Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
Here is Sam's follow up to his earlier article about the PCA and the possibility of a split. So You Don’t Want a PCA Split? | Vintage73.com
So you DON'T want a split in the PCA?
- Thread starter Kevin
- Start date
- Status
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Nope, don't want a split. But I would like to see those men who have invaded our denomination for whatever reason despite their differences with our standards, who want to introduce novelties and 're-interpretations', find the decency and integrity to leave rather than fracture it. Plenty of more liberal denoms to join, and although the pay and opportunities may not equal the PCA, I'm sure they'd be welcome. The Church and her people are not merchandise.
For myself, I am always saddened to see men who seek to be faithful to Scripture leave to join a denomination perceived as more liberal than our own.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
You have to admit Kevin that opportunity and benefit is important to young men and others who are seeking to support their families. Now that isn't everyone's motive nor is it a main motive but it probably does lend a bit of a tip on the scales. Plus the PCA is a great place to be. I do find it funny that you picked up on that one thing Kevin. Brad noted a lot of other things I would like to hear you comment on. Would you be willing to do that? Those who oppose the Standards are becoming a problem. It is starting to shape up to be like what has happened in the United Presbyterian Denom. Now we have the PCUSA and they have very little anchor. Is that a good thing? How much is too much for you Kevin? Where do you draw the line?
We are friends Kev. So I don't mean to put you in a bad spot but you did step up to the plate brother on this topic.
We are friends Kev. So I don't mean to put you in a bad spot but you did step up to the plate brother on this topic.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
If some of these men are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, yet in doing so find themselves in disagreement with our Confession, then it is better that they depart than fracture the denomination, because it is evident they have come to different conclusions as to what the Scriptures teach. Disagreement may be inevitable, but division and disobedience are not acceptable behaviors for Churchmen.
I'm not convinced that any great majority of them are seeking such. Pet cultural accommodations and the avoidance of embarrassment at cocktail parties with pagan intellectuals seems to play a part at times. Of course, Kevin, it may just be the high pay as you assert.
I guess that the problem I have here is that this constitutes the vast majority of PCA TEs and has since its founding. Of the pastors whose teaching I have sat under, none fit your definition. And some were in the Confessionalist wing of the PCA! All of them would take exceptions to the confession.
sdesocio
Puritan Board Freshman
Brad,
I think you need to watch out, when you say generally there are men who:"introduce novelties and 're-interpretations'"
Are you refering to them preaching another gospel?
Or are we talking about how the gospel is explained?
Couldn't it be just a likely that those who see things like you do need to consider finding a more conservative denomination?
Two Scriptures to consider:
“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19, ESV)
“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” (1 Corinthians 4:5, ESV)
I think you need to watch out, when you say generally there are men who:"introduce novelties and 're-interpretations'"
Are you refering to them preaching another gospel?
Or are we talking about how the gospel is explained?
Couldn't it be just a likely that those who see things like you do need to consider finding a more conservative denomination?
Two Scriptures to consider:
“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19, ESV)
“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” (1 Corinthians 4:5, ESV)
In all due respect, Brad is speaking in general terms. I didn't hear any names mentioned. Did you? Did you hear a specific name mentioned or a specific Elder charged with anything? Yes, there are things in the PCA that have been very troubling. I spoke up about the Federal Vision before it was judged to be outside of the boundaries on many issues. I was a member of the PCA then also. In fact I was giving a heads up to Pastors who had no idea it was being taught. I did point to specific writings and asked questions. Today the issue of Adam is coming to a head again. Some strange practices concerning worship are being introduced. We could make a small list I think that would fill the billet. There are plenty of witnesses to collaborate this. Mainly in print.
Pastor, can I ask you if you really want to use the passage in 1 Cor 4 to say what it seems like you are implying? Will you exegete that passage for us so that we can understand how that passage is to be considered in this situation? Please?
sdesocio
Puritan Board Freshman
Randy,
When someone starts a line with "with all due respect"... it tends to come off as angry.
my point was - its dangerous to simply throw around vague accusations. Who are these men? What are the charges? Are there cooperating testimonies?
