-
Daycare: American Dream or Dystopian Nightmare

One of the most destructive things to negatively impact the family in modern times has been the enormously popular trend of parents having their children raised in daycare, instead of the traditional model where the husband works and the mother is a full-time stay-at-mom who tends to her children’s development with nurturing, care, love, attention, and discipline. All of these critical qualities are severely lacking in even the best daycare centers.
Parents warehouse their children here for 10-16 hours per day. The children are being paid by largely unskilled, unmotivated, minimum wage (or slightly higher) workers who are overburdened caring for dozens of kids and are stressed out. This toxic scenario is hardly the ideal environment for a child during its most formative and impressionable years. It is critical that parents bond with their children in these early years, and especially so for the bonding between mother and child.
It’s also critical that children receive proper discipline and structure. Scripture commands the use of corporal punishment, and it’s illegal to employ it in daycare centers.
This environment can create a perfect storm of factors that negatively affect a child’s early childhood development. This early development (cognitive, physical, social emotional, and spiritual) we know is super critical to a child’s overall well-being and future health. Most children who have this excellent early childhood development grow up to be responsible, moral, law-abiding, and productive members of society who eschew hedonism, alcohol, and drug abuse.
We have literally tens of millions of kids who have spent 10-16 hours every day in daycare because both parents are working full-time! I thank God my father worked so hard and put in 16-18 hour days at work so Mommy could be a full-time stay-at-home Mom. Children are now being raised by strangers during their most formative years who could care less about them!! It’s awful! There is no way some daycare employee is going to nurture, love, teach and support a child the way their mother would!
Economics plays a huge role in this phenomenon. Up until the 1970s daycare was unheard of. Some women had part-time jobs and if they were away from home a trusted family member would watch their job. But that was a very small minority of cases. In the 20-year period between 1980-2000, the number of daycares that opened was astronomical! And further, if you look at the past 20 years the numbers are even more shocking. It’s so bad that now a majority of American kids are being raised in daycare. The elephant in the room is the fact that these children are suffering because their mothers choose to have a career and put a certain higher level of material comfort over the needs of their families. The rise in feminism perfectly correlates with the rise in daycare.
Women are brainwashed by their parents and public schools that they must go to university and get a career. For 50 years now we’ve seen the results of this social experiment and the fruits are very bitter. There are many cases where the mother could be a stay-at-home Mom if her husband and her cut back dramatically on expenses. They don’t need a $200,000 to $400,000 home, a $60,000 SUV, or $80,000 truck, or expensive vacations, or expensive jewelry, a new wardrobe every few years, or eating out at restaurants every week.
There are so many things that are non-essential luxuries, yet many have convinced themselves if they wish to achieve the American Dream these material comforts are essential. I know that these parents love their children, yet they are trapped and have been conditioned to believe certain things which aren’t true.
Another thing to consider is: daycare (even the cheapest) is expensive. I once saw a report by an economist that said if you calculate the cost of daycare that would be saved if the mother was a stay-at-home Mom and coupled it with the tax savings, in many cases, it was actually better economically to have the mother not work, or it would have been about the same cost savings. So the line that most mothers absolutely must work is a total fabrication!
Sadly, I must also note that ever year many children in daycare are physically or sexually abused.
Looking back at my childhood, I am so very thankful for my parents making sacrifices and working so hard for my sisters and I. Having Mommy at home was a huge blessing. We may not have had the best house, car, or been able to take luxury vacations, but we had lots of love and are to this day a very closeknit family!
America, Bible, Christian theology, Christianity, daycare, economics, feminism, government, history, law, marriage, womenabuse, America, American Dream, bonding, child abuse, children, daycare, decline of the West, discipline, downsizing, dystopian, early childhood, early childhood development, economics, family, guidance, hedonism, kids, love, luxuries, material comfort, materialism, nightmare, nuture, parents, psychology, sexual abuse, structure, tax law, taxes, The West -
A Primer on Salvation

Does man have free choice as it pertains to salvation?
I believe a careful study of Scripture will reveal that man has the ability to make choices, yet we are not totally free in our moral agency. This is due to the fact that the natural man, before he is saved, is spiritually dead and is thus limited in the degrees of freedom he has. He is a slave to his nature which is wholly sinful. He cannot make certain choices, such as choosing Christ, in this fallen sinful state. Due to total depravity man’s will is only free to choose evil.
Imagine a prisoner locked in a cell. Within the cell (his moral nature) he can make real choices that are free, he can pace the floor, read a book, or whistle a tune. However he cannot walk outisde the cell. His nature (the cell) traps him inside and prevents him from making certain choices. So too are we dead in our sinful nature and can act only according to that nature, in other words, we can only choose the actions which our nature permits.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
Ephesians 2:1even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
Ephesians 2:5When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Colossians 2:13For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
Romans 8:6If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Romans 8:10It’s like expecting a dead man on the operating theatre to jump up and dance an Irish jig. It’s not going to happen unless the heart is shocked back to life. Without God’s sovereign grace selecting us (predestined at the foundation of the world) and quickening spiritual life into our dead soul thus regeneration us, we would remain spiritually lost.

The natural man has a heart of stone. When we are saved we’re given a heart of flesh.
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Ezekiel 36:26Salvation is a monergistic process, it occurs solely through the work of God. Some such as Orthodox, Catholics, and Arminian Protestants assert that salvation is a synergistic process of man and God working together. This is utter heresy and is condemned by Scripture. This semi-Pelagian belief that man has a share in his salvation contradicts Scripture which is clear that man is spiritually dead in his trespasses and unable to choose God.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
John 6:37No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9God’s sovereign grace which regenerates a man is irresistible. Imagine a person who nearly drowned and is on the beach hanging between life and death. The lifeguard alone can save their life, and when he begins working on the person this is irresistible. So too does the Holy Spirit move when quickening a man.

This doesn’t mean a person is saved kicking and screaming against their will. God conditions them and works a miracle giving them a new heart which is receptive to faith which is a gift. Regeneration always precedes faith.
“To say that we are able by our own efforts to think good thoughts or give God spiritual obedience before we are spiritually regenerate is to overthrow the gospel and the faith of the universal church in all ages.” – John Owen

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Ephesians 1:4-5So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Romans 9:16These passages clearly indicate that God chose certain people, the Elect, for salvation prior even to the creation of the universe! This process was wholly independent of their merits, abilities, or any other intrinsic metric. These verses suggest salvation is the result of a “single force”: a mono-ergon. That single force is God, the one and only person responsible for salvation!
Here are some excellent essays on monergistic regeneration.

