Whereas, Larger Catechism Question 17, “How did God create man?” provides an accurate summary of Scripture’s teaching on the creation of man

The following overture has been posted on the 2012 General Assembly Web Site. To read an overture requesting the statement, read here.

OVERTURE 26 from Potomac Presbytery (to Overtures Commitee)
“Response to Requests for in thesi Statements on Evolution and Adam”

Whereas, Larger Catechism Question 17, “How did God create man?” provides an accurate summary of Scripture’s teaching on the creation of man

Whereas, the “Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America . . . consists of its doctrinal standards . . . all as adopted by the Church” (BCO Preface, III, emphasis 6 added); and

Whereas, the “Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms . . . are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expostions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice . . .” (BCO 29-1); and

Whereas, Larger Catechism Question 17, “How did God create man?” provides an accurate summary of Scripture’s teaching on the creation of man, to wit, “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 soul; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and dominion over the creatures; yet subject to fall”; and

Whereas, historically, Assemblies in our tradition have insisted that “[n]othing is law, to be enforced by judicial prosecution, but that which is contained in the Word as interpreted in our Standards” (The Digest of the Acts and Proceedings of the PCUS, 1861-1965, p. 71); and

Whereas, our wisest Old School forefathers with respect to questions of polity, clearly set forth the implications of this sound principle:

Does the same force belong to the deliverances in thesi of the higher courts as to their judicial decisions? Do the two classes of decisions regulate and determine the administration of discipline in the same way and to the same extent? Or, to express the same thing in other words, does the interpretation of a law by an appellate court—the interpretation being given in thesi—bind a court of original jurisdiction in such a sense as to deprive it of its power of judgment as to the meaning of said law, and compel it to accept and act upon the interpretation of the appellate court as the law of the Church? . . . The General Assembly of 1879 answers it clearly and unanimously in the negative; and, we think, truly and righteously. . . . (Thomas E. Peck, “The Action of the Assembly of 1879 on Worldly Amusements, or the Powers of Our Several Church Courts,” Southern Presbyterian Review (April 1880); reprinted in Miscellanies of Rev. Thomas E. Peck, edited by T.C. Johnson (Richmond, VA: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1895), II:337-338);

and

Whereas, the 10th General Assembly of the PCA embraced this wisdom in adopting the following:

It would be unwise, improper, and unconstitutional for the General Assembly to determine abstractly apart from the proper processes afforded by our constitutional standards what would disqualify a man from holding office. . . . [A]s the result of proper judicial processes, judgments may be made [by the Assembly] which determinately interpret what may or may not be in accord with our standards. Any other procedure of setting forth or compiling a list of essential or nonessential doctrines would, in effect, amend the standards by an unconstitutional method (M10GA, p. 103, III. 25);

and

Whereas, the 22nd General Assembly of the PCA reaffirmed this stance when it declared:

Were this Assembly, in the abstract, to declare either more or less than the express statements of our Constitution, it could not in that declaration either add to, nor take away from, what is constitutional with respect to these doctrines and duties; nor could such a declaration infringe upon the right and responsibility of Sessions and Presbyteries to interpret and apply the Constitution as they see best, subject always to the procedures of review and control, complaint and appeal (M22GA, p. 233, 22-6. IV. 5);

and

Whereas, the 30th General Assembly denied an overture upon recommendation from the Bills and Overtures Committee, informed by the following grounds provided by the Committee:

The General Assembly cannot determine abstractly, apart from regular process, how the courts, which under our Constitution are charged with the duty of judging the qualifications of candidates, are to interpret the Constitution in the regular discharge of their own functions. To attempt to do so would be in effect to amend the Constitution by extra-constitutional methods. (Handbook, 30th GA, p. 143, lines 19-23);

and

Whereas, there are overtures coming before the 40th General Assembly requesting an in thesi statement from the Assembly with respect to evolution and the Scripture’s teaching with respect to the creation of Adam;

Therefore be it resolved that the 40th General Assembly answer all such overtures by reference to the actions and opinions of the 10th, 22nd, 30th General Assemblies referenced above.

Adopted by Potomac Presbytery at its stated meeting, March 17, 2012
Attested by / / RE Richard T. Osborne, stated clerk