SPODE✝️

@Thatbrian Thanks for the reply, but you should really sleep, haha. Going to church is important, we can debate later :)

I can't dleep, so here is my reply to your question: "Is it defensible to leave [a church/denomination] based on “savability”?" Yes. I support letting the PCUSA continue its current path without artificial support or rescue efforts. Institutions that lose the loyalty of their people should be allowed to fail. This isn't harsh — it's honest. The PCUSA has suffered decades of consistent, accelerating decline because of its disobedience. This is not a "season" of decline — it's a structural collapse. Meanwhile, more conservative Presbyterian denominations (PCA, OPC, etc.) have not seen this kind of freefall in numbers. People have voted with their feet. Good. Stewardship demands we support what’s actually bearing fruit. My guiding principles: Freedom of conscience: No one should be guilted into funding beliefs they reject. Freedom of association: Churches and individuals can realign. Lastly, decline isn't always bad. It creates space for renewal. Many congregations and members have already moved to more faithful Reformed bodies, so resources got repurposed. Good. You compassion belongs to individuals and local churches — not to a failing PCUSA bureaucracy. I say: let it fail. Not out of spite, but because pouring more water into a broken vessel is worse than foolish. It dishonors truth, stewardship, and the Great Commission. Invest where the gospel is clear and fruit is evident. What is actually true to Christ and His Word deserves our support. Nostalgia be damned. @redeemed_zoomer

Two things can be true simultaneously. The PCA is savable at this point; the PCUSA is not, IMO. It's a matter of degree and timing.

@Thatbrian Not relevant brother. Because this is not part of the argument. Replace the PCUSA with the PCA or any true Church in the abstract. Is it defensible to leave based on “savability”? Think about that later, I pray you have a good Lord’s Day later, God bless.

@SirSpoder77 The PCUSA is NOT Israel. Use another argument.

@reformed_corner Respectfully, this is a loaded question that does not reflect a more complicated reality.

Is it good to leave a healthy church which bears the marks of a true church to join a heretical church to "save the mainline"?

@Thatbrian I do not think this is relevant. But let’s just disagree and leave it here for now. I don’t want you distracted from the Sabbath. God bless you.

@SirSpoder77 Look up: Theocracy.

@Thatbrian Respectfully, you’re the one who diverted off to an irrelevant topic. Once again, we cannot base the correct practice on subjective “savability” We must ask, would you say the same for the OT Temple? This is the same Church of God.

@SirSpoder77 Different subject. Stay focused.

@Thatbrian There is however a one to one between the OT Church and now, because it is the same Church. Because we are Covenant Theologians.

@SirSpoder77 You may be. I'm not. There is no one to one correlation between a theocracy and a denomination.

@Thatbrian This is a non-sequitor, brother. We are talking about things in the abstract here.

@SirSpoder77 PCUSA is not Israel for starters.

@FaithPundit @redeemed_zoomer No doubt, building your community is absolutely good, even if it's smaller. But the central cities have a lot of influence. And I think RZ is right to point out how the Apostles and Prophets often preached directly to kings and princes. 3/3

@FaithPundit @redeemed_zoomer God's will be done, I thought about this a lot, and I think effectiveness is not really a good argument where some people say certain denoms are a "lost cause." Because Israel was scared of Jericho and look what happened. 2/?

@Thatbrian How so?

@SirSpoder77 Not an apple to apple comparison.

@wtpa_luke @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint Anathemas are heavy condemnation. It's not a polite suggestion.

@SirSpoder77 @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint But it's a bad question. The Church has never eternally damned a single individual.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is Biblical.

@wtpa_luke @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint So then logically, what is declared later on cannot be essential/dogmatic to the faith. For something to be essential, it must be essential across all times. This is not the same as the church figuring out later on whether fish is good to eat. This is the basics of the faith.

@SirSpoder77 @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint No

@wtpa_luke @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint You didn't answer the question. It's a very simple question. Yes or no.

@SirSpoder77 @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint Re read what I just wrote

@FaithPundit @redeemed_zoomer where churches were divided into regional/national jurisdictions, I think it's clear that us Calvinists (and Lutherans) had a much higher view of our denominations being the "visible" church. 2/2

@FaithPundit @redeemed_zoomer Good question. And def something we can discuss. But if we focus back to the original points where we ask what the Westminsterians think of schism then I think that's demonstrated. Because with historical context in mind... 1/2

@wtpa_luke @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint So then the saints who died before those declarations are damned?

@SirSpoder77 @MessianicAge10 @YeFutureSaint Diverse views are a feature not a bug - debate is how these issues have worked themselves out over time. But once they're declared dogma, the Holy Spirit has spoken and debate it over.

@FaithPundit @redeemed_zoomer This is something extremely interesting that I think most modern Christians and even modern Presbys often hesitate to say.

@SirSpoder77 @redeemed_zoomer Is the strict demands of no schism outlined anywhere in the Westminster confessions?

@FaithPundit @redeemed_zoomer Rutherford even laid out what to do when sister Lutheran churches had images in worship, and he definitely did not say to just willy nilly split off. 2/2

@FaithPundit @redeemed_zoomer I'll have to double check our standards, but I know Westminsterians like Rutherford and Baillie had a very high view of schism, because they were writing against separatists, while also referencing how the early Reformers were not guilty of schism 1/2