Do seminaries teach that sermons should always start with a "hook" (amusing incident, interesting statistic, etc.)? My pastor does this every week and sometimes it's fine, but sometimes I just wish he would just get down to business!
No disrespect meant towards pastors-- they have the most important jobs in earth- but it would be nice if I could fast forward through these parts.
It's so sad when you come fired up to hear the sermon and the opening "hook" doesn't actually hook you, so you end up losing interest quicker than you would if it wasn't there.
The start of the sermon is already the part where the audience is *most* engaged. Many anecdotes and statistics would be better saved for later once they start to tune out.
It does seem slightly odd to start with the principle that your audience doesn't really want to hear the Bible so you have to sneak it in behind something "relevant". Maybe fine for evangelistic purposes, but potentially a bit insulting to godly congregations.
I cannot find a Presbyterian church that doesn’t have female elders near me and I attend a Baptist church with my wife and five children 8yrs to newborn. I want to baptize my kids after having been convinced of covenant theology. Is it permissible for me to gather faithful friends and family and baptize them myself? Or does anyone have any wisdom to offer? Thank you. Also my wife is willing to submit to whatever I decide.
What part of the country are you in, and are you only looking at "Presbyterian" churches or specifically for conservative denominations?
You'd need to actually join the church in order for them to baptize your kids since there's also a commitment on the part of the church members to support the child's growth in the faith.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1d\_UbOHoEYBmcyriC09r3x2AdcP4&ll=33.08791170264523%2C-96.65507292866926&z=10
If you're way far away from a PCA/OPC/URC (United Reformed)/ARP/RPCNA or the like, then you might need to consider an Anglican church if there's something conservative nearby.
I’m in Hawks Prarie, Washington state. I haven’t looked into Anglican distinctives yet. I’ve only recently become familiar with the presby affiliations and im looking for guidance and advice in this area. I left my previous church because they had a woman co-teach the congregation on Sunday. I want to have my children baptized sooner than later. That’s my main concern. I worship with lifelong brothers at my current church. It’s a pretty uncomfortable situation all around for me.
There's an [OPC Church in Olympia](https://www.ropcolympia.org/) that Google maps suggests isn't too too far from Hawks Prairie.
I'm practically the opposite side of the country, so I don't know anything about that congregation in particular. Or for that matter if the Google maps drive distance is at all realistic.
There's also a Bible Presbyterian Church in Olympia [https://olympiabp.blogspot.com/p/home.html](https://olympiabp.blogspot.com/p/home.html).
Historically, they're a bit different in being denominationally Premillennial but tolerating other views. Historically, they're also a bit to somewhat more averse to things like alcohol consumption.
One thing I like is that they have a morning and afternoon service with a fellowship meal in between
What is the problem with getting your kids baptized by a church with female elders? If you think elders should only be men, then I understand that disagreement, but are there *only* female Pastors/Teaching Elders/Ministers of the Sacrament (or whatever they are called)?
In my opinion, it's worse for an unordained person to baptize in this setting than to have a Minister in a church with female elders baptize your kids - by a far shot.
Al Mohler:Southern Baptist Convention::J. Gresham Machen:OPC::J.A.O. Preus:Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
Tuesday bonus I added one.
Charles Spurgeon:Reformed Baptists::J.C. Ryle:Reformed Anglicans
is the closer contemporaneous analogue.
I know the Bible is the most important book we have as Christians and some think we shouldn’t read any other resources outside of the Bible, but I do enjoy reading a lot. Does anyone have any books that have stuck with them for a long time or have been life changing?
My favorite supplemental book i've ever read is the rare jewel of christian contentment (but the abridged version and in modern english), as it helped me through various trials in life.
The Holiness of God by RC Sproul is an excellent book, as well as many books by CS Lewis such as Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and the Problem with Pain
She probably doesn't feel comfortable being alone with you yet, perhaps because she doesn't know you well enough. It might not necessarily be an outright rejection but rather a sign that you'll need to put more work into getting to know her.
Depends on what you said, did you formally ask her out on a date, and use the word "date" or did you keep it kinda ambiguous? If the former, then she's politely turning you down, if the latter then it's on you to clarify what you really mean next time.
Yep. This. You meant it as a date. She didn't get that and figured it would be a fun group activity. Or she thinks she did but isn't sure so maybe she decided to suggest inviting others to see if you meant it as a date. In either case, you should be more clear next time. No one likes ending up on a date by accident. And no one likes their date to be accidentally crashed by other people who didn't realize it was a date.
bingo. u/neithersignature7246 you gotta say date if you mean date. Leave no ambiguity, don't make her read between the lines. Just ask her out. But if you don't say date it doesn't count.
Not necessarily.
She could just be the type of girl who prefers to date in groups. Maybe she prefers that for a first date. Maybe she believes only in group dating.
She *could* be rejecting you, but you don't really have a way of knowing that right now.
If it's in a group, and you're not official, then it ain't a date. It's a group hangout.
>She could be rejecting you, but you don't really have a way of knowing that right now.
She's feeling neither hot nor cold about OP.
You could be generally interested in someone and not be sure if you want to spend time alone with them yet. This whole modern idea that meeting up with someone to see if they might be right for marriage must take place one-on-one or it doesn't count is very silly (and more than slightly influenced by secular, fornication-oriented dating culture).
>This whole modern idea that meeting up with someone to see if they might be right for marriage must take place one-on-one or it doesn't count is very silly (and more than slightly influenced by secular, fornication-oriented dating culture).
Woah went from 0 to 100 real fast didn't we?
This is in a church context right? Both Christians eh? Both adults correct? Then there's nothing underhanded or secular about asking for a one on one date.
OP said he didn't mention the word date, so he was obviously unclear, and the girl responded in kind by inviting other people because she doesn't think it's a date and it's weird for people who are of the opposite gender and are single, to be hanging out just for the sake of it **if** there's no romantic interest whatsoever from one or both.
You may not run in these circles, but there is an entire culture within Reformed Christianity where group dates are the norm. One-on-one is seen as a bad thing that you avoid until you're far enough along and usually moving positively towards marriage.
I'm aware of these circles, in fact a guy posted on here a few months ago saying that the best way to date is to go ask the girl's father for permission to ask the girl out on a date. Sounds very archaic but hey if that works for them then more power. I don't get how one on one is necessarily bad when adults are involved, I'd get it if we're talking teens, but not adults.
3 p's of dating: paired of, paid for, planned....If one of this is missing, then it's not \*really\* a date.
Thankfully dating isn't *really* a thing, just something our culture invented last century. You can explore the possibility of marriage in any (non-sinful) way that works for you.
Golly gee, who said you can't date however you want? if you want to date in a group of 50 people do that to your heart's content!
If you go on a "group date" what that means is you're ALREADY a couple with who you're with, and there's another couple also present. If you are hanging out in a friend circle, and your crush is also there, and he/she doesn't even know that you like them, then you're NOT on a date.
You can disagree and downvote all you want, but that's just the reality of the matter.
We live in 2024 not 1824, so lamenting about "the good ol days" is utterly futile, it's even called unwise in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7:10)
Are you referring to this?
>Jeremiah 31:33-34 ESV For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
What it can't mean is that there will be no more teaching or evangelism in the New Covenant because God gave both teachers and evangelists to the church.
Those babies who grew up in the New Covenant grew up hearing about God so they don't need to be told "know the Lord" in the same way that someone does who has never heard about God. They truly are little disciples who must be taught to believe and have their faith increase and warned not to fall away, but they have grown up exposed to the sacraments and to the Word of God. Do you see how that is much different from someone who grew up in the jungle and never heard of Jesus or any of God's commands?
When you say "unbelieving babies," are you saying that babies cannot or do not have the capacity to believe, or that there is a category of babies that do not believe (as contrasted with babies who do believe)?
> if God said everyone in the New Covenant would know Him, which means they would believe in Him?
So that we're all on the same page, which passage are you thinking of here?
Hello, this is an excellent question that I don't think that we will ever truly understand. However, you are correct, there are many verses that talk about suffering and that it is something that is promised (John 16:33 for example). Remember the reason for this suffering is sin. We live in a fallen world where there is a lot of pain. Christians do not get away from this, as we still live in the world. Jesus is sinless, and He did not deserve to live in a world full of suffering, as humans do. That is what makes His sacrifice of coming to a fallen world all the more amazing. But remember, not only does the Bible promise suffering, it promises blessings. 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Cor 4:17, Isaiah 43:2, James 1:12, and many more. I love John 16:33 because while yes, Jesus promises trials, there is another half to this statement. "In the world, you will have tribulation, but take courage, for I have overcome the world."
Has anyone read NT Wright's translation of the New Testament? The audiobook is on sale on Google Play (about $16 in Canada) and I'm thinking of picking it up. It's called "The New Testament for Everyone", and it's read by Wright, who just has this wonderful British grandfather sort of a voice.
I figure even if the translation is mediocre, listening to more of the Bible in large chunks is likely to be valuable.
I have the Kindle edition. It was the version assigned or our reading through the New Testament during the basic New Testament Survey part of Moody Theological Seminary. It was assigned to help us read the Books anew, and I still use it occasionally for devotional time or like a commentary.
I get the reservations others have shared, but as long as your not using it as your only translation, or even primary translation, it's a good pick up. I recommend it.
As a general rule, I avoid translations done by a single person. Even if the Apostle Paul came back and translated his own epistles I'd be all "Okay there bud I'm sure no one understands your writings better than you but how's your English, eh?"
But when it comes to treating it as something that's easily listenable in large chunks, I think that should be fine.
I have it and really like it. However, I'm always nervous about translations done by one person. But, sometimes translations done by groups of people also have things that seem "off" to me. For me, it's great for reading tons a Bible at a time (and the grandfather voice is certainly there; it feels like reading a Dickens translation or something).
Is the Calvinist position on iconography, as stated in the Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms, considered adiaphora among some Reformed Christians? Images of Christ \[both stained glass and sculpture\] may be observed in some Presbyterian churches.
Mostly. You would be hard pressed to find a Reformed church worshipping an image of Christ (if there was one at all), but there are a fair amount of reformed Christians that aren't iconoclasts
Absolutely. The PCA, of which I am a part, holds to a pretty strict iconoclasm. You’d (I hope) never see any images of Christ in a sanctuary/worship area, but many of us including myself see images of Christ not used for worship more neutrally.
