I am attempting to explore the differences in theology between various western theological christian positions. And I would like to know according to the Catholic Church’s perspective, what teachings or beliefs of the Presbyterian Church are considered heretical and in what way. I would like to get a list of these in an easy to read list or table. An entry could be something like this example: - The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (sacramental symbolism) is deemed heretical because it rejects the belief that the bread and wine become Christ’s actual Body and Blood during Mass. This matters because the Eucharist as a central sacrament for salvation and communion with Christ according to the Catholic Church.

I am researching *substantiated references to statements from Presbyterian Denominations* ; I am not seeking 'biblical responses' or individual opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Presbyterian Denominations uphold the Westminster Confession and other 'statements of faith' which follow on from it. As a result, many promote the law as being the 'rule of life' for the Christian believer. But this does not appear to me to be what Paul the apostle is advocating in Galatians 5:22-25. > But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: ***against such there is no law***. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also ***walk in the Spirit***. [Galatians 5:22-25 KJV] Paul, here, states that Christian believers have 'crucified the flesh'. Clearly this is a spiritual matter not a physical one. *Their faith aligns them with Christ.* Thus, as Paul says in another place, God ... hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:5,6. These things are not physical, but spiritual and a *matter of believing.* Thus, if their flesh is crucified (by faith in Christ) the law is no longer held before them. ***For the law has nothing to say to someone who is dead.*** The law has seen a just conclusion to sin, in that death. >For he that is dead is freed from sin. [Romans 6:7 KJV] Rather, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, Paul points the Galatian believers to the working of the indwelling Spirit (not to an external rule of law). And he emphasises that the workings of the Holy Spirit produce in them : love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. If such is within them, says Paul, there is no law that will condemn them. Against such, he says, there is no law. As he says in yet another place : >There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [Romans 8:1,2 KJV] Or, if I remove the translated English ambiguity from the Greek text, and then translate the Greek word, *nomos*, with another one of the legitimate English word translations : >... the rule of the Spirit (of life in Christ Jesus) hath made me free from the rule of sin and death. What do Presbyterian Denominations say in regard to Galatians 5:22-25 to support their idea that the law is the 'rule of life' for the believer ? --------------------------------- EXTRACTS from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 19 : - The moral law doth **forever [sic] bind all**, as well justified persons [sic] as others , to the obedience thereof. - Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, **as a rule of life,** informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly ... - ... and **the threatenings of it** serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, Westminster Confession - Chapter 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- All scriptural quotes and references are to the KJV and the Received Text.

My son's history book covering the Reformation has a few chapters on the various Protestant reformers, regarding Calvin it says: > John Calvin also had his own ideas about how the Church should be governed. He said that there should be no bishops. He wanted the Church to have no real authority above the parish level. He thought parishes should be ruled by groups of elders - called presbyters - who would elect a pastor. When a parish is governed by a body of elders, it is called Presbyterian > > The story of Civilization - Volume III - Phillip Campbell Now, some folks here are telling me that this also describes Congregationalism - or at least describes the present situation. But the definition of Presbyterianism seems like it ought to mean that the parish is governed by a body of elders (called presbyters, I'd guess - even though to a Catholic the order of Presbyter in the New Testament means the ministerial priesthood, and it is even part of the current [code of canon law](https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann460-572_en.html#CHAPTER_V) that there should be some sort of pastoral council of lay people assisting the pastor of any parish). So, are Congregationalist churches presbyterian (lower case p)? Did both systems come from Calvin and the original reformers or was that something they fell into and then split into, eventually becoming Presbyterian and Congregational churches?

The question is: According to Presbyterians, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Presbyterian definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

This question concerns in part the following quote heard regularly by Presbyterian Pastors: > “Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross and by doing so, forfeit their salvation.” The Idea is explained in the following terms: > Christ's sacrifice was perfect, and nothing we can do, not works, not anything, can save us. (Which a Catholic believes) but Catholics have to “DO” things, (as explained by many Pastors): doing Christ in the Eucharist, doing other Sacraments, doing works of Mercy, doing intercessory prayer, doing the Mass each and every week, fasting, alms giving and Prayer. The idea that Catholics “DO” these graces instituted by Christ rather than “Receiving” them, seems to dominate the thinking of many Presbyterian brethren. According to Presbyterians, what would be more perfect, and on what Biblical basis do they justify their choice? 1. (Presbyterian Position)That Christ's Good works cover the sins of men with his sacrifice to the father, So that he no longer sees the the sinful nature of the Person, but rather sees the righteousness of the Son, and we are sanctified by that covering (No Actual Change to the Believer Is necessary after acceptance through faith), or, 2. That Christ actually does more than cover up our sins by the meritorious actions of the Son, but provides for us a Church with Sacraments, Graces for us to help work out our salvation in fear and trembling, to actually increase our sanctity in a fallen world, to avoid the temptations of the flesh and not just to cover up our sinful nature, but to actually change and become sanctified by his Grace (Actual Change to the Believer is necessary after baptism).

