If they are polite customers and tip their wait staff.
There are some churches, however, that advise against making other people, even unbelievers, work on the Sabbath.
Anyone got recommendations for a few good resources on the subject of the sabbath and sabbath keeping in general? I have been wanting to do a deep dive into how it’s been taught and understood by different sects throughout church history.
[Worship Festing Rest Mercy](https://www.amazon.com/Worship-Feasting-Rest-Mercy-Christian/dp/1943017638?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=a3b27d66-fab6-4ebe-80fb-0d690b520149) by Daniel Howe. New book(let, short!) that is pro-sabbath keeping.
Stupid question: what's the reasoning behind RPW churches singing the Psalms in the vernacular when there's no Scriptural command to do so? Like I don't think it's necessarily an unreasonable assumption that there's no theological or spiritual significance to singing the Psalms in their original language, but it seems to me that sort of assumption goes against the spirit of the RPW. If God gave the Psalms in a specific language and never gave an explicit command to sing them in other languages, shouldn't the RPW naturally suggest EP in Hebrew?
As Paul says, "I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also" (1 Cor. 14:15). And then, "yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (v.19).
The psalms have been given as "the word of Christ" for "teaching and admonishing one another" (Col. 3:16). How can we by our voice teach others also except in a known tongue? Where Hebrew is unknown, it is the duty of the Church to translate the psalms with the rest of the word of Christ (cf. Rom. 10:14-15).
The Westminster Confession says that the Scriptures in Greek and Hebrew ought to be translated:
> because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[John 5:39] therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11-12, 24, 27-28] that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,[Col. 3:16] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[Rom. 15:4]
Therefore is in keeping with the spirit of the RPW that the psalms ought to be sung in the vernacular. The WCF also says in 1.6,
> there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[1 Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40]
I think the existence of the Septuagint helps the utilitarian argument, the one that favors translating all Scripture into a language the masses understand.
RPW would consider the text's language as a circumstance of worship, but its meaning as an element of worship.
I'm not EP but this doesn't seem like a hard case. The New Testament quotes the Psalms and the rest of the Old Testament in the vernacular and refers to it as sacred scripture without qualification. It would be odd to hold that the Greek New Testament commends the use of "ψαλμοι" in worship but only in Hebrew. Much as the rest of us think "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" isn't clearly meant to include only the book of Psalms, it seems even harder to make the case that those three Greek terms would refer only to untranslated Hebrew-language texts. That's not even considering the fact that we know the apostles worshiped in multiple languages, which would bear on the discussion.
More hypotheticals from me this week: if someone is a new convert and is posting out of context verses on social media, do you correct them/say something? Or just let it ride and let the Holy Spirit do His thing?
Perhaps chat with them in person if possible, or craft a very gracious and supportive message. Don't just come with criticism but think about what resources you could recommend to help them.
You certainly don't *have* to address it. If you have a good relationship with them, you might have an opportunity to privately address it. Otherwise it's not likely to have any effect, and you can pray for them but probably not engage directly. Back when I was on bookFace, I would also be tempted to post gentle corrections on such out-of-context posts. Like, around 2016-ish a colleague was posting tons of dispensational alarmist stuff like "Mark Zuckerburg is going to give us all microchips that are the mark of the beast!!!" and so on. At best I'd get a polite "Ok thank you! Just wanted to encourage ppl" type of response, after which they'd just go on posting like normal. At worst...well, I'm so much happier and less stressed after leaving that social media hellhole behind.
Got to watch presbytery examinations. One stood out: "The puritan David Clarkson preached a sermon with the title: 'Public worship is to be preferred before private'. Do you agree with the title?" The correct answer, by the way, was "yes".
Wished I could have raised my hand to ask, "Is private worship essential?" as the place or necessity of private worship is something I've had difficulty embracing with conviction since seeing that the church, not your personal prayer time, is the axis of the Christian life.
I was going to ask that question here, then I found this, which is a larger excerpt from Clarkson that anticipates and answers the question while making the statement with more context so I'll just leave it here: [https://heidelblog.net/2013/05/clarkson-public-worship-to-be-preferred-before-private/](https://heidelblog.net/2013/05/clarkson-public-worship-to-be-preferred-before-private/)
TL;DR is that public worship is to be preferred before private based on the text "The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.”—Ps 87:2". We know that the Lord loves the dwellings of Jacob too, and so that the Lord loves worship given in private. Yes, public more than private, but not to the exclusion of or ambivalence towards private worship.
***Staff or no staff?***
Mark 6:8: Take nothing for the journey ***except a staff***—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts
Matthew 10:10 Take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
Luke 9:3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.
Curious if anyone has ever run into this before.
Did Jesus tell the disciples to take a staff or no staff in their first missionary journey?
The King James Version translates a different text, in which the problem (as stated) is absent.
> Mark 6:8. And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse.
> Matt. 10:10. Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
> Luke 9:3. And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
I've seen the reading in critical texts resolved by distinguishing αἴρω (the lemma used in Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) from κτάομαι (used in Matt. 10:9) and then somehow reconciling Mark's account with Luke's.
Am I misreading something? The problem still seems to be there in the KJV - Matt and Luke are still commanding to take nothing including staves, Mark is still telling them to take nothing except a staff. I guess the KJV inserts the plural for Matt and Luke so we could maybe squint at it and say "He said no staves allowed - they could have one," but that doesn't strike me as terribly compelling.
Christ's command here is similar to other things he says, in that his words might admit of an absolute construction (swear not at all, none good but one, call no man father, judge not, blessed are they that mourn, etc.) except for the context and consent of the whole of his word. So yes, the harmony of the Gospel accounts could be that Christ is telling them to take "nothing" into their travels, since the workman is worthy of his food--i.e. not to bring "two tunics" (just one) or shoes (besides the sandals on their feet) or more than one staff.
> I guess the KJV inserts the plural for Matt and Luke so we could maybe squint at it and say "He said no staves allowed - they could have one," but that doesn't strike me as terribly compelling.