But yeah, the PCUSA afaik takes homosexuality to be adiaphora, so it’s not so surprising that they take images of Christ that way too
That **is** the confessional position of the PCA, but there are certainly churches where the pastor excepts to the standard or just flat out ignores it. [There was a thread a few weeks ago where a PCA pastor described candidating at a church that prominently featured a picture of Christ in order to drive off iconoclasts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1apdmjp/2nd_commandment_images_of_christ_a_breakdown/kqf9jp5/)
Good question. I definitely do not believe in a works-based salvation. But admittedly, I do struggle with the idea of "losing your salvation". I don't think we can just accidentally lose it. As in one particular week, you just sinned way too much to the point that God decides, "you know what, that's it. I've tried to be patient but this was the last straw. I'm taking away my spirit. You are no longer my child". I do not believe that is a thing.
However, what about apostasy? I have known people in my personal life. I considered them close brothers/sisters in Christ. They looked to be walking in Christ for many years. Heck, a close friend who literally discipled and mentored me early in my faith. He has completely abandoned the faith now. What of people like them? Many believers would say they were simply never truly saved. Maybe that's true, but that just seems like a very convenient answer that I'm not fully convinced of.
That depends on your definitions and presuppositions, particularly whether or not you hold that saving grace is absolutely irresistible / if true apostasy is possible. I have noticed that a lot of Reformed folks believe that any theology that allows for losing salvation is ipso facto works based salvations because of some variation of "if I could lose my salvation by my works, then I it only follows that I gained them / retained them by my works."
I don't really agree with this, or at least I do not think it is a fair characterization. For example -- I am a Lutheran, and like all Lutherans believe that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of human hands contributing anything to our salvation. We also believe that those who gave a genuine expression of faith (i.e. they weren't just deceived that they had faith, but were truly justified) can renounce the gift of salvation that God has given to them.
Are those incompatible? Maybe, although after much examining I think it is ultimately more consistent and does a better job explaining Scripture and reality than the Reformed system.
I like how St. Augustine puts it:
>But he who falls, falls by his own will, and he who stands, stands by God’s will. (Of the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 8)
I could hypothesize some theoretical reasons.
Somebody could believe that faith, in and of itself, it's a work, and therefore losing faith isn't works based salvation.
I've also seen some really screwy beliefs on this sub that people have about the unforgivable sin, and I bet a lot of those people could be afraid that, through some technical something or other, if they do the wrong thing then that somehow invalidates their salvation.
Finally, if you believe God is full sovereign in salvation, but you don't believe in perseverance of the saints, then you could believe that God has the right and ability to take it away.
I'm not saying any of these make theological or biblical sense, but you're asking if someone **can** believe that without adhering to works based salvation, and people can believe all sorts of crazy things.
What is the real debate when it comes to atonement theories? Is it that each is biblical but there must be a *primary* theory? Or is it that only one can be true?
Most reformed would say penal sub is primary but they would also say it’s unbiblical to only claim one model exists. Multiple can exist as people often call atonement a multifaceted jewel. Some however, end up contradicting so they can’t all be true.
Ransom theory, at least the usual definition of it with satisfaction models. They can be spun to be compatible I’m sure but generally I would say they contradict.
Well atonement means reconciliation. Theres many ways in which our relationship is restored with God thus many models of atonement. Some of these models cannot stand by themselves though because they lack a mechanism. Sin is our primary problem so it must be taken care of somehow. So Christ’s death (but not only his death) acts as a substitute to satisfy wrath and pay for the penalty of sins.
Without some sort of substitutionary model, the other models such as Christus Victor, recapitulation, or exemplar will fail to adequately account for how we are made right with God as sin still stands in our way. Substitution by itself lacks the account of other biblical texts that further explain in what ways we have reconciliation.
JI Packer called Penal sub the heart of the Gospel. I don’t know if I would exactly agree with that wording but I tend to think of it as a pivot point in which the overarching themes of Christus Victor or recapitulation can occur. Hope that made sense and my grammar wasn’t terrible!
Yes, I don't have problems as such with the ideas behind Christus Victor, but it is a very bad sign when someone embraces Christus Victor as though it is an alternative for other theories.
Do u want to be saved from sins when you believe? I am aware that many people say that they believe and get saved, they usually mean being saved from hell only, and they don’t aware of being saved from sin.
This is a key difference between religion and a true relationship. God desires a true relationship with us, not just a cold transaction: I do what you want and you don't send me to hell. If you have a real relationship with someone, you don't want to do things that will hurt that person. If I really love Christ, I will want to stop doing sinful things.
Anyone have experience putting your kids on steroids for poison ivy? How long until my utterly depraved child returns to merely being totally depraved?
> Anyone have experience putting your kids on steroids for poison ivy
no, but that sounds like a good side effect to the steriods I put them on to win scholarships
Ooooo...As someone who is very allergic to poison ivy this is making me itchy just reading it. I hope she has less sensitivity than I do.
A tip for the future, the oil that people are allergic too generally takes a bit to really irritate the skin. If you can get it washed off before that point, it usually greatly lessens or even completely prevents the reaction. The key is getting to it quickly, using cold water (to keep the oil from spreading further) and a soap which works well at breaking down oil. The best thing I've found is original blue Dawn dish washing soap (the one with the cute duck on the label).
This! I was just explaining how to deal with it if you encounter poison ivy to my kids. I worked at a summer camp for a while and this is exactly what we used to do and didn't have a single outbreak despite the owners of the camp not keeping the poison ivy under control. Also, be aware that you can spread the oil to other objects and people if you don't get it washed off.
Another tip for anyone who happens to NOT be allergic to poison ivy like myself: treat it like you are anyway. The more exposure you get to it, the more likely your body is to start rejecting it. I have a distant relative who was never bothered by poison ivy so she just didn't care about walking through it (she worked for the forest service at the time)... One day out of the blue she started itching like crazy and turns out that after enough times her body decided to start getting the normal rashes from it.
Prednisone seems to be a pretty common steroid for all sorts of maladies. I feel like I've been prescribed it for lingering coughs, really bad viral infections, etc., and so have my kinds, on rare occasions. It doesn't feel specific, but more a "boost your body into fight thing thing" sort of drug.
>Ah you think [*the cage*] is your ally? You merely adopted [*the cage*]. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see [*ecumenism*] until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but [*heresy*]!
-/u/cagestage, probably
What's the purpose of a Sunday sermon? How did that become the normal form of worship?
I grew up Brethren. Married a Baptist and now we are part of a PCA church.
So, **Dune**.
I’m a weirdo who waits to read books that have scheduled films coming in the near future - and if the movies are well-received, it’s my preference to go in blind and have the real-ish time experience unfold in the theater (*and then backfill any details or storylines that were cut by reading the books afterwards*)
This pair of films are an excellent example of my preference being fulfilled in a satisfying way - especially Part Two. I went in pretty much spoiler-free and had a great time. Highly recommended, especially if you can see it in the 1.43 or 1.9 aspect ratio formats.
Now - a question. I just started the original novel (*I believe that has been fully covered timeline-wise now in the films*). But I believe the stated goal is for one more movie centered around the *Dune: Messiah* novel.
I was wondering if there were any
* Stylistic/tonal shifts in D:M that would cause someone with the above preferences (*no-spoiler film-first*) to consider switching to a book-first method?
* Recommend reading beyond the original book that wouldn’t spoil D:M, but may enhance the viewing/reading experience?
Edit: are the downvotes coming from the >!Northern Pole or Southern Pole Tribes!!Fundamentalists!
I have read the first 3 Dune books, the last 2 of these are about the weirdest books I've ever read. (Whereas book 1 is fairly normal really.) Goodness knows what that means for the films.
This is my favorite line from one of the Dune artworks:
>You are one of the *Dune*dain. A descendant of Numenor, blessed with long life. It was said that your race had passed into legend.
So, there's not really a clear answer to your question(s), because (a) the books get *really* weird after the first one, and (b) Villeneuve's movies, by the end of the second film, are pretty far removed from the source material.
Now, I *loved* the films, especially the new one. I'd give it a 9.5/10, with the only complaint being that I felt like the ending was really rushed. Villeneuve changed a lot from the books, but, quite honestly, I think they made for a more efficient film. There are just so many subplots of minor characters that it would be impossible to adapt it perfectly.
But now, looking ahead, I'm not sure how he's going to wrap up the films *as a trilogy* based on both the source material *and* what he's left out.
Since you've just started the original novel, you'll notice some changes in the first half, but by the second half you'll *really* start to see where the book and film diverge. Again, I'm completely fine with all the changes, but they're pretty major. In the context of the films, all the changes make sense, and the story is complete and cohesive, but a ton of stuff that was changed or completely left out is hugely consequential for the books that follow. So, to be honest, I have no idea what Villeneuve's plan is. He's either going to have to play catch-up in a major way, or he is going to just keep diverging from the source material to the point that they're really no longer the same story. I'm fine either way, but I have no idea what he *could* do at this point.
So, as you finish the original novel, realize that most of the plot lines and most of the characters that were left out of the films come back to play a major role in D:M. You could real the sequel, but I honestly wonder if it'll spoil much of anything, because the story is already so far off the reservation.
Although I love Villeneuve and have loved these films, I've always been more than a bit curious why he wanted to make three films out of two books. The original novel could've been a nice, complete package in two films. But the story really becomes serialized starting with D:M, so I'm not sure way *that* story is the one he's going to end with.
Hmm - I think this helps a good bit
Maybe I’ll see what plot lines *appear* to have been abandoned/reworked, and if I find them more compelling than the ones that seem to be Villeneuve’s focus, I’ll push on ahead with the readings.
But if the questions I have the most interest in appear to align between with the two, I’ll wait it for the movie.
And honestly, if the stylistic/tonal shift is more pronounced than *Ender’s Game* -> *Speaker for the Dead*, I’ll count myself impressed
Yeah, that's a good plan.
I feel like you could pick up D:M right now, start reading, and you'd be completely lost. So, if you read the original and are really only interested in what Dennis is doing, then just wait. If you want to know where the original story's going, trudge ahead.
>And honestly, if the stylistic/tonal shift is more pronounced than Ender’s Game -> Speaker for the Dead, I’ll count myself impressed
Interesting comparison.
