Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.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.
Hmm...That is a good point.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.
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.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.
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.
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 )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.
Granted.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 there are pastors who say its not anti-confessional however we all know thats just theire rationalizing of bad doctrine.
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.
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.
I'm surprised the OPC allowed that. But I did say "many" not "any."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.
Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!
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!
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.
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!
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?
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.
As an interesting aside, Lewis eventually changed his mind on that.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.
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.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.