Posted on 04/22/2009 2:18:46 PM PDT by kaehurowing
Unofficially, ordination requirement is affirmed
The Layman, Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The “fidelity/chastity” requirement will remain in The Book of Order, according to the unofficial reports of votes by presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The April 22 reports raised the number of presbyteries supporting the Biblical ordination standards to 86, the number needed for a majority.
Surprisingly, San Francisco, the last presbytery to report its vote on April 22, was the 86th to reject an amendment to G-6.0106b that would have eliminated the language requiring candidates for ordination to maintain fidelity in their marriages and chastity if single. That language forbade practicing, self-affirming adulterers and homosexuals from being ordained as deacons, elders and ministers.
San Francisco, generally regarded as a liberal presbytery, was not expected to favor the ordination requirements. In 2001-02, the last previous referendum on the issue, San Francisco voted 216-186 in favor of an amendment that would have repealed G-6.0106b. It is the home presbytery of Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow, who opposes the ordination requirements.
In the 2008-09 referendum, San Francisco became the only presbytery to reverse its position from favoring elimination of the “fidelity/chastity” clause to opposing the proposed constitutional change.
Three other presbyteries also reported their votes April 22. Salem Presbytery in North Carolina voted 156-149-1 in favoring amending the text of G-6.0106b to eliminate the “fidelity/chastity” language. Salem thus became the fourth of five presbyteries in North Carolina to change sides. Previously, the presbyteries of Western North Carolina, Charlotte and New Hope had voted for the amendment. Only the Coastal Carolina Presbytery in North Carolina voted against eliminating the ordination requirement.
The other votes reported April 22 were Wabash Valley, 78-60 in favor of the amendment, and National Capital, 222-102-1 in favor of the amendment. Wabash Valley became the 27th presbytery to switch from supporting “fidelity/chastity” in 2001-02.
The latest tally in the national referendum is 86-68, with votes scheduled before mid-May in 17 presbyteries. Most of the remaining presbyteries are expected to vote against the “fidelity/chastity” requirements.
Currently, the percentage of presbyteries supporting the ordination requirements is lower than it was in 1997-98, when 56.8 percent of the presbyteries voted to add them to the constitution.
In 2001-02, 173 presbyteries voted in the national referendum, requiring 87 votes for a majority. The number of presbyteries voting in the 2008-09 referendum is 171.
Ping
Is this not just a brief pause in the long slide away from the Gospel of Christ? The PCA is no more a biblical church than the Roman Church they wanted to protest. Time for a new reformation.
It doesn’t matter what the standards say. They are ordaining them anyway.
You know the difference between the two. That’s a cheap shot, and I’ll call you on it.
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
My apologies. I know the rules, and I slipped up. Thanks for calling me on it.
On the contrary. A cheap shot relies upon making a sarcastic connection between two dissimilar entities. I am dead serious. The PCA has left the Gospel of Christ as delivered by Paul and Peter, beginning back in the 1920s. Look at the seminaries, read J G Machen...they now hate the very message they used to free the enslaved of Rome. All of the big boxes are just self-perpetuating clubs loving self-help messages, movie stars and money, more than TULIP. So, look elsewhere for the biblical message of life.
The 10 Commandments seem to have no meaning to some groups.
The PCA didn't even come into being until the 1970s. Machen had been dead for almost 40 years by that point. And Machen's fight wasn't even with the body that the PCA came out of.
Finally, most PCA churches would be classed as 'Medium sized' (51-300 members).
Not clear what you mean by the first line, but when I get an opportunity, I’ll cite the writings of Machen from the book “Machen” where he notes the liberalism overtaking the group.
Nothing you mention seems, however, to argue that the PCA actually teaches the Gospel of Christ (as opposed to a saccharine-sweet “be good and God will like you” behaviorism). It is this “religion” that has lead to their embracing of homosexuals, women teachers, and all form of self-willed heresy.
That is just absolutely false. There is a current battle as to whether women can serve as unordained 'deacons' but there is a total bar on the ordination of women. The PCA could only seem to tolerate heresy to a Catholic or a member of a cult. As for homosexuals, celibate homosexuals would be accepted into membership.
I rest my case.
Some folks are still sore that the FV was established to be a heresy.
FV?
You have PCA and PCUSA confused.
PCA is much more conservative, traditional than the liberal PCUSA.
It is likely that only Hoeksma’s organization (Orthodox Presbyterian) was conservative enough to be called “traditional”. Today’s stretching of doctrine in order to accommodate the “big tent” view of organizations makes both of them less than biblical.
Then I’ll jump on the bandwagon and state.. you don’t know what you are talking about.
PCA is so removed from PCUSA the word Presbyterian shouldn’t be common in both names.
Everyone who has had even a mild interest in the goings on of the PCA over the last 5 years knows about FV. And they are the group most likely to be attacking the PCA at this point.
No idea what FV means. I have no interest in “attacking” any group. I have a great interest in exposing the groups that never did or no longer present the biblical Gospel of Christ.
And while we are on the subject of groups, the whole concept of a named “group” finds absolutely no biblical support to begin with. The Christians of the early centuries were not affiliated with named organizations and had no directives from the apostles to form such monstrosities. The Roman Catholics began this “name brand” affiliation (along with a passel of unbiblical doctrines) and for some odd reason, many reformed groups picked up the habit. Sad; Luther would have hated a group being called “Luterans”. We ought to be satisfied being Christians, with sufficient well-informed teachers who can remove the error-ridden teaching of the heretics. Instead, we cling to labels.
So, tell us about FV if they are one of the groups that needs exposed?
I didn’t know what it was either and was looking to see if PAR35 had posted his views. I guess he got busy or something.
I found this on a blog about FV.
http://civitate-dei.blogspot.com/2007/04/pca-and-fv.html
Yes, I got busy - haven’t been around in a week or so.
On FV, it’s my position that PCA folks who are ordained, and who hold to FV should decamp to CREC or some other like body, sooner rather than later. And if their congregations want to go with them, they are welcome to do so with any property that they own free and clear.
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.