PCUSA v PCA

[Cajun Huguenot]

I'm with Behe and Paleo in this discussion.

The PCA is not even "relatively" liberal in the tradional way that the term liberal is used. The PCA does have a wing that is more "evangelical" and "less" Reformed, but none are theologically or socially liberal as the word is usually understood.

Calvin had some views that were radically different than the English Puritans or the Scotch Presbyterians. Calvin believed their type of "sabbaterianism" was crazy. That does not make the Puritans more conservative than Reformed forerunner (i.e. John Calvin). It does make them to differ with him on this and some other issues but it does not make them more conservative. That is very different than "liberal" verses "conservative."

We need to keep those differences and not muddy the waters by mis-using these terms.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

BTW, Behe is correct the PCA split from the PCUS in 1973.

 

[david01]

There is a difference between conservative and traditional, although many times these terms are used interchangeably. As I noted elsewhere the RPCNA is probably the most traditional Presbyterian body in the U.S. today. Because they carry on the traditions of a particular Scottish Presbyterian group doesn't make them any less Presbyterian or Reformed.

Although the PCA doesn't imbibe of Modern or Liberal theology, its understanding of Presbyterianism strongly reflects late twentieth century culture. Some would criticize it for only having monthly communion while others would criticize it for having monthly communion. The reality is that the RPCNA bears a much closer resemblance to (one branch) of historic Presbyterianism than does the PCA.

 

[AndOne]

Although the PCA doesn't imbibe of Modern or Liberal theology, its understanding of Presbyterianism strongly reflects late twentieth century culture.

I disagree with this statement. It simply just isn't true.

 

[heymikey80]

Yeah, Behe, I wouldn't agree with that statement either. PCA theology tends to reflect the early 20th century southern Presbyterian church. There are different groups within it, of course. D. James Kennedy was a great preacher of the late 20th Century, as are Piper and Sproul. But to consider them popular 20th century culture is quite a stretch.

In another sense I'm not really enamored of 19th, 18th, or 17th century culture, either. They're important to comprehend. But if we're to be "Semper Reformanda" then we're to be about reforming those cultures as well as the 20th and 21st century. To do that we "bring forth items old and new". There are some great things about each generation. Let's move to bring back things where we've lost our way: and embrace things that are confirmed by Scripture through Spirit to be God's will for us.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

There are a number of different practices in the overall Reformed Communion of Churches that have ancient roots. Adopting on and not another does not make you more or less conservative or liberal.

John Calvin desired to celebrate communion on weekly, because he believed it the Supper to be a true means of grace, but the civilian authorities in Geneva would not allow him to do what he desired. The Presbyterian Scots differed with Calvin and celebrated Communion infrequently.

The RPCNA is more in line with the Scots, but they are out of step with John Calvin.

This does not make the RPCNA more or less conservative than anyone else. on the subject of communion, I think Calvin is more correct than the Scots. Calvin's view is older and can be traced back to the earliest days of the Christian Church. The Scot position was new to the 16th and 17th century, so which is more "conservative" and which is more "liberal?"

Both are conservative, but Calvin's is far more traditional. There are a growing number of Reformed (PCA) churches who have adopted Calvin's view and celebrate weekly communion, so in that sense they are even more traditional than the RPCNA.

I think the position of Calvin, the Early Church, and a growing number of PCA churches are more in line with both tradition and the scriptures on the issue of communion.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[HamletsChoice]

hola,

you must excuse my confusion about this because i am not a Presbyterian and know very little about Presbyterianism. my husband is one... we go to a Presby service (when he is here) after Mass, usually with his parents. but he made an off handed remark recently about the "PCUSA" churches not being 'real' Presbyterians and that the PCA was an orthodox Presbyterian organization... they way he spoke on the subject made it seem to me like they were completely different denominations...

what is this? is anyone familiar with these organizations and why one might consider the other so radical?

gracias

The PCUSA is very liberal. They support the unbiblical positions of women and homosexuals in the ministry. The PCA is conservative and is substantially biblical in it's positions.

 

[david01]

I take exception that the PCA does not reflect late twentieth century American culture. There are many things that are simply taken for granted. For example, the roles of women both in the church and in the home, In the church women no longer wear hats to church as they did in all Presbyterian churches (including the predecessors of the PCUSA) until the 1950's. Also, in some PCA churches women are taking verbal part in the services and are leading Bible classes which include men, Up until the mid-twentieth century all Presbyterian denominations stressed the importance of women remaining in the home to manage the household and raise godly offspring (cf. Titus 2:3-5). In the PCA the stress on this issue, when it does appear, is considerably less than it was in the early twentieth century. One can debate whether or not these things are good or bad, but the fact is that the PCA is much more similar in its cultural practices to the late twentieth century than any other era.

Please note that it is popular culture, not theology, which the PCA reflects. With the RPCNA it is much, much simpler to identify the seventeenth century Scottish cultural traditions which it cherishes.

 

[AndOne]

I take exception that the PCA does not reflect late twentieth century American culture. There are many things that are simply taken for granted. For example, the roles of women both in the church and in the home, In the church women no longer wear hats to church as they did in all Presbyterian churches (including the predecessors of the PCUSA) until the 1950's. Also, in some PCA churches women are taking verbal part in the services and are leading Bible classes which include men, Up until the mid-twentieth century all Presbyterian denominations stressed the importance of women remaining in the home to manage the household and raise godly offspring (cf. Titus 2:3-5). In the PCA the stress on this issue, when it does appear, is considerably less than it was in the early twentieth century. One can debate whether or not these things are good or bad, but the fact is that the PCA is much more similar in its cultural practices to the late twentieth century than any other era.