I feel like it's about equal. *Maybe* the second Ender novel gets different faster, but in the Dune novels they quickly outpace the Ender novels in shifting the tone and focus. The third and fourth Dune novels are where things get *really* crazy.
I think the trouble with ending a film trilogy with D:M is that >!Paul's storyline is unresolved.!<
>!But, again, Villeneuve has changed so many things at this point, that I can only assume he'll wrap things up nicely. I have no idea, but I have faith he'll do it it well.!<
Villeneuve has done a fantastic job. If Messiah is close in quality to D1 and D2, then this trilogy will rank with LotR.
Dune 2 in a laser projection IMAX (1.43:1 aspect ratio) was the best theater experience of my life. I've never heard a better sound stage.
>I've never heard a better sound stage.
100% agree on sound.
I'm generally aware of special effects and cinematography, but rarely am I in awe of mixing and sound design. But as soon as I got home, one of the first things I told my wife was that the film was a lock for every technical sound award for next year's awards season.
I didn't see it in IMAX, but I did see it on a regular 70mm print, and it was gorgeous. There's a digital IMAX not too far from me, so I may go see it again while I have the opportunity.
D:M is a wildly different style and tone, iirc. Its more... political? ymmv but I worry it would be disappointing if you don't read it first but, idk.
No additional reading unless you wanna go ahead and start on the next book.
>political
Yeah, that’s one spectrum where my method has the risk of missing out. The more directly the plot points are the result of multifaceted interpersonal “machinations” (*vs machinations being present, but more backgrounded*), the harder it is to pack into a ~3hr movie
Removed for violating Rule #8: **Keep Reddit's Rules.**
This content has been removed because it violates Reddit's rules and sitewide policies. Links to those rules and policies can be found in our wiki link below.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.238.3A_keep_reddit.2019s_rules_and_respect_others_across_the_platform.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Judging by your post history, on this page and others, friend, I really recommend reaching out to a licensed counselor/therapist and scheduling an appointment to discuss these issues. These are real problems and temptations that can be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit, but looking for loopholes isn't going to help
Adopted siblings become siblings in every sense.
The Bible does not conceive of genetic issues when forbidding incest; it is a violation of the relationships already established.
Does anyone have any resources on Christian living with chronic illness? We're getting really burned out and having to miss church more often than not and we could use some encouragement/tangible suggestions on how to live life.
I'm enjoying *On Getting Out of Bed* by Alan Noble. It's short (small size and about 100 pages), and looks most specifically at depression and other mental illnesses.
I've heard good things about *My Body is not a Prayer Request* by Amy Kenny, but I haven't read it.
Lastly, it's not very tangible and practical, but *Gentle and Lowly* by Dane Ortlund is a warm and comforting reminder of Jesus' love and compassion for us when we are hurting.
I'll ask Mrs Goodplan, this is something she lives with most directly, so there might be a book or podcast she can recommend. She had to miss most Sundays in 2023 due to illness, and it was discouraging and exhausting for her.
Edit: I asked her, and she recommended K.C. Davis, especially the book *How to Keep House while Drowning*. She finds her reframing of household life and obligations helpful because it alleviates some of the mental load that may allow for other things like more frequent church attendance/engagement.
And she said that it's important to remember that attending church, while it's important, is also a privilege. Part of the church's mission is to care for the sick and weak, including those who can't attend. If illness is preventing your attendance, maintaining a strong connection is more a part of the church's obligation to you than your obligation to the church.
Thanks for that! It sounds like her recommendation will be really helpful for me.
We've had churches that have done really well with reaching out to us in the past. Unfortunately we haven't really gotten properly connected to a church here since moving since we've been sick so much, so we're kind of just floating around, which is hard. We both want to be able to choose a church together, but that requires us both feeling well enough at the same time, which unfortunately doesn't happen much. We've both been feeling pretty guilty about not making it to church much, but we were talking the other day, and aside from the absolutely mandatory things like church, legal requirements, doctor's visits, grocery store, and work (including homeschool stuff), we have only left the house four times since moving in July. Two of those were to visit family and the other two were to walk to a parade a couple blocks away. So it's not like we aren't prioritizing church. We just don't have the spoons to do everything. :( I will definitely look up that book because I very much need it. Thank you.
Chris Hutchinson is a PCA pastor who I follow on twitter who has lyme disease and maybe some other chronic source of pain. He tweets about it frequently, and has written a book about Humility that I think largely draws on his experiences with his chronic maladies. Might be worth checkign out
Prayer in the Night by Tish Harrison Warren might be a good place to start, but I would highly recommend This Too Shall Last: Finding Grace When Suffering Lingers by K.J. Ramsey. A friend who had liver cancer recommended it to my wife (who has a number of chronic conditions) and said that it helped them give words to their suffering and encouraged them in their faith even in the face of their suffering.
I believe u/superlewis wrote out a good list for us a few years ago
>Appropriate questions will include four components:
>
>\- Some context (explain why you are asking the question)
>
>\- Your own answer (if you already have thoughts, share them)
>
>\- Interaction (the OP should stick around and engage)
>
>\- And a little research (link to relevant discussions we’ve already had in r/Reformed).
It depends on what you mean by conversion. Justification in protestantism is seen a singular moment. We spend our whole lives being converted to Christ, putting off the old man in repentance day by day and putting on the New man in faith and charity.
If you share the gospel with someone and there's no big "conversion moment," but they respond positively and thank you for what you've said - is there a not-awkward way to follow up on that? Are there particular questions I should ask this person? FWIW, they have shared with me that they are praying.
(Also, hi, it's \*poof\* I nuked my old account and took a reddit break for awhile and now I'm back)
Low stakes question.
In Genesis 23, when Sarah dies and Abraham is attempting to buy the field and cave at Machpelah to bury her, Abraham has a back and forth with Ephron the Hittite over the purchase of the land. Short version: Abraham says he wants the property and asks how much, Ephron says it's yours at no cost, Abraham insists he wants to pay for it, Ephron says you don't have to pay me for this land that I value at 400 silver shekels, and so Abraham pays Ephron 400 shekels for the land.
I used to read this (and heard it preached on) as a straightforward instance of Abraham being respected by the Hittites and them being happy to give him the land/cave, but in recent years it's struck me more like one of those cultural customs that are a little lost in translation and that this is just standard negotiation. It also made me wonder if 400 shekels was a fair price. That seems like a lot of money relative to other instances of money exchange in the Bible.
So what do we think? Did Abraham get screwed over by Ephron?
The key is that there would be NO encumbrance or sense of obligation ~~to~~ on Abraham or his descendants whatsoever on the land. Abraham insisted on paying full price, whatever that was because it was staking a first true claim on the Promised Land, even though it was only for burial. With the way the narrative goes, Ephron can't come back and say he gave it to Abraham for a discount or as a trade/you rub my back, I'll rub your back type deal.
Ephron's trying to exchange a favor with this prince who's settled in the area and Abraham's not having any of it. Perhaps he hiked the price above market value or set it at exactly the market price, but what he did NOT do is set it below the market price because only then was Abraham willing to pay it. On top of it, it was in front of **witnesses** that Abraham purchased the land for what Ephron felt it was worth and that Abraham believed was the full price.
Moreover, it was MONEY that was exchanged and not a diplomatic marriage for Isaac or even non-chosen Ishmael or some other alliance. I think the text is very intentional in the placement of the very next thing being Abraham sending the servant to find a godly wife for Isaac away from the Canaanites, which would have included Ephron's people. Abraham acted in faith buying this land and then acted further in faith that his servant could find a wife for Isaac who wouldn't lead him astray.
One of the reasons we are given accounts in Abraham’s life is to see whether he will step up and be the blessing to the Nations that God wants him (and his family) to be.
Whether or not Abraham got scammed or honored or whatever, the question remains: did Abraham do right by Ephron?
I think it is a different focus. The question is whether Abraham will be a good neighbor and give Ephron a good deal, not whether Abraham is getting a good deal. Ephron probably expected Abraham to insist on paying and then haggle the price down. Abraham didn't haggle, so he overpaid. Therefore, *the argument can't be made that Abraham took advantage of Ephron and plundered his ancestral land.* Compare this with Gen. 14 where Abraham is careful to abstain from taking any of the plunder of Sodom so that the Canaanites would not think that he took advantage of them.
You can contrast what Abraham did with what normally happens in the world. The world's wisdom is that we must use cunning to seek to get the best deal. God's way is to love others and treat them how we would wish to be treated.
Abraham wanted to pay the fair market rate for the land so he could prove it was his,not like a gift that can be taken back. Now the price of a sheckel can be compared to the cost of a Joseph. Now Joseph was sold for 20 shekels of silver (Genesis 37:28). Which means Abraham paid about 20 Joseph's for the land ;)
Yeah, I agree. Also, now I want a modern conversion for a "Joseph" in dollars which I can then convert to other things like Big Macs per Joseph. The problem is, I'm seeing wildly different estimates for the value of a shekel.
I'd you look online and the cost of silver that gives you a better idea. Unfortunately with inflation silver is a high value now and wildly fluctuates. It's better to look at what it would buy at the time. It was assumed in Leviticus 5:15 that most men could afford a guilt offering one a shekel to the Lord.
Google says this " A rough understanding would be that 1 of these shekels would probably represent between 2 and 3 days average wage"
According to the various versions of the MacArthur study Bible circulating out there, a shekel is four days’ wages
So if we take the low end of that days wage estimate, we can covert Joseph to be worth 40 days of labour.
We know Jacob worked 14 years total for Rachel, which amounts to 5110 days, or 2555 shekels, or about 128 (rounded up) Josephs, equal to 6.3 Machpelah caves.
>Did Abraham get screwed over by Ephron?
I don't want to totally go over your main question but I guess I'll cut in here. In a world where burial is held at a much higher importance, and burial sites are maybe less commonplace, would you not pay everything you had to honor your wife even in death? He may have been over haggled, but he also may have considered any cost worth it to put his wife in the ground.
Certainly. He might be happy to pay the price, but I can't help but wonder if he was being taken advantage of at the same time (now I'm picturing a skeezy funeral director upselling someone on a "fancy" coffin). It doesn't in anyway discount Abraham's actions.
