/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Isn't shit like this the reason why the OPC and PCA were formed?

>>605802

Yup

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church was founded on June 11, 1936, in the aftermath of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, under the leadership of J. Gresham Machen (longtime professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, who also founded Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929). With the infiltration of theological liberalism, the mainline Presbyterian Church in the USA had departed from historic Christianity, including the rejection of doctrines such as the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement. Originally calling itself the Presbyterian Church of America, the young church was forced by the threat of a lawsuit to change its name in 1939, and it adopted the name Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

https://www.opc.org/historian.html

Organized at a constitutional assembly in December 1973, this church was first known as the National Presbyterian Church but changed its name in 1974 to Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). It separated from the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern) in opposition to the long-developing theological liberalism which denied the deity of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Additionally, the PCA held to the traditional position on the role of women in church offices.

https://pcanet.org/about-the-pca-2-3/

>>605832

>Are they basically reformed baptists?

Surprisingly, no. The crucial difference between Presbyterians and Baptists is the church governance, not necessarily baptism, which is a major difference.

>>605832

was raised free Presbyterian church of ulster, they are pretty much kjv only fundamental baptist with a reformed bent.

>heresies born of heresies

>what happened to it?

It is what it always was, a monstrosity

>>606427

>free Presbyterian church of ulster

Wasn't that Ian Paisley's church?

>>605792

PCUSA went full dyke/faggot acceptance at one of their general conferences a few years back.

That's all you really need to know about them.

PCUSA On Euthanasia:

"The topic of euthanasia is complicated by the fact that one term is often applied to quite different kinds of circumstances. Therefore it is important at the outset to make a fundamental distinction between taking life (sometimes referred to as active euthanasia) and allowing to die (sometimes referred to as passive euthanasia). Our consideration of each of these matters will be carried out in terms of the framework utilized in the discussion of abortions." ("The Nature and Value of Human Life"[24])

"Active euthanasia is a question that arises in situations of medical extremity where it is thought that an individual is beyond the reach of medical care. Some have at least posed the question of whether the most humane treatment might be to terminate life. However, the dominant value of respect for human life and its accompanying obligations to do no harm and to protect from harm establish a clear prejudice against such direct taking of life. The only relevant question for us is whether there is a conceivable conflict between these obligations. Once again it is also necessary to formulate a judgment about which obligation is more expressive of respect for life if conflict is seen to exist" ("The Nature and Value of Human Life"[25])

"Active euthanasia is extremely difficult to defend morally. There are, however, extreme circumstances in which we may have to at least raise the question of a fundamental conflict of obligations. There is an analogy between such cases of active euthanasia and abortions, questions that are based on the circumstances of the fetus. There is an accompanying prejudice against the taking of life in both cases, since the conflict between doing no harm and protecting from harm has reference to one and the same individual. The ambiguity of this situation serves to reinforce what has already been said about cautious and consultative decision-making." ("The Nature and Value of Human Life"[26])

PCUSA on abortion:

"the artificial or induced termination of a pregnancy is a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient . . . and therefore should not be restricted by law . . ." (Minutes of the 182nd General Assembly (1970), United Presbyterian Church in the USA., p. 891[4])

It's dead, Jim.

>>606535

aye

>>607007

> "the artificial or induced termination of a pregnancy is a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient . . . and therefore should not be restricted by law . . ." (Minutes of the 182nd General Assembly (1970), United Presbyterian Church in the USA., p. 891[4])

Killing your baby or not killing your baby is a matter of careful ethical consideration? Disgusting. Also I’m horrified that this was apparently decided in 1970!

>>607680

I recently found a "church" in communion with PCUSA, the Reformed Church in America, a Calvinist Dutch group. Found them through investigating the Zondervan brothers, who I believe may be crypojews on their mom's side.

Anyway, to your comment, some of the RCA's positions are remarkably similar in hypocrisy

>we are for gun control and urge you to contact your representatives (since the 60s)

>we are against the death penalty in all cases (since the 60s)

>we urge members to contact representatives about raising the drinking age (since the 80s)

>we think cohabitation and divorce are sins

at the same time

>we generally don't like abortion but it's a matter of personal conscience (since the 70s) and there's no mention of contacting your representatives about it

>we've made multiple conflicting statements about faggotry in increasing frequency over the last decades, with several in the last decade alone, but regardless of how anyone feels about it as a practice, they should absolutely be personally accepting of open faggots in your communion