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).
, my victory dance.
