The Tulip Driven Life

  Declaration on Race, Natural Affection, the Local Church, and Related Matters In 2005, the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (CRPC) unanimously adopted Distinctives summarizing what sets her apart from other Presbyterian bodies. Under “Civil Magistrates,” the CRPC affirms: “We further acknowledge that God’s work at the Tower of Babel and His gathering of men into distinct tribes, nations, cultures, races, and language groups has its divine purpose in hindering the growth of ungodliness.” ( https://covref.org/distinctives/ )     The following set of affirmations and denials from the Eldership of Heritage Reformed Presbyterian Church (HRPC) builds upon this distinctive in order to provide clarity and to counter the destructive errors of liberalism, egalitarianism, feminism, globalism and the like in our civil state and society today. God’s gathering of mankind into these distinct tribes, nations, cultures, races, and language groups is being undermined by many tod...

  I was not present for the RPCNA's Synod meeting, but being present at the presbytery that first excommunicated Rev. Ketcham, I can say that the ignorance really is astounding and many Elders and Pastors in NAPARC are not to be trusted. The deposition and especially the excommunication of Rev. Ketcham is a gross injustice. Rev. Ketcham and the Southern Presbytery to which he now belongs knows that I do not agree with them on everything, from exclusive Psalmody to how we would minister to minorities in our local churches to certain political matters and policies. Some of these matters would prevent us from being in the same denomination, and therefore they are not trifling differences. But this does not at all mean that you cannot pray for their ministries to be blessed by God and faithful to Him. I do not at all believe that Rev. Ketcham has any sinful malice toward anyone of any race, beyond sinful anger that we all must examine in our hearts and repent of. Yet, look at the viole...

  Ver. 12-27. The parable of the talents, which we had, Matthew 25:14-30 , is of great cognation to this parable, and the doctrine of it in many things is the very same; but the circumstances of that and this relation are so differing, as I cannot think that both Matthew and Luke relate to the same time. I know nothing that hinders, but that our Saviour might twice repeat a parable which in substance is the same. Not to insist upon the examination of the words used in the Greek, (which is a work fit only for critical writers), for the right understanding of this parable we have three things to do: 1. To inquire what special instruction our Saviour did in this parable intend to those who heard him at that time. 2. Who the persons are, represented in it under the notion of a nobleman and servants; and what the things are, represented under the notion of going into a far country, to receive a kingdom, distributing his goods, &c. 3. What general instructions from it may be collecte...

 Our church has a declaration of affirmations and denials on race, nationhood, the local church, etc., that at some point I will likely make public.  But for now, I will just say that it is evident our nation has massive problems on most all scales, whether familial, civil, racial, cultural, or ecclesiastical.  Local churches that might be intentionally homogeneous or mono-racial in certain contexts to promote the best arrangement to minister to all is permissible and wise. Dabney preferred keeping the blacks in their churches with them (still recognizing a social order and hierarchy) to help minister to them. He said he would support them if they started their own black presbyteries, and would labor hard to help them form their own seminaries, churches, black pastors, and so on, and that these would basically be sister churches. But he did not think that would be wise because of the needs among the blacks to be ministered to and trained up by the white ministers who were...

  You can find the above image here: https://x.com/katherineortho/status/1978886308945961155  My comments on it, and an extended quotation of John Calvin from the Acts 10 passage: Uhh, no actually, when this woman, Katherine (why do the EO women get a pass when they presume to instruct?), references Acts 10:25-26, she only takes a snippet of the actual passage and she goes against what Scripture explicitly says: "As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, 'Stand up; I myself am also a man.'” Yet this is on her short list of proper prostration and veneration in the New Testament. Yet Peter rebukes Cornelius for doing this. By the way, pop Protestant debaters online might not know what they are talking about, but most of the debates online by pop apologists for whatever tradition are pretty weak. Go back to the venerable dead. Here is Calvin on this passage in Acts 10: "Falling down at hi...

  Those appealing to the early church fathers really have to appeal to the earliest of the earliest to be consistent, and that would be the Apostolic fathers, the first generation after the Apostles themselves (and when we can read the Apostles in the inspired, written word of God, we ought not to place the generation after the Apostles on equal or even higher footing as an infallible interpreter of the Apostles). But within the first several centuries (and thereafter) of the Church after Christ's ascension, there was much debate, development, disagreement, etc. This shouldn't surprise us, as we see that throughout Scripture itself. An appeal to oral tradition in itself is fine, so long as that is not regarded as infallible or the highest authority. No reasonable person denies that the inscripturated word was transmitted orally before it was written down. No one has a problem that God had inspired prophets and men and women having visions or dreaming dreams, etc., but now ...