I found this excellent sermon which portrays vividly monergism at work in the example of the maid raised to life from death by Jesus:
SALVATION IS MONERGISTIC by Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr. A sermon preached on Lord’s Day Evening, March 6, 2005
at the Baptist Tabernacle of Los Angeles “And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat” (Luke 8:54-55).Matthew, Mark and Luke all record this miracle. When Jesus returned from Gadara on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, great throngs of people gathered around Him. There were two people in the crowd that were in desperate need. One was a woman who had an issue of blood for twelve years. The other was a man named Jairus, whose twelve year old daughter was dying in bed back home. Jesus began to talk with this man about going to his house to heal his daughter. In the meantime, the woman with an issue of blood reached out through the crowd and touched Him. She was healed immediately. Jesus stopped talking with this man Jairus about his daughter, and turned around to have a conversation with the woman who had been healed. While he was speaking to the woman, someone came from Jairus’ house and whispered to him that his daughter had already died. The man told Jairus,
“Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master” (Luke 8:49).
But Jairus was insistent. Matthew tells us that he said to Jesus,
“My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live” (Matthew 9:18).
Jesus went with Jairus to his house. A crowd of people were outside weeping and wailing over her death. Jesus said,
“Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth” (Luke 8:52).
They stopped weeping and actually laughed at Him. They knew she was dead. She had already been dead for some time before He got there.
Jesus put them all out of the house. But Mark adds a detail. Peter and James and John, and the dead girl’s parents remained in the room.
“But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the [girl], and them that were with him, and entered in where the [girl] was lying” (Mark 5:40).
Jesus had put all those who were weeping and wailing out of the house, and went in with Peter, James, John, and the girl’s parents, to the room where her dead body was lying.
“And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid [girl], arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway [right away]: and he commanded to give her meat. And her parents were astonished; but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done” (Luke 8:54-56).
I think there are certain very valuable lessons we can learn from this miracle that will not only help you to be converted, if you are lost, but will also help those who are doing evangelism, bringing in lost people to hear the gospel preached, as many of you are laboring to do.
I. First, consider the purpose of this miracle.
It was obviously a miracle, and a very great one. The girl was certainly dead by the time Jesus got there. Her body was probably already washed and prepared in a preliminary way for burial, at least to some extent. The Jews didn’t wait around like we do today. It was their custom to bury a dead body the same day it died. This is still done in many parts of the world, such as Central America, where my wife was born. That’s still the custom in Guatemala, El Salvador, and other parts of Central America. You don’t wait around because they often don’t have proper refrigeration to keep a dead body preserved for several days. This is also true in remote parts of China and Southeast Asia, and other parts of the Third World, like Africa. The fact that the mourners had already come to the house and were wailing and weeping outside, shows that they had time to get there, and the girl had been dead for some time before Jesus arrived on the scene.
What was the purpose of Jesus Christ in raising her from the dead? Many people died while Jesus was doing His ministry. Twice we are told that Jesus healed all that came to Him (Matthew 12:15; Matthew 14:14). We may get the impression that He healed every sick person in Israel. But I do not think that was true. I think these healing times were specimen cases – to show that He could heal because He was the Messiah, the Saviour.
This, I believe, is also true when He raised the dead. He did not raise everyone who died during His three-year earthly ministry. He only raised three people from physical death – the widow of Nain’s son; this girl, Jairus’ daughter; and Lazarus, his friend. Those are the only three people Jesus raised from the dead during the three years of His ministry on earth. Others died during this time, undoubtedly a great many of them. But Jesus only raised those three from death.
He raised these three people for a reason, a very definite reason. Jesus didn’t just do things. He always had a reason for doing them. What, then, was His reason for resurrecting these three young people from death? I think the answer lies in the Apostle Paul’s statement in I Timothy 1:15.
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”
(I Timothy 1:15).I Timothy 1:15 tells us that the main reason Jesus came into the world was “to save sinners.” Each healing recorded in the four gospels is given as an illustration of that great truth. Jesus’ main reason for performing these three miraculous resurrections showed, or illustrated (or we might say typified) a certain important aspect of His ministry of saving sinners (I Timothy 1:15).
I say this for two reasons. First, because these three resurrection miracles Jesus performed were such perfect pictures of the new birth He gives to sinners, who are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 5). Also, because these three raisings from the dead picture so perfectly the monergistic nature of salvation. The word “monergism” means “by one power” – that of God. In contrast to that, “synergism” refers to the combining of powers – that of God and man. These three resurrections Jesus performed show that regeneration is accomplished by one power (God’s), not by the combined power of God and man, cooperating with God.
II. Second, the resurrection of this girl is a perfect picture of regeneration;
her raising from the dead typified all true new birth experiences.These three physical resurrections were completely monergistic, to use the technical theological term, which I think is a good one. Monergism means that a person is born again and converted completely by the grace and power of Christ, without human help. Synergism is the belief that man provides some help by cooperating with Christ in the salvation of his soul. Synergism is what many evangelicals believe today, as a result of faulty theology and the influence of many modern revivalists since Finney. Pure Pelagianism is the third view. It holds that man is saved solely by an act of his own will. Pure Pelagianism is what Charles G. Finney taught, illustrated by the title of one of his most famous sermons, “Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts.” He preached that all up and down America – that people could regenerate themselves by a “change of choice.”
Now it is clear from the story of Jairus’ daughter that Finney was not right. Since her resurrection by Jesus is a prototype of the new birth and conversion, it is very clear that Finney was wrong. The girl did not resurrect herself. She was dead. Stone dead. This account of her resurrection also shows, I believe, that synergism (sometimes called “semi-Pelagianism”) is also wrong. The dead girl couldn’t contribute one thing to her resurrection from death. The entire work was monergistic. God did the whole work of raising her to life through His Son, Jesus Christ. The girl contributed nothing at all.
Now if that isn’t the correct understanding of this miracle, I don’t know what is. The Bible says so quite strongly,
“And you hath he quickened [made alive], who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1).
The whole quickening, making alive, of a dead soul is monergistic. God does the whole thing, from start to finish, without any help or cooperation from man. The Apostle John makes that quite clear when he says, that those who believe savingly,
“Were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13).
The whole act of salvation, not part of it, is done by God in Christ. That’s monergism. And that is the teaching of this miracle, as well as the rest of the Bible. That was the teaching of John Bunyan, our great Baptist forefather, as well as the teaching of the great evangelists George Whitefield, John Wesley, and Asahel Nettleton, who so strongly disagreed with Finney.
Monergism was the view of almost all the great evangelistic preachers, like Gilbert Tennent, Jonathan Edwards, C. H. Spurgeon, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It was the teaching of the earlier Reformers as well – Martin Luther and John Calvin. It was the teaching of the great pioneer missionaries like William Carey, who founded modern missions, and David Livingstone, who opened Africa for Christ, as well as the men who went as missionaries to open China in the nineteenth century, and John Nevius, whose influence opened Korea to the gospel.
None of these great historical figures in evangelism and missions believed that man could make a new heart for himself, as Finney did, or that man could cooperate and help God convert him in any way, as the later evangelists did. No, these early men were all monergists. They all believed that salvation was a work of God in Christ – without the aid of man in any way – pure, old-fashioned monergism.
Isn’t that what you see in this story of Jairus’ daughter? Christ came in to the room,
“And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat”
(Luke 8:54-55).III. Third, the resurrection of this girl did not depend on any “decision”
on her part, nor did it depend on the prayers of her friends,
or on their help.It was solely, monergistically, dependent on the power and grace of Christ alone! Today we live in a time of decisionism. It has been so ingrained in us that we think we have to help people, or at least they have to help themselves be converted. Nearly every book I read on revival tells us that revival depends on God’s people preparing themselves for it, by fasting and prayer, and other efforts. But that is synergism, man doing his part, and God doing His part as a result. I don’t see that in the New Testament. What I see there is monergistic revival, revival totally dependent on the work of God with man playing no part in it. In fact, since we have switched to man preparing himself to bring about revival – there has been no revival of any consequence. Why? The great revival in the Book of Jonah gives the answer:
“Salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9).
And this is not only true of revival, where many people are converted. It is also true of each individual conversion. I am not telling you you shouldn’t pray for revivals or for individual conversions. Of course you should. The Bible repeatedly tells us to pray for these things. But our prayers do not make revivals or cause individuals to get saved. They don’t “make it happen!” God makes it happen in Christ! Salvation of an individual, or of many people in revival, is totally in the hands of God.
We can yell and scream and pray like the people did who came to Jairus’ house and it will do no good at all. Haven’t we been doing things like that for years, fasting, praying, preparing – and yet has revival or many individual conversions come of it? They have not. We need to go back to the old way of our forefathers and depend on God in Christ alone for salvation!
IV. Fourth, what this means to you if you are still unconverted.
It means that you must stop looking to yourself. You will find nothing in yourself to help you come to Christ. The Bible says that your
“heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked”
(Jeremiah 17:9).Your heart is so full of tricks and deceptions that it will fool you every time. Your heart is not only deceitful, it is also innately and habitually in rebellion against God. The Apostle Paul said,
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be”
(Romans 8:7).Your heart can’t obey God. It has the seeds of Adam’s sin controlling it. It has your actual sins polluting it even further. You are just like the Ephesians (who were exactly like all human beings),
“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Ephesians 4:18).
With your heart in this depraved condition, there is really nothing you can do to help God save you.
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once said,
It is perfectly clear in the pages of the New Testament that no man can be saved until, at some time or other, he has felt desperate about himself…(Iain H. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years, Banner of Truth Trust, 1983 reprint, page 207).
Why would you feel the need for Jesus and His Blood to cleanse you if you have not had such an experience? Why would you need Jesus at all if you were not a ruined, dead sinner?
“And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat”
(Luke 8:54-55).A ruler once came to Jesus by night To ask Him the way of salvation and light;
The Master made answer in words true and plain, “Ye must be born again.”
“Ye must be born again, Ye must be born again,
I verily, verily, say unto you, Ye must be born again.”
(“Ye Must Be Born Again” by William T. Sleeper, 1819-1904).May God grant you the grace and faith to come to Jesus Christ. Amen.
https://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/2005/030605PM_SalvationIsMonergistic.htmlapologetics, Bible, Catholic church, Catholicism, Christian theology, Christianity, justification, Orthodox church, Protestant, Reformed, theologyArminian, Arminian Protestants, born again, Born from above, Calvinism, Catholic, choices, enslaved to sin, free choices, free will, grace, heart of flesh, heart of stone, human will, irresistible grace, John Owen, justification, monergism, monergistic regeneration, moral agency, nature, New Birth, new heart, Orthodox, sin nature, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, soteriology, sovereign grace, synergism, total depravity, will -
The New Mission Field

