Posted on 07/09/2011 6:32:12 PM PDT by Cronos
It’s official. As of July 10, after a 15-year struggle, qualified gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people can be ordained as clergy and officers in the Presbyterian Church (USA). After 24 presbyteries flipped from previous “no” votes, a total of 97 approved amendment 10A; well over the 87 required for the change.
This victory finally removed exclusionary language from the Book of Order, which required “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” The old language also required prospective ministers and officers to repent of “any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin”—a list that includes transgressions as varied as usury, “undue delay of marriage,” and “immoderate use of meat.” (What now for patrons of Brazilian steakhouses?)
Of course, the struggle for full acceptance of LGBT people began way before efforts to repeal the so-called “fidelity and chastity” rule. Many folks mark the 1974 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church as the beginning of the movement for LGBT equality in the denomination, when David Bailey Sindt held up a sign asking, “Is anyone else out there gay?”
(Excerpt) Read more at religiondispatches.org ...
I forgot to mention that I was referencing 1 Corinthians chapter 11, but the argument I hear so often that proves close to nothing is the idea that somehow a good church is without scandal. If that were true, Christ would have no reason to warn about wolve in his time, nor would Paul in his about heresies, nor would there be a need for the current clergy to mention the various serious issues facing us now.
good point -- whether there are 3% of priests or pastors who are molestors or gays it is still not right to condemn all
I've found in my experience here on FR, there are many good folks, good CHRISTIANS in denominations we think are "all bad" like the ECUSA, UMC, etc. etc. -- they're hanging on, hoping beyond hope. And we should not condemn them with the rest.
The problem is that we see these errors getting voted into even the most conservative of denominations. For example, the EPC recently voted to allow pastoresses -- that is insane after seeing the slippery slope that that is -- leading to lesbian married pastoresses imho.
Then the PCA keeps getting folks who try to crack that denomination with the votes to get deaconesses -- you know the next will be pastoresses and then lesbian pastoresses
And the ex-ruling elder of the OPC, Paul M. Elliott says that The OPC long ago ceased to proclaim the one true Gospel to the exclusion of all false gospels
And i need to thank Dr. E for moving me to see the latter two cases of congregationalism gone mad to voting on dogma
I’ve found in my experience here on FR, there are many good folks, good CHRISTIANS in denominations we think are “all bad” like the ECUSA, UMC, etc. etc. — they’re hanging on, hoping beyond hope. And we should not condemn them with the rest.
Agreed, again, you reminded me about possible resources I could use to show a friend about the church. Any good suggestions for reference?
Voting on dogma? Scripture becomes irrelevant then for these clowns. It’s like a kid in a candy store voting for a larger bag of candy.
If you knew much about the Presbyterian community, you would know that the EPC never was “the most conservative of denominations.” It always has been the second-most liberal. The PCA and OPC would be the ones considered in the “most conservative” category.
And, one ex-ruling elder, really? I’m sure I can come up with several former priests who are now evangelical Protestants and think the Roman Catholics stopped preaching the gospel.
The problem is that it is heading the same way as the PCUSA
You linked to nothing by him. Point out the pages you are referring to, since it isn’t in the table of contents, and I have no reason to go searching for Elliott’s garbage. Also, the OPC has 30,000 members. Look, Paul Elliott is a guy who will claim anyone is a heretic just because they disagree with him, and they make garbage up about them. We were actually joking about him last night at a church barbeque. If anyone is a heretic, it’s Paul Elliott for being exhibit A on the effects of legalism.
I was simply pointing out that going by the word of one witness, no matter who it is, even if it is the most trustworthy human on the planet, is ridiculous. The Mosaic Law, for instance, requires two witnesses for even a hearing to be granted (Deut. 19:15). Jesus Himself, who, if anyone had the right to, would be the one who could witness about Himself, had multiple witnesses for this very reason. If you are going to bring a charge, do it lawfully, and it might get a hearing.
Also, the PCA recently had a vote (which was defeated) about deaconesses — the problem is that this is the first, the liberals will keep asking for votes until they win as in the PCUSA.
You are not following the deaconess debate in the PCA, then. It is not based on liberalism. Both sides in the PCA accept the full authority of Scripture, and most on the deaconess even accept male headship. The deaconess side claims that the Scriptures support their side, citing the qualifications for women (generally translated as wife by those opposed) in I Timothy 3 and the multiple women referred to as deaconesses. Also, the deaconess side points out that there are multiple examples of deaconesses in the early church, which backs up their interpretation of Scripture.
