Posted on 01/23/2014 2:18:07 PM PST by Gamecock
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.