RTS versus Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Fred. I'm pretty sure Keller, or whoever espoused that dictum, probably didn't have in mind the idea to allow women to be licensed to preach, per BCO. In a kind of real way, an "unordained" man licensed to preach has some subspecies of ordination anyway - a calling to do a certain task that a woman may not be called to do.

As for your knowledge of behind the scenes matters, it is hard to discuss an issue if your evidence for a certain position can't be revealed. It is a bit like a "trust me, if you knew what I knew, you would agree." But the problem is that I don't apparently know what you know, so I have to go on publicly verifiable information. Plus, I was a student at Covenant for three years, so I got to know the faculty pretty well and was impressed with their stand on these issues. The people who teach on this issue are Doriani and Jones - NT and ethics, respectively. That's what's important - that the men who teach the issue have it right.

As for women reading scripture on Sunday Morning, you know I agree with the idea that this constitutes ministering the word and should not be done. But at the same time, the BCO says "or other qualified person" (or something like that) so it isn't as clear as it needs to be to cut off the practice for those who don't view it as ministering the word. I'll go check out the South Florida case.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Archlute
my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for

You sound like you have a problem with your session that needs to be addressed by Presbytery. Trust me when I say the PCA is not heading in the direction you just mentioned.

And going to the OPC might get you obsorbed into the PCA again. Heheheh.

Sadly Kevin,

Your PCA experience is a bit limited, and limited to its most conservative area - Mississippi. The things described above are happening.

Well, not just Mississippi...Colorado too :p. But I stand (sadly) corrected.
 
Originally posted by Romans922
Originally posted by fredtgreco
The main problem with the role of women in the Church in the PCA context is the patently absurd dictum that finds its genesis in St Louis:

"A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."

I dont originate from the PCA and have never been a part of one really. Is that really true? That scares me and makes me thankful that I am part of the MVP. Ah, if God would reveal to men and women their roles.

He has! :scholar:
 
just my ranting :2cents: :

It seems to me that it is being implied that the PCA is apostate or very close to it, without anyone wanting to explicitly say this. In other words it seems to be deep down feelings that are afraid to be directly stated in clear yes or no fashion. (just guessing) By others leaving I take this as an explicit form of saying "yes, the PCA IS apostate."

As a young reformed believer this leaves me in quite a dilemma. The only reformed churches in the area are PCA. Do I not join because the leaven of liberalism is spreading? This leaves me with the only other option of having "church" by myself in my own home. Obviously not a legitimate option.

It has been my experience in my short life as a reformed believer, that from the moment I came to this theology/circle, there has been little if any emphasis on discipling, making learners and followers of Christ, growing in teaching and application, experimental piety, etc. Rather, I am being thrown into the newest debate, or heresy discovery, or critique of a movement and then having to report whose side I am on, usually with issues that are so philosophical and nuanced it would take me years to understand, but feel like I have to decide on now so that I may have assurance of my salvation through finding acceptance with those who are on the "right" side. This is not to say that these things aren't immensely important, but it seems to me that as the liberals have tried to keep Christ while denying his truth, my reformed experience has shown me that others are so focused on Christ's teachings that they forget Him whose teachings they are. I want Christ's truth because I want Christ Himself. To divorce these two, or to reverse this order seems to me to be the heart of many errors today.

As for the women thing, it's really confusing. I see women like JE Tada speaking to men at a Ligonier conference. And that's acceptable because it wasn't a sermon and it wasn't during Sunday worship. Yet others think, I assume, that even this is unacceptable. Liberalism at Ligonier than too. In my limited experience, the criticism about this women participation issue and the PCA seems to be misconstrued. I am all for excommunicating those who allow women to preach from the pulpit or lead a church in worship, etc. Out with liberalism, completely, please. But the criticism seems to go further than this. ANY women's roles are seen as liberalism by those I have talked with. The irony in this for me is that those who have personally said this to me were on the domineering/chauvinistic extreme right. I consider myself a complemetarian as do well known solidly reformed leaders in the Council for Biblical Man and Womanhood. In my experience even complementarians are considered liberals and therefore Covenant Seminary is liberal. If there are true egalitarians in the PCA, then lets correct them in discipline or move them out. In the PCA churches I have been in, there isn't even a hint of egalitarianism. Yet my old church, which was heavily on the domineering extreme right considers them to be so. I see this as the equivalent a hyper-calvinist saying we shouldn't evagelize at all, because if we do then it is a slippery slope towards arminianism. God's truth is thus confused with those who blur the truth, and thereby denied altogether. I think the art of distinguishing the truth of an issue from the abuse or misapplication of that truth, has been lost in so much of our thinking, mine included. When we settle this on a number of issues, I believe who is truly an apostate liberal, who is truly an apostate ultra-conservative pharisee, and who is balanced biblically and sytematically in God's entire counsel of His truth will be made more clear.

I have been labled non-reformed because I am not a presuppositionalist, Clarkian, or supralapsarian. My being a classicist, and infralapsarian is considered liberal/arminian/hypo-calvinist. It seems some would consider those who aren't psalms only singers to be flirting with liberalism, while I would disagree, and believe the contemporary "worship and praise" choruses to be liberal worldliness. I don't bring up these points for debate, but simply to express how the terms liberal and conservative seem to get thrown about without any solid and objective definitions, depending on who you talk to. And the changing meanings of words for each individual is postmodern liberalism. So maybe we could come up with an agreed upon unchanging definition of liberalism, and thereby avoid our own liberalism when accusing everyone else of liberalism.

