The Aquila Report has reported the following breaking news:
The PCA Rocky Mountain Presbytery, meeting in Ft. Collins, Colo. on January 26, approved sending an overture to the General Assembly asking that it reaffirm its confessional position on the existence and historicity of Adam. The overture entitled, “Declaration Rejecting All Evolutionary Views of Adam’s Origin,” will be considered by the 40th PCA General Assembly that will meet in Louisville, Ky., June 19-22, 2012.
The overture was sent to the Rocky Mountain Presbytery by the Session of Northwoods Presbyterian Church in Cheyenne, Wy., asking that it be sent to the PCA General Assembly.Specifically, the overture urges the GA “to adopt and reaffirm the position of the PCUS General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, and 1924 as expressing the mind of this Court on the issue of the evolution and existence of the historical Adam.”
The same resolution was adopted by three General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), the denomination from which the PCA was formed in 1973. The resolution asks the GA to reaffirm:
That Adam and Eve were created, body and soul, by immediate acts of Almighty power, thereby preserving a perfect race unity;
That Adam’s body was directly fashioned by Almighty God, without any natural animal parentage of any kind, out of matter previously created from nothing.
The overture supports its request by referring to the fact that questions about the origin and existence of Adam have recently become common within evangelicalism, and that evolution continues to be a hotly debated issue in our society and churches.
You can read the full story and overture here.
Tags: General Assembly, Historical Adam, Rocky Mountain Presbytery
An incisive document on a theme of crucial importance, for the defense of God’s truth, springing from the grass roots, published, debated, and approved openly, for all to see, and presented to the entire church. How refreshing.
Thank you, Northwoods Presbyterian and Rocky Mountain Presbytery, for this great news and for being so proactive on such a crucial issue for the entire church.
I truly applaud this request. I have dialogued extensively with theistic evolutionists. While many of them are very impressive people, they have also done great damage to their faith and often fail to see the faith-price that they are paying.
When challenged about the teachings of Genesis and even the confirmation given them by the NT regarding their historicity, theistic evolutionists often respond, “Well, I think that we need to be humble about the teachings of Scripture. ” (This is an indirect confession that the incorporation of Darwin has left them confused about Scripture.)
I respond that they should be equally humble about the teachings of evolution.
Yeah I applaud the position taken and the intent of the overture, but I fear it will fall at GA. A motion to reaffirm is routinely dismissed as adding nothing to existing positions. Furthermore, it seems to me that the overture contradicts itself when it asks GA to “adopt and reaffirm” its position. If we are adopting something, then we have not previously affirmed it, and cannot therefore re-affirm. If we are reaffirming, then we do not need to adopt something, since reaffirmation presupposes an existing commitment to a position (hence the argument that we do not need to re-affirm either). Its technicalities like this that regularly squash overtures that have a valuable point to make.
Sad that an overture needs to be sent but kudos to the Rocky Mountain Presbytery.
The PCA has never adopted the PCUS position as its own. You can adopt it and then reaffirm it.
The assumption was in 1973, the PCA would have agreed to the PCUS position of 1886, 1888 and 1924 since the PCA saw herself as the continuation of the PCUS.
FYI…
There is a related discussion that I was able to moderate on the Reformed Forum with PCA Ministers, Rick Phillips and Nick Batzig… http://reformedforum.org/ctc212/.
I applaud the thought and the effort that went into creating the overture, but I think that it is redundant to our constitution. The overture itself quotes WLC 17 which is perfectly clear. In fact, WLC 17 says much more than this overture. I don’t see the need to adopt an overture to say what our Standards already say, only less so. JMHO.
Bob,
If it is redundant to our constitution does that automatically make it unneeded for our church to take such an action of approval?
Wouldn’t it have been redundant for the assemblies of the PCUS to adopt the declaration in 1886, 1888, and 1924? I mean they did it 2 years apart and had the same WLC 17!
Perhaps in our day when there are clearly some in the PCA who are allowed to believe otherwise by their Presbyteries and we have professors at our denomination’s seminary who espouse contrary views, this isn’t such a bad idea.
I don’t see why we shouldn’t ever be redundant. That’s what church courts ought to be doing. If there were doctrinal cases or problems at a lower level, such that it was enough for a Presbytery to make an overture to address it and send it to GA, GA probably shouldn’t be voting these things down all the time (and giving grounds of: ‘it is in our Standards’). Instead of always voting against things because “they are in our standards”, perhaps we need to be saying, “Yes, exactly because God says this and therefore our Standards say this. Therefore, approve.”
I guess I look at it, seeing the PCUSA or whatever liberal denomination (even sometimes in the PCA) who interpret the Standards the way they want to and not how they were intended like how liberals view the Constitution of the USA (it is always evolving). Words don’t mean now what they meant then, and we can make it whatever we want. In our case, for example, the framework view of creation can be seen as not a difference to the Standards (I’ve seen this action taken in a presbytery). Yet, not one Westminster divine meant framework or anything other than ’6 literal day creation’. In the case of framework, it should be seen as a difference, yet in the PCA the GA has said (non-binding on the presbyteries) that this can be an allowed difference/exception not striking at the vitals yet still a difference/exception nonetheless.
