Prayer is worship. It is why that word adoration is used in the A.C.T.S. You are confessing your faith in Him, in His person as the Creator, and in His Work as the giver of all things by the word of His power. It is a statement of humble reliance upon the one who alone is able to provide whatever it is you are lacking in the moment.

Back in the Fall of 2022 we began our walk through the Westminster Larger Catechism. It’s hard to believe that we are here in the Spring of 2024 starting the last section of the WLC. Just like with the Shorter, the Larger ends with a talk about prayer, using the Lord’s Prayer as a model. In today’s catechism question the Divines are going to define for us what the Christian is to do with prayer and what prayer means. Kind of like the sacrament discussion we just finished a believer thinking about a subject like this can seem old hat. We are called to pray every day, prayer makes up a significant portion of what we see people do in the Bible and if you were going to isolate one particular thing that stands out in the Christian’s life it would be our conversating with the living and the true God. To pray well means to know what you are doing, not so much about the mechanics, but its purpose, and so as we get into questions 178-196 each of the Q/A’s will help us do better at resting and trusting not only in the mercy of prayer, but in its Trinitarian power.
Here is the lone question for today:
Q. 178. What is prayer?
A. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of his Spirit; with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.
Those of you who grew up in 90s evangelicalism will remember the acrostic A.C.T.S. The letters form a helpful way to make a plan for prayer and were something I was taught at a youth rally in high school. It stands for Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication. Like most things that involve stuff that is useful it was not created thirty years ago. If you notice the pattern of the Lord’s Prayer it follows the basic alignment of beginning prayer with God’s name (Our Father), with confession of our sins (Forgive Us Our Debts), thanks (Thine is the Kingdom), and asking for particular gifts (Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread).
When it comes to applying the same format to the catechism question, we see how this wisdom can even be found in our catechetical documents. In defining what prayer is the writers of the WLC first testify that prayer is an offering. Usually when we think of that word we assign it to be some kind of physical gift to the Creator.
Read More
Related Posts:

If God be for us, who can be against us? We must keep the faith even when things get especially difficult. God’s people are called to trust God and not fear. Second, they prepared a guard as protection during the day and the night. Nehemiah teaches us that the wise man keeps his head on a swivel (as my old football coach used to say). Being naive is not a fruit of the Spirit. 

The world that we are living in is a spiritual and physical battlefield. Most of the world knows this. Historically, most of the civilizations in the history of the world have known this. But it seems that many of us, especially in America, have forgotten this reality.
Cotton Mather, a seventeenth and eighteenth-century American Puritan, wrote that “[Christianity] begat prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother.” Christianity brought with it prosperity—the Protestant work ethic, Christian morality and laws, the inalienable rights of human beings, the virtues of justice, temperance, and courage. Matther was describing how biblical wisdom, when widely accepted by a particular people, produces an environment ripe for people to prosper.
The problem, as Mather succinctly describes it, is that when prosperity is widespread, people forget its source—the daughter devours the mother. A biblically formed people have a sinful tendency to forget God and begin to worship their comfort and prosperity. They neglect the Creator for his creation, and when that happens, their faith flounders and society collapses. We are in this precarious situation today. We have prospered. God has blessed us, yet most of our society has turned away from him. I pastor a young church in Davenport, Iowa. Most of us are making more money than we were ten years ago. We own nicer houses, drive newer cars, and can afford to go on vacation. But as the Lord prospers us, it’s easy to forget that we are in a war. Opposition can surprise us. How do you feel when a fight breaks out at a hockey game? Pretty normal, right? Okay. Now how do you feel when one breaks out on the golf course? It’d be shocking. Our world is far more like hockey than it is like golf. So many Christians don’t realize they’re playing the wrong game until a fight breaks out.
God has called Christians to build families, churches, businesses, schools, and governments on his Word because Jesus is the King of the nations. The book of Nehemiah teaches us that all of our work will be done in a war zone, with proverbial bullets flying. If building things isn’t hard enough, it’s even more difficult when people are actively set against you and doing their best to stop you by any means necessary. This is why the fourth chapter of Nehemiah is one of my favorite chapters in the whole book of Nehemiah. In this chapter, we learn some common tactics of the enemy, and we get a striking picture of how a godly leader responds to those attacks.
The Response to Mocking and Threats
The first thing we see God’s enemies do is jeer and mock those who are trying to rebuild the wall (Neh. 4:1–3). Mocking is a common tactic God’s enemies use to discourage God’s people from the work God has called them to accomplish.
Read More
Related Posts:

Some of the Reformers quote Aquinas approvingly, but their doing so is not abundant or unqualified, and much less does it suggest a praise of his person or a general commendation of his doctrine. The contemporary advocates of studying Thomas sometimes make it sound like the Reformers (and Puritans, et al) were Thomistic to the core and that their writings are brimming with use of his own. Granting that these are learned men worthy of a healthy respect and that I am a commoner, I must confess that I simply don’t see it.

From January 28, 2023 to January 28, 2025 the Roman communion is celebrating a jubilee of Thomas Aquinas to commemorate his birth, death, and canonization. As part of the celebrations the Vatican’s “Apostolic Penitentiary” has granted an indulgence which can be attained “under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff).” The homebound may attain the benefits “if, despising all their sins and with the intention of fulfilling the three usual conditions as soon as possible, they spiritually join in the Jubilee celebrations in front of an image of St Thomas Aquinas, offering to the merciful God their prayers.” Nor is this limited to the living. It can be attained for “the souls of the faithful departed still in purgatory” by those who take “a pilgrimage to a holy place connected with the Order of Friars Preachers, and there devoutly take part in the jubilee ceremonies, or at least devote a suitable time to pious recollection, concluding with the Lord’s Prayer, the symbol of faith and invocations of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Thomas Aquinas.” (Aquinas was a member of the Order of Preachers, or Dominican Order.)
Pilgrimages, purgatory, sacramental confession, indulgences, invoking saints and Mary, and praying before images of men . . . this episode demonstrates that after half a millennium Rome persists in the errors which sparked the Reformation. “Rome does not change and has not conceded any of her claims” (Herman Bavinck). And one of those things to which Rome appeals to justify her practices is the thought of Thomas Aquinas, hence Bavinck continues:
The Middle Ages remain the ideal to which all Roman Catholics aspire. The restoration of Thomistic philosophy by the encyclical of August 4,1879, seals this aspiration.
Bavinck is speaking here of Pope Leo XIII’s declaration Aeterni Patris, which commended Aquinas’ thought in glowing terms, calling him “the chief and master of all towers” and “the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith,” whose teaching is “the true and Catholic doctrine” (quoting Pope Urban V), “golden wisdom,” “angelic wisdom,” “immortal works,” on whose wings reason “can scarcely rise higher,” and such that “those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth.” Leo says that the “ecumenical councils” held Aquinas in such “singular honor” that “one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided” over them, of which his “chief and special glory” was having his Summa laid upon the altar at the Council of Trent, along with scripture and papal declarations, from whence the council could “seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.”
That same spirit has found contemporary expression with “Thomas Joseph White and many others in the Thomistic Ressourcement movement (such as Gilles Emery, Matthew Levering, and Dominic Legge).”[1] This movement uses Aquinas’s thought to direct contemporary doctrinal instruction and ecumenical dialogue. Arguably such an approach is not fully Thomistic itself: Aquinas said that schismatics and heretics ought to be excommunicated and punished by the civil power (“secular arm”) – with death in the case of heretics. That’s a far cry from ecumenical dialogue; and, of course, Rome has historically considered Protestants as falling into both of those categories, albeit somewhat moderating its position in recent decades.
Of greater concern is that this movement has found welcome with some Protestant academics. Notable examples are seen in Credo Magazine’s recent Aquinas issue, and in the controversy which occurred when some Protestants (James White, Owen Strachan) criticized the popularization of Aquinas. A distinction must be made here between using Aquinas’s thought approvingly and celebrating it (or him). A distinction might also be made between using his thought in a careful way that emphasizes it is useful only for some topics and is erroneous at other points, and an approach which in its eagerness fails to sufficiently warn where Aquinas went wrong. Some Protestants have become so enamored with Aquinas that they have attempted to lay claim to him. John Gerstner published an article titled “Aquinas was a Protestant” in Tabletalk in 1994.[2]