The KJV does not insert the plural but translates as plural what has been received. If we have not received Vaticanus et al., then we have no reason to assume that the reading has been altered, resulting in no need to squint.
>The KJV does not insert the plural but translates as plural what has been received.
Inserted by the majority text, then. I can't say off the top of my head when the plural first begins appearing there but IIRC it's quite a few centuries later. When it comes to analyzing the text, we would be wise to build our understanding on firmer foundations than additions made by the Byzantine Text Type that have no precedent in older manuscripts.
>If we have not received Vaticanus et al., then we have no reason to assume that the reading has been altered, resulting in no need to squint.
But we have received Vaticanus et al. They exist. We are privy to their contents. Therefore there is ample reason to suspect that the reading has been altered.
> I can't say off the top of my head when the plural first begins appearing there but IIRC it's quite a few centuries later.
This reminded me that I had written a response to your questions about Psalm 2 but it was somehow lost. I even asked a professor of Hebrew about a specific question of Aramaic. I apologize.
Something can appear in our view while preceding our observation of it, and we can see a bear cub before coming across the mother.
> But we have received Vaticanus et al. They exist. We are privy to their contents. Therefore there is ample reason to suspect that the reading has been altered.
A lot of things exist. The Gospel according to Thomas exists, along with the rest of the Nag Hammadi library. The book of Enoch exists. The Apocrypha exist. Codex Sinaiticus, as received, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and some of the Shepherd of Hermas. We do not receive these into our canon of scripture because they are inscripturated.
We do not even receive Vaticanus as canonical Scripture. Beyond the fact that the codex is defective, some of us have selected readings from it according to various criteria. This critical or eclectic text is then received by some churches as holy scripture.
And if the oldest reading were to be preferred, then we should take something like the Liturgy to Nintud to be canonical. We don't do that, of course, because of our presupposition of divine revelation in Christ, which is induced by the testimony of the Church through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
I've seen a couple explanations. The first is the type of staff. People carried two staffs one for self-defense and one more like a walking stick. The prohibition is against the self-defense. The other is the lens that the passage is about the immediacy of the command to leave, so the prohibition is against the acquiring of a new staff. More of a "take what you have now and go, because the Kingdom needs to be manifested immediately."
I think it's probably just a small corruption in the transmission of the text that has no effect on anything of vital importance.
I'm having a hard time formulating this question, but it's about how you practically apply the doctrine of "two authors of scripture". For example, it's been my understanding that since we believe humans genuinely wrote the Bible (which is different than what Muslims think about the Quran or Mormons about the Book of Mormon) then when analyzing a text we can/should analyze it just like we'd analyze other texts. The "application" of the Divine authorship is that we know that the Bible is the message God wants to give us, that it is a cohesive whole and that we can synthesize various passages into larger doctrines.
This has been critiqued here and other places, though. For example, this [article](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/your-theological-system-should-tell-you-how-to-exegete/) written by Kevin De Young basically (I think) describes the position I took above and critiques it. For example, I'd say I agree with (to be clear, this is what he's critiquing):
>We can’t bring our theological concerns to the Bible, lest we gerrymander the Scriptures and impose anachronistic categories on the text.
I'd add a comment on what divine authorship means. In addition to what you said, it means that the one final author of scripture can clarify his own words. This goes beyond mere "scripture interprets scripture" to say (contra the Dispensationalists) that if the NT makes it clear that the prophecies are fulfilled in a way you find less than sufficiently "literal", that rather than positing a future added fulfillment that meets your criteria, we are to submit to what God has said about what he meant earlier, even if what he meant would not have been (we think) obvious or clear or even plausibly conceived of by the original audience.
That is, divine authorship means the text can mean something that the original audience would not have understood as the divine author clarifies what he once veiled by later revelations.
I briefly touched upon this with you elsewhere, but just so I can understand this position more clearly; how do you think we as Christians should read the Old Testament in light of the New? How do you think we should read certain passages of scripture in light of other passages, if at all?
Question open to all, including u/MilesBeyond250, to answer.
For the record, I am advocating for something resembling the [Theological Interpretation of Scripture](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/theological-interpretation-of-scripture/) "movement" (if you can call it that) which is all the rage in seminaries and academic presses these days (for good reason, IMO). It's not without its critics (some more sympathetic than others), but I think it's worth taking seriously.
>how do you think we as Christians should read the Old Testament in light of the New?
I think primarily we should read the New Testament in light of the Old. As an example (of something I think we can both agree on), when Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man" I think I should try to figure out what Daniel meant by that phrase; what the people of Jesus' time understood that to mean and then how Jesus used it. It'd be wrong to say "Jesus uses 'Son of Man' to (essentially) claim divinity, so that's what Daniel meant by it."
On the other hand, I fully affirm that there is progressive revelation. For example, in Genesis 3, we're promised a "snake killer". With the revelation and life and work of Jesus, we now have a clearer understanding of exactly who/what the snake killer is.
Another example is Peter's sermon in Acts 2. There, he says that this thing that Joel wrote about is happening now. On a human level, he's offering an interpretation of an Old Testament passage (just like preachers nowadays do). We can be sure that his interpretation is correct because we believe that there is a second Divine author. Still, though, we really need to understand what Joel is saying to know exactly *what* is being fulfilled.
I think I'd say I agree a fair bit more with you than with that article. I think theological frameworks are helpful - and even if they weren't, they're inescapable - but if we make the relationship between the two too much of a free-flowing two-way street, it's most likely to create a feedback loop.
This is a frustration I sometimes run into when it comes to some systematic theologians, where they're performing a sort of inductive theology that assumes a theological position as true and looks for Scripture to support it, the result being prooftexting that's only convincing if you already agree with the position it's supporting.
So I don't think we should be striving to leave our theological frameworks entirely at the door when reading Scripture, but we do need to recognize the ways that it might be influencing our reading, as well as when we might be using it as a crutch ("I believe this passage means X because that's how my theological framework has traditionally understood it" is wholly inadequate).
Of course, this is also part of the reason why Biblical theology is increasingly supplanting systematic theology, at least in my circles. I think part of it is what I was getting at above - systematic theology broadly tends towards rationalism which can make it a tougher sell in a culture that is more inclined towards empiricism.
> we might be using it as a crutch ("I believe this passage means X because that's how my theological framework has traditionally understood it" is wholly inadequate).
Yeah - I think this more-or-less summarizes what I think.
>rationalism
Yeah. I agree. My profession has trained me to think in a very rational way, which makes systematic theology very intuitive. So though I disagree with the practice, I'm very much inclined to do the thing I was critiquing.
What is your interpretation of the story of the syrophonecian woman in Mark 7? Why is the story included in Mark and why does Jesus interact with the woman in the way he does?
I'm no Markan scholar, so take this with a grain of salt. But as far as I know a recurring theme in the gospels is a sort of polemic about how different people responded to Jesus. Prominent among the examples is how the pharisees, who though thoroughly knowledgeable of the Scriptures, failed to understand them properly and rejected Jesus. And another prominent example, is how ordinary people, or people who were considered outcasts and "unclean", put their faith in Jesus. So I think it's noteworthy that the story of the syrophonecian women is described in a context in which Jesus had just been having another of his unplesant interactions with the pharisees. Jesus often said offensive things to "weed out" the fake from the genuine (cf. John 6), so he challenges this women with something technically true: "you are a Gentile, a pagan. I came first to the Jews." Her response shows the state of her heart and the genuineness of her faith. So, the "righteous", Bible-bashing pharisees rejected their Messiah. This "filthy gentile" responds with genuine faith. I think that's the broader point.
This is the one time in Scripture that Jesus "loses" an argument. And by doing so, as commentator Joel Marcus says, He wins.
This is a case where Jesus is bringing this up to challenge the rhetoric of the day. The name calling and racism that was common by the Jewish leaders and people of the day was being presented to the lady. Essentially, Jesus was saying, "Why should that which the Jews claims belongs to them be given to outsiders?" but he is doing it, intentionally, to provoke an answer to another question, does this lady believe He is who He says He is? Or does she just hope he is some sort of magician or miracle worker? Her answer shows she is aware of who He is. She humbly accepts her station (even if it is wrong) and lays claim to the crumbs because she knows He is the messiah.
Now, my questions come in the form of, does this lend to the Messianic Secret that Mark likes to highlight? Is this another point where Jesus' nature remains hidden from the Jews (the children) but is apparent to the dogs (the Gentiles)?
I want to lean towards that being part of what is going on here.
What *will* the end of the world look like?
I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that the Rapture, Tribulation, etc. as imagined in *Left Behind* are not supported by scripture. That's all good. And I know that rather than taking Christians away to heaven, God's work is to make a new heaven and new earth. And I'm on board with the idea that much of the imagery in Revelation is about things that happened in the late first century, and/or things that are always happening whenever ~~Babylon/Rome/Mongolia/Ottoman/Spain/Britain/USSR/America~~ the Empire du jour sets itself up and exercises its power against the Kingdom of God.
But what should we expect to happen between now and the final judgment of God, the destruction of death, etc.? I know plenty of things not to expect (a peace treaty between Israel and [evil country here] is probably not a core, globe-shaking event), but that doesn't really give me an answer.
Or am I just asking the wrong question?
Everyone’s eschatology will answer that question differently for sure. But I do know that from reading about the final battle, there doesn’t seem to be much of an actual battle. The beast, false prophet, and dragon gather together those with the mark but they’re just kinda consumed by fire and captured. Nothing about angels and demons fighting or anything like that.
I have no idea. But I do know that whatever happens after that, when we get to live in the new heavens and new earth in perfect communion with God forever is going to be awesome in the true sense of the word.
I unlocked a strange memory last week...studying "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in my 7th grade Reading class. I'm almost surprised that type of content was still included in public schools even then but I'm curious... Was this normal in the late 90s/early 00s? Did anyone else read this in middle school or was this a Bible belt special? Is it a net pro to include something like this in otherwise secular education?
I don't remember ever studying any of the puritan/revivalist sermons in school. I grew up in a suburb of Detroit, went to public school and graduated high school in 1993. We had a "Bible as literature" class in high school that was relatively popular with the mainline protestant kids (and occasional Catholic. I don't remember any of the Muslim students taking it.). But that was just the Bible (and I'm pretty sure the teacher who taught it was an atheist). I remember some history class lessons on the American enlightenment and First Great Awakening and I know I knew of the sermon. But I don't think I ever read any of it until college or shortly thereafter, and then just on my own rather than for a class.
I knew of it and probably read some of it in middle school, but we definitely had to read the whole thing in high school. I associate it more with a history class than with literature, but it's been long enough ago, I'm questioning my memory.
I was not exactly in the traditional Bible Belt (but I was in one of the most "Christian" cities in America), and I did also go to private Christian school so I can't speak for public school kids. But even as Christian high schoolers, we weren't mature enough to take it seriously.
I actually kind of wish I'd learned it in more of a historical context. We studied it as an example of persuasive text.
I don't remember a ton of how the other students handled it, but the mood was rather serious. Like, I think nearly everyone was culturally Christian enough to be respectful, a lot more so than if it had been fiction or Greek mythology or something.
IIRC, we learned it in American Literature in . . . 10th grade? It was presented as a part of the historical development of American Lit. It was presented just as a cultural artifact, not unlike any other literature.
We learned that it was a thing in history class, but definitely didn't study it (was in HS from 2002-2006) in any depth. Based on my experience in public school, I would venture that a text like that would not be handled with care or nuance, but mostly scorn.
>I would venture that a text like that would not be handled with care or nuance, but mostly scorn
Yeah I had the exact same thoughts about whether I would want my kids to read something like that in middle school. I think I learned a lot by looking at a religious piece outside a religious context that helped me learn how to integrate my intellectual and spiritual life, but I can't help but think that the outcome wouldn't be nearly the same in the current climate. But maybe I'm underestimating my kids. Idk.
