The DIfference between PCUSA and PCA

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

Ordained Servant Online

 

[hedrick]

Ordained Servant Online

Actually, I agree with most of this. Remember, both the author and I are sympathetic with Wright, but think he got some things wrong. In particular, I agree with him on Paul's definition of righteousness, but I think Calvin is right on justification. Whether Wright is any different I'll mention below.

1. Of course in criticizing Wright's covenant he's also criticizing the WCF, as he notes. But I'm not sure how serious the criticism is. He says that a covenant is an actual agreement, and not just God's purpose to be gracious. But the passage from Wright that he quotes says that the covenant is God's plan to use Abraham and his family to bless the whole world. God did have a covenant with Abraham, and Paul refers to it. If you believe the later prophets, God did intend to bring all people into that covenant. Perhaps he's being slightly imprecise to use "covenant" to refer to what God intended to accomplish with the covenant.

3. Even if Gal 2:16 is the faithfulness of Christ, Wright agrees that other passages say we are justified by faith. Indeed if the passage says we are justified because of the faithfulness of Christ, this would be Wright's equivalent of Calvin's claim that we are justified because of Christ's obedience (as part of Calvin's discussion of the atonement). It would be a problem if he denied that we are justified by faith, but of course he does not, because there are other places where this is clearly what Paul says.

Oddly, both the Beveridge translation of the Institutes and Pringle's translation of Calvin's commentary of Galatians translate "the faith of Christ," not faith in Christ. Calvin's actual comment on the passage seems consistent with either translation.

4 and 5. I agree that there's a problem with Wright's treatment of the tradition. I noticed this myself when I read the book. He seems to claim that he's saying something new when as far as I can tell what he's saying is nearly identical to Calvin. However I don't see any problem with referring to the "great tradition, from Augustine onward." Augustine did in fact use justification in a way different than Paul. And following him, so did the medieval tradition and so do Catholics now. Furthermore I think Wright is correct that many conservative Protestants (although not proper Reformed Protestants) do at times use justified to mean saved.

But I think Wright's treatment of Calvin is open to criticism. He thinks that Calvin uses justification to indicate how you get into the covenant, where Paul means it as identifying who is already in. I think he's oversimplifying what Calvin says. Calvin does talk about justification as how you get in, in that at times he speaks of justification as virtually a synonym with forgiveness, and acceptance by God. Yet McGrath's summary of Calvin's ordo salutis is that for Calvin, the union with Christ comes first. We participate in it by faith, and faith leads to both justification and sanctification. I also think this is present in Calvin. In this case, particularly when you take election into account, I think it's reasonable to say that we are already members of the covenant before we have faith, and thus that justification is more about our public status, i.e. it is an acknowledgment of a status that already exists. This version is consistent with Wright's model. Reformed theology speaks of the step before faith as "regeneration." My reading of Romans is that Paul uses justification to cover a range of meaning that can include both being accepted and the public acknowledgement of our acceptance. Indeed the lawcourt metaphor includes both, since a verdict of innocent is both a public vindication and a change of legal status. I think Calvin captures both aspects of this. Yet Wrights distinction does have some merit. God has already accepted us when he elects us, so the justification that follows faith is really a public proclamation of that acceptance, i.e. in Wright's terms a "recognition that we are in". There's a whole set of complexities here that Wright simply doesn't deal with.

6. When combined with 5, one wonders how well Wright knows the Reformed tradition. Note that Wright is primarily a NT scholar. That's a lot of merit to McGrath's comment that it seems that theologians and NT scholars don't talk to each other. One thing good about Wright is that he's a good NT scholar who is trying to help people work through the theological implications of NT scholarship. However he is not as strong on the history of doctrine as NT. A number of people are trying to enlighten him. We'll see if it has an effect.

7. I suspect he's wary of substitutionary atonement for the same reason I am. There's a lot of bad history there, which in the popular mind makes God out to be someone who demands blood, and doesn't much care whose. I see Paul's primary concept of the atonement as being based on the idea that through Christ we die to sin and are raised to new life. Obviously there is substitution going on, and there are penal aspects, as is clear from the NT use of Is 53. But that's not the whole thing. Calvin says that the atonement results from the whole course of Jesus' obedience, not just his death, which we appropriate through our "fellowship of righteousness" with him. It's a question of emphasis. As usual, I think Calvin did a pretty good job of getting the balance.

9. Yes, I think Wright overemphasizes the newness. But I don't think there's any reason to believe that he's soft-pedaling justification or justification by faith. I do agree that may be a post-holocaust context for his agreement that 1st Cent Judaism was not essentially legalistic. But he still sees Paul as identifying a serious problem with Jews (or at least Judaizers), which is the use of works of the Law in a way that separates Jew from Gentile. So if he intended to avoid charges that could be used against modern Jews, I don't think he's succeeded.

