The AIC Report wishes to exclude is any idea that kinds become other kinds. While there is certainly variation that happens within a kind of animal (as birds or dog breeds and other examples of speciation illustrate), the problematic issue is macro-evolution’s teaching that a kind can become another kind. Hence, when we read that God created “each according to its kind,” this would not mean that kinds turned into other kinds (e.g., molecules-to-man evolution), but that each kind was a separate creation of God in lineage.

Perhaps you have heard the question before: “Did Adam have a Belly Button?” Perhaps a related question once asked in a presbytery exam would reveal the issue more clearly: “Was Adam nursed by a physical mother?” Particularly in view in these questions is the topic of theistic evolution in various forms and – in particular – the question of whether Adam could have come from a pre-existent being or lifeform (often called a hominid). An officer or officer candidate in the PCA holding such a view would have to declare his position as a stated difference (thereby allowing the examining court to consider granting an exception) to Westminster Larger Catechism Question 17.
What follows is an analysis of the theology and history of the PCA in regard to this question through the doctrinal statements that are relevant to the question of Adam – and rational ensouled humanity as a whole – coming from previous irrational life forms.
Westminster Standards – Larger Catechism 17
The first relevant section to explore is the answer to Westminster Larger Catechism Question 17, which states:
After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; (Gen. 1:27) formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, (Gen. 2:7) and the woman of the rib of the man, (Gen. 2:22) endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; (Gen. 2:7, Job 35:11, Eccl. 12:7, Matt. 10:28, Luke 23:43) made them after his own image, (Gen. 1:27) in knowledge, (Col. 3:10) righteousness, and holiness; (Eph. 4:24) having the law of God written in their hearts, (Rom. 2:14–15) and power to fulfill it, (Eccl. 7:29) and dominion over the creatures; (Gen. 1:28) yet subject to fall. (Gen. 3:6, Eccl. 7:29).
The Larger Catechism here, quoting Scripture, clearly understands Genesis 2:7 in the plain meaning of the text as the creation of Adam from dust on the sixth day of creation. Some, however, have advocated for something other than the plain meaning of these words. Such interpretations have been seen in theologians as notable as B.B. Warfield. This has led some men to reinterpret this phrase “from the dust of the ground” as the dust being the primordial mud, or from previously existing material (hence a hominid).
Adam in the Courts of the PCA
In the historical context of the PCA, a Study Report on Creation was commissioned nearly a quarter century ago due to the variety of exceptions being taken on the topic of creation in ordination and licensure exams in the PCA. On this subject, the PCA’s Study Report considered and answered one such conjecture:
A kind of “theistic evolutionary” view that has important historical relevance for  confessional Presbyterians is the one that allows that Adam’s body was the  product of evolutionary development (second causes working alone under divine  providence), and that his special creation involved the imparting of a rational soul  to a highly-developed hominid. This view has been associated with James Woodrow and Benjamin Warfield (at least early in his career). 
We can supply a strong critique of such a construct from exegesis of Genesis 1— 2, where, as John Murray observed (Collected Writings, 2:8), in Genesis 2:7 the man became an animate being by the in-breathing, and by implication was not one  beforehand (for his body to have had animal ancestry, the man’s ancestors must  have been animate beings). 
We may also critique the view from the anthropology involved: man is a body soul nexus, and the body must have the capacities to support the expression of  God’s image; such a body cannot be the product of second causes alone. 
Finally, we should note that this kind of “theistic evolution” is an unstable  metaphysical hybrid: it tries to combine the naturalistic picture of the development of the capabilities necessary to support the human soul, with the  supernaturalist acknowledgment of the divine origin of what distinguishes us from  the animals. This combines elements from incompatible metaphysical positions.[1]
Read More
Related Posts:

There is nothing stopping the majority of pastors from teaching basic systematics and biblical theology in their churches. Most could have a reasonable stab at historical theology and ecclesiology too. Assuming they’re able to teach the Bible at all, I’d imagine hermeneutics are going to be there too. 

