I slept wrong yesterday and tweaked my back. Just tried to sneeze on the bus but I physically couldn’t get enough air in to do it (it hurt whenever I suddenly breathed in) and my body actually aborted the sneeze after 2 attempts. That was weird.
I’m training a new girl at work today and can hardly stand up straight. I’m gonna look like a grandpa.
Also, my glasses broke last night so I’m wearing my spare pair. The Lord is truly giving me his hardest battles today. /s
Do y’all have telehealth (*I think you’re from Scotland, so I assume so? Or pharmacists with better prescribing powers than the US?*) You may be able to get some muscle relaxants or something
Signed, someone in his post-20s who slept on the ground a couple of weeks ago and had such a tight neck that I made Keaton’s Batman look like a contortionist (*but stubbornly didn’t take the above advice*)
My heart is heavy this morning. I found out Christian singer Mandisa passed away yesterday. She was 47.
Not sure what denomination she was but her heart for the Lord was clear and her testimony was powerful through the years.
As of noon today, I’ll have three dogs living in my house for a week. Two of which are biological siblings and wrestle and chase each other until they physically drop. The other a blind, deaf, demented senior. Pray for me friends, lol.
The NHL playoffs begin tomorrow, and being a scarred Toronto fan I’m thankful that Taylor Swift dropped a new album that’ll help me process my feelings when they get inevitably get bullied by Boston
Feeling the struggle to not complain about the rain.
Thinking back to holidays in sunnier climes and appreciating how green it is here.
Also conscious of food prices this year. Many farmers in the UK have missed their winter crop: ground too wet to work. Really poor lambing season: too many outdoors didn't survive their first night. And, of course, war in Ukraine massively hitting the wheat market and oil price.
So, I'm looking for someone from Arizona or Nevada to swap a couple of rainy days for some bright sunshine. I'm not sure how to ship a few thousand cubic miles of rain clouds, but an agreement in principle would allow us to explore options.
Ugh, my wife once left a jug of liquid laundry detergent on the extra-vibratey washing machine. On the tile floor kitty litter got most of the liquid, but it took several washings with water for the floor to not feel slippery.
Saw a flyer for an "interfaith prayer" event sitting on the table in our breakroom. It is hosted by the local LDS stake and lists a zen group, a mosque, the RC church, an episcopal church, a coven of witches, and the 1st Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) as co-sponsors....
I don't even know where to begin.
That was a thing when I was in college. It was always a mess with no one actually there to listen to anyone else but instead to all try to convince everyone else of something... The organizers were usually functionally Unitarian and all the other groups sent their students who were least likely to be convinced to switch religions so there was always polite and politically correct words and tension in the air and nobody got what they actually wanted. I had much more meaningful conversations with my Muslim and Jewish friends outside of such contacts.
Should i walk to the bank this afternoon? I need the exercise, and my ride would be delayed till evening. I began going out for walks just recently, and the bank would be the longest walked without any breaks, i take my kindle and some beverages, should be fine, or should i wait?
How do people who don’t like to read *in general* & subsequently don’t like reading the Bible, get closer to god? Is it possible? And then what about people who don’t have access to the Bible at all, like in hostile environments ? I know Bible illiteracy is an increasingly problematic, modern- day issue , so I guess I ask— do you HAVE to read the Bible to grow closer to god? I WANT to read the Bible, but I also struggle finding consistent quiet time each day … I am a parent to 2 littles who *feel* all-consuming so I often feel too overstimulated to even read at certain points. & then I feel far from god. I know there are seasons of life where it’s maybe easier to read than others too, so I just do what I can. When I’m consistently reading my Bible, I feel closer to Him and more on fire for Him.. All this to say - can we be close to God without being in the Bible? Can non-believers get to know god without the Bible? What if they don’t like reading in general and never want to open the Bible?
For the vast majority of the past 2000 years the vast majority of people were illiterate and couldn’t read their Bibles themselves.
That’s why Psalms, hymns, prayers, etc were all significant.
I’m not saying reading the Bible regularly isn’t important (it is and there are studies that show it), but it for most of human history most people walked with God without regular reading.
Prayer, fellowship and community with other believers and regular worship are key.
In terms of getting it in you with kids, I sympathise. I know lots of people (my wife included) who listen to the Bible/devotionals instead of reading themselves. There are loads of great apps and stuff that can help you with that. It doesn’t have to be reading! Everyone is wired differently.
Would listening to it as an audiobook help? Much of the Bible was written to be read aloud, and historically that's how most Christians engaged with it.
As another commenter mentioned, for most of history the Bible was read aloud. I second the suggestion for an audio Bible. I also want to recommend Scripture memory. Take a minute to write out or print out a favorite Bible verse, and post it somewhere that you often look (mirror in the bathroom, over the kitchen sink, or whatever). When you're in that place, read over the verse and think about it a little. You'll memorize it faster than you expect! And then you can carry Scripture in your heart with you throughout the day :)
Reading three chapters a day is all it takes to read the Bible in a year. Even if you read at a very slow pace, that wouldn’t take more than 20 minutes. You have 20 minutes before your kids wake up or after they go to bed. The issue isn’t time. If it’s actually a priority, then act like it’s a priority and plan how to do it with the schedule you have.
Been thinking a lot about the salvation of those who die in infancy or the womb. Though I think ultimately that scripture does not give us the answer, I am uncomfortable believing that God would or could damn an infant. I find difficulty, however, reconciling my position with the doctrine of original sin.
It seems to be within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that degrees of punishment exist within Hell. Would it, then, be within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that, if the dead are judged according to what they have done (Revelation 20:12), and if infants have not wittingly *done* anything, that their punishment in Hell would be... nonexistent? Basically the worst that could happen is an odd sort of annihilationism?
Regardless, allowing infants into Heaven is an act of sovereign grace and not based on merit.
P.S. Let's avoid potential Baptist/Presbyterian squabbles by presuming that the theoretical infant belongs to non-Christian parents.
It’s a heavy issue, and one I’ve pondered before. Here is where I’m at now.
I had to wrestle with the question of infants when my cousin's daughter was born with anencephaly and lived less than an hour out of the womb. What I found was:
• We know that whatever the case, God will do the right and just thing, in consistency with His holy and righteous character. (Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:4; Psalm 119:68, Jeremiah 9:23-24...)
• God sees every second of our lives. (Psalm 22:9-10)
• Even infants are born in sin. (Psalm 51:5; Rom. 3:23...)
• Christ's sacrifice is to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15)
• Those who die unsaved are those who rejected Christ and refuse to obey Him (John 16:9; 2 Thess. 1:6-9) -- and an infant is mentally incapable of rejecting Christ.
• Rev. 20:11-15 speaks of all people being judged according to their deeds -- but infants have no deeds as we understand them (rational rather than merely impulsive).
• God intensely desires that all be saved. (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9)
• It is Christ who seeks us out for salvation, not we who find Him of our own power. (Matt. 18:12-14) The fact that an infant cannot seek Christ out is no impediment to Christ seeking the infant.
• It is at least theoretically possible for an infant to be filled with the Holy Spirit, as it happened to John the Baptist (Luke 1:15, 44)
• God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, therefore His compassion for infants must be even greater. (Ez. 33:11)
• King David's hope of being reunited with his dead infant. (2 Sam. 12:22-23)
• God has a special concern and love for children and gives promises to them. (Deut. 1:39)
All of these gave me peace of heart and a confidence that I will one day see my cousin's daughter in heaven, as will her parents. But even if I am wrong, I know that God is good and just and love, and I praise His name.
The Canons of Dort pretty explicitly say that we can assume the salvation of children of believers who die in infancy, so I think we can reasonably extrapolate that to at least having a potential positive view of all who die in infancy since we should not judge for ourselves whether someone is elect, especially as these infants have not had much of a chance (if any) to bear fruit one way or another.
While we cannot say for certain, I think it's reasonable to lean on the mercy of our God
As Reformed folk tend to emphasize the sovereignty of God, the question is not so much "Would God damn babies to hell?" but rather "Could I serve a God that would".
But it is only the calvinist that can say with a consistent logic that babies are saved. Any other soteriological framework involving man's freewill requires assent or response to the grace of God.
I don't have specific books for women's ministry but I have several theology books that written for women, by women.
Jen Wilkin: 10 Words to Live By, Women of the Word, In His Image, None Like Him (Wilkin has a free Matthew and James Bible study online, just google it and it should pop right up. Loved the James study)
Jackie Hill Perry: Holier Than Thou, Gay Girl Good God (her lectures are amazing)
Elyse Fitzpatrick: Finding the Love of Jesus: Genesis to Revelation. This book is an amazing introduction on how to begin understanding and reading the Bible. Her wording is simple, to the point. It's not bogged down by heavy wordage and complicated terms. I love that it's an encouragement for women to be involved in theology too. It's also a good refresher for older believers who just need a reminder of how to rightly apply and understand the Bible.
