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.

__________________
Michael Masztal
Ruling Elder, Chapel By The Sea, ARP
Melbourne Beach, FL

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.

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

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.

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

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.

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

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.

__________________
Alan
Seminarian, RTS Jackson, MS
OPC

Is the person open to teaching? How is the session aware of the person's beliefs?

__________________
Anna
Wife of Tim/Marrow Man
Louisville, KY
Member of Midlane Park Presbyterian (Associate Reformed Presbyterian)

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.

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

Hmm...That is a good point.

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.

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.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

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.

__________________
J. P. Grigoletti II * Lay-man * Église Réformée du Québec
Québec, Québec Canada * Member: Église Reformée St. Marc
http://Grigoletti.blogspot.com - blog
<<There are three things necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily: the first, how great your sins and miseries are; the second, how thou may be delivered from all thy sins and miseries; the third, how thou shall express thy gratitude to God for such deliverance.>>

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.

Two words: Erskine College.

__________________
Rev. R. Kevin Carroll
Pastor Elect
Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Wheat Ridge, CO
Blog: Reformed and Loving It

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!

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.

That was a cheap shot.

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).

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.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

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.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Caroline
OPC
Schenectady, NY
Blog: The Unlikely Calvinist

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.

__________________
Lynnie

PCA

Central NJ

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.

I understand (and also the previous poster who said that it seemed repulsive to think of Adam having a primate mother), but to be fair, many people are not Calvinists because they think the doctrine of election is repulsive. "I can't believe that God would pass over some", "it is disturbing to think that God would harden pharoah's heart", etc.

God is whoever He is, whether we like Him or not. If He created in six days and that is unappealing to some, then that is not an argument for theistic evolution. But it is also not an argument for six-day creation to say that theistic evolution gives one the heebie-jeebies, so to speak.

In regard to membership, I think the Apostles Creed is a good guideline. If people are in error in their theology ... well, they can be taught better, but that usually takes time.

I agree, that is what I meant in my first post on this thread. In this last post, I was only commenting on the implications of theistic evolution, which many don't stop to consider.

I'm sure they allow day-age and find that it need not be stated as an exception. I'm near sure they also allow the framework as in concert with the confession. While some interpretations might fall outside the bounds, it appears the GA Report of
the Committee to Study the Views of Creation did not discount views that held to other than 6 literal 24 hour days.

Note: This is NOT intended to start a creation debate, but only state what it appears the OPC is willing to accept for officers.

I heartily approve of the statement. What God did is what he did. If what he did "fits" better with an evolution theory (which is wrong no matter what) we should not interpret scripture just to eliminate one of the supports for evolution. Those that even mention that it "fits" with a young earth and therefore contradicts evolution ought to search their heart diligently to see if they are trying to interpret the Bible for what it says, or are bringing their world view to the Bible and looking for support. While a young earth is possible, looking to the Bible and reading the Bible to support that view is wrong even if the view is right.

The ARP should judge what they make requirements for their membership; it is up to the ARP; it is not something in which anyone else has a say. My only problem with vows that require full knowledge subscription is that it may take years for a person who recently has been seized by grace to understand the doctrines, and so it would be years before they were able to partake in the LS. I don't believe that a positive good. The grace offered in the supper is real, and while not salvific in any sense, it works to the ongoing sanctification of our lives.

There is a find line between fencing the table to keep out those that do not rightly discern the body and blood, and keeping out those that in their struggle with sin need the grace offered therein. I pray for the elders of my church regularly that they make neither error.

I fail to see how it was a cheap shot. Has not the Administration and Faculty of Erskine embraced evolution over the Bible in direct defiance of the General Synod?

This is where being a Baptist comes in handy. You can hold him in the baptistry until he changes his views.

I would analyze the rest of his theology; if that's the only point of difference(unlikely), then I suppose it'd be up to the church leadership. Though I wouldn't hesitate to [good-naturedly] pester him about it at every opportunity.

__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio

Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:

I have met some Reformed ministers who don't like this statement, but Warfield was wrong.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

They might have faith, but they have irrational and illogical faith. Holding that Genesis is an allegory removes all basis for believing the rest of the Bible. One might, against all reason, still believe it though.

Another problem arises in that holding to a non-literal interpretation brings one into contradiction with inspired, New Testament Scripture. Consider Paul in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians,

Here, Paul references the temptation of Eve as a historical event. I don't see a reason for reading what he's saying as an allegory.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.

__________________
David
PCA
Richardson, Texas

Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God's grace.
--C.H. Spurgeon

Yes they should be accepted. No where in scripture does it require we interpret genesis in any way to be a christian or to be fully part of a local church, to say you cannot get church membership is like saying your a second class christian, even though they may be perfectly orthodox everywhere else and is in my opinion disgusting if they got rejected and going beyond what is written and be one of the greatest examples of legalism ive ever heard of.

__________________
Lee Johnston
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Paisley, Scotland
Ephesians 1:4-5
"In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."