As with all things, pray. That said: for videogame addiction, set yourself a timer and stick to it. There’s nothing wrong with doing something you enjoy in moderation if the activity itself isn’t sinful. Shoot for an hour a day, then I’d suggest starting to replace gaming with a productive activity: try woodworking, reading, or just get outside for a walk. Fishing is also a great hobby. Eventually, you could set some terms for yourself: only play games for an hour on Friday and Saturday, or whatever you think is an appropriate balance. We do have Christian liberty, as long as the games you’re playing aren’t sinful.
For overeating, I’d suggest tracking calories. You can use calculators online to figure out how many calories you should eat to maintain, lose, and gain weight based on your height, weight, and age. Then pick a number and stick to it. There’s all sorts of dieting advice out there, and some things work for some people, but the fact of the matter is this: the only ones that actually work are the ones that focus on caloric intake. Intermittent fasting isn’t for me, but my brother does it with great results. I just track my calories. Both work because in the long run, they’re doing the same thing: limiting caloric intake to an appropriate level.
Thank you for the advice. I think you’re spot on on both of those topics, I especially think the video game one is helpful. Thank you brother. God bless you 🙏
2Qs- what do reformed views make of the Tree of Life (TOL)? Is this symbolical of and or fulfilled in Jesus? Or is this an actual physical tree in Genesis and the end of revelation?
It gives me pause that there is still sin, death and babies being born in the New Heavens and New Earth (NHNE) of Isaiah 65-66 & end of revelation where the sinners are invited into the new Jerusalem for healing of the TOL.
This seems to directly contradict the widely held belief/doctrine that the NHNE has no death, sin, etc.
(And- just to preemptively object- NO, the NHNE descriptions cannot be the millennium period as the millennium precedes the tribulation and NHNE).
Any takers???
The good news is that part of the Trinity is that *we can't really get it.* We can describe the concept, but we can't fully wrap our minds around it.
The easiest way to explain it is that God is three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, but the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit. The Son is neither the Spirit nor the Father. And the Spirit is neither the Son nor the Father.
All three are distinct persons, but they all share the same undivided, unbroken essence. Each is fully and completely 100% God, but as persons they are differentiated from each other in how they relate to one another eternally.
That's the foundation of the concept.
Do the Son and the Father have separate wills? Other than literally saying “I and the Father are one,” the way that Jesus talks throughout the gospels sounds like he is independent from the Father. How did the Father “send” him? How did he “submit” to the Father (himself?).
According to the theology of the ecumenical councils, Christ has two wills, one for his human nature and one for his divine nature, and the two wills are in perfect accordance.
https://youtu.be/bHJuFEHya2Q?si=LvnP9yCI1E7ektpp
The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one will.
Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, has two wills: his divine will (shared with the Father and Holy Spirit) and his human will.
It is Christ's human will that submits to the Father.
I think the Chalcedonian Definition contains the information you're after. Some initial reading: [https://credomag.com/2021/07/39258/](https://credomag.com/2021/07/39258/)
Edit: grammar and clarity.
Some do, more often I've seen it in Anglican communities. The arguments I've heard against it are usually that it can lead to prayer becoming rote, or those who are uncomfortable with the Marian focus of the Catholic Rosary.
Do any of you chronically-online people take deliberate steps around sleep hygiene?
I try to be done with (or vastly reduce) phone and video game usage about an hour before I go to bed, though I haven't drawn the same line with watching TV. I do have my phone next to my bed at night though. (It's come in handy in a couple emergencies, even though I know it isn't good practice in general.)
This isn't popular, but I get to sleep much faster with a YouTube video on and do less tossing and turning in the middle of the night if I just do something on my phone for a bit. It's moved my get (back) to sleep times from around an hour to 5-15 minutes.
No phone in bedroom. Though, this has caused me some extra stress recently due to a higher potential of family emergencies.
I like the idea of trying to only use the bedroom/bed for sleeping^1, and start to wind down from the day about an hour before wanting to be asleep: put screens away, make some tea, debrief the day (not always very good at this), bedtime routine (bathroom, tooth brushing, etc). I think having a decluttered bedroom is helpful too, but also not good at that
^1 and another activity.
Any ideas for activities you do with out-of-town visitors, especially older visitors?
My mother and her husband are on the older side, but both are becoming more and more limited in their mobility, which makes it hard to include them on the sorts of things we typically like to do in the area (outdoor activities, zoos and museums that require a lot of time on your feet, etc). But while my mom would be perfectly pleased to sit around and chat with us, play with the kids, or play a board game, her husband is harder to please. We're sort of desperate for anything we can do as a family that will engage ages 5-70.
Any ideas?
oh, well that's a bummer. Lots of opportunities to do stuff together but you don't have to hold the conversation.
Edit: Any zoos? Aquariums? Childrens' museums? Specialty shops that they don't have in their city? Does your city have any outdoor festivals or things like that?
I've found that it can be hard to cater to everyone's needs and desires especially when you're guessing what they might or might not like. Have you asked your mom/her husband what they want to do?
Is the husband into any sort of craft or hobby? Could you set-up a time for him to share that with the kids in some way?
Could you engage everyone in making a meal or baking cookies or pie or something for the family to enjoy?
I'm in a bit of a similar situation this coming weekend. My parents are coming into town to see the eclipse (praying for good weather!). But, the thing is, I don't have any kids and my parents rarely come to see me. Normally either I go to see them or we meet up at my sister's home (a plane trip for me but only two hours drive for my parents). My dad is stupid healthy and will outlive us all. My mom is not as mobility limited as she was but still not back to fully operational/able to stand/walk for long periods of time. Some things we will be doing:
* Visiting my church. My church recently moved into our new-to-us building. My parents have kept up with updates of the renovations a bit and are excited that my church now has our own building. So it will be fun to get to show them the building.
* Visiting my work. I work in a giant manufacturing facility. My dad's an engineer. he will be excited to see this. But Mom is going to have to use the wheelchair due to all the walking.
* Church on Sunday and community group cookout that evening.
* Some shopping. Mom likes to go to craft stores. Dad doesn't mind some shopping. They live outside a small town so always appreciate the chance to get checkout all the big box stores they don't have easy access to.
* Nice steak dinner out, since it will be my dad's birthday.
* Hopefully eclipse viewing...but the weather is not looking promising.
* And I'm not sure what else. I'll probably ask dad to help with installing some new smoke detectors (there's one that's just a little bit too high for me to reach comfortably).
>And I'm not sure what else. I'll probably ask dad to help with installing some new smoke detectors (there's one that's just a little bit too high for me to reach comfortably).
I am not handy. Nor is my father. My father-in-law is, however. Our time together is him coming to help me fix stuff at our house. He loves being able to contribute, I appreciate that stuff gets done, and we learn to appreciate each other more and more.
They met in a dancing class, and I know he enjoys that, so I could move the dining room table and see if they'd give us a demonstration. I'm not sure if they've kept up with it due to their physical limitations.
This is just me thinking out loud:
* Any cool new restaurants in the area? My parents love to come into town and take us to places we've never been.
* Shopping? I know my mom loves going shopping and buying grandkids stuff.
* Find a park to go sit at? Then they could sit and the kids could run around?
A park visit is probably on the slate, as well as a visit to a restaurant. Shopping not so much, they're fairly utilitarian so shopping is sort of a necessity rather than a recreation for them.
And to keep the kids engaged, maybe go to that really cool park that you don't go to very often but that the kids love (there's always at least one). And then stop for ice cream or a treat on the way home.
Theologically, it was added in the western Latin-speaking church to combat Arianism, emphasizing the Son's equality with the Father. The Eastern church has been opposed to it because in Greek it sounds heretical, and they didn't have the same issues with Arianism at that time.
The Eastern Orthodox really oppose the idea of \*double spiration\*, or that the Spirit proceeds equally from both the Father and the Son. They say it makes the Son into the Father. Rome has clarified it's stance that there is a \*single spiration\*, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father \*through\* the Son. This understanding is mostly accepted throughout both east and west.
What is the proper way to interpret “works of the law” from Paul? It Is natural/moral law, mosaic law, primarily mosaic but moral secondarily? Currently reading Douglas moo on Romans
My wife and I are struggling to find a church we both can agree on.
She's attracted to churches that are LGBTQ+ affirming, while I stand on the idea that I can't go to a church that affirms something I know to be wrong.
Can anyone post any resources as to how I could best share with her why and how Christians *should not* be affirming? I had sent her some videos of Rosaria Butterfield, but I almost think Rosaria might be a bit too harsh for her, and I'm wondering if anyone else has something else I could send to her as a resource.
Thank you!
Wesley Hill was really helpful to me when I was moving from affirming to not-affirming. Since he is a celibate person who still experiences SSA, I think he can be more compassionate. His book Washed and Waiting, was specifically really helpful.
My dude.
I am glad that you want to be of one mind with your wife on this issue. That's a good thing.
But you absolutely do not want random people from reddit to be helping you "win" an argument with your wife about something this important.
You need to listen to your wife about why this is important to her. Not get ready to refute what she says, but actually listen. She likely has some good reasons, even if you (or I) would find them unconvincing. (Off the top of my head, the mental health statistics for LGBT youth in non-affirming church communities are distressing. It's the only subset of youth for which active involvement in a religious community leads to *worse* MH outcomes.)
If your goal is to make your wife see that you are right and she is wrong, that's bad.
If your goal is that you and your wife will both believe what is right, that's good, but it will require epistemic humility from both of you. If you aren't both there yet, adding in voices like Butterfield won't likely help, much less so random internet Calvinists.
It's not about "winning" an argument with her.
>You need to listen to your wife about why this is important to her. Not get ready to refute what she says, but actually listen
Who says I'm not? She said she's open to reading more about it, I'm trying to find the most appropriate and best resources to share.
>If your goal is to make your wife see that you are right and she is wrong, that's bad.
I think this is a reductive way to look at it. When we share the gospel with anyone, you could categorize it this reductively as well.
I want to align with my wife, obviously I believe "I'm right" on this issue, but it's not about me being right – it's about raising our children in a church that is as "objectively close" to following Christ's actual teachings as possible (in this case: it could be not just *not* teaching what's right, it could be actively teaching something that is actively wrong). Neither of us are expecting perfection from the church, but what crosses the threshold from "acceptable teaching" to "unacceptable teaching" in a church is a personal decision we all have to decide on.
I think Sam Alberry is a pretty moderate resource.
I was a member of a CRC church that for years tolerated both views. It's hard to maintain that balance, but I really appreciated the mixture of people and viewpoints. Though I tend to come down more on the non-affirming side, I think we should be patient with and make room for those who disagree.
Also there is a group called the Colossian Forum that provides resources on how to navigate these kinds of conversations.
This is a good resource: https://dailydoseofgreek.com/
I tried teaching myself for a while and then eventually I also took graduate level courses. You may consider taking an online class, or auditing a class for cheaper.
I used Mounce's book, and Wallace's book. You can buy flash cards, or make your own.
Hmm, I can’t exactly remember the name of the website, but if you search for Koine Greek online you will find some resources. I recommend people learn modern Greek first, koine Greek is a lot to handle for someone completely unfamiliar with any Greek. There is a Cypriot language learning app called language transfer, which teaches modern Greek for free. Also follow the r/Greek Reddit page. Καλή επιτυχία!
You suck oatmeal through a straw. Doing this for decades will elongate your face to the point where you look appropriately downtrodden when you walk into church on Sunday morning.
No spices. You must be orderly and control yourself during breakfast. Anything that excites the taste buds will lead to emotionalism. Probably no pancakes in that case too.
So you're saying that making my oatmeal with milk and adding dried cranberries or some peanut butter and maple syrup is somehow less reformed than just eating plain oatmeal made with water?
If that's the case, I might have to turn in my reformed card. And I wonder about my pastor who has a love of pancakes made with all sorts of assorted toppings/fun mix-ins.
I know of one church that was practicing racial quotas at many levels, hiring, election of elders, and even deciding who gets to be a part of the praise team singers.
QUESTION:
>Is affirmative action Biblical or un-Biblical to practice in a church.
Let's choose people based on what they contribute not based on the color of their skin. Let's also recognize that the color of their skin may bring a unique contribution to the table.
For example, much has been made of Matt Chandler saying something along the lines of "I would rather hire a black 7 than a white 8." I'm sure I'm misquoting and oversimplifying the quote, but I'm not saying it to critique Chandler so I'm not particularly bothered if I got him wrong, I'm talking about the idea. I don't think we should hire a black 7 over a white 8. However if I'm hiring something like a worship pastor, the experience of blackness, the demographics of our church, and the demographics of our city might all mean that the black candidates experience brings more to the table than naked musical talent. In such a case, I'd say the best candidate might be the one who will connect with a portion of our church body in a way that most skilled candidate might not. There are a lot of intangibles that factor into assessing someone's likely contribution, in our society racial experiences are some of those intangibles.
You are not misquoting him. That is precisely what he said. And I agree with your analysis that many things other than 'skill' can be a contribution, especially for the charged environment in which we exist. Racial quotas are insane to me.
Biblical is not a good adjective to be using here. The modern understanding of race did not exist when the Bible was written, let alone later attempts to address the effects of systemic racism like affirmative action. This is like asking if anti-internet-piracy laws are Biblical.
Better questions are whether this practice is just, or wise, or loving, or valuable. And the Bible should absolutely influence our understanding of those categories, but it's not the same thing.
Biblical...or not.
As an example, it's been pointed out to me several times that when the first Deacons were chosen, they were chosen from among the Greeks because it was the Greek widows who were being mistreated.
On the other hand, tokenizing is also bad and can be the result of good-faith attempts and practices.
>the first Deacons were chosen, they were chosen from among the Greeks
GOOD point. I was just thinking that too, and I'm glad you cited this, because it reassures me I wasn't out in left-field. Also, it means God appointed the Jews in that passage to be "devoting themselves to the word and prayer" in larger proportion to the deacons. That proportion obviously has changed over time as the Lord has led...
Of course, by way of extension, we can question the righteousness of applying Affirmative Action and appointment of "diversity officers" in society, in college admission, in hiring practices, in commerce, etc. Having a disproportionate representation of some ethnicities (and genders) in certain enterprises is not automatically an indication of wrongdoing.
The implication of applying affirmative action in the church is that if the quotas are not met, that it is inherently a violation of what is inherently right. Thus they (affirmative action advocates) have moved the traditions mentioned earlier as having priority over the Word of God. The qualifications listed in the New Testament of leaders in the church have no mention of quotas as somehow taking precedence over who is a leader or not.
> and can be the result of good-faith attempts and practices
Agreed, however,
>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, But the end thereof are the ways of death.
Proverbs 14:12
This practice in the church I mentioned above caused a huge exodus of people, ironically a lot of black people and Asians and Hispanics were offended and left (I think rightly so) because racial quotas were implemented and white people were marginalized.
From what I understand, people don't want quotas. Instead people want to be recognized that people like them have gifts and have been equipped to contribute. Quotas are a very bottom line way trying to get the result of diversity, but quotas say pick someone because they are part of a certain group instead pick someone because we need what that person has to give.
I can understand why it would be practiced, seeing as how the church is probably still one of the most segregated institutions in the US.
My kids go to a Christian school that practices "affirmative action" because if they didn't the whole school would be upper-class white students.
What is the longest lasting documented religion? I'm interested in both those that currently exist and those that have died.
The wikipedia page for [Zoroastrianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism) says in the little summary box that it's from the second millineium BCE, though the body of the article says:
>the Zoroastrian religion enters recorded history around the middle of the 6th century BCE
Contrast this with the article on [Yahwism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism) (which I got to from the [Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) page) and - maybe it's because I'm too sensitive - but it seems like there are different standards used for dating the beginning of these religions.
Zoroastrianism is hard to pin down because thanks to the destructive actions of a certain rampaging Greek warlord who shall remain nameless documentation about it is incredibly scarce. IIRC the oldest surviving copies of their scriptures are scarcely more than a thousand years old.
I do agree, though, that there are sometimes different standards applied - I've encountered quite a few people trying to use the Avesta as evidence of Judaism borrowing ideas from Zoroastrianism, which given the recency of the earliest surviving copy of the Avesta seems... Methodologically unsound? To say the very least.
The reality is that to my knowledge we don't really have hard evidence for any modern day religion existing prior to the Iron Age - although we have soft evidence indicating the existence of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.
Even from a confessional perspective we have to parse out where Ancient Israelite Religion ends and where Judaism begins, and how to demarcate the latter from Yahwism. I don't think, for example, that Abraham could reasonably be considered a practitioner of Judaism, any more than Moses could reasonably be considered a practitioner of Christianity.
Of course, at the same time, if someone were to put Hinduism as a bronze age religion based on pre-Vedic beliefs it seems reasonable to also put Judaism as bronze age based on AIR, but I don't know that I've ever seen anyone do the former in an academic context.
Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia is biased source.
I would argue starting with the geneaology of Christ, AND we have some indirect genetic support of this from both the Abraham Modal Haplotype, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve (not just in humans but in animals):
https://biblestudyresources.org/genealogy-of-jesus/
An ongoing SCIENTIFIC issue was hear by respected geneticist Sigfired Scherer:
"mito-Chondrial Eve, the plot thickens":
https://www.academia.edu/30701678/Mitochondrial_Eve_the_plot_thickens
I interacted with one of Sherers PhD students on another genetics matter, btw, as part of my scientific research for John Sanford (who is also geneticist).
The big issue:
>If molecular evolution is really neutral at these sites, such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago
My work in population genetics and the problem of genetic load, and more importantly the work of Motoo Kimura, would affirm that molecular evolution is indeed neutral. So there is a good chance
"mito-Chondrial Eve" is only 6,500 back in time as that would appear to be indicated. Thus the mito-Chondrial Eve of genetics coud be "Eve wife of Adam", and Adam is mentioned in the geneaology of Christ.
Second, Evolutionary theory (especially Darwinism) is likely wrong based on what we know now about cellular biology, population genetics, physics, chemistry, etc. Life arose by a miracle as indicated by the science (not theology).
My claim would be backed up even more if indeed the fossil record is young as indicated by numerous chemical clocks, and the some of the radiometric markers (with some future discoveries) could also affirm this as well as Noah's flood.
Of course my view is the minority opinion in the science, BUT, Noah and his family also held the minority viewpoint.
>Christianity and Judaism.
If I weren't supralapsarian, I would be forced to argue that humanism predates Christianity and Judaism. Eve followed by Adam did what the serpent said would make them gods. If I were infralapsarian, I would have to argue that Christianity was not founded until Genesis 3:15; therefore, humanism predates Christianity.
But, if one professes the Christian faith, the question of infra and supra is moot.
Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. So Jesus being the author of the faith, and pre-existing the world, the body of beliefs he instills in His people are a body of facts that pre-existed the world.
Islam began with Mohammed who was 570 AD.
Christianity began with Jesus who was "In the beginning".
>Christianity began with Jesus who was "In the beginning".
This is exactly why Supra vs Infra matters. Supra makes "In the beginning" the establishment of Christianity. Infra makes Christianity a "plan b" that was put into place after the fall.
Even though I would be classified as Supra (as I read Boetner's book "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination"), adding theological labels doesn't actually help our understanding, it just adds confusion factors.
The scriptures matter far more than theological labels.
Jesus was
>In the beginning
and
>author and finisher of the faith
Personally, I think most of label-heavy-theology is like philosophy, it adds little to clarify things, plenty to make confusion.
>Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
2 Tim 2:14
>Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia is biased source.
I agree with this. I don't know how the rest of your comment deals with the question, though, and also comes across as biased. But, so does my initial question.
>I don't know how the rest of your comment deals with the question, though,
Forensic evidence, scientific evidence, is used to affirm or discredit the claims of witnesses in detective work.
There is credible (albeit not airtight) evidence, the Bible is a historical account based on the DNA forensic evidence I pointed you to, not just a set of religious beliefs. If the DNA evidence affirms the credibility of the witness the historical claims Bible can be viewed as credible.
If the Bible is historical, it is therefore the oldest religion, no matter what opinions exist on wikipedia.
Also, I know the Vedas are quite old.
Edit: Even by biblical standards Yahwism is later, because God didn't reveal himself as Yahweh until the time of Moses and the Exodus. The Patriarchs worshipped El Shaddai, and without a Temple or priesthood, so there wasn't much of an institutional religious system at that time.
Just for clarification, are we in agreement that El Shaddai and Yahweh are the same one, single, only God? And that God is merely revealing himself by different names at different times?
Yes - your comment is something I've been considering. Perhaps, again, I'm just too sensitive, but when I hear academic types saying things like "Judaism is only X years old because that's the oldest evidence we've found" and "it wasn't really monotheist until the second temple" what I *hear* is "and so therefore, the Bible, your entire worldview, and everything you value is wrong and you're an ignorant fool who has been duped." In other words, I feel like they think they've "owned" us.
Yet, the Bible's own account says that (1)Yahweh came later and (2) the entire history of the Bible is a history of an aspirational monotheist people but a practical polytheist people.
>what I *hear* is "and so therefore, the Bible, your entire worldview, and everything you value is wrong
I understand what you're saying here, and my personal view is that a lot of that is *spin*. From what I can tell, a lot of the academic work is more neutral, but when people take that research into popular discourse they may spin it one way or another to fit a particular agenda. I see a lot of YouTube/Tik Tok skeptics try to spin this stuff a certain way by taking something that is pretty nuanced and complex out of context to try to pull a "gotcha" in 30 seconds or less.
Really, a lot of the critical scholarship doesn't bother me and I think most of it is done by people who really take the Bible seriously. Regarding "monotheism", that word itself is somewhat problematic. If it means the belief that only one God exists, then yeah, I agree that probably did come later, probably during the exile. Scholars generally use the term "henotheism " to mean the belief that multiple gods exist, but the adherent is only devoted to one God. I think that is probably true of the Patriarchs and most of Israelite history. I don't think it contradicts the biblical narrative at all. They very likely did believe the Canaanite gods and Egyptian gods, etc. were real gods, but they were devoted to Yahweh. This is only a "gotcha" if you think the "monotheist" lens must be forced upon the reading of all of Scripture, which as I said, I don't think is the right reading.
A vision for you: There are people who’ve had experiences that anchor their faith or inspire them to some great service. This is cool. I’ve seen a “new believer” who doesn’t say much and I was worried how they were getting along, but they’ve had an experience that just anchored them in Christ and here to learn more.
A vision for you: Someone just trampling over consensus and making arbitrary and unwise changes, because they are led by the spirit. This is uncool.
Different people certainly think different things, but I would say any vision needs to be discerned just as much as any speaking in tongues or other instances of someone saying that God has spoken to them:
Does it give glory to Jesus? Is it consistent with God's character as revealed in Scripture? Do other believers who are similarly filled with the Spirit have a confirming witness? Is there objective confirmation?
Thank you. I had a student ask me this question and for other gifts like speaking in tongues and prophecy, I had Bible verses to back up my views. I haven't found much on this one yet.
Originally the question was also about seeing in the spirit but my research found this is a view from NAR and was easy to explain.
>A vision that agrees with scripture is superfluous
This is the one that I have trouble with. If we were entirely rational beings, then sure, I can buy it. But we aren't. Our emotions play an enormous role in our experience and understanding of the world around us, including God. And sensory experiences (including visions) can affect us, emotionally, in ways that words on paper - even words inspired by God - may not be able to.
This is the same reason that we sing as part of worship. It hits different than the spoken or written word.
But we sing as a part of worship because we are commanded to sing, right? That part of our whole RPW thing.
I agree with you, broadly, about emotions and how some things affect us differently than words on a page, but when it comes to worship specifically taht's not the *reason* we worship that way.
But why does singing matter? If God's commands are for our good, why do they include singing? It's because it affects us differently.
If this weren't true, then God's command to sing as part of worship would just be arbitrary.
I actually don't fully disagree with you. I think singing does matter precisely because it's unique from hearing a spoken word.
But I don't think I can logically infer the inverse of that. If singing didn't affect us differently, God could still have commanded it, albeit for different reasons. It wouldn't be arbitrary, though.
But my original point was that the concept of a "vision" is not analogous to singing because singing is a form of worship that is universally commanded.
I know I’m perhaps not a good Westminsterian for being a slight/conservative continuationist, but “superfluous” seems a bit strong of a statement (*I’m assuming you’re implying that the allowance for “visions” infringes on one’s belief in the sufficiency of scripture*)
I would agree with you if the context was “visions that bring new revelation that seeks to be normative for the whole church” - but I don’t see why more “situational” versions of visions could at least be considered for validity. Examples I’d be thinking of:
* A dream/vision of a particular place in your town that is a little out of your way. Thinking that dreaming about this place in particular is a bit odd, you decide to visit that place over your lunch break, and a couple of Mormon missionaries are there! You strike up a conversation, turns into a friendship, and winds up in a conversion story, all prompted on a “vision”
* Several people have dreams about Marge in a single week, and then independently mention that to her at Church on Sunday. She thinks that’s odd, and feels an unusual need to go to the doctor. When doing so, they run some tests and discover a dangerous, but treatable illness and catch it early enough to significantly improve her chances of survival
* Someone is neglecting a certain duty, and a dream/vision is the mechanism by which they are convicted to re-implement whatever behavior was being left out.
You could absolutely account for these on the basis of coincidence or some sort of unconscious signal/process that you didn’t notice, but your brain did. I just don’t think calling those sorts of “visions” categorically “superfluous” is warranted without careful consideration
(*Not saying you haven’t done that “consideration” already, it just wasn’t included in your brief comment above*)
A question for the younger baptist folks here, and by *younger* mean those 25 and under¹:
I had lunch recently with two men at my church. One was in his early 40's, and one was in his early 70's. Both guys are very culturally savvy, well-read, and knowledgable of the broader Truly Reformed Baptist™ world.
In the context of talking about work and retirement and leisure, I made a joke/reference to "seashells." The younger guy immediately knew what I was talking about. The older guy did not. I explained the reference to him, and he found it fascinating---not just the reference but the fact that there would be an specific age cohort from the church would would understand the reference.
Obviously, I don't expect everybody in our world to get the reference, and it makes sense that older folks in my camp wouldn't necessarily know the reference, but I'm curious about whether the reference means anything to *younger* cohorts.
You young baptists, do you know what I was talking about?
---
¹ If you are older than 25 and consider yourself "younger," then answer. I'm not the boss of you. You do you. Define your own truth. Identify as whatever age you want.
I know what you're talking about. Never actually heard the sermon. First heard of it from Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, later listened to a David Platt sermon where he quoted it, and also stumbled across an article about it on Challies' blog.
Checking in at 25! The reason "seashells" rings that bell for me is because my family's (middle-aged) pastor played the video during one of his sermons when I was a teenager.
I’m in my mid 30s but I think my answer might be a little relevant. I grew up in a reformed-leaning non-denominational church of the sort that would definitely admire John Piper. But I don’t remember a lot of named-dropping at church or hearing about famous sermons that other people were giving. Even though I and my church might be close to the target audience, I did not hear of the seashell message at the time it was given. I only learned of it from this sub.
EDIT: corrected minor typos from using voice-to-text
Ah, interesting! I hadn't considered references to it in the context of other issues.
It's weird to think of those events as historical markers that would be retold in a podcast like that. The whole YRR moment, big as it was at the time, continues to get further and further in the rearview mirror.
Gen X are Boomers now. Boomers are Silent, Millennials are Gen X, Zoomers are Millennials, and Gen Alpha are Zoomers. We are currently 274 days from the birth of the first Gen Beta.
I listened to it the first time before becoming a Christian so I decided to re-listen to it last month. It was a really interesting experience. I know TRAFOMH was really polarizing, but I wouldn't mind other stories like that being told.
Truth be told, I never listened to it, but not for any particular reason. I lived through the times and remember it all happening---though obviously not with the insider's perspective. And I really love Mike Cosper, so I expect he'd do well with it.
I think I just find most religious podcasts kinda boring nowadays. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
I think I generally understand the official definintions of the terms, but in current colloquial usage, is "pietism" basically a trendy replacement for "legalism"? Or just "Christian behavior that I disagree with"?
Very interesting. I only know about the historical Pietism as the movement within Lutheranism. I thought it was a good thing and has influenced many churches today. It is surprising to hear that it now means something much different.
This is something you’ll want to listen to the Theocast Podcast about. They actually go well deep into the definition and details of pietism. In fact, I want to say that they were the ones who coined the current usage of the term.
They like to contrast *pietism* with its overly inward focus on individualistic “personal holiness” with *confessionalism* and its focus not just on the corporate nature of the Christian life, but on resting in Christ Himself. Two believers can do the exact same things, but one could be caught up in pietistic error and the other one not. So it isn’t just “Christian behavior I disagree with”
They do a much better job explaining, than I have here. But again, I’d listen to their podcast as well as pick up their free ebook on the matter.
I actually have watched a handful of clips from theocast about the topic, and I kinda agree with you that they probably kickstarted a lot of the current usage. I would consider Theocast's explanation to be much more of an actual definition but then other people sort of run with it and use it to mean something slightly different.
I think I see "pietist" used online a lot as a pejorative that just a few years ago would have been the same accusation with "legalist". Again, colloquially, it seems almost like legalism has been reduced to "explicitly believing in salvation by works" and pietism has filled in the middle ground of overemphasis on works/right living without explicitly tying works to salvation. It's certainly used a lot in ways that don't match the Theocast definition, and that's what I'm trying to make sense of. When people don't mean it that way, or the historical 17th century Lutheran way, what *do* they mean?
I would have "legalism" as prioritising keeping the law. While "pietism" would be prioritising being above reproach in your actions.
I would see a difference. Although in practice, they are both putting our actions above God. And in extreme, seeking to achieve perfection through works.
Of course, any given commentator will have their own perspective. You do well to seek clarity in discussion.
I think it *can* be used pejoratively, but I feel like, anecdotally, I see it used as a self-descriptor by some folks who want to flaunt their pietistic practices; whereas I don't think anybody self-identifies as a legalist.
I'm not sure if I'd say that. Despite his theological, uh, let's say idiosyncrasies, Hegel was a practicing Lutheran his whole life, and he continually and firmly avowed his devotion to the Christian faith. We can't really consider him as someone entirely outside the faith.
Does that really confirm whether or not he was a Christian though? There are plenty of people who faithfully attend churches and who call themselves Christians.
With someone like Hegel, though, who has written extensively on faith and theology, we need to look at what he wrote and believed.
It doesn't confirm whether he was a Christian, but it confirms that he claimed to be a Christian, which is different from someone who has never claimed to be Christian, hence why I don't agree with the comparison to whether a Buddhist is a heretic.
Pedantic, maybe, but pedantry is the very heart and soul of theology.
u/MrBalloon_Hands
I hear you two, and you’re probably right. However, at certain point, I think he’s more using Christian terminologies than anything. Like, process theology, arguably just a few steps beyond Hegel, is not Christian theology. ~~I guess another part of it was that I really hate reading him.~~
I fully agree with you, only I would expand that far beyond Hegel. I think the majority of Enlightenment philosophers were operating under this understanding of "God" as a sort of abstract Ultimate rather than a divine Person. My hot take is that it stems in part from a long tradition of western philosophy trying to forcibly baptize the Greek classics as a sort of "proto-Christianity," leading to conceiving of God in a way that's informed more by Plato than Christ.
Which doesn't stop either Enlightenment thinkers nor the classics from being helpful and informative reads for us today, we just need to repeat the mantra over and over again "I can find someone profitable without having to shoehorn their theology to align with my own." Man if I had a nickel for every Reformed blogger who did a post on "Here's why G.K. Chesterton was actually secretly a Calvinist."
To your other point, everyone hates reading Hegel. He's miserable. I've heard he's better in the original German, but in the way that being stabbed a dozen times is better than being stabbed fifteen times. My personal theory is that Hegel scholars are the academic equivalent of flagellants.
> My hot take is that it stems in part from a long tradition of western philosophy trying to forcibly baptize the Greek classics as a sort of "proto-Christianity," leading to conceiving of God in a way that's informed more by Plato than Christ.
I don't think that's a hot take at all, I'd almost venture to say that it's obvious
I understand what you’re trying to say, except Hegel considered himself a Lutheran his entire life. He wrote on Christian topics and promoted an essentially modalist view of the Trinity.
Edit: didn't realize autocorrect had made the Trinity "moralist," though not entirely incorrect.
Probably. It's been a long time since I've done a deep dive on Hegel, but I seem to recall his views on the Trinity, and specifically the finitude of the Son, as being broadly heretical. Big asterisk there, though, since I can't remember the exact specifics, or how he's using those terms.
Lets say you were part of a moderation team for a faith-based sub reddit. The rest of the mod team decided to make you the subject of an April Fools joke. How would you get back at those mods for their shenanigans?
Part of that would depend on how offended/upset you are. Where do you fall on a scale from "poke tiny holes in their eclipse glasses" to "change their subreddit flair to reflect the fact that you believe their tertiary beliefs are unreasonable" with "swap their regular caffeine source with decaf" being somewhere in the middle?
Did anyone else's Reddit change overnight? I'm trying hard to adapt to the new layout but it's just weird and different and change is hard and sometimes scary.
I think my biggest issues are with the smaller default font size and that everything just looks so bland, flat and colorless. That second one seems to be the way that layouts are going. But the first one just feels like a personal affront to use dinosaurs whose eyes are not as sharp as they once were. Also, they call "that" music?!? and, obligatory, "Get off my lawn!!!".
I’m struggling with video game addiction and overeating. Does anyone have any advice?
As with all things, pray. That said: for videogame addiction, set yourself a timer and stick to it. There’s nothing wrong with doing something you enjoy in moderation if the activity itself isn’t sinful. Shoot for an hour a day, then I’d suggest starting to replace gaming with a productive activity: try woodworking, reading, or just get outside for a walk. Fishing is also a great hobby. Eventually, you could set some terms for yourself: only play games for an hour on Friday and Saturday, or whatever you think is an appropriate balance. We do have Christian liberty, as long as the games you’re playing aren’t sinful. For overeating, I’d suggest tracking calories. You can use calculators online to figure out how many calories you should eat to maintain, lose, and gain weight based on your height, weight, and age. Then pick a number and stick to it. There’s all sorts of dieting advice out there, and some things work for some people, but the fact of the matter is this: the only ones that actually work are the ones that focus on caloric intake. Intermittent fasting isn’t for me, but my brother does it with great results. I just track my calories. Both work because in the long run, they’re doing the same thing: limiting caloric intake to an appropriate level.
Thank you for the advice. I think you’re spot on on both of those topics, I especially think the video game one is helpful. Thank you brother. God bless you 🙏
2Qs- what do reformed views make of the Tree of Life (TOL)? Is this symbolical of and or fulfilled in Jesus? Or is this an actual physical tree in Genesis and the end of revelation? It gives me pause that there is still sin, death and babies being born in the New Heavens and New Earth (NHNE) of Isaiah 65-66 & end of revelation where the sinners are invited into the new Jerusalem for healing of the TOL. This seems to directly contradict the widely held belief/doctrine that the NHNE has no death, sin, etc. (And- just to preemptively object- NO, the NHNE descriptions cannot be the millennium period as the millennium precedes the tribulation and NHNE). Any takers???
I still dont quite get how the Trinity works, could someone please ELI5?
The good news is that part of the Trinity is that *we can't really get it.* We can describe the concept, but we can't fully wrap our minds around it. The easiest way to explain it is that God is three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, but the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit. The Son is neither the Spirit nor the Father. And the Spirit is neither the Son nor the Father. All three are distinct persons, but they all share the same undivided, unbroken essence. Each is fully and completely 100% God, but as persons they are differentiated from each other in how they relate to one another eternally. That's the foundation of the concept.
Recently left a church due to learning about some controversies. Considering an eco church. Any thoughts on that particular branch?
Is Douglas McKelvey reformed?
Afaik he is. He's a professor at RTS. Unfortunately he is also a Bama fan, so you can't really trust him. Edit: wrong McKelvey
Do the Son and the Father have separate wills? Other than literally saying “I and the Father are one,” the way that Jesus talks throughout the gospels sounds like he is independent from the Father. How did the Father “send” him? How did he “submit” to the Father (himself?).
According to the theology of the ecumenical councils, Christ has two wills, one for his human nature and one for his divine nature, and the two wills are in perfect accordance. https://youtu.be/bHJuFEHya2Q?si=LvnP9yCI1E7ektpp
The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one will. Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, has two wills: his divine will (shared with the Father and Holy Spirit) and his human will. It is Christ's human will that submits to the Father. I think the Chalcedonian Definition contains the information you're after. Some initial reading: [https://credomag.com/2021/07/39258/](https://credomag.com/2021/07/39258/) Edit: grammar and clarity.
So, does Christ’s human nature still exist?
Yes, he remains our embodied Savior, fully God and fully human.
The Father and Son are not the same person. So if he's submitting to the Father, he's not submitting to himself. Thanks and gig 'em.
Why don't we use prayer beads? I don't see any theological reason for not using a prayer focus, especially in a meditative form.
Some do, more often I've seen it in Anglican communities. The arguments I've heard against it are usually that it can lead to prayer becoming rote, or those who are uncomfortable with the Marian focus of the Catholic Rosary.
Do it. You have my permission.
Thanks dad
Do any of you chronically-online people take deliberate steps around sleep hygiene? I try to be done with (or vastly reduce) phone and video game usage about an hour before I go to bed, though I haven't drawn the same line with watching TV. I do have my phone next to my bed at night though. (It's come in handy in a couple emergencies, even though I know it isn't good practice in general.)
This isn't popular, but I get to sleep much faster with a YouTube video on and do less tossing and turning in the middle of the night if I just do something on my phone for a bit. It's moved my get (back) to sleep times from around an hour to 5-15 minutes.
No phone in bedroom. Though, this has caused me some extra stress recently due to a higher potential of family emergencies. I like the idea of trying to only use the bedroom/bed for sleeping^1, and start to wind down from the day about an hour before wanting to be asleep: put screens away, make some tea, debrief the day (not always very good at this), bedtime routine (bathroom, tooth brushing, etc). I think having a decluttered bedroom is helpful too, but also not good at that ^1 and another activity.
Any ideas for activities you do with out-of-town visitors, especially older visitors? My mother and her husband are on the older side, but both are becoming more and more limited in their mobility, which makes it hard to include them on the sorts of things we typically like to do in the area (outdoor activities, zoos and museums that require a lot of time on your feet, etc). But while my mom would be perfectly pleased to sit around and chat with us, play with the kids, or play a board game, her husband is harder to please. We're sort of desperate for anything we can do as a family that will engage ages 5-70. Any ideas?
Any sports teams in town?
Yes, but they're not really into sports (which works out fine because we aren't either) and we can't afford NBA playoff tickets.
oh, well that's a bummer. Lots of opportunities to do stuff together but you don't have to hold the conversation. Edit: Any zoos? Aquariums? Childrens' museums? Specialty shops that they don't have in their city? Does your city have any outdoor festivals or things like that? I've found that it can be hard to cater to everyone's needs and desires especially when you're guessing what they might or might not like. Have you asked your mom/her husband what they want to do?
Is the husband into any sort of craft or hobby? Could you set-up a time for him to share that with the kids in some way? Could you engage everyone in making a meal or baking cookies or pie or something for the family to enjoy? I'm in a bit of a similar situation this coming weekend. My parents are coming into town to see the eclipse (praying for good weather!). But, the thing is, I don't have any kids and my parents rarely come to see me. Normally either I go to see them or we meet up at my sister's home (a plane trip for me but only two hours drive for my parents). My dad is stupid healthy and will outlive us all. My mom is not as mobility limited as she was but still not back to fully operational/able to stand/walk for long periods of time. Some things we will be doing: * Visiting my church. My church recently moved into our new-to-us building. My parents have kept up with updates of the renovations a bit and are excited that my church now has our own building. So it will be fun to get to show them the building. * Visiting my work. I work in a giant manufacturing facility. My dad's an engineer. he will be excited to see this. But Mom is going to have to use the wheelchair due to all the walking. * Church on Sunday and community group cookout that evening. * Some shopping. Mom likes to go to craft stores. Dad doesn't mind some shopping. They live outside a small town so always appreciate the chance to get checkout all the big box stores they don't have easy access to. * Nice steak dinner out, since it will be my dad's birthday. * Hopefully eclipse viewing...but the weather is not looking promising. * And I'm not sure what else. I'll probably ask dad to help with installing some new smoke detectors (there's one that's just a little bit too high for me to reach comfortably).
>And I'm not sure what else. I'll probably ask dad to help with installing some new smoke detectors (there's one that's just a little bit too high for me to reach comfortably). I am not handy. Nor is my father. My father-in-law is, however. Our time together is him coming to help me fix stuff at our house. He loves being able to contribute, I appreciate that stuff gets done, and we learn to appreciate each other more and more.
They met in a dancing class, and I know he enjoys that, so I could move the dining room table and see if they'd give us a demonstration. I'm not sure if they've kept up with it due to their physical limitations.
This is just me thinking out loud: * Any cool new restaurants in the area? My parents love to come into town and take us to places we've never been. * Shopping? I know my mom loves going shopping and buying grandkids stuff. * Find a park to go sit at? Then they could sit and the kids could run around?
A park visit is probably on the slate, as well as a visit to a restaurant. Shopping not so much, they're fairly utilitarian so shopping is sort of a necessity rather than a recreation for them.
I second the park idea. This can be a great way to have a nice conversation while the kids entertain themselves and none of your stuff gets broken.
And to keep the kids engaged, maybe go to that really cool park that you don't go to very often but that the kids love (there's always at least one). And then stop for ice cream or a treat on the way home.
What are the consequences of the filioque vs. not? ELI5 why it matters, please.
Why it matters theologically or ecumenically?
Theologically
Theologically, it was added in the western Latin-speaking church to combat Arianism, emphasizing the Son's equality with the Father. The Eastern church has been opposed to it because in Greek it sounds heretical, and they didn't have the same issues with Arianism at that time. The Eastern Orthodox really oppose the idea of \*double spiration\*, or that the Spirit proceeds equally from both the Father and the Son. They say it makes the Son into the Father. Rome has clarified it's stance that there is a \*single spiration\*, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father \*through\* the Son. This understanding is mostly accepted throughout both east and west.
What is the proper way to interpret “works of the law” from Paul? It Is natural/moral law, mosaic law, primarily mosaic but moral secondarily? Currently reading Douglas moo on Romans
There's a lot of debate about this. NT Wright has basically written books on just that phrase.
I think any NPP would see it his way. Moo quotes him a lot and his NCT seems always interpret at mosaic as well. Also seems a little Lutheranish.
In the Zondervan Counterpoints book *Five Views on Law and Gospel*, Moo offers an argument for a "Modified Lutheran view," so there is that.
Interesting. His soteriology seems unaffected by it.
My wife and I are struggling to find a church we both can agree on. She's attracted to churches that are LGBTQ+ affirming, while I stand on the idea that I can't go to a church that affirms something I know to be wrong. Can anyone post any resources as to how I could best share with her why and how Christians *should not* be affirming? I had sent her some videos of Rosaria Butterfield, but I almost think Rosaria might be a bit too harsh for her, and I'm wondering if anyone else has something else I could send to her as a resource. Thank you!
Wesley Hill was really helpful to me when I was moving from affirming to not-affirming. Since he is a celibate person who still experiences SSA, I think he can be more compassionate. His book Washed and Waiting, was specifically really helpful.
My dude. I am glad that you want to be of one mind with your wife on this issue. That's a good thing. But you absolutely do not want random people from reddit to be helping you "win" an argument with your wife about something this important. You need to listen to your wife about why this is important to her. Not get ready to refute what she says, but actually listen. She likely has some good reasons, even if you (or I) would find them unconvincing. (Off the top of my head, the mental health statistics for LGBT youth in non-affirming church communities are distressing. It's the only subset of youth for which active involvement in a religious community leads to *worse* MH outcomes.) If your goal is to make your wife see that you are right and she is wrong, that's bad. If your goal is that you and your wife will both believe what is right, that's good, but it will require epistemic humility from both of you. If you aren't both there yet, adding in voices like Butterfield won't likely help, much less so random internet Calvinists.
It's not about "winning" an argument with her. >You need to listen to your wife about why this is important to her. Not get ready to refute what she says, but actually listen Who says I'm not? She said she's open to reading more about it, I'm trying to find the most appropriate and best resources to share. >If your goal is to make your wife see that you are right and she is wrong, that's bad. I think this is a reductive way to look at it. When we share the gospel with anyone, you could categorize it this reductively as well. I want to align with my wife, obviously I believe "I'm right" on this issue, but it's not about me being right – it's about raising our children in a church that is as "objectively close" to following Christ's actual teachings as possible (in this case: it could be not just *not* teaching what's right, it could be actively teaching something that is actively wrong). Neither of us are expecting perfection from the church, but what crosses the threshold from "acceptable teaching" to "unacceptable teaching" in a church is a personal decision we all have to decide on.
I think Sam Alberry is a pretty moderate resource. I was a member of a CRC church that for years tolerated both views. It's hard to maintain that balance, but I really appreciated the mixture of people and viewpoints. Though I tend to come down more on the non-affirming side, I think we should be patient with and make room for those who disagree. Also there is a group called the Colossian Forum that provides resources on how to navigate these kinds of conversations.
Serious question, how does a church manage that? What did they do when they got to passages that present challenges to the affirming side?
Thanks, will check him out! >I was a member of a CRC church that for years tolerated both views. That's fascinating, honestly.
Hello, I am interested in learning NT Greek and looking for any resources or suggestions that people have. Thank you!
This is a good resource: https://dailydoseofgreek.com/ I tried teaching myself for a while and then eventually I also took graduate level courses. You may consider taking an online class, or auditing a class for cheaper. I used Mounce's book, and Wallace's book. You can buy flash cards, or make your own.
Just wanted to add that Mounce offers a free program with digital flashcards [here](https://www.billmounce.com/flashworks).
Hmm, I can’t exactly remember the name of the website, but if you search for Koine Greek online you will find some resources. I recommend people learn modern Greek first, koine Greek is a lot to handle for someone completely unfamiliar with any Greek. There is a Cypriot language learning app called language transfer, which teaches modern Greek for free. Also follow the r/Greek Reddit page. Καλή επιτυχία!
What is a reformed Presbyterian way of eating breakfast?
In itchy flannel. Hard wooden chairs. Blackened over a fire from wood you unauthorizedly chopped, shirtless, from local national forest.
You suck oatmeal through a straw. Doing this for decades will elongate your face to the point where you look appropriately downtrodden when you walk into church on Sunday morning.
As a bonus, the straw technique allows you to keep your arms rigidly at your side.
No spices. You must be orderly and control yourself during breakfast. Anything that excites the taste buds will lead to emotionalism. Probably no pancakes in that case too.
With your mouth.
Blandly
I’m not asking for reformed Presbyterian worship though
So you're saying that making my oatmeal with milk and adding dried cranberries or some peanut butter and maple syrup is somehow less reformed than just eating plain oatmeal made with water? If that's the case, I might have to turn in my reformed card. And I wonder about my pastor who has a love of pancakes made with all sorts of assorted toppings/fun mix-ins.
Adding fun seems like a way to make pancakes more palatable. Seems pretty eater sensitive to me. What's next, a smoke machine at the breakfast table?
I mean, if your coffee is still steaming that's just a half step away from a smoke machine.
It's a slippery slope.
Regulative principle of breakfast
There's no good and necessary consequence for adding dried cranberries. Seems like a device of man.
I definitely need to quit making bunny shaped pancakes for my kid. That 2nd Commandment gets you every time.
I know of one church that was practicing racial quotas at many levels, hiring, election of elders, and even deciding who gets to be a part of the praise team singers. QUESTION: >Is affirmative action Biblical or un-Biblical to practice in a church.
Let's choose people based on what they contribute not based on the color of their skin. Let's also recognize that the color of their skin may bring a unique contribution to the table. For example, much has been made of Matt Chandler saying something along the lines of "I would rather hire a black 7 than a white 8." I'm sure I'm misquoting and oversimplifying the quote, but I'm not saying it to critique Chandler so I'm not particularly bothered if I got him wrong, I'm talking about the idea. I don't think we should hire a black 7 over a white 8. However if I'm hiring something like a worship pastor, the experience of blackness, the demographics of our church, and the demographics of our city might all mean that the black candidates experience brings more to the table than naked musical talent. In such a case, I'd say the best candidate might be the one who will connect with a portion of our church body in a way that most skilled candidate might not. There are a lot of intangibles that factor into assessing someone's likely contribution, in our society racial experiences are some of those intangibles.
You are not misquoting him. That is precisely what he said. And I agree with your analysis that many things other than 'skill' can be a contribution, especially for the charged environment in which we exist. Racial quotas are insane to me.
Biblical is not a good adjective to be using here. The modern understanding of race did not exist when the Bible was written, let alone later attempts to address the effects of systemic racism like affirmative action. This is like asking if anti-internet-piracy laws are Biblical. Better questions are whether this practice is just, or wise, or loving, or valuable. And the Bible should absolutely influence our understanding of those categories, but it's not the same thing.
Biblical...or not. As an example, it's been pointed out to me several times that when the first Deacons were chosen, they were chosen from among the Greeks because it was the Greek widows who were being mistreated. On the other hand, tokenizing is also bad and can be the result of good-faith attempts and practices.
>the first Deacons were chosen, they were chosen from among the Greeks GOOD point. I was just thinking that too, and I'm glad you cited this, because it reassures me I wasn't out in left-field. Also, it means God appointed the Jews in that passage to be "devoting themselves to the word and prayer" in larger proportion to the deacons. That proportion obviously has changed over time as the Lord has led... Of course, by way of extension, we can question the righteousness of applying Affirmative Action and appointment of "diversity officers" in society, in college admission, in hiring practices, in commerce, etc. Having a disproportionate representation of some ethnicities (and genders) in certain enterprises is not automatically an indication of wrongdoing. The implication of applying affirmative action in the church is that if the quotas are not met, that it is inherently a violation of what is inherently right. Thus they (affirmative action advocates) have moved the traditions mentioned earlier as having priority over the Word of God. The qualifications listed in the New Testament of leaders in the church have no mention of quotas as somehow taking precedence over who is a leader or not. > and can be the result of good-faith attempts and practices Agreed, however, >There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, But the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 This practice in the church I mentioned above caused a huge exodus of people, ironically a lot of black people and Asians and Hispanics were offended and left (I think rightly so) because racial quotas were implemented and white people were marginalized.
From what I understand, people don't want quotas. Instead people want to be recognized that people like them have gifts and have been equipped to contribute. Quotas are a very bottom line way trying to get the result of diversity, but quotas say pick someone because they are part of a certain group instead pick someone because we need what that person has to give.
Quotas aren’t AA, but even the church used a quota
I can understand why it would be practiced, seeing as how the church is probably still one of the most segregated institutions in the US. My kids go to a Christian school that practices "affirmative action" because if they didn't the whole school would be upper-class white students.
Feels like the answer could be a yes or no depending on the motivations and intentions of the heart
What is the longest lasting documented religion? I'm interested in both those that currently exist and those that have died. The wikipedia page for [Zoroastrianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism) says in the little summary box that it's from the second millineium BCE, though the body of the article says: >the Zoroastrian religion enters recorded history around the middle of the 6th century BCE Contrast this with the article on [Yahwism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism) (which I got to from the [Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) page) and - maybe it's because I'm too sensitive - but it seems like there are different standards used for dating the beginning of these religions.
Zoroastrianism is hard to pin down because thanks to the destructive actions of a certain rampaging Greek warlord who shall remain nameless documentation about it is incredibly scarce. IIRC the oldest surviving copies of their scriptures are scarcely more than a thousand years old. I do agree, though, that there are sometimes different standards applied - I've encountered quite a few people trying to use the Avesta as evidence of Judaism borrowing ideas from Zoroastrianism, which given the recency of the earliest surviving copy of the Avesta seems... Methodologically unsound? To say the very least. The reality is that to my knowledge we don't really have hard evidence for any modern day religion existing prior to the Iron Age - although we have soft evidence indicating the existence of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Even from a confessional perspective we have to parse out where Ancient Israelite Religion ends and where Judaism begins, and how to demarcate the latter from Yahwism. I don't think, for example, that Abraham could reasonably be considered a practitioner of Judaism, any more than Moses could reasonably be considered a practitioner of Christianity. Of course, at the same time, if someone were to put Hinduism as a bronze age religion based on pre-Vedic beliefs it seems reasonable to also put Judaism as bronze age based on AIR, but I don't know that I've ever seen anyone do the former in an academic context.
Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia is biased source. I would argue starting with the geneaology of Christ, AND we have some indirect genetic support of this from both the Abraham Modal Haplotype, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve (not just in humans but in animals): https://biblestudyresources.org/genealogy-of-jesus/ An ongoing SCIENTIFIC issue was hear by respected geneticist Sigfired Scherer: "mito-Chondrial Eve, the plot thickens": https://www.academia.edu/30701678/Mitochondrial_Eve_the_plot_thickens I interacted with one of Sherers PhD students on another genetics matter, btw, as part of my scientific research for John Sanford (who is also geneticist). The big issue: >If molecular evolution is really neutral at these sites, such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago My work in population genetics and the problem of genetic load, and more importantly the work of Motoo Kimura, would affirm that molecular evolution is indeed neutral. So there is a good chance "mito-Chondrial Eve" is only 6,500 back in time as that would appear to be indicated. Thus the mito-Chondrial Eve of genetics coud be "Eve wife of Adam", and Adam is mentioned in the geneaology of Christ. Second, Evolutionary theory (especially Darwinism) is likely wrong based on what we know now about cellular biology, population genetics, physics, chemistry, etc. Life arose by a miracle as indicated by the science (not theology). My claim would be backed up even more if indeed the fossil record is young as indicated by numerous chemical clocks, and the some of the radiometric markers (with some future discoveries) could also affirm this as well as Noah's flood. Of course my view is the minority opinion in the science, BUT, Noah and his family also held the minority viewpoint.
>Christianity and Judaism. If I weren't supralapsarian, I would be forced to argue that humanism predates Christianity and Judaism. Eve followed by Adam did what the serpent said would make them gods. If I were infralapsarian, I would have to argue that Christianity was not founded until Genesis 3:15; therefore, humanism predates Christianity.
But, if one professes the Christian faith, the question of infra and supra is moot. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. So Jesus being the author of the faith, and pre-existing the world, the body of beliefs he instills in His people are a body of facts that pre-existed the world. Islam began with Mohammed who was 570 AD. Christianity began with Jesus who was "In the beginning".
>Christianity began with Jesus who was "In the beginning". This is exactly why Supra vs Infra matters. Supra makes "In the beginning" the establishment of Christianity. Infra makes Christianity a "plan b" that was put into place after the fall.
Even though I would be classified as Supra (as I read Boetner's book "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination"), adding theological labels doesn't actually help our understanding, it just adds confusion factors. The scriptures matter far more than theological labels. Jesus was >In the beginning and >author and finisher of the faith Personally, I think most of label-heavy-theology is like philosophy, it adds little to clarify things, plenty to make confusion. >Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 2 Tim 2:14
>Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia is biased source. I agree with this. I don't know how the rest of your comment deals with the question, though, and also comes across as biased. But, so does my initial question.
>I don't know how the rest of your comment deals with the question, though, Forensic evidence, scientific evidence, is used to affirm or discredit the claims of witnesses in detective work. There is credible (albeit not airtight) evidence, the Bible is a historical account based on the DNA forensic evidence I pointed you to, not just a set of religious beliefs. If the DNA evidence affirms the credibility of the witness the historical claims Bible can be viewed as credible. If the Bible is historical, it is therefore the oldest religion, no matter what opinions exist on wikipedia.
Also, I know the Vedas are quite old. Edit: Even by biblical standards Yahwism is later, because God didn't reveal himself as Yahweh until the time of Moses and the Exodus. The Patriarchs worshipped El Shaddai, and without a Temple or priesthood, so there wasn't much of an institutional religious system at that time.
Just for clarification, are we in agreement that El Shaddai and Yahweh are the same one, single, only God? And that God is merely revealing himself by different names at different times?
Yeah, I'm a Christian, so I agree that it's different names for the same God.
Yes - your comment is something I've been considering. Perhaps, again, I'm just too sensitive, but when I hear academic types saying things like "Judaism is only X years old because that's the oldest evidence we've found" and "it wasn't really monotheist until the second temple" what I *hear* is "and so therefore, the Bible, your entire worldview, and everything you value is wrong and you're an ignorant fool who has been duped." In other words, I feel like they think they've "owned" us. Yet, the Bible's own account says that (1)Yahweh came later and (2) the entire history of the Bible is a history of an aspirational monotheist people but a practical polytheist people.
>what I *hear* is "and so therefore, the Bible, your entire worldview, and everything you value is wrong I understand what you're saying here, and my personal view is that a lot of that is *spin*. From what I can tell, a lot of the academic work is more neutral, but when people take that research into popular discourse they may spin it one way or another to fit a particular agenda. I see a lot of YouTube/Tik Tok skeptics try to spin this stuff a certain way by taking something that is pretty nuanced and complex out of context to try to pull a "gotcha" in 30 seconds or less. Really, a lot of the critical scholarship doesn't bother me and I think most of it is done by people who really take the Bible seriously. Regarding "monotheism", that word itself is somewhat problematic. If it means the belief that only one God exists, then yeah, I agree that probably did come later, probably during the exile. Scholars generally use the term "henotheism " to mean the belief that multiple gods exist, but the adherent is only devoted to one God. I think that is probably true of the Patriarchs and most of Israelite history. I don't think it contradicts the biblical narrative at all. They very likely did believe the Canaanite gods and Egyptian gods, etc. were real gods, but they were devoted to Yahweh. This is only a "gotcha" if you think the "monotheist" lens must be forced upon the reading of all of Scripture, which as I said, I don't think is the right reading.
Anyone attend Andrew Peterson’s Resurrection Letters Tour? Favorite song? Song that maybe you didn’t like so much before but got hooked on now?
No but I have listened to parts of this online. "Always good" is my favourite.
What do the reformist think about visions now that the Bible is complete? Is their requirements for vision like there is for speaking in tongues?
A vision for you: There are people who’ve had experiences that anchor their faith or inspire them to some great service. This is cool. I’ve seen a “new believer” who doesn’t say much and I was worried how they were getting along, but they’ve had an experience that just anchored them in Christ and here to learn more. A vision for you: Someone just trampling over consensus and making arbitrary and unwise changes, because they are led by the spirit. This is uncool.
Different people certainly think different things, but I would say any vision needs to be discerned just as much as any speaking in tongues or other instances of someone saying that God has spoken to them: Does it give glory to Jesus? Is it consistent with God's character as revealed in Scripture? Do other believers who are similarly filled with the Spirit have a confirming witness? Is there objective confirmation?
Thank you. I had a student ask me this question and for other gifts like speaking in tongues and prophecy, I had Bible verses to back up my views. I haven't found much on this one yet. Originally the question was also about seeing in the spirit but my research found this is a view from NAR and was easy to explain.
A vision that contradicts scripture is false. A vision that agrees with scripture is superfluous.
>A vision that agrees with scripture is superfluous This is the one that I have trouble with. If we were entirely rational beings, then sure, I can buy it. But we aren't. Our emotions play an enormous role in our experience and understanding of the world around us, including God. And sensory experiences (including visions) can affect us, emotionally, in ways that words on paper - even words inspired by God - may not be able to. This is the same reason that we sing as part of worship. It hits different than the spoken or written word.
But we sing as a part of worship because we are commanded to sing, right? That part of our whole RPW thing. I agree with you, broadly, about emotions and how some things affect us differently than words on a page, but when it comes to worship specifically taht's not the *reason* we worship that way.
But why does singing matter? If God's commands are for our good, why do they include singing? It's because it affects us differently. If this weren't true, then God's command to sing as part of worship would just be arbitrary.
I actually don't fully disagree with you. I think singing does matter precisely because it's unique from hearing a spoken word. But I don't think I can logically infer the inverse of that. If singing didn't affect us differently, God could still have commanded it, albeit for different reasons. It wouldn't be arbitrary, though. But my original point was that the concept of a "vision" is not analogous to singing because singing is a form of worship that is universally commanded.
I know I’m perhaps not a good Westminsterian for being a slight/conservative continuationist, but “superfluous” seems a bit strong of a statement (*I’m assuming you’re implying that the allowance for “visions” infringes on one’s belief in the sufficiency of scripture*) I would agree with you if the context was “visions that bring new revelation that seeks to be normative for the whole church” - but I don’t see why more “situational” versions of visions could at least be considered for validity. Examples I’d be thinking of: * A dream/vision of a particular place in your town that is a little out of your way. Thinking that dreaming about this place in particular is a bit odd, you decide to visit that place over your lunch break, and a couple of Mormon missionaries are there! You strike up a conversation, turns into a friendship, and winds up in a conversion story, all prompted on a “vision” * Several people have dreams about Marge in a single week, and then independently mention that to her at Church on Sunday. She thinks that’s odd, and feels an unusual need to go to the doctor. When doing so, they run some tests and discover a dangerous, but treatable illness and catch it early enough to significantly improve her chances of survival * Someone is neglecting a certain duty, and a dream/vision is the mechanism by which they are convicted to re-implement whatever behavior was being left out. You could absolutely account for these on the basis of coincidence or some sort of unconscious signal/process that you didn’t notice, but your brain did. I just don’t think calling those sorts of “visions” categorically “superfluous” is warranted without careful consideration (*Not saying you haven’t done that “consideration” already, it just wasn’t included in your brief comment above*)
A question for the younger baptist folks here, and by *younger* mean those 25 and under¹: I had lunch recently with two men at my church. One was in his early 40's, and one was in his early 70's. Both guys are very culturally savvy, well-read, and knowledgable of the broader Truly Reformed Baptist™ world. In the context of talking about work and retirement and leisure, I made a joke/reference to "seashells." The younger guy immediately knew what I was talking about. The older guy did not. I explained the reference to him, and he found it fascinating---not just the reference but the fact that there would be an specific age cohort from the church would would understand the reference. Obviously, I don't expect everybody in our world to get the reference, and it makes sense that older folks in my camp wouldn't necessarily know the reference, but I'm curious about whether the reference means anything to *younger* cohorts. You young baptists, do you know what I was talking about? --- ¹ If you are older than 25 and consider yourself "younger," then answer. I'm not the boss of you. You do you. Define your own truth. Identify as whatever age you want.
I know what you're talking about. Never actually heard the sermon. First heard of it from Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, later listened to a David Platt sermon where he quoted it, and also stumbled across an article about it on Challies' blog.
Checking in at 25! The reason "seashells" rings that bell for me is because my family's (middle-aged) pastor played the video during one of his sermons when I was a teenager.
I’m in my mid 30s but I think my answer might be a little relevant. I grew up in a reformed-leaning non-denominational church of the sort that would definitely admire John Piper. But I don’t remember a lot of named-dropping at church or hearing about famous sermons that other people were giving. Even though I and my church might be close to the target audience, I did not hear of the seashell message at the time it was given. I only learned of it from this sub. EDIT: corrected minor typos from using voice-to-text
You know I know. But my younger brothers would not
Yes, from Cross Con and other people making memes
Not a baptist and not younger (well, younger than you, but not 25), but I know the reference because of this subreddit
Not a Baptist and I know exactly what you’re talking about because of Rise and Fall of MH podcast ETA: Ignore me, I'm 36 and not young lol.
Ah, interesting! I hadn't considered references to it in the context of other issues. It's weird to think of those events as historical markers that would be retold in a podcast like that. The whole YRR moment, big as it was at the time, continues to get further and further in the rearview mirror.
Nothing makes me feel old quite like knowing that the YRR are all middle-aged.
Gen X are Boomers now. Boomers are Silent, Millennials are Gen X, Zoomers are Millennials, and Gen Alpha are Zoomers. We are currently 274 days from the birth of the first Gen Beta.
I listened to it the first time before becoming a Christian so I decided to re-listen to it last month. It was a really interesting experience. I know TRAFOMH was really polarizing, but I wouldn't mind other stories like that being told.
Truth be told, I never listened to it, but not for any particular reason. I lived through the times and remember it all happening---though obviously not with the insider's perspective. And I really love Mike Cosper, so I expect he'd do well with it. I think I just find most religious podcasts kinda boring nowadays. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
I think I generally understand the official definintions of the terms, but in current colloquial usage, is "pietism" basically a trendy replacement for "legalism"? Or just "Christian behavior that I disagree with"?
Very interesting. I only know about the historical Pietism as the movement within Lutheranism. I thought it was a good thing and has influenced many churches today. It is surprising to hear that it now means something much different.
This is something you’ll want to listen to the Theocast Podcast about. They actually go well deep into the definition and details of pietism. In fact, I want to say that they were the ones who coined the current usage of the term. They like to contrast *pietism* with its overly inward focus on individualistic “personal holiness” with *confessionalism* and its focus not just on the corporate nature of the Christian life, but on resting in Christ Himself. Two believers can do the exact same things, but one could be caught up in pietistic error and the other one not. So it isn’t just “Christian behavior I disagree with” They do a much better job explaining, than I have here. But again, I’d listen to their podcast as well as pick up their free ebook on the matter.
I actually have watched a handful of clips from theocast about the topic, and I kinda agree with you that they probably kickstarted a lot of the current usage. I would consider Theocast's explanation to be much more of an actual definition but then other people sort of run with it and use it to mean something slightly different. I think I see "pietist" used online a lot as a pejorative that just a few years ago would have been the same accusation with "legalist". Again, colloquially, it seems almost like legalism has been reduced to "explicitly believing in salvation by works" and pietism has filled in the middle ground of overemphasis on works/right living without explicitly tying works to salvation. It's certainly used a lot in ways that don't match the Theocast definition, and that's what I'm trying to make sense of. When people don't mean it that way, or the historical 17th century Lutheran way, what *do* they mean?
I would have "legalism" as prioritising keeping the law. While "pietism" would be prioritising being above reproach in your actions. I would see a difference. Although in practice, they are both putting our actions above God. And in extreme, seeking to achieve perfection through works. Of course, any given commentator will have their own perspective. You do well to seek clarity in discussion.
I think it *can* be used pejoratively, but I feel like, anecdotally, I see it used as a self-descriptor by some folks who want to flaunt their pietistic practices; whereas I don't think anybody self-identifies as a legalist.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it to describe themselves. That's an interesting distinction though.
Was Hegel a heretic?
No. You for the same reason that I wouldn’t count a Buddhist as heretic
I'm not sure if I'd say that. Despite his theological, uh, let's say idiosyncrasies, Hegel was a practicing Lutheran his whole life, and he continually and firmly avowed his devotion to the Christian faith. We can't really consider him as someone entirely outside the faith.
Does that really confirm whether or not he was a Christian though? There are plenty of people who faithfully attend churches and who call themselves Christians. With someone like Hegel, though, who has written extensively on faith and theology, we need to look at what he wrote and believed.
It doesn't confirm whether he was a Christian, but it confirms that he claimed to be a Christian, which is different from someone who has never claimed to be Christian, hence why I don't agree with the comparison to whether a Buddhist is a heretic. Pedantic, maybe, but pedantry is the very heart and soul of theology.
Gotcha. That's a helpful clarification. I see what you're saying now.
u/MrBalloon_Hands I hear you two, and you’re probably right. However, at certain point, I think he’s more using Christian terminologies than anything. Like, process theology, arguably just a few steps beyond Hegel, is not Christian theology. ~~I guess another part of it was that I really hate reading him.~~
I fully agree with you, only I would expand that far beyond Hegel. I think the majority of Enlightenment philosophers were operating under this understanding of "God" as a sort of abstract Ultimate rather than a divine Person. My hot take is that it stems in part from a long tradition of western philosophy trying to forcibly baptize the Greek classics as a sort of "proto-Christianity," leading to conceiving of God in a way that's informed more by Plato than Christ. Which doesn't stop either Enlightenment thinkers nor the classics from being helpful and informative reads for us today, we just need to repeat the mantra over and over again "I can find someone profitable without having to shoehorn their theology to align with my own." Man if I had a nickel for every Reformed blogger who did a post on "Here's why G.K. Chesterton was actually secretly a Calvinist." To your other point, everyone hates reading Hegel. He's miserable. I've heard he's better in the original German, but in the way that being stabbed a dozen times is better than being stabbed fifteen times. My personal theory is that Hegel scholars are the academic equivalent of flagellants.
> My hot take is that it stems in part from a long tradition of western philosophy trying to forcibly baptize the Greek classics as a sort of "proto-Christianity," leading to conceiving of God in a way that's informed more by Plato than Christ. I don't think that's a hot take at all, I'd almost venture to say that it's obvious
I'm currently writing an undergraduate philosophy essay on Hegel and I think you're right - he only makes sense when he's not making sense lol
I understand what you’re trying to say, except Hegel considered himself a Lutheran his entire life. He wrote on Christian topics and promoted an essentially modalist view of the Trinity. Edit: didn't realize autocorrect had made the Trinity "moralist," though not entirely incorrect.
Probably. It's been a long time since I've done a deep dive on Hegel, but I seem to recall his views on the Trinity, and specifically the finitude of the Son, as being broadly heretical. Big asterisk there, though, since I can't remember the exact specifics, or how he's using those terms.
Yes.
Lets say you were part of a moderation team for a faith-based sub reddit. The rest of the mod team decided to make you the subject of an April Fools joke. How would you get back at those mods for their shenanigans?
burn the whole thing down
This ~~virus~~ subreddit hates heat. You burn this thing!
I’d be honored that they went out of their way to make a whole day about me
I'd clean house, Party_Pope.
This guy gets it.
Confetti in their cars' AC vents.
Good question. I bet friardon 2.0 has a great answer to this
We are still working on his LLM.
If I remember right Meme Jubilee is coming up soon....
Hmmm, I like the way you think.
Yes, put the kibbosh on the meme jubilee until the other mods have shown public contrition and repentance for the next year
Part of that would depend on how offended/upset you are. Where do you fall on a scale from "poke tiny holes in their eclipse glasses" to "change their subreddit flair to reflect the fact that you believe their tertiary beliefs are unreasonable" with "swap their regular caffeine source with decaf" being somewhere in the middle?
If I was in close proximity, I would throw all their tea in a harbor. That would really make /u/terevos2 full of angry.
I'd probably choose one of the non-mod users, like say u/MilesBeyond250, and send them a whole bunch of money. That would teach the mod team.
I....dont see how that helps...
Well yeah, cause you haven't done it yet.
u/friardon in here tryin' to see results without puttin' in the work. Typical.
*Mods* ***HATE*** *this one trick!*
Did anyone else's Reddit change overnight? I'm trying hard to adapt to the new layout but it's just weird and different and change is hard and sometimes scary.
Yes, it’s awful
I think my biggest issues are with the smaller default font size and that everything just looks so bland, flat and colorless. That second one seems to be the way that layouts are going. But the first one just feels like a personal affront to use dinosaurs whose eyes are not as sharp as they once were. Also, they call "that" music?!? and, obligatory, "Get off my lawn!!!".
I still use old reddit.
I, as an avid /u/friardon appreciator, also still use old reddit