Should I be surprised to see this coming from a Presbyterian pastor?

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟17,297.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Serving in the United Methodist Church, I don't get much opportunity to listen to Presbyterian preaching, and it's been a few years since I've served in a community with a Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). But last I knew Presbyterians were firmly Nicean in their faith. Still, this pastor seems to be finding a lot of acceptance for his views. Should I be surprised to see this coming from a Presbyterian pastor? Or is becoming more normative than I realized?

Jesus Is Not My God
 
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Serving in the United Methodist Church, I don't get much opportunity to listen to Presbyterian preaching, and it's been a few years since I've served in a community with a Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). But last I knew Presbyterians were firmly Nicean in their faith. Still, this pastor seems to be finding a lot of acceptance for his views. Should I be surprised to see this coming from a Presbyterian pastor? Or is becoming more normative than I realized?

Jesus Is Not My God

Sadly, this is becoming more common in the PCUSA as it splinters, leaving some very radical liberals scrambling for control. The problem is that people such as this get the headlines, giving the firm impression that this is the approved faith in the Presbyterian Church. The result is that regular Christians in the PCUSA are scandalized and head toward the exits, thinking that the denomination has utterly abandoned the faith. It has become a downward spiral and I do not see an end to it.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Serving in the United Methodist Church, I don't get much opportunity to listen to Presbyterian preaching, and it's been a few years since I've served in a community with a Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). But last I knew Presbyterians were firmly Nicean in their faith. Still, this pastor seems to be finding a lot of acceptance for his views. Should I be surprised to see this coming from a Presbyterian pastor? Or is becoming more normative than I realized?

Jesus Is Not My God

He's on the left end of the PCUSA, as is clear from the web page about him. But his views would be considered acceptable by some congregations and many presbyteries.

"I believe, help my unbelief" is a perfectly acceptable and honest characterization of many people's faith.

On Christology I'd want to hear more about what he has to say. That Scripture avoids calling Jesus God is obvious, but it's also obvious that it identifies him with God in various ways. From that article I can't tell what, if anything, Sandlin says about the identification.
 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
757
NE Florida
✟15,351.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sadly, this is becoming more common in the PCUSA as it splinters, leaving some very radical liberals scrambling for control. The problem is that people such as this get the headlines, giving the firm impression that this is the approved faith in the Presbyterian Church. The result is that regular Christians in the PCUSA are scandalized and head toward the exits, thinking that the denomination has utterly abandoned the faith. It has become a downward spiral and I do not see an end to it.

I'm so glad that I'm joining a PCA church at the end of the month. Reading that blog post just made me sad that the author is a pastor and influencing the spiritual lives of a congregation.

So, assuming that he once believed in Jesus, how do we reconcile his new beliefs with the perseverance of the saints?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMR
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
I'm so glad that I'm joining a PCA church at the end of the month. Reading that blog post just made me sad that the author is a pastor and influencing the spiritual lives of a congregation.

So, assuming that he once believed in Jesus, how do we reconcile his new beliefs with the perseverance of the saints?

If, indeed, he is among the elect, God will discipline him (Hebrews 12). If he is not, then he will not experience the loving discipline of God and, as Peter wrote in his first letter, he will wallow in his unbelief even as a pig returns to the mud or he will eat up heresies even like a dog returns to its vomit to eat it. In all things God will be glorified.
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟17,297.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
If, indeed, he is among the elect, God will discipline him (Hebrews 12). If he is not, then he will not experience the loving discipline of God and, as Peter wrote in his first letter, he will wallow in his unbelief even as a pig returns to the mud or he will eat up heresies even like a dog returns to its vomit to eat it. In all things God will be glorified.