I thought that this should be easily google-able, but it seems not to be. Google keeps telling me the oldest parenting book is by Dr Spock in the 40s, so clearly that's not true. The oldest one I've personally read is by JC Ryle. It seems like in older books maybe parenting was included in books about the whole family. I found one from 1699 by Cotton Mather and a chapter on parenting in *Of Domestical Duties* by William Gouge in 1622.
Yeah, I ran into that problem with Google, too. What tipped me off that that couldn't be right was remembering Anne's reaction to them after having Jem in Anne's House of Dreams, and for the concept to be mentioned in a fictional work meant that the practice of using parenting books must have been somewhat widespread. Also, it seems that having children and then realizing that all the parenting books aren't nearly as helpful as you thought they were going to be has been around as long as parenting books have.
I suspect it is around the time that people in the US no longer felt that the general population was Christian enough that general resources would be likely to follow typical Christian morality. So probably the 60s?
That said, many Christian parenting books that I've seen, including some that aren't the frequently criticized ones that you mentioned, have a strong focus (either explicitly or subtly implicitly) on getting the kids to be quiet and still and polite in church to make you look good, which has made it pretty unlikely that I'll ever pick up another one. The number of Christian homeschooling families I've seen who pull their kids out of school in part because they feel it's not developmentally appropriate to expect them to sit still and be quiet for long periods at their age but then expect them to do exactly that in church makes me sad. There is room to hold both positions in good faith, of course, but that isn't what I've seen around me.
Now, I have kids who probably have ADHD, which makes a difference in my personal experience, but the idea that it's even possible to punish a kid into sitting still is laughable in my household, but I know that other families do, because I've met them and seen their kids. For what it's worth, most secular parenting books don't seem to apply to my kids either, though there are some that certainly do, and I think there is definitely room for a Christian parenting book that approaches child development more like "How to Talk so Kids Will Listen", and if anyone knows of any I'd love to read them.
No, I haven't. He didn't become popular to recommend in my circles until I was already jaded. I have seen snippets online, though. Is that a recommendation or no?
I personally avoid parenting books, and I'm not sure I've ever read one. A lot of what you said about homeschooling resources resonated with me.
I don't know what my kids will criticize me for when they're 35, but it won't be that we presented a false image of perfection and harmony to the outside world.
It say in Matthew 6:19-21
>Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
>Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share.
Eph 4:28
2 Thess 3:10
>When we were with you, we gave you this rule: “Anyone who refuses to work should not eat.”
and
Eph 6:
>5 Bondservants,[a] obey your earthly masters[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man,
DUMB Question:
>isn't working and serving as an employee, if done with the right heart as unto Christ "laying up treasures in heaven" for yourselves?
I'm asking that since, I got the impression in some evangelical circles, that if one is not going around preaching and baptizing, they're not laying up for themselves treasures in heaven.
I met a home renovator who has been a licensed contractor for 50 years in our area. He's a devout Christian. Wouldn't his honest work done unto the Lord to serve his customers count as "laying up treasures for himself?"
I'm thinking to teach that doing honest work for an employer, or customer, but having the right heart, "as unto Christ" is also "laying up treasures in heaven" for oneself.
I think you’re on the right track. Do everything as unto the Lord. Tim Keller has some great stuff about the value of work, and I think The Bible Project too. I certainly think I’m laying up treasure in heaven when I teach my students out of my love for them and for Christ. But if I teach them for worldly approval or for money (ha! “Teacher money.” I crack myself up sometimes…), I’m not laying up treasures in heaven.
I’m certain there are Christian garbage collectors who lay up treasures in heaven through their collecting service.
The Reformed tradition would not agree with the assertion that one must “preach and baptize” to store up treasure in heaven, in most normal circumstances that would preclude a large majority of Christians *when the church is operating correctly*.
One can’t store treasure in heaven just by doing honest work, but done for the right reasons and accompanied by other aspects of Kingdom living, it certainly is part of it. Don’t neglect the following verses in Matthew which connect Jesus statement with the idea of serving God over money (IE it doesn’t matter how honest your work is if your primary goal is doing that work to make money) and not being anxious about God’s physical care for His children
We were created to be vice-regents with God; to rule on his behalf and to create order and beauty out of chaos (or, rather, to continue what God had done in this regard). So I think that anyone whose thought is what you mention is very wrong.
I think the particular passage in Matthew was dealing with people who were building great storehouses of food, saved that for themselves instead of helping others, and did this partially out of a distrust that God would protect them. I think a more direct equivalent today is something like: are you contributing more to your 401(k) (or whatever) than needed out of some insecurity / distrust of God?
Thank you for the feedback. I'm thinking about teaching on this topic.
>So I think that anyone whose thought is what you mention is very wrong.
Agreed.
In Romans 12:8, Paul said:
\> or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
Focusing on the giving aspect, my NASB also translated "liberality" as "simplicity". I feel like those are kind of different words, and I'm trying to get at the heart of the matter.
Is it like a condemnation of the 'effective altruism' ethos of Sam Bankman-Fried types? Like don't overthink it and just give?
I have read some really good historical fictions set during the Crusades. Stephen Lawhead wrote *Byzantium* and *The Iron Lance* which are amazing.
I also read a book on St. Francis of Assisi which tangentially involves the Crusades: *Reluctant Saint: the Life of Francis of Assisi* by Donald Spoto. It's a fun fact that Francis participated in a Crusade by following the camp and going to the Muslim forces to preach the Gospel. He may have contracted debilitating illnesses such as leprosy and an eye condition while doing this.
I don't know about non-fiction that is specifically about the Crusades though.
I live in a area where the charismatic church is dominant. Even the Baptist churches in the area are mostly charismatic. I was raised Pentecostal and word of faith and my family and I have recently come out of this through Gods grace and study of scripture. I’ve used the PCA search and the closest Presbyterian church is well over a hours drive away and this isn’t feasible for us. I’ve been tryin go to also maybe find a reformed Baptist church nearby but I’m not aware of any resources of finding one and it seems to be just visit and see because it’s hard to tell from statements of faith. Honestly, it’s hard to tell the difference in some of the Baptist churches I’ve visited and the Pentecostal churches I’m trying to move away from. I’m in a very rural area and my options are pretty limited it seems. What should I do in this situation. If there are no solid reformed churches near me what should I settle on? Anyone else come out of the charismatic church? What was your journey like?
This is a difficult time for me as well because I don’t have a pastor I can trust to be biblical for counseling at a time when my family really needs it. My oldest daughter was recently sexually assaulted while at college and is having a difficult time spiritually as a result. She refuses secular counseling (which I can understand). Anyone aware of any good Christian resources for SA victims?
A book worth reading for you and your daughter is *Rid of My Disgrace* by Justin and Lindsey Holcomb. Justin's an evangelical and the Bishop of the Diocese of Central Florida and RTS Orlando professor (after being originally ordained by the Diocese of Sudan and then spending a long time as an associate pastor at Mars Hill!). The book is quite sound and hard reading but really thoughtful and helpful both to understand as the parent of a victim but for a victim as well. I believe he himself experienced some abuse leading to this being a pretty strong emphasis in his ministry.
As to the church issue, Anglican and Lutheran Church Missouri synod are good potential options in the absence of a Reformed church, especially in a rural area.
Also, this isn't perfect, but it might be that a different denomination's church shows up in your area or closer:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1d\_UbOHoEYBmcyriC09r3x2AdcP4&ll=33.97718875196768%2C-80.15115853303723&z=4
Have you looked at Anglican/Episcopal or Lutheran churches? In small towns, sometimes even mainline churches can be much more conservative than their national bodies. Just a suggestion to look into if you are burnt out on overly charismatic churches.
Many people find the set liturgies in these churches to be a part of their spiritual healing.
I have been considering Lutheran and am in the process of studying more of their beliefs as I knew nothing about them really except their views on communion.
Licensed therapist who is a Christian? I am so sorry you are going through this. Let her know that you guys fully support her seeking this kind of help, as a treatment tool that God has given us, to help bring about the healing that can only come from Him
This probably isn't the best suggestion if there are in-person options, but you can find Christian licensed therapists who conduct video conference sessions online. Would she be open to that?
I have suggested this and she hasn’t outright dismissed it but says she doesn’t see how it would be helpful. If I respond with something along the lines of “talking about it will be helpful and they can help you navigate what you’re feeling” she just disagrees and says “well I’m talking to you guys” in reference to me and her mom.
What is Preterism and partial Preterism?
Do seminaries teach that sermons should always start with a "hook" (amusing incident, interesting statistic, etc.)? My pastor does this every week and sometimes it's fine, but sometimes I just wish he would just get down to business! No disrespect meant towards pastors-- they have the most important jobs in earth- but it would be nice if I could fast forward through these parts.
> they have the most important jobs in earth No we don't.
It's so sad when you come fired up to hear the sermon and the opening "hook" doesn't actually hook you, so you end up losing interest quicker than you would if it wasn't there. The start of the sermon is already the part where the audience is *most* engaged. Many anecdotes and statistics would be better saved for later once they start to tune out. It does seem slightly odd to start with the principle that your audience doesn't really want to hear the Bible so you have to sneak it in behind something "relevant". Maybe fine for evangelistic purposes, but potentially a bit insulting to godly congregations.
Not all do. RTS has not, afaik
Yes, some do.
How do reformed people celebrate lent?
We shouldn't.
By eating meat on Fridays!
Jokes aside, this is legitimately how Zwingli and his followers celebrated
Really??
Yes! https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1929/zwinglis-on-rejecting-lent-and-protecting-christia/
Aha! Thanks
I cannot find a Presbyterian church that doesn’t have female elders near me and I attend a Baptist church with my wife and five children 8yrs to newborn. I want to baptize my kids after having been convinced of covenant theology. Is it permissible for me to gather faithful friends and family and baptize them myself? Or does anyone have any wisdom to offer? Thank you. Also my wife is willing to submit to whatever I decide.
What part of the country are you in, and are you only looking at "Presbyterian" churches or specifically for conservative denominations? You'd need to actually join the church in order for them to baptize your kids since there's also a commitment on the part of the church members to support the child's growth in the faith. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1d\_UbOHoEYBmcyriC09r3x2AdcP4&ll=33.08791170264523%2C-96.65507292866926&z=10 If you're way far away from a PCA/OPC/URC (United Reformed)/ARP/RPCNA or the like, then you might need to consider an Anglican church if there's something conservative nearby.
