Contrary to the uncharitable assumptions of some of our detractors, we do not rejoice in being a “micro” denomination, either in terms of size or strictness. We believe that there are many who share our convictions and look for the Lord to add to our number in His time. We believe that there should be latitude in matters beyond our common commitments. However, we respectfully disagree with the prevailing wisdom of our sister denominations in the matter of defining what is a sufficient common commitment as to provide for the lasting peace and unity of the Church.
Dear Readers of the Aquila Report,
Though we greatly respect those who edify so many with this publication, we did not request our Testimony and Covenant to be posted on the Aquila Report, as we take no delight in the weakness of the Bride of Christ and did not wish to magnify her failings. As to the accusations which have been posted in response to this announcement, we do not regard the court of public opinion to be the proper venue before which to lay the evidence which would clear our names and put to shame those who have slandered us. The evidence would surely sadden and shock you as it has us, would edify no one, and would only bring more grievous dishonor to the name of Christ before a watching world. At our separation from Vanguard Presbytery, we provided evidence to our brothers there sufficient to provide our rationale for leaving, to clear our names of the baseless slanders and threats of legal suit which this same member of that presbytery was already making, and to provide them with the evidence they should require to hold this rogue presbyter to account. As to the slanders which have been repeated since we left, we refer these to Vanguard Presbytery’s attention, as they are the party which Christ has made responsible to address the chief source of the slander. If Vanguard Presbytery publicly denounces these slanders, then we will consider ourselves vindicated of these baseless attacks and will gladly keep the shameful evidence which exonerates us as contained as possible. (1 Cor. 12:23) If Vanguard Presbytery continues a pattern of refusal to hold this individual to account and does not denounce these accusations, we will consider ourselves further vindicated in our decision to leave and will continue to make available the documentation proving our innocence of these charges to any who contact us and have need to know. In the interim, we are content that the unprejudiced child of God is already able to discern in the slanders against us, the anger of a man not accomplishing the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)
For those who have been quick to criticize us, we are not overly concerned about the opinions of those who lack the information or jurisdiction to render any just judgment. “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” (Prov. 18:13) With Paul, we are content to answer before the throne of Christ. “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” (1 Cor. 4:3-5)
To address the matter of why we felt compelled to form a new denomination upon separation from Vanguard Presbytery, we wish to clarify that we count those of many other denominations as brothers in Christ and legitimate expressions of the visible Church. We firmly believe in the catholicity of the Church. We are not schismatics without love for Christ’s Church or a desire for her unity. However, we have not been able to find any of our sister reformed presbyterian denominations which require faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards without either allowing exceptions or adding their own distinctive requirements.
Contrary to the uncharitable assumptions of some of our detractors, we do not rejoice in being a “micro” denomination, either in terms of size or strictness. We believe that there are many who share our convictions and look for the Lord to add to our number in His time. We believe that there should be latitude in matters beyond our common commitments. However, we respectfully disagree with the prevailing wisdom of our sister denominations in the matter of defining what is a sufficient common commitment as to provide for the lasting peace and unity of the Church. We do not claim any such wisdom as to provide our own answer to this question, recognizing the wisdom set forth in the creeds of the Church, most especially the Westminster Standards of Faith. As stated in our Book of Church Order:
“Our Constitution requires faithful subscription to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly as adopted with minor revisions by the initial synod of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in 1788. By faithful subscription, is meant what has sometimes been described as “strict” or “full” subscription, specifically, that the main point of each paragraph of the Confession and each answer of the Catechisms is subscribed to without reservation. Thus, it is the solemn obligation of the Presbytery to determine that the candidate so faithfully subscribes, or else the Presbytery must determine that the candidate has not sustained his examination.”
All of our sister reformed presbyterian denominations join in admiration of the wisdom of the Westminster Assembly in producing a magnificent summary of biblical truth. However, the Westminster Standards were not written abstractly as a summary of the biblical system of doctrine, but specifically to provide the core of Christian theology necessary to provide a sufficient foundation for the union of the Christian church. While we grant that this Assembly and its documents are fallible, we believe that church history bears out the wisdom of the Assembly in identifying the doctrines they did as being necessary to secure peaceful and lasting unity. By allowing exceptions to the Standards, whether more generally as “system” subscription provides, or more specifically, as a departure from the plain language of the statement regarding Creation exemplifies, other reformed presbyterian denominations have rejected the wisdom of the Westminster Divines in this respect. Rather than eliminating division, consolidating differing convictions on these essential matters within a denomination only serves to bring the lines of division within the denomination. As a current example, the division between PCA Missouri Presbytery and certain other presbyteries in the PCA is no less a real division than the divisions which exist between denominations. We certainly do not rejoice in this strife, but recognize that differences over such fundamental issues within any association of churches is not sustainable. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” (Mark 3:25) While we are under no delusions that ours will be a fellowship free of the spots and blemishes which are common to this age of the Church, we do hope that by requiring faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards, we will be able to avoid much of the disunity and strife which men of differing convictions must engage in elsewhere, such that we can pursue our ministry of fulfilling the Great Commission without such distractions and pain of conscience as are burdening our brothers in other fellowships.
Free from the covenant obligation of contending with others who simply do not share our convictions, we desire to share to the greatest extent possible ecumenical partnership and fraternal relations with other expressions of the visible Church which are pursuing the same ministry on behalf of the same Lord and Savior. However, the realization which motivates us above all else is that by holding the essential tenets of the Reformed Faith without apology, as expressed in the Westminster Standards, we can best serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As God knows our hearts, it is not from any sense of superiority or pride, but because we would rather contend with the evil of this world in the power of God than with brothers of different convictions, that we have joined together to form the Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church with faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards as our defining distinctive.
We love Christ, we love Christ’s Church, and we do not believe that Christ is best served when the Church is employing her gifts and expending her time and energy in an inward facing war. As sad as the multiplication of denominations may be, we believe that separating from brothers holding fundamentally different convictions is a more honest and more peaceful approach to the division which must exist among us over issues of truth, than is the attempt to remain in a common fellowship marked by constant strife. Christ will bless the ministry of those who are standing for what He approves, and we look for the Holy Spirit to continue disciplining each of our fellowships such that as we all draw closer to Christ and become more faithful to his Word, we might see a day when our fellowships might reunite. Until then, we do not have the heart to fight against brothers when there is so much work at hand to carry out the Great Commission where Christ has placed us. We have seen the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and have many new converts and covenant families to disciple as well as older saints to edify as we continue the ministry which Christ has given us. To any who would call us away from this work to defend our names of baseless accusations or to engage in an endless war against brothers in an existing fellowship, we say with Nehemiah “I am doing a great work and cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?” (Neh. 6:3) God will bring all things to light in time and until then, we cannot think of anything better than to entrust our souls to a faithful Creator while doing good. (1 Pet. 4:19)
Stated ClerkChrist Reformed Presbyterian Church
Related Posts:

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:

So don’t be bitter. Especially since what you think about your parents reveals what you think about God. If you’re bitter about your parents, then you’re not being grateful to God. Still, forgiving your dishonourable father isn’t the only way to honour him. The Bible says, “The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who fathers a wise son will be glad in him.” (Proverbs 23:24). Meaning, we should honour our dishonourable fathers by honouring the only perfectly honourable father: God. 

You should honour your dishonourable father—God commands that of you.
The fifth commandment says: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” Exodus 20:12
On Father’s Day this Sunday, many of you will probably honour your honourable fathers. But what about those of us with dishonourable fathers? What about those of us with bad fathers?
Or in my case, what about those of us with absentee fathers?
The fifth commandment doesn’t say, “honour your good father and good mother.” No, it says: “honour your father and your mother.” No matter who your parents are—no matter what they’ve done or haven’t done, God commands you to honour them.
God doesn’t say we should honour our parents because of their good character. He suggests we should honour them because of their position. In other words, we should honour our fathers not because they are good parents—but because they are our parents. Meaning, we shouldn’t honour our parents primarily because of what they’ve done for us; we should honour our parents because of what God has done for us through them.
This, of course, doesn’t mean adults need to obey their parents. Adults are no longer under their parent’s authority. This also doesn’t mean people who have abusive parents should place themselves in harmful positions. Suspending relationships with abusive, unrepentant parents is necessary. However, just as God commands us to honour bad emperors, he also commands us to honour bad parents. (1 Peter 2:17-18)
But what does that mean? What does it look like to honour a dishonourable father?
I think it’s simply to seek to do good to a bad father. I think it’s to do for your bad father what God does for his bad children.
If you have a dishonourable father, honour him by being willing to forgive him.
If you’re a Christian, though you’re a sinner—though you’re a bad child—doesn’t God forgive you? If your good father honours you with forgiveness, then return that honour to your bad father. Be willing to forgive them. Even if your father curses you, bless them. The Bible says, “bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” (Luke 6:28)
After all, whatever your parents have done or haven’t done to you—you’ve done much worse to God.
So don’t be bitter. Especially since what you think about your parents reveals what you think about God. If you’re bitter about your parents, then you’re not being grateful to God.
Still, forgiving your dishonourable father isn’t the only way to honour him. The Bible says, “The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who fathers a wise son will be glad in him.” (Proverbs 23:24).
Read More
Related Posts: