I have been reading through Foote's Sketches of Virginia and read in there about a split that came into the Presbyterian church. Foote referred to it as the "new" and "old" and also, "new light" and "old light."

What was this all about? What are your opinions?

__________________
Brian Eschen
Ruling Elder, PCA
Pleasanton, California

There have been a couple of old vs. new light splits in Presbyterianism. This old-new light split was over the biblical validity of revivals. The old lights were opposed to the Great Awakening and believed that it was fanatical. The new lights were open to it and saw it as good and from the Lord. Edwards jumped into the argument, even though he was a Congregationalist by this time and wrote a defense of the revivals in New England. He catalogs some of the conversions and shows their validity.

Many of the old light Presbyterians went Unitarian within a generation or two.

__________________
Pastor Nathan Eshelman, Los Angeles, CA
Reformed Presbyterian Church
PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS
Los Angeles Reformed Presbyterian Church
RPCLA Sermons Online
Puritan Reformed Seminary

Technically, I think the split among the Presbyterians was known as the "Old Side-New Side" division. The "old lights" and "new lights" refer to a roughly analogous split among congregationalists.

There is not a lot of literature on the Old Side/New Side split and what exists is not very favorable to the Old Siders.

I deal with this in one of the chapters of Recovering the Reformed Confession which is scheduled to be released next month, Dv.

As I see things, the Old Siders were, more or less, "the good guys," or at least they were the fellows most concerned about confessional theology, piety, and practice. The New Siders were the fellows who were anxious to support the "revival" (contemporary scholarship has cast real doubt on the 1st Great Awakening) and they weren't above condemning the Old Side as "unregenerate" (or worse) for daring the question them.

Until recently the standard history of the split essentially sided with the New Side. There is more contemporary work which I describe in the book. Stay tuned.....

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Westminster Seminary California
Associate Pastor, Oceanside URC
The Heidelcast Podcast
The Heidelblog

Actually there were both "Old Side/New Side" and "Old School/New School) splits in the Presbyterian world, but at different times.

Old Side/New Side was in 1741-58 (as Nathan pointed out).

Old School/New School was in 1837-1970.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

And "Old Light/New Light" was also used with regard to a split among Reformed Presbyterians in the 1830s over different issues (such as the relationship of the church and her covenants to the magistrate in America etc).

From Wikipedia...

In 1833, the church split down the middle, forming the New Light and Old Light RP Synods. The New Lights, who exercised political rights, grew for some years but suffered splits and went into decline, eventually merging in the 20th century with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to form the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Evangelical Synod), which in 1982 merged with the Presbyterian Church in America. The Old Lights, who continued to teach the old doctrines, suffered a similar split, the "East End Split", in 1891. Statistics reveal that denominational membership suffered a net loss of 11% in 1891, most of whom joined the United Presbyterian Church. The fourth split, in 1840, resulted in two ministers and a few elders leaving to form the Reformed Presbytery (nicknamed the Steelites, after Dr David Steele, their most prominent leader), which continues today. Unlike with the other splits, this was occasioned by the departed ministers and members considering the denomination to be too liberal, especially by allowing membership in "voluntary associations", which today might include both political groups and groups such as the Boy Scouts.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister in the RPCNA
Pastor,Trinity Reformed Church
Wichita, KS

Interesting.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

SO...should we see the Great Awakening as a God-sent blessing or a fanatical wildfire?

Both, IMHO

Yes?

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

Well, I'm not too versed with Presbyterian history but I will say I side with the Great Awakening.

__________________
[B]Manley Beasley[/B]
Southern Baptist Convention
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

Interesting about Edwards. I did not know that (the congregationalist part). In this book I am reading, Foote describes how Davies was desirous to get the services of Edwards in the Presbytery of Hanover.