Church membership for one who adheres to theistic evolution...

Status
Not open for further replies.

MMasztal

Puritan Board Sophomore
I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.

Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?

Thanks.
 
I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.

Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?

Thanks.

What do the ARP membership standards say?

---------

After doing a bit of research, it appears that the question can be narrowed.

Is such belief consistent with an affirmative answer to your question 3:

"Do you believe the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be the written Word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice?"

This should probably be read in connection with the Synod's pronouncements on Scripture:

http://www.arpchurch.org/Site/Scripture.html

Finally, the decision belongs to the Session of the church involved, subject to correction by higher courts,. Looking a the standards, I'd say it is not consistent with the vows, but then again I'm not an elder nor am I ARP, so my conclusion doesn't really matter.
 
Last edited:
I think a member should be admitted on a credible profession of faith. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds might be used to ensure that faith is the true faith. Said member must agree to subject himself/herself to the teaching and discipline of the church, and the church should teach the historical reading of Genesis.
 
I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.

Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?

Thanks.

One of the questions for membership in the ARP Form of Government is:

Do you accept the doctrines and principles of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, so far as you understand them, as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God?

Theistic Evolution is not compatible with the doctrines and principles of the ARP Church, so my answer is, no, this person should not be accepted for membership with their current beliefs.
 
I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.

Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?

Thanks.
Finally, the decision belongs to the Session of the church involved, subject to correction by higher courts,. Looking a the standards, I'd say it is not consistent with the vows, but then again I'm not an elder nor am I ARP, so my conclusion doesn't really matter.

Thanks for the input. I'm not looking for advice, just thoughts on the matter.
 
If Genesis is allegory then there is no actual fall, if there is no actual fall there is no need for an actual savior, the conclusion I draw is there is then no actual faith. This would seem to exclude them from holding membership in confessionally reformed churches.
 
I would pose the question Seth mentioned to this person. Then ask him how his beliefs on the first 11 chapters of Genesis squares with that statement. Also ask him of his final authority on such matters. The answers he gives will show where his thinking lies. You will either be giving him enough rope to hang himself, or (better) cause him to rethink his position in light of Scripture.

The final decision does lie with the Session. If he gives a credible profession of faith (but perhaps ask him about Romans 5:12ff and if Adam is a real person and how this pertains to Christ and whether He is a real person) then perhaps (but I would be very reluctant), but he would certainly be barred from membership or teaching responsibilities.
 
If Genesis is allegory then there is no actual fall, if there is no actual fall there is no need for an actual savior, the conclusion I draw is there is then no actual faith. This would seem to exclude them from holding membership in confessionally reformed churches.
Hmm...That is a good point.
 
I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.

Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?

Thanks.
Finally, the decision belongs to the Session of the church involved, subject to correction by higher courts,. Looking a the standards, I'd say it is not consistent with the vows, but then again I'm not an elder nor am I ARP, so my conclusion doesn't really matter.

Thanks for the input. I'm not looking for advice, just thoughts on the matter.

I almost always have an opinion that I'm willing to share, so since I've acknowledged my lack of standing:

Given the wording of the membership vow, and the various statements of the Synod at the link, I do think there is a serious issue there. I'm not sure that it would be as big an issue with the PCA, since the membership questions are not as specific.
 
If Genesis is allegory then there is no actual fall, if there is no actual fall there is no need for an actual savior, the conclusion I draw is there is then no actual faith. This would seem to exclude them from holding membership in confessionally reformed churches.

While I do not hold to an allegorical interpretation for Genesis, I do not see that it necessarily follows that a person that believes Genesis is allegorical would by force believe there was no actual fall. Hypothetically speaking, they could hold that while it is an allegory, the allegory points to a real event that is not communicated specifically. If someone holds to theistic evolution, they might hold to an allegorical view for specific sections (even if that is difficult to explain what sections might be allegory and what would not ... that adds no actual force to the contrary argument as even scripture says not all parts are equally clear).

If that were the case, that a specific fall was held, which then requires a savior, then is a convoluted theology enough reason to withhold the LS from a person? (Ultimately, if a member comes to such a position over time, and it is sufficient to withhold membership, then it would follow that a member that comes to such a conclusion should be suspended from the table at the very least, and excommunicated if they persist.)

I guess I'm saying that if someone holds to proposition A (theistic evolution, allegorical Genesis) does it necessarily follow that they would not hold to proposition B, an actual fall? I don't think the two are inseparable ... I'm presuming you do hold them inseparable, and I'd like to understand why.
 
Ultimately, I don't think many theistic evolutionists would even want to be in a confessionally Reformed church for very long, given that theistic evolution usually comes with other views that would make the person squirm sitting under solid Biblical preaching.
 
In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.
 