Then let the Presbyteries do their job, and accept their decision, if you can't accept the authority placed over you, then that is a different problem...
Randy I can point to equal "benefits" in the RPCNA.
It's a shame that my first article got a lot of attention, but this one isnt...
When someone starts a line with "with all due respect"... it tends to come off as angry.
my point was - its dangerous to simply throw around vague accusations. Who are these men? What are the charges? Are there cooperating testimonies?
Then let the Presbyteries do their job, and accept their decision, if you can't accept the authority placed over you, then that is a different problem...
Randy I can point to equal "benefits" in the RPCNA.
It's a shame that my first article got a lot of attention, but this one isnt...
sdesocio
Puritan Board Freshman
Lets let Luther be Luther.
Andrew, if teaching FV is a denominational offense, then no one should be seen as guilty of doing it until they are found guilty. But when a church finds a man not guilty we should make sure we don't claim knowledge of a situation that we aren't personally a part of. And we should not create a conspiracy against the Presbytery.
Maybe the local Presbytery has the wisdom to see up close.
Im not sure how much of this has anything to do with my article.
Andrew, if teaching FV is a denominational offense, then no one should be seen as guilty of doing it until they are found guilty. But when a church finds a man not guilty we should make sure we don't claim knowledge of a situation that we aren't personally a part of. And we should not create a conspiracy against the Presbytery.
Maybe the local Presbytery has the wisdom to see up close.
Im not sure how much of this has anything to do with my article.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Heresy is heresy. Our denomination has already spoken concerning these two issues that I raised, yet there are presbyteries allowing them to continue. So do I submit to God or to presbyteries who continue allowing the practice? Do I accept a presbytery's decision which is contrary to God's Word? "Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." Rom. 1:32
This has nothing to do with being a denominational offense. It has to do with an offense against the Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
This I am sure has little to do with your article, it is more of a response to:
The implication is that to not accept every single presbytery decision is the presbyters' problem, when it in fact is not necessarily the case. I gave two examples of why it would not be the presbyters' problem (unless of course I stood by and did nothing, thereby giving approval to the practices and condemning myself)
This has nothing to do with being a denominational offense. It has to do with an offense against the Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
This I am sure has little to do with your article, it is more of a response to:
The implication is that to not accept every single presbytery decision is the presbyters' problem, when it in fact is not necessarily the case. I gave two examples of why it would not be the presbyters' problem (unless of course I stood by and did nothing, thereby giving approval to the practices and condemning myself)
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
It seems to this outside observer that you are itchin' for a fight Sam.
I am boldenig this so people who are young can learn something from an old guy. This will always be a problem. The younger generation needs to learn to understand the older generation and the older generation (myself included) still has to remember you kids don't understand what we know even though you might think you do. We speak different languages. Even culturally. I am relearning that again.
Pastor DeSocio, Your perception might be a generational and a cultural difference probably. " In all due respect," to your position of authority is what it means. It has no anger in it. It usually does have a factor of questioning the authority's take and or a an appeal on a matter or command to perform. It is from my generation and respect for your position. It is a recognition that you are a man placed in authority. It is a way to acknowledge that. It also comes from my military background. It has no anger in it.
This is not in anger at all. Believe me. I hold the office of Elder in high esteem. But I also believe you took those passages out of context and that is why I asked to exegete the one specifically for us. I am not beyond mistaking a basic principle in Scripture. That is also why I gave you my explanation.
Believe me. I know the benefits of being under and submitting to Authority. In fact I just spent three hours with a 75 year old TE having him go over my writings, praying, and critiquing me. I do that often. I love my Elders and I know they love me and can see things I can't see. I take my authority very seriously. I do that for all good men of God who hold office as RE or TE in various denominations also. I don't just submit to those of my own denomination. I am very serious about submission and that means of grace.
So can you give us a good exegete on the Corinthians passage? Please?
