I was talking recently with a good friend in the ARP Church and he told me some wonderful news. First, a little background. The ARP church is the oldest presbyterian body in the country. They are composed of a merger that took place in 1882 in Philadelphia of two Scots-Irish presbyteries (“Ulster Scots”). The Associate Presbytery (“Seceeders”) and the Reformed Presbytery (“Covenanters”) both at different times left the Church of Scotland for various reasons. When they arrived in the US, the issues that kept them apart were not issues in the states. So they merged and formed four regional Synods; the Synod of the South as it was called is all that is left of the original denomination with roughly 35,000 strong. They have a college and seminary in Due West, SC.
The denomination like many in the times had a brief love affair with liberalism that supposedly ended in the late 1980’s. Presbyterians more to the right would still have issue with the ARP position that the local church determines whether or not they will ordain women deacons, but not elders. The EPC, which uses the same 1903 version of the Westminster Confession that the ARP church does, takes that one step further. Some congregations in the EPC have female deacons AND elders and in some presbyteries, there are women who serve as teaching elders. But alas, I digress . . .
Recently at the ARP General Synod, the Synod by a large majority moved to ammend the Form of Government to state explicitly that the denomination affirms Scriptural Inerrancy. That may not mean much to many of you, but I was part of that bunch for seven years and inerrancy was touchy, depending on who you talk to; in fact, it’s one of the issues that drove many an ARP student to Reformed Theological Seminary rather than to Erskine (the ARP seminary). But to hear that this has happened means that this puts the ARP denomination squarely in the conservative reformed camp and an honest member of NAPARC. Kudos to the work of good churchmen and all praise to the Holy Trinity for what appears to be a timely act of Providence. The world may yet be saved by the Scots once more!
June 13, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Very interesting indeed. Given the fact that the PCA tossed the women/deacons issue back to the presbyteries, declining even to select a study committee, the ARP may find some new blood running their way–so to speak. Don’t know where you are on this issue, but I think there’s scriptural “wiggle room” for an equal-opportunity diaconate. (Not so, in my opinion, for the eldership.)
Like the new blog. Xanga blows.
June 14, 2008 at 5:03 am
To say that the ARP church affirms Scriptural Inerrancy doesn’t mean much to me. I would be more interested to know how they have explained what Scriptural Inerrancy means.
June 14, 2008 at 12:00 pm
In the heat of the battle, considering what was won, I’m sure that the the definitions are along along the lines of a Warfieldian understanding, which of course would irritate a moderate (like I used to be). Equally, it probably means affirming something along the lines of the Chicago Statement on inerrancy–you know, it is a philosophical assumption or presupposition, that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts and to the degree that our translations are faithful to them, they are as well. To quote the Statement:
I used to hold to the neo-orthodox claiom that the Bible is a limp, human witness (with all of its embarassing errors) to Jesus Christ and that my existential I-Thou encounter is self-authenticating with Christ through the Holy Spirit. Something that both Brunner and Schleirmacher would have been happy with; however, on what authority do I base my existential phenomena and how can I validate my experience of the contemporaneous Christ outside of my own experience? In addition, if the Bible has real errors in what place, why believe the part about the resurrection of Jesus?
I found the neo-Orthodox position stultifying. And yet, I find on a different level, from the WCF I, v, what could be confused as a similar statement about the authority of Scripture, but the presupposition is that the truthfulness of Scripture is believed by us because we are pursuaded and convinced by the Holy Spirit. Here the trust is in God, not my experience.
June 15, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I have several problems with that statement. I don’t have time to explain myself right now, but I’ll get back to it later
June 18, 2008 at 4:47 am
These “inerrancy” claims often amuse me. It makes what appears to be a “scientific” claim (the scriptures are without error), then it slowly but surely renounces the scientific nature of the claim. The scriptures are inerrant, but the claim is unverifiable, because the autographs no longer exist. The scriptures are inerrant, but not by modern standards. The claim of inerrancy has to constantly be qualified, and it makes me wonder how useful it truly is at times.
Sometimes it seems like it would just be easier to say that the Bible is the Word of God and leave it at that, and stop trying to talk about it in scientific terms.
June 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I understand what you are saying. It is precisely why F.F. Bruce argued for the term “infallible.” I remember a comment from the late Dr. Bill Kuykendall when we were given the task in my OT class of harmonizing the lineages of the kings of Israel and he said, “There’s your assignment and remember: this is the Word of God with all of its problems.” I wonder if that’s why the EPC in their documents prefer the term infallibility? That the Bible comes to us with full authority and is incapable of leading us astray . . . hmph.