Please note that it is popular culture, not theology, which the PCA reflects. With the RPCNA it is much, much simpler to identify the seventeenth century Scottish cultural traditions which it cherishes.

If the hang up is with cultural practices vice theological - then that is LEGALISM - and that's a problem. (Romans 14 and 15)

 

[david01]

My point was not to argue whether these things are legalisms, good or bad or otherwise, but merely to comment that the cultural milieu of the PCA is much more aligned to the late twentieth century than the Presbyterianism of the early twentieth century. One can argue that a weekly Communion service is legalistic, but there are others such as Cajun Huguenot who effectively argue otherwise.

 

[AndOne]

Give me a break - I never said that weekly communion was legalistic.

My point was to point out that your concern with the PCA's alignment with 20th century culture is coming across as legalistic. Sounds like your judging them for not aligning to your specific standards of what a church should be. If that is not your intent - well check yourself - because that is the way its coming across.

Sheeesh - and I'm not even a member of a PCA church!

 

[heymikey80]

I take exception that the PCA does not reflect late twentieth century American culture. There are many things that are simply taken for granted. For example, the roles of women both in the church and in the home, In the church women no longer wear hats to church as they did in all Presbyterian churches (including the predecessors of the PCUSA) until the 1950's. Also, in some PCA churches women are taking verbal part in the services and are leading Bible classes which include men, Up until the mid-twentieth century all Presbyterian denominations stressed the importance of women remaining in the home to manage the household and raise godly offspring (cf. Titus 2:3-5). In the PCA the stress on this issue, when it does appear, is considerably less than it was in the early twentieth century. One can debate whether or not these things are good or bad, but the fact is that the PCA is much more similar in its cultural practices to the late twentieth century than any other era.

Please note that it is popular culture, not theology, which the PCA reflects. With the RPCNA it is much, much simpler to identify the seventeenth century Scottish cultural traditions which it cherishes.

It is not popular culture that the PCA reflects. Sorry, it's just not.

The PCA has quite a number of church practices in it, including noninstrumental churches and indeed churches that teach the use of head coverings. Yep.

The PCA however does not have stringent constraints on its forms of worship that restrict it to one century.

And that's a good thing. 17th C. Scottish cultural traditions are not always Scripturally relevant. We're to be Christ's Church, which means we're to be open to all cultures in time and ethnicity, accepting what is Scriptural, reforming what is not. Christ defines our worship, we don't. Christ defines traditions, we don't. Christ defines order, we don't. Christ defines His Church. We don't.

 

[david01]

It is absurd to believe that any Christian or any church or any denomination is acultural. Although it may be a goal, it is an exceedingly lofty and difficult goal to achieve. As I am sure Cajun Huguenot will agree, it is virtually impossible to recreate Calvin's Geneva (and I doubt most of us would want to). In the same way, few would actually want to reinvent the seventeenth century Plymouth Bay Colony.

As for the PCA, its cultural influences, such as they are, are primarily from the late twentieth century American culture. I would not dare to suggest that it is driven by those influences, but they are still there. Noninstrumental churches were thriving in other denominational circles at that time (and still are) as is the practice of varying forms of women's headcoverings.

 

[Elderone]

To become a member, one must take an oath and covenant that they recognize the RPCNA as God's only church and that they will be faithful members of His church for the remainder of their lives, as will all of their descendants.

This information is not correct. The RPCNA vows can be checked out in their constitution, section G1, Vows, at the following:

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/conv_constitution.html

 

[DoomRyderOCST]

Although the PCA doesn't imbibe of Modern or Liberal theology, its understanding of Presbyterianism strongly reflects late twentieth century culture. Some would criticize it for only having monthly communion while others would criticize it for having monthly communion. The reality is that the RPCNA bears a much closer resemblance to (one branch) of historic Presbyterianism than does the PCA.

Sorry for the slight thread drift here, but is it a requirement that PCA chuches only have communion communion once a month, or is it up to the individual churches if they want to have communion on a more frequent basis?

 

[AndOne]

Sorry for the slight thread drift here, but is it a requirement that PCA chuches only have communion communion once a month, or is it up to the individual churches if they want to have communion on a more frequent basis?

Its up to the individual churches..

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

The two local PCA congregations near to where I live both celebrate the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day.

Kenith

 

[DoomRyderOCST]

Thanks for the answer, guys. My church might possibly join the PCA in the near future so I was curious. We celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday as well.

 

[bliz]

Sorry for the slight thread drift here, but is it a requirement that PCA chuches only have communion communion once a month, or is it up to the individual churches if they want to have communion on a more frequent basis?

RPCNA churches often have guest pastors for communion preparation and communion, a practice that perplexes me.

 

[JohnPiperFan]

I'm a member of the OPC myself-we tell people it stands for Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but it really means Only Perfect Church... Just kidding, but it is a good conservative, reformed, Presbyterian denomination.

 

[Snowbunny]

hola,

how do you all measure how 'reformed' a presbyterian church or denomination is? if i'm not mistaken there is more to reformed theology than john calvin and more to presbyterianism than john calvin... don't you also follow the teachings of knox?

given that you are drawing from various sources... how is it determined that one presbyterian church is more presby than another?

gracias