Can I give you a suggestion as a friend? Listen a bit and see. Maybe you are so close to the situation that you need to put some pieces together. As I noted. I know I need to step back ever now and again and listen. I am 50 years old, raised three sons, have a lifetime of experience, with more to go, and known Christ for 32 years. I still need shepherding. Letting Luther be Luther isn't always wise is it? Father Staupitz would say no and he loved him like a son.
Maybe you need to ask what it has to do with both articles?
Last edited:
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Why, Sam, I certainly appreciate your warm concern for my soul - I'll definitely be 'watching out' as a result of this warning.
What things exactly are you talking about that I and others 'see'? That we are a Confessional Church, and when one defies that Confession in teaching or praxis one is being divisive and disobedient? That is the definition of 'conservative'? Hmmm... I thought it was simply... the truth. But I defer to your rank.
Oh, Sam, thank you so much again for reminding me of this. I had almost forgot it. I've heard it enough, though. Especially from the mouths of a long list of TE's and RE's that have gone on to various errors and apostasies after having foisted their personal power peccadillos upon my family and my Church. The tendency was usually to see the laity as a mushroom farm; keep 'em in the dark, feed 'em manure, and when they poked their heads up, chop 'em off. And many a man who would make merchandise of the people of God has preferred that method. I could send you a list, but it would be pointless. The real point is that experience has well taught me not to blindly follow or accept the validity of those 'callings'. Having done so in the past has cost my family dearly. I determine to "know them by their fruit". I don't make charges against individuals any more, that's a whole 'nother set of machinations that breaks my heart to have to witness. But I will express my observations, and if the shoe fits, well, too bad. Experience has also shown that those who protest the loudest are usually the ones who are engaged in the behavior mentioned.
This reminds me of the women who protest against the RCC for not allowing for Priestesses. While not a Church to want to emulate, the reality is if they want Priestesses, they are simply not RC, and should leave them alone and form their own organization. But they are loathe to surrender the benefits of the edifice. The same could be said of so many men who want to 'modernize' or 'improve' Confessional Presbyterianism. They are NOT that, and should move on.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
This comment gives me great concern.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I understood Brad to be talking about teachings that contradict the Confession.
That being said...
Are we? Constitutionally, we don't really require adherence to our constitution.
Please pardon my ignorance everyone, but I really don't understand why we're having this conversation, nor why it was even started. I have been reformed for 4 years, and I became reformed outside of any reformed denomination, it was only by the grace of God. It was a while before I knew any truly reformed brethren and even longer before we settled into a faithful, reformed church. I studied everything I could get my hands on, learned the reformed confessions, understood the reformed ecclesiology and have great love and respect for both. I spent 30 years on the other side and almost gave up on the faith because of it. I understand the need for confessions, creeds and standards.
If you're denomination has confessional standards and a book of church order it adheres to, then why are we talking about this? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but this seems to be a waste of time. Why be in the PCA if you can't adhere to the historic, reformed confessions that frame it? Am I missing something? Please help me understand the PCA brothers, it doesn't quite match in practice what I learned in "theory".
If you're denomination has confessional standards and a book of church order it adheres to, then why are we talking about this? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but this seems to be a waste of time. Why be in the PCA if you can't adhere to the historic, reformed confessions that frame it? Am I missing something? Please help me understand the PCA brothers, it doesn't quite match in practice what I learned in "theory".
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Another victory for the compromisers, in my insignificant estimation. If we are not Confessional, why do we have a Confession?
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
There is a testimony that breaks my heart. Christianity shouldn't be a thing where the jaded older adherents get a feeling of 'boy, are you in for an eye-opening experience' for the novices. I can remember the shock I had when I learned that so many of our leadership rejected so much of the Standards our denomination claimed to hold. I came to the Reformed faith in part due to the consistency of it both to Scripture and practice. That bubble was burst a long time ago. What a shame.
I think St. Paul has an answer for this.
2Ti 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
This is unprofitable. Kevin, Sam, don't announce a part three or four here if you intend to go on; it scandalizes the the next generation which should rather be built up in the faith.
- Status
Similar threads
