your intent. I am only questioning your conclusion(s).

hedrick said:
I can only say that I'm using the most detailed lexicon I have, which includes evidence on usage in Greek and Jewish cultures.

Brother, my point is that I have a very hard time believing Paul chose such a word to describe Scripture with the background of a speaking God whose breath and spoken word (which the term in question most certainly can reference) is described as creating the very universe and yet was not trying to communicate the breathed-out-of-the-mouth-of-God nature of Scripture. Of course the word has usage outside of Scripture (such as describing poetry). However, we are dealing with a biblical author who has a bank of theology in his mind as he is penning (or speaking) these words.

hedrick said:
If you want to use "breathed by God" as giving a theory of inspiration, it would seem to imply dictation, the words coming directly from God. You may believe that, but that's not a traditional Reformed view. At least not outside parts of the prophets and Jesus' teachings.

This seems confused to me. I would suggest reading this helpful work:

Packer, J.I. “Calvin’s View of Scripture.” In God’s Inerrant Word, edited by John Warwick Montgomery, 95-114. Minneapolis, MN: 1974.

In it, Packer gives very convincing evidence of Calvin holding the very view that you claim the Reformed tradition never espoused. Furthermore, it is entirely fallacious to argue that "breathed by God" would necessarily entail dictation to the point of suspension of the human writers' minds (which is what I assume you mean). That, too, is explicitly denied by Calvin (who uses "dictation" language frequently himself, as Packer notes at length) and virtually every other piece of Reformed literature I have read. There is plenty of early Church witness to this view, as well; it is not novel to the Reformers, much less evangelicals of the 20th Century.

GoodLightSJ · Feb 18, 2018

A gentleman recently invited me to a PCUSA Adult Bible Study, which I intend on going to in a few days.

My notions about the PCUSA were once molded by my former PCA membership (I'm now a mainliner, and a member of the UMC... a lot of acronyms, I know). I imagine that beliefs toward the inspiration of scripture, even within denomination, can vary significantly by region. I tend to assume that the PCUSA is not significantly Calvinistic in terms of how it 'pastors its flock', and views Calvin's ideas through more of a historical lens with some applications to modernity. (If anything I am saying here is off the mark, by all means, don't mind me--I'm in the process of exploring the denomination more. I otherwise associate the PCUSA with Fred Rogers, more than anything.)

Should be fun.

hedrick · Feb 18, 2018

TheGoodLight said:
A gentleman recently invited me to a PCUSA Adult Bible Study, which I intend on going to in a few days.

My notions about the PCUSA were once molded by my former PCA membership (I'm now a mainliner, and a member of the UMC... a lot of acronyms, I know). I imagine that beliefs toward the inspiration of scripture, even within denomination, can vary significantly by region. I tend to assume that the PCUSA is not significantly Calvinistic in terms of how it 'pastors its flock', and views Calvin's ideas through more of a historical lens with some applications to modernity. (If anything I am saying here is off the mark, by all means, don't mind me--I'm in the process of exploring the denomination more. I otherwise associate the PCUSA with Fred Rogers, more than anything.)

Should be fun.

In my experience Calvin is well-known and referred to, but not TULIP. E.g. I've found his ideas on the atonement very useful, and also his concept of a single covenant in OT and NT. The PCUSA also tends to accept the traditional Reformed views of the sacraments. While the PCUSA hasn't held to TULIP strictly since the beginning of the 20th Cent, there is still more emphasis on God's sovereign grace than in some other denominations. But I don't think you'd see a lot of difference between UMC and PCUSA theology. While historically there would be subtle differences in the theology of communion, a recent UMC whitepaper seems pretty close to the PCUSA view.

As you say, in both PCUSA and UMC there are significant differences among congregations and regions without each denomination, probably more significant that the differences between denominations.

GoodLightSJ · Feb 28, 2018

Update: I showed up today for the weekly Bible study discussion, and had a lovely time. The gentleman who heads the discussions supplied excellent documentation with Bible verses, summaries of scriptural indications, and historical notes, and did an excellent job of encouraging us to discuss the material and its context (e.g. identifying the regions in which those early churches were, and what those nations are in modern times). I felt blessed being there, and look forward to making it a part of my regular routine.

I asked him if the church teaches 5-point Calvinism, afterward. He indicated that he was familiar with it but made clear that they do not.

I have been listening to PCUSA sermon podcasts lately (indeed, Calvin tends to come up, but not TULIP), and am quite enjoying myself and feel like I got a jolt that I needed. Interestingly enough, I was praying the day before I got invited again to the Bible study, for an opportunity to make new connections. Ah, and lo and behold...

It feels great to reach out and have encouraging discussions with folks of multiple denominations.

LovesOurLord · Jan 22, 2019

Doesn't PCUSA teach some type of Queer Theology?

hedrick · Jan 23, 2019

LovesOurLord said:
Doesn't PCUSA teach some type of Queer Theology?

I’m not aware that theology has a sexual orientation.

Radagast · Jan 23, 2019

hedrick said:
I’m not aware that theology has a sexual orientation.

A number of mainline seminaries offer "queer theology" as a subject. AFAIK, seminaries affiliated with the PCUSA don't (yet) do this. Are you aware of any such?

hedrick · Jan 23, 2019

Radagast said:
A number of mainline seminaries offer "queer theology" as a subject. AFAIK, seminaries affiliated with the PCUSA don't (yet) do this. Are you aware of any such?

I haven’t looked at course catalogs recently. But it’s certainly possible. Seminaries offer all kinds of courses. They include important theological movements that most wouldn’t actually agree with. But it’s not something you commonly see in the denomination. We do, of course, allow churches to accept “queers”. That is visible in sexual ethics for those who are accepting. (Both positions are allowed.) But I’m not aware of significant impact on theology.

I’m sure you’re aware that our church has a small but visible number of more radical folks. They are typically not in parish ministry, but in support roles. They manage to get publicity regularly at national gatherings of various sorts. I’m sure that among them you can find queer theology. But it’s not something you see normally.

rnmomof7 · Jan 27, 2019

PCUSA has not been a Calvinist denomination for a long time..

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

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Pardoned Rebel

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Senior Veteran

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Senior Veteran

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Senior Veteran

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency