For all the tacit assumption in the evangelical world that the church’s children will have a “conversion experience,” a conscious stepping from darkness into light, this is surely not the biblical expectation. Several times witness is born to faith stretching back to infancy (Ps. 22:910, 71:56; 51 2 Tim. 3:15; cf. 1 Kgs. 18:12), and even beyond (Luke 1:15).

-- Robert Rayburn, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Covneant Succession

Charles Hodge, speaking of a revival of religion such as occurred during the Great Awakening, wrote:

No one can fail to remark that this too exclusive dependance on revivals tends to produce a false or unscriptural form of religion.... The ordinary means of grace become insipid or distasteful....Perhaps however the most deplorable result of the mistake we are now considering is, the neglect which it necessarily induces of the divinely appointed means of careful Christian nurture....

Family training of children, and pastoral instruction of the young, are almost entirely lost sight of. We have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches.

-- from Robert Rayburn, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Covneant Succession

Gentlemen, if you want to find a good wife,

(1) Improve your looks: grooming, style, body, etc.

(2) Dedicate yourself to your vocation and craft; women do want to feel financially secure, but even if you aren't well-off currently, if you demonstrate you have the skill and discipline to get there, she'll accept that, too.

(3) Literally ask her out. Talk to her dad. If she's a good woman, she'll respect you for asking even if she turns you down. And if she doesn't and makes things weird, you know she isn't a good woman. But if you've done (1) and (2), gents, I'll bet you she says yes.

It is emphatically clear from Deuteronomy to Proverbs to Ephesians that nurture, not evangelism, is the paradigm of childrearing in the covenant home, a nurture which presupposes a heart, however young, set free, or soon to be set free, from the native blindness and opposition to the truth into which the fall has cast all mankind from conception (Ps 51:5). It can only be thought remarkable that the contrary paradigm -- adolescent unbelief overcome in an experience of new birth now so securely fixed in the evangelical mind, never once appears in Scripture in an exemplary role and almost never appears at all.

-- Robert Rayburn, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Covneant Succession

This should suprise absolutely no one. "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you." -- John 15:18

They're called elders for a reason:

The church is the one and only industry that will take a fresh graduate and put him in charge of 200+ people. An overempahsis on the spiritual nature of the the church's spiritual leadership has caused us to overlook the leadership component.

Gray hair is a crown of glory;
it is gained in a righteous life. (Prov. 16:31)

Can the Church of Rome of Today be Called a True Church of Christ? Says Turretin:

III.  The Church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view: either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of gospel truth which it retains; or papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as in morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God.

We can speak of it in different ways.  In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny that it can be called Christian and apostolic, but Antichristian and apostate.  In this sense, we confess that it can still improperly and relatively be called a Christian church in a threefold respect.

First, with respect to the people of God or the elect still remaining in it, who are ordered to come out of her, even at the time of the destruction of Babylon (Rev. 18:4).

(2) With respect to external form or certain ruins of a scattered church, in which its traces are seen to this day, both with respect to the Word of God and the preaching of it (which, although corrupted, still remain in her); and with respect to the administration of the sacraments and especially of baptism, which is still preserved entire in her as to substance.

(3) With respect to Christian and evangelical truths concerning the one and triune God, Christ the God-man  Mediator, his incarnation, death and resurrection and other heads of doctrine by which she is distinguished from assemblies of pagans and infidels.

-- Institutes, vol. 3, 18th Topic, Q. 14

What Is the Doctrine of Inspiration?

2 Timothy 3:16 tells us, "all Scripture is breathed out by God," or in the KJV/GEN, "given by inspiration." What does this mean? Reformed theology has classically affirmed the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the Autographs.

- Verbal, meaning the exact words are inspired, not just the general message.
- Plenary, meaning all of the words and implications, not just some of them.
- Autographs, in reference to the original manuscripts. Though inspiration does not extend to all copies and translations, yet the preservation of the texts is historically verifiable.

