Posted on 09/21/2011 1:14:17 AM PDT by Cronos
This John Meacham is not to be confused with the Jon Meacham who drove Newsweek bankrupt.
Uhh, yeah.
good thing you clarified that.
I am quite sure that neither Mr. Meacham would be honored by the confusion......
Not to be too critical, but, the profile statement in the OP states that the author has pastored churches, written four books on Christian topics and is a prophet of Jesus.
In light of this resume, my first thoughts are why is this individual still associated with the PCUSA? It’s like a former alcholic having a debate with himself on the wisedom of remaining a member of the irish drinking guild (no offense to my Irish brethern) because he thinks there is a movement within the guild to condone the consumption of adult beverages. Some things in life are just so obvious as to render debate obsolete but hey, what do I know?
As a new Christian and barely out of my teen years, I left the PCUSA way back in 1985 because I could clearly see that even as a non-prophet the PCUSA was headed into the abyss. Just using simple powers of observation, it is clear that the PCUSA as a viable Christian organization is basically a gonner. There is nothing in the NT that teaches that one should be associated with churches that are in a state of disbelief, which clearly the PCUSA is in. While it is true that a single lone voice for the truth can be a powerful force, the task at hand is not as is assumed reform, no, it’s conversion. In effect what I’m saying is the leadership (this includes influencial pastors, seminary professors and so on) of the PCUSA is not christian so it’s condition is being mis-diagnossed. I’m sure some will be offended by my conclusion but this is how I see it.
I thought it was written by the Newsweek guy, and that made no sense.
Strange. I can't find "Christ's Epistle to the Presbyterians" in my Bible. Protestants accuse the Pope of a lot of things, but the Pope doesn't write encyclicals that claim to be speaking the new and inspired words of Our Lord.
And my understanding of Protestant ecclesiology is that "Christ's Church" is invisible, and not to be confused with any earthly organization, which the PCUSA certainly is.
In case anyone thinks I'm being snarky toward Protestants in general, please keep in mind that the PCUSA has had abortion coverage in their insurance package for clergy for many years. To me, calling an apostate organization which enshrines baby killing as a "healthcare" option for their clergy ... calling them "Christ's Church" is objectively blasphemous.
Marcus Grodi, I believe, was a PCUSA pastor. When he was deciding it was time to bail, one of his PCUSA friends tried to argue him out of it, saying, "But, Marcus, you can't leave the Church!" Grodi blurted out, "If staying in the Church is so important, why did we leave the Church in the first place?!?" The PCUSA is way beyond any "reforming".
I’ve been wondering for a while how the PCUSA and other Mainline denominations are going to get enough young people to enter their seminaries.
Haven’t we had enough of self-styled prophets?
FYI Campion, the PCUSA being apostate doesn’t make the Pope the leader of the truth squad. Of course, not many it any in the PCUSA have theological issues with Rome.
Died-in-the-wool Presbos don’t need to repent, and they don’t need to do anything else (other than have faith) to be saved.
They and other true Calvinists say they have been pre-selected for salvation. They believe (a) that no amount of sin will cause them to lose the grace already bestowed upon them, and (b) that no amount of “good works” and repentance will allow a non-selected mortal to join those who are predestined for heaven.
So they can with impunity commit all kinds of heresies — pay for pastors’ wives to have abortions, ordain homosexual clergy, etc. etc. — and still they will be saved. Sorry folks, believe it or not, but that’s just the way it is.
In some ways the PCUSA assembly I was associated with was not as far into the pit as the ELCA group. I remember giving the message in the ELCA church one Sunday and offering up an invitation to accept Jesus as Savior. The reaction I received from some of the older members was one of nostalgia, as in we used to hear that sort of thing all the time but not anymore "sigh". From the younger associates, the reaction was more on the order of “are you some kind of religious zealot"?
So my opinion based on a little bit of research and a whole lot of gut instinct tells me that academia within the mainline denominations has hijacked the seminaries beyond repair and why anyone interested in a future career in the counseling industry would go the religion route when state schools offer the same education at a fraction of the cost and a higher return in salary for the investment?
As I understand the teaching of the Bible on the matter, what we should be doing as believers in the risen Christ is serve Him, not get attached to buildings and ritual and dare I say it, fellow members.
I always go back to the LIFE ISSUE. It seems logical that anyone wanting to be a pastor would be pro-life.
Why would a pro-choice person even want to be a pastor? The Mainline denominations are radically pro-choice, and I don’t see how they can attract young people to their seminaries.
yes, that is sad — they believe they are part of a higher caste already pre-saved and that the rest are going to heck
At the heart of reformed “covenant” theology embraced by traditional Presbyterian teaching is the Gospel as spelled out in the New Testament. We can debate the legitimacy of “covenant” theology of which I do not believe the Bible teaches but many Calvinist that take the Bible seriously are cleansed by the blood and thus redeemed by the cross.
So, some who are died-in-the-wood are saved since they are trusting in Jesus, (which implies repentence), some who are died-in-the-wool are not because they are trusting in dogma (which does not imply repentence).
Dr. Scarpetta, not that life issues are un-important, they are but as a believer in Jesus, I’m pro-life due to the teaching of the Bible and the life changing power of the new birth, not because my church requires me to be pro-life.
The mainlines have survived by absorbing smaller groups. The day will come when there are no longer any smaller groups to absorbe. We see this now where under the guise of the ecumenical movement there is a move to consolidate different protestant groups and even a move to join up with Rome. This is to my thinking a move to ward off a starvation of numbers. One of the disadvantages of being big is that it cost a lot of money to keep the machine well oiled.
>> some who are died-in-the-wood are saved since they are trusting in Jesus <<
Well, I’ve heard Calvinist preachers say time and again that there’s nothing a man can do to save his soul. It’s all up to God. So if these Calvinists are right, then it shouldn’t matter if somebody does or doesn’t trust Jesus. As long as he is predestined, the Unbeliever will be saved just as will the predestined Believer.
Of course, there are those who will argue that the Believer has faith precisely because he IS predestined for salvation, while the Unbeliever lacks faith precisely because he ISN’T predestined. But to me, that’s circular reasoning — not really persuasive.
200 years ago, In America, you couldn’t find a church that didn’t teach what is called “Calvinism” today unless you were catholic. I wonder what went wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.