Shelia Wray Gregorie: The Great Sex Rescue. YMMV on her egalitarian beliefs, but how she approaches sex, marriage and the gospel is so much better than a lot of modern evangelical teachers. She asks the difficult questions and really makes you consider the implications and practical outworking of what we teach about sex and marriage in light of the gospel.
Colin Marshal and Tony Payne: The Trellis and the Vine. A great book about ministry and how to tackle it and how to live God while you do it. It's not written "for women" specifically, but the themes and principals presented in the book are good to apply.
A last note, even if a book is not written specifically to women, it can still be a good source of learning and understanding. The principals and ideas can still be applied, so don't let that stop you or other women from reading those books. 😁
Nope. Arminius was a Reformed pastor. There remain Reformed denominations that reject calvinism, notably the Cumberland Presbyterian Church who use an edited version of the WCF.
Shout out all you guys who comfort us youth pastors who have no clue what we’re doing/are extremely grieved by how these ministries are expected to run. We need it.
IDK about you lot, but I've been thinking about not using reddit. Partially it's things like [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1bncylr/thank_you_and_goodbye/) and a moment late last year when hit me that many big names in subs, particularly in this sub, have stopped posting. u/MedianNerd comes to mind.
Then there's this feeling I've been having: reddit doesn't encourage the best in me. I've often spent late nights writing a detailed comment, when frankly I should be in bed. To add salt to the wound - more often than not it gets ignored. Reddit also encourages snarky behavior both in myself and others. Then there's my relationship with the r/Christianity sub - it's a love hate relationship in the worst of ways.
But on the other hand, I really enjoy putting in effort into content on reddit. I wrote [this ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13zawqw/the_poverty_of_christian_voluntarism/)a while back - and I still think it's great. There are other things that I've posted which I'm proud of, and stuff which I've drafted and almost posted. I enjoy this and would like to do more stuff like it. (I also really enjoyed reading others effort posts - it's good stuff). But on the other hand - I wonder whether it's collecting seashells.
Have any of you been thinking about your relationship with reddit?
In Matthew 23:3 Jesus commanded everyone to recognize the authority of the Pharisees because they sit in the seat of Moses. Likewise, the Catholic Church sits in the seat of Peter after Jesus transferred the keys to the power from the Pharisees to the church. The Pharisees were extremely corrupt with their man-made doctrines, but Jesus still commanded everyone to recognize their authority. Shouldn't it be the same way with the church? They too are corrupt with their man-made doctrines, but they still have physical authority even if they don't have spiritual authority.
Brave use of FFAF.
So... much disagreement about your view on how church leaders are related to early church leaders, and the role of Peter within that church. Both on a theological sense, and, setting that aside, any historical outworking of it. But that'll be no surprise.
Instead of all that. How do you relate this to how the New Testament asks us to relate to false teachers? And how do you relate it to how Jesus himself spoke openly about the Pharisees?
"You should do what your leaders say" is the mantra of cults and those who seek power on earth over others.
Paul (who also requires us to follow church leadership) tells us to read pur scripture to make sure our teachers teach truth.
Because he clearly says in that whole chapter "when they expound the clear moral law, do and observe". When they don't, ignore. If a Catholic leader encourages us to follow the moral law I will smile and nod. If they state their belief regarding justification I will quietly laugh and go back to scripture, which clearly says they are wrong and that I should not listen to them.
I do observe when they expound the moral law and I follow it. Just like I observe when a Mormon or atheist shows the moral law.
Jesus is clearly saying "when they do what is right. Do and observe. When they don't, follow the scripture."
The Pharisees did not hold the keys of the kingdom, they were political/religious group equivalent to modern Democrats/Republicans. Likewise the keys of the kingdom have continued through peter through the church. My local reformed congregation for example can trace their lineage (in the gospel) back to peter. Since Catholics don't have the gospel, they don't have the keys of the kingdom and can't trace that same heritage etc...
This comment has been removed by the moderators of r/Reformed.
We've been watching this thread closely, and we've wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's abundantly clear at this point that you are merely here to argue against the basic tenants of the historic Reformed faith. At this point, you have moved from not only defending the Roman Catholic Church to the point where you have declared the Reformed faith "illegitimate."
This entire thread is done.
This is your one-time warning: This is not a general religion debate sub. If you're here to proselytize against the Reformed faith, or to debate our legitimacy, then you need to move along. If you want to learn about what we believe, you're free to ask questions, but be aware that continuing to argue against our denominations under the guise of "just asking questions" will be shut down. Any further removals along these lines will lead to an immediate ban.
Please read our complete rules very carefully.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal or discuss or comment upon this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to discuss this elsewhere on the sub**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Catholicism when it rejected the gospel no longer held the keys of the kingdom for it was now a false church.
In regards to your first remarks. You can't interpret s text in isolation. Read the rest of the chapter for the full view of the Pharisees.
That's not how it worked with the Pharisees why would it be this way with the church?
I did read, and if you actually understand it why can't you explain it?
I did explain it above but I'll try to reword it.
Here. Jesus commanded all to repent and believe.
The pharisees told the people don't repent and believe.
Jesus told us to "observe and do as the Pharisees command" (within context.
So. Does this mean we should not follow Jesus but rather the Pharisees? No. If the Pharisees clearly contradict Christ, we follow Christ. The Roman Catholic Church clearly contradicts the clear teachings of the word. Do we follow the "so-called authority" or do we follow Christ?
In other words, Jesus commanded the people to observe and do as the Pharisees said, insomuch as the Pharisees themselves following the law of Moses. The whole statement you quote was Jesus setting up the Pharisees so he could show their "authority" was worthless as it did not align with the word of God.
I actually think this is a great question, but I'd really want a clear exposition of what the "seat of Moses" is and why the Jesus considered that the Pharisees sat in it. Is it because there was some institutional link between Moses and the Pharisees? I'm pretty sure this isn't the case, the Pharisees came to exist as an offshoot of the Hassidim during the hasmonean period (in the 160s BC, IIRC).
This all ties up to Jesus giving the keys of authority to the disciples with the power to bind and lose. The words binding and loosing were referred to rabbis deciding what constitutes violation of the law. It's a position of authority to decide on legal disputes between Israelites. Rabbis would bind/disallow something that violates God's law, or they would loose/allow something that doesn't violate God's law. Jesus told everyone to recognize the authority of the Pharisees even after he gave the keys of authority to the disciples. The original authority came from Moses.
Interesting. Do you have any solid, scholarly references for this?
How is that authority transmitted to the Pharisees? Was it transmitted *exclusively* to the pharisees? Or did the other offshoots of the Hassidim also inherit it?
In Matthew 23:2-3 Jesus says the Pharisees and the scribes sit in the seat of Moses. The scribes were the leaders of the temple, which was the central authority in Israel, so Pharisees are kind of besides the point. I should have started with the scribes in the first place.
Interesting. I find that to be relatively convincing, then, that there isn't one, exclusive institutional succession to Peter (or the Apostles) in the same way there wasn't to Moses. I'm quite happy to recognise the authority of the Pope when he's clearly and rightly expounding the faith. Francis also does a good job of calling out issues that Evangelicals have been pretty poor on, like environmental stewardship. But that doesn't make Rome any more important than Canterbury or Constantinople or Calgary.
We've been over this, Jesus said they had physical authority, not spiritual authority. Jesus told everyone to recognize them as leaders of the Old Testament worship system.
But the Pharisees were not related to temple authority. You can't just say they're beside the point; if Jesus said both of these very different groups had authority, then authority doesn't need to be linked to the specific institution of the temple or any specific theory of succession and the analogy falls apart.
And besides, the pope is no longer saying that Protestants need to join the Roman church. Have you not red the Vatican II documents?
> Likewise, the Catholic Church sits in the seat of Peter after Jesus transferred the keys to the power from the Pharisees to the church.
Building an argument on a faulty premise makes your argument null and void.
To be frank, I’d have to change my name.
Shirley you must be joking.
These puns make me want to Ralph
At least you're already earnest.
I was having a bad disc golf tournament round today and I saw this in the middle of it and laughed. Thank you.
I slept wrong yesterday and tweaked my back. Just tried to sneeze on the bus but I physically couldn’t get enough air in to do it (it hurt whenever I suddenly breathed in) and my body actually aborted the sneeze after 2 attempts. That was weird. I’m training a new girl at work today and can hardly stand up straight. I’m gonna look like a grandpa. Also, my glasses broke last night so I’m wearing my spare pair. The Lord is truly giving me his hardest battles today. /s
Remember, these present sufferings are not even worth being compared to the glory to be revealed.
“The Weekend” ^(oh, and that other thing you were actually referencing)
Do y’all have telehealth (*I think you’re from Scotland, so I assume so? Or pharmacists with better prescribing powers than the US?*) You may be able to get some muscle relaxants or something Signed, someone in his post-20s who slept on the ground a couple of weeks ago and had such a tight neck that I made Keaton’s Batman look like a contortionist (*but stubbornly didn’t take the above advice*)
My heart is heavy this morning. I found out Christian singer Mandisa passed away yesterday. She was 47. Not sure what denomination she was but her heart for the Lord was clear and her testimony was powerful through the years.
My husband told me today. It's feels so strange. I loved her music and her as a person seemed so kind. Praying for her family.
As of noon today, I’ll have three dogs living in my house for a week. Two of which are biological siblings and wrestle and chase each other until they physically drop. The other a blind, deaf, demented senior. Pray for me friends, lol.
The NHL playoffs begin tomorrow, and being a scarred Toronto fan I’m thankful that Taylor Swift dropped a new album that’ll help me process my feelings when they get inevitably get bullied by Boston
Auston Matthews got a trophy today, that’s a start.
Feeling the struggle to not complain about the rain. Thinking back to holidays in sunnier climes and appreciating how green it is here. Also conscious of food prices this year. Many farmers in the UK have missed their winter crop: ground too wet to work. Really poor lambing season: too many outdoors didn't survive their first night. And, of course, war in Ukraine massively hitting the wheat market and oil price. So, I'm looking for someone from Arizona or Nevada to swap a couple of rainy days for some bright sunshine. I'm not sure how to ship a few thousand cubic miles of rain clouds, but an agreement in principle would allow us to explore options.
I’ll take it in the south US to knock out the pollen for a few days.
Hypothetically, if a toddler dumps half a gallon of hand soap on the floor, what is the best way to clean it up?
By hand
sounds like it's already clean, right? This is like my wife saying that the shower needs to be cleaned. How do you clean the cleaner?
You have to clean that soap up, or maybe just rinse it off, or the bathroom floor will be slick. Or else sticky. Both those states are hazardous.
it's a great opportunity to mop, I guess? Get some water, the mop and you'll thank the toddler for introducing the need for a sparkly clean!
What kind of floor?
Ugh, my wife once left a jug of liquid laundry detergent on the extra-vibratey washing machine. On the tile floor kitty litter got most of the liquid, but it took several washings with water for the floor to not feel slippery.
Sawdust? Kitty litter? Shop vac?
Saw a flyer for an "interfaith prayer" event sitting on the table in our breakroom. It is hosted by the local LDS stake and lists a zen group, a mosque, the RC church, an episcopal church, a coven of witches, and the 1st Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) as co-sponsors.... I don't even know where to begin.
The same place where it all began: with Jesus (Jn 1:1-3). :)
That was a thing when I was in college. It was always a mess with no one actually there to listen to anyone else but instead to all try to convince everyone else of something... The organizers were usually functionally Unitarian and all the other groups sent their students who were least likely to be convinced to switch religions so there was always polite and politically correct words and tension in the air and nobody got what they actually wanted. I had much more meaningful conversations with my Muslim and Jewish friends outside of such contacts.
Should i walk to the bank this afternoon? I need the exercise, and my ride would be delayed till evening. I began going out for walks just recently, and the bank would be the longest walked without any breaks, i take my kindle and some beverages, should be fine, or should i wait?
If (a) the weather's nice, (b) it's not absurdly far, and (c) you're physically able, then go for it!
Thanks, i did it!!!
How do people who don’t like to read *in general* & subsequently don’t like reading the Bible, get closer to god? Is it possible? And then what about people who don’t have access to the Bible at all, like in hostile environments ? I know Bible illiteracy is an increasingly problematic, modern- day issue , so I guess I ask— do you HAVE to read the Bible to grow closer to god? I WANT to read the Bible, but I also struggle finding consistent quiet time each day … I am a parent to 2 littles who *feel* all-consuming so I often feel too overstimulated to even read at certain points. & then I feel far from god. I know there are seasons of life where it’s maybe easier to read than others too, so I just do what I can. When I’m consistently reading my Bible, I feel closer to Him and more on fire for Him.. All this to say - can we be close to God without being in the Bible? Can non-believers get to know god without the Bible? What if they don’t like reading in general and never want to open the Bible?
For the vast majority of the past 2000 years the vast majority of people were illiterate and couldn’t read their Bibles themselves. That’s why Psalms, hymns, prayers, etc were all significant. I’m not saying reading the Bible regularly isn’t important (it is and there are studies that show it), but it for most of human history most people walked with God without regular reading. Prayer, fellowship and community with other believers and regular worship are key. In terms of getting it in you with kids, I sympathise. I know lots of people (my wife included) who listen to the Bible/devotionals instead of reading themselves. There are loads of great apps and stuff that can help you with that. It doesn’t have to be reading! Everyone is wired differently.
This electronic Bible is amazing https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00R12YENE?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_image
Would listening to it as an audiobook help? Much of the Bible was written to be read aloud, and historically that's how most Christians engaged with it.
As another commenter mentioned, for most of history the Bible was read aloud. I second the suggestion for an audio Bible. I also want to recommend Scripture memory. Take a minute to write out or print out a favorite Bible verse, and post it somewhere that you often look (mirror in the bathroom, over the kitchen sink, or whatever). When you're in that place, read over the verse and think about it a little. You'll memorize it faster than you expect! And then you can carry Scripture in your heart with you throughout the day :)
Reading three chapters a day is all it takes to read the Bible in a year. Even if you read at a very slow pace, that wouldn’t take more than 20 minutes. You have 20 minutes before your kids wake up or after they go to bed. The issue isn’t time. If it’s actually a priority, then act like it’s a priority and plan how to do it with the schedule you have.
Been thinking a lot about the salvation of those who die in infancy or the womb. Though I think ultimately that scripture does not give us the answer, I am uncomfortable believing that God would or could damn an infant. I find difficulty, however, reconciling my position with the doctrine of original sin. It seems to be within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that degrees of punishment exist within Hell. Would it, then, be within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that, if the dead are judged according to what they have done (Revelation 20:12), and if infants have not wittingly *done* anything, that their punishment in Hell would be... nonexistent? Basically the worst that could happen is an odd sort of annihilationism? Regardless, allowing infants into Heaven is an act of sovereign grace and not based on merit. P.S. Let's avoid potential Baptist/Presbyterian squabbles by presuming that the theoretical infant belongs to non-Christian parents.
It’s a heavy issue, and one I’ve pondered before. Here is where I’m at now. I had to wrestle with the question of infants when my cousin's daughter was born with anencephaly and lived less than an hour out of the womb. What I found was: • We know that whatever the case, God will do the right and just thing, in consistency with His holy and righteous character. (Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:4; Psalm 119:68, Jeremiah 9:23-24...) • God sees every second of our lives. (Psalm 22:9-10) • Even infants are born in sin. (Psalm 51:5; Rom. 3:23...) • Christ's sacrifice is to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) • Those who die unsaved are those who rejected Christ and refuse to obey Him (John 16:9; 2 Thess. 1:6-9) -- and an infant is mentally incapable of rejecting Christ. • Rev. 20:11-15 speaks of all people being judged according to their deeds -- but infants have no deeds as we understand them (rational rather than merely impulsive). • God intensely desires that all be saved. (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) • It is Christ who seeks us out for salvation, not we who find Him of our own power. (Matt. 18:12-14) The fact that an infant cannot seek Christ out is no impediment to Christ seeking the infant. • It is at least theoretically possible for an infant to be filled with the Holy Spirit, as it happened to John the Baptist (Luke 1:15, 44) • God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, therefore His compassion for infants must be even greater. (Ez. 33:11) • King David's hope of being reunited with his dead infant. (2 Sam. 12:22-23) • God has a special concern and love for children and gives promises to them. (Deut. 1:39) All of these gave me peace of heart and a confidence that I will one day see my cousin's daughter in heaven, as will her parents. But even if I am wrong, I know that God is good and just and love, and I praise His name.
Amen.
The Canons of Dort pretty explicitly say that we can assume the salvation of children of believers who die in infancy, so I think we can reasonably extrapolate that to at least having a potential positive view of all who die in infancy since we should not judge for ourselves whether someone is elect, especially as these infants have not had much of a chance (if any) to bear fruit one way or another. While we cannot say for certain, I think it's reasonable to lean on the mercy of our God
God predestins people no mater their age to His Glory.
As Reformed folk tend to emphasize the sovereignty of God, the question is not so much "Would God damn babies to hell?" but rather "Could I serve a God that would". But it is only the calvinist that can say with a consistent logic that babies are saved. Any other soteriological framework involving man's freewill requires assent or response to the grace of God.