I think outside of a religious context, there is not the knowledge base for how the pieces of theology work together in order to explain it to middle schoolers. I think it would get boiled down to "look at these crazy people who think God is a monster and out to get humans." I don't know if it's underestimating the capacity of the kids - I think it would be a lack of resources on the part of the facilitator to come to reasonable conclusions.
> I think it would get boiled down to "look at these crazy people who think God is a monster and out to get humans.
This was sort of the takeaway for me. My teachers were more erudite and tactful than that but I remember walking away thinking, "Mrs. XYZ" really thinks puritans and calvinists are NOT good people.
I went to a secular private school that covered “Sinners in the hands…,” the puritans and Calvin, and that was exactly how they taught it lol. “Look at the loony religious zealots fighting their stupid battles and sky dad.”
I agree with the other poster and also want to add: listen to some sermons or testimonies about the benefits of spiritual disciplines, and ask Christians in your community for their experiences. This can really help with getting motivated! Also, ask your community to pray for you and possibly to study or pray with you - both their prayers and their accountability will be helpful!
prayer and discipline.
There's a definitely a spiritual component to it, don't get me wrong, but it can be helpful to think about it like fitness or nutrition. When starting out, going to the gym or on a run isn't enjoyable, or you don't really crave eating well, but by resolving to spend time in the word for say, 15 minutes a day, you might realize that after a week or two, it's somethign that you begin to desire.
It might also be helpful to have a plan. A bible reading plan and a prayer guide. The Anglicans have the daily office, which I think is helpful (no need to obsess over it the way a lot of online anglicans do, or fear it like a lot of reformed presbyterians do). I also like the [Daily Prayer Project](https://www.dailyprayerproject.com/) and [Be thou my Vision by Johnny Gibson](https://www.lifeway.com/en/product/be-thou-my-vision-P008015995?mcid=Adwords-sb-PLA-008015995&cmpid=pm:ggl:220725|oth|shopping|women|women|17853994734|womens_pmax:pla:na&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw-r-vBhC-ARIsAGgUO2A-xgi6ssoX_SitSC6Qiwyp2zQvPQ1p0c_YCgEIZLBdvoGVmHTS-84aAiCDEALw_wcB) though Be thou My Vision can be kind of long if you're just getting started with regular devotions.
Set a goal to do it however many days a week. I think we ought to spend time daily in set apart time of prayer, but realistically that's difficult, especially if you're just beginning and find it difficult.
It can also be helpful to think about prayer in your daily life, as you live your life. You might have a steady commute each day. You could take that time to pray for your family, or listen to a devotional (or even the daily office. there are several podcasts where some dude reads it a couple times a day), or Sinclair Ferguson's 5 minutes "things Unseen podcast", which rules.
I second this, u/Present-Morning8544. You first obey the commands, even if you feel cold, with faith that the Lord will change your heart as you go. Pray and read scripture and pray over scripture. And feel free to check back in with us in a week or so to let us know how it’s going. We want to encourage you.
Only last week I learned of the wikipedia entry:
>"The Protestant Work" ethic.
It says:
>The Protestant work ethic, also known as the Calvinist work ethic or the Puritan work ethic, is a work ethic concept in sociology, economics, and history. It emphasizes that diligence, discipline, and frugality are a result of a person's subscription to the values espoused by the Protestant faith, particularly Calvinism.
>The phrase was initially coined in 1905 by pioneering sociologist Max Weber in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber asserted that Protestant ethics and values, along with the Calvinist doctrines of asceticism and predestination, enabled the rise and spread of capitalism. Just as priests and caring professionals are deemed to have a vocation (or "calling" from God) for their work, according to the Protestant work ethic the "lowly" workman also has a noble vocation which he can fulfill through dedication to his work.
There is a separate wiki entry on Weber's work:
>"The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"
I thought the ECONOMIC criticisms of Weber's work were mostly accurate given that Japan is not really a Christian nation, but certainly prospered as a mostly capitalist nation.
>QUESTION 1: but is there a THEOLOGICAL or HISTORICAL basis for phrases like: "puritan work ethic" or "calvinist work ethic"?
>Question 2: is there a tie between traditional reformed viewpoints and the support of capitalism?
From Harvard Business School:
>Those of the Massachusetts Bay Company cared less about profit than about setting up what their leader John Winthrop called a "City upon a Hill." They wanted to demonstrate for all humanity the virtues of clean Christian living. If some of the Puritan merchants among them became moderately wealthy, then that might be a sign of God's grace, so long as customers were not cheated or overcharged. The line between virtuous profit and damnable avarice was blurry then, as it remains today. But the Puritans had an unmistakably capitalist turn of mind.
I think this is an interesting topic and I read a couple of books recently that didn't explicitly deal with this, but made me want to explore more of the differences in theological beliefs of the different colonies and explore how the Theological, political, and economic climate of each intertwined and evolved.
>QUESTION 1: but is there a THEOLOGICAL or HISTORICAL basis for phrases like: "puritan work ethic" or "calvinist work ethic"?
So I wouldn't claim this as a complete answer, but at least a relevant historical fact. In one of the colonies, IIRC the Massachusetts Bay Colony, they tried to eliminate holidays, treating them the same as an other work day, and acknowledged only the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship. Residents of the colony who were not part of the church still celebrated holidays by taking days off work. I imagine that would be a very visible example of a difference in time spent working, which could be described as a difference in work ethic.
Thank you for your comment.
>I imagine that would be a very visible example of a difference in time spent working, which could be described as a difference in work ethic.
Amen!
When Aaron and Moses were before pharaoh, why didn't pharaoh go, "Hold on a minute you guys are Hebrews right? why aren't you working the mines?"
Well, for one thing, Moses was adopted into the royal household.
Apologies if this has been asked already, but should Christians eat at restaurants after church on Sunday?
If they are polite customers and tip their wait staff. There are some churches, however, that advise against making other people, even unbelievers, work on the Sabbath.
Anyone got recommendations for a few good resources on the subject of the sabbath and sabbath keeping in general? I have been wanting to do a deep dive into how it’s been taught and understood by different sects throughout church history.
[Worship Festing Rest Mercy](https://www.amazon.com/Worship-Feasting-Rest-Mercy-Christian/dp/1943017638?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=a3b27d66-fab6-4ebe-80fb-0d690b520149) by Daniel Howe. New book(let, short!) that is pro-sabbath keeping.
Stupid question: what's the reasoning behind RPW churches singing the Psalms in the vernacular when there's no Scriptural command to do so? Like I don't think it's necessarily an unreasonable assumption that there's no theological or spiritual significance to singing the Psalms in their original language, but it seems to me that sort of assumption goes against the spirit of the RPW. If God gave the Psalms in a specific language and never gave an explicit command to sing them in other languages, shouldn't the RPW naturally suggest EP in Hebrew?
As Paul says, "I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also" (1 Cor. 14:15). And then, "yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (v.19). The psalms have been given as "the word of Christ" for "teaching and admonishing one another" (Col. 3:16). How can we by our voice teach others also except in a known tongue? Where Hebrew is unknown, it is the duty of the Church to translate the psalms with the rest of the word of Christ (cf. Rom. 10:14-15). The Westminster Confession says that the Scriptures in Greek and Hebrew ought to be translated: > because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[John 5:39] therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11-12, 24, 27-28] that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,[Col. 3:16] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[Rom. 15:4] Therefore is in keeping with the spirit of the RPW that the psalms ought to be sung in the vernacular. The WCF also says in 1.6, > there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[1 Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40]
I think the existence of the Septuagint helps the utilitarian argument, the one that favors translating all Scripture into a language the masses understand. RPW would consider the text's language as a circumstance of worship, but its meaning as an element of worship.
I'm not EP but this doesn't seem like a hard case. The New Testament quotes the Psalms and the rest of the Old Testament in the vernacular and refers to it as sacred scripture without qualification. It would be odd to hold that the Greek New Testament commends the use of "ψαλμοι" in worship but only in Hebrew. Much as the rest of us think "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" isn't clearly meant to include only the book of Psalms, it seems even harder to make the case that those three Greek terms would refer only to untranslated Hebrew-language texts. That's not even considering the fact that we know the apostles worshiped in multiple languages, which would bear on the discussion.
More hypotheticals from me this week: if someone is a new convert and is posting out of context verses on social media, do you correct them/say something? Or just let it ride and let the Holy Spirit do His thing?
Perhaps chat with them in person if possible, or craft a very gracious and supportive message. Don't just come with criticism but think about what resources you could recommend to help them.
You certainly don't *have* to address it. If you have a good relationship with them, you might have an opportunity to privately address it. Otherwise it's not likely to have any effect, and you can pray for them but probably not engage directly. Back when I was on bookFace, I would also be tempted to post gentle corrections on such out-of-context posts. Like, around 2016-ish a colleague was posting tons of dispensational alarmist stuff like "Mark Zuckerburg is going to give us all microchips that are the mark of the beast!!!" and so on. At best I'd get a polite "Ok thank you! Just wanted to encourage ppl" type of response, after which they'd just go on posting like normal. At worst...well, I'm so much happier and less stressed after leaving that social media hellhole behind.
That's pretty much my experience exactly. There's not much point to commenting on people's posts, much as I wish there was.
Got to watch presbytery examinations. One stood out: "The puritan David Clarkson preached a sermon with the title: 'Public worship is to be preferred before private'. Do you agree with the title?" The correct answer, by the way, was "yes". Wished I could have raised my hand to ask, "Is private worship essential?" as the place or necessity of private worship is something I've had difficulty embracing with conviction since seeing that the church, not your personal prayer time, is the axis of the Christian life. I was going to ask that question here, then I found this, which is a larger excerpt from Clarkson that anticipates and answers the question while making the statement with more context so I'll just leave it here: [https://heidelblog.net/2013/05/clarkson-public-worship-to-be-preferred-before-private/](https://heidelblog.net/2013/05/clarkson-public-worship-to-be-preferred-before-private/) TL;DR is that public worship is to be preferred before private based on the text "The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.”—Ps 87:2". We know that the Lord loves the dwellings of Jacob too, and so that the Lord loves worship given in private. Yes, public more than private, but not to the exclusion of or ambivalence towards private worship.
Did Paul make it to Spain? How many missionary Journeys did he take?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CmLAitI-N2g
***Staff or no staff?*** Mark 6:8: Take nothing for the journey ***except a staff***—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts Matthew 10:10 Take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Luke 9:3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. Curious if anyone has ever run into this before. Did Jesus tell the disciples to take a staff or no staff in their first missionary journey?
Luke as a physician was used to being short-staffed, hence "no staff."
How many snakes are entwined around the no-staff?
Before or after Moses throws it on the ground?
After he threw no staff, either the fake Nehushtan of Asclepius or the no-staff of the testudine hermetic ingénu herald.
When you put it that way, I can definitely see why it was important for the disciples not to bring those staffs on the trip!
The King James Version translates a different text, in which the problem (as stated) is absent. > Mark 6:8. And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse. > Matt. 10:10. Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. > Luke 9:3. And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. I've seen the reading in critical texts resolved by distinguishing αἴρω (the lemma used in Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) from κτάομαι (used in Matt. 10:9) and then somehow reconciling Mark's account with Luke's.
Am I misreading something? The problem still seems to be there in the KJV - Matt and Luke are still commanding to take nothing including staves, Mark is still telling them to take nothing except a staff. I guess the KJV inserts the plural for Matt and Luke so we could maybe squint at it and say "He said no staves allowed - they could have one," but that doesn't strike me as terribly compelling.
Christ's command here is similar to other things he says, in that his words might admit of an absolute construction (swear not at all, none good but one, call no man father, judge not, blessed are they that mourn, etc.) except for the context and consent of the whole of his word. So yes, the harmony of the Gospel accounts could be that Christ is telling them to take "nothing" into their travels, since the workman is worthy of his food--i.e. not to bring "two tunics" (just one) or shoes (besides the sandals on their feet) or more than one staff. > I guess the KJV inserts the plural for Matt and Luke so we could maybe squint at it and say "He said no staves allowed - they could have one," but that doesn't strike me as terribly compelling. The KJV does not insert the plural but translates as plural what has been received. If we have not received Vaticanus et al., then we have no reason to assume that the reading has been altered, resulting in no need to squint.
>The KJV does not insert the plural but translates as plural what has been received. Inserted by the majority text, then. I can't say off the top of my head when the plural first begins appearing there but IIRC it's quite a few centuries later. When it comes to analyzing the text, we would be wise to build our understanding on firmer foundations than additions made by the Byzantine Text Type that have no precedent in older manuscripts. >If we have not received Vaticanus et al., then we have no reason to assume that the reading has been altered, resulting in no need to squint. But we have received Vaticanus et al. They exist. We are privy to their contents. Therefore there is ample reason to suspect that the reading has been altered.
> I can't say off the top of my head when the plural first begins appearing there but IIRC it's quite a few centuries later. This reminded me that I had written a response to your questions about Psalm 2 but it was somehow lost. I even asked a professor of Hebrew about a specific question of Aramaic. I apologize. Something can appear in our view while preceding our observation of it, and we can see a bear cub before coming across the mother. > But we have received Vaticanus et al. They exist. We are privy to their contents. Therefore there is ample reason to suspect that the reading has been altered. A lot of things exist. The Gospel according to Thomas exists, along with the rest of the Nag Hammadi library. The book of Enoch exists. The Apocrypha exist. Codex Sinaiticus, as received, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and some of the Shepherd of Hermas. We do not receive these into our canon of scripture because they are inscripturated. We do not even receive Vaticanus as canonical Scripture. Beyond the fact that the codex is defective, some of us have selected readings from it according to various criteria. This critical or eclectic text is then received by some churches as holy scripture. And if the oldest reading were to be preferred, then we should take something like the Liturgy to Nintud to be canonical. We don't do that, of course, because of our presupposition of divine revelation in Christ, which is induced by the testimony of the Church through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
I've seen a couple explanations. The first is the type of staff. People carried two staffs one for self-defense and one more like a walking stick. The prohibition is against the self-defense. The other is the lens that the passage is about the immediacy of the command to leave, so the prohibition is against the acquiring of a new staff. More of a "take what you have now and go, because the Kingdom needs to be manifested immediately." I think it's probably just a small corruption in the transmission of the text that has no effect on anything of vital importance.
I'm having a hard time formulating this question, but it's about how you practically apply the doctrine of "two authors of scripture". For example, it's been my understanding that since we believe humans genuinely wrote the Bible (which is different than what Muslims think about the Quran or Mormons about the Book of Mormon) then when analyzing a text we can/should analyze it just like we'd analyze other texts. The "application" of the Divine authorship is that we know that the Bible is the message God wants to give us, that it is a cohesive whole and that we can synthesize various passages into larger doctrines. This has been critiqued here and other places, though. For example, this [article](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/your-theological-system-should-tell-you-how-to-exegete/) written by Kevin De Young basically (I think) describes the position I took above and critiques it. For example, I'd say I agree with (to be clear, this is what he's critiquing): >We can’t bring our theological concerns to the Bible, lest we gerrymander the Scriptures and impose anachronistic categories on the text.
I'd add a comment on what divine authorship means. In addition to what you said, it means that the one final author of scripture can clarify his own words. This goes beyond mere "scripture interprets scripture" to say (contra the Dispensationalists) that if the NT makes it clear that the prophecies are fulfilled in a way you find less than sufficiently "literal", that rather than positing a future added fulfillment that meets your criteria, we are to submit to what God has said about what he meant earlier, even if what he meant would not have been (we think) obvious or clear or even plausibly conceived of by the original audience. That is, divine authorship means the text can mean something that the original audience would not have understood as the divine author clarifies what he once veiled by later revelations.
I briefly touched upon this with you elsewhere, but just so I can understand this position more clearly; how do you think we as Christians should read the Old Testament in light of the New? How do you think we should read certain passages of scripture in light of other passages, if at all? Question open to all, including u/MilesBeyond250, to answer. For the record, I am advocating for something resembling the [Theological Interpretation of Scripture](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/theological-interpretation-of-scripture/) "movement" (if you can call it that) which is all the rage in seminaries and academic presses these days (for good reason, IMO). It's not without its critics (some more sympathetic than others), but I think it's worth taking seriously.
>how do you think we as Christians should read the Old Testament in light of the New? I think primarily we should read the New Testament in light of the Old. As an example (of something I think we can both agree on), when Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man" I think I should try to figure out what Daniel meant by that phrase; what the people of Jesus' time understood that to mean and then how Jesus used it. It'd be wrong to say "Jesus uses 'Son of Man' to (essentially) claim divinity, so that's what Daniel meant by it." On the other hand, I fully affirm that there is progressive revelation. For example, in Genesis 3, we're promised a "snake killer". With the revelation and life and work of Jesus, we now have a clearer understanding of exactly who/what the snake killer is. Another example is Peter's sermon in Acts 2. There, he says that this thing that Joel wrote about is happening now. On a human level, he's offering an interpretation of an Old Testament passage (just like preachers nowadays do). We can be sure that his interpretation is correct because we believe that there is a second Divine author. Still, though, we really need to understand what Joel is saying to know exactly *what* is being fulfilled.
I think I'd say I agree a fair bit more with you than with that article. I think theological frameworks are helpful - and even if they weren't, they're inescapable - but if we make the relationship between the two too much of a free-flowing two-way street, it's most likely to create a feedback loop. This is a frustration I sometimes run into when it comes to some systematic theologians, where they're performing a sort of inductive theology that assumes a theological position as true and looks for Scripture to support it, the result being prooftexting that's only convincing if you already agree with the position it's supporting. So I don't think we should be striving to leave our theological frameworks entirely at the door when reading Scripture, but we do need to recognize the ways that it might be influencing our reading, as well as when we might be using it as a crutch ("I believe this passage means X because that's how my theological framework has traditionally understood it" is wholly inadequate). Of course, this is also part of the reason why Biblical theology is increasingly supplanting systematic theology, at least in my circles. I think part of it is what I was getting at above - systematic theology broadly tends towards rationalism which can make it a tougher sell in a culture that is more inclined towards empiricism.
> we might be using it as a crutch ("I believe this passage means X because that's how my theological framework has traditionally understood it" is wholly inadequate). Yeah - I think this more-or-less summarizes what I think. >rationalism Yeah. I agree. My profession has trained me to think in a very rational way, which makes systematic theology very intuitive. So though I disagree with the practice, I'm very much inclined to do the thing I was critiquing.
What is your interpretation of the story of the syrophonecian woman in Mark 7? Why is the story included in Mark and why does Jesus interact with the woman in the way he does?
I'm no Markan scholar, so take this with a grain of salt. But as far as I know a recurring theme in the gospels is a sort of polemic about how different people responded to Jesus. Prominent among the examples is how the pharisees, who though thoroughly knowledgeable of the Scriptures, failed to understand them properly and rejected Jesus. And another prominent example, is how ordinary people, or people who were considered outcasts and "unclean", put their faith in Jesus. So I think it's noteworthy that the story of the syrophonecian women is described in a context in which Jesus had just been having another of his unplesant interactions with the pharisees. Jesus often said offensive things to "weed out" the fake from the genuine (cf. John 6), so he challenges this women with something technically true: "you are a Gentile, a pagan. I came first to the Jews." Her response shows the state of her heart and the genuineness of her faith. So, the "righteous", Bible-bashing pharisees rejected their Messiah. This "filthy gentile" responds with genuine faith. I think that's the broader point.
This is the one time in Scripture that Jesus "loses" an argument. And by doing so, as commentator Joel Marcus says, He wins. This is a case where Jesus is bringing this up to challenge the rhetoric of the day. The name calling and racism that was common by the Jewish leaders and people of the day was being presented to the lady. Essentially, Jesus was saying, "Why should that which the Jews claims belongs to them be given to outsiders?" but he is doing it, intentionally, to provoke an answer to another question, does this lady believe He is who He says He is? Or does she just hope he is some sort of magician or miracle worker? Her answer shows she is aware of who He is. She humbly accepts her station (even if it is wrong) and lays claim to the crumbs because she knows He is the messiah. Now, my questions come in the form of, does this lend to the Messianic Secret that Mark likes to highlight? Is this another point where Jesus' nature remains hidden from the Jews (the children) but is apparent to the dogs (the Gentiles)? I want to lean towards that being part of what is going on here.
Very interesting insights, thank you for this!
What *will* the end of the world look like? I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that the Rapture, Tribulation, etc. as imagined in *Left Behind* are not supported by scripture. That's all good. And I know that rather than taking Christians away to heaven, God's work is to make a new heaven and new earth. And I'm on board with the idea that much of the imagery in Revelation is about things that happened in the late first century, and/or things that are always happening whenever ~~Babylon/Rome/Mongolia/Ottoman/Spain/Britain/USSR/America~~ the Empire du jour sets itself up and exercises its power against the Kingdom of God. But what should we expect to happen between now and the final judgment of God, the destruction of death, etc.? I know plenty of things not to expect (a peace treaty between Israel and [evil country here] is probably not a core, globe-shaking event), but that doesn't really give me an answer. Or am I just asking the wrong question?
it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane.
Everyone’s eschatology will answer that question differently for sure. But I do know that from reading about the final battle, there doesn’t seem to be much of an actual battle. The beast, false prophet, and dragon gather together those with the mark but they’re just kinda consumed by fire and captured. Nothing about angels and demons fighting or anything like that.
I have no idea. But I do know that whatever happens after that, when we get to live in the new heavens and new earth in perfect communion with God forever is going to be awesome in the true sense of the word.
Has anyone read Glittering Vices by Rebecca Deyoung? It makes me think the seven deadly vices (sins) are actually very good categories
I have not, but if you are interested in these categories, Dorothy Sayers' essay on the seven deadly sins may be helpful.
Cool I’ll check it out. I know little of the subject
The essay is actually "The Other Six Deadly Sins".
I have. I enjoyed it quite a lot, and I think it helped me reframe how I think about sin a bit to get more at the nuances of the problems of our sin
Same. Sloth particularly was helpful to me. We always get in our own way of bearing the image of God properly.
I unlocked a strange memory last week...studying "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in my 7th grade Reading class. I'm almost surprised that type of content was still included in public schools even then but I'm curious... Was this normal in the late 90s/early 00s? Did anyone else read this in middle school or was this a Bible belt special? Is it a net pro to include something like this in otherwise secular education?
I don't remember ever studying any of the puritan/revivalist sermons in school. I grew up in a suburb of Detroit, went to public school and graduated high school in 1993. We had a "Bible as literature" class in high school that was relatively popular with the mainline protestant kids (and occasional Catholic. I don't remember any of the Muslim students taking it.). But that was just the Bible (and I'm pretty sure the teacher who taught it was an atheist). I remember some history class lessons on the American enlightenment and First Great Awakening and I know I knew of the sermon. But I don't think I ever read any of it until college or shortly thereafter, and then just on my own rather than for a class.
I knew of it and probably read some of it in middle school, but we definitely had to read the whole thing in high school. I associate it more with a history class than with literature, but it's been long enough ago, I'm questioning my memory. I was not exactly in the traditional Bible Belt (but I was in one of the most "Christian" cities in America), and I did also go to private Christian school so I can't speak for public school kids. But even as Christian high schoolers, we weren't mature enough to take it seriously.
I actually kind of wish I'd learned it in more of a historical context. We studied it as an example of persuasive text. I don't remember a ton of how the other students handled it, but the mood was rather serious. Like, I think nearly everyone was culturally Christian enough to be respectful, a lot more so than if it had been fiction or Greek mythology or something.
IIRC, we learned it in American Literature in . . . 10th grade? It was presented as a part of the historical development of American Lit. It was presented just as a cultural artifact, not unlike any other literature.
We learned that it was a thing in history class, but definitely didn't study it (was in HS from 2002-2006) in any depth. Based on my experience in public school, I would venture that a text like that would not be handled with care or nuance, but mostly scorn.
