By God’s grace, under Christ’s authority, we vow to strive for purity, peace, and Scriptural order in the formation of the Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church. Therefore, we endeavor to exclude those who disturb her peace, corrupt her testimony, and subvert her established forms from her communion. Therefore, as previous generations of Presbyterians did before us, we covenant together as elders in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ to be “True to the Scriptures, the Reformed Faith, and the Great Commission!”

In order to guard against committing the same errors of our past affiliation, we submit this as our Testimony and Covenant.
Our Testimony
Brethren beloved in the Lord:
As to the crisis in which we now find ourselves, we are conscience bound to separate from those constitutional abuses and alarming theological errors, which have been perpetrated by many and now have been approved and sustained by a majority in the highest court of Vanguard Presbytery. Not wanting these failures to lead to this, we had hoped for more brotherly treatment and a willingness to hear all sides. At the least, we had expected from her stated commitments there would be a willingness to hear and consider Holy Scripture in her deliberations. Sadly, we have found that this has not been the case at all. Rather, we have seen a party spirit, deference to men, justification by legislation, an overturning of our Book of Church Order, and our most solemn covenant together broken by supplanting the Word of God with the word of man, and thus effectively denying the Headship of Christ over His Church. This most basic tenet of Biblical Presbyterianism being denied at the highest court of Vanguard Presbytery, we see no other recourse but to separate from her fellowship and form a denomination which will by the grace of God be a faithful expression of Biblical Presbyterianism and a true continuation of the work of Christ in history to call and perfect his Bride.
We love God in Christ; we love God’s Word; we stand in the long line and rich history of the Presbyterian Church. While we freely acknowledge that it is a history marked by the spots and wrinkles which Christ is progressively removing by the washing of water with the Word, we rejoice to give God the glory for the manifold testimony of His grace in working in and through her. With joy, we look back in history at her instrumentality in promoting the welfare of men; her love of human rights; her efforts for the advancement of human happiness; her clear testimonies for the truth of God, and her tremendous and blessed efforts to enlarge and establish the kingdom of Christ our Lord. We delight to dwell on the things our God has wrought by our beloved Church. We pray His grace will enable us to resolve to continue these earthly blessings, that our children shall not have the same occasion to weep over unfaithfulness as we have experienced in leaving Vanguard Presbytery. Sadly, a survey of the larger Presbyterian Church offers us no alternatives which promise to uphold the tenets of The Reformed Faith without apology. We are encouraged by the kingdom promises of our Lord Jesus Christ that He will honor those who honor Him, and would rather stand with a few for Christ, than with many against Him.
Our Covenant
Persuaded that if God is for us, who can be against us, we are committing to be a faithful continuation of all that is faithful in our glorious heritage in Biblical Presbyterianism as practiced by the Apostolic Church and largely rediscovered in the Protestant Reformation. As the only infallible rule of faith and practice, we vow and commit together to keep the Word of God at the center of all our deliberations and actions, desiring above all else to hear the voice of Christ speaking and ruling in His Church, which is the best evidence of His walking among us and the best means we have of showing the honor due to His eminence. For the honor of Christ’s name, for the witness of the Church to the world, for the preservation of the deposit entrusted to us for future generations of the people of God, we cannot stand idly by and behold the ruin of this glorious edifice we know as the Presbyterian Church.
“Now I plead with you brethren,” says the Apostle, “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Cor. 1:10 NKJV) Therefore, in the presence of that Redeemer, we wholeheartedly affirm that the standard of doctrine and ecclesiastical order here subscribed to is that known as The Reformed Faith and Presbyterian church government, as definitively and infallibly revealed in Holy Scripture and as faithfully though fallibly summarized in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.
By God’s grace, under Christ’s authority, we vow to strive for purity, peace, and Scriptural order in the formation of the Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church. Therefore, we endeavor to exclude those who disturb her peace, corrupt her testimony, and subvert her established forms from her communion. Therefore, as previous generations of Presbyterians did before us, we covenant together as elders in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ to be “True to the Scriptures, the Reformed Faith, and the Great Commission!”
Therefore, our commitment is to follow Jesus Christ, the only actual Head of His Church. We humbly stand upon the shoulders of past faithful servants of Christ. We will obey our Lord’s commandment to disciple the nations and baptize them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey all of Christ’s commands, ministering under that great and encouraging promise, the blessing of His presence.
Signed and adopted, May 8th, 2022, by the inaugural assembly of Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Source
Related Posts:

