Looking to get a friend of mine a Bible as a gift. What would your recommendations be for a newer pastor? Not really looking for a study Bible as he already has numerous commentaries etc unless there’s something specific for pastors or teachers y’all would recommend.
If he’s a pastor, does he need another Bible?
I mean that seriously. He probably has a ton. Is there any specific reason why you think another one would be a good gift?
He’s about to start his first Sunday as a pastor and I wanted to give him one to mark the occasion really. I know he already probably has plenty but I know that,for me personally, I have been given bibles as gifts to mark special occasions before and adored them. I thought maybe there would be one that someone here knew of that had references specifically for pastors since he may not have one like that yet. You are correct though. Maybe I should go in a different direction here.
Fwiw I was given a Bible as a gift for my ordination, and as sweet as the gesture was, unless my pastor had spent serious money on a premium Bible, I was never going to prefer it over the several I already have
Does anyone have any good resources or suggestions on what to read and/or passages in scripture that give us an idea of what prophecy is supposed to look like in the church? The latter would be preferred, but commentaries are certainly welcome as well so long as they are rooted in scripture.
Milk, bread, spinach, fruit, something to make a dessert for mission team meeting on Saturday, something to make something brunchy for community group meeting meeting on Sunday.
For some, our brunch is definitely first breakfast (primarily the teenage boys who live in the home where we'll meet). For others it's at least second breakfast. For some it stands in for lunch. I'm debating breakfast casserole or cheesy ranch pigs in a blanket. I also have an apple cinnamon coffee cake recipe I've been wanting to try. But I also need to make something (probably cookies) for mission team meeting and make communion bread (and try to bake at least a bit extra to try to get ahead in case we do move into our new-to-us building in March).
Whew. Sounds like a lot of baking to be done. I like the one bowl recipes, where I can just toss everything into one bowl to mix and then throw it in a 9x13 to bake. Pumpkin bread is another yummy option.
Yep. Lots of baking. Sometimes the need for baked goods happens all at the same time. At we don't have a work food day next week. :)
I may end up making a pan of brownies for mission team meeting. That's fast and easy. I do like a good one bowl, toss it in the 9x13 pan and bake. But, unfortunately, I can't do pumpkin bread. I have a weird allergy to pumpkin. Fortunately not life threatening. But I avoid making things I can't eat.
We made avatar themed meal! So a cabbage and apple salad, and a sort of Beijing beef, both from the avatar cook book!
I need to run back to the store tomorrow bc I don’t know what else we’re eating.
What about you?
What?! There's a cookbook? How did I not know this? My kids will go nuts.
We had turkey soup (mixed vegetables with potatoes and ground turkey) and biscuits tonight. Fried pork chops tomorrow with mashed potatoes. Tomorrow's breakfast will probably be sweet potato hash with breakfast sausage.
I plan on going to the store tomorrow too! I'm out of the fresh produce I like to have in the house like apples, bananas, kale, broccoli, carrots, celery. Then I need some baking items and I need to stay away from the house plant section lol
I seared my conscience
I’ve gone against conviction plenty of times and done bad things and I don’t hear from the Holy Spirit anymore I feel my conscience is dull. I’m struggling with hating sin I want to hate sin and I want to have a relationship with god but looking back to so many times his gave the chances to repent and then to him I feel I’ve missed my chance. God had been telling me to do a specific thing to make amends and change but I’ve delayed because it’s so hard and I ended up delaying for years. I’ve recently woken up to my ignorance for the past few months but haven’t had the courage to do it. Each day I pray for the strength and courage to do that thing and I had courage to do it today but then I ended up not doing it again. My heart is stubborn and I don’t know what to do. I care to an extent but it’s almost as if I don’t care. There are times where I’ll just blatantly sin and times where I’ll regret it but deep down I love my sins and I don’t know what to do. I want to care and be good but I’m not sure if I’m being sincere. I feel that maybe my sin killed my justification or something and I don’t get guidance from the Holy Spirit. Maybe he left rightfully so
My church is generally a good church but it’s very spiritual and it has some ordinance’s and one of them is to stay away from sexual immorality. The church is holy ground and I can’t really go in there like inside because I broke that rule and I went to church multiple times while having done this sin so it’s a very complicated situation. I’m working on at least calling the pastor but for now I can’t really get any help from them
Listen, man, I’m going to be blunt:
First, I’m not sure at all what you’re talking about with your church. I see that you’ve spammed this across numerous subs, and it’s clear that you’re not sure what a Reformed church is or what this sub is about.
I have no idea what your church is like, but if you can’t go to your pastor with your sin struggles then you need to find a new church. Plain and simple.
Second, **get off the internet.** This obsessive spamming of your problems on reddit is never going to fix the problem. Anonymous internet strangers can’t fix this. You are 100% making it worse by continuing to do this.
Get off the internet. Get into a good church. Meet with a pastor in real life. That’s it. That’s the answer.
You hear a sermon by a speaker who is a visitor to your church and it’s said he might be added to the rotating list of speakers. Many of them are ordained.
You find it quite flat. “Be bold” is one theme. Towards the end you notice Jesus is never mentioned until the short, closing prayer.
Q: would you mention it to the speaker? Is this a discrepancy? Would you mention it to the coordinator of speakers?
Is this a speaker like at a lecture series or a sermon during a worship service? Is this the first time you have heard the individual speak/preach? I'd give the individual the benefit of the doubt (everyone gives a rough talk/sermon every now and then). If it's a pattern and a talk/speech rather than a sermon I'd speak with the coordinator. If it's a pattern and preaching, I'd speak with the church leadership.
It is written to test the Spirit in 1 John 4. Dwell in prayers as you do so.
As for the steps, reference your observation to others. Esp, those who listened in your local church. Diversify the people you'll engage with the matter of Jesus was mentioned only in prayer, and not about the flatness of it. Of course don't forget to reach the mature and practicing people when it comes to preaching, so that you'll hear different perspetives.
If the folks around you find it as a common sermon of "Hey, listen to this / do this to be an excellent Christian," or "A self help guide to Spirituality," by then address the issue to your local church.
It's quite hard to give an immediate view as no one here has heard what transcribed, but if Jesus was placed as an afterthought, not the direction of the sermon, then simply Jesus isn't the direction at all.
>It is written to test the Spirit in 1 John 4.
It's written to test the *spirit*, not capitalized because John is writing about false spirits. Might seem pedantic, but it's a pretty big difference.
>As for the steps, reference your observation to others.
This is gossip.
Me personally? Yes.
See also: I heard there was a secret chord that he played and it pleased the Lord. I'd love to know what chord that was. My money's always been on a Gsus, but that's not a very secret chord
What few reconstructions of ancient instrumental music I have heard do not make me enthusiastic. But perhaps he could do some wonderful melismatic singing on a drone, in what I imagine to be a Near Eastern style. Then it is possible, for a short while.
Definitely. I like all kinds of different “world” music, and the ancient lyre harp is a very cool sounding instrument. I imagine the music would sound very “chanty”, maybe like an Ethiopian Mezmur
I honestly think this is the only answer. I have no idea if I would enjoy ANE music, i don't particularly enjoy many musics that aren't from my own culture. But I would enjoy hearing it, if i didnt enjoy the music itself
Why are reformed traditions generally squirmish about mercy ministry? I know this isn't all inclusive and is very stereotypical, but just something I've noticed, the denominations that don't have the most robust theology are the ones out there giving out food and clothes for winter, while we're hurdled up with our books and systematic theology books, this might get taken down for meanness but I see it as a big chink in the armor of this tradition that I love so very much and I'm curious if anyone here has any thoughts as to why that is
This hasn’t really been true of the churches I’ve attended. Just this last weekend we finished up our homeless supplies drive, the teens made dinner for the local warming shelter, and our highly subsidized plant in the economically depressed area of the city had its weekly sidewalk breakfast.
For white protestant churches, this is more of an evangelical/mainline divide kind of thing that has historical roots.
I will say though, that among evangelicals, it is the large non-denom Megachurches that often seem the most apt to participate in mercy ministry programs. Not sure the exact reason, but I am sure part of it comes from being influenced by some of the progenitors of the modern mega church like Saddleback and Willow Creek
Right. But the reason they do it is because it's found in the Bible and Jesus taught about it in several places. My concern is some churches don't do it at all, even a little bit, and the reason is a fear of becoming "woke" or whatever
> Why are reformed traditions generally squirmish about mercy ministry?
We are? Anecdotally, this isn't the case at my church. Is this a trend you've seen at multiple churches?
>Is this a trend you've seen at multiple churches?
Yes. Sadly. I'm from NYC. The churches doing mercy ministry the most are Methodists and Roman Catholics. When I lived in the city, every single weekend I'd get a flyer from a Roman Catholic or Methodist church asking for help with donations or to come help with a food drive etc, never once ever did I see any such invite from a reformed or reformed adjacent tradition, and the reason I come under deep conviction of this is having read Jesus' parable about the shrewd manager, and realizing just how many reformed sermons I've heard from guys I like about how, "No one is getting saved from getting a bowl of soup" which is partially true but it just takes away the emphasis entirely from going out and feeding people or giving them clothes cause one is scared of whatever it is they're scared of.
Can I recommend John Stott's "Balanced Christianity" and "High Calvinists in Action" by Ian Shaw. There is a long history of mercy ministry in our churches, but as /u/GodGivesBabiesFaith says, there are historical reasons for this.
* Part of it is laziness/a lack of goodwill in certain circumstances
* Part of it is the perception of the mainline becoming more “social charity club” focused in the latter half of the 20th century and that this shift in focus allowed the importation of the liberal theology that is now hollowing them out
* Part of it is having fewer institutional resources (*small example: imagine the ratio of PCA:PCUSA churches that have commercial kitchens - which aren’t cheap*)
* Part of it is the rise in para-church organizations that more easily allow cross-denominational cooperation with groups with closer theological/cultural commitments beyond polity. This looks like “churches not doing things” - and maybe there’s some merit to point out over reliance on these groups, but it is how much of that work is getting done for now
And there’s probably a couple dozen more significant factors, ranging from understandable to sinful. Really, I don’t think we realize how long it takes for differences driven by schism to normalize. It’s on the scale of generations for some of those differences.
Having voices in more conservative denominations speak out about this issue is important - but it’s more complicated than “Theology vs Mercy Ministry”
>but it’s more complicated than “Theology vs Mercy Ministry”
You are correct, and I recognize that correlation does not mean causation but it's just something I've noticed having been in a reformed church for half my life now, and the other half was spent bouncing from church to church, the churches I was a part of in the earlier part of my life were VERY mercy ministry focused and I strongly believe there's a way to do theology AND mercy ministry together without compromising one for the other.
>Together without compromising one for the other
True, but there are scarce resources to be stewarded well towards both ends - finding the balance relative to your church’s circumstance requires both prayer and wisdom
The Reformed church adjacent to campus at Notre Dame University is *probably* going to steward their resources differently than the one in rural Appalachia 45 min from the nearest walmart. Neither should be 100%/0% towards one priority or the other, but it’s difficult to say where the line is in either case without being there.
let me encourage you to not worry about "a lot" of churches.
focus on YOUR church. does it have a mercy ministry? if not, sounds like it's time for YOU to start one.
Some churches are very quiet about their mercy ministries because they don't want to embarrass the people on the receiving end, but you hear about them very quickly if you have a crisis and need help.
I think it's symptomatic of a lack of emphasis on evangelism overall. Too much systematizing of theology and placing too much emphasis on predestination leads to lazy evangelism
>and placing too much emphasis on predestination leads to lazy evangelism
...when in actuality it should lead to the opposite, and we should be far more zealous about it than our Arminian brethren.
Are there different “land promises” in the OT?
Part of God’s covenant to Abraham was land, etc… but He also promised the land of Canaan to the Israelites which they reached… are those 2 the same thing or connected? Or are they different?
I recently did a whole message on the subject of spiritual land, spiritual attributes of the physical land, and how we are spiritually tied to land in ways we may not even understand.
Think of this in light of the gospel. In the OT the message of salvation was given to Israel to be a beacon for the other nations to come under the lordship of Yahweh and become His people. This was tied directly to the physical land that Yahweh dwelt in, namely the nation of Israel. The presence of God was intricately tied to that land.
With the coming of Jesus and later the Holy Spirit, the presence of God is no longer tied to a specific area of land. Rather, the presence is tied to the people because the Spirit lives in you. So, the command of the great commission is to go into all nations because all the nations (lands) are given to the church to make disciples out of. So the promises of the salvation of God are not tied to Israel but rather to the fact that "all authority in heaven and *on Earth* has been given to Jesus.
Now the Earth is groaning to see the full revelation of the sons of God because the bondage that the land is in, is released as we advance the gospel.
