# Amyraldism and the PCA BCO



## Steve Dixon (Feb 13, 2014)

Does the PCA BCO allow an individual to affirm Amyraldism and be considered for the office of Elder? 
I know that he must affirm a limited atonement but is Amyraldism outside the scope? 
Thank you


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Feb 16, 2014)

I always they didn't hold to limited atonement/particular redemption/definite atonement...


----------



## Wayne (Feb 16, 2014)

Bowen vs. Eastern Carolina Presbytery (1991) made clear that officers in the PCA must hold to the doctrines of both definite (aka limited) atonement and infant baptism:--

http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/bowen-vs-easterncarolina.pdf


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 16, 2014)

Wouldn't the wording of the Westminster Standards basically make it impossible to subscribe to them while holding Amyraldianism.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 16, 2014)

Not in the PCA, everything is up for grabs. "Good Faith Subscription"


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 16, 2014)

Wayne said:


> Bowen vs. Eastern Carolina Presbytery (1991) made clear that officers in the PCA must hold to the doctrines of both definite (aka limited) atonement and infant baptism:--
> 
> http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/bowen-vs-easterncarolina.pdf


Well, THAT gave me a good giggle...

Apparently as clear as mud in every PCA Church I've ever encountered.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 17, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Not in the PCA, everything is up for grabs. "Good Faith Subscription"


I do not mean to go off topic but I do not get why people who clearly dislike the PCA choose to serve in it.


----------



## Steve Dixon (Feb 17, 2014)

I do understand that the exception to limited atonement is not permitted but does the PCA consider Amyraldism limited atonement? Amyraldism is not really a general atonement but neither is it limited atonement. I consider it an inconsistent atonement. (My lame term.)


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 17, 2014)

In the PCA, differences must be stated with any statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards (Confession, Larger and Shorter catechism) and evaluated to be a nonmajor difference by a spiritual jury of peers in the Presbytery. ("Nonmajor" is my term, not that of the Book of Church Order). Differences granted are then subject to a high level review by the General Assembly.

While no one here can evaluate the totality of someone's difference here on a blog forum, and thus substitute for the Presbytery, it would seem anything contravening the "five points" such as what you mention would not be acceptable. It's hard to imagine that it even could be.


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 17, 2014)

Unoriginalname said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Not in the PCA, everything is up for grabs. "Good Faith Subscription"
> ...



I will let elder Barnes speak for himself, but I think he, like many, began when the ground was more solid and now find themselves (in some respects) on more shifting sand.....no orthodox, Reformed folk signed up for some of the stuff now taking place. Every denomination is prone to going astray because we (humans) are prone to going astray. May our God protect the PCA from the USA route, restore her to a high place, and protect the rest of us from paths that lead His sheep over the cliff.....


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 17, 2014)

Actually, I would say I did not quite understand what the PCA was until I was an ordained minister within it. I was partially deceived (not by anyone's intention) because of the Presbytery I was under before ordination (a conservative good presbytery).


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2014)

Yeah, some of us may have joined back in a clearer day, in a particularly sound Church, and knew nothing of the storms brewing on the horizons.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm not sure the original question has been answered. My understanding is that at least some have held Amyraldism to be compatible with Dort and the Westminster Standards and that some of the delegates to both were Amyraldist. That doesn't really answer the question about its status in the PCA, though.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 18, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Actually, I would say I did not quite understand what the PCA was until I was an ordained minister within it. I was partially deceived (not by anyone's intention) because of the Presbytery I was under before ordination (a conservative good presbytery).





SRoper said:


> I'm not sure the original question has been answered. My understanding is that at least some have held Amyraldism to be compatible with Dort and the Westminster Standards and that some of the delegates to both were Amyraldist. That doesn't really answer the question about its status in the PCA, though.



I bet the answer to whether Amyraldism could fly relates to both these comments; depends on the Presbytery. It probably just depends one: how forward the person is with their views, we have had plenty of problems with people being intentionally muddy with their views and two: how strict the Presbytery is.


----------



## Steve Dixon (Feb 18, 2014)

Thank you all. May The Lord bless you as you serve Him!


----------



## PhillipJLee (Feb 18, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Actually, I would say I did not quite understand what the PCA was until I was an ordained minister within it. I was partially deceived (not by anyone's intention) because of the Presbytery I was under before ordination (a conservative good presbytery).





Mushroom said:


> Yeah, some of us may have joined back in a clearer day, in a particularly sound Church, and knew nothing of the storms brewing on the horizons.



Could someone send me a link or a private message explaining what this means? What "slippery grounds" are surfacing in the PCA?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 18, 2014)

If I may intercede here, Phillip, I would say that the Church is a mess. It is full of desperately sinful people. Not just the PCA, but every denomination. 

So when you start to look closer or you begin to have some maturity in the Christian faith, you begin to see some of these problems. If you are in the right places, you begin to see it everywhere. 

Or to speak more directly to some of the earlier posts, the PCA today is no worse off than it was in 1973 or 1974, or 1984, and so on. There was no golden era. It has always been rife with problems. You just didn't see them, or weren't aware enough in those earlier years to spot the problems. 

It is a wonder that the Church exists at all, given all the problems. Conclusion: The Church exists solely by the grace of God. 

That's not to whitewash the problems or act like they don't matter. Problems must be dealt with when and where they can be properly dealt with. But they must be dealt with prayerfully, and in full reliance upon the Lord, realizing that _we_ can't change people. The weapons of Christian warfare are not carnal, as Dr. Samuel Miller pointed out, but spiritual. What does it take to transfer a man or woman out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light? It takes a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. That work is not something that you or I can accomplish in the flesh.

The more helpful question in all of this is to wonder why God has allowed some of these problems, particularly theological errors, to surface? I strongly recommend locating a copy of Samuel Bolton's work, _The Arraignment of Error_ as a starting point for deeper examination of the issue.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 18, 2014)

It is indeed to easy for sinners as we are to view ourselves apart from the sin in Christ's body, and even from within communions within His Body. We, of course, are, without the errors and sin we see so readily in others.

Gratefully, the form of universalism that this kind of error is is contrary to the Westminster Standards, and I have faith, in a charitable estimation of the brothers that this would easily be recognized an rebuked. 

It's not a matter of cynically suggesting that one can "get by" with this kind of serious error in a certain Presbytery. There isn't even substantial reason to believe that is the case, and unless and until there is such a general sentiment, let's not imply even that there is.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 18, 2014)

Nice post Wayne. God bless you and use you in the prayer closet.


----------