You must also understand that the position of deacon in Presbyterian denominations has little authority over the congregation, and is not considered a stepping stone to eldership. Occasionally a deacon will become an elder, but it is not something that happens with great regularity.
Personally, I am undecided on the issue.
Then, there will be the move for pastoresses, then "celibate" lesbians, then married lesbians.
It's the same game which has been played in the PCUSA, ECUSA, ELCA etc.
the Report continues the conspiracy of silence that has prevailed in the OPC for three decades. It leaves the erroneous impression that the serious doctrinal problems are outside the denomination, not within it. The Report gives false comfort to those who think the OPC is still a bastion of Biblical orthodoxy. On the contrary, the Report, and the 2006 General Assembly’s commendation of it, both maintain the OPC as a safe haven for those who teach erroryou can read the details at the link on page 109 why the Former Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) ruling elder Paul M. Elliott says that
.....
Men within the OPC, including at least one member of the Committee itself, teach heresy regarding the Gospel and many other fundamentals of the faith.
The author’s thesis is that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is today exactly where the PCUSA was back then
From Trinity Lectures Foundation
| Despite the painstaking efforts of many fine Christians within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the leaders of the OPC maintain a suicidal course. Despite the departure of congregations and individuals from the OPC, due to the leaders' collective inability to resolve the current justification controversy Biblically, the OPC leaders continue to advance doctrines that contradict Scripture. The OPC is, in the words of its late historian Charles Dennison, "obviously inept, bumbling, [and] confused."1 That confusion now appears to be fatal. At this point in its history, the confessional affirmations of the OPC have no more credibility than the confessional affirmations of the PCUSA from 1936 to 1967. One of the commissioners to the 2004 OPC General Assembly made this very point: "There was a time when, if the OPC said it, it was accepted. The 2003 deliverance that accompanied the decision to acquit [John Kinnaird] destroyed forever that our words will not be questioned. The PCUSA always said that the [Westminster] Confession was their confession (even as they were denying it)." |
No, it isn’t. It’s fundamentally different. You cannot see that since you are a Roman Catholic, but I’ll try to explain it anyway. The mainline Presbyterians (the first denomination infected by liberalism in the U.S., actually) started their slide with a rejection the deity of Christ as essential to the Christian faith, and they also denied inerrancy. From there, the slide happened in the mainline denominations. It had little to do with women in the ministry. On the other hand, no one is talking about removing the deity of Christ in the PCA. The day they start talking about that and those ministers are not immediately defrocked is the day my congregation will go OPC.
The most dangerous vote in recent years in the PCA was the narrow vote to accept non-Young Earth Cerationists into the ministry, which contradicted all the standards of the church. That has the potential for damage down the road, but its effects have not been felt yet.
It is still a vote to change and a vote on dogma. Sooner or later, they will push a vote to go the way of the PCUSA. That is the problem
The Trinity Foundation website is full of lies and distortions. It’s a site for Hyper-Calvinist nutjobs. It would be like me pulling out a sedevacantist or Feeneyist website to back up my attacks on the Papacy. It’s just plain absurd.
You cannot imagine changing minor points of doctrine. Considering we Protestants have nothing like the Pope and do not consider tradition infallible, you are trying to hold us to your Papist standard. We can change minor points of doctrine and practice, so long as they do not conflict with Constitutional standards, such as the Scriptures (the sole infallible rule of faith), followed by the ecumenical creeds (since they faithfully summarize the teaching of Scripture), followed by the Westminster Standards (insofar as they summarize the teaching of Scripture).
Why? Is that not simply picking and choosing much like the cafeteria Catholic in name only do? Why Apostolic succession of doctrine? Some of the folks here go whole hog YOPIOS. Others believe in the Church and its pronouncements under its authority given to it by Jesus. Why only the doctrine? And which doctrines? Subordinationism? Trinitarianism? Sacraments? Forgiveness of sins by the clergy?
If there is proof that a doctrine came from the Apostles, then I would accept it. Since the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, then any traditions must be ultimately sourced there. Instance: The Trinity originates in the clear teachings of Scripture that there is but one God, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, yet distinct from each other. However, the idea of forgiveness of sins by the clergy has nothing in Scripture that would lead to it, and in fact directly contradicts the idea, since all the people of God are priests, and Christ is our high priest. There is no need for a human intermediary in any form, so why have one?
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.