The ping list that chooses you!
Posted on 01/23/2014 2:18:07 PM PST by Gamecock
I was recently asked to outline some of the major differences between the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) and my own denomination the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and I came up with the following 13 point list:
1) The PCA does not ordain women to either of the offices in the church (Teaching/Ruling Elder, Deacon). The PCUSA by contrast ordains women to both offices.
2) The PCA affirms that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all that it teaches. The PCUSA does not.
3) The PCA repudiates abortion and considers it a violation of the sixth commandment. The PCUSA believes, there should be no limits on access to abortions, there should be public funding of abortions, and that there should be limits placed on people who demonstrate against abortion.
4) The PCA is against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage and believes both are sins. The PCUSA does not consider homosexuality to be a sin, ordains practicing homosexuals and came within 30 votes of giving the go ahead to same sex marriage ceremonies in the church. Their next General Assembly (GA) will probably do so.
5) The PCA is against divorce except in cases of adultery or desertion. The PCUSA by contrast allows for no-fault divorce and remarriage.
6) The PCA has a constitution consisting of the Westminster Standards and Book of Church Order. All church officers must subscribe to these documents as their Confession of Faith. Teaching against the doctrines contained in these documents or violating them could result in trial and deposition from office.
By contrast, the PCUSA has a “Book of Confessions” containing all of the major Reformed Confessions, and some modern confessions of faith which change or even deny things contained in these confessions. They are viewed more as a series of general guidelines or suggestions that do not bind the conscience of officers in any way. PCUSA church officers routinely teach contrary to the doctrines contained in these documents.
7) The PCA is explicitly Reformed in its theology. Someone denying Calvinism would have an extremely hard time being ordained in the PCA. By contrast, the theology of PCUSA congregations varies widely from church to church and can cover a spectrum from de facto Unitarian Universalism to Neo-Orthodoxy to soft Arminianism. Very few PCUSA congregations are explicitly Calvinistic in their teaching and preaching.
8) The PCA is explicitly evangelistic in its belief that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” and that “No one comes to the Father except through [Him]” as well as its desire to see all people come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Whereas in the PCUSA evangelism is much less popular and often either non-existent or repudiated in the manner of influential PCUSA Pastor Rev. Randall K. Bush who stated recently: “As of this point, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached to all the corners of the world, so knock it off…. Once the evangelical notion of the church can be turned down for a moment, the wisdom of other faiths can finally speak.”
9) The PCA is committed to a principle of voluntary association and all PCA congregations own their own property. Additionally all giving to the administration and permanent committees of the PCA is voluntary. By contrast the property of PCUSA congregations is “regarded as held in trust for the benefit of the PC(USA).” This makes the dissolution of the denominational bond much more difficult in the PCUSA and can sometimes mean a congregation must leave without their church building.
10) While the PCA is gradually centralizing power, the PCA was originally intended to be a “grass roots” denomination and power is still vested largely in Presbyteries in the PCA. By contrast, in the PCUSA, power is much more centralized in the administration and General Assembly.
11) While the PCA is gradually becoming tolerant towards the teaching of theistic evolution, Creationism is still the doctrine held and confessed by most PCA pastors. By contrast, in the PCUSA, evolution is widely accepted.
12) While the PCA is gradually becoming more open to being involved in national and international politics, particularly through its membership in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), they generally hesitate to take stands on issues that do not clearly fall under the oversight of the church. The PCUSA, on the other hand, routinely takes stands on a host of political issues ranging from immigration to increased funding for public schools to condemning big tobacco to divestment from Israel.
13) (Addendum Regarding Worship) – There used to be significant theological differences between the PCA’s and PCUSA’s theology of worship. These difference still exist on paper even though they no longer exist in practice. The PCA confesses that all of our worship should be directed only by the Bible, while the PCUSA states that worship should be an amalgam of Bible, culture, feeling, and tradition.
Well what do ya know!
