PCA repents of all the sins of humanity

Posted by T on August 20, 2006
Churchianity

The PCA has been beating its breast for several years now on the subject of racial reconciliation.

The 30th GA, which I believe was in 2002, adopted Overture #20 from Nashville, which declared in part:

“We therefore confess our involvement in these sins.  As a people, both we and our fathers, have failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded.”

I hope to some day deconstruct the entire overture and its backwash. Right now, I’m just stuck on the phrase “both we and our fathers.”

By their “fathers” they obviously mean their great-great-grandfathers who may have owned slaves and/or defended the practice.

They are repenting, in other words, for something their “fathers” did not see the need to repent of; or at any rate, did not repent of.

When someone repents of his fathers’ sins, which his fathers did not even believe were sins, is this a sign of being humbled under conviction of sin, or is it more likely a noisy bit of self-righteous posturing?

Moreover, since the statement defines the fathers’ sins very broadly (“failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded”) I presume that everyone could justly follow in the footsteps of the PCA and repent of the sins of his fathers (if the PCA can justly do so).

I’m just wondering why they didn’t, while they were at it, go all the way back to their “father” Adam and repent of original sin.

Tags: ,

12 Comments to PCA repents of all the sins of humanity

  • […] The PCA has shown us how to repent of the “sins” of our fathers, which sounds kind of weird, but might be fun at parties. “They are repenting, in other words, for something their ‘fathers’ did not see the need to repent of; or at any rate, did not repent of… I’m just wondering why they didn’t, while they were at it, go all the way back to their ‘father’ Adam and repent of original sin.” […]

  • Now the Senate follows in the PCA’s footsteps to apologize for “injustice” perpetrated by men other than themselves.

    Most of these men do not believe in vicarious atonement. Yet they think they can apologize on behalf of other men; of dead men who would not necessarily agree that they had done anything wrong.

  • This is an example of how even allegedly conservative churches are taking the cue for their sanctification from their secular rulers. The “sin” is not defined as a sin by the Bible, but it is so defined by the jewish talking heads; and that is enough to set our modern churchmen into compliant motion.

  • I would love to hear a thorough explanation of “sins of the fathers” being visited on the children… taking Ezek. 18 into consideration. I know this is not really what you are talking about, but it’s of interest. Were Achan’s children aiding and abetting or were they just…Achan’s children? I understand federal headship. If anyone can answer, I’d like to hear.

  • I find it interesting that when PCA talks females in combat,Federal Vision,Women Deacons, and other like topics, it takes multiple committees and years to come out with some kind of statement that is made by the group.When this kind of fluffy evangelicalism comes up it takes little time and few committee hours,makes one say “Huh”.

  • Eliza (#5) — Good question. That the sin-nature and the death-sentence applies to the posterity as well as the patriarch is already the doctrine of Original Sin. (Working out this death-sentence and its commutation in mercy is “human history” in a nutshell.) Yet each individual is judged for his own actual sin, not that of his father, as Ezek 18 and other psgs teach. This is (like everything) an ultimate mystery, yet we can “feel” the truth of it. Like Calvin said, capturing the dual aspect, “willingly I followed in my father’s footsteps.” I can see, for example, how some of my besetting sins are the same as of my ancestors, thus, in some sense I inherited them; yet I also know as a primary truth that it is I and no none else that sins. Our doctrine of human personality must capture both sides of this duality.

  • Now the Senate follows in the PCA’s footsteps to apologize for “injustice” perpetrated by men other than themselves.

    Most of these men do not believe in vicarious atonement. Yet they think they can apologize on behalf of other men; of dead men who would not necessarily agree that they had done anything wrong.

  • I just the other day suggested to a friend of mine (who is Protestant) that he investigate the PCA.

    I now take it ALL back. They are just like the PCUSA in their self-righteous ‘invented’ sins, and clueless as to what the Word of God unequivocally says- you shall not be unequally yoked. SWB has a far better take on it, in their latest post-http://spiritwaterblood.com/2010/07/gone-to-flowers-every-one/

    Let the PCA dead bury the dead. I have no ‘sins’ to ‘repent’ of – except for possibly the sin of thinking like a Yankee.

  • Confed — for some reason I did not study your link until now.

    What a freak show!

    I’m pretty sure none of those big shots would be able to answer even one of Dabney’s arguments, yet one said Dabney “abandoned Christianity” in his Defense of Virginia. On the contrary, “gentlemen”: Dabney exegeted and defended the Bible.

    It’s probably good that they are raising the stakes so high, because if what they say is Christianity is, then what I believe is not. Fortunately, however, the Bible lines up with our version. To keep the Bible at all, such men are going to have to resort to the usual “auroras and trajectories.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*