When Does a Denomination Itself Become Apostate?

[Theoretical]

I'm curious about this issue, especially looking at Presbyterian polity. The ECUSA and say a heretical Baptist or congregational church are very easily apparent examples of when one has to leave denomination or congregation-denomination (effectively the case).

Take the example of the PCA right now with regard to the FV issue. If the PCA ultimately settles on a "up to each church or even presbytery" - does that mean that some presbyteries are then heretical and some are sound or that any presbytery that remains in the denomination is in an apostate one?

What is the sign of a the apostasy of a denomination using Presbyterian polity?

 

[smhbbag]

Obviously not Presbyterian here, but.....

I usually take "heretical" to mean, essentially, denying some essential part of the saving gospel. That is, if a 'heresy' is held to, salvation is impossible.

Perhaps I'm going to be a bit extreme on this, but it's a question I've never really considered as you phrased it.....

Does tolerance of heresy make one a heretic? It would seem so, because to tolerate, or at least not expel, heresy within one's own denomination is, in fact, a statement that such views are not inconsistent with the gospel that denomination holds.

So, I'm tentatively thinking that if I view doctrine A as damnable heresy, and my denomination did not think that A was heresy, and tolerated / did not expel A, then I would be forced to conclude that my denomination and I differed on the gospel. In that case, obviously believing my understanding to be true, I would label my denomination 'heretical' at that point.

Looking forward to others who can untangle it a bit better.

I do hold to a Presbyterian (ish) ecclesiology, but I'm not sure how that would make this question much different in the mind of a congregationalist individual. Seems like the same issue, regardless.

 

[jaybird0827]

... The ECUSA ...

Scott - the ECUSA?

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm curious about this issues, especially looking at Presbyterian polity. The ECUSA and say a heretical Baptist or congregational church are very easily apparent examples of when one has to leave denomination or congregation-denomination (effectively the case).

Take the example of the PCA right now with regard to the FV issue. If the PCA ultimately settles on a "up to each church or even presbytery" - does that mean that some presbyteries are then heretical and some are sound or that any presbytery that remains in the denomination is in an apostate one?

What is the sign of a the apostasy of a denomination using Presbyterian polity?

In your example, I would say it's time to leave the PCA. If the denomination ceases to function in its broader role of guarding against heresy within its ranks, then it has failed in one of the more critical functions of the broader assembly. If the denomination can't define the gospel any better than say "FV doctrine may be allowed by decision of presbytery" or "congregation-to-congregation", then the definition of the gospel is being left up to individual segments of the 'body'... what kind of a church is that, then? No church at all.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

This entire matter is heartbreaking for the PCA in my view. It is leaven that needs to be purged before it's too late.

 

[Herald]

The charge of heresy is serious. None of us should be quick to use it unless the evidence is overwhelming. As I understand the FV issue within the PCA, the matters is still fluid. Unless the church you attend has departed from teaching the true gospel, I would be in vigilant prayer about the matter and wait to see how this plays out. Could the PCA split? If so, it may not be a bad thing.

 

[jaybird0827]

The charge of heresy is serious. None of us should be quick to use it unless the evidence is overwhelming. As I understand the FV issue within the PCA, the matters is still fluid. Unless the church you attend has departed from teaching the true gospel, I would be in vigilant prayer about the matter and wait to see how this plays out. Could the PCA split? If so, it may not be a bad thing.

The key word is "if", as in "If the PCA ultimately settles on a "up to each church or even presbytery". Don't "jump the gun".

 

[toddpedlar]

The charge of heresy is serious. None of us should be quick to use it unless the evidence is overwhelming. As I understand the FV issue within the PCA, the matters is still fluid. Unless the church you attend has departed from teaching the true gospel, I would be in vigilant prayer about the matter and wait to see how this plays out. Could the PCA split? If so, it may not be a bad thing.

Hm. Well, whether the case in the PCA is fluid or not, the FV teachings are heretical and strike at the heart of the gospel. There's no waiting - one can't wait when the gospel is at stake.

 

[Herald]

Hm. Well, whether the case in the PCA is fluid or not, the FV teachings are heretical and strike at the heart of the gospel. There's no waiting - one can't wait when the gospel is at stake.

Todd, I did say that "unless the church you attend has departed from the true gospel." I am not suggesting that a person remain in a PCA church if that particular church has become heretical. There are still PCA churches that are standing firm on the gospel. They are to be commended. Think about it this way. If all the believers in those "good" churches left, how long would it be before the PCA would crumble? As long as there is still hope for the denomination I believe that there should be a fight. Perhaps that fight results in a split of the denomination and a new Presbyterian branch is started. Outside of the fact that there seems to be a Presbyterian denomination for each letter of the alphabet (humor), it would be good that the truth was seen worthy to fight over.

 

[turmeric]

It looks as though the PCA, moving at its usual glacial speed, is dealing with the issue, not tolerating it. There was an earlier thread on this. I wasn't aware that anything's changed. After the Louisiana Presbytery has reached its (new) decision, and the GA has responded, we'll know.

 

[KenPierce]

I am not sure how glacial our speed is. I think it is extremely important, when it comes to matters of doctrinal confusion, to take great time to deliberate and sort out. When it comes to individuals: First, we must understand what people are really saying. Second, we must determine whether or not what is being promulgated is in the realm of orthodoxy. Third, if it is not, the courts must call on those promoting whatever teaching to recant. And, then, fourth, it must deal with the recantation or failure to recant.

The PCA is leery about doing anything formal with the Confession, that is, anything that could be seen to be adding to the Confession probably will not fly. So, a 21st Century version of the Athanasian Creed (that we affirm x, means we deny non-x, etc.) probably would not fly. We could not simply say, "The PCA rejects the Federal Vision." While we will not change our creed, and this is a self-critical comment, we are pretty expert at ignoring its more arcane (and sometimes not so arcane) provisions. So, this must be dealt with on a per case basis, the theological equivalent of Iwo Jima (now, please my FV friends, don't read too much into that. My only similitude here is that this will be a man-by-man, case-by-case basis.)

The question is, if the PCA does take action against LA Presbytery / Steve Wilkins, will other sympathizers flee and willingly submit themselves to Pope Doug? I hope that, before they do, they will talk to Andrew Sandlin.

And then, there are numerous men on the "left" of the PCA who, while not FV and not at all sympathetic to the Muscovites, are nonetheless enamored of the fair Bishop of Durham. What shall be done about them? I predict, because they are the "cool kids of the PCA," the ones involved in "cutting edge ministry" nothing will be done. The broad evangelicals will tolerate them, because, well, they like them, while they don't like Wilkins and co. And sadly, in the PCA, being liked is nigh unto everything. "He's a good man" is the only imprimatur needed in many places.

 

[toddpedlar]

Todd, I did say that "unless the church you attend has departed from the true gospel." I am not suggesting that a person remain in a PCA church if that particular church has become heretical. There are still PCA churches that are standing firm on the gospel. They are to be commended. Think about it this way. If all the believers in those "good" churches left, how long would it be before the PCA would crumble? As long as there is still hope for the denomination I believe that there should be a fight. Perhaps that fight results in a split of the denomination and a new Presbyterian branch is started. Outside of the fact that there seems to be a Presbyterian denomination for each letter of the alphabet (humor), it would be good that the truth was seen worthy to fight over.

Hi -

My point was, though, that given the assumption that was made (i.e. that the PCA decided to allow a session-by-session or presbyter-by-presbytery evaluation of FV) one should leave. If ones church is still firm, but the denomination has made a decision like that which shows its own lack of firmness, then the session would be faced with what I think is a necessary decision to withdraw and join a more sound denomination.

I'm not saying anything about whether PCA churches stand firm - most do, and are to be commended, and God should be thanked and praised that they are. I was only dealing with the hypothetical someone offered, which, Lord willing, never shall come to pass.

Todd

 

[KenPierce]

HI Todd,

Or, we could just adopt a congregational view of polity right? Every church its own kingdom?

 

[Herald]

HI Todd,

Or, we could just adopt a congregational view of polity right? Every church its own kingdom?

Ken - my kingdom will respect your kingdom. Just, "Don't tread on me."

The congregationalist flag!

 

[ChristopherPaul]

In the case of the PCUSA, there are churches within that denomination who do proclaim that the Inerrancy of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, and the authenticity of Christ's miracles are indeed essential. But with that in mind would it still be sinful to become a member within the PCUSA? I would think so, for you are supporting the denomination as one body which is apostate in confession.

IF the PCA went the same route, then you would be supporting a denomination which would support heresy. The church is one body. Yes the Church of the world is divided which is why we have denominations – to preserve unity. But God forbid that within the denominations, disunity on such fundamental doctrines is permitted.

 

[Herald]

In the case of the PCUSA, there are churches within that denomination who do proclaim that the Inerrancy of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, and the authenticity of Christ's miracles are indeed essential. But with that in mind would it still be sinful to become a member within the PCUSA? I would think so, for you are supporting the denomination as one body which is apostate in confession.

IF the PCA went the same route, then you would be supporting a denomination which would support heresy. The church is one body. Yes the Church of the world is divided which is why we have denominations – to preserve unity. But God forbid that within the denominations, disunity on such fundamental doctrines is permitted.

Well Chris, if the PCA gets to the point of the PCUSA then I would say the battle is lost and it is time to fold up the tent and move on. Let us pray that the PCA steers clear from that end.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Perhaps it would help to look to the PCUSA as an example. When did the PCUSA exactly become apostate? What was the threshold for this event? Was it apostate when the OPC split off? Was it apostate when the PCA split off? When Machen was excommunicated? Auburn Affirmation? Confession of 1967? Did it die by degrees? If so, at point which did the apostacy reach critical mass?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Well Chris, if the PCA gets to the point of the PCUSA then I would say the battle is lost and it is time to fold up the tent and move on. Let us pray that the PCA steers clear from that end.

Amen.

My point is a church is one body and should never promote intentional division of the one body - that would be sinful.

The PCA as a denomination is one body, like minded, and in one accord - in confession and church order. To allow such divisions is promoting willful disunity contrary to John 17, Acts 2 and the like.

 

[Herald]

Amen.

My point is a church is one body and should never promote intentional division of the one body - that would be sinful.

The PCA as a denomination is one body, like minded, and in one accord - in confession and church order. To allow such divisions is promoting willful disunity contrary to John 17, Acts 2 and the like.

Chris - using the FV as an example, if the PCA is debating/considering the issue this would not be considered disunity, would it? And after the debate is settled and the PCA has formalized a position, if that position is heretical could dissenting churches resign from the PCA? I am not sure of the legalities involved. Some denominations own the church buildings and resigning would not be possible. I suppose in that case the members can individually resign and form another denomination or join other churches.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Chris - using the FV as an example, if the PCA is debating/considering the issue this would not be considered disunity, would it? And after the debate is settled and the PCA has formalized a position, if that position is heretical could dissenting churches resign from the PCA? I am not sure of the legalities involved. Some denominations own the church buildings and resigning would not be possible. I suppose in that case the members can individually resign and form another denomination or join other churches.

Denominational disunity occurs when two contradictory statements are permitted to be held to by the same body of believers. The PCA is not sinful while considering this issue just as the Jerusalem church was not sinful while developing a statement on eating food offered to idols. After the debate is settled is when we would see if they promote unity and like mind or denominational double-mindedness.

In the PCUSA the denominations do own the church buildings, so all that can be done is for the existing members to empty the apostate church giving it room to fill up again. The PCA may be different, where the entire church, members (along with their land), can leave the denomination and become something else.

 

[Theoretical]

Chris - using the FV as an example, if the PCA is debating/considering the issue this would not be considered disunity, would it? And after the debate is settled and the PCA has formalized a position, if that position is heretical could dissenting churches resign from the PCA? I am not sure of the legalities involved. Some denominations own the church buildings and resigning would not be possible. I suppose in that case the members can individually resign and form another denomination or join other churches.

Bill, I do know that the indiivdual churches in the PCA do own their own buildings so that they may leave the denomination should it "go bad". That was one of the comforting reassurances I was given by my pastor when I joined Town North, especially given my deep concerns about that issue, having come from a Methodist background (where the churches do NOT own the buildings)

Scott - the ECUSA?

Episcopal Church USA - I think it's fair to say they are a good example of a denomination fitting this mold of a heresy-tolerating denomination.

 

[Theoretical]

For clarity, I was not saying the PCA was apostate - I was speaking of the "what if it doesn't stop this heresy?" possibility, in the same light as has happened with American denominations all over the place. I truly hope and pray FV will be quashed by the General Assemby, as everything I've seen about its definitions and use of terminology I believe to be a fundamental compromise with the Gospel in a distinctly Romish sense.

 

[Theoretical]

Perhaps it would help to look to the PCUSA as an example. When did the PCUSA exactly become apostate? What was the threshold for this event? Was it apostate when the OPC split off? Was it apostate when the PCA split off? When Machen was excommunicated? Auburn Affirmation? Confession of 1967? Did it die by degrees? If so, at point which did the apostacy reach critical mass?

Andrew, you stated my question and inquiry much better than I did. I guess Im trying to find out when the Rubicon is crossed as far as a presbyterian denomination is concerned.