I’m not Presbyterian, but I look forward to reading a rebuttal from someone in the PCUSA. I’m not disagreeing with you (since I don’t know one from the other). I’d just like to hear what the other side says.
One of the best churches I’ve ever attended was Westminster PCA in Columbus, Ga. Had we not moved to Wisconsin we’d still be members there.
I led music there for a couple years. I thought it was hysterically funny that I had to get the permission of the church elders to use a piezo - equipped electric guitar in the service.
Not counting #6 and #7, the same could be said of the difference between the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
LOL
As a PCA member, I question this one. The most explicit instruction for worship is found in 1 Corinthians 14:27-37, which is ignored.
What’s ‘ignored’ is the reason tongues were given, and if they are still being used by God today. Which would be answered if 2 Tim. 2:15 were employed by Bible students. Were the Corinthians more ‘spiritual’ or had more ‘faith’ than others do today? Why, exactly, as Gentiles, were they given the gift of tongues? And you truly believe that 1 Cor. 14:27-37 is the ‘most explicit instruction for worship’? Today?
Today? Seriously? Your question implies parts of the Bible are now obsolete. That's how liberals justify gay marriage.
Verse 37 says, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord."
Are you going to nullify a commandment of the Lord?
My question implies that parts of the Bible are for “time past”, parts are for “but now” and parts are for “ages to come”. It’s called rightly dividing God’s Word. (2 Tim. 2:15). You will find the way to do this as God gave to Paul, in Ephesians, Chapter 2. As far as “obsolete”, do you bring a lamb to slaughter every Sunday? There was a time for that, but not now. It is for our understanding, but not for our obedience today. Don’t get too wise by half, you yourself make parts of the Bible “obsolete” every time you exchange OT commandment for NT ones. Just how did you decide which is for today and which is not?
There's only two Protestant beliefs, Reformed and all others. That is why there is a spectrum.
IMO that's why Catholics like them. Their liberal "social doctrines" mesh nicely together with each other's.
Case in point, the "Evangelical" signatories who supported BXVI's "Caritas In Veritate" weren't bedrocks of doctrinal orthodoxy. They were noted leftys like Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and Richard Cizik. And rather than say "thanks, but no thanks" as Catholics do with evangelical pro-lifers that aren't anti-contraceptive, the leftys are embraced and held aloft as "Protestant Leaders" who are "refreshingly sane and reasoned".
Related threads:
Doing The Truth In Love: An Evangelical Call for Response to "Caritas In Veritate"
68 Protestant Leaders Applaud Encyclical-Caritas in Veritate [Ecumenical]
I'll rightly divide by what's written in the scripture. We died to the (OT) law (and animal sacrifices), as Paul clearly said. However, when a commandment of the Lord is given in the New Testament, does it only apply to the early church? Liberals says 'yes', and thereby justify gay marriage. I say it still applies.
Then may I suggest a thorough reading of Eph. Chapter 2? Because until you understand when “time past” ended and “but now” began, you will never be able to study God’s word rightly divided. And you WILL be ashamed when you stand before Him. 2 Tim. 2:15. God would not tell us how to be approved unto Him, without showing us how to do this.
13 Differences Between the PCA and the PCUSA.
Who was it? There was a Freeper that I can recall, that always seemed to think PCUSA was representative of all presbyterians.
1) The PCA does not ordain women to either of the offices in the church (Teaching/Ruling Elder, Deacon). The PCUSA by contrast ordains women to both offices.
I could be wrong, but I think they actually require it.
The PCUSA, on the other hand, routinely takes stands on a host of political issues ranging from immigration to increased funding for public schools to condemning big tobacco to divestment from Israel.
Not to forget, PCUSA also supports civilian disarmament.
If you wish to nullify His commandments, good luck when you stand before Him.
I see no need for a quarrel. There is an “If” at the beginning of the section of verses you quote, therefore it is not a requirement. So if no one speaks in an unknown tongue, then there is no need for interpretation. And, “if” there is no interpreter, then the speaker is to be silent.
There's been a couple, but IMO you might be thinking of Petronski.
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.