DOCSLIB.ORG

Views on the Inerrancy of the Bible in American Evangelical Theology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Views on the Inerrancy of the Bible in American Evangelical Theology VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE IN AMERICAN EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY by JAMES HOWARD RAILEY submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY in the subject SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA PROMOTER: PROF A KONIG NOVEMBER 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cession of Copyright . vii Statement of Integrity .................................................. viii Summary ............................................................. ix INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 1 HISTORY OF THE INERRANCY ISSUE .............................. 4 1.1 What is Evangelicalism? ............................................ 4 1.1.1 Definition and Basic Beliefs ......................................... 4 1.1.2 Doctrine of Scripture .............................................. 11 1.2 Precursors to the Controversies ...................................... 17 1.2.1 Antebellum America .............................................. 17 1.2.2 Millenarianism ................................................... 20 1.2.3 Scottish Common Sense Realism and Baconianism ...................... 25 1.2.4 Princeton Theology ............................................... 28 1.2.5 Postbellum America ............................................... 31 1.2.6 The Bible/Prophecy Conference Movement ............................ 35 1.3 The Emerging Fundamentalism ...................................... 36 1.3.1 Characteristics of Fundamentalism ................................... 36 1.3.2 The Fundamentals ................................................ 37 1.3.3 World's Christian Fundamentals Association ........................... 39 1.4 The Controversies ................................................ 40 1.4.1 Causes of the Controversies ......................................... 40 1.4.2 Heresy Trials .................................................... 41 1.4.3 Machen's Book .................................................. 44 1.4.4 The Auburn Affirmation ........................................... 45 1.4.5 General Assembly Meetings ........................................ 46 1.4.6 The Scopes Trial ................................................. 49 1.5 The Emergence ofNeo-Evangelicalism ............................... 51 1.5.1 The Aftermath of the Defeats ........................................ 51 1.5.2 The National Association of Evangelicals .............................. 52 lll 1.5.3 The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy ......................... 54 1.6 Conclusion ...................................................... 55 2 COMPLETE INERRANCY ........................................ 56 2.1 The Complete Inerrancy View ....................................... 57 2.1.1 The Relationship of Inspiration to Inerrancy ............................ 58 2.1.2 The Importance oflnerrancy ........................................ 68 2.1.3 The Appeal of the Autographs ....................................... 74 2.1.4 The Relationship of the Divine and Human Authorship of Scripture ......... 80 2.2 Logic of the Complete Inerrancy View ................................ 90 2.2.1 Introduction ..................................................... 90 2.2.2 The General Approach ............................................. 93 2.2.3 The Claims of Scripture ........................................... 106 2.2.4 The Role of the Holy Spirit ........................................ 112 2.3 The Response of Complete Inerrancy to Problems ...................... 114 2.3.1 General Approach to Problems ..................................... 114 2.3.2 The Appeal to the Qualification of the Concept of Error ................. 117 2.3.3 The Appeal to Faith in the Doctrine oflnspiration ...................... 119 2.3.4 The Appeal to Copyist Errors ...................................... 121 2.3.5 The Appeal to Efforts to Harmonize ................................. 122 2.3.6 The Appeal to the Lack of Full Knowledge at the Present ................ 124 2.4 Conclusion ..................................................... 125 3 CONDITIONAL INERRANCY .................................... 126 3.1 Introduction to Conditional Inerrancy ................................ 127 3.1.1 Affirmation of Scriptural Authority .................................. 127 3.1.2 Analysis of the Conflict ........................................... 130 3.1.3 Inerrancy is Inferred .............................................. 132 3.1.4 Dissatisfaction With the Term Inerrancy .............................. 135 3.2 The Concerns Raised Against Complete Inerrancy ...................... 136 3.2.1 General Objections to Complete Inerrancy ............................ 137 3.2.2 Specific Areas of Disagreement ..................................... 140 3.3 The Basis for Conditional Inerrancy ................................. 144 3 .3 .1 Definition oflnerrancy ............................................ 145 3.3.2 The Meaning of Truth ............................................ 148 lV 3.3.3 Defend the Present Bible .......................................... 150 3.3.4 Analogy With the Incarnation ...................................... 151 3.3.5 An Inductive Approach ........................................... 152 3.3.6 Scriptural Claims About Inerrancy .................................. 155 3.4 The Argument for Conditional Inerrancy ............................. 159 3 .4.1 Limited to Revelational Material .................................... 159 3.4.2 Limited to the Teaching of Scripture ................................. 161 3.4.3 Must Accept the Human Authorship of the Bible ....................... 163 3.4.4 Inerrancy in the Use of Sources ..................................... 167 3.4.5 Relation to Inspiration ............................................ 169 3.5 Conclusion ..................................................... 170 4 LIMITED INERRANCY .......................................... 174 4.1 Introduction to Limited Inerrancy ................................... 175 4.1.1 Authority of Scripture ............................................ 175 4.1.2 Understanding Inspiration ......................................... 176 4.1.3 Definition oflnerrancy ............................................ 180 4.2 Disagreements With Complete and Conditional Inerrancy ................ 182 4.2.1 The Usage of Aristotelian Categories ................................ 183 4.2.2 The Influence of Protestant Scholasticism ............................. 185 4.2.3 The Appeal to the Autographs ...................................... 187 4.2.4 The Meaning of Error ............................................ 189 4.2.5 The Use of Scare Tactics .......................................... 192 4.3 The Basis for Limited Inerrancy .................................... 196 4.3 .1 The Specific Phenomena of Scripture ................................ 196 4.3.2 The Historical Perspective of the Church ............................. 201 4.4 The Argument for Limited Inerrancy ................................. 205 4.4.1 Induction is Preferred Over Deduction ............................... 205 4.4.2 The Human Authorship of the Bible ................................. 209 4.4.3 The Approach of Jesus to the Scripture ............................... 213 4.4.4 The Essence of Christianity ........................................ 214 4.4.5 The Preference for the Term Infallible ................................ 216 4.5 Conclusion ..................................................... 220 5 INERRANCY REVISITED ........................................ 222 v 5.1 A Summary of the Arguments Made By the Options Presented ............ 224 5.1.1 Complete Inerrancy .............................................. 224 5.1.2 Conditional Inerrancy ............................................ 229 5.1.3 Limited Inerrancy ................................................ 234 5.2 Revisiting the Doctrine oflnerrancy ................................. 239 5.2.1 The Nature of the Doctrine of Scripture .............................. 243 5.2.1.1 Is the Doctrine of Scripture An Essential Doctrine of Christianity? ......... 244 5.2.1.2 The Relationship oflnerrancy to the Doctrine of Scripture ................ 270 5.2.1.3 The Role of Apologetics in the Formation of Doctrine ................... 273 5.2.2 The Biblical Understanding of the Concept of Truth .................... 275 5.2.3 The Necessity of Allowing the Bible to Speak for Itself .................. 286 5.2.3.1 The Bible Must Be Allowed to Speak for Itself ........................ 286 5.2.3.2 Affirm the Human Authorship of the Biblical Texts ..................... 294 5.2.3.3 The Need to Honor the Texts of the Bible Available Now ................ 300 5.2.3.4 Admission of Difficulties in the Text of Scripture ...................... 304 5.2.3.5 The Role of the Historical-Critical Method ............................ 306 5.2.4 The Role of Faith in the Doctrine of Scripture ......................... 310 5.2.5 The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Doctrine of Scripture .................. 315 5.2.6 The Purpose for Scripture As A Determinant of the Doctrine of Scripture .... 327 5.3 Conclusion ..................................................... 330 Bibliography ......................................................... 335 Curriculum Vitae ......................, ................................ 349 Vl CESSION OF COPYRIGHT The copyright for this thesis, Views on the Inerrancy of the Bible in American Evangelical Theology, which is completed for the Doctor of Theology degree in Systematic Theology
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume 13 Number 13
    ~"h ~ JuI.!..~~~.ol,!: 31'. ~tt~bam '-atbtn ~bitot 193(;·1937 Z::I il1!d1tiff One Year-$2.00 Published Twenty.three Times a Year Ten Cents a Copy EDITORIAL COUNCIL 1505 Race Street John P. Clelland John Patton Galbraith Edwin H. Rian Thomas R. Birch Phllaclelphia 2, Pa.' Leslie W. Sloat Ned B. Stonehouse Managing Editor The Banner of Westminster Seminary In Substance the Text of an Address Delivered at the Alumni Banquet Held on the Occasion of Westminster's Fifteenth Annual Commencement By the, REV. JOHN MURRAY Professor of Systematic: Theoloc)Y In Westminster TheoloC)lc:al Seminary N THE cover of the official magazine of the cessity of belief in the virgin birth of our Lord, His O church in which I was reared in Scotland, there substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection and was always quoted the text from Psalm 60, "Thou hast the supernatural character of His miracles for the given a' banner to them that fear, thee, that it may be ordination and good standing of ministers in the Pres­ displayed because of the truth". byterian Church in the U.S.A. This fact, together with We are meeting tonight on the occasion of the'fif­ the fact that not one of these signers had ever been teenth annual ,commencement of Westminster Theo­ disciplined for such avowal, shows the lamentable de­ logicalSeminary. It may well be said in connection with cline from the true faith in the denomination con­ Westminster Seminary, "Thou hast given a banner to cerned. them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because It was not merely in the Presbyterian Church in the of the truth".