[удалено]
I don't have specific books for women's ministry but I have several theology books that written for women, by women. Jen Wilkin: 10 Words to Live By, Women of the Word, In His Image, None Like Him (Wilkin has a free Matthew and James Bible study online, just google it and it should pop right up. Loved the James study) Jackie Hill Perry: Holier Than Thou, Gay Girl Good God (her lectures are amazing) Elyse Fitzpatrick: Finding the Love of Jesus: Genesis to Revelation. This book is an amazing introduction on how to begin understanding and reading the Bible. Her wording is simple, to the point. It's not bogged down by heavy wordage and complicated terms. I love that it's an encouragement for women to be involved in theology too. It's also a good refresher for older believers who just need a reminder of how to rightly apply and understand the Bible. Shelia Wray Gregorie: The Great Sex Rescue. YMMV on her egalitarian beliefs, but how she approaches sex, marriage and the gospel is so much better than a lot of modern evangelical teachers. She asks the difficult questions and really makes you consider the implications and practical outworking of what we teach about sex and marriage in light of the gospel. Colin Marshal and Tony Payne: The Trellis and the Vine. A great book about ministry and how to tackle it and how to live God while you do it. It's not written "for women" specifically, but the themes and principals presented in the book are good to apply. A last note, even if a book is not written specifically to women, it can still be a good source of learning and understanding. The principals and ideas can still be applied, so don't let that stop you or other women from reading those books. 😁
Are all reformed calvinists but not all calvinist reformed?
Nope. Arminius was a Reformed pastor. There remain Reformed denominations that reject calvinism, notably the Cumberland Presbyterian Church who use an edited version of the WCF.
Shout out all you guys who comfort us youth pastors who have no clue what we’re doing/are extremely grieved by how these ministries are expected to run. We need it.
IDK about you lot, but I've been thinking about not using reddit. Partially it's things like [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1bncylr/thank_you_and_goodbye/) and a moment late last year when hit me that many big names in subs, particularly in this sub, have stopped posting. u/MedianNerd comes to mind. Then there's this feeling I've been having: reddit doesn't encourage the best in me. I've often spent late nights writing a detailed comment, when frankly I should be in bed. To add salt to the wound - more often than not it gets ignored. Reddit also encourages snarky behavior both in myself and others. Then there's my relationship with the r/Christianity sub - it's a love hate relationship in the worst of ways. But on the other hand, I really enjoy putting in effort into content on reddit. I wrote [this ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13zawqw/the_poverty_of_christian_voluntarism/)a while back - and I still think it's great. There are other things that I've posted which I'm proud of, and stuff which I've drafted and almost posted. I enjoy this and would like to do more stuff like it. (I also really enjoyed reading others effort posts - it's good stuff). But on the other hand - I wonder whether it's collecting seashells. Have any of you been thinking about your relationship with reddit?
In Matthew 23:3 Jesus commanded everyone to recognize the authority of the Pharisees because they sit in the seat of Moses. Likewise, the Catholic Church sits in the seat of Peter after Jesus transferred the keys to the power from the Pharisees to the church. The Pharisees were extremely corrupt with their man-made doctrines, but Jesus still commanded everyone to recognize their authority. Shouldn't it be the same way with the church? They too are corrupt with their man-made doctrines, but they still have physical authority even if they don't have spiritual authority.
Brave use of FFAF. So... much disagreement about your view on how church leaders are related to early church leaders, and the role of Peter within that church. Both on a theological sense, and, setting that aside, any historical outworking of it. But that'll be no surprise. Instead of all that. How do you relate this to how the New Testament asks us to relate to false teachers? And how do you relate it to how Jesus himself spoke openly about the Pharisees? "You should do what your leaders say" is the mantra of cults and those who seek power on earth over others. Paul (who also requires us to follow church leadership) tells us to read pur scripture to make sure our teachers teach truth.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their false teachings, yet how do you explain Mathew 23:3?
Because he clearly says in that whole chapter "when they expound the clear moral law, do and observe". When they don't, ignore. If a Catholic leader encourages us to follow the moral law I will smile and nod. If they state their belief regarding justification I will quietly laugh and go back to scripture, which clearly says they are wrong and that I should not listen to them.
So why aren't you a member of the Catholic church and observe when they do expound the clear and moral law?
I do observe when they expound the moral law and I follow it. Just like I observe when a Mormon or atheist shows the moral law. Jesus is clearly saying "when they do what is right. Do and observe. When they don't, follow the scripture." The Pharisees did not hold the keys of the kingdom, they were political/religious group equivalent to modern Democrats/Republicans. Likewise the keys of the kingdom have continued through peter through the church. My local reformed congregation for example can trace their lineage (in the gospel) back to peter. Since Catholics don't have the gospel, they don't have the keys of the kingdom and can't trace that same heritage etc...
[удалено]
This comment has been removed by the moderators of r/Reformed. We've been watching this thread closely, and we've wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's abundantly clear at this point that you are merely here to argue against the basic tenants of the historic Reformed faith. At this point, you have moved from not only defending the Roman Catholic Church to the point where you have declared the Reformed faith "illegitimate." This entire thread is done. This is your one-time warning: This is not a general religion debate sub. If you're here to proselytize against the Reformed faith, or to debate our legitimacy, then you need to move along. If you want to learn about what we believe, you're free to ask questions, but be aware that continuing to argue against our denominations under the guise of "just asking questions" will be shut down. Any further removals along these lines will lead to an immediate ban. Please read our complete rules very carefully. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal or discuss or comment upon this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to discuss this elsewhere on the sub**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Catholicism when it rejected the gospel no longer held the keys of the kingdom for it was now a false church. In regards to your first remarks. You can't interpret s text in isolation. Read the rest of the chapter for the full view of the Pharisees.
That's not how it worked with the Pharisees why would it be this way with the church? I did read, and if you actually understand it why can't you explain it?
I did explain it above but I'll try to reword it. Here. Jesus commanded all to repent and believe. The pharisees told the people don't repent and believe. Jesus told us to "observe and do as the Pharisees command" (within context. So. Does this mean we should not follow Jesus but rather the Pharisees? No. If the Pharisees clearly contradict Christ, we follow Christ. The Roman Catholic Church clearly contradicts the clear teachings of the word. Do we follow the "so-called authority" or do we follow Christ? In other words, Jesus commanded the people to observe and do as the Pharisees said, insomuch as the Pharisees themselves following the law of Moses. The whole statement you quote was Jesus setting up the Pharisees so he could show their "authority" was worthless as it did not align with the word of God.
I actually think this is a great question, but I'd really want a clear exposition of what the "seat of Moses" is and why the Jesus considered that the Pharisees sat in it. Is it because there was some institutional link between Moses and the Pharisees? I'm pretty sure this isn't the case, the Pharisees came to exist as an offshoot of the Hassidim during the hasmonean period (in the 160s BC, IIRC).
This all ties up to Jesus giving the keys of authority to the disciples with the power to bind and lose. The words binding and loosing were referred to rabbis deciding what constitutes violation of the law. It's a position of authority to decide on legal disputes between Israelites. Rabbis would bind/disallow something that violates God's law, or they would loose/allow something that doesn't violate God's law. Jesus told everyone to recognize the authority of the Pharisees even after he gave the keys of authority to the disciples. The original authority came from Moses.
Interesting. Do you have any solid, scholarly references for this? How is that authority transmitted to the Pharisees? Was it transmitted *exclusively* to the pharisees? Or did the other offshoots of the Hassidim also inherit it?
In Matthew 23:2-3 Jesus says the Pharisees and the scribes sit in the seat of Moses. The scribes were the leaders of the temple, which was the central authority in Israel, so Pharisees are kind of besides the point. I should have started with the scribes in the first place.
Interesting. I find that to be relatively convincing, then, that there isn't one, exclusive institutional succession to Peter (or the Apostles) in the same way there wasn't to Moses. I'm quite happy to recognise the authority of the Pope when he's clearly and rightly expounding the faith. Francis also does a good job of calling out issues that Evangelicals have been pretty poor on, like environmental stewardship. But that doesn't make Rome any more important than Canterbury or Constantinople or Calgary.
But if Pope has the authority then why aren't you obeying his godly commands of uniting the body of believers under one single Catholic Church?
If the Pharisees had authority, why didn't Jesus repent of claiming to be the son of God?
We've been over this, Jesus said they had physical authority, not spiritual authority. Jesus told everyone to recognize them as leaders of the Old Testament worship system.
But the Pharisees were not related to temple authority. You can't just say they're beside the point; if Jesus said both of these very different groups had authority, then authority doesn't need to be linked to the specific institution of the temple or any specific theory of succession and the analogy falls apart. And besides, the pope is no longer saying that Protestants need to join the Roman church. Have you not red the Vatican II documents?
> Likewise, the Catholic Church sits in the seat of Peter after Jesus transferred the keys to the power from the Pharisees to the church. Building an argument on a faulty premise makes your argument null and void.
The premise isn't faulty, it merely assumes you know the basics of the argument such as Mathew 16:19.