The Holy Spirit remedies our spiritual ignorance, not by revealing to us any truth apart from or in addition to the Bible, but by opening our spiritual eyes so that we can discern the true meaning of what is already revealed in the Bible, and thus enabled to know the will of God concerning prayer.

J. G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 523.

The Assembly’s failure to formalize the Apostles’ Creed into any of its documents has been characterized as “verging on a separatist mentality” and risked placing the Synod “outside the historic Christian tradition.” Regarding the Catechism in particular, [Ian] Green stresses that in departing from an article-by-article treatment of the Creed in its catechisms, the Assembly departed from “the known practice of the first generations of Protestant catechists.” Robert Letham concludes that leaving the Creed out of the Catechisms was tantamount to “studied indifference and deliberate exclusion.” However, a distinction should be made between objections to the Creed as an authoritative doctrinal affirmation and the Creed as an historical expression of faith “agreeable to the word of God.” Concerns of conscience over phrases in the Creed, particularly on Christ’s descent into hell, prevented many of the divines from receiving the Creed as a whole; yet most had no objection to its substance. In its postscript appended to the Shorter Catechism, the Assembly explains that “the substance” of the Apostles’ Creed is “fully set forth in each of the Catechisms, so as there is no necessity of inserting the Creed itself.”

John R. Bower, The Larger Catechism: A Critical Text and Introduction, 21.

Q. Wherein lies the sinfulness of neglecting prayer? — A. It is a practical denial of God, a robbing him of his honour, a contempt of Christ as Mediator, a ruining of ourselves and others, etc. Psalm 9:17 and 10:4.

John Brown of Haddington, Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism, 334.

But what if we don’t reduce love and goodness to chemicals in the brain, nor to the whims of powerful people who get to set the rules; what if love and goodness flow from the transcendent God? Returning to [John] Owen: “The sole reason why there is such a thing as love in the world among the creatures, angels or men, — that God ever implanted it in the nature of rational creatures, — was, that it might shadow and represent the ineffable, eternal love that the Father had unto the Son, and the Son unto the Father, by the Spirit. Our experiences shadow something greater, deeper, fuller than themselves.

Kelly M. Kapic, Christian Life, 68.

Embrace love which is God, and embrace God with love.

Augustine, On the Trinity, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, 8.12, p. 253.

Learning to recognize the arc of Christian life modeled and strengthened in corporate worship, we follow a movement from calling to benediction, all in Christ and as part of his body.

Kelly M. Kapic, Christian Life, 51.

And, if one does not accept His birth from a Virgin, how can he accept His resurrection from the dead?

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching, 64.

Read the divine scriptures constantly. In fact, never let the sacred volume out of your hand. Learn what you have to teach.

St Jerome, Epistle 52

And the Christian resists all racist pride, not on the basis of the evolutionary dogma of man’s greatness, but the biblical doctrine of creation and the fall.

G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes, 58.

The Kinists may rage and gnash their teeth against cultural Marxism, accusing their opponents, such as myself, of being such, but the reality is this: their entire anthropology and philosophy of race and ethnicity is firmly based upon and founded in atheistic evolution. Their cry of “cultural Marxism” is a smoke screen, a shroud to hide their anti-Biblical view of man, which in the end is based on pride and a violation of the 6th Commandment: hatred of fellow man and pride of flesh.

“A Response to Kinism: A Critique of an Unbiblical Anthropology” by Edgar Ibarra in The Covenanter, Vol. 2, Spring 2025, 73.

Consider how Eusebius juxtaposes two astonishing catches of fish. He connects Luke’s miraculous catch early in Jesus’s ministry (Luke 5:4–7), with John’s similar narrative set after Jesus’s resurrection (John 21:1–6, 11). Eusebius of course recognizes the differences between these two narratives. Yet he nonetheless juxtaposes Luke’s miraculous catch of fish—and its associated call to “catching people” (Luke 5:10)—with Jesus’s renewed calling of the disciples after his resurrection in John. By prioritizing narrative parallels between the two accounts, Eusebius invites us to recognize theological continuity in Jesus’s calling of his disciples before and after the resurrection.

Reading the Gospels with Eusebius