On justification

2. I don't think he's conflating current justification and final justification. I think he makes the distinction quite clear, and that what he has in mind in justification by works could be WCF's final judgement. However there is probably a difference. WCF has in mind that because no one is perfect, we will all have some things that will be approved and some that will not. Wright is not thinking of a trial that might show us as at least partially guilty. Rather, he believes that in Paul there is a confidence that in the end God will publicly vindicate his current justification of sinners by showing that through the power of the Holy Spirit he turned them around and they did good (although certainly not perfect) works. It is because he expects the final judgement to be positive that it can be called justification, where justification is used in the sense of vindication.

3. It is pretty clear that the righteousness of God includes judicial uprightness. However the records of the court include God's covenant, and God's commitment to bring his people and through them the whole world into proper status under the covenant. Thus God's righteousness is not just disinterestedness, but a commitment to fulfill his purpose for the covenant.

4. For Wright being justified means more than just being a member of the covenant people. It means being a member of the covenant people *in good standing*. It is the in good standing part that is threatened by sin, and requires Christ's death.

I think calling the lawcourt a metaphor is correct. Surely he doesn't expect us to confront God sitting behind a judge's desk, with a wig and a clerk taking shorthand. God will do something that can reasonably be called judging, but not in a literal lawcourt.

I agree that Wright has overemphasized his novelty, and that he probably hasn't mastered Reformed theology as thoroughly as he might. But he's a NT scholar. I think Reformed theologians should encourage him for interacting with theology, and also help him overcome his limits. I think Gordon agrees with that.

 

[Nemo Neem]

What makes the PCA a confessional denomination? What does that entail?

Presbyterianism is historically a confessional tradition. This has two implications. The obvious one is that confessional churches express their faith in the form of "confessions of faith," which have some level of authoritative status. However this is based on a more subtle point: In confessional churches, theology is not solely an individual matter. While individuals are encouraged to understand Scripture, and may challenge the current institutional understanding, theology is carried out by the community as whole. It is this community understanding of theology that is expressed in confessions.

Presbyterianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of this I disagree with. What does it mean?

 

[kenrapoza]

The term "confessional" means that as a church body we set forth and publish our understanding of Scripture in a confession of faith. Of course, this is the Westminster Confession of Faith along with the longer and shorter catechisms. Now here is where you will find more differences between the PCA and the PC(USA). The PCA is a confessional denomination, meaning that we hold the WCF to be a binding document that governs the teaching of our ministers. The PC(USA), being more liberal, does not hold the WCF to be as authoritative, and therefore there will be wider variation in teaching from church to church, very possibly including elements of more liberal (unothordox) theology.

 

[Willtor]

The term "confessional" means that as a church body we set forth and publish our understanding of Scripture in a confession of faith. Of course, this is the Westminster Confession of Faith along with the longer and shorter catechisms. Now here is where you will find more differences between the PCA and the PC(USA). The PCA is a confessional denomination, meaning that we hold the WCF to be a binding document that governs the teaching of our ministers. The PC(USA), being more liberal, does not hold the WCF to be as authoritative, and therefore there will be wider variation in teaching from church to church, very possibly including elements of more liberal (unothordox) theology.

This is not quite correct. The WCF is seen as authoritative but not inerrant by the PC(USA). For example, my experience is that in the PC(USA) nobody accepts that the Pope is antichrist.

 

[kenrapoza]

This is not quite correct. The WCF is seen as authoritative but not inerrant by the PC(USA). For example, my experience is that in the PC(USA) nobody accepts that the Pope is antichrist.

No Presbyterian denomination considers the WCF to be inerrant, the conservative ones hold Scripture to be inerrant. However, I do stand by my statement that although the WCF is part of the PC(USA)'s book of confessions, it is not nearly as binding as in the PCA or OPC. It is considered a "guide" for the minister. Hedrick confirms it in this very thread, and he's a PC(USA) elder (I think).

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

This is not quite correct. The WCF is seen as authoritative but not inerrant by the PC(USA). For example, my experience is that in the PC(USA) nobody accepts that the Pope is antichrist.

This is just hypocrisy and so 20th century liberal. once you disregard one portion of the concession, then leave the church instead of redefining things and saying you believe things you don't. Either the church confesses the exclusivity of Christ or it doesn't. On the Gospel there can be no compromise.

 

[Willtor]

No Presbyterian denomination considers the WCF to be inerrant, the conservative ones hold Scripture to be inerrant. However, I do stand by my statement that although the WCF is part of the PC(USA)'s book of confessions, it is not nearly as binding as in the PCA or OPC. It is considered a "guide" for the minister. Hedrick confirms it in this very thread, and he's a PC(USA) elder (I think).