For generations (some 45-50 years): Gen-X, Millennials, and finally Gen-Z, there has been this popular idea among Christian parents that they could use their children to retake pagan society for Christ. So they were in effect active missionaries when they went to government (public) K-12 schools and universities.
This idea has had devastating effects. Instead of transforming their pagan friends and the culture, more often than not, their pagan friends and the anti-Christian culture transformed them into backslidden, lukewarm apostates.
Lifeway Research conducted a survey in 2017 of young adults to gather statistics on youth leaving the church by asking about their experience. In 2017, 66% of those surveyed said they stopped attending church.
New research from LifeWay has revealed the challenge churches face in keeping young people in the pews as they head off to college.
A new study from the research group found that two-thirds of young adults who attended a Protestant church regularly for at least a year as a teenager said they stopped going for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22.
The study found that the likelihood of leaving church increased with age, with the proportion saying they regularly attended church falling from 69 per cent at the age of 17 to 58 per cent when they were 18, and 40 per cent by the time they were 19.
Once the participants were into their twenties, only one in three said they were still attending church regularly.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/most-young-christians-drop-out-of-church-in-college-years/131490.htmWe talk a lot about young people walking away from the church, abandoning their Christian beliefs. The research is scary – studies show that as many as 70% of Christian students leave the church during college. Here are the top five reasons we believe (from talking with hundreds of parents, pastors, and youth workers) most students give up their Christian identity in college.
- No Grounding — At best, many young believers don’t know why they believe what they believe. Often, those who think they do have never had their foundation of faith seriously challenged. Worst, many 18- to 25-year-olds have no hold on what Christianity actually teaches at all. In fact, The Barna Group’s research on the matter concludes that “less than one-half of one percent of adults in the Mosaic generation — i.e., those aged 18 to 23 — have a biblical worldview.”
- Sexualization of the University — Here, the statistics are just as disheartening. The stories of broken lives that come from casual sexual encounters discourage even the most optimistic of us. Derek Rishmawy writes at Patheos about the issue saying, “The Bible unsurprisingly starts to become a lot more ‘doubtful’ for some [Millennials] once they’d had sex.”
- Anti-Christian Bias at the University — Public high schools are no breeding ground for discipleship but they are often far better than what is found at most secular universities. University of North Texas sociology professor George Yancey authored Christianophobia and spoke pointedly about the anti-Christian bias in the academy on Summit’s podcast. It should be no surprise that ungrounded, untested Christian students are bolting from a commitment to Christian ideas. They’re simply believing what they are being taught in class.
- Christianity Was Made Irrelevant — Many students who grew up in the church have either hurtful experiences with their church or no truly relevant experiences with their church at all. The once-a-week, every Wednesday night attendance didn’t translate into commitment. An hour or two each week wasn’t enough to overcome the thousands of other attractive but counterfeit opportunities that fulfilled students’ deep needs and created feelings of belonging, worth, and identity.
- No Community — For those that have made it through the gauntlet of the first four pitfalls, they get to campus and find no support. My colleagues working in the Summit Alumni Network and friends at InterVarsity, Navigators, and Young Life would counter that this is their own fault — and who could argue? For whatever reason a student chooses not to engage in Christian community on campus, that student is like the lone gazelle on the African plains: an easy target.
Clearly, sending our children to go to school to be missionaries usually results in them abandoning their faith.
Some of the reasons why I think these children and young adults are not being properly prepared:
- Pastor does not do expository preaching whereby he goes through the Bible verse-by-verse carefully exegeting.
- Children did not attend church services with their parents.
- So-called youth ministry with youth pastors did nothing to build up their faith.
- Children weren’t required to read great works of theology.
- Too much time spent on sports and other extra-curricular activities.
- Poisoning effect of bad wordly friends who corrupt them.
- Attendance at government (public) schools.
- Attendance at non-Christian liberal, atheistic, and secular humanist universities.
- Lack of family devotional time reading Scripture together, the father explaining Scripture and answering questions from children, singing psalms and hymns in worship as a family.
- Lack of adequate prayer life.
- Baptized as an infant. They rested on this work and assumed they were saved, when in fact they never were.
- Being raised in daycare by strangers during their most formative years.
- Both parents working.
- Too many so-called Christian mothers who are committed feminists and insist on placing a full time career above the needs of her family.
- Decisional salvation where one answers an altar call.
- Succumbing to pressure from degenerate and hedonistic popular culture.
- Listening to wordly music that doesn’t honor God.
- Influence of worldly friends.
- Parents not spending enough time with their children.
- Consuming worldly televsion shows and movies.
- Reading worldly books and magazines.
I believe that the lion’s share of the responsibility for these kids lies with the parents. Parents need to evangelize their kids and treat them as unbelievers until they make a credible profession of faith and exhibit fruits of the Spirit. Treating them as ‘covenant children’ only inoculates them against the Gospel. Our children and grandchildren are the new mission field. It’s sad it has come to this, but such is the Great Apostasy.
America, apologetics, Bible, Christian theology, Christianity, degeneracy, education, entertainment, evolution, feminism, film, popular culture, Protestant, Reformed, sanctification, television, The West, theology, TVanti-Christian, apostates, backslidden, children, Christian, Christianity, churches, colleges, Gen-X, Gen-Z, government schools, Great Apostasy, kids, LifeWay, lukewarm, Millennials, missionaries, new mission field, parents, popular culture, public school, public schools, secular humanism, society, statistics, studies, universities, Voddie Baucham, young adults -
Protoevangelium of James

This work is spurious, it is a total forgery, and was not written by the Apostle James. It dates to at the earliest the mid-2nd century, that is 150 years after the last Apostle John died! It is a pseudepigraphical work that purports to give information on Jesus’ early life and Mary His mother’s life that was not written in the Bible.
The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a second-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following. It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards, and despite being condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500, became a widely influential source for Mariology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_JamesThis work became enormously important in Marian studies. Although the Magisterium of the Catholic church rejects it as trustworthy it is to this day still used widely by Catholic theologians, clergy, apologists, and regular laity. It is usually the go-to text, the first thing brought up, when one challenges the notion of Mary being an ever-virgin.
The Protoevangelium of James presents Joseph as a man much older than Mary. It explains the occurrences of Jesus’ brothers and sisters in Scripture by saying they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (he’s a widower). This narrative is a wicked affront to the truth of Scripture. Joseph was not an elderly man! Catholics envision an elderly man having sex with a 13 or 14-year-old Mary to shock and horrify our modern sensibilities, although in biblical times men were quite often much older than their wives. The linguistics of Scripture is crystal clear, as I demonstrated in a recent blog post you can read below, that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were physical blood relatives, not stepchildren.
To further reinforce the notion of Mary’s alleged ever-virgin status, this work has Mary consecrating herself to God at a young age to be a “temple virgin”. This entire concept is utterly alien to Scripture. Not once in Scripture does such a scenario occur.
By the way, the belief that Mary was an ever-virgin is not a belief held by the Early Church despite what Catholic apologists assert. The scholarly consensus of all available data shows that the belief in Mary as an ever-virgin first appeared in the 4th century – a staggering 300 years after the time of the New Testament Church.
The earliest evidence for the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin occurs in the writings of the early church father Jerome who was born in A.D. 347 and died about A.D. 419. Prior to Jerome there is no evidence that the early church taught anything other than the scriptural record – that Jesus had siblings.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/when-did-the-belief-in-marys-perpetual-virginity-start/It’s sad to see what low regard many Catholics hold sacred Scripture. They obviously do not believe in its sufficiency or inerrancy. We see how historically, and in modern times, they are so eager to latch onto any narrative presented by any work which bolsters Magisterium’s claims. Clearly, they hold the Magisterium in higher regard than Scripture.
Another dogma of the Catholic church that this false infancy gospel supports is the notion of Mary’s immaculate status. The so-called Immaculate Conception is the idea she was born without the stain of original sin and remained without sin her entire life. This idea is utterly blasphemous and contradicts Scripture which says that Christ alone was without sin. Allegedly Mary’s parents, Joachim and his wife Anna (or Anne), never had sexual intercourse to conceive her. Just as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary producing an ovum without male sperm, so too was Mary conceived in the same way. This is beyond blasphemous! It attributes one of the greatest miracles of Scripture as applying equally to Mary as well. This just feeds into the blasphemous and unbalanced cultus of Mary which views her as quasi-divine. She is ever-virgin, she is immaculate. These are divine attributes!
It’s sad to see how spiritually blind and deceived some people are. Both Orthodox and Catholics support the blasphemous doctrine of Mary being an ever-virgin. We must continue to stand on Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) and give it its rightful place of preeminence and the only infallible authority for Christians.
apologetics, Bible, books, Catholic church, Catholicism, Christian theology, Christianity, Orthodox church, Protestant, pseudepigraphical, theologyAnna, Anne, Bible, Christ, Early Church, ever-virgin, forgery, Gospel of James, immaculate, Immaculate Conception, infancy, infancy gospel, James the Apostle, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Joachim, Joseph, Marian studies, Mariolatry, Mariology, Mary, narrative, New Testament Church, Perpetual Virginity, Pope Innocent I, Protoevangelium of James, pseudepigraphical, Scripture, second-century, spurious, temple virgin, virginity -
Sovereign Grace

As a Reformed Christian I believe we, as sinners, are saved by God’s sovereign grace. But what exactly does this term mean?
God is all-knowing and all-powerful. He is the uncaused causer. God has always existed. He has no beginning and no end. Everything that happens in our vast universe is either caused by Him or allowed by Him for His own intentions and purposes. This happens in perfect accordance with His will, which is perfect, and it happens precisely when He so wishes it. (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6). Our triune God is the sole omnipotent ruler of this universe and every other place in existence. He has absolute power and authority. We exist solely due to His will and are sustained according to His good pleasure.
God is sovereign in creation: He created our vast universe, He created our planet Earth, and He created us, humans.
God is sovereign in divine providence (everything happens for a reason and in fulfillment of a purpose that is known only by God).
God is sovereign in our redemption as sinners. Reformed theology teaches that God is in control of our salvation. We believe it is God acting alone Who has chosen people for redemption (before the foundation of our world), it is God who quickens a soul and regenerates them, and it is God who enables man to believe the Gospel. These acts are strictly monergistic (God acting alone) and do involve man’s cooperation (synergism).

