# PCUSA may change Heidelberg Catechism



## yeutter (Jun 24, 2008)

The Presbyterian Layman reports that the PCUSA may change the wording of the Heidelberg to remove the express condemnation of homosexuality.
The Layman Online


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jun 24, 2008)

How tolerant of them.


----------



## Gage Browning (Jun 24, 2008)

*Translation problem?*

It's hard to believe that they would actually change the Heidelberg based on the fact that it has "translation problems"...I wish they would just say they hate it and then change it. Don't present it as somehow linguistically flawed. They should just change it and then change their Bible's as well, for the same type of language is there.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 24, 2008)

Gage Browning said:


> It's hard to believe that they would actually change the Heidelberg based on the fact that it has "translation problems"...I wish they would just say they hate it and then change it. Don't present it as somehow linguistically flawed. They should just change it and then change their Bible's as well, for the same type of language is there.





How would they be able to change it? They would have to rewrite the entire document, which is what they do with Scripture. I hope that the PCUSA looses twice as many people and congregations in 2008 along with the ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. They have simply become apostate.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 24, 2008)

That is why it is problematic changing the confessions, it opens the doors to getting rid of things that people do not like. I wish the American churches had not meddled with the Westminster Confession, it sets a bad precedent.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 24, 2008)

Hippo said:


> That is why it is problematic changing the confessions, it opens the doors to getting rid of things that people do not like. I wish the American churches had not meddled with the Westminster Confession, it sets a bad precedent.





Amen, brother. I have never heard anyone make this statement before, but American Presbyterians changed the WCOF, so why not allow everyone else the same opportunity to change the standards.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 24, 2008)

I think the English Congregationalists (Savoy) and Baptists (LBCF) changed the WCF before the Americans.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 24, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I think the English Congregationalists (Savoy) and Baptists (LBCF) changed the WCF before the Americans.




Yes, you are correct, so we have already set the precedence.


----------



## Grymir (Jun 24, 2008)

Heck, they think I'm nuts for saying that when you change the Liturgy, you change the theology. This is the scholarship of kindergarden grads. I wish I had alot of Power in my denomination so I could throw these people out! I say Power and not influence because this is a time for it.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 24, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I think the English Congregationalists (Savoy) and Baptists (LBCF) changed the WCF before the Americans.



Correct, but they had the sense to identify the ammended confession as a new document.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 24, 2008)

It is saddening to see a once great biblical Reformed denomination leave everything it stood for, one by one.

While this has been a slow train coming, the appalling behavior more than a generation ago, in 1973, led the PCA to separate in order to remain a continuing church. It is summarized in Mr Keyes brief history here: 

Keyes' Brief History

You may also be aware that the PCUSA is rapidly losing membership now, more than 50,000 members this past year alone.

However, there are still many faithful brothers and sisters still in that denomination who need our prayers. Here is a list of those departing churches and where they are going:

http://www.layman.org/layman/Resources/churches-leaving-chart.htm


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 24, 2008)

Hippo said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > I think the English Congregationalists (Savoy) and Baptists (LBCF) changed the WCF before the Americans.
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 24, 2008)

Last year they lost a congregation to my denomination. We're scooping up our share.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 24, 2008)

Grymir;



> Heck, they think I'm nuts for saying that when you change the Liturgy, you change the theology. This is the scholarship of kindergarden grads. I wish I had alot of Power in my denomination so I could throw these people out! I say Power and not influence because this is a time for it.



Isn't the layman such a paper, that shows the truth to the average pew sitter what's going on in leadership within the PC(USA) so they can join voices and forces in order to speak out against such things as a whole? 

Maybe more folks need to head to the GA and speak out..contact their pastors and tell them VOTE against these changes..


----------



## Grymir (Jun 24, 2008)

Hi BJClark! Yes, there are some of us who are taking a stand in our local church's. Some in my area have gone whole hog liberal, but mine isn't. I have a teaching position, and I speak out and explain what is happening, and how it's us little people that make the difference. We try and get good people, but they must be 'approved', and the few we get are overrode in General Assembly by the 'moderator' and others in control. That's why I wanted power, pure power for once. I won't be corrupted.


----------



## Casey (Jun 24, 2008)

Hippo said:


> That is why it is problematic changing the confessions, it opens the doors to getting rid of things that people do not like. I wish the American churches had not meddled with the Westminster Confession, it sets a bad precedent.


This is probably off topic, but "bad precedent" to change the confession? What if the American Presbyterian churches that have the modified Confession find their revisions more biblical? The Confession itself states that no church council is beyond the possibility of error -- obviously implied there is the Westminster Standards themselves. That being the case, it seems to me that it's in fact _unconfessional_ to think that they ought never to be changed. I'm also not happy that the PC(USA) is changing the Catechism, but it's not because they're changing it, rather, it's because they're changing it in an unbiblical direction. I'd rather have them change it to their liking rather than believing one thing in practice and having something different on paper. It's only right that denominations modify their standards according to how they believe the Bible ought to be understood.


----------



## Craig (Jun 24, 2008)

yeutter said:


> The Presbyterian Layman reports that the PCUSA may change the wording of the Heidelberg to remove the express condemnation of homosexuality.
> The Layman Online



Is anyone as shocked as I am? This means at least several of the big-whig leaders within the PCUSA are not only aware of the Heidelberg, they also read it!


----------



## Hippo (Jun 24, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > That is why it is problematic changing the confessions, it opens the doors to getting rid of things that people do not like. I wish the American churches had not meddled with the Westminster Confession, it sets a bad precedent.
> ...



I agree without reservation that confessions are human documents that must be open to challange, the point that I was attempting to make is that by setting the bar for changes to such documents too low removes the benefits of having such confesions and I do believe that in any event it is better to have a new document rather than to change an existing one (even if the change is seen to be minor, and if it is minor then why make it?). 

One benefit of confessions are that politics, fads and fashions can be seen in their proper context, incorporating changes weakens such a benefit. 

Another problem is that ideally confessions should be drawn up by the church and amended by the church. For a single denomination to undertake such a task can be sectarian.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 24, 2008)

Craig said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> > The Presbyterian Layman reports that the PCUSA may change the wording of the Heidelberg to remove the express condemnation of homosexuality.
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 25, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I think the English Congregationalists (Savoy) and Baptists (LBCF) changed the WCF before the Americans.



Eh, huh, . . . corrected. 

Actually, whether or not anyone changed a confession is less important than the change made. _Semper reformanda_ can be interpreted to imply that each generation must re-examine the framing and phrasing of its doctrine so as to capture the specific affirmations and denials required by the defects in the culture at the moment. 

In this case, the watering down of the HC is done for the all-too-obvious reason of PC and the current downgrade in the mainline denominations. What some are dealing with in the PCUSA is sickeningly familiar and similar to my reasons for leaving the ABCUSA.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 25, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Last year they lost a congregation to my denomination. We're scooping up our share.





May you receive many more spoils, brother.


----------



## Shane (Jun 25, 2008)

Well they can call it what they want, but it wont be the Heidelburg Chatechism anymore.


----------



## Leslie (Jun 25, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > I think the English Congregationalists (Savoy) and Baptists (LBCF) changed the WCF before the Americans.
> ...



Amen. It depends on why it is done. It might, I believe, be done legitimately for either of two reasons: the first is reality. The Belgic Confession used to (maybe still does) state that the books of Chronicles "are commonly called Paralipomenon" This statement makes the whole confession look ridiculous. The second legitimate reason is scholarship. For example, if the Heidelberg were written now they probably would not divide the decalogue as they do since there is reason to believe that each of the two tablets contained the entire decalogue. 

However, it appears that taking out the negatives regarding homosexuality cannot be defended on either of these counts. It is a change of serious substance which either of the examples above would not be.
This is my


----------



## SRoper (Jun 25, 2008)

I was unable to find the article. What do they want to change? Which part of the Heidelberg mentions homosexuality?


