This is what the Christian life is most basically: 'When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, 'Repent,' he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.' ~ Luther 'This life was given to you for repentance, do not waste it in vain pursuits.' ~ Isaac the Syrian

Also unfortunate is that Adriel’s PCA committee proposed a Directory for Worship that allows women to lead much of the worship service. And does away with restrictions on the Sabbath.

It can be proved that God exists. The distinctive articles of the Christian faith cannot be proved except by appeal to divine authority, but the fact that there is a God can be proved by reason alone.

RT @ZacharyGarris: I had a great time at the New Christendom Press conference. I met many godly Christians. It’s unfortunate a third-party…

The definition of a person is: an individual substance of a rational nature. Human nature is rational. Therefore an individual substance of human nature is a person. Therefore every human organism is a person. The point is that whether reason is in potency or act makes no difference to the question quid est?, does not what kind of being we are dealing with. And it is the kind of being that is the question here, not the state of development. Thus, we have two questions, the ontological and then the ethical: - Is a fetus a person? Per the argument above, yes, for it is an individual substance of a rational nature. - Can one have the right to kill an innocent person? I am assuming the answer to the latter is "no," (though maybe you will want to dispute this) in which case the only question is the first. But let's say you don't like this concept of "person." Maybe you will prefer to redefine "person" such as only to cover beings whose reason and/or will are in act rather than in potency. If you take this route, the moral question changes. Then, I would simply deny your claim that it matters where someone is a "person" by your definition, instead asserting that killing innocent human organisms is wrong whether they are "persons" in your sense of the term or not. For example, people sleeping, in a coma, or with certain mental disabilities don't have reason in act, but only mostly or entirely in potency.[^1] You might respond to that by invoking the qualification you added before that in these cases reason has been in act and will be in act again. But an accidental fact of the past or future is a stupid criterion for determining what is in the present, as it reflects nothing inhering in the being in question. For that matter, there are few humans whose reason is fully in act or fully in potency, so your definition opens the way to grading and ranking the moral value of human organisms according to their intellectual competence, which perhaps you would be willing to do, but it brings your view into the same territory as the kinds of racism and Nazism that produced things most people consider great atrocities. This is not a proof that your view is false, but it would require you to either affirm the views behind those acts or else produce an extended argument showing whether and to what extent and in what way(s) your view differs from them. [^1] For that matter, this take on personhood renders a fetus at 8 months equal in every respect to a newborn, and you have not yet clarified whether you support infanticide or oppose late-term abortions, as your argument demands you treat the two as equivalent.

“Therefore reprobation has its reason on the part of the object, namely foreseen final sin.” — St John Duns Scotus ( Ord Bk I • Dd 41 • E • 42 )

'When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, 'Repent,' he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.' ~ Luther 'This life was given to you for repentance, do not waste it in vain pursuits.' ~ Isaac the Syrian

Let me say a word about the Mormon controversy. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are sixth cousins of mine. Yet I do not believe either one of them. Nor will I ever believe them. I’ve spent countless hours studying it. Mormons are not Christians. They should repent and come to the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, as many have. I earnestly pray they do!

Me: Man, Pete. I've had such a rough day. St. Peter: Hey man, suffering can be a blessing! You know, Christ suffered for the world. Me: Yeah, that's true. St. Peter: Then He went to preach in spirit jail. Me: wait, what? Peter: Anyway, Baptism saves.

Good retrieval strengthens the church of Christ.

I guess St. Caesarius of Arles (among many others) who lived in the 5th-6th centuries didn't get the memo: "When we summon some people to the pursuit of reading, they try to excuse themselves by saying that because of military service or some household arrangement it is impossible for them to be engaged in the divine lessons. I can prove to such people in truth that they falsely pretend to excuse themselves with these words. Indeed, when the days are short, those who do not prolong their luxurious, delightful dinners by inebriating themselves until the middle of the night can read enough after the crow of the cock. Moreover, when at their banquets they are eager to feed their bodies with material food, between drinks and courses they could hold a book and satisfy their souls with the sweet word of God. In this way there will be fulfilled in them what the Lord Himself said: 'Not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.'"

“Before taking sleep, it is fitting to listen to the Divine Oracles... The reading of the divine scriptures is a rational nourishment of the soul." -Clement of Alexandria, Paedogogus 2.10 “If you only hear the word of God in church, and do not meditate upon it at home, nor occupy yourselves with the law of God day and night... then your heart is not a clean altar." -Origen, in his 9th homily on Leviticus

The state cannot be neutral; if it is not professedly Christian, it will, directly or indirectly, be the persecutor of Christianity. - James Bannerman (The Church of Christ)

St. John Chrysostom on the clarity of Holy Scripture: 'And if careful reading also follows, the soul, as if initiated in sacred mysteries, is thus purified and made better, while holding converse with God through the Scriptures. "But what," say they, "if we do not understand the things we read?" Even if you do not understand the contents, your sanctification in a high degree results from it. However, it is impossible that all these things should alike be misunderstood; for it was for this reason that the grace of the Holy Spirit ordained that tax-gatherers, and fishermen, and tent-makers, and shepherds, and goatherds, and uninstructed and illiterate men, should compose these books, that no untaught man should be able to make this pretext; in order that the things delivered should be easily comprehended by all in order that the handicraftsman, the domestic, the widow, yea, the most unlearned of all men, should profit and be benefited by the reading. For it is not for vain-glory, as men of the world, but for the salvation of the hearers, that they composed these writings, who, from the beginning, were endued with the gift of the Holy Ghost.'

Just because @PresbyInn is on vacation doesn’t mean you’re allowed to start Papal Slop Posting™️ again

It’s genuinely hard to take guys like Cameron seriously when he frames things in the *worst* and least charitable possible light. Calvin: “I find parts of the canon of Ignatius inauthentic.” Cameron: “JOHN CALVIN TRIED TO ERASE IGNATIUS FROM HISTORY!” See the difference?

A insightful and punchy response to the PCA CN Study Committee's partial report: "The church should not engage in theological gymnastics to stay in the good graces of a political order enacted by judicial fiat in the middle of the 20th Century" @IVMiles at @AdFontesJournal 🔗👇

If your church is interested in supporting mission work in Poland 🇵🇱 we would love to connect. You can reach out to Nathan at nathan@gospelinpoland.com or DM me your email.

What Mormons really think about Christians: "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God." -Mormon prophet Brigham Young

You are literally combining Isaiah 29:13 and Matthew 15:8–9 and attributing them to the words of Jesus. Regardless, The issue here is not whether Jesus spoke about corruption in religion—He did. The issue is how that statement is being interpreted and applied. In the original context, Jesus condemns religious hypocrisy in Israel (Matthew 15:8–9), specifically leaders who honor God outwardly but replace His commands with human traditions. That is a recurring Old Testament and New Testament theme (Isaiah 29:13; Mark 7:6–7). But nothing in those passages teaches that the entire visible church would become universally apostate for centuries, all creeds are inherently corrupt, or that God would later restore the gospel through a new prophet bringing additional scripture. In fact, the New Testament teaches the opposite trajectory for the church: Christ will build His church and it will not be overcome (Matthew 16:18) The Spirit will guide it into truth (John 16:13) The church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) The gospel has been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) So hermeneutically, Jesus’ rebukes of corruption inside Israel do not support a doctrine of total apostasy followed by restoration through a later prophet. They address internal corruption within a continuing covenant community, not the annihilation of the gospel itself.