Do you mean to imply that either he is or isn't by virtue of a choice that God has made toward him? Or do you mean to imply that either he is or isn't by virtue of a choice that he has made with regard to God?
 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
757
NE Florida
✟15,351.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If, indeed, he is among the elect, God will discipline him (Hebrews 12). If he is not, then he will not experience the loving discipline of God and, as Peter wrote in his first letter, he will wallow in his unbelief even as a pig returns to the mud or he will eat up heresies even like a dog returns to its vomit to eat it. In all things God will be glorified.

What is the Lord's discipline for one of the elect? Hebrews 12 made a lot more sense when I was a Methodist than it does now.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not Presbyterian but seeing that bothered me, I maybe a liberal. but what he's preaching isn't Christianity, it's deism with a "friendly" face.

Spong's "theology" still lives on I see.

Maybe. He says that the next article will be on what it means that Jesus is Christ. I'd like to see what he says there. Denying that the Bible calls Jesus God would probably be acceptable to many in the PCUSA (though unusual) if it's combined with a good presentation on what it means that the Bible does call him the Son of God, speaks of him being involved with creation, and says the fullness of God is present in him.

There are a few screwy PCUSA churches. The national denomination intervened with one that allowed someone who said he was an atheist to join. But I've watched some examinations of clergy in fairly liberal presbyteries. I'd be surprised if a presbytery, particularly in the South, would accept a pastor who rejects the Incarnation completely.
 
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

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
I would think, I thought that my denomination surprised me when Spong was allowed to retain not only his Bishopric but his cathedra seat with his "theology", that the Creeds and the Westminster Confession would've stop a preacher such as that from getting accepted in the PCUSA? Liberalism is one thing, but moving completely from Scripture is another thing entirely.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
What is the Lord's discipline for one of the elect? Hebrews 12 made a lot more sense when I was a Methodist than it does now.

The Bible provides a number of examples. Job is the oldest example. It is interesting to me that the advice of one of his comforters, "Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines." is repeated in Hebrews 12 as a positive truth. There is also the issue in I Corinthians 11 concerning those who do not judge the body of the Lord rightly. Some had become sick and a number had slept (died). Paul also said that he delivered the incestuous man in I Corinthians over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, but the salvation of his soul. As we know from II Corinthians, the man repented and did not die.

I hope these examples help.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I would think, I thought that my denomination surprised me when Spong was allowed to retain not only his Bishopric but his cathedra seat with his "theology", that the Creeds and the Westminster Confession would've stop a preacher such as that from getting accepted in the PCUSA? Liberalism is one thing, but moving completely from Scripture is another thing entirely.

The problem is that liberal Christianity does include Spong.

As I understand it, liberal Christianity started as a response to Kant, the Enightenment, and new critical scholarship. This was all in place by 1800 or so.

I believe there are two 19th Cent streams contributing to liberal Christianity, one that is often credited to Schliermacher and the other which doesn't have any one source but is often credited to Ritschl. My highly oversimplified version is the Schliermacher thought that the traditional Biblical picture had become untenable, and replaced with it a generic God-consciousness, of which Jesus was a primary exponent. Ritschl was part of a tendency to accept the results of critical scholarship and build Christianity on Scripture as understood that way.

In my view, a third strand is there as well, which I'm going to attribute to Barth, though he certainly didn't invent it. But it's the continuing presence of the Reformation heritage, although in a new form.

I don't think we can read Spong out of liberal Christianity without doing too much violence to our tradition, and rejecting a number of distinguished theologians. As far as I can tell this is an updated version of Schliermacher and Tillich. I am *not* an admirer of Spong. I find him a shallow representative of people like Tillich, and that's not the part of the tradition I'm part of anyway. But still, he is within the traditional scope of liberal Christianity. Nor does he reject Scripture, though I find him a bit too cavalier about dismissing its assertions. I don't think theism is untenable. He does.

His is not my personal approach. Furthermore, I don't think historical Jesus scholarship as it developed since 1800 justifies the kind of skepticism that would lead one to see all signs of a theistic God as vestiges of early misunderstanding.

