The only way which sinners like us can bring right worship (in our prayers & praise) is if we bring it in covenant. Every other attempt is really idolatry, self-worship, and sin. You’ve come to Mt. Zion, not to do God a favor, but because of His favor towards you.

One of the more vital needs of the church is for us to do what we do on purpose. In other words, while there’s a right sort of habitual piety, there’s also a very real threat of putting our worship on spiritless autopilot. We should ask ourselves, “What are we doing here?” And we should have an answer that’s derived from what God, in His Word, told us to do in our gathering.
This is a service of prayer (Acts 2:42) in which God renews His covenant with His people (Heb. 12:22-24). Let me break that into two parts. The reason we assemble is to offer our prayers up to the Lord. True prayer humbles itself before the Living God. As such, it brings praise for Who He is & petitions Him alone for deliverance from evil. Our songs are sung prayers; largely derived from the Psalms or from themes clearly tied to the text of Scripture.
Read More
Related Posts:

The progressives have not been solid with biblical truth. This is clearly exemplified by their weak handling of the whole Revoice affair. The first Revoice Conference was held in a PCA church in Missouri Presbytery, pastored by a self-avowed same-sex attracted pastor, and pretty well celebrated all around by progressives. Where were the elders (overseers) of the session of Memorial Presbyterian Church; and where was the denomination when this was going on? Why was it ever permitted?  

I’m alarmed at the trends taking place in the PCA, marked in some places by the decline and departure from the truth that are very similar to what happened in the PCUSA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I spent some years in the ‘80s as a ruling elder at Hope Presbyterian Church, an evangelical PCUSA church in Minneapolis, before leaving to join a startup PCA church (Parkwood Pres.) under Douglas Lee as pastor. While at Hope, I was liaison to the Twin Cities presbytery and suffered through many presbytery meetings, where the conservative to liberal ratio was about 25/75. I spoke out when I could, but the votes were hopelessly in favor of the liberal unbelievers. Now look at the state of the PCUSA, as its demise is marked by its death rattle.
We moved to St. Louis in 2002 and remained there for 13 years. During those years we were members at Covenant Presbyterian Church under the pastorates of George Robertson and Ryan Laughlin. In 2015 we moved to Flowery Branch, GA, and are currently members of very solid Chestnut Mountain Presbyterian Church, where John Batusic is pastor.
Having carefully read David B. Calhoun’s 2-volume work, Princeton Seminary, which masterfully documents the tragic fall of the seminary and denomination as a whole, I am struck with the similarities between PCUSA/Princeton Sem. and PCA/Covenant Sem. The former is of course far down the road to oblivion and the latter is only in the early stages, but the PCA will end up where the PCUSA is now, if its slippage is not halted in its tracks and it is not delivered from the deadly effects of the progressivism in our midst.
It needs to be noted here that it was the fault of progressive elders in the PCUSA and PCUS that those denominations stumbled and fell. The elders are charged with protecting the sheep but many of the “shepherds” proved to be false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing, who inwardly were ravenous wolves. Instead of protecting and nurturing the sheep according to God’s Word, as Machen and many others were urging, they led the sheep astray and scattered them. Here is Paul’s instruction to elders:
“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-30).
Unfortunately, I see Paul’s prophecy coming to pass now among progressive elders in the PCA. They don’t seem like fierce wolves, of course, because they’re dressed in shepherd’s clothing.
But progressivism is never a good thing, either in politics or in religion. Religious progressives have a tendency to change the Gospel to make it culturally relevant and less offensive. They wobble and vacillate on homosexuality, creation, the social justice gospel, the Federal Vision, and other issues. When elders are not solidly biblical on these, they are trifling with the truth and not communicating the Christian Gospel as written. They are telling God that they know better than he does, what his Word should say and how it should be interpreted.
Now, I acknowledge that progressives in the PCA are not (yet) as bad as the progressives in the PCUSA. But, then, neither were the PCUSA progressives in 1915 as bad as they are now. There is a tendency for a denomination to spiral downward once progressivism takes hold in that denomination. I am concerned that this downward spiral, already commenced in the PCA, will accelerate if the PCA allows its own organization of progressive Christians (known as the National Partnership) to have significant influence.
The progressives have not been solid with biblical truth. This is clearly exemplified by their weak handling of the whole Revoice affair. The first Revoice Conference was held in a PCA church in Missouri Presbytery, pastored by a self-avowed same-sex attracted pastor, and pretty well celebrated all around by progressives. Where were the elders (overseers) of the session of Memorial Presbyterian Church; and where was the denomination when this was going on? Why was it ever permitted?
The short answer is that, as appalling as it sounds, the progressive elders, teaching and ruling, wanted it to happen, participated in its happening, and celebrated its happening. That shows where they’re coming from and where the PCA is headed if progressives are allowed to have their way.
The 2021 General Assembly dealt forthrightly with this serious breach of biblical sexual ethics. Against the desire of the National Partnership (NP), the issue of homosexuality was addressed in two overtures, with many progressives speaking against them. Overtures 23 and 37, after much debate, were both passed in the Overtures Committee with strong majorities and were passed on the floor of the Assembly with similarly overwhelming majorities. These overtures are now before the PCA presbyteries for their consideration. Each must receive approval from 2/3 of the presbyteries, and then another vote by the 2022 GA in Birmingham.
I have read many analyses of the overtures and reasons why they should be approved as well as why they should not be approved. I heartily approve of both overtures and find the arguments for approving them biblical and strong.
On the other hand, I am amazed to see progressives vigorously opposing approval of these amendments, offering what I consider to be weak rationale to justify their disapproval. For example: (1) the overtures are unnecessary (no, they are necessary because they provide needed guidance on what it means for officers to be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character); (2) the overtures are unclear (they are clear enough for the average person to understand); (3) they will not bring peace to the PCA (of course they won’t, their purpose is to expect biblical traits and behavior). And on it goes, with no convincing biblical rationale against the overtures.
Finally, I find it disturbing that, of those who recorded their No votes on the overtures at GA, the votes were overwhelmingly those of teaching elders. As I reviewed the No votes I was surprised with some of the names on the list.
It seems to me that, in signing their names to a list like that, they wanted to draw attention to how they voted. That they voted No, undoubtedly pleased those associated with the NP. Apparently, they don’t want to do anything to stem the growth of the cancer infecting the PCA from within, or perhaps they prefer to deny that there is a cancer at all.
In the case of “cancer,” we know that sometimes the best remedy is the surgical removal of the cancer. Is this what we are faced with in the PCA now? My hope and pray is that we are there yet. The concern now is to see the overtures passed successfully in the presbyteries and ratified at the next GA.
David Ostien is a member of Chestnut Mountain Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in Chestnut Mountain, Ga.