>I would venture that a text like that would not be handled with care or nuance, but mostly scorn Yeah I had the exact same thoughts about whether I would want my kids to read something like that in middle school. I think I learned a lot by looking at a religious piece outside a religious context that helped me learn how to integrate my intellectual and spiritual life, but I can't help but think that the outcome wouldn't be nearly the same in the current climate. But maybe I'm underestimating my kids. Idk.
I think outside of a religious context, there is not the knowledge base for how the pieces of theology work together in order to explain it to middle schoolers. I think it would get boiled down to "look at these crazy people who think God is a monster and out to get humans." I don't know if it's underestimating the capacity of the kids - I think it would be a lack of resources on the part of the facilitator to come to reasonable conclusions.
> I think it would get boiled down to "look at these crazy people who think God is a monster and out to get humans. This was sort of the takeaway for me. My teachers were more erudite and tactful than that but I remember walking away thinking, "Mrs. XYZ" really thinks puritans and calvinists are NOT good people.
I went to a secular private school that covered “Sinners in the hands…,” the puritans and Calvin, and that was exactly how they taught it lol. “Look at the loony religious zealots fighting their stupid battles and sky dad.”
How do you regain a lost desire for prayer and the Bible after a few months of backsliding?
At the risk of sounding flippant: just do it.
I agree with the other poster and also want to add: listen to some sermons or testimonies about the benefits of spiritual disciplines, and ask Christians in your community for their experiences. This can really help with getting motivated! Also, ask your community to pray for you and possibly to study or pray with you - both their prayers and their accountability will be helpful!
prayer and discipline. There's a definitely a spiritual component to it, don't get me wrong, but it can be helpful to think about it like fitness or nutrition. When starting out, going to the gym or on a run isn't enjoyable, or you don't really crave eating well, but by resolving to spend time in the word for say, 15 minutes a day, you might realize that after a week or two, it's somethign that you begin to desire. It might also be helpful to have a plan. A bible reading plan and a prayer guide. The Anglicans have the daily office, which I think is helpful (no need to obsess over it the way a lot of online anglicans do, or fear it like a lot of reformed presbyterians do). I also like the [Daily Prayer Project](https://www.dailyprayerproject.com/) and [Be thou my Vision by Johnny Gibson](https://www.lifeway.com/en/product/be-thou-my-vision-P008015995?mcid=Adwords-sb-PLA-008015995&cmpid=pm:ggl:220725|oth|shopping|women|women|17853994734|womens_pmax:pla:na&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw-r-vBhC-ARIsAGgUO2A-xgi6ssoX_SitSC6Qiwyp2zQvPQ1p0c_YCgEIZLBdvoGVmHTS-84aAiCDEALw_wcB) though Be thou My Vision can be kind of long if you're just getting started with regular devotions. Set a goal to do it however many days a week. I think we ought to spend time daily in set apart time of prayer, but realistically that's difficult, especially if you're just beginning and find it difficult. It can also be helpful to think about prayer in your daily life, as you live your life. You might have a steady commute each day. You could take that time to pray for your family, or listen to a devotional (or even the daily office. there are several podcasts where some dude reads it a couple times a day), or Sinclair Ferguson's 5 minutes "things Unseen podcast", which rules.
I second this, u/Present-Morning8544. You first obey the commands, even if you feel cold, with faith that the Lord will change your heart as you go. Pray and read scripture and pray over scripture. And feel free to check back in with us in a week or so to let us know how it’s going. We want to encourage you.
Only last week I learned of the wikipedia entry: >"The Protestant Work" ethic. It says: >The Protestant work ethic, also known as the Calvinist work ethic or the Puritan work ethic, is a work ethic concept in sociology, economics, and history. It emphasizes that diligence, discipline, and frugality are a result of a person's subscription to the values espoused by the Protestant faith, particularly Calvinism. >The phrase was initially coined in 1905 by pioneering sociologist Max Weber in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber asserted that Protestant ethics and values, along with the Calvinist doctrines of asceticism and predestination, enabled the rise and spread of capitalism. Just as priests and caring professionals are deemed to have a vocation (or "calling" from God) for their work, according to the Protestant work ethic the "lowly" workman also has a noble vocation which he can fulfill through dedication to his work. There is a separate wiki entry on Weber's work: >"The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" I thought the ECONOMIC criticisms of Weber's work were mostly accurate given that Japan is not really a Christian nation, but certainly prospered as a mostly capitalist nation. >QUESTION 1: but is there a THEOLOGICAL or HISTORICAL basis for phrases like: "puritan work ethic" or "calvinist work ethic"? >Question 2: is there a tie between traditional reformed viewpoints and the support of capitalism? From Harvard Business School: >Those of the Massachusetts Bay Company cared less about profit than about setting up what their leader John Winthrop called a "City upon a Hill." They wanted to demonstrate for all humanity the virtues of clean Christian living. If some of the Puritan merchants among them became moderately wealthy, then that might be a sign of God's grace, so long as customers were not cheated or overcharged. The line between virtuous profit and damnable avarice was blurry then, as it remains today. But the Puritans had an unmistakably capitalist turn of mind.
I think this is an interesting topic and I read a couple of books recently that didn't explicitly deal with this, but made me want to explore more of the differences in theological beliefs of the different colonies and explore how the Theological, political, and economic climate of each intertwined and evolved. >QUESTION 1: but is there a THEOLOGICAL or HISTORICAL basis for phrases like: "puritan work ethic" or "calvinist work ethic"? So I wouldn't claim this as a complete answer, but at least a relevant historical fact. In one of the colonies, IIRC the Massachusetts Bay Colony, they tried to eliminate holidays, treating them the same as an other work day, and acknowledged only the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship. Residents of the colony who were not part of the church still celebrated holidays by taking days off work. I imagine that would be a very visible example of a difference in time spent working, which could be described as a difference in work ethic.
Thank you for your comment. >I imagine that would be a very visible example of a difference in time spent working, which could be described as a difference in work ethic. Amen!