What would Francis Schaeffer say to the evangelical church today?[1] To answer this question, I first must highlight two crucial aspects of Schaeffer’s life and ministry. First, the burden of his life was to teach that the message of Christianity isn’t primarily about “religious experiences,” but about “true Truth.” Second, in contending for the truth, Schaeffer sought to do so with gentleness and compassion, and by doing so to practice simultaneously the holiness and love of God. To uphold God’s holiness requires that we stand against falsehood and unrighteousness. To uphold God’s love requires that we stand for the truth while also remembering life’s brokenness, including our own, and to walk moment-by-moment with Christ as we seek to love and honor God more than any created thing.
Throughout his entire ministry, Schaeffer practiced these two crucial points. He not only personally believed the gospel, he also taught and demonstrated that Christianity’s truth claims were really true in contrast to non-Christian thought. As such, he was willing to stand against those who either denied the truth or compromised it, and especially against those who did so within the church. Schaeffer loved and trusted Scripture. His message was the same whether chatting to individuals or addressing crowds. Honor God and revere his Word; follow Christ and submit to Scripture. What mattered to him was the trustworthiness of God’s written Word, hence the reason why he contended tirelessly for Truth in a post-truth society. For Schaeffer, if one tampers with the Bible, all is lost. This explains his concern at the end of his life regarding the direction of evangelicalism. As Schaeffer warned in his last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster, some evangelicals were in danger of compromising the full authority of Scripture, and up until his last breath, he sought to call the evangelical church back to a full commitment to Scripture and the truth of the gospel.
With this in mind, we are now able to answer the question of what Schaeffer would say to today’s evangelical church, and also to discover his ongoing relevance for Evangelicals today. I will do so in two steps. First, I will answer the question of why Schaeffer’s commitment to truth and the full authority of Scripture is still relevant for evangelicals today despite the changes that have occurred in our culture since his death. Second, I will conclude with what I believe Schaeffer would say to us today.
Schaeffer’s Commitment to “True Truth”: Is it Relevant for Evangelicals Today?
Many evangelicals, I think, would be hesitant to answer yes. Why? So much has changed. For one thing Schaeffer died before Postmodernism took center stage. More specifically, his stress on antithesis and confrontation was a bone of contention even during his lifetime and the reaction to this would be stronger today: at best impractical, at worst offensive, unloving, and fractious. As a friend put it, why focus on Truth when people are interested only in experience, or why contend with falsehood when everyone just wants to be tolerant and accepting?
This attitude to Schaeffer’s alleged rationalism and commitment to “true Truth” is unfortunate because his opposition to the Enlightenment could not have been clearer. For example, Schaeffer argued strongly that, “the central ideas of the Enlightenment stand in complete antithesis to Christian truth. More than this, they are an attack on God himself and his character.”[2]
Nevertheless, some evangelicals have argued that his commitment to objective Truth reflects the Enlightenment more than the Bible: that he was wrong to talk of “propositional revelation;” that he emphasized the mind too much; that his view of inerrancy was too literalistic; that he was too dogmatic, etc. Their dislike of the Modernist tradition is intense. By contrast they favor the Postmodern approach. They see it as more congenial to faith, more accepting, more open, more attentive to the heart rather than the head. Those who think this way conspicuously overlook Schaeffer’s warnings back in 1974 when he spoke in Lausanne. His message was blunt: if the Enlightenment was bad the existential methodology is worse. In Schaeffer’s view its foundations are like shifting sand, its proposals like poison.
The irony here is striking. Despite Postmodernism’s dislike of Modernism, we must never forget that it is itself derived from Modernism. Once Descartes and the Empiricists started to work out the logic of their ideas, they ran into difficulty. David Hume realized that even causality (the sine qua non of science) was a problem: “Do I sense the cause in causality” he asked, “or do I merely observe two consecutive events? I see billiard ball number one strike billiard ball number two—but do I observe ‘cause?’” Evidently not. With his empirical foundation, he had no answer—even though he admitted he couldn’t operate like this when playing board-games with his friends! Immanuel Kant tried to respond, but it was a hopeless task. Knowledge, like everything else, requires a metaphysical source. As a result, Modernism gradually nose-dived into Existentialism, which in turn morphed into Postmodernism—but only because the original epistemology was inadequate. When the cracks started to appear, the philosophers should have acknowledged that they had taken the wrong turn. On this point, Schaeffer was entirely on point!
But that was precisely what the Postmodernists didn’t do. Instead of back-tracking to reconsider where they’d come from, namely, the Christian worldview, they carried European thought towards “the hermeneutic of suspicion.” All attempts to establish worldviews based on rationality, they said, are suspect. According to Jacques Derrida, for example, not even language works that way. “Nothing exists outside the text,” he said. In other words, everything is an interpretation. No definitive explanation of anything is possible because language itself is relative. Similarly, Jean-François Lyotard dismissed all metanarratives, all, that is, which claim to be true and therefore exclusive—especially Christianity. Overarching stories of what life is about and how best to live are valid, but only as stories, never as “Truth.” Michel Foucault undermined things further by arguing that language, like everything else in society, is just a power-game: powerful social groups dominating others—oppressors/their victims, men/women, rich/poor, white/black, Europeans/colonials and so on.
The net effect of the postmodern slide was catastrophic. Particularly in relation to that, sadly, many have failed to appreciate the importance of what Schaeffer said about “rationality” and “rationalism.” This goes a long way to identify Postmodernism’s essential flaws and to show how best to counteract them.
In the first place, he said, Christianity isn’t rationalistic because it rests upon the reality of creation. It doesn’t start with the human mind. That was Descartes’ mistake. When he said, “I think, therefore I am” his assertion raised an obvious question: where does the (knowing) “self” come from in the first place? No answer. He just assumed it. By comparison, the Bible starts further back: it says the individual is able to think only because he or she is a creature created by the triune personal God. Given this starting point, rational thought itself—the great stumbling block of modern secular philosophy—becomes intelligible. Christianity also deals with the problem of sin and insists humanity needs a supernatural Savior because guilt is real and has to be atoned. Only Christ can do this, because he is the divine Son of God. Human attempts to merit salvation are worthless. In short, the Bible is God-centered throughout.
The second distinction Schaeffer used a lot was between “true knowledge, but not exhaustive knowledge.” What he meant is that human knowledge is limited, of necessity, because all our experience is superficial. No one knows even the tiniest thing completely. We see bits and pieces only. In addition, each person is unique. No two people share the same background or have the same interests or gifts. Yet the human mind is adequate: it grasps truth adequately if not exhaustively. Its limitations don’t invalidate either rationality or communication. Our experiences, though individual, are reciprocal.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the Beginning was a delight to read – personally it brought me back to many of the OT lectures I enjoyed from Dr. Van Dam in my seminary years.  While I found it enjoyable, there may be others who will find it tough-going at times.  It’s not highly technical, but in places Van Dam does go academic. 