    [Show full text]
  • Ronald T. Clutter, "The Reorganization of Princeton
    Grace Theological Journal 7.2 (1986) 179- 201 THE REORGANIZATION OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY RECONSIDERED RONALD T. CLUTTER The reorganization of Princeton Theological Seminary, leading to the withdrawal of J. Gresham Machen, Oswald T. Allis, Cornelius Van Til, and Robert Dick Wilson, is identified often as a triumph of modernism in its conflict with fundamentalism in the churches in the 1920s. However, a consideration of the situation at Princeton and of the events which took place within and outside the institution leads to a different conclusion. The controversy at Princeton involved evangelical Presbyterians, all claiming loyalty to the tradition of the seminary. The conflict arose due to competing philosophies of seminary education and differing solutions for dealing with liberalism in the denomination. In this confrontation, pitting one evangelical faction against another, Prince­ ton Seminary suffered privately and publicly. The denomination was called upon to assist in resolving the problem. The solution enacted by the denomination resulted in the departure from the seminary ofsome of the most capable defenders of the evangelicalfaith. * * * INTRODUCTION T the centennial celebration of Princeton Theological Seminary in A 1912, institution president, Francis Landey Patton, declared that "the theological position of Princeton Seminary has remained un­ changed.'" At the sesquicentennial celebration, H~gh T. Kerr stated: "It is no secret that many contemporary professors at the seminary feel completely out of touch theologically with their predecessors of a generation or more ago on such issues as Biblical criticism, apolo­ getics, the sacraments, and the interpretation of the Westminster IFrancis Landey Patton. "Princeton Seminary and the Faith," in The Centennial Celebration of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (n.p., n.d.) 354.
    [Show full text]
  • Carl Mcintire and the Politicization of Fundamentalism
    No Uncertain Trumpet: Carl McIntire and the Politicization of Fundamentalism A Thesis Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS By Paul Matzko May, 2010 Thesis Approvals: David Watt, Thesis Advisor, Department of History Jonathan Wells, Temple University Department of History ABSTRACT Fundamentalist preacher Carl McIntire played an important role in the politicization of fundamentalism. His political beliefs and activism complicate the standard accountings for the rise of modern conservatism and the New Christian Right. Hispolitics were inherited from Gresham Machen and were rooted in the nineteenth century tension between evangelical Whigs and confessional Democrats. McIntire’s libertarian political philosophy coalesced during the denominational politics of the fundamentalist – modernist controversy of the 1920s and ‘30s.He criticized theological modernists for supporting an expansion of federal government authority and being “soft” on communism. He gained national attention for his campaigns to purchases airtime on radio stations. McIntire influenced a number of prominent fundamentalist leaders, like Billy Hargis, Fred Schwarz, and Francis Schaeffer. McIntire’s political consciousness can be used to describe the concepts of “ideological creep” and “mainstreaming.” i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….i CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………...1 2. BIOGRAPHY AND DENOMINATIONAL POLITICS……………………………….7 3. GRESHAM MACHEN
    [Show full text]
  • ~A1!T11a1t I One Year-$1.50 Published Twice Each Month-Ten Cents a Copy EDITORIAL COUNCIL 1505 Race Street John P
    VOLUME 9, NO. 11 1!~ Ii 11 ~"'-1 aft 11. ~tt~bam matben (fbitor 1936=1937 i ~a1!t11a1t i One Year-$1.50 Published Twice Each Month-Ten Cents a Copy EDITORIAL COUNCIL 1505 Race Street John P. Clelland John Patton Galbraith Edwin H. Rian Thomas R. Birch Philadelphia, Penna. Leslie W. Sloat Ned B. Stonehouse Managing Editor An Open Letter to Westminster Graduates In .th~ Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. By the REV. HENRY W. CORAY Pastor of the First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Long Beach, California pROBABLY the greatest man you and I have ever Let us look a little closer at our opening paragraph. known-possibly the greatest we ever will know­ I believe we shall all agree that Dr. Machen is correct once wrote these penetrating words: "Paganism has in charging that modern paganism has marshaled its made many efforts to disrupt the Christian faith, but forces in an "all out" attack against the Christian faith never a more insistent or a more insidious effort than most insistently and most insidiously right before our it is making today. There are three possible attitudes eyes. I dare say every Westminster man will subscribe which you may take in the present conflict. In the first to that proposition. The question then logically fol­ place you may stand for Christ. That is best. In the lows, "What are we to do about it?" "In the first second place you may stand for antichristian Modern­ place," responds Dr. Machen, "you may stand for ism. That is next best.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presbyterian Philosopher the Authorized Biography of Gordon H
    An Imprint of WIPF and STOCK Publishers WIPF & STOCK wipfandstock.com • (541) 344-1528 is is the story of Gordon Clark (1902–1985), respected philosopher and prolic writer, who held that Christianity, as a logically coherent system, is superior to all other philosophies. Clark fought no wars and conquered no kingdoms. Yet he was a leading gure in many theologi- cal wars fought for the Kingdom of God. ese battles for the minds and souls of men were every bit as crucial as physical wars between nations. In an age of increasing secularization, he put up an intellectual defense of the Christian faith. is faith, he believed, was a system. All of its parts link together, a luxury of no other philosophy. His stance shows a Christianity that is in fact intellectual, not relying on appeals to emotion or experience. In propounding this view, he encountered frequent opposition, not from the secular world, but from within his own denomination. is biography helps explain why his thought was so profound, why resistance mounted against him, and how his struggles impacted American Presbyterianism. Additionally, this book calls for a reappraisal of Clark’s views, which have been maligned by controversy. Understanding and applying his views could signicantly fortify Christians combating irrational and non-systematic ideas prevalent in today’s churches. The Presbyterian Philosopher The authorized biography of Gordon H. Clark douglas j. douma Foreword by Lois A. Zeller and Betsy Clark George “I got hooked reading this book! Doug has done an incredibly good job documenting everything and putting together an accurate and sober narrative .
    [Show full text]
  • 18Th Church History Class
    “Church History: Heroes, Heretics & Holy Wars” Sunday School Notes Rev. David R. Dorst Potomac Hills Presbyterian Church CLASS 18 – Secularization, Liberalism, and Fundamentalism Mormonism 1830 Book of Mormon published. Joseph Smith received his vision from the angel giving him the Golden Tablets of the 3rd Testament. A uniquely American religion, it taught that the Trinity is three separate beings, marriage is so important that men should take more than 1 wife (dropped later on), baptisms for the dead, Christ had come to America and the Native Americans were related to the 10 lost tribes of Israel. Smith was lynched by an angry mob in Indiana, but his followers settled in Utah and began sending out missionaries. > 9 million adherents. De-Christianization of Europe 1776 – Declaration of Independence; the American Revolution inspired radicals all over Europe 1789 – Storming of the Bastille & Declaration of Rights; French Revolution Historians mark the storming of the Bastille and the French Revolution as the beginning of the “Age of Progress.” The Bastille was seen as the symbol of the Old Regime: repressive powers that included monarchs, wealthy aristocrats, and the Church. The new age would be the age of the common man. Humanity would progress, man was glorified over God. The French Revolution said: “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” For the 1790s there was much hostility towards the Catholic church in France, with priests sent into hiding and churches converted to “Temples of Reason.” But when Napoleon came to power, he worked out an agreement with the Pope – the Concodat of 1801 – that restored the Church as the “religion of the great majority of Frenchmen.” But the church had lost much of its power.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?