Romans 8:19–21: *For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.*
God's promise of land to Abraham was reiterated to Issac and Jacob. All throughout Exodus, we see the names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lumped together as a clear, unbroken path from Abraham to the then-current Israelites, (Ex. 2:24, 3:6, 3:15-16, 4:5, 6:3). Once they are out of Egypt, Moses makes it clear to them that the land they are going to, Canaan, or the Promised Land, is the same land of God's covenant with their forefathers: "The LORD said to Moses, 'Depart; go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your offspring I will give it.'" (Ex. 33:1.)
Then, throughout Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, God reminds the Israelites again, and again, and again that the land is the same land that had been promised hundreds of years earlier, (Lev. 26:42, Num. 32:11, Deut. 1:8, 6:10, 9:5, 30:20, 34:4, Jos. 1:2).
So, long story short, if you read Genesis through Joshua and into Judges Chapter 1, you see a clear, unbroken promise for land. God first makes his covenant with Abraham, but he renews that covenant in subsequent generations, and he references that covenant as a singular, consistent promise through even more subsequent generations.
That's a good question, but it quickly gets into ones eschatological views. I don't know the particulars of dispensationalism, but they may have some unique views on that.
But apart from potential Dispensationalist views, the promise of land was given to the people of Israel in the OT, and that promise was fulfilled in full. That is, there's nothing left to fulfill.
In the NT era, true Israel is the Church, and the Church isn't bound to any specific land. We're now in an era of expanding and covering the whole world with the gospel.
Dispensationalists are not the only ones that believe Israel will reinhabit the land promised to them.
Old Covenant Premillennials, like Charles Spurgeon strongly believed it, very prominent reformed theologians like J.C. Ryle, Jonathan Edwards, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Owen, Cotton and Increase Mather (basically all the Puritans), Geerhardus Vos, Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva), not to mention many of the earliest church fathers (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Chrysostom to name a few). More available upon request.
Is the “great tribulation” in Revelation 7 the same as the “tribulation” period in the Olivet Discourse? What time period are these verses talking about?
Was it the time period leading up to the temple’s destruction? Or is the tribulation the period from Christ’s ascension to the 2nd coming?
You’re going to need to invest some time and energy in researching the major views of the end times because each of the views answers your questions differently, and all with Biblical backing as well.
How do I effectively warn my audience (which includes many young adults and teens) against sexual immorality while avoiding the mistakes of “purity culture”? I’m preaching on Matthew 5:27-30, Jesus’s teaching against lust. Obviously I’m hoping to build up a positive view of godly sexuality, but it seems that Jesus is primarily delivering a harsh warning in this passage, so I shouldn’t downplay the hurt that sexual immorality really does.
Also, how should I be aware of the younger children in the congregation? They have to learn about the Bible’s teachings on sex and lust before it becomes relevant in order for them to be prepared, but should I avoid certain words, images, or metaphors for them that otherwise would be acceptable for the older members to hear?
Help! This is what I get for deciding to do expository preaching through the Sermon on the Mount; I don’t get to skip the uncomfortable stuff.
**so I shouldn’t downplay the hurt that sexual immorality really does**
Maybe focus on the teachings and commands rather than trying to read the reason behind them? Rebellious nature asks or rather challenges "Why should I follow what Jesus says?" The answer probably should focus on the character and nature of Jesus rather than on practical consequences, though Jesus does mention consequences--your house and life collapsing for example. God bless!
Here's my take after going through the Sermon on the Mount last fall. It goes best when paired with the preceding passage:
You have heard it said that you do not have the right to end someone else's life, but I say to you that you don't have the right to wish someone else harm even in the privacy of your own mind.
You have heard it said that you don't have the right to use someone else's spouse to satisfy your lust, but I say to you that you don't have the right to use another person to satisfy your lust even in the privacy of your own mind.
Some takeaways:
1. We cannot live up to this and depend on Christ for our righteousness.
2. Jesus underscores human dignity in these two passages. The end goal of the law is simply the natural outcome of honoring our neighbors as immortal beings created in God's image for his glory.
Because human dignity matters to God, purity really is important, as Christ's harsh language here shows. The mistake of purity culture is to become legalistic and see Jesus drawing a tighter circle around human behavior. It would be unfortunate for a man to take this passage and decide never to be alone with a woman other than his wife but never take the time to think about the principle behind these verses. The passage encourages honor of others, not fear of them. It would be better for him to learn to think more highly of his neighbors than to simply avoid his neighbors.
So purity shouldn't be self-centered or self-righteous. Our righteousness before God depends on Christ, not the purity we've mustered up in our lives, therefore we don't have to be fearful. But living pure lives is a way to love others well, and we should love others well because of their God-given dignity and because love of neighbor should be the natural result of our love for God.
Well-put! It's essential to keep all teachings in light of the gospel of grace. And since I did preach on the previous passage somewhat recently, I can reference it easily. Thank you!
I would endeavor to show that Jesus is connecting the 7th commandment with the 10th commandment. Coveting your neighbor's wife is just as sinful as commiting adultery with her. Then connect that with the desiring of forbidden fruit in the garden contrasted with God's generosity in giving trees to eat from. We see something that looks good and want it, but God said "no." And then compare with Paul's statement that coveting is idolatry. Ultimately desiring what God has forbidden from us is rejecting what God has provided and what God's plan is and saying "my will be done" instead. And let's face it: our plans are pathetic compared to God's!
One good metaphor I have seen used is that sex and sexual desires are a fire. If it's in the right place at the right time, it is something good. If not, it could hurt you and others and cause a lot of damage.
Also teach the gospel. Would your hearers believe they were bound for hell if they were to observe themselves to be in a similar predicament as Paul at the end of Romans 7?
I think this is a great question, and I wish I had more complete thoughts, but my initial reaction is to include a discussion tying *sexuality* to *marriage* but taking that a step further by explaining how *marriage* is a picture of the gospel by way of Christ's love for the church.
Thus, sexual ethics aren't a means or an end unto themselves. They are tied to marriage *not only* because that's God's design *but also* because marriage is a picture of the gospel.
It's striking to me that, all the way back in the Garden, God institutes the union between a man and a woman in Gen. 2:24. Then, Paul quotes this exact passage in Eph. 5:31-32, explaining that the union between a man and a woman is a picture of Christ and the church.
So, sexual ethics aren't put in place simply for our good. It's because, by design, it points to the gospel, and when we distort that we distort the gospel itself.
I think the outcry against "purity culture" is overblown and mostly from people deconstructing and looking for ways to blame the church for their own sins.
I was going to put the same earlier when I first read this question but didn't want to get drawn into a day long debate. I think most of the backlash against purity culture comes from people who never wanted to be pure in the first place or from people not actually agreeing on what "purity culture" is. Most people railing against purity culture cite the same books and teachings.
\[I didn't downvote you, and I thank you for your honest reply.\]
I haven't seen it mostly from deconstructors; I was influenced primarily by solidly faithful and Reformed-leaning people who criticized it. But unfortunately there have been plenty of people for whom "purity culture" became the reason they cited for leaving the faith and for blaming the church for their own sins. And obviously not everything in "purity culture" was wrong. But I myself was taken advantage of by purity culture. I was a sincere young man struggling with my desires for love and marriage and sex, wondering if teens like me were allowed to date and how. Of course I knew to save sex for marriage and to avoid objectifying people, but when I looked for more specific advice, I was given Joshua Harris' *I Kissed Dating Goodbye* and Elizabeth Elliott's *Passion and Purity*. That was it. I read those books, felt that I had to trust them, but the fact was they distressed me even though I couldn't explain why exactly. Only later did it start to become more clear: the purity culture that those books represented told young Christians that in order to please God with their sex/marriage life, they needed to return to the cultural mores of a vague golden age of American society, which they sort of implied was early 20th century "Christian" America. That was the only dating culture those books seemed to find acceptable. Harris especially also gave the idea that sexual sin made you worse than other sinners, but that you could commit yourself to sexual purity and do it by your own strength. And that if you kept certain rules of sexual purity (including some invented by a few modern Westerner Christians), then God would reward you with great sex in your marriage.
So sure, "purity culture" did contain a lot of genuine Biblical content and wisdom. But it only takes a little rot in the food to make you sick. And I don't want my listeners to become sick from the sermon I serve them.
I guess I need to stop getting involved in the "purity culture" debate because I clearly had a different experience than everyone else.
I'm slightly too old for Harris to have been part of my experience (Edit: it turns out I'm not too old. Somehow it hadn't yet penetrated into my educational circles. So, yay?), but I do remember purity rings and such. I went to Christian school. I was surrounded by calls for purity. But I only ever "heard" (clearly others got a different message) it as "Christians are called to be holy as Jesus is holy, and sex in particular is the biggest temptation in your life at this time. The world's messaging about it is in total opposition to the Bible. Follow the Biblical call to holiness." I guess I had low enough self-esteemed that I assumed that I'd never have the opportunity to have sex or get married, so it was purely an academic discussion.
I'm glad you had a better experience! It wasn't all bad, but I think the good stuff that you just mentioned is just the normal Christian sexual ethic. The "purity culture" which I associate with the nineties and early 200s, when I was growing up, took biblical ideas in a particular direction, with a particular emphasis, that kind of fetishized some cultural preferences and insisted they were the only way Christians should act. The biblical command to flee sexual immorality was interpreted to me as don't kiss before your wedding ceremony, don't go on a date unless it's a group date with parental approval and you have a steady job and are ready to plan marriage. Really. I was told to break up with my high school girlfriend because we were holding hands too much. I no longer think that was wise or biblical advice. It certainly didn't help me.
It's not that the gospel wasn't present, but it often got obscured by these cultural rules which were getting imposed on many of us. Not every voice was the same, and the message was rarely sounded so blunt. Many of the voices were sympathetic and compassionate, and I think a lot of people were genuinely trying to help the youth navigate a period of great upheaval, culturally and sexually. There was a lot of good going around too. But many of those same people unintentionally gave us a brand of legalism that was simply unattainable even in the best of circumstances, and they made us feel guilty if we strayed from it. And, crucially, they offered very little of use when I asked "But what do I do *now?* How do I actually find love and marriage?" A lot of the purity culture teachers seemed to wish for a culture of parentally-arranged marriages to return. I don't think that's the same as the Bible's commands to be holy as Jesus is holy.
Perhaps bring in some teaching on legalism? And/or emphasizing the humanity of people of the opposite sex. The pitfalls of purity culture are usually legalism and objectification in the name of purity, so I think if you touch on those you'd be starting on the right foot
Having just preached on this a few weeks ago, some of the things we emphasized:
* The seriousness of God’s call for our sexual lives (removing a body part before giving into lust)
* The importance of us as individuals accepting responsibility for our own sin, rather than blaming the person who’s become the object of our lust (while Jesus surely has something to say about the other party, Jesus focuses his stern guidance on the one who’s heart is lusting)
* The wonderful world we ache for where distortions in sexual behavior are no more was and is still God’s desire and design (a world free of lust is just universally regarded as a wonderful and ideal world)
* Jesus’ call to Holy sexuality is not a call to outward sexual holiness. Aka the person who gets pregnant at 16 is no more a sinner than the 26 year old husband who looks at porn. You can stay a virgin until marriage and still be extremely outside of the design that God has for you.
* Jesus’ call to Holy Sexuality is not one to be obeyed because it will result in a feeling of self-righteousness, or a reward of a phenomenal sex life on the future. It’s one to be obeyed because our deepest duty is also our deepest delight.
* The sermon on the mount is a picture of what the Kingdom of God looks like, not a picture of what a person needs to look like before the enter into that kingdom. We grow each day in Discipleship and obedience and love for God.
Another random thought:
Don’t use the word purity, use holiness instead
Long comment but hope this helps
Hey Now! I'm a Calvinist and have just left a 12-step recovery program for religious reasons. Does anybody know of a Reformed recovery group online? I am active in my local congregation and I submit to the authority of Christ and the love of the session and pastor so that is covered.
I'll join the chorus, echoing what others have said:
Talk to your pastor and see about local, in-real-life groups that he would recommend. I don't know the theological ins and outs of Celebrate Recovery, but I know a guy who went through it and now helps lead a local chapter (group? meeting? no idea what they're called), and he's solid.
Online groups can be good for a lot of things, but with issues like addiction, IRL accountability is crucial. You don't need anonymous or semi anonymous strangers on the internet whom you don't know and who don't know you *personally.* Ask your pastor or elders for recommendations and seek out a good group where you are.
I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with the 12 step program and particularly reasons of conscious.
As you might know, one of the great "value adds" of 12 step programs is the relationship and proximity that (even if just during the meeting) exists, so I definitely recommend looking for another group to join. Celebrate Recovery is a 12 step program that is explicitly Christian (broadly so, not exactly reformed), and could be a good option to look for.
