Two overtures on evolution at the next PCA GA

[jwright82]

Here is two overtures on the issue of Adam and evolution up for discussion at the next PCA GA.
http://www.pcaac.org/2012GeneralAssembly/Overture 10 Rocky Mtn Adam's origin.pdf
http://www.pcaac.org/2012GeneralAssembly/Overture 26 Potomac - in thesi 3-20-12.pdf

How do ya'll think they will fair?

 

[Scott1]

The first Overture seeks a declaration on the historical, biblical account of Adam (which is under attack), affirming what is already the Westminster summary.

The second Overture seeks to have the other Overture answered with reference to general notions about "in thesi" statements by General Assembly- that is, since it is already the standard, the constitution, upheld by oath, there is no need to re-state it.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

ARP as well.

Memorial to Synod « Gairney Bridge

 

[DMcFadden]

Evangelicalical Evololutionists Meet in New York

Attending were such luminaries as N. T. Wright, Alister McGrath, John Ortberg, Tim Keller, Scot McKnight, Os Guinness, Joel Hunter, and Andy Crouch. Prominent scientists included Ian Hutchinson of MIT and Jennifer Wiseman, senior project scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope. Forty-one pastors and parachurch leaders participated.

Evangelical Evolutionists Meet in New York | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

 

[Reformedfellow]

Evangelicalical Evololutionists Meet in New York

"Evangelical evolutionists"
Now there's an oxymoron. Though the term "evangelical" can mean just about anything these days I suppose.
Shoot, even Rob Bell is evangelical, so why not.

 

[Christopher88]

How do ya'll think they will fair?

Not sure how it will fair, but so long as the PCA has faithful leaders, the historical, and faithful holding to the view of creation it should fair fine.

My statement is, its sad that Adam is being debated among Christians. Christianity while it will never die, it sure is a sign of the times.

Lord, come, Lord Jesus come; bring your bride home from this weary land.

 

[jwright82]

Evangelicalical Evololutionists Meet in New York

Attending were such luminaries as N. T. Wright, Alister McGrath, John Ortberg, Tim Keller, Scot McKnight, Os Guinness, Joel Hunter, and Andy Crouch. Prominent scientists included Ian Hutchinson of MIT and Jennifer Wiseman, senior project scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope. Forty-one pastors and parachurch leaders participated.

Evangelical Evolutionists Meet in New York | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Thanks, this is interesting. My thought is how this will affect the whole "evolution" thing in New York. Is the PCA going to deal with this?

 

[VictorBravo]

May I gently remind everyone that the proper word here is "fare," not "fair."

As in, "I trust they use fair judgment and the proper things will fare well."

Just a friendly editorial reminder--spelling matters.

At the very least, proper spelling shows kindness to some of us OCD curmudgeons who treasure written language and get headaches seeing things out of place.

 

[VictorBravo]

May I gently remind everyone that the proper word here is "fare," not "fair."

As in, "I trust they use fair judgment and the proper things will fare well."

Just a friendly editorial reminder--spelling matters.

At the very least, proper spelling shows kindness to some of us OCD curmudgeons who treasure written language and get headaches seeing things out of place.

 

[KSon]

May I ask a question of those who have read the arguments of those espousing Theistic Evolution, or whatever they may deem it? According to their view, at what point during the "evolutionary process" did man become the image of God? This question would seem to bring out the oxymoronic nature of claiming to be an "Evangelical Evolutionist", as Colin pointed out.

 

[yoyoceramic]

Sorry, I am not up on this line of thinking. What does this mean?

 

[KSon]

I think these obviously go hand-in-hand dear brother. To reject the biblical account of creation (which, of course, they would claim they are not) has massive ramifications for our understanding of who God is, as well as our proper place relationally and relatively.

That said, I still wonder when in the evolutionary process, according to this view, God's image given to us? Did His image evolve in us? Was there a particular point in the species evolution that God particularly blessed and declared everything forward to be in His image?

 

[Marrow Man]

I think that the theistic evolutionary perspective is something along these lines (trying to be fair here): that God providentially guided the evolutionary process, which resulted in a group of hominids (pre-homo sapien creatures). Out of this group of hominids, God selected two, Adam and Eve. He did something special to set Adam apart and make him the first "human" in the modern sense of the word, imbuing him with His image in doing so.

I'm sure someone might quibble with that or nuance it a bit, but that's my understanding of the position. Please correct me if I have misrepresented it.

 

[KSon]

I think that the theistic evolutionary perspective is something along these lines (trying to be fair here): that God providentially guided the evolutionary process, which resulted in a group of hominids (pre-homo sapien creatures). Out of this group of hominids, God selected two, Adam and Eve. He did something special to set Adam apart and make him the first "human" in the modern sense of the word, imbuing him with His image in doing so.

I'm sure someone might quibble with that or nuance it a bit, but that's my understanding of the position. Please correct me if I have misrepresented it.

Thank you for this Tim. I truly ask out of ignorance, wanting to make sure that my scorn is a properly-informed scorn.

 

[Marrow Man]

And the lengths as well. But I think you might be thinking about "the missing link," a reference which absolutely requires the posting of this video:

[video=youtube;SQG10A-ymtg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQG10A-ymtg[/video]

 

[Marrow Man]

Thank you for this Tim. I truly ask out of ignorance, wanting to make sure that my scorn is a properly-informed scorn.

I think your scorn is entirely proper. For a more detailed analysis of why this is so important, I would HIGHLY recommend the following interview with Richard Phillips (no relation) on The Reformed Forum:

The Historical Adam - Reformed Forum

 

[KSon]

. . . at what point during the "evolutionary process" did man become the image of God? This question would seem to bring out the oxymoronic nature of claiming to be an "Evangelical Evolutionist", as Colin pointed out.

Or, at what point did Genesis morph from from being a non-literal, symbolic, or quasi-mystical account of creation, to the literal, historical narrative of the Fall? Absurdity.

I think these obviously go hand-in-hand dear brother. To reject the biblical account of creation (which, of course, they would claim they are not) has massive ramifications for our understanding of who God is, as well as our proper place relationally and relatively.

Indeed! I was just following up with affirmation.

And I was just affirming the affirmation, though, upon further reading, not in a particularly affirming way.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

. . . at what point during the "evolutionary process" did man become the image of God? This question would seem to bring out the oxymoronic nature of claiming to be an "Evangelical Evolutionist", as Colin pointed out.

Or, at what point did Genesis morph from from being a non-literal, symbolic, or quasi-mystical account of creation, to the literal, historical narrative of the Fall? Absurdity.

I think these obviously go hand-in-hand dear brother. To reject the biblical account of creation (which, of course, they would claim they are not) has massive ramifications for our understanding of who God is, as well as our proper place relationally and relatively.

Indeed! I was just following up with affirmation.

Actually, Josh, you may have only intended an affirmation, but your observation makes a legitimate exegetical and theological question. If God's word is always infallible and inerrant, why did God allow his Church to read it incorrectly as history for over 3000 years until the advent of modern "science"? When did the Chruch start to get it "wrong" and take it "literally"? Is this really a legitimate development in theology and exegesis or just a Christianized version of "chronological snobbery"?

 

[lynnie]

Marrow Man is correct for Keller and some others. At a fixed point in time God gave a human eternal soul to the animal primate who became Adam. ( not sure if Eve came from his rib but probably not). There was a literal first Adam in a garden with a fall into sin and Romans is literal for the most part. Death means spiritual death, not animal death. This is at least a somewhat tolerable view, sort of, that does not deny literal Pauline teaching.

For others with Genesis as song and poetry and symbol, the interpretations are all over the place.

"To develop a Biologos narrative is "the job of pastors," Keller said." Well, you pastors better get busy.......

 

[Zach]

The first Overture seeks a declaration on the historical, biblical account of Adam (which is under attack), affirming what is already the Westminster summary.

The second Overture seeks to have the other Overture answered with reference to general notions about "in thesi" statements by General Assembly- that is, since it is already the standard, the constitution, upheld by oath, there is no need to re-state it.

So what are the implications on future questions regarding this topic if the answer to the first overture is answered with the second overture? Does that answer the first for good? Or will this be a topic revisited time and time again? Please excuse my ignorance as to how General Assembly works.

 

[jwright82]

Isn't the first overture redundent? I mean the confession is clear on this as well as the report on creation?

PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000

 

[Scott1]

The first Overture seeks a declaration on the historical, biblical account of Adam (which is under attack), affirming what is already the Westminster summary.

The second Overture seeks to have the other Overture answered with reference to general notions about "in thesi" statements by General Assembly- that is, since it is already the standard, the constitution, upheld by oath, there is no need to re-state it.

So what are the implications on future questions regarding this topic if the answer to the first overture is answered with the second overture? Does that answer the first for good? Or will this be a topic revisited time and time again? Please excuse my ignorance as to how General Assembly works.

While the second Overture (answering "in thesi" statements with regard to past General Assembly actions and the Standards) is well intentioned, and there is an underlying point- it will not be adopted.

First, the General Assembly by Chapter 16 in the PCA Form of Government (Book of Church Order) is clear that General Assembly can make declarations if it so wishes as part of its function as a spiritual court.

Second, it is unusual to have one Overture seek to have General Assembly answer a contemporaneous Overture in a certain way. Imagine if Overtures were commonly generated proposing responses to each other. It's the job of General Assembly, after recommendation by Overtures Committee to decide each Overture on its own terms. It's not the function of Presbyteries to compose competing answers to each other's overtures by General Assembly.

In addition, General Assembly has made "in thesi" declarations in the past, so it's not even unusual. How could a longstanding process like that be restricted by one Overture, which does not even propose to amend anything (Book of Church Order or Westminster Standards). It could not.

The concern of Overture 26 is constantly restating things that are already in the Constitution, that being unnecessary and possibly even undermining the authority of the Constitution, and oath to it.

But sometimes General Assembly wishes to re-state biblical truth under attack, and that it will do.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

Isn't the first overture redundent? I mean the confession is clear on this as well as the report on creation?

PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000

The Overture repeats a basic doctrine that is the summary of the doctrine of Scripture by the Westminster Standards. It elaborates on that and is intended to address some recent theories that undermine it that are being promoted by books, recordings and seminars.

So, it's not really redundant, meaning repeating something that is already being done (any more than preaching the Gospel more than one time is redundant).

It's exhorting biblical truth and directing it specifically at something- a cottage industry that is promoting these (ever changing) theories by appearance of quasi church authority.

Remember, in the PCA, a study committee report is to be given "due and serious" consideration by lower spiritual courts (sessions and presbyteries) deliberating a matter, but is not the same as constitutional authority (Book of Church Order and Westminster Standards).

 

[Zach]

Thanks for explaining that to me, Scott.

 

[jwright82]

The Overture repeats a basic doctrine that is the summary of the doctrine of Scripture by the Westminster Standards. It elaborates on that and is intended to address some recent theories that undermine it that are being promoted by books, recordings and seminars.

So, it's not really redundant, meaning repeating something that is already being done (any more than preaching the Gospel more than one time is redundant).

It's exhorting biblical truth and directing it specifically at something- a cottage industry that is promoting these (ever changing) theories by appearance of quasi church authority.

Remember, in the PCA, a study committee report is to be given "due and serious" consideration by lower spiritual courts (sessions and presbyteries) deliberating a matter, but is not the same as constitutional authority (Book of Church Order and Westminster Standards).

Thanks, that makes more sense. How do you think the 10th overture will fare in the GA?

 

[Scott1]

You're welcome, James.

It's possible the Overture will be answered with reference to the Westminster Standards, but more likely it will be commended by the Overtures Committee and adopted by the Assembly.

 

[jwright82]

Its all part of my diabolical plot Josh. Today I infect the PB with my bad spelling and grammer, tommorow the world (insert loud maniacal laugh). Not even the Batman can stop me now. , my victory dance.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Unless they put some teeth into enforcing the overture if passed, it will go the way of all the PCUS overtures rejecting evolution - even as late as 1924.

 

[John Bunyan]

. . . at what point during the "evolutionary process" did man become the image of God? This question would seem to bring out the oxymoronic nature of claiming to be an "Evangelical Evolutionist", as Colin pointed out.

Or, at what point did Genesis morph from from being a non-literal, symbolic, or quasi-mystical account of creation, to the literal, historical narrative of the Fall? Absurdity.

I think these obviously go hand-in-hand dear brother. To reject the biblical account of creation (which, of course, they would claim they are not) has massive ramifications for our understanding of who God is, as well as our proper place relationally and relatively.

Indeed! I was just following up with affirmation.

Actually, Josh, you may have only intended an affirmation, but your observation makes a legitimate exegetical and theological question. If God's word is always infallible and inerrant, why did God allow his Church to read it incorrectly as history for over 3000 years until the advent of modern "science"? When did the Chruch start to get it "wrong" and take it "literally"? Is this really a legitimate development in theology and exegesis or just a Christianized version of "chronological snobbery"?

Well, that's exactly what roman catholics say about the reformation "So why did God allowed his Church to go wrongheaded for 1500 years before an "illuminated monk" would show us all the right path? Why did early councils defend positions contrary to your RPW nonsense and other protestant ideas downgrading Holy Tradition and the one Holy Apostolic Catholic Blessed United Church that were widely accepted by the vast majority of christianity for 15 centuries and still are today - like bishops, liturgy and so forth, accepted by catholics, eastern christians and some protestants alike?"

That objection could be better phrased. People usually say "why should the rest of genesis be treated any differently than it's Creation Account?".