One of the great things about believing the Holy Spirit works in God’s people to help them understand the scriptures, and of believing in the perspicuity of the scriptures themselves, is that we ought to recognise all believers are capable of reading and understanding God’s Word. I won’t run through all the caveats (that I’m sure you’re familiar with) about what perspicuity actually means and how we might understand what the scriptures have to say. Let me just leave the bald statement here: all believers ought to be able to understand the scriptures for themselves in some measure.
Most pastors not only believe this, but reckon their job is therefore to show people what the scriptures say, what they mean and how they apply to us. I was talking to someone who was going to be leading a bible study at our church about this. We both recognised you could run any bible study armed only with these three questions: (1) what does this say?; (2) what does it mean?; and, (3) how does that apply to us? Even in our sermons, nothing should really come as a surprise to any of our people as we’re speaking. Everything we say they ought to be able to see in the pages they’re reading.
We tend to recognise that bible study and sermon prep is often much more complicated than it needs to be. I’ve heard more than a few pastors say something similar to what I said above concerning bible study. The emphasis is always on the fact that our people can understand this and they can teach the bible. They’ve convince themselves they can’t and that they need the experts to come and tell them, but the truth is, they can make observations on the text, work out what it means and then apply it too. Most of the time they just lack confidence. Lots of pastors actually spend their time trying to build that confidence in our people, showing them how we do it so that they can do it for themselves. We’re aiming to show them that they can read and understand the scriptures and don’t need the experts to tell them; they have the greatest interpretive expert dwelling inside of them!
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

We must all grow in true Christian teaching lest we be “carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14). But we should use Scripture, and especially the preached Word, not as ammunition for disagreement but as a means of grace to strengthen our faith in Christ. Instead of looking for the preacher’s shortcomings (see Luke 11:54), we should listen like prospectors eagerly panning for gold, examining what we hear with Spirit-generated charity.

When you read in Scripture that church members must submit to their leaders (e.g., Heb. 13:17), do you cringe, imagining servile compliance to even unbiblical demands? When you hear Luke praising the Bereans for fact-checking Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11), do you hear an endorsement for church members independently evaluating which parts of pastoral leadership they’ll respect?
Both those responses are wrong.
Yet Scripture does require us to be both submissive and thoughtful. These two principles are hard for us to harmonize; we mustn’t reject proper authority or abdicate our responsibility to be intelligent listeners. There must be another way.
The closing admonitions of the book of Hebrews call church members to submit to their leaders and practice discernment by refusing to be “led away by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9). We must submit thoughtfully.
What Is Thoughtful Submission?
Thoughtful submission is the practice of respecting and obeying proper church authority while maintaining a biblically judicious walk with God.
God Requires Believers to Be Submissive
The author of Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account” (13:17). We must trust them, listen to them, and heed their biblical instruction. In traditional vows for church membership, members promise to “submit to the government of the church,” and “to its admonition and discipline” in the sad event of personal backsliding.
Church leaders are overseers under Christ (Acts 20:28), tasked by him to use the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose on earth as he does in heaven through the preaching of the Word and the practice of church discipline (Matt. 16:19). This is a challenging command. Our leaders are ordinary and flawed people; they’re peers who wield Christ’s authority. Yet as we love and submit to them, we show our love for and submission to God (see 1 John 4:20).
But submission isn’t servility.
God Requires Believers to Be Discerning
The Reformation rejected the Roman Catholic notion of implicit faith, or an uninformed trust in church teaching. Seventeenth-century Reformed theologian Francis Turretin argued that Roman Catholic leaders sheltered the Bible that they might “the more easily . . . subject the people to them by a blind obedience.” But God calls faithful Christians to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). This requires more than simply accepting what a church leader says. 
The “noble” Bereans exhibit this discernment. “They received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). By refusing to be ruled by human opinions, they exemplify the calling of all believers to share in Christ’s priestly anointing, striving “with a free conscience against sin and the devil,” as one Reformation catechism puts it.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.