I don't dispute that characterization of PC(USA) (in which my wife is a pastor). My understanding of what you had written was probably wrong, but I had interpreted what you had said as that the confessions were to be held without error in PCA and OPC.

This is just hypocrisy and so 20th century liberal. once you disregard one portion of the concession, then leave the church instead of redefining things and saying you believe things you don't. Either the church confesses the exclusivity of Christ or it doesn't. On the Gospel there can be no compromise.

How did you get any of that from what I said?

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

I don't dispute that characterization of PC(USA) (in which my wife is a pastor). My understanding of what you had written was probably wrong, but I had interpreted what you had said as that the confessions were to be held without error in PCA and OPC.



How did you get any of that from what I said?

It is shear nonsense and stupidity to say you call a document authoritive but go against large portions of it, picking and choosing what you want from it. The reformed Churches never considered confessions as a authority, rather it was the body of divinity that they confessed as the binding truth as revealed in God's word.

 

[kenrapoza]

I don't dispute that characterization of PC(USA) (in which my wife is a pastor). My understanding of what you had written was probably wrong, but I had interpreted what you had said as that the confessions were to be held without error in PCA and OPC.

Understood, I apologize if my comment came off as uncharitable. In the PCA and OPC, we do consider the WCF to be a true and faithful representation of what is taught in Scripture, and therefore binding on our ministers. But we also hold to sola scriptura, and therefore wouldn't be comfortable saying that the WCF is "inerrant." Speaking for the PCA, when ministry candidates are examined for ordination they are asked if there are any portions of the Westminster standards that they disagree with. If so, they explain what their difficulties are and the examining board determines whether it is a significant variation, or only a minor point that can be allowed while still holding to the significant points in the confession with integrity. We certainly wouldn't consider the WCF to be "infallible" as it is an uninspired document.

 

[Willtor]

It is shear nonsense and stupidity to say you call a document authoritive but go against large portions of it, picking and choosing what you want from it. The reformed Churches never considered confessions as a authority, rather it was the body of divinity that they confessed as the binding truth as revealed in God's word.

What large portions? The Pope is antichrist, and without that line, all is liberal and anti-gospel?

 

[Willtor]

Understood, I apologize if my comment came off as uncharitable. In the PCA and OPC, we do consider the WCF to be a true and faithful representation of what is taught in Scripture, and therefore binding on our ministers. But we also hold to sola scriptura, and therefore wouldn't be comfortable saying that the WCF is "inerrant." Speaking for the PCA, when ministry candidates are examined for ordination they are asked if there are any portions of the Westminster standards that they disagree with. If so, they explain what their difficulties are and the examining board determines whether it is a significant variation, or only a minor point that can be allowed while still holding to the significant points in the confession with integrity. We certainly wouldn't consider the WCF to be "infallible" as it is an uninspired document.

No worries.

Yeah, this was basically the sense that I got. A couple of my friends go the local PCA Church (which they love), and when I had read the website it seemed that their pastor accepted a deviation that was considered a "minor point that can be allowed while still holding to the significant points in the confession with integrity." Hence, the confusion.

 

[Evenstar253]

I forgot about the Pope as the Antichrist bit being in the WCF. Are there many churches that still hold to that belief?

 

[Willtor]

I forgot about the Pope as the Antichrist bit being in the WCF. Are there many churches that still hold to that belief?

That's the deviation our local PCA church takes: the Pope is not antichrist. I don't know if there are any others, but they mention that one specifically on their website.

 

[JakeAM]

Well I think today we saw a clear distinction between the two denominations when the PC(USA) voted to allow non-celibate gays to serve as ministers. I wonder if the remaining Christians leaving the PCUSA will result in a boost in PCA membership?

 

[Willtor]

Well I think today we saw a clear distinction between the two denominations when the PC(USA) voted to allow non-celibate gays to serve as ministers. I wonder if the remaining Christians leaving the PCUSA will result in a boost in PCA membership?

You're pretty sure the presbyteries will ratify it? I'm on the fence as to whether they will.

 

[kenrapoza]

Well I think today we saw a clear distinction between the two denominations when the PC(USA) voted to allow non-celibate gays to serve as ministers. I wonder if the remaining Christians leaving the PCUSA will result in a boost in PCA membership?

Although there have been Christians leaving the PC(USA) for the PCA, I think most of them have been moving to the EPC and their "New Wineskins" presbytery. For someone whose background is entirely PC(USA), the EPC is a more natural fit in that it is kind of in between the PC(USA) and the PCA.