----------



## jfschultz (Jun 25, 2008)

yeutter said:


> The Presbyterian Layman reports that the PCUSA may change the wording of the Heidelberg to remove the express condemnation of homosexuality.
> The Layman Online



I googled Heidelberg catechism, checked a number of them, and have not found one that lists homosexuality in question 87. (This included CRTA, WTS, URC, PRCA, and CCEL) So perhaps it is a translation error.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 25, 2008)

Here are a few PCUSA articles on the subject:

PC(USA) General Assembly - Presbyterian Church (USA) - 2008 - Should We Amend the Heidelberg Catechism?
PC(USA) - 218th General Assembly (2008) - News - General Assembly backgrounder: Heidelberg Catechism



> Question 87 of the Heidelberg Catechism is the heart of the translation dispute. Gagnon believes that in this question the Heidelberg Catechism means to quote 1 Cor 6:9-10, but in the original German leaves out terms that Gagnon takes to refer to sexual immorality.
> 
> Those who translated the Heidelberg Catechism in 1962, in the version that was incorporated into the Book of Confessions, changed the text by adding terms from the New English Bible translation, including the phrase “homosexual perversion.”





> Summary of Day 2 Committee Work at GA E-mail
> Tuesday, 24 June 2008
> 
> Amendments to Heidelberg Catechism: Three overtures have been sent to the GA asking either that certain portions of the PC(USA)'s Heidelberg Catechism be amended or that an entirely new translation be prepared. The Theological Issues and Institutions Committee voted to recommend that the GA approve item 13-06, which offers new language for five sections of the catechism. The new language would remove a refrence to homosexuality. There has been considerable debate among scholars about the issues involved. A few seminary professors have challenged the basis on which the amendments to Heidelberg have been proposed, and you can read that letter here. Read PFR's advice on this issue here.
> ...


----------



## yeutter (Jun 27, 2008)

*Heidelberg*

They voted to authorize a new translation
GA News: Heidelberg-Catechism-to-be-retranslated


----------



## Pop the Reformer (Jul 6, 2008)

*RE: PCUSA may change Heidelberg Catechism ...*

Sounds about right for them. Doesn't surprise me in the least. So how should we respond to this nonsense? But to, "Watch and pray so that you (we) too will not fall ino temptatin...." Matt 26:41a





yeutter said:


> The Presbyterian Layman reports that the PCUSA may change the wording of the Heidelberg to remove the express condemnation of homosexuality.
> The Layman Online


----------



## Seb (Jul 14, 2008)

yeutter said:


> The Presbyterian Layman reports that the PCUSA may change the wording of the Heidelberg to remove the express condemnation of homosexuality.
> The Layman Online



I've looked hard and I can't find _any_ version of the H.C. that has the term "homosexual perversion" in the answer for Q 87.

It looks like the PCUSA is already using a modified (homemade) translation of the H.C.? 

As liberal as the PCUSA is, could it be, when they originally 'translated' their version of H.C., that someone was overzealous with this particular wording in the answer?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 14, 2008)

They could change the HC all they want, it still will not change reality. It is not like they listen to any other of the confessions anyway.


----------



## Seb (Jul 14, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> They could change the HC all they want, it still will not change reality. It is not like they listen to any other of the confessions anyway.



I agree with that. But I am curious as to where their version of the H.C. came from to start with.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 14, 2008)

Seb said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > They could change the HC all they want, it still will not change reality. It is not like they listen to any other of the confessions anyway.
> ...


Good question. I know the old Northern church had adopted it in the 60's. The old southern (PCUS) had just WCF until 1983.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 14, 2008)

Seb said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > They could change the HC all they want, it still will not change reality. It is not like they listen to any other of the confessions anyway.
> ...



I provided a little background on this in post 27. You can read a little more about the 1962 Miller-Osterhaven translation of the HC here:

218th General Assembly* 2008


----------



## Seb (Jul 14, 2008)

So it looks like the PC-USA may have been using a poor translation of the H.C. from the get-go. But of course they are wanting to revise it now for the wrong reasons - i.e. their Biblical apostasy and the embracing of the homosexual agenda.

Thanks Andrew.  As usual you are a wealth of information.


----------

