PCA affirms Biblical marriage (Presbyterian Church in America)

The Layman ^ | L. Roy Taylor

[Albion Wilde]

The PCA would do well to remove “Presbyterian” from their name to further distance themselves from the heretical behavior of the like-named group of hedonists.

Why should they give up their founding? It's a pity they can't sue to get the PCUSA to remove the word "Presbyterian" from their name, since they are the ones who are apostate.

I understand the Baptists have gone through this schismatic issue over whether women should "submit" to men in marriage. Certainly the Methodists have been bedeviled for years by the screeching of the "reproductively challenged" in their ranks.

Hold the line, people. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley and the other Reformers were not trying to be "progressive." They were trying to return the church to its apostolic roots and stop the innovations and mutations that were eviscerating the basic teachings. Sort of the way a good gardener clears out the dead wood and misshapen branches and cuts the suckers off from the bottom of the trunk of a tree, and roots out the smothering vines from around it.

[Albion Wilde]

My experience is that PCA and RP churches attract a lot of informed believers. They are not very seeker-friendly, “we’ll turn down the message for the guests” types. PCA will grow as they absorb the more traditional PCUSA folks, leaving the empty shell for the social crowd.

That's how the Lutheran Missouri Synod is. I wanted to stand up and cheer the first time I heard a LCMS pastor preach against birth control, abortion, homosexuality and IVF, after prior decades of theological waffling, homespun anecdotes and Democrat apologetics in the UMC.

[Gamecock]

No annulments.

[GilesB]

I agree with almost everything you have said here, except for the statement implied in your opening question.

Yes, by rights the PCUSA should remove themselves from affiliation with the greater Presbyterian community, and Christianity in general, for that matter. But they won’t. They are not bothered by the association, they revel in it. It gives them a certain amount of cover for their apostasy.

My statement is based entirely on my fervent belief that our commitment to Christ should far outstrip our loyalty to any other name.

I have never been a member of a “mainstream” church, and therefor have no ties to a name. My Christian history has been entirely within the nondenominational churches - and I am more attuned to doctrine than I am to history, although I have a passing interest in the history of different denominations, particularly as it relates to doctrinal differences. I say this to acknowledge that I may not have the background to understand a strong tie to a particular name - and I am certainly not dogmatic about it. I just see it as a good way to put lots of space between them and the apostate group.