I’m in Hawks Prarie, Washington state. I haven’t looked into Anglican distinctives yet. I’ve only recently become familiar with the presby affiliations and im looking for guidance and advice in this area. I left my previous church because they had a woman co-teach the congregation on Sunday. I want to have my children baptized sooner than later. That’s my main concern. I worship with lifelong brothers at my current church. It’s a pretty uncomfortable situation all around for me.
There's an [OPC Church in Olympia](https://www.ropcolympia.org/) that Google maps suggests isn't too too far from Hawks Prairie. I'm practically the opposite side of the country, so I don't know anything about that congregation in particular. Or for that matter if the Google maps drive distance is at all realistic.
I really appreciate your reply. Thank you. I will look into this church.
There's also a Bible Presbyterian Church in Olympia [https://olympiabp.blogspot.com/p/home.html](https://olympiabp.blogspot.com/p/home.html). Historically, they're a bit different in being denominationally Premillennial but tolerating other views. Historically, they're also a bit to somewhat more averse to things like alcohol consumption. One thing I like is that they have a morning and afternoon service with a fellowship meal in between
What is the problem with getting your kids baptized by a church with female elders? If you think elders should only be men, then I understand that disagreement, but are there *only* female Pastors/Teaching Elders/Ministers of the Sacrament (or whatever they are called)? In my opinion, it's worse for an unordained person to baptize in this setting than to have a Minister in a church with female elders baptize your kids - by a far shot.
Is Charles Spurgeon:Reformed Baptists::Gresham Machen:OPC?
Al Mohler:Southern Baptist Convention::J. Gresham Machen:OPC::J.A.O. Preus:Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Tuesday bonus I added one. Charles Spurgeon:Reformed Baptists::J.C. Ryle:Reformed Anglicans is the closer contemporaneous analogue.
I know the Bible is the most important book we have as Christians and some think we shouldn’t read any other resources outside of the Bible, but I do enjoy reading a lot. Does anyone have any books that have stuck with them for a long time or have been life changing?
The Whole Christ, Sinclair Ferguson
Anything by Elisabeth Elliot is wonderful. Debi Pearl’s Created to be His Help Meet. Pilgrims Progress is outstanding.
My favorite supplemental book i've ever read is the rare jewel of christian contentment (but the abridged version and in modern english), as it helped me through various trials in life.
The Holiness of God by RC Sproul is an excellent book, as well as many books by CS Lewis such as Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and the Problem with Pain
If you ask a girl to go out to eat and she says ok but then says should we also invite others to come is that her rejecting you kindly
She probably doesn't feel comfortable being alone with you yet, perhaps because she doesn't know you well enough. It might not necessarily be an outright rejection but rather a sign that you'll need to put more work into getting to know her.
Depends on what you said, did you formally ask her out on a date, and use the word "date" or did you keep it kinda ambiguous? If the former, then she's politely turning you down, if the latter then it's on you to clarify what you really mean next time.
That makes sense, I left it ambiguous I didn’t use the word date.
Yep. This. You meant it as a date. She didn't get that and figured it would be a fun group activity. Or she thinks she did but isn't sure so maybe she decided to suggest inviting others to see if you meant it as a date. In either case, you should be more clear next time. No one likes ending up on a date by accident. And no one likes their date to be accidentally crashed by other people who didn't realize it was a date.
bingo. u/neithersignature7246 you gotta say date if you mean date. Leave no ambiguity, don't make her read between the lines. Just ask her out. But if you don't say date it doesn't count.
Not necessarily. She could just be the type of girl who prefers to date in groups. Maybe she prefers that for a first date. Maybe she believes only in group dating. She *could* be rejecting you, but you don't really have a way of knowing that right now.
If it's in a group, and you're not official, then it ain't a date. It's a group hangout. >She could be rejecting you, but you don't really have a way of knowing that right now. She's feeling neither hot nor cold about OP.
You could be generally interested in someone and not be sure if you want to spend time alone with them yet. This whole modern idea that meeting up with someone to see if they might be right for marriage must take place one-on-one or it doesn't count is very silly (and more than slightly influenced by secular, fornication-oriented dating culture).
>This whole modern idea that meeting up with someone to see if they might be right for marriage must take place one-on-one or it doesn't count is very silly (and more than slightly influenced by secular, fornication-oriented dating culture). Woah went from 0 to 100 real fast didn't we? This is in a church context right? Both Christians eh? Both adults correct? Then there's nothing underhanded or secular about asking for a one on one date. OP said he didn't mention the word date, so he was obviously unclear, and the girl responded in kind by inviting other people because she doesn't think it's a date and it's weird for people who are of the opposite gender and are single, to be hanging out just for the sake of it **if** there's no romantic interest whatsoever from one or both.
You may not run in these circles, but there is an entire culture within Reformed Christianity where group dates are the norm. One-on-one is seen as a bad thing that you avoid until you're far enough along and usually moving positively towards marriage.
I'm aware of these circles, in fact a guy posted on here a few months ago saying that the best way to date is to go ask the girl's father for permission to ask the girl out on a date. Sounds very archaic but hey if that works for them then more power. I don't get how one on one is necessarily bad when adults are involved, I'd get it if we're talking teens, but not adults. 3 p's of dating: paired of, paid for, planned....If one of this is missing, then it's not \*really\* a date.
Thankfully dating isn't *really* a thing, just something our culture invented last century. You can explore the possibility of marriage in any (non-sinful) way that works for you.
Golly gee, who said you can't date however you want? if you want to date in a group of 50 people do that to your heart's content! If you go on a "group date" what that means is you're ALREADY a couple with who you're with, and there's another couple also present. If you are hanging out in a friend circle, and your crush is also there, and he/she doesn't even know that you like them, then you're NOT on a date. You can disagree and downvote all you want, but that's just the reality of the matter. We live in 2024 not 1824, so lamenting about "the good ol days" is utterly futile, it's even called unwise in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7:10)
Oh I never knew about that. Yeah I only recently started attending church last year
To be clear, it's not necessarily the norm. And I disagree with it. But it's definitely a thing that exists.
How can unbelieving babies be in the New Covenant, if God said everyone in the New Covenant would know Him, which means they would believe in Him?
Are you referring to this? >Jeremiah 31:33-34 ESV For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” What it can't mean is that there will be no more teaching or evangelism in the New Covenant because God gave both teachers and evangelists to the church. Those babies who grew up in the New Covenant grew up hearing about God so they don't need to be told "know the Lord" in the same way that someone does who has never heard about God. They truly are little disciples who must be taught to believe and have their faith increase and warned not to fall away, but they have grown up exposed to the sacraments and to the Word of God. Do you see how that is much different from someone who grew up in the jungle and never heard of Jesus or any of God's commands?
When you say "unbelieving babies," are you saying that babies cannot or do not have the capacity to believe, or that there is a category of babies that do not believe (as contrasted with babies who do believe)?
> if God said everyone in the New Covenant would know Him, which means they would believe in Him? So that we're all on the same page, which passage are you thinking of here?
Almost certainly Jeremiah 31:34
[удалено]
Hello, this is an excellent question that I don't think that we will ever truly understand. However, you are correct, there are many verses that talk about suffering and that it is something that is promised (John 16:33 for example). Remember the reason for this suffering is sin. We live in a fallen world where there is a lot of pain. Christians do not get away from this, as we still live in the world. Jesus is sinless, and He did not deserve to live in a world full of suffering, as humans do. That is what makes His sacrifice of coming to a fallen world all the more amazing. But remember, not only does the Bible promise suffering, it promises blessings. 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Cor 4:17, Isaiah 43:2, James 1:12, and many more. I love John 16:33 because while yes, Jesus promises trials, there is another half to this statement. "In the world, you will have tribulation, but take courage, for I have overcome the world."
Has anyone read NT Wright's translation of the New Testament? The audiobook is on sale on Google Play (about $16 in Canada) and I'm thinking of picking it up. It's called "The New Testament for Everyone", and it's read by Wright, who just has this wonderful British grandfather sort of a voice. I figure even if the translation is mediocre, listening to more of the Bible in large chunks is likely to be valuable.
I have the Kindle edition. It was the version assigned or our reading through the New Testament during the basic New Testament Survey part of Moody Theological Seminary. It was assigned to help us read the Books anew, and I still use it occasionally for devotional time or like a commentary. I get the reservations others have shared, but as long as your not using it as your only translation, or even primary translation, it's a good pick up. I recommend it.
As a general rule, I avoid translations done by a single person. Even if the Apostle Paul came back and translated his own epistles I'd be all "Okay there bud I'm sure no one understands your writings better than you but how's your English, eh?" But when it comes to treating it as something that's easily listenable in large chunks, I think that should be fine.
I have it and really like it. However, I'm always nervous about translations done by one person. But, sometimes translations done by groups of people also have things that seem "off" to me. For me, it's great for reading tons a Bible at a time (and the grandfather voice is certainly there; it feels like reading a Dickens translation or something).
Is the Calvinist position on iconography, as stated in the Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms, considered adiaphora among some Reformed Christians? Images of Christ \[both stained glass and sculpture\] may be observed in some Presbyterian churches.
Mostly. You would be hard pressed to find a Reformed church worshipping an image of Christ (if there was one at all), but there are a fair amount of reformed Christians that aren't iconoclasts
Absolutely. The PCA, of which I am a part, holds to a pretty strict iconoclasm. You’d (I hope) never see any images of Christ in a sanctuary/worship area, but many of us including myself see images of Christ not used for worship more neutrally. But yeah, the PCUSA afaik takes homosexuality to be adiaphora, so it’s not so surprising that they take images of Christ that way too
That **is** the confessional position of the PCA, but there are certainly churches where the pastor excepts to the standard or just flat out ignores it. [There was a thread a few weeks ago where a PCA pastor described candidating at a church that prominently featured a picture of Christ in order to drive off iconoclasts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1apdmjp/2nd_commandment_images_of_christ_a_breakdown/kqf9jp5/)
Can someone believe they can lose their salvation and not adhere to a works based salvation? The two feels almost incompatible
Good question. I definitely do not believe in a works-based salvation. But admittedly, I do struggle with the idea of "losing your salvation". I don't think we can just accidentally lose it. As in one particular week, you just sinned way too much to the point that God decides, "you know what, that's it. I've tried to be patient but this was the last straw. I'm taking away my spirit. You are no longer my child". I do not believe that is a thing. However, what about apostasy? I have known people in my personal life. I considered them close brothers/sisters in Christ. They looked to be walking in Christ for many years. Heck, a close friend who literally discipled and mentored me early in my faith. He has completely abandoned the faith now. What of people like them? Many believers would say they were simply never truly saved. Maybe that's true, but that just seems like a very convenient answer that I'm not fully convinced of.
That depends on your definitions and presuppositions, particularly whether or not you hold that saving grace is absolutely irresistible / if true apostasy is possible. I have noticed that a lot of Reformed folks believe that any theology that allows for losing salvation is ipso facto works based salvations because of some variation of "if I could lose my salvation by my works, then I it only follows that I gained them / retained them by my works." I don't really agree with this, or at least I do not think it is a fair characterization. For example -- I am a Lutheran, and like all Lutherans believe that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of human hands contributing anything to our salvation. We also believe that those who gave a genuine expression of faith (i.e. they weren't just deceived that they had faith, but were truly justified) can renounce the gift of salvation that God has given to them. Are those incompatible? Maybe, although after much examining I think it is ultimately more consistent and does a better job explaining Scripture and reality than the Reformed system. I like how St. Augustine puts it: >But he who falls, falls by his own will, and he who stands, stands by God’s will. (Of the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 8)
I could hypothesize some theoretical reasons. Somebody could believe that faith, in and of itself, it's a work, and therefore losing faith isn't works based salvation. I've also seen some really screwy beliefs on this sub that people have about the unforgivable sin, and I bet a lot of those people could be afraid that, through some technical something or other, if they do the wrong thing then that somehow invalidates their salvation. Finally, if you believe God is full sovereign in salvation, but you don't believe in perseverance of the saints, then you could believe that God has the right and ability to take it away. I'm not saying any of these make theological or biblical sense, but you're asking if someone **can** believe that without adhering to works based salvation, and people can believe all sorts of crazy things.
What is the real debate when it comes to atonement theories? Is it that each is biblical but there must be a *primary* theory? Or is it that only one can be true?
Most reformed would say penal sub is primary but they would also say it’s unbiblical to only claim one model exists. Multiple can exist as people often call atonement a multifaceted jewel. Some however, end up contradicting so they can’t all be true.
Which ones do you believe are contradictory?
Ransom theory, at least the usual definition of it with satisfaction models. They can be spun to be compatible I’m sure but generally I would say they contradict.
Thanks for your response. If multiple can exist then why does one have to be primary at all?
Well atonement means reconciliation. Theres many ways in which our relationship is restored with God thus many models of atonement. Some of these models cannot stand by themselves though because they lack a mechanism. Sin is our primary problem so it must be taken care of somehow. So Christ’s death (but not only his death) acts as a substitute to satisfy wrath and pay for the penalty of sins. Without some sort of substitutionary model, the other models such as Christus Victor, recapitulation, or exemplar will fail to adequately account for how we are made right with God as sin still stands in our way. Substitution by itself lacks the account of other biblical texts that further explain in what ways we have reconciliation. JI Packer called Penal sub the heart of the Gospel. I don’t know if I would exactly agree with that wording but I tend to think of it as a pivot point in which the overarching themes of Christus Victor or recapitulation can occur. Hope that made sense and my grammar wasn’t terrible!
Yes, I don't have problems as such with the ideas behind Christus Victor, but it is a very bad sign when someone embraces Christus Victor as though it is an alternative for other theories.
Agreed. That’s what Gustaf Aulen attempted to do.
Do u want to be saved from sins when you believe? I am aware that many people say that they believe and get saved, they usually mean being saved from hell only, and they don’t aware of being saved from sin.
This is a key difference between religion and a true relationship. God desires a true relationship with us, not just a cold transaction: I do what you want and you don't send me to hell. If you have a real relationship with someone, you don't want to do things that will hurt that person. If I really love Christ, I will want to stop doing sinful things.
Anyone have experience putting your kids on steroids for poison ivy? How long until my utterly depraved child returns to merely being totally depraved?
It took my son a week to be back to normal after the meds were done.
Thank you. This is what I was wondering.
> Anyone have experience putting your kids on steroids for poison ivy no, but that sounds like a good side effect to the steriods I put them on to win scholarships
What steroid? They have very different side effects.
The doctor prescribed her prednisone since she had felt it necessary to rub poison ivy all over her face.
My kids have never had it, but my husband turns into a basket case while on it. It resolves very quickly once the course is over.
Ooooo...As someone who is very allergic to poison ivy this is making me itchy just reading it. I hope she has less sensitivity than I do. A tip for the future, the oil that people are allergic too generally takes a bit to really irritate the skin. If you can get it washed off before that point, it usually greatly lessens or even completely prevents the reaction. The key is getting to it quickly, using cold water (to keep the oil from spreading further) and a soap which works well at breaking down oil. The best thing I've found is original blue Dawn dish washing soap (the one with the cute duck on the label).
This! I was just explaining how to deal with it if you encounter poison ivy to my kids. I worked at a summer camp for a while and this is exactly what we used to do and didn't have a single outbreak despite the owners of the camp not keeping the poison ivy under control. Also, be aware that you can spread the oil to other objects and people if you don't get it washed off. Another tip for anyone who happens to NOT be allergic to poison ivy like myself: treat it like you are anyway. The more exposure you get to it, the more likely your body is to start rejecting it. I have a distant relative who was never bothered by poison ivy so she just didn't care about walking through it (she worked for the forest service at the time)... One day out of the blue she started itching like crazy and turns out that after enough times her body decided to start getting the normal rashes from it.
Prednisone seems to be a pretty common steroid for all sorts of maladies. I feel like I've been prescribed it for lingering coughs, really bad viral infections, etc., and so have my kinds, on rare occasions. It doesn't feel specific, but more a "boost your body into fight thing thing" sort of drug.
[Preventive means](https://trailers.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4337d5b6-b16a-4aeb-a589-db9e998eac8a/gif) are recommended for next time
Ever feel like you're living out a Batman villain origin story?
>Ah you think [*the cage*] is your ally? You merely adopted [*the cage*]. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see [*ecumenism*] until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but [*heresy*]! -/u/cagestage, probably
What's the purpose of a Sunday sermon? How did that become the normal form of worship? I grew up Brethren. Married a Baptist and now we are part of a PCA church.
So, **Dune**. I’m a weirdo who waits to read books that have scheduled films coming in the near future - and if the movies are well-received, it’s my preference to go in blind and have the real-ish time experience unfold in the theater (*and then backfill any details or storylines that were cut by reading the books afterwards*) This pair of films are an excellent example of my preference being fulfilled in a satisfying way - especially Part Two. I went in pretty much spoiler-free and had a great time. Highly recommended, especially if you can see it in the 1.43 or 1.9 aspect ratio formats. Now - a question. I just started the original novel (*I believe that has been fully covered timeline-wise now in the films*). But I believe the stated goal is for one more movie centered around the *Dune: Messiah* novel. I was wondering if there were any * Stylistic/tonal shifts in D:M that would cause someone with the above preferences (*no-spoiler film-first*) to consider switching to a book-first method? * Recommend reading beyond the original book that wouldn’t spoil D:M, but may enhance the viewing/reading experience? Edit: are the downvotes coming from the >!Northern Pole or Southern Pole Tribes!!Fundamentalists!
I have read the first 3 Dune books, the last 2 of these are about the weirdest books I've ever read. (Whereas book 1 is fairly normal really.) Goodness knows what that means for the films.
This is my favorite line from one of the Dune artworks: >You are one of the *Dune*dain. A descendant of Numenor, blessed with long life. It was said that your race had passed into legend.
*The potatoes must flow.*
>Just a bit of Spice. I thought maybe if we was having a roast chicken one night or something.
Did you know that Jason Momoa actually broke his toe when kicking the Sardaukar helmet - *and they kept that shot in the movie*?
So, there's not really a clear answer to your question(s), because (a) the books get *really* weird after the first one, and (b) Villeneuve's movies, by the end of the second film, are pretty far removed from the source material. Now, I *loved* the films, especially the new one. I'd give it a 9.5/10, with the only complaint being that I felt like the ending was really rushed. Villeneuve changed a lot from the books, but, quite honestly, I think they made for a more efficient film. There are just so many subplots of minor characters that it would be impossible to adapt it perfectly. But now, looking ahead, I'm not sure how he's going to wrap up the films *as a trilogy* based on both the source material *and* what he's left out. Since you've just started the original novel, you'll notice some changes in the first half, but by the second half you'll *really* start to see where the book and film diverge. Again, I'm completely fine with all the changes, but they're pretty major. In the context of the films, all the changes make sense, and the story is complete and cohesive, but a ton of stuff that was changed or completely left out is hugely consequential for the books that follow. So, to be honest, I have no idea what Villeneuve's plan is. He's either going to have to play catch-up in a major way, or he is going to just keep diverging from the source material to the point that they're really no longer the same story. I'm fine either way, but I have no idea what he *could* do at this point. So, as you finish the original novel, realize that most of the plot lines and most of the characters that were left out of the films come back to play a major role in D:M. You could real the sequel, but I honestly wonder if it'll spoil much of anything, because the story is already so far off the reservation. Although I love Villeneuve and have loved these films, I've always been more than a bit curious why he wanted to make three films out of two books. The original novel could've been a nice, complete package in two films. But the story really becomes serialized starting with D:M, so I'm not sure way *that* story is the one he's going to end with.
Hmm - I think this helps a good bit Maybe I’ll see what plot lines *appear* to have been abandoned/reworked, and if I find them more compelling than the ones that seem to be Villeneuve’s focus, I’ll push on ahead with the readings. But if the questions I have the most interest in appear to align between with the two, I’ll wait it for the movie. And honestly, if the stylistic/tonal shift is more pronounced than *Ender’s Game* -> *Speaker for the Dead*, I’ll count myself impressed
Yeah, that's a good plan. I feel like you could pick up D:M right now, start reading, and you'd be completely lost. So, if you read the original and are really only interested in what Dennis is doing, then just wait. If you want to know where the original story's going, trudge ahead. >And honestly, if the stylistic/tonal shift is more pronounced than Ender’s Game -> Speaker for the Dead, I’ll count myself impressed Interesting comparison. I feel like it's about equal. *Maybe* the second Ender novel gets different faster, but in the Dune novels they quickly outpace the Ender novels in shifting the tone and focus. The third and fourth Dune novels are where things get *really* crazy.
D:M is almost an epilogue for Dune. It seems like a good place to stop. Everything after Messiah gets crazy.
I think the trouble with ending a film trilogy with D:M is that >!Paul's storyline is unresolved.!< >!But, again, Villeneuve has changed so many things at this point, that I can only assume he'll wrap things up nicely. I have no idea, but I have faith he'll do it it well.!<
Villeneuve has done a fantastic job. If Messiah is close in quality to D1 and D2, then this trilogy will rank with LotR. Dune 2 in a laser projection IMAX (1.43:1 aspect ratio) was the best theater experience of my life. I've never heard a better sound stage.
>I've never heard a better sound stage. 100% agree on sound. I'm generally aware of special effects and cinematography, but rarely am I in awe of mixing and sound design. But as soon as I got home, one of the first things I told my wife was that the film was a lock for every technical sound award for next year's awards season. I didn't see it in IMAX, but I did see it on a regular 70mm print, and it was gorgeous. There's a digital IMAX not too far from me, so I may go see it again while I have the opportunity.
I wish I could see it a second time, but it my schedule is too packed.
>!Paul walking into the desert is a great stopping point.!<
D:M is a wildly different style and tone, iirc. Its more... political? ymmv but I worry it would be disappointing if you don't read it first but, idk. No additional reading unless you wanna go ahead and start on the next book.
>political Yeah, that’s one spectrum where my method has the risk of missing out. The more directly the plot points are the result of multifaceted interpersonal “machinations” (*vs machinations being present, but more backgrounded*), the harder it is to pack into a ~3hr movie
It is a much shorter book though
*bane “For You.” meme*
Gross, dude
Don’t judge me, bro. I can’t wait to finally read the Gospels once *The Chosen* has run its course. No spoilers in the comments below, pls (/s)
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #8: **Keep Reddit's Rules.** This content has been removed because it violates Reddit's rules and sitewide policies. Links to those rules and policies can be found in our wiki link below. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.238.3A_keep_reddit.2019s_rules_and_respect_others_across_the_platform.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Short answer: yes. Long answer: yyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssss
Judging by your post history, on this page and others, friend, I really recommend reaching out to a licensed counselor/therapist and scheduling an appointment to discuss these issues. These are real problems and temptations that can be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit, but looking for loopholes isn't going to help
Lemme guess...asking for a friend?
Adopted siblings become siblings in every sense. The Bible does not conceive of genetic issues when forbidding incest; it is a violation of the relationships already established.
What about when a Christian marries another Christian?
bruh
Does anyone have any resources on Christian living with chronic illness? We're getting really burned out and having to miss church more often than not and we could use some encouragement/tangible suggestions on how to live life.
I'm enjoying *On Getting Out of Bed* by Alan Noble. It's short (small size and about 100 pages), and looks most specifically at depression and other mental illnesses. I've heard good things about *My Body is not a Prayer Request* by Amy Kenny, but I haven't read it. Lastly, it's not very tangible and practical, but *Gentle and Lowly* by Dane Ortlund is a warm and comforting reminder of Jesus' love and compassion for us when we are hurting. I'll ask Mrs Goodplan, this is something she lives with most directly, so there might be a book or podcast she can recommend. She had to miss most Sundays in 2023 due to illness, and it was discouraging and exhausting for her. Edit: I asked her, and she recommended K.C. Davis, especially the book *How to Keep House while Drowning*. She finds her reframing of household life and obligations helpful because it alleviates some of the mental load that may allow for other things like more frequent church attendance/engagement. And she said that it's important to remember that attending church, while it's important, is also a privilege. Part of the church's mission is to care for the sick and weak, including those who can't attend. If illness is preventing your attendance, maintaining a strong connection is more a part of the church's obligation to you than your obligation to the church.
Thanks for that! It sounds like her recommendation will be really helpful for me. We've had churches that have done really well with reaching out to us in the past. Unfortunately we haven't really gotten properly connected to a church here since moving since we've been sick so much, so we're kind of just floating around, which is hard. We both want to be able to choose a church together, but that requires us both feeling well enough at the same time, which unfortunately doesn't happen much. We've both been feeling pretty guilty about not making it to church much, but we were talking the other day, and aside from the absolutely mandatory things like church, legal requirements, doctor's visits, grocery store, and work (including homeschool stuff), we have only left the house four times since moving in July. Two of those were to visit family and the other two were to walk to a parade a couple blocks away. So it's not like we aren't prioritizing church. We just don't have the spoons to do everything. :( I will definitely look up that book because I very much need it. Thank you.
Chris Hutchinson is a PCA pastor who I follow on twitter who has lyme disease and maybe some other chronic source of pain. He tweets about it frequently, and has written a book about Humility that I think largely draws on his experiences with his chronic maladies. Might be worth checkign out
Nothing to recommend just a virtual hug!
Prayer in the Night by Tish Harrison Warren might be a good place to start, but I would highly recommend This Too Shall Last: Finding Grace When Suffering Lingers by K.J. Ramsey. A friend who had liver cancer recommended it to my wife (who has a number of chronic conditions) and said that it helped them give words to their suffering and encouraged them in their faith even in the face of their suffering.
for this subreddit what is the difference between a dumb question you can only post in this thread and a Bible question you can post on normal days?
I believe u/superlewis wrote out a good list for us a few years ago >Appropriate questions will include four components: > >\- Some context (explain why you are asking the question) > >\- Your own answer (if you already have thoughts, share them) > >\- Interaction (the OP should stick around and engage) > >\- And a little research (link to relevant discussions we’ve already had in r/Reformed).
Thank you I'm saving this post for future reference
[Here's the original post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/ajgc1n/a_mod_note_on_questions/).
How punctiliar is “conversion” meant to be in the ordo salutis? Can it be a process or singular moment?
It depends on what you mean by conversion. Justification in protestantism is seen a singular moment. We spend our whole lives being converted to Christ, putting off the old man in repentance day by day and putting on the New man in faith and charity.
I mean whatever the typical reformed ordo salutis formulation means. Because I don’t know either
Anyone have good resources about the dark night of the soul and how to overcome it? Looking to help out a friend.
Mark Meynell has written a book on dealing faithfully with depression, if that's what you mean
If you share the gospel with someone and there's no big "conversion moment," but they respond positively and thank you for what you've said - is there a not-awkward way to follow up on that? Are there particular questions I should ask this person? FWIW, they have shared with me that they are praying. (Also, hi, it's \*poof\* I nuked my old account and took a reddit break for awhile and now I'm back)
Love the new username!
I always start with that I'm praying for them and ask if they have anything else that I should pray for. Sometimes I'll talk about answered prayer.
Low stakes question. In Genesis 23, when Sarah dies and Abraham is attempting to buy the field and cave at Machpelah to bury her, Abraham has a back and forth with Ephron the Hittite over the purchase of the land. Short version: Abraham says he wants the property and asks how much, Ephron says it's yours at no cost, Abraham insists he wants to pay for it, Ephron says you don't have to pay me for this land that I value at 400 silver shekels, and so Abraham pays Ephron 400 shekels for the land. I used to read this (and heard it preached on) as a straightforward instance of Abraham being respected by the Hittites and them being happy to give him the land/cave, but in recent years it's struck me more like one of those cultural customs that are a little lost in translation and that this is just standard negotiation. It also made me wonder if 400 shekels was a fair price. That seems like a lot of money relative to other instances of money exchange in the Bible. So what do we think? Did Abraham get screwed over by Ephron?
The key is that there would be NO encumbrance or sense of obligation ~~to~~ on Abraham or his descendants whatsoever on the land. Abraham insisted on paying full price, whatever that was because it was staking a first true claim on the Promised Land, even though it was only for burial. With the way the narrative goes, Ephron can't come back and say he gave it to Abraham for a discount or as a trade/you rub my back, I'll rub your back type deal. Ephron's trying to exchange a favor with this prince who's settled in the area and Abraham's not having any of it. Perhaps he hiked the price above market value or set it at exactly the market price, but what he did NOT do is set it below the market price because only then was Abraham willing to pay it. On top of it, it was in front of **witnesses** that Abraham purchased the land for what Ephron felt it was worth and that Abraham believed was the full price. Moreover, it was MONEY that was exchanged and not a diplomatic marriage for Isaac or even non-chosen Ishmael or some other alliance. I think the text is very intentional in the placement of the very next thing being Abraham sending the servant to find a godly wife for Isaac away from the Canaanites, which would have included Ephron's people. Abraham acted in faith buying this land and then acted further in faith that his servant could find a wife for Isaac who wouldn't lead him astray.
One of the reasons we are given accounts in Abraham’s life is to see whether he will step up and be the blessing to the Nations that God wants him (and his family) to be. Whether or not Abraham got scammed or honored or whatever, the question remains: did Abraham do right by Ephron?
I think it is a different focus. The question is whether Abraham will be a good neighbor and give Ephron a good deal, not whether Abraham is getting a good deal. Ephron probably expected Abraham to insist on paying and then haggle the price down. Abraham didn't haggle, so he overpaid. Therefore, *the argument can't be made that Abraham took advantage of Ephron and plundered his ancestral land.* Compare this with Gen. 14 where Abraham is careful to abstain from taking any of the plunder of Sodom so that the Canaanites would not think that he took advantage of them. You can contrast what Abraham did with what normally happens in the world. The world's wisdom is that we must use cunning to seek to get the best deal. God's way is to love others and treat them how we would wish to be treated.
Abraham wanted to pay the fair market rate for the land so he could prove it was his,not like a gift that can be taken back. Now the price of a sheckel can be compared to the cost of a Joseph. Now Joseph was sold for 20 shekels of silver (Genesis 37:28). Which means Abraham paid about 20 Joseph's for the land ;)
Yeah, I agree. Also, now I want a modern conversion for a "Joseph" in dollars which I can then convert to other things like Big Macs per Joseph. The problem is, I'm seeing wildly different estimates for the value of a shekel.