    What is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? Basic Information to Acquaint You with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church INTRODUCTION Many people today are looking for a church that is true to the Word of God. The search is complicated, however, because of the wide variety of churches to be found in most communities. Some local churches are faithful to God's Word, but many are not. Some think they are following the Bible, but have fallen into serious error. Other people belong to a local church that is faithful to the Bible, yet their denomination is drifting away from it. Such congregations or groups within them may be looking to unite with a denomination that remains faithful to the Scriptures. If you are looking for a local church or a denomination that confesses the Bible to be the Word of God, and has made it her authority for faith and life, we invite you to find out more about the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). In the following pages, we will tell you where we came from (our history), where we are today (our doctrine and characteristics), and where we are going (our ministries) The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is steadfastly committed to promoting the glory of God. She has seen his hand guide, protect, and even reprove her during the short sixty-five-plus years of her existence. She was born out of persecution for the sake of the gospel, nurtured in adversity, and strengthened as she sought to fulfill her Master's call. She strives to keeps her eyes fixed on Christ Jesus, her Savior and Lord.
    [Show full text]
  • J. Gresham Machen and the End of the Presbyterian Controversy
    J. GRESHAM MACHEN AND THE END OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY by Samuel Jordan Kelley A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Boise State University December 2013 © 2013 Samuel Jordan Kelley ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS of the thesis submitted by Samuel Jordan Kelley Thesis Title: J. Gresham Machen and the End of the Presbyterian Controversy Date of Final Oral Examination: 14 November 2013 The following individuals read and discussed the thesis submitted by student Samuel Jordan Kelley, and they evaluated his presentation and response to questions during the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral examination. Jill K. Gill, Ph.D. Chair, Supervisory Committee Barton H. Barbour, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee Shelton Woods, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee The final reading approval of the thesis was granted by Jill K. Gill, Ph.D., Chair of the Supervisory Committee. The thesis was approved for the Graduate College by John R. Pelton, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate College. For Ben and Shannon—my only brother and my only niece iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Since I began at Boise State as a nineteen-year-old undergraduate, I have had a variety of wonderful relationships with faculty, especially in the departments of history and philosophy. As a graduate student, however, all my debts have been in the history department. Dr. Jill Gill was neither my committee chair nor my advisor when I began the Master’s program, but she took me under her wing early and helped me reorient my scholarly interests, and has worked tirelessly and patiently with me and directly on my behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presbyterian Separatist Movement
    We, the members of this Covenant Union, are resolved, in accor- dance with God‟s Word, and in humble reliance upon His grace, to maintain the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., (1) making every effort to bring about a reform of the existing church organization, and to restore the Church‟s clear and glorious Christian testimony, which Modernism and indifferentism have now so grievously silenced, but (2) if such efforts fail and in particular if the tyrannical policy of the present majority triumphs, holding ourselves ready to perpetuate the true Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., regardless of cost. Constitutional Covenant Union (1935) 6 The Presbyterian Separatist Movement S the modernist-indifferentist grip upon the Presby- terian Church in the U.S.A. grew ever tighter in the A years immediately following the reorganization of Princeton in 1929, the fundamentalists were faced with the question as to what their ultimate relationship to the Church would be. Most decided to stay in a Church controlled by modernists. Some stayed no doubt for personal reasons, others were strongly influenced by the modernist view of the Church, and still others had some hope of reform from with- in. However, there was a small movement which under the leadership of J. Gresham Machen led to a new Presbyterian church organization in 1936. Thus the prophetic utterance of B. B. Warfield that there- would be no great split in the Church was borne out by the course of events. At the same time, the hope of a new begin- ning was realized in the Presbyterian Separatist Movement under Machen‟s leadership.1 An understanding of this move- ment and its development in the 1930‟s is essential to under- stand the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Johns Scriptural Stance for Dismissal
    St. Johns Scriptural Stance for Dismissal Our Mission Statement: Connect with Christ, Church and Community In order to fulfill this mission, we are guided by: The Great Commandment: Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart . soul . and mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40) The Great Commission: Jesus said, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20) St. Johns Core Values: Biblically-Based We believe the Bible is God's Word and the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. We strive to understand it and stand under it, in all aspects of our lives. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Mark 12:29-30; John 14:21) Devotion We believe that the pursuit of full devotion to Christ and His cause is normal for every believer. (Philippians 2:3-5; 2 Corinthians 8:7; Philippians 3:12-14) Prayer We believe in the importance of prayer as the provision God gives us for knowing Him and participating in the work of His kingdom. (1 John 5:14-15; John 15:7) Biblical, Spirit-led We believe that biblical, Spirit-led teaching is a primary catalyst for Teaching changing lives. (2 Timothy 2:16-17; James 1:25) Distinguished by We believe Christians are to be distinguished by our love, endeavoring Love to guard the sanctity of every human life and to love one another as Christ loves us.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Timeline of Theological Issues in the Pcusa 1910-2015
    BRIEF TIMELINE OF THEOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE PCUSA 1910-2015 1910 – Essential and Necessary Doctrines Defined; tension between fundamentalists and modernists 1924 – Auburn Affirmation – modernist response 1927 – Ordination is no longer based on national standards but presbytery local option 1936 – Orthodox Presbyterian Church founded under leadership of J. Gresham Machen 1965 – Last year denomination grew; 4.25 million members; the Presbyterian Lay Committee formed to expose and address the undermining of theological and moral standards. 1967 – Book Of Confessions replaces Westminster Confession as confessional standard of the church; Confession of 1967 added; New ordination vows adopted – “Scripture is God’s word to you.” 1973 – 260+ Congregations depart to form Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) 1978 – “Missions” (Great Commission around globe) redefined to “mission” (work of the church) 1978 – Definitive Guidance (wherein homosexuality a labeled “sin”) adopted by General Assembly; ordination of homosexuals prohibited; concurred by PCUS General Assembly in 1979 1981 – Mansfield Kaseman case – ordination approved even though he would not affirm “Jesus is God.” Evangelical Presbyterian Church Formed (EPC) in anticipation of Reunion. 1982 – Both the UPCUSA and the PCUS add the assertion of express denominational trust over all local church property. Few people in the PCUS were aware of the change as the focus was on the documents related to Reunion. 1983 – Reunion of UPCUSA (Northern Church) and PCUS (Southern Church). An 8 year window is open for PCUS churches to leave with their property. 1986 – General Assembly reaffirms 1978 Definitive Guidance; 1989 – The Covenant Fellowship of Presbyterians and Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns merged to form Presbyterians for Renewal 1993 – Reimagining God event – “Sophia” worship; God is portrayed as female; the substitutionary atonement is rejected.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle for the Gospel Introduction  Acknowledgement: Our Lessons in This Class Summarize Material Drawn from D.G
    American Presbyterian History January 24, 2021 Class #4 The Battle for the Gospel Introduction Acknowledgement: Our lessons in this class summarize material drawn from D.G. Hart and John R. Muether, Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism. Quotes are from the same. Definition: Presbyterianism is a branch of Protestantism that embraces biblical Reformation not just for our theology of salvation, but also for our theology of worship and our theology of church government. Goal: By understanding the story of our branch of the Christian family, we will better equipped to learn from the past, to understand the emphases and tensions of the present, and to live faithfully in the future. Review: The Presbyterian Civil War From 1801–1837, Presbyterians worked with Congregationalists to plant churches on the frontier. Through this “Plan of Union,” some dangerous “New England Theology” began infecting the Presbyterian Church. This theology denied the biblical doctrines of original sin and substitionary atonement. Conflict over this theology split the Presbyterian Church into “Old School” and “New School” in 1838. With the onset of the Civil War, both of these bodies split again between Northerners and Southerners. In 1864, the Southern “Old School” and “New School” reunited as the Presbyterian Church (CSA) – which changed its name after the War to the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). In 1869, the Northern “Old School” and “New School” reunited as the Presbyterian Church (USA). At the turn of the 20th century, Presbyterians remained divided: PCUSA (North) and PCUS (South). In terms of emphasis, where did these denominations generally stand at the outset of the 20th century? The PCUS (South) generally developed along “Old School” lines, emphasizing theological precision.
    [Show full text]