But the fact is, it's there in the tradition. Would the PCUSA reject Schliermacher or Tillich? I don't think so, and I don't think we should, even though I disagree with them. (Incidentally, I didn't always -- I accepted Tillich's approach to God for much of my time in high school, while remaining an active Methodist. I'm not prepared to say that I wasn't a Christian at 16.)

I'd still like to see more of what Sandlin has to say before judging him, but even if he is equivalent to Spong, I'm not sure the PCUSA would reject him. I do think he has to say something about Jesus to distinguish himself from a generic theist or deist. But you might well not accept what he has to say.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟17,297.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Denying that the Bible calls Jesus God would probably be acceptable to many in the PCUSA (though unusual) if it's combined with a good presentation on what it means that the Bible does call him the Son of God, speaks of him being involved with creation, and says the fullness of God is present in him.

Isn't this pretty much what Arius claimed? Jesus was the "SON of God", but not God. He was a 2nd, subordinate divine being created by God, and then himself the agent by which God created. As a human he is the chosen divine representation of God, but in his own nature is not divine. So, he is God's representative and agent and in a sense has divine attributes, but no inherent divinity of his own, so there is no actual incarnation because God cannot take on flesh and still be God.
 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
757
NE Florida
✟15,351.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Bible provides a number of examples. Job is the oldest example. It is interesting to me that the advice of one of his comforters, "Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines." is repeated in Hebrews 12 as a positive truth. There is also the issue in I Corinthians 11 concerning those who do not judge the body of the Lord rightly. Some had become sick and a number had slept (died). Paul also said that he delivered the incestuous man in I Corinthians over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, but the salvation of his soul. As we know from II Corinthians, the man repented and did not die.

I hope these examples help.

How is Job an example of God's discipline? He was an exemplary man who are made to suffer for nothing but a game between God and Satan. Actually, Job is the worst example of discipline and shines the worst light possible on God. I honestly don't know why people love that book so much. I know why liberals like it--because it does show God in a very bad light.

In all the other cases you mention, people just die. Is God's discipline just death? Getting back to the OP, this means that the pastor in question is going to die? Is that bodily death or eternal death? If it's eternal death, then it goes back to the question, "does this mean that he is not one of the elect?"
 
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

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Isn't this pretty much what Arius claimed? Jesus was the "SON of God", but not God. He was a 2nd, subordinate divine being created by God, and then himself the agent by which God created. As a human he is the chosen divine representation of God, but in his own nature is not divine. So, he is God's representative and agent and in a sense has divine attributes, but no inherent divinity of his own, so there is no actual incarnation because God cannot take on flesh and still be God.

No. The part of liberal theology I'm most familiar with doesn't see Jesus as a second preexistent, divine being. It sees him as a human being that God uses as his vehicle to be present in human history. While this is oversimplifying, they see the references to preexistence as speaking of his role but not Jesus as a person. Nestorian maybe, but not Arian.

Of course there's a variety of liberal theology, but I'm not aware of any that's Arian. In the mid 20th Cent several writers were interested in Theodore of Mopsuestia. As more of his work has been discovered, I think he has turned out to be boringly orthodox. But generally those who try to be reasonably orthodox, say Donald Baille or N T Wright, will see the incarnation as a matter of role and function rather than ontology. The other strand of liberal theology (e.g. Borg) see him as a great teacher and example. But that strand of theology tends to use panentheism or something like it, so a true Incarnation wouldn't make sense because of their doctrine of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
How is Job an example of God's discipline? He was an exemplary man who are made to suffer for nothing but a game between God and Satan. Actually, Job is the worst example of discipline and shines the worst light possible on God. I honestly don't know why people love that book so much. I know why liberals like it--because it does show God in a very bad light.

In all the other cases you mention, people just die. Is God's discipline just death? Getting back to the OP, this means that the pastor in question is going to die? Is that bodily death or eternal death? If it's eternal death, then it goes back to the question, "does this mean that he is not one of the elect?"