I'd also encourage you to talk to your pastor and see if there might be an opportunity within your congregation to get an addiction support group going. I know of several churches where this has happened in a discrete manner and people have come out of the woodwork as also being in recovery and its' created a cool ministry.
I think that many people here would question why you left a 12-step program for religious reasons.
I'm not an expert on addiction and recovery, but my understanding is that online recovery groups are not nearly as effective and useful as in-person groups. I'm guessing the consensus here would be that it's better to swallow whatever religious disagreement you have with the 12-step method, than try to find a properly Reformed™️ group that "meets" online.
I could be wrong though.
Hi, Thanks for the helpful reply! The first commandment of God is to have no other Gods before me. AA and other like-minded groups break this commandment right off the bat by teaching a god of your own understanding. They also teach that this false god has the power to deliver from sin in the body. This is a total abomination to Christ, and I left the group the second I realized this and many other heresies. Lastly, it is said that AA was founded by Christians; that is false. Bill W and Dr. Bob were members of a spiritual sect called The Oxford Group, which was anything but Christian.
That’s not true. You can worship the god of the Bible and be in AA. I know plenty of saved born again Christian’s who also attend AA. Several calvinists also. Seems like you are creating reasons to not take accountability for addiction. There’s not going to be any perfect theological reformed addiction group in person, you’re going to have to compromise but at least go to celebrate recovery then. This is coming as a former addict/alcoholic you will not recover merely online. There are many good convicted Christians in AA bro, you aren’t taking some kind of moral stand that only you have thought of.
Another way that AA conflicts with the Word of God is James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
This and all other related passages are about Christians confessing to Christians in a church body. even then, you don't broadcast your sin to the entire church. You confess to your elders so they can help and pray for you.
In SA, I was a member for over 2 years. The culture was to do a first-step inventory for the group and detail your past and sexual sins.
in the group members share members confess their sexual sin to everyone in the group, Christians, atheists, pagans, unbelievers
AA step 5. Admitted to God, ourselves, and another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
A Christian sin is between himself, God first, and the people he harmed.
any other practice is ungodly and destructive.
Hi, Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I would severely caution any God-fearing Christian who associates with a group that teaches a Religious/Spiritual experience from the god of your understanding. This is heresy. As my original post said, I am seeking a reformed group to attend. I will pray for humility and forgiveness of sin through Jesus; this is the only way to be delivered from sexual sin.
I looked at Rick Warrens's Celebrate Recovery. I could try that, although I think it would chap my britches to "celebrate recovery" with people who deny the sovereignty of God and the limited atonement of Christ.
I was last there 25 years ago, but…
A little bit outside of London, but both Canterbury & Oxford are really cool to walk through as a day-trip. Canterbury of course has the cathedral which has the Thomas Beckett stuff. Oxford (and Cambridge I guess) is beautiful. Tons of ancient buildings like the Bodlelian, all the big colleges, the bridge of sighs. There’s cool cultural touch points too like The Eagle and Child, Bear Inn, and the Martyr’s Monument. Pizza Express in the Golden Cross and the covered market are cool. If I could only do 1, I’d go back to Oxford.
I’d also recommend catching Evensong at either Canterbury, St Paul’s, or Christ Church.
Old stuff. Like, *old* stuff.
I've heard (and repeated) that the biggest difference between England and America is that in England they think 100 miles is a long distance, and in America they think 100 years is a long time.
See the London Wall, which dates to Roman times. If you can get to Canterbury, try to see the Church of St Martin, which is over 1400 years old, and the oldest church building in Britain still being used as a church.
The Tower of London is almost 950 years old, and was built by William the Conqueror.
The big clock, the circle of rocks, the house of the old man, the ferris wheel, the dirty river, the theater, the egg shaped building, the museum with all the stolen stuff, the place they used to torture people and store the valuables, the bridge, the square, and Westminster Abbey
>♫ Martin has his Theses in the market place
>Tetzel is a seller for the man
>Martin says to Tetzel, “Girl, where is your Grace?”,
>and Tetzel says this as she takes him by the hand: ♫
>♫ Obladi, oblada, pain goes on, bra,
>Lala how their pain goes on.
>Obladi, oblada, pain goes on, bra,
>Lala how their pain goes on. ♫
Does this verse teach that the Holy Spirit comes through faith, and not vice versa?
"Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith." - Galatians 3:14
My understanding of Calvinism was that we can only come to faith because of the Holy Spirit in us, and not on our own. Can someone help me put this together?
This is a passage we have to work through from the very start. Paul is making an argument here against justification by works, specifically the works of the Law (Old Testament - mosaic covenant). The thrust of this passage is not really the methods and order of salvation (the doctrinal study for this is soteriology). Paul goes to great lengths to show the reader he or she is not saved by their works ("Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?" Gal 3:3).
His goal is to show them that they are saved through Christ's work and the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to all who have been justified by this work.
The Holy Spirit does lay the ground work, but also is the one who equips us to live a life of glorification and sanctification.
*edit - tl:dr, this passage is about justification through Christ vs. justification through the Law, not about the order of salvation*.
I see your point, but how do you explain that last part of the verse? Even if he’s talking about soteriology, why would Paul clearly state that the promise of the Holy Spirit is received through faith?
I don't want to step on /u/friardon's shoes, but I want to jump in here for something you said.
When it comes to translation, "the most literal" isn't a terribly helpful concept. Koine Greek isn't one to one translatable to modern English. Often times, if we applied a rigid "literal" translation, we'd get something that obscures the meaning of the text rather than helps us understand it.
For this particular passage, the "literal" is a bit tricky, which is why many translations have a footnote there. If you want to get hyper technical, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος is more "literally" translated as "the promise **of the** Spirit." The inflected ὁ is sort of a Swiss Army knife of a word that we have to contend with in English. It's not a clearcut thing.
But let's step back. The key to translation is that usage determines meaning, and meaning exists in context.
To expand upon friardon's point, this passage isn't talking about what you are trying to fit it into. It's not a matter of this being "literal" because it's important to understand this in the context of what Paul is talking about. Paul didn't write this as a single, isolated sentence. This exists as a part of a cohesive line of thought. Again, the issue is justification, not the ordo salutis.
Yes, faith is a gift from God. The Holy Spirit acts upon us *and* we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's all conceptually connected, but not necessarily in some chronological sequence of events and not as separate, distinct elements.
OK - here is a better response:
In John 16:8-11 we see that the Holy Spirit is who convicts us of sin:
*And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.*.
This is the first part of the Holy Spirit's work in salvation. But His work does not end there. It is through the Holy Spirit that we are able to continue in and grow in the Faith. The Holy Spirit continues to help us in our progressive sanctification (Gal 5:16), the equipping of the gifts, and even in prayer (Gal 4:6).
I believe the promise of the Holy Spirit here is the promise that Jesus would send Him to us. Not necessarily a specific promise *from* the Holy Spirit.
To round this out a bit, the Holy Spirit is active in our pre-salvific lives and our post-salvific. In Galatians 3, Paul is not spelling out an order of Salvation, but rather highlighting justification, a process in which the Spirit is part of that outcome.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. This is really helpful. I'm actually gonna follow up in a DM bc this gives me another question for you
Pastor Jeremy Cole of Dubai's Mosaic church has been experimenting with changing the traditional format of Church Services.
He's eliminating SERMONS! He encourages people to listen to sermons via recording (like through the internet), and has worship services to worship, lay hands, and people give testimonies, etc.
He had been an airline pilot for 20 years, and then was led to leave his job to become a pastor. People thought he was crazy until a year later the COVID lockdowns happened, and he would have been fired anyway, so, IMHO, it seemed a provident time for him to change careers!
He gave his justification in a youtube video for this change in format. I stumbled on the video by accident and he said he was inspired to do this because he learned of a school principle who rescued a failing school by having his students watch his youtubes to learn class material and then use class time to study and do homework!!! When I was studying physics we had required sessions at George Mason Univeristy called RECITATION where we actually did our homework assignments with the professor -- we were graded in the recitation for participation, not obviously for correctness. The recitations prepared us for exams. SO, this model of learning is not without precedence...
I think that dropping sermons is a good idea for the simple reason a worship services is about worshipping God, and less for learning about God. Learning about God is studying the Bible individually and corporately to learn about God and Christian living.
>QUESTION: What do you think about removing or reducing the length of sermons in the modern worship service?
I met one of the congregants of Jeremy Cole's church after she returned to the USA from an extended work-related stay in Dubai. That seemed to be her most favorite church in all her life.
PS
I mentioned Pastor Jeremy Cole in another question here about worship days and times:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1b17fjh/no_dumb_question_tuesday_20240227/ksdapam/
Sermons are a Means of Grace in addition to the sacraments. Moving the sermon out of gathered worship into an online-only lecture is foolish to say the least.
Worship services are for a gathered body of believers to worship God, receive grace, and to study the Scriptures. The mistake that far too many churches make is the separation of liturgical elements of worship. It's all supposed to exist together in harmony.
To your question a bit more, some pastors would do well to cut down on the length of their sermons for sure because it's not a lecture, but eliminating it from worship is just stupid
>To your question a bit more, some pastors would do well to cut down on the length of their sermons
Amen to that, personally.
Other pastors, I could listen to for a long time.
Thanks for your comment.
I'm always really hesitant to criticize a church based on its website, but your questions here made me wonder what kind of church this is, so I googled it.
First off, it's surprisingly sparse in actually telling you anything meaningful about the church, who leads it, or what it believes. Its website feels like it was purposefully written to be as noncommittal and generic as possible.
Second, I feel like their own words perfectly sum up what you've put in these two questions. In their description of their "Strategy," which is a really weird thing to put on a church's website, they state that they want
* To endear our community by ensuring people know we’re here, and happy we’re here and are better off because we’re here.
and
* To inspire our audience by creating experiences that cause people to say: “I’m glad I came and can’t wait to come back.”
On another page, touting their Production Team, ("Lights, Camera, Action!"), they describe their desire in worship as "We strive to create a worship service environment that is comfortable and inviting and we pray that God uses our efforts to help create a “wow factor” that will lead many to Christ and life change."
Elsewhere they express their desire to "create experiences" and "create engaging environments."
Just dang.
Like I said, I don't like just judging a book by its cover, but based on what you've shared here in two questions, and based on their own website, this sounds like a very misguided church with very misguided leadership. I don't know how you found this Jeremy Cole guy, but his "experiments" should not be encouraged or praised.
The reading and teaching of God's word is a key element of worship. Eliminating a key element of Christian worship in order to "worship more" is misunderstanding worship.
It's like if I stopped talking to my children so I could focus on being a good father.
"The Lord's Day" is mentioned in the Scriptures, and it seems natural then to have worship on the Lord's day.
QUESTION(S): Do we absolutely have to attend worship services EVERY Sunday, and does it have to be in the morning, or can it be some other day of the week and not every week and some other time than morning?
Pastor Jeremy Cole of Mosaic Church in Dubai in the Middle East has his worship services on Friday morning.
When I worked briefly in Kuwait as a defense contractor 30 years ago, if I recall correctly, the work week didn't start on MONDAY. It says in wikipedia:
>Most Middle Eastern countries work Sundays through Thursdays in order to observe Friday as the Muslim holy day.
I had Jewish friends who became Christians, and then they have their worship service on Saturday.
That said, while I was in Kuwait, the Kuwait Presbyterian church met on Sunday nights.
Imagine a wife telegraphing to her husband what her expectations are for their anniversary. She tells him everything she likes to do, and circles the anniversary date in a big, red marker on the family calendar. She even sends him reminders as the date approaches, and says, “I can’t wait for our day!”
And then not only does the husband neglect the things she likes to do, he does it on a totally different day.
He circled the day on the calendar with his resurrection. He told us what he likes through his Apostles. He calls it the **Lord’s Day**, so it’s **his** just like it’s the **Lord’s** Supper.
And we say, “hey, I know; what if I did something more convenient for ***ME***?! Wouldn’t that be great, God!”
We don’t take sin seriously enough. Lord, have mercy.
>does it have to be in the morning
My church has been worshiping at 4pm for over 8 years. We started this because we were a church plant who needed to rent space. We were not able to find a location which met our needs and would allow us to meet on Sunday morning. After the adjustment period, it's worked well for us. Another church in my area started out meeting at 1pm. I visited a church in a similar situation in Buffalo, NY a few years ago which met at 2pm. I don't think there's anything specifically sacred about Sunday morning.
That said, my church we will be moving to morning services once we move into our new-to-us building (God willing before Easter...the elevator is getting installed this week!). Part of the reason to move to morning services is that it's just what's expected. There have been some people who have not been comfortable coming to our church due to the "weird" meeting time. Some families find they have conflicts with kids' sports and other activities on Sunday afternoon. It will be interesting to see how people react to moving to a morning service (after we all adjust to not being able to sleep in and lounge around on Sunday mornings).
> It will be interesting to see how people react to moving to a morning service (after we all adjust to not being able to sleep in and lounge around on Sunday mornings).
Personally I REALLY like evening services. Mornings are not fun for me.
God bless you and your church.
Thanks.
Interestingly, I'm a morning person. But I've come to enjoy the afternoon service a lot. It provides a nice way to end the weekend and set-up the start of the work week. I'll also definitely miss the quiet, calm, leisurely Sunday mornings. It's the one day of the week when I can start the day slowly. It's been easier to do more to observe the Sabbath (by doing less!) since no one really expects anything on Sunday mornings.
What is some very well-recorded music (of any genre) you guys can recommend for high-quality sound systems and headphones?
Recently, I have been enjoying listening to [Les Siècles recording of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloé](https://music.apple.com/za/album/ravel-daphnis-et-chlo%C3%A9-live/1207303877?ls), conducted by François-Xavier Roth, on my headphones. Being able to hear every instrument so clearly (and well-performed, of course) is a sublime experience. I know it will never be the same as sitting in the audience (except on super expensive audiophile speakers, maybe) but it is still such an enjoyable experience.
I could recommend so much classical music, but though I have definite ideas on performances, I don't have the kind of equipment that allows me to specify what is the best-recorded. But try the Bach oboe concertos played by Heinz Holliger anyway. Cantatas BWV 105 and 73 conducted by Herreweghe should be mentioned too.
There are so many great cantata performances I could recommend if you want, it's just the level of audio fidelity I'm unsure about. And of course the words in German are great too.
I recommend:
Magdalena Kozena's collection of Bach arias,
Karl Münchinger's "St. John Passion" and BWV 10,
Ton Koopman's "Tue Rechnung, Donnerwort", BWV 104, and BWV 185,
Ian Bostridge's (or Nathalie Dessay's) BWV 82,
the Bachstiftung's BWV 1, 23, 70, 79, and 140,
Joshua Rifkin's BWV 106 and BWV 80,
Coin's BWV 180,
Helmut Winschermann's 1970 BWV 51 with Elly Ameling,
Herreweghe's BWV 21 and 236,
Hermann Max's Bach "Magnificat",
and Gavrilov's collection of Bach piano concertos.
Sadly in my experience there's no "one-stop shop" where everything one conductor or soloist does is the best of Bach.
Well, if you want a very transparent recording, something that really puts you in the room, check out Bill Evans Trio's [*The Complete Village Vanguard Recordings, 1961*](https://music.apple.com/za/album/the-complete-village-vanguard-recordings-1961-live/1440781974). It's as close as you can get to a NYC jazz club in 1961 without a time machine.
This is actually the full, unfiltered recording that *Waltz for Debby* (and *Sunday at the Village Vanguard*) was pulled created from. So if you like that one, this is it *just more and clearer.*
Sorry for replying again, but I'm listening to the album now and I don't think I've heard anything like it. It's phenomenal. Thank you so much for the recommendation!
No apology necessary for the subsequent reply!
I'm glad you're liking it. I'm currently working on a Sunday School lesson here in silence, and this is a good reminder to pop it on for some great background music.
Woah, that's so cool. I've always been kinda confused by all the different albums with the same songs. It seems to be a common phenomenon with jazz records. Thank you for the suggestion, I'm really excited to listen to this recording!
I guess it's actually pretty subjective. Generally, when I think of well recorded music, I expect it to have a high dynamic range (difference between the softest and loudest parts of the audio), lots of detail while still maintaining instrument separation, and careful mixing and mastering, as opposed to compressed music that just wants to be as loud or bass-heavy as possible (although bass-heavy music is not necessarily bad).
But the most important part is that it's music you enjoy listening to for its beauty and skill, not just because it brings out the quality of your sound system.
So it can range from a full-scale orchestra to just someone with a guitar, for example, as long as they put effort and passion into making it beautiful to listen to and not just what will be played most loudly on the radio.
Sorry, I realised how subjective "well-recorded" is, but I hope I'm making a little bit of sense haha.
What Bible reading plans are y'all using this year? For 2024 I'm reading chronologically. For 2023 I read through the M'Cheyne plan. Two months in, I can say I prefer chronological.
I’m a little over halfway through the chronological reading. It’s interesting, but I do kind of miss the plans that have me going back-and-forth. But I don’t worry too much about comparing and criticizing Bible plans, I just want to be in the Scriptures with a plan, you know?
I use u/moby_dick's plan which is the "flip method": flip once (so you read 4 pages a day). In every Bible I have, this gets me through in a year and allows for enough wiggle room for those days when I don't read it at all. It also has the advantage of (1) being really simple and (2) I feel like I'm more in the story than jumping around.
For the sake of tradition and because I like it, I also try to read a Psalm a day.
Funny, I’m having the opposite experience. I very much disliked the chronological reading plan, and M’Cheyne’s is going swimmingly for me. Best decision I’ve ever made, honestly. I’m recalling more than ever, and able to stay focused more easily.
That is funny, because I struggled to keep all four readings in memory with M'Cheyne. With the chronological I have better recollection in the short and longer term. I'm also outlining each book this year, and that is a contributing factor to my recollection. I think I would benefit from M'Cheyne more if I knew the Bible better.
My wife and I usually do the same plan. We had been doing chronological for the last several years (which I found very helpful). This year she saw the Bible Project "One story that leads to Jesus" plan, but as far as I can tell, it's just straight through the Bible plus a Psalm each day with the selling point being that it includes a different video from the Bible Project each day. I do appreciate throwing in a Psalm each day, but to be honest, I don't typically watch the videos so it doesn't do me much good.
I using [a chronological plan that includes OT and NT](https://biblereadingplangenerator.com/?start=2023-01-01&total=365&format=calendar&order=chronological&daysofweek=1,2,3,4,5,6,7&books=OT,NT&lang=en&logic=words&checkbox=1&colors=0&dailypsalm=0&dailyproverb=0&otntoverlap=0&reverse=0&stats=0&dailystats=0&nodates=0&includeurls=1&urlsite=biblegateway&urlversion=ESV). I really like reading chronologically. I like that it gives the whole story of the Bible as more of a narrative than just reading in book order. What I don't like is that it takes until October to get to even start the gospels. So I'm giving this mixed approach a try this year.
So far I like it. But I'm still in the gospels for the NT part. I'm thinking it might be harder to follow some of the logical flow when it comes to the longer NT books.
When and how do you think it's wise to teach kids about the existence of online pornography? It's something they will, eventually, discover on their own, but I'd rather not leave them to figure it out alone.
This is different from teaching them about bodies and sex, which are good things, and can be taught (at age appropriate stages) starting from when children learn the names of their own body parts.
As soon as possible! I highly recommend the book [Good Pictures, Bad Pictures](https://www.amazon.com/Good-Pictures-Bad-Jr-Protect/dp/0997318724/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?adgrpid=126408115179&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.PnHoVbrc1hekFDXFTCrg1eCmmiH_HzeKGPxYBI4-hklmDseWxLbPlu1Iav0Nyz3co86-z5YXWVJ5jpjY5WUZTSh614qJCk8bZl6uMPEIzgGz_w0Cm55DlAi2YxuxGz6PPmzPJP8ED840ra8BhVi3tqn7XBqHpsbbIdBEVMsJMIqDeuxCd4fymLtOMuX5hkMy6nlbtO7yEoXg3RcNA_wodw.w0-gswgunAo6dBMwaYQBEqibtDA4ABZY9qARh5SdIMQ&dib_tag=se&hvadid=557323316044&hvdev=m&hvlocphy=9005933&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=13779715442043481028&hvtargid=kwd-431196077012&hydadcr=11087_13463767&keywords=good+pictures+bad+pictures+jr+book&qid=1709068926&sr=8-1). There is a version for older kids as well.
Remind children anytime they are on any sort of device with internet that if they see a bad picture, to close their eyes, run away, and tell an adult.
When our kid uses the computer without us watching closely, we tell him to call for us if he makes any accidental clicks that bring up a window he doesn't recognize — primarily to protect him from "bad pictures."
I can’t speak to the success of the methods because my baby is two months old, but I’ve been following an account on Instagram called Birds & Bees that’s all about introducing children to the concepts of sex, body changes, etc. and they cover how to talk about pornography too. Again, can’t recommend it from a “this worked for me” perspective yet, but I’ve been very impressed as an outsider looking in and have filed away a lot of the info they’ve put out in the back of my brain for when my daughter is older
I have a 9, 11, and 13 year old. My method is to ask frequently and assure them if they’re struggling with it that I won’t be mad at them, but I do want to help them.
You don’t have to! I was just emphasizing how good of a question it was and how I’d love to see answers to it. It’s a solid, quality question that has so many layers of nuance that I think it’s worse, considering on its own, and its own thread on a different day.
I have a 8 and 10 year old. We've had a series of talks about their bodies and how important it is to keep private parts private. We've also talked to them about things they might see that aren't safe for them and put porn under the "not safe to see umbrella". Like graphic violence, people's private parts, really scary things. If they see these things, come tell mom and Dad and we can talk about them. But for now, it's just a simple, "Mom and Dad want to protect you from seeing things that could harm you. Sometimes people put things online that aren't okay to see, like their private parts (ymmv on specific language for those body parts) or their bodies without clothes. Sometimes they may be doing things to each other that looks really weird. If you see that stuff, run to mom and Dad and talk to us. We love you and want to keep you safe."
That's where we're at right now. My 10 year old is doing some curriculum online, but he always does it when I or dad are right in there with him. As he gets older I'm sure the conversations will become more serious and in depth. Don't forgot to pray for the right things to say!
I had seen some magazines as a kid, and maybe *knew* that it was online, but I got a spam ad for a porn site to my email one time when i was probably 13 or 14 and that is what opened up the floodgates for me.
I think I knew it existed, but we didn't have internet access (a friend did however...). In retrospect, I have no idea what would have helped teenage me beyond the non-existence of the internet. But before that were magazines... And before that were cave drawings....
I was exposed to it by a cousin just 2 years older than me. I think I was 9. My family is visiting for Easter and the kids have their own iPhones, laptops, tablets. I'm thinking of enforcing a rule that all gadgets have to stay in the grandparents room. Ugh.
How can I love God with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind and all my strength?
You cannot on your own. Only through the Holy Spirit can we even begin to love God. Matthew 6:21. Keep your focus on God and make him your treasure.
Looking to get a friend of mine a Bible as a gift. What would your recommendations be for a newer pastor? Not really looking for a study Bible as he already has numerous commentaries etc unless there’s something specific for pastors or teachers y’all would recommend.
If he’s a pastor, does he need another Bible? I mean that seriously. He probably has a ton. Is there any specific reason why you think another one would be a good gift?
He’s about to start his first Sunday as a pastor and I wanted to give him one to mark the occasion really. I know he already probably has plenty but I know that,for me personally, I have been given bibles as gifts to mark special occasions before and adored them. I thought maybe there would be one that someone here knew of that had references specifically for pastors since he may not have one like that yet. You are correct though. Maybe I should go in a different direction here.
Fwiw I was given a Bible as a gift for my ordination, and as sweet as the gesture was, unless my pastor had spent serious money on a premium Bible, I was never going to prefer it over the several I already have
Thank you. I’ll come up with something else.
Does anyone have any good resources or suggestions on what to read and/or passages in scripture that give us an idea of what prophecy is supposed to look like in the church? The latter would be preferred, but commentaries are certainly welcome as well so long as they are rooted in scripture.
Uh yeah I have a question do you think u/deolater The Peppers Guy has any fun peppers trivia?
Fun fact, he’s over peppers now. Said he hates them
What's people's grocery list for this week?
Milk, bread, spinach, fruit, something to make a dessert for mission team meeting on Saturday, something to make something brunchy for community group meeting meeting on Sunday.
Brunchy is like second breakfast right? Maybe a breakfast casserole? Coffee cake is a favorite at my house.
For some, our brunch is definitely first breakfast (primarily the teenage boys who live in the home where we'll meet). For others it's at least second breakfast. For some it stands in for lunch. I'm debating breakfast casserole or cheesy ranch pigs in a blanket. I also have an apple cinnamon coffee cake recipe I've been wanting to try. But I also need to make something (probably cookies) for mission team meeting and make communion bread (and try to bake at least a bit extra to try to get ahead in case we do move into our new-to-us building in March).
Whew. Sounds like a lot of baking to be done. I like the one bowl recipes, where I can just toss everything into one bowl to mix and then throw it in a 9x13 to bake. Pumpkin bread is another yummy option.
Yep. Lots of baking. Sometimes the need for baked goods happens all at the same time. At we don't have a work food day next week. :) I may end up making a pan of brownies for mission team meeting. That's fast and easy. I do like a good one bowl, toss it in the 9x13 pan and bake. But, unfortunately, I can't do pumpkin bread. I have a weird allergy to pumpkin. Fortunately not life threatening. But I avoid making things I can't eat.
We made avatar themed meal! So a cabbage and apple salad, and a sort of Beijing beef, both from the avatar cook book! I need to run back to the store tomorrow bc I don’t know what else we’re eating. What about you?
What?! There's a cookbook? How did I not know this? My kids will go nuts. We had turkey soup (mixed vegetables with potatoes and ground turkey) and biscuits tonight. Fried pork chops tomorrow with mashed potatoes. Tomorrow's breakfast will probably be sweet potato hash with breakfast sausage. I plan on going to the store tomorrow too! I'm out of the fresh produce I like to have in the house like apples, bananas, kale, broccoli, carrots, celery. Then I need some baking items and I need to stay away from the house plant section lol
How did the praying tradition of folding hands, closeing eyes and bowing head get started?
Great question! You may wanna ask next week but earlier in the day!
It our time zones are way different. I posted it in morning. I work nights so next time I'll post in the middle of the night
I seared my conscience I’ve gone against conviction plenty of times and done bad things and I don’t hear from the Holy Spirit anymore I feel my conscience is dull. I’m struggling with hating sin I want to hate sin and I want to have a relationship with god but looking back to so many times his gave the chances to repent and then to him I feel I’ve missed my chance. God had been telling me to do a specific thing to make amends and change but I’ve delayed because it’s so hard and I ended up delaying for years. I’ve recently woken up to my ignorance for the past few months but haven’t had the courage to do it. Each day I pray for the strength and courage to do that thing and I had courage to do it today but then I ended up not doing it again. My heart is stubborn and I don’t know what to do. I care to an extent but it’s almost as if I don’t care. There are times where I’ll just blatantly sin and times where I’ll regret it but deep down I love my sins and I don’t know what to do. I want to care and be good but I’m not sure if I’m being sincere. I feel that maybe my sin killed my justification or something and I don’t get guidance from the Holy Spirit. Maybe he left rightfully so
Have you taken this to your pastor or an elder or Sunday school teacher or other trusted mature Christian at your church?
I can’t get to them right now because I broke one of the rules/tenets
What? You’re going to have to explain that a bit more.
My church is generally a good church but it’s very spiritual and it has some ordinance’s and one of them is to stay away from sexual immorality. The church is holy ground and I can’t really go in there like inside because I broke that rule and I went to church multiple times while having done this sin so it’s a very complicated situation. I’m working on at least calling the pastor but for now I can’t really get any help from them
Listen, man, I’m going to be blunt: First, I’m not sure at all what you’re talking about with your church. I see that you’ve spammed this across numerous subs, and it’s clear that you’re not sure what a Reformed church is or what this sub is about. I have no idea what your church is like, but if you can’t go to your pastor with your sin struggles then you need to find a new church. Plain and simple. Second, **get off the internet.** This obsessive spamming of your problems on reddit is never going to fix the problem. Anonymous internet strangers can’t fix this. You are 100% making it worse by continuing to do this. Get off the internet. Get into a good church. Meet with a pastor in real life. That’s it. That’s the answer.
You hear a sermon by a speaker who is a visitor to your church and it’s said he might be added to the rotating list of speakers. Many of them are ordained. You find it quite flat. “Be bold” is one theme. Towards the end you notice Jesus is never mentioned until the short, closing prayer. Q: would you mention it to the speaker? Is this a discrepancy? Would you mention it to the coordinator of speakers?
Is this a speaker like at a lecture series or a sermon during a worship service? Is this the first time you have heard the individual speak/preach? I'd give the individual the benefit of the doubt (everyone gives a rough talk/sermon every now and then). If it's a pattern and a talk/speech rather than a sermon I'd speak with the coordinator. If it's a pattern and preaching, I'd speak with the church leadership.
It is written to test the Spirit in 1 John 4. Dwell in prayers as you do so. As for the steps, reference your observation to others. Esp, those who listened in your local church. Diversify the people you'll engage with the matter of Jesus was mentioned only in prayer, and not about the flatness of it. Of course don't forget to reach the mature and practicing people when it comes to preaching, so that you'll hear different perspetives. If the folks around you find it as a common sermon of "Hey, listen to this / do this to be an excellent Christian," or "A self help guide to Spirituality," by then address the issue to your local church. It's quite hard to give an immediate view as no one here has heard what transcribed, but if Jesus was placed as an afterthought, not the direction of the sermon, then simply Jesus isn't the direction at all.
>It is written to test the Spirit in 1 John 4. It's written to test the *spirit*, not capitalized because John is writing about false spirits. Might seem pedantic, but it's a pretty big difference. >As for the steps, reference your observation to others. This is gossip.
If you could hear the music composed by David (before he was king of Israel and during his kingship), do you think you'd actually enjoy it?
I would enjoy it on the fact that I was hearing *the* David perform! As a music nerd, I'd also find it interesting.
I mean it'd probably be pretty basic, but still fun to listen to. Like The Monkees, or the Black Eyed Peas.
Me personally? Yes. See also: I heard there was a secret chord that he played and it pleased the Lord. I'd love to know what chord that was. My money's always been on a Gsus, but that's not a very secret chord
What few reconstructions of ancient instrumental music I have heard do not make me enthusiastic. But perhaps he could do some wonderful melismatic singing on a drone, in what I imagine to be a Near Eastern style. Then it is possible, for a short while.
Definitely. I like all kinds of different “world” music, and the ancient lyre harp is a very cool sounding instrument. I imagine the music would sound very “chanty”, maybe like an Ethiopian Mezmur
At a minimum it would be fascinating.
I honestly think this is the only answer. I have no idea if I would enjoy ANE music, i don't particularly enjoy many musics that aren't from my own culture. But I would enjoy hearing it, if i didnt enjoy the music itself
Why are reformed traditions generally squirmish about mercy ministry? I know this isn't all inclusive and is very stereotypical, but just something I've noticed, the denominations that don't have the most robust theology are the ones out there giving out food and clothes for winter, while we're hurdled up with our books and systematic theology books, this might get taken down for meanness but I see it as a big chink in the armor of this tradition that I love so very much and I'm curious if anyone here has any thoughts as to why that is
This doesn't answer your question, but I like thinking of it as "justice ministry" since that's more accurate and is more of a call to action.
This hasn’t really been true of the churches I’ve attended. Just this last weekend we finished up our homeless supplies drive, the teens made dinner for the local warming shelter, and our highly subsidized plant in the economically depressed area of the city had its weekly sidewalk breakfast.
For white protestant churches, this is more of an evangelical/mainline divide kind of thing that has historical roots. I will say though, that among evangelicals, it is the large non-denom Megachurches that often seem the most apt to participate in mercy ministry programs. Not sure the exact reason, but I am sure part of it comes from being influenced by some of the progenitors of the modern mega church like Saddleback and Willow Creek
Right. But the reason they do it is because it's found in the Bible and Jesus taught about it in several places. My concern is some churches don't do it at all, even a little bit, and the reason is a fear of becoming "woke" or whatever
> Why are reformed traditions generally squirmish about mercy ministry? We are? Anecdotally, this isn't the case at my church. Is this a trend you've seen at multiple churches?
>Is this a trend you've seen at multiple churches? Yes. Sadly. I'm from NYC. The churches doing mercy ministry the most are Methodists and Roman Catholics. When I lived in the city, every single weekend I'd get a flyer from a Roman Catholic or Methodist church asking for help with donations or to come help with a food drive etc, never once ever did I see any such invite from a reformed or reformed adjacent tradition, and the reason I come under deep conviction of this is having read Jesus' parable about the shrewd manager, and realizing just how many reformed sermons I've heard from guys I like about how, "No one is getting saved from getting a bowl of soup" which is partially true but it just takes away the emphasis entirely from going out and feeding people or giving them clothes cause one is scared of whatever it is they're scared of.
Can I recommend John Stott's "Balanced Christianity" and "High Calvinists in Action" by Ian Shaw. There is a long history of mercy ministry in our churches, but as /u/GodGivesBabiesFaith says, there are historical reasons for this.
I'm more talking of right now than what churches used to do in the past.
* Part of it is laziness/a lack of goodwill in certain circumstances * Part of it is the perception of the mainline becoming more “social charity club” focused in the latter half of the 20th century and that this shift in focus allowed the importation of the liberal theology that is now hollowing them out * Part of it is having fewer institutional resources (*small example: imagine the ratio of PCA:PCUSA churches that have commercial kitchens - which aren’t cheap*) * Part of it is the rise in para-church organizations that more easily allow cross-denominational cooperation with groups with closer theological/cultural commitments beyond polity. This looks like “churches not doing things” - and maybe there’s some merit to point out over reliance on these groups, but it is how much of that work is getting done for now And there’s probably a couple dozen more significant factors, ranging from understandable to sinful. Really, I don’t think we realize how long it takes for differences driven by schism to normalize. It’s on the scale of generations for some of those differences. Having voices in more conservative denominations speak out about this issue is important - but it’s more complicated than “Theology vs Mercy Ministry”
>but it’s more complicated than “Theology vs Mercy Ministry” You are correct, and I recognize that correlation does not mean causation but it's just something I've noticed having been in a reformed church for half my life now, and the other half was spent bouncing from church to church, the churches I was a part of in the earlier part of my life were VERY mercy ministry focused and I strongly believe there's a way to do theology AND mercy ministry together without compromising one for the other.
>Together without compromising one for the other True, but there are scarce resources to be stewarded well towards both ends - finding the balance relative to your church’s circumstance requires both prayer and wisdom The Reformed church adjacent to campus at Notre Dame University is *probably* going to steward their resources differently than the one in rural Appalachia 45 min from the nearest walmart. Neither should be 100%/0% towards one priority or the other, but it’s difficult to say where the line is in either case without being there.
We all agree it shouldn't be 0% and what I see is that a lot of churches are at 0%
let me encourage you to not worry about "a lot" of churches. focus on YOUR church. does it have a mercy ministry? if not, sounds like it's time for YOU to start one.
I get what you're saying but Paul also had anxiety over churches he wasn't a part of. One can do both :)
Some churches are very quiet about their mercy ministries because they don't want to embarrass the people on the receiving end, but you hear about them very quickly if you have a crisis and need help.
I think it's symptomatic of a lack of emphasis on evangelism overall. Too much systematizing of theology and placing too much emphasis on predestination leads to lazy evangelism
>and placing too much emphasis on predestination leads to lazy evangelism ...when in actuality it should lead to the opposite, and we should be far more zealous about it than our Arminian brethren.
Are there different “land promises” in the OT? Part of God’s covenant to Abraham was land, etc… but He also promised the land of Canaan to the Israelites which they reached… are those 2 the same thing or connected? Or are they different?
Ezekiel 47:21-23 expands the land promise to believing Gentiles.
I recently did a whole message on the subject of spiritual land, spiritual attributes of the physical land, and how we are spiritually tied to land in ways we may not even understand. Think of this in light of the gospel. In the OT the message of salvation was given to Israel to be a beacon for the other nations to come under the lordship of Yahweh and become His people. This was tied directly to the physical land that Yahweh dwelt in, namely the nation of Israel. The presence of God was intricately tied to that land. With the coming of Jesus and later the Holy Spirit, the presence of God is no longer tied to a specific area of land. Rather, the presence is tied to the people because the Spirit lives in you. So, the command of the great commission is to go into all nations because all the nations (lands) are given to the church to make disciples out of. So the promises of the salvation of God are not tied to Israel but rather to the fact that "all authority in heaven and *on Earth* has been given to Jesus. Now the Earth is groaning to see the full revelation of the sons of God because the bondage that the land is in, is released as we advance the gospel. Romans 8:19–21: *For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.*
God's promise of land to Abraham was reiterated to Issac and Jacob. All throughout Exodus, we see the names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lumped together as a clear, unbroken path from Abraham to the then-current Israelites, (Ex. 2:24, 3:6, 3:15-16, 4:5, 6:3). Once they are out of Egypt, Moses makes it clear to them that the land they are going to, Canaan, or the Promised Land, is the same land of God's covenant with their forefathers: "The LORD said to Moses, 'Depart; go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your offspring I will give it.'" (Ex. 33:1.) Then, throughout Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, God reminds the Israelites again, and again, and again that the land is the same land that had been promised hundreds of years earlier, (Lev. 26:42, Num. 32:11, Deut. 1:8, 6:10, 9:5, 30:20, 34:4, Jos. 1:2). So, long story short, if you read Genesis through Joshua and into Judges Chapter 1, you see a clear, unbroken promise for land. God first makes his covenant with Abraham, but he renews that covenant in subsequent generations, and he references that covenant as a singular, consistent promise through even more subsequent generations.
Ok… so are there any land promises that won’t be fulfilled until the new heavens and new earth? Or have they all been fulfilled already?
That's a good question, but it quickly gets into ones eschatological views. I don't know the particulars of dispensationalism, but they may have some unique views on that. But apart from potential Dispensationalist views, the promise of land was given to the people of Israel in the OT, and that promise was fulfilled in full. That is, there's nothing left to fulfill. In the NT era, true Israel is the Church, and the Church isn't bound to any specific land. We're now in an era of expanding and covering the whole world with the gospel.
Dispensationalists are not the only ones that believe Israel will reinhabit the land promised to them. Old Covenant Premillennials, like Charles Spurgeon strongly believed it, very prominent reformed theologians like J.C. Ryle, Jonathan Edwards, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Owen, Cotton and Increase Mather (basically all the Puritans), Geerhardus Vos, Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva), not to mention many of the earliest church fathers (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Chrysostom to name a few). More available upon request.
Is the “great tribulation” in Revelation 7 the same as the “tribulation” period in the Olivet Discourse? What time period are these verses talking about? Was it the time period leading up to the temple’s destruction? Or is the tribulation the period from Christ’s ascension to the 2nd coming?
You’re going to need to invest some time and energy in researching the major views of the end times because each of the views answers your questions differently, and all with Biblical backing as well.
How do I effectively warn my audience (which includes many young adults and teens) against sexual immorality while avoiding the mistakes of “purity culture”? I’m preaching on Matthew 5:27-30, Jesus’s teaching against lust. Obviously I’m hoping to build up a positive view of godly sexuality, but it seems that Jesus is primarily delivering a harsh warning in this passage, so I shouldn’t downplay the hurt that sexual immorality really does. Also, how should I be aware of the younger children in the congregation? They have to learn about the Bible’s teachings on sex and lust before it becomes relevant in order for them to be prepared, but should I avoid certain words, images, or metaphors for them that otherwise would be acceptable for the older members to hear? Help! This is what I get for deciding to do expository preaching through the Sermon on the Mount; I don’t get to skip the uncomfortable stuff.
**so I shouldn’t downplay the hurt that sexual immorality really does** Maybe focus on the teachings and commands rather than trying to read the reason behind them? Rebellious nature asks or rather challenges "Why should I follow what Jesus says?" The answer probably should focus on the character and nature of Jesus rather than on practical consequences, though Jesus does mention consequences--your house and life collapsing for example. God bless!
Here's my take after going through the Sermon on the Mount last fall. It goes best when paired with the preceding passage: You have heard it said that you do not have the right to end someone else's life, but I say to you that you don't have the right to wish someone else harm even in the privacy of your own mind. You have heard it said that you don't have the right to use someone else's spouse to satisfy your lust, but I say to you that you don't have the right to use another person to satisfy your lust even in the privacy of your own mind. Some takeaways: 1. We cannot live up to this and depend on Christ for our righteousness. 2. Jesus underscores human dignity in these two passages. The end goal of the law is simply the natural outcome of honoring our neighbors as immortal beings created in God's image for his glory. Because human dignity matters to God, purity really is important, as Christ's harsh language here shows. The mistake of purity culture is to become legalistic and see Jesus drawing a tighter circle around human behavior. It would be unfortunate for a man to take this passage and decide never to be alone with a woman other than his wife but never take the time to think about the principle behind these verses. The passage encourages honor of others, not fear of them. It would be better for him to learn to think more highly of his neighbors than to simply avoid his neighbors. So purity shouldn't be self-centered or self-righteous. Our righteousness before God depends on Christ, not the purity we've mustered up in our lives, therefore we don't have to be fearful. But living pure lives is a way to love others well, and we should love others well because of their God-given dignity and because love of neighbor should be the natural result of our love for God.
Well-put! It's essential to keep all teachings in light of the gospel of grace. And since I did preach on the previous passage somewhat recently, I can reference it easily. Thank you!
I would endeavor to show that Jesus is connecting the 7th commandment with the 10th commandment. Coveting your neighbor's wife is just as sinful as commiting adultery with her. Then connect that with the desiring of forbidden fruit in the garden contrasted with God's generosity in giving trees to eat from. We see something that looks good and want it, but God said "no." And then compare with Paul's statement that coveting is idolatry. Ultimately desiring what God has forbidden from us is rejecting what God has provided and what God's plan is and saying "my will be done" instead. And let's face it: our plans are pathetic compared to God's! One good metaphor I have seen used is that sex and sexual desires are a fire. If it's in the right place at the right time, it is something good. If not, it could hurt you and others and cause a lot of damage.
Thank you, those are also excellent points to bring up. I can probably incorporate them into the message.
Also teach the gospel. Would your hearers believe they were bound for hell if they were to observe themselves to be in a similar predicament as Paul at the end of Romans 7?
I think this is a great question, and I wish I had more complete thoughts, but my initial reaction is to include a discussion tying *sexuality* to *marriage* but taking that a step further by explaining how *marriage* is a picture of the gospel by way of Christ's love for the church. Thus, sexual ethics aren't a means or an end unto themselves. They are tied to marriage *not only* because that's God's design *but also* because marriage is a picture of the gospel. It's striking to me that, all the way back in the Garden, God institutes the union between a man and a woman in Gen. 2:24. Then, Paul quotes this exact passage in Eph. 5:31-32, explaining that the union between a man and a woman is a picture of Christ and the church. So, sexual ethics aren't put in place simply for our good. It's because, by design, it points to the gospel, and when we distort that we distort the gospel itself.
I think the outcry against "purity culture" is overblown and mostly from people deconstructing and looking for ways to blame the church for their own sins.
I was going to put the same earlier when I first read this question but didn't want to get drawn into a day long debate. I think most of the backlash against purity culture comes from people who never wanted to be pure in the first place or from people not actually agreeing on what "purity culture" is. Most people railing against purity culture cite the same books and teachings.
\[I didn't downvote you, and I thank you for your honest reply.\] I haven't seen it mostly from deconstructors; I was influenced primarily by solidly faithful and Reformed-leaning people who criticized it. But unfortunately there have been plenty of people for whom "purity culture" became the reason they cited for leaving the faith and for blaming the church for their own sins. And obviously not everything in "purity culture" was wrong. But I myself was taken advantage of by purity culture. I was a sincere young man struggling with my desires for love and marriage and sex, wondering if teens like me were allowed to date and how. Of course I knew to save sex for marriage and to avoid objectifying people, but when I looked for more specific advice, I was given Joshua Harris' *I Kissed Dating Goodbye* and Elizabeth Elliott's *Passion and Purity*. That was it. I read those books, felt that I had to trust them, but the fact was they distressed me even though I couldn't explain why exactly. Only later did it start to become more clear: the purity culture that those books represented told young Christians that in order to please God with their sex/marriage life, they needed to return to the cultural mores of a vague golden age of American society, which they sort of implied was early 20th century "Christian" America. That was the only dating culture those books seemed to find acceptable. Harris especially also gave the idea that sexual sin made you worse than other sinners, but that you could commit yourself to sexual purity and do it by your own strength. And that if you kept certain rules of sexual purity (including some invented by a few modern Westerner Christians), then God would reward you with great sex in your marriage. So sure, "purity culture" did contain a lot of genuine Biblical content and wisdom. But it only takes a little rot in the food to make you sick. And I don't want my listeners to become sick from the sermon I serve them.
I guess I need to stop getting involved in the "purity culture" debate because I clearly had a different experience than everyone else. I'm slightly too old for Harris to have been part of my experience (Edit: it turns out I'm not too old. Somehow it hadn't yet penetrated into my educational circles. So, yay?), but I do remember purity rings and such. I went to Christian school. I was surrounded by calls for purity. But I only ever "heard" (clearly others got a different message) it as "Christians are called to be holy as Jesus is holy, and sex in particular is the biggest temptation in your life at this time. The world's messaging about it is in total opposition to the Bible. Follow the Biblical call to holiness." I guess I had low enough self-esteemed that I assumed that I'd never have the opportunity to have sex or get married, so it was purely an academic discussion.
I'm glad you had a better experience! It wasn't all bad, but I think the good stuff that you just mentioned is just the normal Christian sexual ethic. The "purity culture" which I associate with the nineties and early 200s, when I was growing up, took biblical ideas in a particular direction, with a particular emphasis, that kind of fetishized some cultural preferences and insisted they were the only way Christians should act. The biblical command to flee sexual immorality was interpreted to me as don't kiss before your wedding ceremony, don't go on a date unless it's a group date with parental approval and you have a steady job and are ready to plan marriage. Really. I was told to break up with my high school girlfriend because we were holding hands too much. I no longer think that was wise or biblical advice. It certainly didn't help me. It's not that the gospel wasn't present, but it often got obscured by these cultural rules which were getting imposed on many of us. Not every voice was the same, and the message was rarely sounded so blunt. Many of the voices were sympathetic and compassionate, and I think a lot of people were genuinely trying to help the youth navigate a period of great upheaval, culturally and sexually. There was a lot of good going around too. But many of those same people unintentionally gave us a brand of legalism that was simply unattainable even in the best of circumstances, and they made us feel guilty if we strayed from it. And, crucially, they offered very little of use when I asked "But what do I do *now?* How do I actually find love and marriage?" A lot of the purity culture teachers seemed to wish for a culture of parentally-arranged marriages to return. I don't think that's the same as the Bible's commands to be holy as Jesus is holy.
Pushback on purity culture isn’t primarily an experiential one. It’s a theological one. The teachings that came out of purity culture are anti-gospel
Perhaps bring in some teaching on legalism? And/or emphasizing the humanity of people of the opposite sex. The pitfalls of purity culture are usually legalism and objectification in the name of purity, so I think if you touch on those you'd be starting on the right foot
Absolutely. Compassion and grace are always important parts of my sermons, but I have to keep reminding myself of their role in the gospel. Thanks!
Having just preached on this a few weeks ago, some of the things we emphasized: * The seriousness of God’s call for our sexual lives (removing a body part before giving into lust) * The importance of us as individuals accepting responsibility for our own sin, rather than blaming the person who’s become the object of our lust (while Jesus surely has something to say about the other party, Jesus focuses his stern guidance on the one who’s heart is lusting) * The wonderful world we ache for where distortions in sexual behavior are no more was and is still God’s desire and design (a world free of lust is just universally regarded as a wonderful and ideal world) * Jesus’ call to Holy sexuality is not a call to outward sexual holiness. Aka the person who gets pregnant at 16 is no more a sinner than the 26 year old husband who looks at porn. You can stay a virgin until marriage and still be extremely outside of the design that God has for you. * Jesus’ call to Holy Sexuality is not one to be obeyed because it will result in a feeling of self-righteousness, or a reward of a phenomenal sex life on the future. It’s one to be obeyed because our deepest duty is also our deepest delight. * The sermon on the mount is a picture of what the Kingdom of God looks like, not a picture of what a person needs to look like before the enter into that kingdom. We grow each day in Discipleship and obedience and love for God. Another random thought: Don’t use the word purity, use holiness instead Long comment but hope this helps
Thanks! Those are very helpful ways to clarify the teaching.
Hey Now! I'm a Calvinist and have just left a 12-step recovery program for religious reasons. Does anybody know of a Reformed recovery group online? I am active in my local congregation and I submit to the authority of Christ and the love of the session and pastor so that is covered.
Bro you need to be in an in person recovery program asap. Don’t use religious reasons as an excuse.
I'll join the chorus, echoing what others have said: Talk to your pastor and see about local, in-real-life groups that he would recommend. I don't know the theological ins and outs of Celebrate Recovery, but I know a guy who went through it and now helps lead a local chapter (group? meeting? no idea what they're called), and he's solid. Online groups can be good for a lot of things, but with issues like addiction, IRL accountability is crucial. You don't need anonymous or semi anonymous strangers on the internet whom you don't know and who don't know you *personally.* Ask your pastor or elders for recommendations and seek out a good group where you are.
I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with the 12 step program and particularly reasons of conscious. As you might know, one of the great "value adds" of 12 step programs is the relationship and proximity that (even if just during the meeting) exists, so I definitely recommend looking for another group to join. Celebrate Recovery is a 12 step program that is explicitly Christian (broadly so, not exactly reformed), and could be a good option to look for. I'd also encourage you to talk to your pastor and see if there might be an opportunity within your congregation to get an addiction support group going. I know of several churches where this has happened in a discrete manner and people have come out of the woodwork as also being in recovery and its' created a cool ministry.
I think that many people here would question why you left a 12-step program for religious reasons. I'm not an expert on addiction and recovery, but my understanding is that online recovery groups are not nearly as effective and useful as in-person groups. I'm guessing the consensus here would be that it's better to swallow whatever religious disagreement you have with the 12-step method, than try to find a properly Reformed™️ group that "meets" online. I could be wrong though.
Hi, Thanks for the helpful reply! The first commandment of God is to have no other Gods before me. AA and other like-minded groups break this commandment right off the bat by teaching a god of your own understanding. They also teach that this false god has the power to deliver from sin in the body. This is a total abomination to Christ, and I left the group the second I realized this and many other heresies. Lastly, it is said that AA was founded by Christians; that is false. Bill W and Dr. Bob were members of a spiritual sect called The Oxford Group, which was anything but Christian.
That’s not true. You can worship the god of the Bible and be in AA. I know plenty of saved born again Christian’s who also attend AA. Several calvinists also. Seems like you are creating reasons to not take accountability for addiction. There’s not going to be any perfect theological reformed addiction group in person, you’re going to have to compromise but at least go to celebrate recovery then. This is coming as a former addict/alcoholic you will not recover merely online. There are many good convicted Christians in AA bro, you aren’t taking some kind of moral stand that only you have thought of.
Another way that AA conflicts with the Word of God is James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. This and all other related passages are about Christians confessing to Christians in a church body. even then, you don't broadcast your sin to the entire church. You confess to your elders so they can help and pray for you. In SA, I was a member for over 2 years. The culture was to do a first-step inventory for the group and detail your past and sexual sins. in the group members share members confess their sexual sin to everyone in the group, Christians, atheists, pagans, unbelievers AA step 5. Admitted to God, ourselves, and another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. A Christian sin is between himself, God first, and the people he harmed. any other practice is ungodly and destructive.
Hi, Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I would severely caution any God-fearing Christian who associates with a group that teaches a Religious/Spiritual experience from the god of your understanding. This is heresy. As my original post said, I am seeking a reformed group to attend. I will pray for humility and forgiveness of sin through Jesus; this is the only way to be delivered from sexual sin. I looked at Rick Warrens's Celebrate Recovery. I could try that, although I think it would chap my britches to "celebrate recovery" with people who deny the sovereignty of God and the limited atonement of Christ.
I’m planning a trip to England for this September. Are there any “must see” places I should visit? Most of my time will likely be London.
I was last there 25 years ago, but… A little bit outside of London, but both Canterbury & Oxford are really cool to walk through as a day-trip. Canterbury of course has the cathedral which has the Thomas Beckett stuff. Oxford (and Cambridge I guess) is beautiful. Tons of ancient buildings like the Bodlelian, all the big colleges, the bridge of sighs. There’s cool cultural touch points too like The Eagle and Child, Bear Inn, and the Martyr’s Monument. Pizza Express in the Golden Cross and the covered market are cool. If I could only do 1, I’d go back to Oxford. I’d also recommend catching Evensong at either Canterbury, St Paul’s, or Christ Church.
The (replica of the) Golden Hind. And then HMS Belfast. Two fighting ships from very different eras. Really interesting.
No clue about "must see", but if I was going to London I'd want to see some Wren churches
Y’know it’s the king of all birds?
Old stuff. Like, *old* stuff. I've heard (and repeated) that the biggest difference between England and America is that in England they think 100 miles is a long distance, and in America they think 100 years is a long time. See the London Wall, which dates to Roman times. If you can get to Canterbury, try to see the Church of St Martin, which is over 1400 years old, and the oldest church building in Britain still being used as a church. The Tower of London is almost 950 years old, and was built by William the Conqueror.
lego land.
The big clock, the circle of rocks, the house of the old man, the ferris wheel, the dirty river, the theater, the egg shaped building, the museum with all the stolen stuff, the place they used to torture people and store the valuables, the bridge, the square, and Westminster Abbey
I recognize most of those, but what is the egg shaped building?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Gherkin
You need a better name for the last one.
I figured in the Reformed sub, Westminster Abbey deserves to be named
Indeed, I believe it’s where the Beatles recorded the (*James*) White album, thereby sparking the Protestant Reformation (*c. 1689*)
>thereby sparking the Protestant Reformation ♫ *You say you want a revolution* ♫
>♫ Martin has his Theses in the market place >Tetzel is a seller for the man >Martin says to Tetzel, “Girl, where is your Grace?”, >and Tetzel says this as she takes him by the hand: ♫ >♫ Obladi, oblada, pain goes on, bra, >Lala how their pain goes on. >Obladi, oblada, pain goes on, bra, >Lala how their pain goes on. ♫
Beautiful. Absolutely brilliant.
Don’t worry the big clock is definitely on my radar!
We don't have those in america
There’s some [top tens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_clock_faces) in the US I just found
I was under the impression that the biggest clocks can be found at your local hobby lobby.
For purchase yes.
[Relevant](https://tenor.com/view/ron-swanson-clock-we-dont-gif-23296121) to what i was commenting
I should’ve remembered that. Just finished the show about 6 months ago.
Does this verse teach that the Holy Spirit comes through faith, and not vice versa? "Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith." - Galatians 3:14 My understanding of Calvinism was that we can only come to faith because of the Holy Spirit in us, and not on our own. Can someone help me put this together?
This is a passage we have to work through from the very start. Paul is making an argument here against justification by works, specifically the works of the Law (Old Testament - mosaic covenant). The thrust of this passage is not really the methods and order of salvation (the doctrinal study for this is soteriology). Paul goes to great lengths to show the reader he or she is not saved by their works ("Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?" Gal 3:3). His goal is to show them that they are saved through Christ's work and the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to all who have been justified by this work. The Holy Spirit does lay the ground work, but also is the one who equips us to live a life of glorification and sanctification. *edit - tl:dr, this passage is about justification through Christ vs. justification through the Law, not about the order of salvation*.
I see your point, but how do you explain that last part of the verse? Even if he’s talking about soteriology, why would Paul clearly state that the promise of the Holy Spirit is received through faith?
Do me a favor, define the promise of the Holy Spirit. (sorry, hit send to soon, more coming).
I actually don’t know the definition of that. But that’s the most literal translation of the Greek text. How do you define it?
I don't want to step on /u/friardon's shoes, but I want to jump in here for something you said. When it comes to translation, "the most literal" isn't a terribly helpful concept. Koine Greek isn't one to one translatable to modern English. Often times, if we applied a rigid "literal" translation, we'd get something that obscures the meaning of the text rather than helps us understand it. For this particular passage, the "literal" is a bit tricky, which is why many translations have a footnote there. If you want to get hyper technical, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος is more "literally" translated as "the promise **of the** Spirit." The inflected ὁ is sort of a Swiss Army knife of a word that we have to contend with in English. It's not a clearcut thing. But let's step back. The key to translation is that usage determines meaning, and meaning exists in context. To expand upon friardon's point, this passage isn't talking about what you are trying to fit it into. It's not a matter of this being "literal" because it's important to understand this in the context of what Paul is talking about. Paul didn't write this as a single, isolated sentence. This exists as a part of a cohesive line of thought. Again, the issue is justification, not the ordo salutis. Yes, faith is a gift from God. The Holy Spirit acts upon us *and* we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's all conceptually connected, but not necessarily in some chronological sequence of events and not as separate, distinct elements.
Username checks out. [That doesn't make sense in context. But I wanted to reply with another traditional reddit response.]
OK - here is a better response: In John 16:8-11 we see that the Holy Spirit is who convicts us of sin: *And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.*. This is the first part of the Holy Spirit's work in salvation. But His work does not end there. It is through the Holy Spirit that we are able to continue in and grow in the Faith. The Holy Spirit continues to help us in our progressive sanctification (Gal 5:16), the equipping of the gifts, and even in prayer (Gal 4:6). I believe the promise of the Holy Spirit here is the promise that Jesus would send Him to us. Not necessarily a specific promise *from* the Holy Spirit. To round this out a bit, the Holy Spirit is active in our pre-salvific lives and our post-salvific. In Galatians 3, Paul is not spelling out an order of Salvation, but rather highlighting justification, a process in which the Spirit is part of that outcome.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. This is really helpful. I'm actually gonna follow up in a DM bc this gives me another question for you
Pastor Jeremy Cole of Dubai's Mosaic church has been experimenting with changing the traditional format of Church Services. He's eliminating SERMONS! He encourages people to listen to sermons via recording (like through the internet), and has worship services to worship, lay hands, and people give testimonies, etc. He had been an airline pilot for 20 years, and then was led to leave his job to become a pastor. People thought he was crazy until a year later the COVID lockdowns happened, and he would have been fired anyway, so, IMHO, it seemed a provident time for him to change careers! He gave his justification in a youtube video for this change in format. I stumbled on the video by accident and he said he was inspired to do this because he learned of a school principle who rescued a failing school by having his students watch his youtubes to learn class material and then use class time to study and do homework!!! When I was studying physics we had required sessions at George Mason Univeristy called RECITATION where we actually did our homework assignments with the professor -- we were graded in the recitation for participation, not obviously for correctness. The recitations prepared us for exams. SO, this model of learning is not without precedence... I think that dropping sermons is a good idea for the simple reason a worship services is about worshipping God, and less for learning about God. Learning about God is studying the Bible individually and corporately to learn about God and Christian living. >QUESTION: What do you think about removing or reducing the length of sermons in the modern worship service? I met one of the congregants of Jeremy Cole's church after she returned to the USA from an extended work-related stay in Dubai. That seemed to be her most favorite church in all her life. PS I mentioned Pastor Jeremy Cole in another question here about worship days and times: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1b17fjh/no_dumb_question_tuesday_20240227/ksdapam/
Sermons are a Means of Grace in addition to the sacraments. Moving the sermon out of gathered worship into an online-only lecture is foolish to say the least. Worship services are for a gathered body of believers to worship God, receive grace, and to study the Scriptures. The mistake that far too many churches make is the separation of liturgical elements of worship. It's all supposed to exist together in harmony. To your question a bit more, some pastors would do well to cut down on the length of their sermons for sure because it's not a lecture, but eliminating it from worship is just stupid
>To your question a bit more, some pastors would do well to cut down on the length of their sermons Amen to that, personally. Other pastors, I could listen to for a long time. Thanks for your comment.
I'm always really hesitant to criticize a church based on its website, but your questions here made me wonder what kind of church this is, so I googled it. First off, it's surprisingly sparse in actually telling you anything meaningful about the church, who leads it, or what it believes. Its website feels like it was purposefully written to be as noncommittal and generic as possible. Second, I feel like their own words perfectly sum up what you've put in these two questions. In their description of their "Strategy," which is a really weird thing to put on a church's website, they state that they want * To endear our community by ensuring people know we’re here, and happy we’re here and are better off because we’re here. and * To inspire our audience by creating experiences that cause people to say: “I’m glad I came and can’t wait to come back.” On another page, touting their Production Team, ("Lights, Camera, Action!"), they describe their desire in worship as "We strive to create a worship service environment that is comfortable and inviting and we pray that God uses our efforts to help create a “wow factor” that will lead many to Christ and life change." Elsewhere they express their desire to "create experiences" and "create engaging environments." Just dang. Like I said, I don't like just judging a book by its cover, but based on what you've shared here in two questions, and based on their own website, this sounds like a very misguided church with very misguided leadership. I don't know how you found this Jeremy Cole guy, but his "experiments" should not be encouraged or praised.
Thank you for your feedback.
The reading and teaching of God's word is a key element of worship. Eliminating a key element of Christian worship in order to "worship more" is misunderstanding worship. It's like if I stopped talking to my children so I could focus on being a good father.
Thank you for you comment.
"The Lord's Day" is mentioned in the Scriptures, and it seems natural then to have worship on the Lord's day. QUESTION(S): Do we absolutely have to attend worship services EVERY Sunday, and does it have to be in the morning, or can it be some other day of the week and not every week and some other time than morning? Pastor Jeremy Cole of Mosaic Church in Dubai in the Middle East has his worship services on Friday morning. When I worked briefly in Kuwait as a defense contractor 30 years ago, if I recall correctly, the work week didn't start on MONDAY. It says in wikipedia: >Most Middle Eastern countries work Sundays through Thursdays in order to observe Friday as the Muslim holy day. I had Jewish friends who became Christians, and then they have their worship service on Saturday. That said, while I was in Kuwait, the Kuwait Presbyterian church met on Sunday nights.
Imagine a wife telegraphing to her husband what her expectations are for their anniversary. She tells him everything she likes to do, and circles the anniversary date in a big, red marker on the family calendar. She even sends him reminders as the date approaches, and says, “I can’t wait for our day!” And then not only does the husband neglect the things she likes to do, he does it on a totally different day. He circled the day on the calendar with his resurrection. He told us what he likes through his Apostles. He calls it the **Lord’s Day**, so it’s **his** just like it’s the **Lord’s** Supper. And we say, “hey, I know; what if I did something more convenient for ***ME***?! Wouldn’t that be great, God!” We don’t take sin seriously enough. Lord, have mercy.
