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:

Sexual chemistry is extremely powerful, with effects that have been compared to that of taking highly addictive drugs such as cocaine. It is nothing to be dealt with lightly, as can be seen from the havoc and wrecked lives left in its wake.

Most Christians enter into marriage thinking neither spouse will have an extramarital affair, but it does happen, as we sadly know. Here is some practical advice for protecting and strengthening your marriage.
Countless affairs are ignited by “chemistry.”
Extramarital affairs can start because of sexual chemistry—and Christians should never underestimate the power of this kind of chemistry. We hear stories of pastors having affairs, and we wonder how that could happen. Of course he knew better—he is a pastor! What a hypocrite! Well, most of the time, it’s likely that sexual chemistry ignited the fuse.
It is helpful to recognize the role hormones play when it comes to the feelings of sexual attraction humans experience. According to the research institute ASDN (Atomic Scale Design Network),
First attraction, first “sparks” in the air followed by falling in love are caused by combination of three neurochemicals: phenylethylamine, norepinephrine and dopamine. Later stages of long relationships are guided by another two: oxytocin and serotonin…Phenylethylamine (PEA), acts as a releasing agent of norepinephrine and dopamine. The first attraction causes us to produce more PEA, which results in those dizzying feelings associated with romantic love. Large quantities of PEA increase both physical and emotional energy and at the same time release more dopamine.
Be acutely aware of the difference between feelings of friendship and sexual chemistry.
To be clear, this kind of chemistry is not a deep, abiding feeling of friendship for someone of the opposite sex. According to psychologist Dario Nardi in his article “PEA—The Hormone of Love,” the hormones involved in feelings of sexual attraction result in infatuation and produce sensations that include giddiness, “butterflies” in the stomach, sleeplessness, and a narrow focus on a particular person.
“Chemistry” can ignite suddenly and unexpectedly. What was once a nice friendship can become sexually charged in an instant.
Sexual chemistry can be even more powerful when the illicit relationship has appealing aspects that are missing in your marriage, because you may be starved for them and not even realize it. Yet, as Nardi explains, the effects of hormones such as phenylethylamine (PEA), norepinephrine, and dopamine don’t last forever:

For better or worse, after a certain period of eighteen months to four years the body builds up a tolerance to the effects of PEA and related hormones.

Even though the feelings of attraction that are produced by hormones such as PEA are likely to diminish over time, the destructive effects of an affair remain. Sometimes a marriage can still be saved at that point—but not always.
This reduction in certain hormones may also be a significant reason why married couples tend to struggle with feeling as romantic with each other as they did when they were dating. It’s good to be aware of this, so you don’t think there is something wrong because these feelings have diminished.
Flee from inappropriate sexual chemistry.
You should never play with fire and sexual chemistry is no different in that aspect, as both can produce disastrous results. If you find you have sexual chemistry with someone who is not your spouse—or the person is married and you are single—the best thing you can do is stay away from that person as much as possible. We find a good example of this in the Bible where Joseph had to repeatedly refuse the advances of Potiphar’s wife and eventually had to flee from her presence to avoid committing sexual sin (Gen. 39).
Read More

Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Monday, October 7, 2024
While it may be easy to embrace the beliefs of others to gain approval, we know the courageous path requires us to point others to the truth, even when it’s inconvenient or unpopular. It’s time for the Church to take this second path. We’ve spent far too much time trying to become like the world in order to win its acceptance, rather than having the moral courage to make the case for what we believe.

I had a discussion with one of my kids recently about the natural inclination we all have to be adored. Let’s face it, we all want to be accepted, loved, admired and embraced; it’s difficult when you find yourself on the “outside looking in”, shunned or ignored by those who are popular or influential. We are innately social creatures; we thrive on the adoration of others, even when it comes at a great price. There are times when our decision to do the “right thing” will put us at odds with the people we hope to endear. There are times when our Christian standard must dictate our actions, rather than our desire to be accepted by friends who possess a different standard altogether. In times like these, it’s better to be respected than liked.
The Choice Between Influence and Acceptance
Popularity often requires agreement. It’s easy to like people who hold the same opinions and values. It’s not really surprising, therefore, that many of us, in an effort to be liked, try to find a way to come to agreement with the people around us. And that’s where the trouble usually starts. There are two ways to form agreement:
1. Influence others toward our position, or2. Simply embrace the positions of others
We can try to move them toward us, or we can simply move toward them. One of these strategies will ensure our likability but the other is the path to respect.
There’s a great danger in moving toward the values and opinions of the culture, especially when we take a hard look at the culture we live in. Even the least religious among us would have to admit that we live in a society that often embraces the lowest common denominator. I have friends who are non-believers. Like me, they limit the exposure their young kids have to television, the Internet and other forms of media. Why?
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.