I’m not sure that more recent advocates of studying Thomas have gone so far as that, but their writings often savor of celebration and not merely of that discerning use which I mentioned above. Samuel Parkison said Aquinas is “enjoying the blessed hope of the beatific vision,” which is hopefully correct, but hard to maintain with confidence given that Aquinas taught idolatry and what the New Testament says about idolaters (1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8). I’m confident that the Credo crowd would dispute much of what Thomas thought, but it is hard to escape the feeling that they have so much emphasized what they consider beneficent in Aquinas, and what they consider to be common belief between him and the Reformation, that they have unhelpfully exaggerated his usefulness, praised his person, and neglected or minimized his faults.
This marks a contrast with the Reformers, as near as I can tell. Some of the Reformers quote Aquinas approvingly, but their doing so is not abundant or unqualified, and much less does it suggest a praise of his person or a general commendation of his doctrine. The contemporary advocates of studying Thomas sometimes make it sound like the Reformers (and Puritans, et al) were Thomistic to the core and that their writings are brimming with use of his own. Granting that these are learned men worthy of a healthy respect and that I am a commoner, I must confess that I simply don’t see it.
Stefan Lindholm is more careful in his treatment and readily admits the limits of Zanchi’s agreement with Aquinas, but he still says that Zanchi “was well known for his scholastic style and his frequent use of Thomas.” He neglects to quote him doing so, however, and when I turn to Zanchi’s Absolute Doctrine of Predestination I find him citing Aquinas but twice and saying he was “a man of some genius, and much application: who, though in very many things a laborious trifler, was yet, on some subjects, a clear reasoner and judicious writer” (modernized slightly). That is hardly high praise. Elsewhere I have expressed similar findings regarding John Owen’s use and opinion of Aquinas, and I find similar things in Calvin, whose Institutes don’t brim with Aquinas references. David Sytsma – who is also reasonably balanced and responsible on the larger question of Reformers using Aquinas – admits as much in that same issue of Credo (“John Calvin did not often mention Aquinas”). Even granting that one could adhere to Thomas’ methods or concepts without quoting him abundantly, it is hard to reconcile Credo’s frequent enthusiasm on this point with much of what I find in the actual writings of our forerunners.
Of similar concern is that enthusiasm for Aquinas has led some such Protestants to keep company with members of Rome and to commend their works and offer them a platform. Members of the Dominican Order’s Thomistic Institute have appeared at Credo in a teaching capacity (here and here). Again, Rome’s practices have not changed, and we regard them as tyrannical and as leading people rather away from God than to him in truth. They are “idolatry and a gross subversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” as Parkison put it elsewhere at Credo. That being so, the question might be asked: then why cooperate with such people whom one believes are so disastrously wrong?
And to that we may ask more particularly several other questions. Has bad company ceased to ruin good morals (1 Cor. 15:33)? Are Rome’s corruptions no longer teachings of demons (1 Tim. 4:1-3) that make void the word of God (Matt. 15:6), and do our confessions no longer regard participation in oath-bound orders such as the Dominicans to be a snare (Westminster Confession 22.7; London Baptist Confession 23.5)? Is praying before an image of a man no longer superstition, and are such things as pilgrimages and celebrations and invocations of men no longer works of human wisdom (Col. 2:16-23) that too much exalt men (comp. Acts 10:26), “are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (Col. 2:23), and deny the scriptural example of praying directly to God (Matt. 6:9; Jn. 15:16; 16:23)? Is it through Aquinas that we have access to the Father, or is it through Christ that we have access to him in the Spirit (Eph. 2:18)? Is it before his image that we are to pray at all times, or are we to do so in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18)? When we celebrate or follow any man are we no longer “being merely human” (1 Cor. 3:4; comp. v. 7)? And when we celebrate an idolater like Aquinas are we obeying the command “not to associate with such people” (1 Cor. 5:11)? Scripture is very plain on these points, but some otherwise learned and useful men have stumbled into witness-tarnishing inconsistency in this matter; and well might we fear for some of them, lest their zeal for learning might lead them away from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ alone (2 Cor. 11:3; comp. Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:7). “Pray for all people,” dear reader, not least for our academics, that they abide in the truth viz. all people and ideas (1 Tim. 2:1; Jas. 5:16).
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1]   https://credomag.com/article/who-is-afraid-of-scholasticism/
[2]   Cited in footnote 14 here
Related Posts: