Presbyterians Think Of Changing 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit'

[cmotherofpirl]

Presbyterians Think Of Changing 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit'

POSTED: 5:09 pm EDT June 19, 2006
UPDATED: 7:11 pm EDT June 19, 2006

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The divine Trinity -- "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" -- could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.

Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.

"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.

The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.

A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."

One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.

Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."

Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:

"Lover, Beloved, Love"
"Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"
"King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."

Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.

Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."

Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.

On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries" some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.

Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call "local option" would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."

[cappie]

[Dave]

If they go through with changing "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," no subsequent Presbyterian baptisms will be valid.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Dave' post='1008884' date='Jun 19 2006, 11:22 PM']
If they go through with changing "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," no subsequent Presbyterian baptisms will be valid.
[/quote]
That was my immediate thought exactly. They may be dabbling in theology that could lead them not to be Christians any more. YIKES!!! poor children! Those terms (lover, beloved, loved...etc) are valid questions and the femeninity in the Trinity is also a legitimate study for Catholics. However, taking this feminine aspect to far is playing with fire, especially if the Holy Spirit has not promised the gates of hell would not prevail against their church...."Danger Will Robinson."

[ironmonk]

If you think about it, they're not "changing" anything, they would not be using "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

Thank God for the Catholic Church.

[homeschoolmom]

Jesus refered to His Father the Holy Spirit and called himself the Son. Good enough for me...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Dave' post='1008884' date='Jun 20 2006, 01:22 AM']
If they go through with changing "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," no subsequent Presbyterian baptisms will be valid.
[/quote]
Not to split hairs, but please note that this is the PC-USA, not the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). As far as I know, the PCA has no plans to change up its definition of "Trinity." So some subsequent Presbyterian baptisms will still be valid. I assume the same is true for the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and others. And, I'd assume that not all PC-USA members will adhere to the changes adopted by the general assembly.

[homeschoolmom]

So, it would be a case by case thing... Sheesh that would be hard to clarify....

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1008979' date='Jun 20 2006, 09:03 AM']
So, it would be a case by case thing... Sheesh that would be hard to clarify....
[/quote]
Yeah, it's definitely going to be a case-by-case thing.

Things are rarely as black-and-white as we'd like them to be.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1008982' date='Jun 20 2006, 09:04 AM']
Yeah, it's definitely going to be a case-by-case thing.

Things are rarely as black-and-white as we'd like them to be.
[/quote]
With the exception of your avatar. It's [i]just[/i] right.

[iheartjp2]

hey cmotherofpirl, where did you get that article, just curious to know (not questioning credibility)

[Lounge Daddy]

liberalism...

[Lounge Daddy]

good plan - let's break down the true view of the family AND the Holy Trinity
That will kill the west for good.

[son_of_angels]

One said part about this is a misunderstanding of the Trinity. All of the terms they are using are either (A) analogies (Mother, Child, Womb), or (B) descriptions of function. However, in understanding the Trinity one must understand that, unlike humans, whose relationships with each other do not affect the actual BEING of that person, the specific relationship of Father to Son, and the action between them of the Holy Spirit, is actually essential to who they are. If the Son were not specifically THE SON of the Father, he would not be God. Hence, in using these terms, it is of the utmost importance to only use those relational terms which the Word itself has already used in, not simply describing, but enlightening to us of His Relationship. The Presbyterian approach described here is manifestly heretical and blasphemous (a heresy for which they are formally guilty, as they had previously held a good understanding of it and willfully rejected it), because it states that the relationship between Father and Son, as specifically given, is not essential to the being of God, but can be described in a manner other than God Himself described.

[michaelorapronobis]

Most Presbyterian Baptisms would not be valid anyway. For a baptism (or any Sacrament) to be valid, three things are required.

1. Matter
2. Form
3. [b]Intention[/b]

It would probably be safe to say that Presbyterians do not have the correct intention when they baptize. Do they believe that Baptism is 'A Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members of the Church'? I doubt they believe in original sin, and most Protestants believe that Baptism is just a 'visible sign' of belonging to the Church. (Not that they are in the Church, obviously, the True Church is the Catholic Church).

Anyway, Presbyterians are heretics!

[son_of_angels]

As a convert from the Baptist faith, you are quite wrong in your interpretation of "intention." Baptists do not believe in any sacraments or sacramental action whatsoever, but their baptisms are recognized as valid by the Holy Catholic Church. "Intention" only means that the person performing the Sacrament meant to perform what is classified as a Baptism, in the name of the proper God (the Trinity) for the person on whom the sacrament is conferred. In the same way, a person having a flawed understanding of the Eucharist, but validly ordained and using the Words of Consecration (as must have happened often before the Lateran Council) would still validly bring about the presence of the Eucharist, though into a grave abuse, provided they actually intended to perform what is classified as the Eucharist.

Also, having attended a Calvinist college for 2 years (with 2 more to go), I can definitely answer in the affirmative that they believe in original sin.

Edited June 25, 2006 by son_of_angels

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Michael' post='1011757' date='Jun 24 2006, 09:33 PM']
Most Presbyterian Baptisms would not be valid anyway. For a baptism (or any Sacrament) to be valid, three things are required.

1. Matter
2. Form
3. [b]Intention[/b]

It would probably be safe to say that Presbyterians do not have the correct intention when they baptize. Do they believe that Baptism is 'A Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members of the Church'? I doubt they believe in original sin, and most Protestants believe that Baptism is just a 'visible sign' of belonging to the Church. (Not that they are in the Church, obviously, the True Church is the Catholic Church).

Anyway, Presbyterians are heretics!
[/quote]

Wrong. Presbyterian baptisms are accepted as valid christian baptisms by the Catholic Church. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Presbyterians do not have the fullness of Truth, because they are not in the Catholic church, but that does not make them heretics, it makes them misinformed.

[michaelorapronobis]

Where intenition for baptism is doubtful, catechumens entering the Catholic Church are conditionally baptised: the formula being: 'Si non es baptizatus (-a), ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti'. 'If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Okay, so Presbyterians are material heretics, not formal heretics (like approx. 70% of American Catholics who do not believe in the Real Prescence). They are indeed misinformed, and if they trust in Christ and have the desire to belong to the Church, but do not realise that the Catholic Church is the One True Chruch, they [i]may[/i] be saved. The Church has always taught that 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' - 'Outside the Church there is no salvation'.

What the Church Says "There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved." --Pope Innocent III

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." --Pope Boniface VIII, The Bull Unnam Sanctam 1302 A.D., Ex cathedra.

"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church ... can have eternal life." --Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino 1441 A.D., Ex cathedra.

Sacred Scripture teaches:

"That they may be one, as thou Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that (as a consequence) the world may believe that Thou hast sent me." --John 17:21

"Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism." --Ephesians 4:3-5

We are called to be one in belief, and practice. "The Church is One because all her members agree in one Faith, have all the same Sacrifice and Sacraments, and are all united under one Head" (Catechism 95). Presbyterians are therefore not part of the Church, as they have no Sacraments and no Sacrifice, and do not believe the same Faith as we Catholics do.

As for them being our brothers and sisters in Christ, how can they claim to be so when they are outside of the Church? You might as well say that Muslims are our 'brothers and sisters in Christ' because they accept Him as a prophet. But the fact remains that unless they become part of the Holy Catholic Church, they cannot be saved and only God knows their fate.

[cmotherofpirl]

THEY are our brothers and sisters in Christ because they are baptised christians , muslims are not. But of course you know this already.

[thessalonian]

[quote]Wrong. Presbyterian baptisms are accepted as valid christian baptisms by the Catholic Church. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Presbyterians do not have the fullness of Truth, because they are not in the Catholic church, but that does not make them heretics, it makes them misinformed. [/quote]

CMP,

I am surprized at this from you. The whole discussion early in the Church was whether the baptism of heretics was valid. The Church said (Pope Stephen I) that the baptism of heretics was valid. It no less made them heretics in declaring this. Whether or not they are validly baptized, they are still in fact heretics. It is up to God to judge whether they are formally (culpable) or materially (perhaps not culpable) so.