[Samuel Rutherford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rutherford) was an important 17th-century Presbyterian theologian who had significant influence in the drafting of the Westminster Standards, still widely used as a part of the constitutions of many Presbyterian denominations. Recently, during deliberations on marriage in my denomination, a speaker raised the point that Samuel Rutherford and others did not believe that Christian pastors should preside over weddings – that instead, it was the civil magistrate's role to marry people. However, I haven't been able to find evidence that Rutherford believed this. I looked in his *Lex, Rex*, but a cursory search didn't turn up anything. I found a bit of background in J. V. Fesko's *Theology of the Westminster Standards*, which says: > In their deliberations over the creation of the [*Directory for the Public Worship of God*] some divines argued that marriage is merely a “civil contract,” but others, such as Rutherford, believed there is something divine about marriage, but did not regard it as formally part of worship. This doesn't shed much light on the specific question of the Rutherford's view of the role of Christian ministers, however, and Fesko doesn't cite his source on this particular point. What was Rutherford's position on the role of ministers in marriage, and where does he comment on this issue?

My beloved (somewhat conservative) presbyterian-pentecostal mother spends hours every week on dubious, supposedly Christian websites and then regurgitates their dubious prophesies and conspiracy theories. I rarely get to have a normal conversation with her anymore without her bringing up the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab in ways which completely overestimate their significance and/or nefarious nature. The issue is that she believes we are in the end times and her need to inform herself about anything and everything which could herald the end times has become insatiable. To the extent that she has completely lost her grasp of what constitutes a reliable source of information and will accept anything the internet feeds her. So I want to help my mother by occasionally referencing reliable Christian-oriented sources which will allow her to keep up to date about real global issues which she can pray about. Can I use Christian Science Monitor, or would me pushing this likely be seen negatively in her very conservative Christian church? I do not want her friends to advise her that my reading Christian Science Monitor only shows that I have become wayward in my faith (because CSMonitor has origins in Christian Science, which other members of my mother's congregation would almost certainly consider to be a non-Christian grouping), which would be very counter-productive. In wider society it has a stellar reputation and I am under the impression that it does not push Christian Science per se, but what is its reputation among very conservative Christians who are very sincere about their faith? My mother is a member of the linked denomination, but I appreciate insight on how Christian Science Monitor is viewed more widely. See: [Apostolic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Church_(1916_denomination))

What do Presbyterians believe about predestination? I've googled various websites but have not found a clear answer.

As someone who generally affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith, one comment I hear periodically is that I therefore must believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. However, the Confession published by my denomination (the [PCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_America)) does not say anything like that. It does, however, include the following note: > This text of the Westminster Confession of Faith is that adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936 and by the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973. It is derived from a 1646 manuscript edited by S. W. Carruthers and incorporates revisions adoped by American Presbyterian churches as early as 1789. So apparently the "Westminster" Confession of Faith I subscribe to is not exactly the same as the one written by Westminster Divines in the 1640s. This is a bit disconcerting, as I [recently argued](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52589/21576) that Reformed theologians would never simply "update" the Confession if they suddenly changed their minds regarding some core doctrine. My question, then, is: **what is an overview of the changes made by American Presbyterians to the Westminster Confession of Faith up to 1936?** Put another way, what are the several most significant edits to the WCF made by the large/longstanding Presbyterian denominations in the United States, up to and including any changes made by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936? ---- In case it's not clear, this means no [Savoy Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoy_Declaration) , even though it was adopted by Americans (they were congregationalists, not presbyterians), no [Philadelphia Confession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith) (Baptists), and no explanatory notes (a la the "Testimony" of the RPCNA). Similarly, no mere spelling or grammar fixes, or even "modernizations" or other wording tweaks that generally preserve the original meaning.