Contra liberals, if we accept this inspiration, then we must also accept inerrancy. Contra Romanists, the object of the inspiration was not the authors but rather the Scriptures. Instead, the human authors were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

The goal of the equalitarians has always been power, and equality has been an argument to tickle the sick conscience of a faithless and shaky ruling element. The law will always require inequality. The question is simply this: will it be an inequality in terms of fundamental justice, i.e., the rewarding of good and the punishing of evil, or will it be the inequalities of injustice and evil triumphant?

-- R. J. Rushdoony

A tabular summary contrasting the Roman versus the Reformed view of justification.

This Sunday, I'm preaching on LD37 (the lawful oath). It occurred to me that American Christianity is been plagued by tons of baggage from Anabaptism. Dispensationalism is a sub-category of the Anabaptist error. It drives a wedge between the Old and New Testaments.

The belief that:
Christians shouldn't baptize their babies,
Christians shouldn't own firearms,
Christians shouldn't practice self-defense,
Christians shouldn't serve as elected officials,
Christians shouldn't swear oaths, but rather "affirm",
Christians shouldn’t support the death penalty,
All war is evil,
Pacifism is pious
NT ethics are superior to OT ethics…

These are all evil effects of Anabaptism.

Reformed Liturgy Series:

Introduction to Liturgy

Liturgy is derived from the Greek leitourgia, itself a combination of the words: people (laos) and work (ergon). We could render it, “work of the people,” or, “public service.” Basically, liturgy is the structure and flow of a public worship service.

Even the most casual nondenominational churches have a liturgy. While this series will focus on the the Reformed liturgy, it should be observed that all historic Christian churches have shared the same core elements since the earliest days. Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) describes the church's liturgy as follows:

...After we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, [we] bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for all others in every place.... Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.... [Then] those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine....

-- First Apology, Ch. 65

“We show ourselves to be Christians and theologians by our godly faith, holy living, and love of God and neighbors rather than be our subtle and sophistical argumentation.”

- David Chytraeus, Oratio de studio theologiae (Wittenberg, 1581). Quoted in Spener, Pia Desideria, pg. 112.

The modern phenomenon of celebrity preachers catapulted to fame via social media stardom is new only in the technological sense. From the early church on, many leaders rose to prominence through pastoring a large city, being unusually eloquent or influential, etc.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, merely that de facto hierarchy is an inescapable reality.

The Prophecies Claimed by Charismatics Are Fraudulent on 3 Counts:

1) The prophecies are frequently given in a vague manner: e.g., "God has a great blessing for someone to whom the numbers 4 and 6 are significant." Nowhere in Scripture is prophecy given in these hazy terms, but rather the Word of God is forcefully and specifically brought to bear.

2) When specific prophecies are made, they always turn out false, an offense which not only disqualifies the so-called prophet but carries a divine death warrant (Deut. 18:20).

3) Leading people into false doctrine is a sure correlate to speaking false prophecies (Deut. 13:1-5). And of course, heresies of all types are rampant among these groups.

Does Acts 2:39 Support Infant Baptism?

For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.

Clearly prima facie, the answer is yes. The best baptist reply is an attempt to link this passage to Matt. 25:27 where the crowd condemning Jesus told Pilate, "His blood be on us and on our children!” They argue Peter's statement has specific reference to this episode and therefore cannot be interpreted as a covenantal norm. As a sidenote they also say that the text isn't covenantal at all because of the "all who are far off" line. This argument fails on 2 points.

1) The link to Matt. 25:27 raises the question of why the Jews would have pronounced a curse on themselves and their children. It's becuase they knew and believed that God's dealings with man are covenantal in nature, and that God's covenant is generational in nature. Peter's statement reinforces these covenantal assumptions.

2) The passage is just as much a link back to Gen. 17, the charter text of the Covenant of Grace. Note how closely the flow of vv. 12-13 mirrors the text:

He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,  both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised.

This is the positive vision:

Our people living in

Our place serving

Our covenant God.