Cause of the Old School-New School schism

[SRoper]

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]

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.

1. That God would have been glad to prevent the existence of sin in our world, but was not able, without destroying the moral agency of man : or, that for aught that appears in the Bible to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral system.

2. That election to eternal life is founded on a foresight of faith and obedience.

3. That we have no more to do with the first sin of Adam than with the sins of any other parent.

4. That infants come into the world as free from moral defilement as was Adam, when he was created.

5. That infants sustain the same relation to the moral government of God in this world as brute animals, and that their sufferings and death are to be accounted for, on the same principles as those of brutes, and not by any means to be considered as penal.

6. That there is no other original sin than the fact that all the posterity of Adam, though by nature innocent, or possessed of no moral character, will always begin to sin when they begin to exercise moral agency; that original sin does not include a sinful bias of the human mind, and a just exposure to penal suffering; and that there is no evidence in Scripture, that infants, in order to salvation, do need redemption by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.

7. That the doctrine of imputation, whether of the guilt of Adam’s sin, or of the righteousness of Christ, has no foundation in the word of God, and is both unjust and absurd.

8. That the sufferings and death of Christ were not truly vicarious and penal, but symbolical, governmental, and instructive only.

9. That the impenitent sinner is by nature, and independently of the renewing influence or almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability necessary to a full compliance with all the commands of God.

10. That Christ never intercedes for any but those who are actually united to him by faith; or that Christ does not intercede for the elect until after their regeneration.

11. That saving faith is the mere belief of the word of God, and not a grace of the Holy Spirit.

12. That regeneration is the act of the sinner himself, and that it consists in a change of his governing purpose, which he himself must produce, and which is the result, not of any direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart, but chiefly of a persuasive exhibition of the truth analagous to the influence which one man exerts over the mind of another; or that regeneration is not an instantaneous act, but a progressive work.

13. That God has done all that he can do for the salvation of all men, and that man himself must do the rest.

14. That God cannot exert such influence on the minds of men, as shall make it certain that they will choose and act in a particular manner without impairing their moral agency.

15. That the righteousness of Christ is not the sole ground of the sinner’s acceptance with God; and that in no sense does the righteousness of Christ become ours.

16. That the reason why some differ from others in regard to their reception of the Gospel is, that they make themselves to differ.

It is impossible to contemplate these errors without perceiving, that they strike at the foundation of the system of Gospel grace; and that, from the days of Pelagius and Cassian to the present hour, their reception has uniformly marked the character of a Church apostatizing from “the faith once delivered to the saints,” and sinking into deplorable corruption. To bear a public and open testimony against them, and as far as possible to banish them from the “household of faith,” is a duty which the Presbyterian Church owes to her Master in heaven, and without which it is impossible to fulfil the great purpose for which she was founded by her Divine Head and Lord. And this Convention is conscious that in pronouncing these errors unscriptural, radical, and highly dangerous, it is actuated by no feeling of party zeal; but by a firm and growing persuasion that such errors cannot fail in their ultimate effect, to subvert the foundation of Christian hope, and destroy the souls of men. The watchmen on the walls of Zion would be traitors to the trust reposed in them, were they not to cry aloud, and proclaim a solemn warning against opinions so corrupt and delusive.

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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.