You raise some interesting questions which, as you state, have been addressed in various ways by various individuals.

Job is, indeed, a very difficult example. One can easily dismiss him as a righteous man who suffered greatly because God let Satan perform all these horrendous things. That would, on the surface, reveal a capricious god who causes His elect to suffer needlessly.

Complicating the matter significantly, in my opinion, is that fact that the statement given by Job's comforter, "Those whom the Lord loves He disciplines . . ." is quoted in a positive light in Hebrews 12. Thus, it is evident that Job was being disciplined by God because God loved him.

This brings us back to Job. At the outset of the book he is described as a righteous man, pleasing to God. By the end of the book, however, God reveals himself in a truly terrifying manner to Job and Job's response, contrary to his discourse prior to this where he maintains his righteousness, is repentance in dust and ashes. Why? It is because the righteousness of Job at the outset of the book is the same sort of righteousness that many individuals have - obedience to the Law and a clean life. By the end of the book Job is revealed as being no better than his friends. In truth, he is seen for what he really is - a miserable, sinful creature in need of the grace of God. His repentance is genuine and God pours forth His grace upon him. The love of God is manifested in Job's life through the ordeal in that Job comes to the realization that true righteousness is imputed to Him by God alone and is not earned or deserved.

God's discipline is not merely death because, as you noted, the wages of sin is death and all die, because all are sinners. God's discipline can involve sickness as well as untimely death. Surely when one encounters adversity one can either question God's involvement in it and seek God's favor through repentance of sin or one can dismiss as mere happenstance.

If one is not one of God's elect these things don't happen. As Asaph noted in Psalm 73 it is perplexing to see the wicked prosper and enjoy life to the full while the righteous suffer. His conclusion, however, was that the wicked will suffer eternal damnation, which is far worse than the suffering of the elect in this life.
 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
757
NE Florida
✟15,351.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God's discipline is not merely death because, as you noted, the wages of sin is death and all die, because all are sinners. God's discipline can involve sickness as well as untimely death. Surely when one encounters adversity one can either question God's involvement in it and seek God's favor through repentance of sin or one can dismiss as mere happenstance.

If one is not one of God's elect these things don't happen. As Asaph noted in Psalm 73 it is perplexing to see the wicked prosper and enjoy life to the full while the righteous suffer. His conclusion, however, was that the wicked will suffer eternal damnation, which is far worse than the suffering of the elect in this life.

I'm not sure that I believe in a God who is that hands-on, sitting in a big control room in the sky pushing buttons to make me sick to get me to repent more. The corollary to that is that he also bestows benefits to the faithful in a "name it and claim it" kind of way. When parents question why their child had to get cancer and they ask why God allows it, we tell them that God did not cause the cancer. But, you say that perhaps he did because someone needs to repent. Where is the solace in that? Did God really let Job's family get killed just so he could prove that Job wasn't as perfect as he seemed to other humans?

I don't think that Psalm 73 is talking about having extra sickness heaped upon us because we believe. It's just asking why the wicked are allowed to prosper.
 
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
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
I'm not sure that I believe in a God who is that hands-on, sitting in a big control room in the sky pushing buttons to make me sick to get me to repent more. The corollary to that is that he also bestows benefits to the faithful in a "name it and claim it" kind of way. When parents question why their child had to get cancer and they ask why God allows it, we tell them that God did not cause the cancer. But, you say that perhaps he did because someone needs to repent. Where is the solace in that? Did God really let Job's family get killed just so he could prove that Job wasn't as perfect as he seemed to other humans?

I don't think that Psalm 73 is talking about having extra sickness heaped upon us because we believe. It's just asking why the wicked are allowed to prosper.

You are free to believe as you wish. I merely presented what I perceive to be the biblical aspect of this problem. I also see your interpretation of Psalm 73 and do not disagree with you about it. I merely see that it does have its corollary which is not explicitly stated in it.
 
Upvote 0