He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Ephesians 1:5–6We Reformed believe that God’s sovereign grace is irresistible. When God decides to save a person and call them to Christ, in an instant in time, there is nothing they can do to resist. It’s like a dead person in the ER being shocked back to life by a defibrillator. The deceased person cannot resist. We are spiritually dead and unable to choose God in our natural sinful fallen state.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God
Ephesians 2:8I should mention that God’s grace is wholly and totally unmerited. There is no achievement, quality, or other types of markers that make us deserving of grace. As sinners, we deserve an eternity in Hell. There is nothing a person can do to earn or merit God’s saving grace. Our good works are like filthy rags Scripture tells us.
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Isaiah 64:6The law condemns us (no human can keep it perfectly except Christ), yet grace offers us salvation. Because of God’s sovereign grace, we have imputed Christ’s perfect righteousness (which is required to be saved and escape our just condemnation) while our sins are imputed to Him.
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more
Romans 5:20
We are justified by God’s grace. It is the thing that allows us to have a right standing before a perfect, holy, and righteous God.
The 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) which define Reformed soteriology (how we are saved) are known as the Doctrines of Grace!
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
Romans 3:24Here is a good article expounding on the Doctrines of Grace:
The Reformed theology of grace, as articulated in the Canons of Dort, informed and influenced the spirituality of the Puritans. These Canons of Dort, also called the Five Articles against the Remonstrants, consist of doctrinal statements adopted by the Synod of Dort in 1618–19 against the Five Articles of the Remonstrants:
- Conditional election based on foreseen faith
- Universal atonement
- Partial depravity of man
- Resistible grace
- The possibility of lapsing from grace
The Synod’s response to these five articles came to be known as “The Five Points of Calvinism” or “Doctrines of Grace”:
- Unconditional election
- Limited atonement
- Total depravity
- Irresistible grace
- Perseverance of the saints
These doctrines highlight the sovereign and gracious work of God in salvation (see The Doctrines of Grace by Boice and Ryken). For the Reformed, grace is a favor that God sovereignly and freely bestows on those who do not deserve it; in fact, they deserve the exact opposite. Grace rests on God’s eternal election without foreseen faith, its ground is the person and finished work of Christ, and its efficient cause is the Holy Spirit. With this grace, man is given the ability to repent and believe. And as a recipient of God’s unwavering favor, man will persevere until the end. There is significant diversity among the Puritan heirs of this Reformed view of grace; there were strong Calvinists like Thomas Goodwin, moderate Calvinists like Richard Baxter, and even Arminian Calvinists like John Goodwin. Nevertheless, these five points of doctrine are the broad lines of the Puritan understanding of grace, which impacted their spirituality in various ways.
What follows are five effects that the Reformed theology of grace had on Puritan spirituality in general.
1. Puritan spirituality flowed from God’s work, not mere human effort.
The Puritans recognized that we do not merit God’s favor, and in fact merit his condemnation. Their view on depravity and grace is clear in the Westminster Confession, in which the Puritan divines maintain that man by his fall has totally lost his ability to choose any spiritual good for his salvation. Their emphasis on total depravity underlined the necessity of God’s sovereign grace in salvation. Hence, as Gleason and Kapic have noted, the spirituality of the Puritans was “predominantly Augustinian” in its emphasis on human depravity and sovereign grace (see their The Devoted Life). Yet this Reformed emphasis on election, depravity, and grace did not stop the Puritans from freely and sincerely offering the gospel to all sinners. In their preaching and writing they called sinners to repentance and faith (see, for instance, John Bunyan’s Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ).
2. Puritan spirituality was grounded in Christ.
Because Christ is the basis of grace, union and communion with him is often foregrounded, and meditating on Christ is one way this manifests in spirituality. Thus, the Puritans wrote lengthy meditations on Christ. Take, for example, Samuel Rutherford’s collection of letters in The Loveliness of Christ and Thomas Goodwin’s The Heart of Christ in Heaven toward Sinners on Earth. Likewise, with this view of grace, the Puritans avoided exalting excessively the physical humanity of the Savior, as seen in certain strains of Roman Catholicism with its emphasis on the Eucharist. Instead the Puritans recognized it was Christ himself who worked salvation and thus whom the heart must love and adore.
3. Puritan spirituality saw the Spirit’s work in the soul as the effectual cause of grace.
Despite our deadness in sin, the Spirit regenerated us, planting the seed out of which a life of grace would bloom. Indeed, the need for regeneration by the Spirit became a dominant theme in Puritan spirituality. To illustrate this, Thomas Goodwin, author of The Work of the Holy Spirit in Our Salvation, once said that at regeneration the Spirit quickened, enabled, and inclined the soul so as to believe and repent. The Puritans believed that all spirituality resulted from the Spirit’s prior work in the soul. It is immediately upon regeneration that man becomes a cooperator with the Spirit, yet this is always in response to the Spirit’s work. Thus, the Puritans stressed the Spirit’s role not only in conversion but also in sanctification. To give an example, they emphasized the role of the Spirit in prayer, realizing that apart from the Spirit we cannot pray in such a way pleasing to God (see Bunyan’s I Will Pray with the Spirit).
4. Puritan spirituality emphasized the Trinity’s work in election, redemption, and sanctification.
This trinitarian emphasis is clearly seen in John Owen’s Communion with God, a work that is not really about prayer but about the doctrine of the Trinity. Owen teaches the Christian that a life of spirituality is about communing with each one of the members of the Trinity in the proper way, each one being the object of our adoration, affection, and prayer. As Rutherford expressed it, “I do not know which person of the trinity I love the most, but this I know, I love each of them and I need them all.”
5. Puritan spirituality treasured God’s preserving grace.
The Puritans spent a lot of time on assurance of faith, on its objective grounds and its subjective marks. They attempted to balance a firm trust in what God has done and is doing, without becoming presumptuous, while also identifying the subjective marks without causing those subjective feelings in the soul to simply become the reason for assurance of faith. For instance, according to Joel Beeke in his book Living for God’s Glory, the delegates at the Synod of Dort recognized that Arminian theology threatened the believer’s eternal security and assurance in God’s sovereign grace. Why? Because according to the Remonstrants you can lose your salvation. By understanding the Reformed theology of grace, the Puritans could enjoy assurance of faith because they knew that God would preserve them for eternity.
Sadly, some historians such as David Bebbington think that the Puritans held the position that assurance is rare. This, Bebbington argues, is in contrast to the evangelical belief which maintains that assurance is normal (see his Evangelicalism in Modern Britain). Scholars such as Beeke and Michael Haykin have challenged Bebbington’s view and convincingly argue that the Puritans practiced and taught assurance of faith (see Beeke’s Quest for Full Assurance and Haykin’s coedited book The Advent of Evangelicalism). That the Puritans preached and taught assurance of salvation is clear. For example, Baxter exhorted his congregation not to sit down without assurance, meaning they should not rest until they were assured of God’s saving grace in their lives. “To all who love Christ sincerely,” said William Pinke, “God presently gives an everlasting assurance of salvation.”
Thomas Brooks expressed his assurance of faith this way: “I am wholly His . . . I am eternally His.”
https://www.reformation21.org/blog/doctrines-of-grace-and-puritan-spiritualityChrist told us how we can do nothing until God the Father calls/draws us:
- “The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (John 4:23).“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).“No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65).“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all” (John 10:27–29).“I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people [Jew and Gentile alike] to myself” (John 12:32).
“Grace” is more than mercy and love, it superadds to them. it denotes, not simply love, but the love of a sovereign, transcendly superior, one that may do what he will, that may wholly choose whether he will love or no. There may be love between equals, and an inferior may love a superior; but love in a superior, and so superior as he may do what he will, in such a one love is called grace: and therefore grace is attributed to princes; they are said to be gracious to their subjects, whereas subjects cannot be gracious to princes. Now God, who is an infinite Sovereign, who might have chosen whether ever He would love us or no, for Him to love us, this is grace.
Thomas GoodwinThe Kingdom of grace is nothing but…. the beginning of the Kingdom of glory; the Kingdom of grace is glory in the seed, and the Kingdom of glory is grace in the flower; the Kingdom of grace is glory in the daybreak, and the Kingdom of glory is grace in the full meridian; the Kingdom of grace is glory militant, and the Kingdom of glory is grace triumphant…. the Kingdom of grace leads to the Kingdom of glory.
Thomas WatsonGrace and glory differ very little; the one is the seed, the other is the flower; grace is glory militant, glory is grace triumphant.
Thomas BrooksAs rivers, the nearer they come to the ocean whither they tend, the more they increase their waters, and speed their streams; so will grace flow more fully and freely in its near approaches to the ocean of glory.
John Owen
5 Pillars of Reformed Theology, 5 points of Calvinism, Bible, effectual calling, grace, irresitible grace, John Newton, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, justification, law, omipotent, omiscient, predestination, Puritans, Reformed, Reformed theology, Scripture, soteriology, sovereign grace, sovereignty, spiritually dead, Synod of Dort, theology, Thomas Brooks, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Watson, TULIP, unmerited -
How should we worship God? RPW vs NPW

Background
The RPW (regulative principle of worship) is deeply flawed and problematic. It holds that everything which is not explicitly commanded or practiced in Scripture is forbidden. I believe it is overly restrictive, and the way many employ it is legalistic. I favor the NPW (normative principle of worship) over the RPW. Anything which is neither sinful nor explicitly forbidden by God’s Word is permissible.
A great illustration of the problem with RPW is how we choose to make music pleasing to the Lord. Most RPW churches only allow exclusive psalmody (the psalms are sung acapella – no musical instruments are used for accompaniment). However, God has in the past (Old Testament) commanded us to use musical instruments to worship Him. And He never rescinded that command in the NT. Further, as we’ll see below God is worshipped with musical instruments in both the Old and New Testaments.
David danced in worship before the Lord in the temple. And he wasn’t wearing much! Instruments were used in worship in the temple. So we have explicit examples of methods of worshiping God from the OT which are never called into doubt or forbidden in the NT. Yet, just because God doesn’t command them in the NT the RPW rejects them! This is madness and not the way to do theology.
RPW adherents will use crazy examples to try and discredit the NPW, but these are easily refuted. The RPW seems to downplay the newfound liberty we have in Christ. That doesn’t mean anything goes, but it does mean that if we choose to worship God with instruments we aren’t dishonoring God, nor is it Strange Fire!
RPW adherents are inconsistent, and at times hypocritical, because they use things in church for worship that is not explicitly commanded by God such as carrying Bibles, sound systems, and acapella psalm-singing as the only allowed form of corporate worship, this was all never commanded in Scripture. There are many fine hymns that honor and glorify God. RPW will assert since the Psalms are Scripture that they are the only acceptable mode of worship. However, by that logic, we couldn’t have sermons. Pastors would just read Scripture with no additional commentary! It just shows how silly and overly restrictive the RPW can be.
Old Testament worship
As we see in the Psalms quoted below, musical instruments were used in worship in the Old Testament. They were even commanded by God.
The first pillar in the Biblical foundations of instrumental music in worship is the Psalms. When considering the Psalms and instrumental music, most instrumentalists think of Psalm 150, but there are actually a total of twenty-four psalms that mention the use of instruments in worship, either in the psalm heading or in the text itself. We won’t take the time to examine all those psalms, but let’s take a closer look at two of the more familiar psalms that mention musical instruments, Psalm 150 and Psalm 33.
Psalm 150 concludes the book of Psalms with a chorus of praise, including every family of instruments: woodwinds, brass, percussion, and strings:
“Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre; Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; Praise Him with stringed instruments and pip. Praise Him with loud cymbals. Praise Him on the high-sounding cymbals.” Psalm 150:3-5
Pipe, trumpet, timbrel (or tambourine), cymbals, harp, lyre (similar to the harp), and stringed instruments, representing all four families of instruments and all used in praise of almighty God! Even though this psalm mentions instruments in each of the four families, note the conspicuous absence of singing. Commentators on this psalm have seen this as undeniable Biblical support for instrumental praise alone.
Psalm 33 is the first psalm to mention instruments, and connects the worship attitudes of joy, thanksgiving, and praise with the use of instruments:Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones;
Praise is becoming to the upright.
Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre;
Sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings.
Sing to Him a new song;
Play skillfully with a shout of joy.
(Psalm 33:1-3)Take special note of the latter half of verse three in this particular psalm: “Play skillfully with a shout of joy.” We are to play skillfully as we worship the Lord. The famous British preacher, Charles Spurgeon, comments on this verse, “It is wretched to hear God praised in a slovenly manner. He deserves the best that we have.” Let us remember this Biblical mandate to faithfully minister with excellence.
https://preachitteachit.org/articles/detail/psalms-worship-with-instruments/New Testament worship
Musical instruments
Further, contrary to what some RPW adherents assert, we do have precedence of worshiping God with musical instruments in the New Testament. Specifically in the book of Revelation.
“Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8).
“And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps” (Revelation 14:2).
“And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God” (Revelation 15:2).
Singing
According to the RPW the only acceptable form of worship is exclusive psalmody. Is this a biblical position? There answer is a resounding no! Here’s the evidence why:
Ephesians 5:18–19 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (ESV).
Colossians 3:16 continues that idea: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
So we see that the psalms were used for worship, yet other forms of music such as hymns and spiritual songs were also used! Jesus Himself sang a hymn with the disciples after the Last Supper.
Matthew 26:30 “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.”
Conclusion
We’ve seen that biblically speaking the RPW is unworkable and highly problematic. It nullifies Christian liberty (not abuse), it is overly restrictive in what is allowed in church, and it contradicts Scripture both in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Himself sang hymns in worship.
We see clearly that, in the context of worship, God allowed:
- musical instruments
- hymns and spiritual songs
Thus, I see no good reason to adopt the RPW, and many reasons to adopt the NPW.
Personally, I find singing the psalms to be edifying. I also find singing certain hymns highly edifying. If churches want to have exclusive psalmody they can, but they shouldn’t condemn other churches which don’t follow that model. Nor should they assert that the RPW makes their worship more biblical and pleasing to God.
I also find pipe organ music very edifying and powerful and a great way to worship God. Here is a performance of a chorale prelude by Johann Sebastian Bach on the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” (originally written in the German language with the title “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott”). It is one of the best-known hymns by the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, a prolific hymn writer. Luther wrote the words and composed the hymn tune between 1527 and 1529. Played by David Christensen on a 1966 Moller organ.
The field of sacred music is vast. God has given brilliant composers the mental capability to write complex and beautiful pieces of music for worship. He also allowed musicians and singers to train and develop their God-given talents.

Here is what I, and many learned musicologists, consider to be the most epic and amazing piece of sacred music ever written. It’s the St. Matthew Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach. It was written by Bach for use in the Lutheran church’s liturgy.
I believe God wants us to give Him our best, and that applies to worship.
acapella, Bach, Bible, Calvin, Christ, classical music, Exclusive Psalmody, forbidden, God, hymns, instruments, Jesus, Johann Sebastian Bach, legalistic, Luther, Lutheran, musical instruments, New Testament, Normative principle of worship, NPW, NT, Old Testament, OT, overly restrictive, precedence, psalm singing, Psalms, regulative principle of worship, Revelation, RPW, Scripture, spiritual songs, St. Matthew Passion, Strange Fire, temple, theology, worship -
New Year Medley 2023

Happy New Year – 2023! Here are a few songs to ring in the new year.
Where Have All The Flowers Gone
This is a very poignant anti-war anthem performed by the 60’s folk music trio Peter, Paul & Mary.
Lyrics
Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing? Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago? Where have all the flowers gone? Young girls have picked them, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn? Where have all the young girls gone, long time passing? Where have all the young girls gone, long time ago? Where have all the young girls gone? Gone for husbands, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn? Where have all the husbands gone, long time passing? Where have all the husbands gone, long time ago? Where have all the husbands gone? Gone for soldiers, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn? Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing? Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago? Where have all the soldiers gone? Gone to graveyards, every one Oh when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn? Where have all the graveyards gone, long time passing? Where have all the graveyards gone, long time ago? Where have all the graveyards gone? Gone to flowers, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn?
The End
This is a fascinating and powerful poetic rock song performed by The Doors. It was co-written by band frontman Jim Morrison. I wonder if his mind was addled by drugs, or if he was suffering from a psychologically disturbed state of mind at the time. Jim was open about hearing voices that plagued him and drove him to drink alcohol in excess and take illegal hard drugs. Morrison likely had undiagnosed schizoaffective disorder. A very tragic talented figure who went too soon.
Lyrics
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I’ll never look into your eyes again
Can you picture what will be?
So limitless and free
Desperately in need
Of some stranger’s hand
In a desperate land
Lost in a Roman wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah
There’s danger on the edge of town
Ride the King’s Highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake, he’s long, seven miles
Ride the snake
He’s old and his skin is cold
The west is the best
The west is the best
Get here and we’ll do the rest
The blue bus is calling us
The blue bus is calling us
Driver, where you taking us?
The killer awoke before dawn
He put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall
He went into the room where his sister lived, and then he
Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
He walked on down the hall, and
And he came to a door
And he looked inside
“Father?” “Yes, son?” “I want to kill you”
“Mother? I want to…”
Come on baby, take a chance with us
Come on baby, take a chance with us
Come on baby, take a chance with us
And meet me at the back of the blue bus
Doin’ a blue rug, on a blue bus, doin’ a
Come on yeah
Fuck, fuck-ah, yeah
Fuck, fuck
Fuck, fuck
Fuck, fuck, fuck yeah!
Come on baby, come on
Fuck me baby, fuck yeah
Whoa
Fuck, fuck, fuck, yeah!
Fuck, yeah, come on baby
Fuck me baby, fuck fuck
Whoa, whoa, whoa, yeah
Fuck yeah, do it, yeah
Come on!
Huh, huh, huh, huh, yeah
Alright
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me
The end of laughter and soft lies
The end of nights we tried to die
This is the endAuld Lang Syne

This is a popular song. Traditionally, it is sung to bid farewell to the old year at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve. It’s performed here by The Choral Scholars of University College Dublin.
The text is a Scots-language poem written by Robert Burns in 1788 but based on an older Scottish folk song. In 1799, it was set to a traditional tune, which has since become standard.
The poem’s Scots title may be translated into standard English as “old long since” or, less literally, “long long ago”, “days gone by”, “times long past” or “old times”. Consequently, “For auld lang syne”, as it appears in the first line of the chorus, might be loosely translated as “for the sake of old times”.
The phrase “Auld Lang Syne” is also used in similar poems by Robert Ayton (1570–1638), Allan Ramsay (1686–1757), and James Watson (1711), as well as older folk songs predating Burns. Matthew Fitt uses the phrase “in the days of auld lang syne” as the equivalent of “once upon a time” in his retelling of fairy tales in the Scots language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Lang_SyneLyrics
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and auld lang syne?
Chorus
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
And surely you’ll buy your pint cup!
and surely I’ll buy mine!
And we’ll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
Chorus
We two have run about the hills,
and picked the daisies fine;
But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
since auld lang syne.
Chorus
We two have paddled in the stream,
from morning sun till dine;
But seas between us broad have roared
since auld lang syne.
Chorus
And there’s a hand my trusty friend!
And give me a hand o’ thine!
And we’ll take a right good-will draught,
for auld lang syne.
Chorus -
The Baptism Debate

Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, other Reformed, and some Anglican all believe in either infant baptism or both infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. I submit, respectfully, that these believers are all wrong in their understanding of baptism. In this post, I will discuss the fundamental differences between the credobaptist and paedobaptism positions, and I’ll show why the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is utterly unbiblical.
Background
All the Church Fathers were fallible men who weren’t writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thus I don’t find long lists of Church Father quotes convincing in the least when it comes to baptism and baptismal regeneration! I go solely by Scripture. SOLA SCRIPTURA!
And I’ve heard Christians say, “What about people like Polycarp, Ignatius, and others the apostles trained, surely they have a correct doctrine?” I reject this position because even in Scripture while the New Testament was still being written, we see the apostle Paul had to correct the heretical beliefs of people who he himself trained in the faith! If it can happen to an apostle, it can happen to someone the apostle trained. I put more stock in what the Reformers of the Church believe because they operate on the basis of Sola Scriptura which is thoroughly biblical! Catholics, Orthodox, and other heterodox churches also greatly appeal to the Church Fathers for much of their erroneous theology. So that doesn’t pass muster with me.
It’s clear in Scripture that:
- Infant baptism is not biblical.
- Baptismal regeneration is utterly alien to Scripture and only heavy eisegesis and cherry-picking words or sentences out of proper context can be used to support it.
Infant Baptism
Some of the seminal texts used to legitimize the practice of infant baptism are:
Acts 16:15 “And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ And she prevailed upon us” [cf. 18:18].
Acts 16:33 “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.”
1 Corinthians 1:16 “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.”
It is a major assumption to infer from these texts that infants were baptized. Many households have no infants. There is not one explicit text in Scripture demonstrating conclusively that infants were baptized. Thus the paedobaptist argument is one from silence which is the weakest of all arguments.
Hermeneutics
Some salient points to keep in mind:
- Misinterpreting the covenant signs: The new covenant is wholly new and better than the old. It is not merely a continuation or addendum of the old covenant. It represents a radically new paradigm. The covenant sign of the old covenant was the circumcision of males only. The covenant sign of the new covenant is spiritual baptism (circumcision of the heart), of males and females.
- Covenant membership: In the old covenant, not every member was regenerated. In fact, it seems the majority were not. The new covenant however has all members as being regenerate (the elect).
- Following the wrong model: The New Testament model of salvation is clear and unambiguous: one is to repent and then believe the Gospel. An infant can do neither.
- Argument from silence: The New Testament does not contain one explicit or unambiguous example of an infant being baptized. If infant baptism is true and given its importance it’s hard to fathom how God could have silence on this issue. Given that the majority of Reformed adhere to the Regulative Principle they would have to reject infant baptism since God doesn’t command it.
The Bible is entirely silent about infant baptism, either pro or con. We admit it. We do not profess to get infant baptism from its pages.” “We would not find infant baptism in the Bible, because it is not there, and cannot be gotten out of the Bible.
Dr. Albertus Pieters – Reformed theologian, “Why we baptize infants”.Baptismal Regeneration
I will not address the strongest evidence proponents of baptismal regeneration use to defend their doctrine.
The following quote may appear at face value to support their position. However, if we scrutinize it with the proper hermeneutics and do solid exegesis of the texts we will see clearly that the proper interpretation of Scripture does not affirm baptismal regeneration.
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
1 Peter 3:14-22 (ESV)Puritan Matthew Henry, in his famous commentary on Scripture, explained what the Apostle Peter truly meant and it does not support baptismal regeneration.
We sanctify God before others, when our conduct invites and encourages them to glorify and honour him. What was the ground and reason of their hope? We should be able to defend our religion with meekness, in the fear of God. There is no room for any other fears where this great fear is; it disturbs not. The conscience is good, when it does its office well. That person is in a sad condition on whom sin and suffering meet: sin makes suffering extreme, comfortless, and destructive. Surely it is better to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing, whatever our natural impatience at times may suggest. The example of Christ is an argument for patience under sufferings. In the case of our Lord’s suffering, he that knew no sin, suffered instead of those who knew no righteousness. The blessed end and design of our Lord’s sufferings were, to reconcile us to God, and to bring us to eternal glory. He was put to death in respect of his human nature, but was quickened and raised by the power of the Holy Spirit. If Christ could not be freed from sufferings, why should Christians think to be so? God takes exact notice of the means and advantages people in all ages have had. As to the old world, Christ sent his Spirit; gave warning by Noah. But though the patience of God waits long, it will cease at last. And the spirits of disobedient sinners, as soon as they are out of their bodies, are committed to the prison of hell, where those that despised Noah’s warning now are, and from whence there is no redemption. Noah’s salvation in the ark upon the water, which carried him above the floods, set forth the salvation of all true believers. That temporal salvation by the ark was a type of the eternal salvation of believers by baptism of the Holy Spirit. To prevent mistakes, the apostle declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but that baptism, of which the baptismal water formed the sign. Not the outward ordinance, but when a man, by the regeneration of the Spirit, was enabled to repent and profess faith, and purpose a new life, uprightly, and as in the presence of God. Let us beware that we rest not upon outward forms. Let us learn to look on the ordinances of God spiritually, and to inquire after the spiritual effect and working of them on our consciences. We would willingly have all religion reduced to outward things. But many who were baptized, and constantly attended the ordinances, have remained without Christ, died in their sins, and are now past recovery. Rest not then till thou art cleansed by the Spirit of Christ and the blood of Christ. His resurrection from the dead is that whereby we are assured of purifying and peace.
Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary on the Whole BibleNote that Henry says “to prevent mistakes”, because he saw the errors of the Papists and Lutherans. He knows there would be many, sadly, who interjects the false notion that an ordinance & sacrament could confer saving grace, rather than the Holy Spirit who does quicken a soul and thus confer regeneration wholly apart from any work of man.
Salvation is monergistic (God acting alone), not synergistic (God and man acting together). The latter is the heresy of semi-Pelagianism.
I should note that baptismal regenerationists love using the early Church Fathers, to prove their diabolical misinterpretation of 1 Peter 3. They do this with all the so-called proof verses which they believe legitimize baptismal regeneration.m The Church Fathers were fallible men. They were given insights on some matters of Scripture, but to treat them as if they are an infallible oracle of truth is quite absurd.
Credobaptism
I believe that the credobaptist position (also known as believer’s baptism) is the most consistent and biblical. In this view, a sinner is effectually called by God, is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repents, and believes the Gospel.
Debate
Here’s a great debate between two good friends, Drs. R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur on the topic of baptism
Conclusion
We must love our paedobaptist brethren, yet we have a duty to point out their flagrant error and call them to repentance and right belief. Soli Deo Gloria!
Much weight is given to the Reformers and certainly, their teaching is vital and much needed. I love the Reformers, and I thank God for their obedience and service. However, I don’t believe they were infallible. We must be careful not to idolize a group of people and believe they alone had the greatest understanding of the truth. Or believe that their theological opinions were infallible and inerrant! Catholics and Orthodox do this with the Church Fathers.
Luther was certainly wrong in his support of baptismal regeneration. And I believe Calvin was wrong on infant baptism.
I believe God wants us to be always Bereans searching the Scriptures and comparing doctrine with what Scripture says. We should always be striving for perfection in our doctrine and should always be reforming (semper reformanda); I believe we Reformed Baptists have done that. At great cost and through much suffering we held on to the truth. Everything comes back to God’s Word.
Postscript
My friend David left a good comment on this post which I wanted to address and publish in the post itself because I think it helps clarify some issues readers may have.

Good evening David.
The new covenant is radically different than the old as I said in my post. Scripture does explain the purpose and nature of the new covenant. Most in the old were not regenerated whereas everyone in the new is regenerated.
You are thinking in OT terms. You need to think by NT mindset since so much has changed. God has always had a covenant people, but the old system was always a shadow pointing to the fuller and better covenant in Christ. To assert that since circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, infant baptism must thus be the sign of the new covenant is simplistic and fallacious. Circumcision of the heart (as I explained in my post) is the sign of entrance into the new covenant in Christ. The old covenant was a physical covenant. Man had to do certain work to enter the covenant. The new covenant is a purely spiritual covenant as Jesus explained to Nicodemus. Thus a work like an infant baptism is meaningless and does nothing, but get the baby wet. You can’t do physical work to enter into the new covenant.
Being born again through the Holy Spirit quickening a soul and bringing it to life spiritually, and then sincere repentance and belief in the Gospel is the ONLY way to enter into the new covenant. Infants can neither repent nor believe. Thus they are excluded from the old covenant until and if such time the Lord is pleased to regenerate them. And one more thing about the old covenant: it applied to the children (technically only the males, the females were left in the lurch) and granted them entrance into the covenant but what benefits did they receive? They were part of the nation of Israel (citizenship as we’d say) and had temporal blessings such as the right to live, work, and marry. They were NOT guaranteed salvation in the old covenant. Salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The vast majority of those Israelites under the old covenant were reprobates who were never to be regenerated. The new covenant is a covenant of salvation.
The majority of people I know who were baptized as infants and considered by their parents and churches to be “covenant children” grew up to be reprobates! So that is prima facie evidence that infant baptism is futile. Whereas I know very very few people who sincerely repented and believed the Gospel and later fell away proving they were never regenerated. It does happen, but there are literally hundreds of millions of baptized infants who go to Hell and that is a fact. When Scripture says your children are holy it means through the faith of the parents and being raised in a Christian home they are set apart from pagan children, and they have the chance to be exposed to God’s Word and the Gospel. However, that doesn’t mean they are part of the Elect.
Plenty of Elect parents have non-Elect children! In fact, the pagan who hears the Gospel for the first time, repents, and is granted saving faith in Christ alone is much better off than the hundreds of millions of people who I’ve seen were baptized as infants, even in Reformed families, and heard the Gospel hundreds or even thousands of times, yet they hardened their hearts and were inoculated again the Gospel! These people are much harder to reach. I’d argue that infant baptism does more harm than good overall. For so many people it lures them into a false sense of security and they grow up thinking they are saved by virtue of their infant baptism!
Oh and my post addresses baptismal regeneration and infant baptism – 2 different topics. I never asserted that the Reformed held to baptismal regeneration so you should apologize for fo accusing me of a strawman fallacy.
Anglican church, apologetics, Catholic church, Catholicism, Christian theology, Christianity, Lutheran, Orthodox church, Reformed, theology1 Peter 3, Anglican, Apostle Peter, Apostles, baptism, baptismal regeneration, believer's baptism, biblical interpretation, Catholic, Church Fathers, credobaptism, credobaptist, doctrine, dogma, Dr. Albertus Peters, Early Church, Early Church Fathers, ECF, heresy, hermeneutics, heterodox, Ignatius, infant baptism, Lutheran, Lutherans, Matthew Henry, monergistic, Orthodox, paedobaptist, Papists, Paul, Polycarp, Puritan, R. C. Sproul, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur, Reformed, Roman Catholic, semi-Pelagianism, synergistic, theology