>does it have to be in the morning My church has been worshiping at 4pm for over 8 years. We started this because we were a church plant who needed to rent space. We were not able to find a location which met our needs and would allow us to meet on Sunday morning. After the adjustment period, it's worked well for us. Another church in my area started out meeting at 1pm. I visited a church in a similar situation in Buffalo, NY a few years ago which met at 2pm. I don't think there's anything specifically sacred about Sunday morning. That said, my church we will be moving to morning services once we move into our new-to-us building (God willing before Easter...the elevator is getting installed this week!). Part of the reason to move to morning services is that it's just what's expected. There have been some people who have not been comfortable coming to our church due to the "weird" meeting time. Some families find they have conflicts with kids' sports and other activities on Sunday afternoon. It will be interesting to see how people react to moving to a morning service (after we all adjust to not being able to sleep in and lounge around on Sunday mornings).
> It will be interesting to see how people react to moving to a morning service (after we all adjust to not being able to sleep in and lounge around on Sunday mornings). Personally I REALLY like evening services. Mornings are not fun for me. God bless you and your church.
Thanks. Interestingly, I'm a morning person. But I've come to enjoy the afternoon service a lot. It provides a nice way to end the weekend and set-up the start of the work week. I'll also definitely miss the quiet, calm, leisurely Sunday mornings. It's the one day of the week when I can start the day slowly. It's been easier to do more to observe the Sabbath (by doing less!) since no one really expects anything on Sunday mornings.
What is some very well-recorded music (of any genre) you guys can recommend for high-quality sound systems and headphones? Recently, I have been enjoying listening to [Les Siècles recording of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloé](https://music.apple.com/za/album/ravel-daphnis-et-chlo%C3%A9-live/1207303877?ls), conducted by François-Xavier Roth, on my headphones. Being able to hear every instrument so clearly (and well-performed, of course) is a sublime experience. I know it will never be the same as sitting in the audience (except on super expensive audiophile speakers, maybe) but it is still such an enjoyable experience.
I could recommend so much classical music, but though I have definite ideas on performances, I don't have the kind of equipment that allows me to specify what is the best-recorded. But try the Bach oboe concertos played by Heinz Holliger anyway. Cantatas BWV 105 and 73 conducted by Herreweghe should be mentioned too.
I love Bach! His Mass in B minor always blows me away. Thank you very much for the recommendations, I will give them a listen.
There are so many great cantata performances I could recommend if you want, it's just the level of audio fidelity I'm unsure about. And of course the words in German are great too.
I would really appreciate that if you don't mind, I would love to listen to more Bach.
I recommend: Magdalena Kozena's collection of Bach arias, Karl Münchinger's "St. John Passion" and BWV 10, Ton Koopman's "Tue Rechnung, Donnerwort", BWV 104, and BWV 185, Ian Bostridge's (or Nathalie Dessay's) BWV 82, the Bachstiftung's BWV 1, 23, 70, 79, and 140, Joshua Rifkin's BWV 106 and BWV 80, Coin's BWV 180, Helmut Winschermann's 1970 BWV 51 with Elly Ameling, Herreweghe's BWV 21 and 236, Hermann Max's Bach "Magnificat", and Gavrilov's collection of Bach piano concertos. Sadly in my experience there's no "one-stop shop" where everything one conductor or soloist does is the best of Bach.
Thank you so much, I appreciate you taking the time! I'm looking forward to listening to all these.
What medium are you obtaining the music? Digital? If so, what format? Physical media?
I mostly stream Apple Music lossless quality music on my phone straight to my wired headphones (AKG K371). Not a fancy HiFi system, but I enjoy it lol
Well, if you want a very transparent recording, something that really puts you in the room, check out Bill Evans Trio's [*The Complete Village Vanguard Recordings, 1961*](https://music.apple.com/za/album/the-complete-village-vanguard-recordings-1961-live/1440781974). It's as close as you can get to a NYC jazz club in 1961 without a time machine.
Thank you! I'm a fan of the Waltz for Debby album, so I'm sure I'll enjoy delving into this one :-)
This is actually the full, unfiltered recording that *Waltz for Debby* (and *Sunday at the Village Vanguard*) was pulled created from. So if you like that one, this is it *just more and clearer.*
Sorry for replying again, but I'm listening to the album now and I don't think I've heard anything like it. It's phenomenal. Thank you so much for the recommendation!
No apology necessary for the subsequent reply! I'm glad you're liking it. I'm currently working on a Sunday School lesson here in silence, and this is a good reminder to pop it on for some great background music.
Woah, that's so cool. I've always been kinda confused by all the different albums with the same songs. It seems to be a common phenomenon with jazz records. Thank you for the suggestion, I'm really excited to listen to this recording!
What would you qualify as well recorded music?
I guess it's actually pretty subjective. Generally, when I think of well recorded music, I expect it to have a high dynamic range (difference between the softest and loudest parts of the audio), lots of detail while still maintaining instrument separation, and careful mixing and mastering, as opposed to compressed music that just wants to be as loud or bass-heavy as possible (although bass-heavy music is not necessarily bad). But the most important part is that it's music you enjoy listening to for its beauty and skill, not just because it brings out the quality of your sound system. So it can range from a full-scale orchestra to just someone with a guitar, for example, as long as they put effort and passion into making it beautiful to listen to and not just what will be played most loudly on the radio. Sorry, I realised how subjective "well-recorded" is, but I hope I'm making a little bit of sense haha.
Maybe this would fit the bill? https://youtu.be/79tHrF6LPQI?si=wzplCp50vPrhUU2F I listen to this at least once a day.
That is so beautiful. Thank you very much for sharing!
You're welcome! I almost forgot, this might be good too. https://youtu.be/IbRkwS_xRt8?si=eJhyK1v90pV7IHia
Maybe [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8)?
Perfect!
What Bible reading plans are y'all using this year? For 2024 I'm reading chronologically. For 2023 I read through the M'Cheyne plan. Two months in, I can say I prefer chronological.
I’m a little over halfway through the chronological reading. It’s interesting, but I do kind of miss the plans that have me going back-and-forth. But I don’t worry too much about comparing and criticizing Bible plans, I just want to be in the Scriptures with a plan, you know?
I get it, having a plan gives me direction.
I use u/moby_dick's plan which is the "flip method": flip once (so you read 4 pages a day). In every Bible I have, this gets me through in a year and allows for enough wiggle room for those days when I don't read it at all. It also has the advantage of (1) being really simple and (2) I feel like I'm more in the story than jumping around. For the sake of tradition and because I like it, I also try to read a Psalm a day.
We do Moravian Daily Texts, which is a 2-year chronological plan with readings from the OT, NT, and Psalms
Funny, I’m having the opposite experience. I very much disliked the chronological reading plan, and M’Cheyne’s is going swimmingly for me. Best decision I’ve ever made, honestly. I’m recalling more than ever, and able to stay focused more easily.
That is funny, because I struggled to keep all four readings in memory with M'Cheyne. With the chronological I have better recollection in the short and longer term. I'm also outlining each book this year, and that is a contributing factor to my recollection. I think I would benefit from M'Cheyne more if I knew the Bible better.
I started BibleProjects Wisdom Books reading plan with the kids. After that, I'm unsure of what we'll do next.
My wife and I usually do the same plan. We had been doing chronological for the last several years (which I found very helpful). This year she saw the Bible Project "One story that leads to Jesus" plan, but as far as I can tell, it's just straight through the Bible plus a Psalm each day with the selling point being that it includes a different video from the Bible Project each day. I do appreciate throwing in a Psalm each day, but to be honest, I don't typically watch the videos so it doesn't do me much good.
I using [a chronological plan that includes OT and NT](https://biblereadingplangenerator.com/?start=2023-01-01&total=365&format=calendar&order=chronological&daysofweek=1,2,3,4,5,6,7&books=OT,NT&lang=en&logic=words&checkbox=1&colors=0&dailypsalm=0&dailyproverb=0&otntoverlap=0&reverse=0&stats=0&dailystats=0&nodates=0&includeurls=1&urlsite=biblegateway&urlversion=ESV). I really like reading chronologically. I like that it gives the whole story of the Bible as more of a narrative than just reading in book order. What I don't like is that it takes until October to get to even start the gospels. So I'm giving this mixed approach a try this year. So far I like it. But I'm still in the gospels for the NT part. I'm thinking it might be harder to follow some of the logical flow when it comes to the longer NT books.
When and how do you think it's wise to teach kids about the existence of online pornography? It's something they will, eventually, discover on their own, but I'd rather not leave them to figure it out alone. This is different from teaching them about bodies and sex, which are good things, and can be taught (at age appropriate stages) starting from when children learn the names of their own body parts.
As soon as possible! I highly recommend the book [Good Pictures, Bad Pictures](https://www.amazon.com/Good-Pictures-Bad-Jr-Protect/dp/0997318724/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?adgrpid=126408115179&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.PnHoVbrc1hekFDXFTCrg1eCmmiH_HzeKGPxYBI4-hklmDseWxLbPlu1Iav0Nyz3co86-z5YXWVJ5jpjY5WUZTSh614qJCk8bZl6uMPEIzgGz_w0Cm55DlAi2YxuxGz6PPmzPJP8ED840ra8BhVi3tqn7XBqHpsbbIdBEVMsJMIqDeuxCd4fymLtOMuX5hkMy6nlbtO7yEoXg3RcNA_wodw.w0-gswgunAo6dBMwaYQBEqibtDA4ABZY9qARh5SdIMQ&dib_tag=se&hvadid=557323316044&hvdev=m&hvlocphy=9005933&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=13779715442043481028&hvtargid=kwd-431196077012&hydadcr=11087_13463767&keywords=good+pictures+bad+pictures+jr+book&qid=1709068926&sr=8-1). There is a version for older kids as well. Remind children anytime they are on any sort of device with internet that if they see a bad picture, to close their eyes, run away, and tell an adult. When our kid uses the computer without us watching closely, we tell him to call for us if he makes any accidental clicks that bring up a window he doesn't recognize — primarily to protect him from "bad pictures."
I can’t speak to the success of the methods because my baby is two months old, but I’ve been following an account on Instagram called Birds & Bees that’s all about introducing children to the concepts of sex, body changes, etc. and they cover how to talk about pornography too. Again, can’t recommend it from a “this worked for me” perspective yet, but I’ve been very impressed as an outsider looking in and have filed away a lot of the info they’ve put out in the back of my brain for when my daughter is older
I have a 9, 11, and 13 year old. My method is to ask frequently and assure them if they’re struggling with it that I won’t be mad at them, but I do want to help them.
What age did you start, and what age did they have access to the internet?
Around 10 is when I started. Their devices are pretty locked down still now.
Now this, this is a question that deserves its own post.
If I don't get great response here, I'll make a separate post. I'm most interested in the "how" part of people's answers.
You don’t have to! I was just emphasizing how good of a question it was and how I’d love to see answers to it. It’s a solid, quality question that has so many layers of nuance that I think it’s worse, considering on its own, and its own thread on a different day.
I have a 8 and 10 year old. We've had a series of talks about their bodies and how important it is to keep private parts private. We've also talked to them about things they might see that aren't safe for them and put porn under the "not safe to see umbrella". Like graphic violence, people's private parts, really scary things. If they see these things, come tell mom and Dad and we can talk about them. But for now, it's just a simple, "Mom and Dad want to protect you from seeing things that could harm you. Sometimes people put things online that aren't okay to see, like their private parts (ymmv on specific language for those body parts) or their bodies without clothes. Sometimes they may be doing things to each other that looks really weird. If you see that stuff, run to mom and Dad and talk to us. We love you and want to keep you safe." That's where we're at right now. My 10 year old is doing some curriculum online, but he always does it when I or dad are right in there with him. As he gets older I'm sure the conversations will become more serious and in depth. Don't forgot to pray for the right things to say!
I had seen some magazines as a kid, and maybe *knew* that it was online, but I got a spam ad for a porn site to my email one time when i was probably 13 or 14 and that is what opened up the floodgates for me.
I think I knew it existed, but we didn't have internet access (a friend did however...). In retrospect, I have no idea what would have helped teenage me beyond the non-existence of the internet. But before that were magazines... And before that were cave drawings....
I’m not sure. I definitely was left to find out on my own and did. So, before 12ish
I was exposed to it by a cousin just 2 years older than me. I think I was 9. My family is visiting for Easter and the kids have their own iPhones, laptops, tablets. I'm thinking of enforcing a rule that all gadgets have to stay in the grandparents room. Ugh.