[J. Gresham Machen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gresham_Machen) is best known for his battle against theological liberalism in the northern Presbyterian church in the US (the PCUSA), first founding a seminary (in 1929) and then an independent missions agency in 1933. This latter action in particular was swiftly condemned by his denomination, and after a couple years of trials and appeals, he was defrocked in 1936. Not long after, he founded a new denomination – the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I'd like to know if it's documented anywhere that Machen seriously considered joining another Presbyterian body in the US prior to creating the OPC. At the time, there weren't nearly as many Presbyterian options, but others did exist, such as the PCUS (in the South), the ARP, and the RPCNA. Do we have any evidence, particularly from his writings, that Machen considered joining another Presbyterian denomination instead of founding a new one?

Cross-posted from History SE , since comments there indicate this might be the more appropriate SE. In the novel *Anne of Green Gables *, Anne wears a hat with flowers in it to church, and is criticized by her neighbour and adoptive parents for it: >It was not until the next Friday that Marilla heard the story of the flower-wreathed hat. She came home from Mrs. Lynde’s and called Anne to account. > >“Anne, Mrs. Rachel says you went to church last Sunday with your hat rigged out ridiculous with roses and buttercups. What on earth put you up to such a caper? A pretty-looking object you must have been!” > >“Oh, I know pink and yellow aren’t becoming to me,” began Anne. > >“Becoming fiddlesticks! It was putting flowers on your hat at all, no matter what colour they were, that was ridiculous. You are the most aggravating child!” This is weird to me, since I can easily imagine someone doing this in the modern world without getting much comment, in fact there are vendors selling exactly these kind of hats . Was it inappropriate to wear flowers in a hat to church in 19th century Canada? The comments in the History SE question indicate that this could be something to do with the author's denomination, which is Presbyterian.

I feel like this is a dumb question, but maybe, just maybe, I'm not the only one confused by this. Maybe if I'm willing to stick my neck out and look stupid, the answer will be here for those poor confused saps who come after me. It seems like I often hear the terms *reformed* and *presbyterian* being used interchangeably. When I'm speaking about the presbyterian church, or rather, the reformed church, or... I often stumble over my words because I feel like I'm probably saying the wrong thing. I know that in a technical sense, *reformed* refers mostly to the theology and *presbyterian* refers mostly to the church government (or maybe I'm wrong about that too), but, in every-day parlance, what do you call a church who follows in the tradition of John Calvin? Surely you can't go around calling them churches-that-follow-in-the-tradition-of-John-Calvin. It's a bit of a mouthful. If I call them Presbyterian churches, will someone think I'm foolish and think that I don't know what I'm talking about? If I call them Reformed churches, will I be wrong? Is it just a matter of only usually being right? Does it depend on the denomination/association? What do Christians who belong to such churches call themselves? Do they call themselves Presbyterians? Reformed Christians? Calvinists? All three? None of the above? Am I going to offend someone by using the wrong term?

The number of Presbyterian denominations in Korea is breathtaking: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism_in_South_Korea) lists dozens of them. From what I can tell, most of these denominations originate in the [Presbyterian Church of Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_of_Korea) , which was founded in 1884. In 1959, however, the denomination apparently split in half, some members forming the [TongHap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_of_Korea_(TongHap)) and others the [HapDong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_Korea_(HapDong)) . These are now two of the largest Presbyterian denominations in the world, each with about 3 million members. Wikipedia provides some very high-level information about the debate (conservative vs. liberal, disagreement over ecumenism). But I'd like to have a deeper understanding of the underlying issues behind the divide. Were common "Western" debates a factor, like biblical inerrancy and female leadership? Do outside observers see personality conflict to be a major cause of the divide, as many do with respect to some Presbyterian denominations in the US? What is an overview of the causes of the 1959 split of this denomination?

Generally, when I talk to people from other denominations about Adam and Eve, I get the impression that they're not highly liked people. Do Presbyterians believe there's salvation available to Adam and Eve?