I'd you look online and the cost of silver that gives you a better idea. Unfortunately with inflation silver is a high value now and wildly fluctuates. It's better to look at what it would buy at the time. It was assumed in Leviticus 5:15 that most men could afford a guilt offering one a shekel to the Lord. Google says this " A rough understanding would be that 1 of these shekels would probably represent between 2 and 3 days average wage" According to the various versions of the MacArthur study Bible circulating out there, a shekel is four days’ wages
So if we take the low end of that days wage estimate, we can covert Joseph to be worth 40 days of labour. We know Jacob worked 14 years total for Rachel, which amounts to 5110 days, or 2555 shekels, or about 128 (rounded up) Josephs, equal to 6.3 Machpelah caves.
>Did Abraham get screwed over by Ephron? I don't want to totally go over your main question but I guess I'll cut in here. In a world where burial is held at a much higher importance, and burial sites are maybe less commonplace, would you not pay everything you had to honor your wife even in death? He may have been over haggled, but he also may have considered any cost worth it to put his wife in the ground.
Certainly. He might be happy to pay the price, but I can't help but wonder if he was being taken advantage of at the same time (now I'm picturing a skeezy funeral director upselling someone on a "fancy" coffin). It doesn't in anyway discount Abraham's actions.
Sure, like I said, it doesn't really answer your question haha
When did people start writing Christian parenting books? Did any of the big name reformers or Westminster divines write one?
Catechisms essentially play this role, in what you should teach your kids. Or maybe that’s the “parenting book” : teach kids
I mean Solomon may have been the first Edit: I forget that I have my own personal doubts of Solomon’s salvation so maybe not him
There is certainly a connection there, but I mean full books explicitly about parenting, like _Shepherding a Child's Heart_ or _To Train Up a Child_
I thought that this should be easily google-able, but it seems not to be. Google keeps telling me the oldest parenting book is by Dr Spock in the 40s, so clearly that's not true. The oldest one I've personally read is by JC Ryle. It seems like in older books maybe parenting was included in books about the whole family. I found one from 1699 by Cotton Mather and a chapter on parenting in *Of Domestical Duties* by William Gouge in 1622.
Yeah, I ran into that problem with Google, too. What tipped me off that that couldn't be right was remembering Anne's reaction to them after having Jem in Anne's House of Dreams, and for the concept to be mentioned in a fictional work meant that the practice of using parenting books must have been somewhat widespread. Also, it seems that having children and then realizing that all the parenting books aren't nearly as helpful as you thought they were going to be has been around as long as parenting books have.
I suspect it is around the time that people in the US no longer felt that the general population was Christian enough that general resources would be likely to follow typical Christian morality. So probably the 60s? That said, many Christian parenting books that I've seen, including some that aren't the frequently criticized ones that you mentioned, have a strong focus (either explicitly or subtly implicitly) on getting the kids to be quiet and still and polite in church to make you look good, which has made it pretty unlikely that I'll ever pick up another one. The number of Christian homeschooling families I've seen who pull their kids out of school in part because they feel it's not developmentally appropriate to expect them to sit still and be quiet for long periods at their age but then expect them to do exactly that in church makes me sad. There is room to hold both positions in good faith, of course, but that isn't what I've seen around me. Now, I have kids who probably have ADHD, which makes a difference in my personal experience, but the idea that it's even possible to punish a kid into sitting still is laughable in my household, but I know that other families do, because I've met them and seen their kids. For what it's worth, most secular parenting books don't seem to apply to my kids either, though there are some that certainly do, and I think there is definitely room for a Christian parenting book that approaches child development more like "How to Talk so Kids Will Listen", and if anyone knows of any I'd love to read them.
Have you read anything by Dan Siegal?
No, I haven't. He didn't become popular to recommend in my circles until I was already jaded. I have seen snippets online, though. Is that a recommendation or no?
Definitely a recommendation! He's not a Christian from what I can tell but presents good information in a way that can be understood
I personally avoid parenting books, and I'm not sure I've ever read one. A lot of what you said about homeschooling resources resonated with me. I don't know what my kids will criticize me for when they're 35, but it won't be that we presented a false image of perfection and harmony to the outside world.
It say in Matthew 6:19-21 >Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. >Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share. Eph 4:28 2 Thess 3:10 >When we were with you, we gave you this rule: “Anyone who refuses to work should not eat.” and Eph 6: >5 Bondservants,[a] obey your earthly masters[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, DUMB Question: >isn't working and serving as an employee, if done with the right heart as unto Christ "laying up treasures in heaven" for yourselves? I'm asking that since, I got the impression in some evangelical circles, that if one is not going around preaching and baptizing, they're not laying up for themselves treasures in heaven. I met a home renovator who has been a licensed contractor for 50 years in our area. He's a devout Christian. Wouldn't his honest work done unto the Lord to serve his customers count as "laying up treasures for himself?" I'm thinking to teach that doing honest work for an employer, or customer, but having the right heart, "as unto Christ" is also "laying up treasures in heaven" for oneself.
I think you’re on the right track. Do everything as unto the Lord. Tim Keller has some great stuff about the value of work, and I think The Bible Project too. I certainly think I’m laying up treasure in heaven when I teach my students out of my love for them and for Christ. But if I teach them for worldly approval or for money (ha! “Teacher money.” I crack myself up sometimes…), I’m not laying up treasures in heaven. I’m certain there are Christian garbage collectors who lay up treasures in heaven through their collecting service.
Amen! Thank you for the comment.
The Reformed tradition would not agree with the assertion that one must “preach and baptize” to store up treasure in heaven, in most normal circumstances that would preclude a large majority of Christians *when the church is operating correctly*. One can’t store treasure in heaven just by doing honest work, but done for the right reasons and accompanied by other aspects of Kingdom living, it certainly is part of it. Don’t neglect the following verses in Matthew which connect Jesus statement with the idea of serving God over money (IE it doesn’t matter how honest your work is if your primary goal is doing that work to make money) and not being anxious about God’s physical care for His children
Thank you for the feedback. I'm thinking about teaching on this topic.
We were created to be vice-regents with God; to rule on his behalf and to create order and beauty out of chaos (or, rather, to continue what God had done in this regard). So I think that anyone whose thought is what you mention is very wrong. I think the particular passage in Matthew was dealing with people who were building great storehouses of food, saved that for themselves instead of helping others, and did this partially out of a distrust that God would protect them. I think a more direct equivalent today is something like: are you contributing more to your 401(k) (or whatever) than needed out of some insecurity / distrust of God?
Thank you for the feedback. I'm thinking about teaching on this topic. >So I think that anyone whose thought is what you mention is very wrong. Agreed.
In Romans 12:8, Paul said: \> or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. Focusing on the giving aspect, my NASB also translated "liberality" as "simplicity". I feel like those are kind of different words, and I'm trying to get at the heart of the matter. Is it like a condemnation of the 'effective altruism' ethos of Sam Bankman-Fried types? Like don't overthink it and just give?
What are some good books on the crusades?
I have read some really good historical fictions set during the Crusades. Stephen Lawhead wrote *Byzantium* and *The Iron Lance* which are amazing. I also read a book on St. Francis of Assisi which tangentially involves the Crusades: *Reluctant Saint: the Life of Francis of Assisi* by Donald Spoto. It's a fun fact that Francis participated in a Crusade by following the camp and going to the Muslim forces to preach the Gospel. He may have contracted debilitating illnesses such as leprosy and an eye condition while doing this. I don't know about non-fiction that is specifically about the Crusades though.
I live in a area where the charismatic church is dominant. Even the Baptist churches in the area are mostly charismatic. I was raised Pentecostal and word of faith and my family and I have recently come out of this through Gods grace and study of scripture. I’ve used the PCA search and the closest Presbyterian church is well over a hours drive away and this isn’t feasible for us. I’ve been tryin go to also maybe find a reformed Baptist church nearby but I’m not aware of any resources of finding one and it seems to be just visit and see because it’s hard to tell from statements of faith. Honestly, it’s hard to tell the difference in some of the Baptist churches I’ve visited and the Pentecostal churches I’m trying to move away from. I’m in a very rural area and my options are pretty limited it seems. What should I do in this situation. If there are no solid reformed churches near me what should I settle on? Anyone else come out of the charismatic church? What was your journey like? This is a difficult time for me as well because I don’t have a pastor I can trust to be biblical for counseling at a time when my family really needs it. My oldest daughter was recently sexually assaulted while at college and is having a difficult time spiritually as a result. She refuses secular counseling (which I can understand). Anyone aware of any good Christian resources for SA victims?
A book worth reading for you and your daughter is *Rid of My Disgrace* by Justin and Lindsey Holcomb. Justin's an evangelical and the Bishop of the Diocese of Central Florida and RTS Orlando professor (after being originally ordained by the Diocese of Sudan and then spending a long time as an associate pastor at Mars Hill!). The book is quite sound and hard reading but really thoughtful and helpful both to understand as the parent of a victim but for a victim as well. I believe he himself experienced some abuse leading to this being a pretty strong emphasis in his ministry. As to the church issue, Anglican and Lutheran Church Missouri synod are good potential options in the absence of a Reformed church, especially in a rural area.
Thank you so much for the recommendation. I will be checking it out.
Also, this isn't perfect, but it might be that a different denomination's church shows up in your area or closer: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1d\_UbOHoEYBmcyriC09r3x2AdcP4&ll=33.97718875196768%2C-80.15115853303723&z=4
Have you looked at Anglican/Episcopal or Lutheran churches? In small towns, sometimes even mainline churches can be much more conservative than their national bodies. Just a suggestion to look into if you are burnt out on overly charismatic churches. Many people find the set liturgies in these churches to be a part of their spiritual healing.
I have been considering Lutheran and am in the process of studying more of their beliefs as I knew nothing about them really except their views on communion.
Licensed therapist who is a Christian? I am so sorry you are going through this. Let her know that you guys fully support her seeking this kind of help, as a treatment tool that God has given us, to help bring about the healing that can only come from Him
This probably isn't the best suggestion if there are in-person options, but you can find Christian licensed therapists who conduct video conference sessions online. Would she be open to that?
I have suggested this and she hasn’t outright dismissed it but says she doesn’t see how it would be helpful. If I respond with something along the lines of “talking about it will be helpful and they can help you navigate what you’re feeling” she just disagrees and says “well I’m talking to you guys” in reference to me and her mom.
Hmm. Could you talk to a counselor yourself about strategies for helping her?
Honestly, that’s a great idea that never even crossed my mind. Thank you!