Dr. C. Van Dam begins his latest book by explicitly laying out his presuppositions.  He’s upfront about his non-negotiable assumptions and biases.  As I review his book, it’s appropriate that I share mine too.  I share his presuppositions about Scripture as the trustworthy Word of God, but I also bring a personal bias to the table.  Back in the day, Van Dam was my Old Testament professor at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary.  I had an affectionate nickname for him in view of his ability to put the smack-down on unbelieving or shoddy scholarship:  “Wham-Bam-Van-Dam.”  This was always said with the greatest admiration for Dr. Van Dam.  As a seminary professor he was nothing if not thorough and careful.
This new book exhibits that same kind of comprehensive and precise approach to the two opening chapters of Scripture.  Van Dam leaves no stone unturned.  In the Beginning is an exhaustive treatment not only of the meaning of these two chapters, but also the various challenges that have been raised in Old Testament scholarship regarding them.  What you’re looking at here is not just a commentary on Genesis 1-2, but far more.
Over the last decade or so John Walton has become well-known for his views on the early chapters of Genesis.  Walton argues that we often misunderstand Genesis 1-2 because we don’t take into account the ancient Near Eastern context of these chapters.  Once we do that, says Walton, then we can see that Genesis 1-2 was never meant to be taken literally as history.  The history can then be filled in with what science teaches us, including what science says about human origins.  In chapter 2 of In the Beginning, Van Dam discusses Walton’s views at length and explains how and where they fail to do justice to the character of Scripture as the Word of God.  In my view this is the most important chapter of the book.
To whet your appetite further, let me share a selection of questions that Dr. Van Dam answers elsewhere in the book:

Can new scientific data be regarded as general revelation given by God?
What is the relationship of Scripture to science?  Is Scripture a scientific textbook?

Read More