I noticed with surprise the following in a previous question : >Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, I was baptised (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) at the age of five (I can vividly remember it to this day, sixty-three years later) by a Presbyterian minister of the Church of Scotland. At the age of fifteen I left the C of S and, for only a short time, joined with the Scottish Baptist movement and was baptised as an adult. I subsequently was dissatisfied with the state of religion in Scotland and I moved to England, at the age of eighteen, to be under the ministry and guidance of someone I perceived as a genuine Minister of Jesus Christ and I continued with him for twenty five years. He did not think it necessary to baptise me again and he accepted my baptism and received me into fellowship with his congregation. I was married, now I am celibate. I no longer drink alcohol and I don't do drugs. I earn a living and I do not steal. I last told a lie (that I can remember) in 2011, of which I am ashamed, although it was not a matter of criminality. The last time I remember taking the name of God or the Lord in vain (as a curse or as an expletive) was when I was fourteen years old. So, am I accepted as Catholic or would I have to do anything further to be accepted as a Christian among Catholic persons ?

In the Presbyterian church, does election require that we both receive God's call and answer it? Or is it only that we need to have been chosen? Could this be a question of understanding God as not experiencing time as we do and therefore knowing and always having known who will receive him and are therefore elect (supported by Jesus saying, “you didn’t choose me, I chose you, from before the foundation of the world). We cannot offer God ANYTHING But can we not simply respond to Him? I want to understand how this is meant to work from a Presbyterian perspective.

I have never thought of myself as being overtly religious ever in my life (in high school). I have never gone to church, but what I am now realizing is that I have been raised (more or less) as a Presbyterian. I come from a long line of Scottish heritage. All of my family has been religious and my great grandfather was a Pastor. Would it be stupid to say that I am a Presbyterian who has been raised away from the larger bodies of organized religion since Presbyterianism is mainly an organizational doctrine? I have recently met some (I believe) Reformed Baptists that call themselves Reformed Charismatic. They are very entranced with John Piper, who I have read is not reformed, so how does that work? I really want to use this as an opportunity to actually embrace religion. My understanding of Christianity is very barebones but I know more than the average person in our hyper-secular world today. What I need is a longer explanation so if you know anything that would help, please link it, but a reader's digest version is greatly appreciated. The main things I think I need to know are (1) what are the main beliefs of Presbyterianism, and what do I need to know to pass myself as one until I get further into it, (2) what is a good way to comprehend Biblical fundamentalism from a Presbyterian view, (3) what is the difference between other forms of Protestantism and Calvinism (especially the Reformed Charismatic denomination)?

> Luke 14:25Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned > and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own > father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, > and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27“Whoever does not > carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28“For > which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit > down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? > 29“Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, > all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man began to > build and was not able to finish.’ 31“Or what king, when he sets out > to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider > whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one > coming against him with twenty thousand? 32“Or else, while the other > is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. > 33“So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all > his own possessions. In the above passage, loving God more than anything else is the same as carrying a cross, is the same as paying a huge cost, for the privilege of being a disciple of Christ. The privilege of being a disciple of Christ is in turn the same as completing a tower, is the same as defeating a strong king. It could be salvation, receiving eternal life or entry to heaven. The puzzling verse is v32. Are terms of peace asking for extensions of deadline? Is it delaying the receiving of the benefits of Gospel? Why should the negotiations be with the enemy king? Similarly, if a person doesn’t have enough money to complete the tower, which can be interpreted to mean courage to face persecution, since Protestants believe paying a cost means facing persecution, does it mean he loses the claim to be a disciple of Christ, which is required for salvation/eternal life/entry to heaven? > Matthew 7:21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the > kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in > heaven will enter. What is the Reformed Church's views about Luke 14:32? All Scripture from the NASB. PS I checked the commentaries on the Biblehub site. [Protestant Commentaries](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-32.htm) They are very contradictory. I may answer my own question with a coherent post if nothing is forthcoming from Reformed Church members. Note: By Reformed, I mean the [Christian Reformed Church in North America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reformed_Church_in_North_America) , the CRCNA, Modified-Presbyterians with a largely Calvinist Theology.

When Queen Elizabeth II is in Scotland, she worships in the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, rather than in the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is in full communion with the Church of England. The **political** reason for this is obvious, but how is this theologically justified? (Or alternately, does no justification exist, with politics overriding theology?) How can the Queen believe in apostolic succession and episcopal governance south of the Tweed, and in Presbyterianism north of the Tweed?

In the 1940s, Cornelius Van Til and other professors at Westminster Theological Seminary first tried to block Gordon Clark's entry into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, then later put him on trial for removal from the denomination. **What theological issues were at stake in the controversy, why was it such a serious issue that Clark was removed from the OPC, and who are today's Clarkians and Van Tillians?** For the last question, I'm not looking for a list but lines of demarcation.