So back to our GA being redundant, I am convinced we need to be redundant. We need to be saying, Yes this is what the Bible says, this is what the Standards say, this is what the Constitution says, and approve these things (I see Acts 15 as our example here, they spoke to each other on a questionable matter, and they spoke Scripture to each other and came to a conclusion with a positive ‘this is what Scripture says’). When Presbyteries are seeking help at a higher level to answer questions or when they see other Presbyteries not holding on to said Standards, what help is the GA giving by voting against these things (and by the way here are the grounds that say it is in WLC 17). Nobody looks at the grounds except you and me Bob and a few others
. Even when you point them to WLC 17 via grounds they are going to say, “Yeah, so what, I agree with WLC 17 and theistic evolution”. Here we have an opportunity to ‘define’ WLC 17 and say, “Thestic evolution is not a possible view of WLC 17, Adam and Eve were indeed historical. Such a view does strike at the vitals of the system. If you hold this view, you need to make it known to your Presbytery.” Then even if the Presbytery allows it, you have the check/balance of RPR.
Just for everyone’s awareness of what WLC 17 states, “Q. 17. How did God create man? A. After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and dominion over the creatures; yet subject to fall.”
I don’t know how one might get Theistic Evolution from WLC 17 or see it as an allowable difference, but there you go.
Andrew-
Agreed, we need to be redundant, in fact it is in the very nature of Reformed practice to be redundant. The confessions are supposed to be redundant with the Scriptures. During the century after the Reformation, Reformed churches produced a major confession every 6 years on average and many, many more minor confessions. Most were redundant. For instance, the Belgic Confession borrowed extensively from the French Confession (they are virtually indistinguishable in many places) that was written a mere two years before. It’s important to make new, positive statements of what we believe, especially in the face of new errors and threats to our system of doctrine, to say that WLC 17 is not optional, and it’s not merely symbolic.
For my part, I totally agree that being redundant is not a bad thing in this case. “Should” and “ought” are not the really at issue though. The issue surely has to be will the GA pass this? Is it a well crafted overture that will withstand the scrutiny of the parliamentarians? Unless it somehow gets modified in committee I have my doubts. If it called for a fresh articulation of the doctrine in light of recent challenges or asked for a study committee to be set up to present a report on the recent challenges from Biologos etc then that might be different. As it is, it is a motion to reaffirm, and I’ve just seen motions to reaffirm being summarily dismissed in the past.
Hi David, this is not merely a motion to reaffirm. It is a motion to reaffirm something that was reaffirmed three times in the old PCUS in the face of evolutionary challenges. Moreover, it was something that was denounced by the liberalized PCUS in 1969. It is a good time to reaffirm this older statement because evangelicals (and even some claiming to be Reformed) are attempting to meld biological evolution, the denial of an historical Adam, and evangelical thought. All those reasons make it quite reasonable and a reaffirmation likely. I think the PCA will want to reaffirm its stand with the old orthodox PCUS over against evolutionary thought.
Thanks Wes. I hope you are right. I think it’d be a helpful stance to take.
From one PCUSA outsider looking in, its so incredibly refreshing to consider Presbyterians actually talking about the substance and veracity of the Scriptures! Thanks to all of you for engaging the Truth and engaging one another on this post in a way that the watching world could learn much from.
I’ve always been perplexed (really, mystified) by the “redundant” argument. Something is “redundant” only if repeating it serves no useful purpose.
A friend of mine, a former moderator of the PCA General Assembly, says of Overtures like these, “They don’t mean anything.” I disagree strongly. Perhaps he was thinkng that the Overture wouldn’t have constitutional authority. Agreed. But the General Assembly also has pastoral authority, and a duty to warn the church of teachings
disruptive to its peace and subversive of its purity.
A General Assembly that rejects the substance (not the precise wording of the original, of course) of an Overture like this will be on record as saying, “We consider that the teaching condemned in this Overture does not strike at the fundamentals of our Confessional system of doctrine, or, if it does, is not at present such a threat to the church that a warning is necessary.” I don’t see a third option. Either you don’t believe it’s a serious deviation, or you don’t see it as a real threat at this time.
The church doesn’t need an Overture, for example, condeming the Arian heresy. That would truly be redundant. (It will be different if, God forbid, the Oneness Pentecostals invade our ranks.) But when a destructive new threat appears — such as the current flirtation with theistic evolution — the General Assembly as first responder must act by way of warning and pastoral counsel.
Clarification: As I understand it, the Oneness Pentecostals are more Modalist than Arian. But you get my point.
Wes,
Regarding your (helpful) comment above, would it not be possible to distinguish:
1. Those who DO believe in evolution and DO NOT believe in a 6/24 creation, a historical Adam & Eve, and a historical fall (clearly outside the bounds).
2. Those who DO NOT believe in evolution and DO believe in 6/24 creation, a historical Adam & Eve, and a historical fall (clearly inside the bounds).
3. Those who DO believe in (or admit the possibility of) some moderate version of a non-naturalistic evolutionary process, DO or DO NOT believe in a 6/24 creation, but DO believe in a historical Adam & Eve and a historical fall (arguably should be inside the bounds).
Does the overture rule this third group out of bounds? Is this desirable?
John
John, I think it would depend on whether such people could agree with the affirmation. However, remember that each individual court that ordains Ruling or Teaching Elders would have to make a specific pronouncement. At the same time, we must also remember that if this is indeed the mind of the church, then the General Assembly would likely overturn such a decision if it ran contrary to its mind on this issue. This is true in reverse of the six-day creation issue. Some Presbyteries demand 6/24. However, if this view was challenged, then it is likely the GA would rule that denial of 6/24 is not hostile to the system.
There’s an excellent discussion with Rick Phillips and Nick Batzig on this very subject on Christ the Center program # 212, “The Historical Adam,” for Friday January 27th. http://www.reformedforum.org.
[...] PCA Savannah River has approved substantially the same overture that Rocky Mountain Presbytery approved rejecting all evolutionary views of Adam’s origin. [...]
[...] historical Adam. The only one posted requesting such a resolution on the PCA Overtures Wesbite is this one from Rocky Mountain [...]