In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.
Well, the person would not be preaching in the OPC or PCA - just a member. Elders, unlike members, are required to adhere to the confessional standards (you know, more or less :( )
 
In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.
Well, the person would not be preaching in the OPC or PCA - just a member. Elders, unlike members, are required to adhere to the confessional standards (you know, more or less :( )

well there are pastors who say its not anti-confessional however we all know thats just theire rationalizing of bad doctrine.
 
In the ARP no. In other denominations like the OPC and PCA it is permitted I believe. Though I would like someone to defend a covenant of works and theistic evolution in the course of one sermon.
Well, the person would not be preaching in the OPC or PCA - just a member. Elders, unlike members, are required to adhere to the confessional standards (you know, more or less :( )

well there are pastors who say its not anti-confessional however we all know thats just theire rationalizing of bad doctrine.
Granted.

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 12:03:14 EST-----

I think theistic evolution has been banned as an exception by the PCA GA, though. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Ultimately, I don't think many theistic evolutionists would even want to be in a confessionally Reformed church for very long, given that theistic evolution usually comes with other views that would make the person squirm sitting under solid Biblical preaching.

There have been cases where individuals did hold to such beliefs in reformed churches. One of the cases I think came up in the OPC years ago ... a man held to the position, and was an elder in a church. I'm going to have to see if I can find the documents though, I just don't remember the details.

My recollection was that he was deposed. But again, I can't seem to find the documents.
 
Ultimately, I don't think many theistic evolutionists would even want to be in a confessionally Reformed church for very long, given that theistic evolution usually comes with other views that would make the person squirm sitting under solid Biblical preaching.

There have been cases where individuals did hold to such beliefs in reformed churches. One of the cases I think came up in the OPC years ago ... a man held to the position, and was an elder in a church. I'm going to have to see if I can find the documents though, I just don't remember the details.

My recollection was that he was deposed. But again, I can't seem to find the documents.
I'm surprised the OPC allowed that. But I did say "many" not "any."

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 12:30:48 EST-----

Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!
 
Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!

Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!
 
Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!

Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!
haha. I think something similar happened in the PCA, where a presbytery or two had allowed theistic evolution as an exception, and upon appeal the GA said, "Um...not gonna happen." Mind you, I don't know where I read that, so I can't provide a reference either.
 
Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!

Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!

I spent most of my Christian life in the OPC. I think they allow for progressive creationism or day-age creationism.
 
Seth, I don't want to take it off topic any more than this, but that thinking is absolutely allowed at Erskine (which, for others reading, is the flagship college of the ARP).
 
Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order

Chapter 57-5

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
in His sovereign mercy?

2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?

3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
becomes the followers of Christ?

4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
work to the best of your ability?

5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

In the PCA, comprehensive knowledge of Scripture, far less agreement with everything in it is not required for membership. (It is for officers)

A teachable attitude toward and promise to learn the church's doctrine is ("promise to study its purity and peace").

So, it would be possible for someone with wrong ideas about many things to be recognized as a member.

My understanding is that some of the reformed denominations require for membership understanding and subscribing to it. In that case, it would not seem they could take the vows.
 
Theistic Evolution is not compatible with the doctrines and principles of the ARP Church, so my answer is, no, this person should not be accepted for membership with their current beliefs.

Two words: Erskine College.

That was a cheap shot.

It could have been worded more tactfully but the fact remains that what you see happening at Erskine College is the direct result of theistic evolution being promoted in the college of the church. Lacking some tact? Sure. Cheap shot? Not a fair accusation. Truth? Yes. This is the true situation at Erskine and a dreadful shame for the denominational college of a confessional denomination.
 
As I understand it, BB Warfield was a theistic evolutionist. Certainly, CS Lewis was. I believe that Machen also had leanings that way.

I don't particularly care one way or the other about the doctrine involved, but I think it is a harsh charge to say that one who believes theistic evolution does not believe that God created the world or that there was a literal fall. That's like saying that someone doesn't believe in Christ because they don't think he really was literally a Lamb.

Merely because something is 'allegorical' doesn't mean it isn't very true--in the allegorical sense.
 
As I understand it, BB Warfield was a theistic evolutionist. Certainly, CS Lewis was. I believe that Machen also had leanings that way.

I don't particularly care one way or the other about the doctrine involved, but I think it is a harsh charge to say that one who believes theistic evolution does not believe that God created the world or that there was a literal fall. That's like saying that someone doesn't believe in Christ because they don't think he really was literally a Lamb.

Merely because something is 'allegorical' doesn't mean it isn't very true--in the allegorical sense.
As an interesting aside, Lewis eventually changed his mind on that.
 
Caroline is correct about BBW.

I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....

Evolution

An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.

Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account.


Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.

I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.
 
Caroline is correct about BBW.

I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....

Evolution

An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.

Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account.


Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.

I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.
What people who believe in this don't stop to consider is that it means God created death from the very beginning and even used it to create. That is not the God we serve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top