So again, if it would help for the sake of clarity I would like to know on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being complete purity in doctrine, 1 being apostate, where would everyone rank Covenant Seminary? RTS, GPTS, WTSPA, WTSCA, etc.? THE PCA, OPC, URCNA, SBC, etc.? (if need be, maybe this would be an interesting anonymous poll)


[None of the above is meant as a challenge to anyone, just a general fleshing out of some of my thoughts and observations in personally trying to understand God's truth for my life and decisions I have to make relatively soon]




[Fred said]
Your PCA experience is a bit limited, and limited to its most conservative area - Mississippi. The things described above are happening.


My PCA experience is limited also. What about the St. Louis area and the PCA? Where are they on the liberal-conservative chart?



I'm feeling intellectually :chained:


*disregard any comments in this post that have just previously been answered in above posts;they were posted during my writing of this post.

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by RAS]

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by RAS]
 
RAS,

I for one don't believe that the PCA is apostate. Does the PCA have its problems? you betcha! So does the OPC, URC and SBC. As Matthew Henry said "Where God builds His Church, the devil builds his chapel". I have been in the Presbyerian Church all my life and controversy and Reformed theology seem to go hand in hand. They don't call Presbyterians the "split P's" for nothing!

I think the negative reaction to the role of women in the church revolves around what happened to the PCUSA at the turn of the 20th century when liberalism came into the Church. As a part of that intrusion was what would be the role of women. They first started out as deacons then pastors. FYI, there are PCA churches who have "commissioned" deaconesses. Its a way of letting women have a bigger role in the Church but not ordaining them (like anyone would really know the difference).

If you want a definition of liberalism, I would go with Machen's definition in his excellent book "Christianity & Liberalism" (a must read!). Also for some perspective you might want to read about the history of the Presbyterian Church in the US. History does often repeat itself.
 
RAS,

I agree with Wayne. It is a far cry to say that one's Church is not perfect and to say it is apostate. While very disconcerting to me, some of the trends on men's & women's issues in the PCA are just that - trends. They aren't the official position of the denomination, and there are many PCA churches that are precisely on the Biblical side of the issue. Even having said that, this issue is not nearly of the magnitude that justification, inerrancy, and the Trinity are.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
RAS,

I for one don't believe that the PCA is apostate. Does the PCA have its problems? you betcha! So does the OPC, URC and SBC. As Matthew Henry said "Where God builds His Church, the devil builds his chapel". I have been in the Presbyerian Church all my life and controversy and Reformed theology seem to go hand in hand. They don't call Presbyterians the "split P's" for nothing!

I never heard the split "p's" thing before, but it makes sense and I find it both funny and sad.:lol::(

The Henry quote is in a weird way comforting. I say that because it reminds me of what I have forgot about the visble/invisble church distinction and Christ's teaching on the wheat and the tares existing side by side, and see how easy it is to revert back into the baptist belief I was once taught that visible membership is only for the regenerate and how this actually works against those intentions. I was beginning to sense some of this all-or-nothing thinking in regards to purity, but now think I see that I was falsely portraying that onto your criticisms.

:2cents:I guess maybe there should be a warning given to all those who become newly reformed: "Welcome to the reformed community, where your theology of God and His grace and sovereignty will humble you to the dust and cause you to want to Glorify Him alone in all you do; but welcome also to a very controversial community where none of us have fully learned in our hearts what we have been persuaded of in our heads."
Just a side-bar opinion here: the failure to maybe mention this warning reminds me of two things, the failure of the psuedo-evangelical world to mention to new believers that struggles come with following Christ, and Christ's mention of counting the cost before following Him. Healthy realism and honesty is a good thing for those who are new, lest they commit too soon and only afterward consider their vows (Proverbs?) I can see how the weariness of all the controversy would cloud our real purpose of knowing Christ, growing in Christ, sharing Christ with others, and glorifying Christ and thereby cause many to stumble and leave the reformed community wrongly. I hope our gifted leaders/elders that us weaker sheep need and desire, keep this in mind as they fight the righteous battles for doctrinal purity.


Originally posted by Fred
RAS,
I agree with Wayne. It is a far cry to say that one's Church is not perfect and to say it is apostate. While very disconcerting to me, some of the trends on men's & women's issues in the PCA are just that - trends. They aren't the official position of the denomination, and there are many PCA churches that are precisely on the Biblical side of the issue. Even having said that, this issue is not nearly of the magnitude that justification, inerrancy, and the Trinity are.

Thank you for this clarification:

not perfect does not = apsotate
trends do not = official positions
controversial issues are not all of the same magnitude.
:amen:




Besides the lesser men and women issue, what are the more serious doctrinal (not practical or experiential) concerns
that make Covenant Seminary questionable for some? I assume if Covenant we're that bad, then my christian brothers would come straight out and say "don't go there".

And what seminary would everyone recommend for the best MA degrees in a historical theology and/or systematic theology focus?
At this point I'm not looking for the M.Div. route or anything higher than that.

[Edited on 4-22-2005 by RAS]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top