 

[JakeAM]

You're pretty sure the presbyteries will ratify it? I'm on the fence as to whether they will.

The only familiarity I have is with the PCA in Virginia(James River Presbytery), and in a more limited sense with the EPC, so I'm hardly an expert. I don't know how often the leaderships change or whether or not the presbyteries are prone to changing positions, could you enlighten me? After looking it up it seems that 94 of 173 Presbyteries voted against the measure two years ago, and since they merely need a majority then only 8 of the 94 presbyteries would have to change their position to ratify it.

It seems to me that even if they don't approve it, the fact that the convention voted for gay clergy shows something is going on there. It's especially strange considering these same people voted not to change their definition of marriage.

Could we see some of these presbyteries opposed to the changes leave altogether(as the Episcopalian Diocese of Pittsburgh did), and join the EPC or PCA, or does the Presbyterian form of government just not allow for something like that to occur? I know a very large EPC congregation here in Lynchburg jumped ship on its own from the PCUSA several years ago(and it's a solid Biblical church, I've attended it a couple times).

 

[Willtor]

The only familiarity I have is with the PCA in Virginia(James River Presbytery), and in a more limited sense with the EPC, so I'm hardly an expert. I don't know how often the leaderships change or whether or not the presbyteries are prone to changing positions, could you enlighten me? After looking it up it seems that 94 of 173 Presbyteries voted against the measure two years ago, and since they merely need a majority then only 8 of the 94 presbyteries would have to change their position to ratify it.

It seems to me that even if they don't approve it, the fact that the convention voted for gay clergy shows something is going on there. It's especially strange considering these same people voted not to change their definition of marriage.

Could we see some of these presbyteries opposed to the changes leave altogether(as the Episcopalian Diocese of Pittsburgh did), and join the EPC or PCA, or does the Presbyterian form of government just not allow for something like that to occur? I know a very large EPC congregation here in Lynchburg jumped ship on its own from the PCUSA several years ago(and it's a solid Biblical church, I've attended it a couple times).

Yeah, as you say, a simple majority ratifies changes. My suspicion is that the presbyteries hold the same positions they did last time. I guess we'll see.

We couldn't see whole presbyteries leaving like Bishop Bob Duncan (I was episcopalian at the time that diocese left) did since presbyteries are governed by a representation of the churches from which they consist. Something similar could happen, functionally, though, if all of the churches in a presbytery left. I don't think they would, though. If this passes, there will be a lot of conservative churches that leave, but I don't think all (or even most, necessarily) will. My guess is that many will try to step up and have it overturned.

 

[hedrick]

My sense is that the numbers are currently fairly stable. While clergy are often accepting of gays, members are not, and their opinions are represented enough in the presbyteries to matter.

Over the next few years, change could occur for either of two reasons:
* Conservatives could leave in large enough numbers to change the balance.
* The GA has attempted to permit gay ordination by interpretation. That could succeed.

There is a provision in the constitution to permit people to hold differing Scriptural interpretations. The governing bodies of which they are a part have to determine whether the differences involve matters essential to the Reformed faith. That could permit sessions and presbyteries to consider our approval or disapproval of homosexuality to be a matter on which faithful Christians can disagree. So far the GA judicial commission has rejected this, on fairly interesting technical grounds: They say that while the Constitution permits people to disagree, it does not permit them to act on that disagreement. (My sense is that legally the lawyers are right but that Christ would find this a very strange approach.) The last GA adopted an authoritative interpretation saying that this distinction is not valid. However the judicial commission might still say that this isn't a matter that the GA can change by interpretation. Like most legal bodies, the judicial commission makes every attempt to find an excuse to avoid dealing with a difficult issue. So far all attempts to get an opinion have been resolved on technicalities. Eventually however someone will figure out a way to make them make a decision, probably within the next year. Unlike the Supreme Court, they can't refuse to accept certiori.

I believe most people on both sides think it's just a matter of time. To some extent this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If conservatives continued in the church, things might not necessarily change. So it becomes a question of whether conservatives are interested in being part of a denomination with a variety of beliefs and practices on this issue. Enough are not that I think the PCUSA will accept ordination of gays and gay marriage within the next decade. Otherwise I think it would wait for the next generation, which I'm pretty sure will feel more accepting.

I have mixed feelings about this. I like a diverse church. I'm more on the liberal end, but I think it's healthy to have conservatives in our denomination, and I'd be willing to make some adjustments to make them welcome. However the current situation makes it difficult for some people on both sides to carry out their mission, and that's a fairly significant problem. If we're going to end up splitting it might be better for the mission of both groups to do it sooner. Thus I strongly oppose the very ungracious way congregations that want to leave are currently being treated.