# Cause of the Old School-New School schism



## SRoper (Aug 28, 2010)

What were the primary causes of the Old School-New School schism? I had thought that the causes were primarily doctrinal and concerned things like the doctrines of grace and paedobaptism. However I read recently that it was primarily about social issues like slavery. I also hear of a New School element in the PCA (even that the PCA is mostly New School). This would seem to be impossible if the New School held to doctrines that by all accounts strike at the vitals of the Standards.


----------



## Wayne (Aug 28, 2010)

It is highly anachronistic (and grossly overstated) to label any element of the PCA as New School, especially when you understand what the N.S. element of the PCUSA stood for. Following the teachings of Albert Barnes, the New School espoused a denial of original sin, etc. In essence, New School teaching was at heart Pelagianism. I have several blog posts that detail New School errors, as critiqued by Old School Presbyterians in 1837. Here is a brief section on the New School doctrinal errors:



> To be more specific, we hereby set forth in order, some of the doctrinal errors against which we bear testimony, and which we, and the churches, have conclusive proof, are widely disseminated in the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> IN RELATION TO DOCTRINE.
> 
> ...



The full article on New School doctrinal errors is posted here: New School Doctrinal Errors (1837) « The Continuing Story

New School errors of polity: New School Errors of Polity – Philadelphia Convention (1837) « The Continuing Story

New School errors of discipline: New School Errors of Discipline – Philadelphia Convention (1837) « The Continuing Story

Old School proposed reform (1837): Old School Presbyterian’s Proposed Reform – Philadelphia Convention (1837) « The Continuing Story

Old School "Circular Epistle of the General Assembly, 1837": Circular Epistle of the General Assembly (1837) « The Continuing Story


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 28, 2010)

See Gary North's Crossed Fingers: How Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church. 

Amazon.com: Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church (9780930464745): Gary North: Books


----------



## Kevin (Aug 29, 2010)

(Why is thanks disabled?)

Wayne is correct.

To label those that you disagree with in the PCA as "New School" is misleading. It may even rise to the level of False Witness, if it is done primarily to vindicate your own claim to the title of "Old School".

in my opinion it is enough to disagree & state the reasons for that disagreement, without calling your brother your enemy.


----------



## ken.kang-hui (Aug 30, 2010)

I agree that we need to be careful about labeling people with the term "New-School" without fully understanding the implications. As was mentioned, the primary division between Old-School/New School camps were differences over cardinal doctrines of the faith, such as the Atonement. That being said, there were important secondary issues involved in the split. I think the label, New School, is being used today because some think that there are parallels between our time and the time of the split, particularly in the areas of methodology, cultural transformation, and ecumenicity.

New Schoolers were keen on the New Measures for evangelism, such as the anxious bench and altar calls. Today, some are using marketing and other business disciplines to aid in growing the Church.

New Schoolers adovate social reform as a primary mission of the Church, in order to build a Christian America. Today, some are advocating engagement with our culture to transform the arts and the marketplace.

New Schoolers partnered with the Congregationalists through the 1801 Plan of Union, which ironically, led to much of the New School thinking and ideas "infiltrating" the PCUSA. Today, many see events repeating itself through the push to network with other bodies, Reformed or otherwise.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 30, 2010)

Thanks, Wayne. I need to read your blog more often.

Kenneth, that is a helpful and plausable explanation for why the term is applied today. It seems the terms are used more by way of analogy than identification.


----------