To know God’s nature and His works are essential to a blessed and full life. As we peer into simplicity and inseparable operations, our creaturely mind collides with divine truth that is so grand that we, like Job, must place our hands over our mouth as we see this simple and magnificent God who is three persons working to glorify His name to bring a wicked people like us to glory. 

It seems like everyone is talking about the doctrine of God these days. Debates surrounding theology proper continue raging on with no end in sight. Overall, I believe this is a good thing. For many in the church, these discussions promote sharper doctrinal formulation, greater awareness of creedal and confessional statements, and clarity in teaching.
Thankfully, these discussions have also revealed the immense value of theological retrieval. As we seek to retrieve the doctrine and teachings of those eminent saints of the past and bring them into current conversation, we find that these issues were already debated and clearly defined. Those things that may seem new to us are not so new after all. Faithful theologians have set the course for us to follow, allowing for a true catholicity as the Holy Spirit continues to work in the school of Christ.
For that reason, I again suggest that we let William Perkins enter the chat, if you will, to briefly comment on two issues currently being hotly debated: Divine Simplicity and Inseparable Operations.
Divine Simplicity
Confessional theologians, both Reformed and Baptist alike, confess the doctrine of divine simplicity. Both the The Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession in 2.1 teaches that God is “without body, parts, or passions” and “most absolute.” Similarly, the first article of the Belgic Confession says that “We all believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being, whom we call God.” To say that God is simple in being is not a controversial statement for confessional Protestants. The question of late though, if I can put it simply, is whether each of the attributes of God are ontologically identical with his essence and with every other one of his attributes.[1] Some critics argue that this view is inconsistent with Scripture, and that it comes exclusively from a Thomistic metaphysic that wasn’t articulated as such until Thomas “baptized Aristotle.”
William Perkins, who no doubt cited Thomas favorably at different times, affirms this classical definition of simplicity. Drawing upon various texts, such as Exodus 3:14, Acts 17:24-25, and several in John, he writes “Hence it is manifest that to have life and to be life, to be in light and to be light in God are all one…Therefore, whatever is in God is His essence; and all that He is, He is by essence.”[2] Perkins first and foremost viewed the doctrine of simplicity as chiefly a biblical doctrine.
After giving a handful of scriptural references, the reformed catholic theologian then cites a major theologian of church history, showing that this doctrine is truly catholic and to be accepted. Yet he doesn’t quote Thomas, but one who precedes Thomas by several centuries.
Read More
Related Posts: