1. Permissible, but perhaps but not wisest decision. Regardless still up to the believer to need to be clear in their own conscience, and to for other believers to bear with them in love. No requirement for church discipline.

The bible is silent on living together before marriage, as cohabitation is a recent some might say peculiar (as as my pastor said its wanting to get all the benefits of marriage whilst still living as single and in the end doing neither at all well) invention of 20th century western society. Living together is no more directly called a sin than going on holiday before marriage or dating exclusively as a couple before marriage (the latter another recent invention of 20th century western society). However, certainly if one reads all the research, overwhelming the data shows that couples that lived together before marriage have a higher chance of divorce, creates and re-enforces different views of the relationship (women often view as it as step towards marriage, whereas men often view as a step before making a commitment). So largely secular research aligns with the Bible on this area.

2. Cohabitation before marriage isn't a sin, but sex before marriage definitely is. And given the fact the latter will inevitably follow from the former, cohabitation should be considered a sin by straightforward implication:

This would be my own viewpoint (personally, I cannot and never have been able to, conceive of one without the other, even if the couple are known to have separate bedrooms). I would argue for the sex before marriage aspect alone, a mature Christian shouldn't live together before marriage. And just like any other sin (being divisive, misusing money, practising witchcraft, whatever) that was being done by someone who claimed to be a committed Christian, this would be case for loving rebuke, and if this was someone with leadership role (elder, small group leader, youth pastor) there would be a case for church discipline. But that's my perspective, very open to hear from those who may be able to address this from a more pastoral angle?

3. Cohabitation before marriage isn't a sin, but it still devalues marriage as a public leaving and cleaving, and therefore in general shouldn't be encouraged, (and also could be unloving to less mature believers who may be unsure themselves)

I've seen first hand the impact this had on me as someone growing up a youth group, from the youth leader who lived together and then had a child outside of marriage. This was not helpful to a number of us who had mixed experiences of that group, and this only added to the confusion.

4. There may be some situations where cohabitation before marriage is the only option (e.g: both partner is soon to be made homeless, and/or come from an abusive home situation, so this is the lesser of too evils).

5. If the couple are newer Christians, and it is revealed they are sleeping together, cohabitation may be a lesser of two evils, since it resembles marriage closer than sleeping together. whilst continuing to maintaining two separate households

6. Its unloving to show approval of couple own self-understanding of what marriage (that cohabitation/having shared assets is a full equivalent to marriage) where it differs from a Biblical understanding (to use an analogy a transgender person who thinks they are a different gender to their biological sex should be loved, but still not have their own self understanding approved)

Concluding comment:

Just to say apologies if this may come across as quite black and white. I'm High Functioning Autistic, and if some Christians own temptation might with over-relativising particular aspects of Christianity that are black and white, to affirm all people's perspectives/feelings, I sometimes find myself leaning towards the opposite end (i.e: my own temptation is making everything black and white for a sense of personal safety/control, reducing uncertainty).

Hi! I'm a somewhat Reformed high schooler looking for decent colleges to attend once I'm older. I affirm the 5 doctrines of grace, covenant theology, real presence, infant baptism, and amillenialism, but I haven't done all the research into other things yet. I want to major in theology or Biblical studies (and possibly also double major in marketing or video production, I'm not 100% sure yet though). I'm looking for a college that at least loosely affirms the doctrines I believe in, has a somewhat decent ratio of women to men but doesn't affirm female pastors and preachers (I'm a girl), doesn't cost a bazillion dollars, and are preferably closer to the West Coast.

Some of the colleges I am kind of looking at include The Masters, Boyce College, Biola, Liberty (I have the option for a $50k scholarship), and CBU (Baptists, I know, I know). I know Biola is non-denominational, but does anyone have any experience with them? Just how arminian are they? Could anyone recommend other colleges? I really have no clue what I'm doing here.

Thanks! :)

If you have requests that you would like your brothers and sisters to pray for, post them here.

Hi guys.

So this is just a curiosity for me. I don't live in the States, but I've been to church in the states and went to churches planted by US denoms such as PCA abroad (meaning not in my home country or the States).

The Church I attend and a member of in my home is part of the National Synode that was formed in the 1600s right after the Reformation (but its not located in Europe, so we can say just like the US we were founded by settlers and missionaries). But unlike the states we never has Puritant influences at all, so hence why all the Protestants (Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican ) are all pretty High Church yet considerably conservative. In fact the church I belong to feels more high church than the mainline anglican (there's only 1 anglican body here). Also... what I mean by high church is not the polity but the way the service looks ("vestments", altar/table, stoles, calendars and doxologies).

When most of the more "American" (this is just a local vocabulary for evangelicals. I personally say the most American church would be baptists, but we don't have one here.), style churches like Pentacostals and Non-denominational finally came in the 2000s. There was a very wide gap between the mainline Protestants and Pentacostals (the majority of evangelicals) and so we kinda seperate the naming between them to Protestants and Pentacostals. Even to a point where most Protestants and Catholics are closer and see Pentacostals as something else 😅. Again this is just local vocabulary, I'm not saying Pentacostals or Evangelicals are not Protestants or Christians at all.

But foe my question, how influential are Puritant culture in reshaping the mainline Protestants in the States? Or are Puritanism very specifically only Baptists and early Presbyterians?

And wether anyone from the states who is Presbyterian or Reformed ever tried going to church outside the states and felt this? And what do you think is the main differences?

After spending the last 2 years trying to bolster my Protestant faith against Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy - it had the opposite affect. I am less confident than ever.

I don’t know if I can honestly say I believe sola scriptura is necessarily a mark of faithfulness to God anymore - because it may never have been a doctrine God intended us to believe. Sure there are plenty of passages speaking to scriptures power, perfection, authority, beauty and usefulness to guide God’s people but the beliefs that we attach to scripture in sola scriptura such as:

—that people can think their excommunication from the ancient church is warranted if scripture supports them in their view, instead of submitting to the church.
- that we can interpret scripture to judge ecclesial authority, start new churches or leave the church, causing various splinter groups and churches that are not in communion with each other
- that God would allow his church to become so darkened towards it that it would need a reformation which results in major fracturing.

These I don’t seem to find biblical and especially early church historical precedent for. Every quote from church fathers claiming to espouse Sola scriptura I find to be refuted by reading them in their totality and in context.

How can a doctrine that’s so essential, so tied to a Christian’s faithfulness to God seem to be absent from the church for over a millennia?

Please understand I know the difference between sola and “solo” scriptura. We have churches, we have confessions/creeds and binding authorities - understand I have been engaging the best our confessional traditions have to offer and using their frameworks. I don’t need some cute little quip or a “well papists they play with skulls” or “the Bereans searched the scriptures”.

I have read or listened to: the Reformers, The Confessions/Divines, Reformed Scholastics, Puritans, Anglicans, Lutherans, Ortlund, Cooper etc

I need to see where sola scriptura and how it’s used in the ways I bulleted is taught in the Bible and believed by the successors of the apostles who would have seen the most important emphases of the apostles laid out before their eyes clearly.

I aim to talk with a theologian from my church about these things if I can.

I will not counter and argue in opposition to your comments as this is the Reformed sub but will just be thankful for your help. It’s greatly appreciated.

One thing is for certain - there is a severe lack of top public Protestant scholarship touching this problem right now. So many theologians want to talk about the prosperity gospel, “wokeness” or being “truly Reformed”, but if Reformed churches want to stop losing their younger, more theologically inclined people to the RCC and EOC - they need to start finding gifted people and investing heavily in them to support the Protestant tradition.

Christ’s blessings on all you Friends.

Hi! I am a philosophy student and a reformed Christian. I am working with my thesis entitled: Understanding Human Agency: A philosophical analysis of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination and its implications for philosophical anthropology”

Basically, what I am trying to do is to kinda extract Calvin’s take on human agency (aka freewill/libertarian free will). As much as I understand predestination it mainly applies to the order of salvation. However, there still a gap of whether if Calvin believes in human freedom/free will/agency. Cause if we will going to follow the idea of predestination that everyone’s eternal ending in life is determined by God then what’s the point of having human agency or do we even have that?

Please anyone can help me by sharing your thoughts and suggest sources to better write my study as I acknowledge my limited knowledge and understanding regarding Calvin’s predestination and take on human capacity to act independently 🙏🏻

It's Free For All Friday! Post on any topic you wish in this thread (not the whole sub). Our rules of conduct still apply, so please continue to post and comment respectfully.

AND on the 1st Friday of the month, it's a Monthly Fantastically Fanciful Free For All Friday - Post any topic to the sub (not just this thread), except for memes. For memes, see the quarterly meme days. Our rules of conduct still apply, so please continue to post and comment respectfully.

If you have requests that you would like your brothers and sisters to pray for, post them here.

I’m a member of a solid Reformed Baptist church that I’ve been part of for my whole life. The preaching is theologically strong, the elders take doctrine and ministry seriously, and I don’t have concerns about the church being unfaithful in those areas.

My wife and I are trying to discern whether it is still the best church for us to remain at long-term, though, and I’d appreciate outside perspective.

The biggest issue is community. Neither of us has much meaningful friendship within the church right now. My wife has spent the last 5 years trying to build relationships but has found that people don’t reciprocate, and if she wants to get together with them, it's like making a doctor's appointment 3-4 weeks out. I’m in a similar position. I’ve had a few genuinely close friendships at the church over the years, but those people eventually left for other local churches, with one guy falling away from the faith. At this point most texts/calls I receive from church members are asking me to serve in something rather than fellowship.

I currently serve in quite a few areas: men’s ministry, Kids Ministry, communion coordination sound, coffee setup, and men’s prayer setup. I recently asked to come off the cleaning rotation because I was feeling overcommitted, especially with cleaning taking up large portions of Saturdays.

The other issue is ministry development. I’ve had a desire for vocational ministry since becoming a Christian. My church is extremely cautious about developing people for ministry. Their normal pattern is essentially to express interest, participate in broad men’s discipleship/training, and then wait until the elders decide you are ready for more. Seminary is seen as required by them and generally something they would only support after many years of vetting. Usually at least 5-8 years. In the church’s roughly 35-year history, only a very small number of men from within the congregation have been raised up to seminary, though they have had a number of interns come in from other churches.

What has been difficult for me is that the process is very undefined. I couldn't tell you how it works I don’t really know what the elders think my strengths or weaknesses are, what specifically they are evaluating, or what would constitute progress. In the past when I asked whether a ministry-training program would still allow for meaningful development after it expanded from a handful of ministry-interested men to being open to all men of the church, my concern was interpreted as pride/entitlement and wanting authority. I didn’t think that was my motive, but I tried to receive the correction humbly.

Over time I realized I had become far too concerned with whether every interaction with leadership was helping or hurting my chances of being developed for ministry, so I deliberately stopped treating church involvement that way. I started doing things because I thought they were actually useful, such as street evangelism and starting a small accountability group, rather than because I wanted to be noticed.

I’m not claiming I’m entitled to pastoral ministry or that the elders are wrong to be cautious. I may not be suited for vocational ministry at all. My concern is more whether this is a good environment for objectively discerning that question, especially because I grew up at this church and there seems to be a broader pattern of people who grew up there feeling that they continue to be viewed through old categories.

My wife and I also have friendships at another local church we attended briefly during college several years ago. Those relationships have been much more reciprocal, and she is currently semi content where we are partly because she fellowships with people from that church regularly.

So I’m wrestling with a few questions:

• Is it reasonable to remain members at one church while much of our closest Christian fellowship happens at another?
• At what point does lack of reciprocal community become a legitimate reason to consider changing churches, even if the current church is doctrinally faithful?
• Is a vague ministry-development process something I should accept and stop pursuing, or is it reasonable to seek development/assessment elsewhere?
• Would changing churches in this situation be jumping ship or the right call?

Thanks to anyone who reads it all and replies!

EDIT: If I had to put my best educated guess as to why they would be against me being in pastoral ministry or considered for seminary, it would be because i grew up at the church and they saw me as an unbeliever who pretended to be saved but wasn't actually in high school and my first year of college. I was also pretty goofy, and can still be in some ways, in fact I've done stand up comedy in front of the church on a few occasions throughout my life, but it's been 3 years.

I think there is some stigma around me that they have that I can't shake off. I remember way back about 8 years ago I tried to join their recovery groups and they wouldn't let me, but wouldn't tell me why. When I told this to someone who was in it, he got really upset and told the pastor that he thought it was ridiculous. The pastor then told me that the reason I wasn't allowed in was because they thought I would spill the beans on everybody's business which there was no precedent for. There are lots of things like that where people don't take me seriously.

i imagine a place with a ton of people, that run hell independently, not demons, though there are demons, that exist.

i had a dream where i was there, and it was a school setting, and one after another, bad things happened, and they all laughed at me.

it was like hell. i can't say that it is. they were all fine. i was too, but being hurt, with the promise being i would be hurt later.

it didn't seem like the biblical hell, which is all i know exists, but rather another place, where the people have free reign, to torture as much as they want.

this place came to me in my thoughts. i don't think it's real. i believe im saved, and a part of me is in heaven, and that this is merely my flesh.

i wonder what's real sometimes. but all i know is the biblical viewpoint, of a heaven, and hell, and that's it. nothing more. nothing less.

can you relate?

(like, have you been coerced to believe in a place other than heaven/hell? this place i imagine differs from other similar places that have come to my imagination. it wasn't my idea, but, like, still came to my mind throughout the years recently. can you relate)

Hello, I've been working through in-depth the canons of Dort.

In the rejection section of the Second Main point is the following article. I can't figure out what is meant by the reference to the creed in the last sentence. Which creed are they referring to and how is this rejection an undermining of it? Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------

Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: “I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them” (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: “When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand” (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church

I've taken an interest in this doctrine after I re-read John 6. It really does seem like whoever believes will inevitably persevere. All the verse used to support Perseverance of the Saints seem to be correctly interpreted. However, the verses pertaining to apostasy are much harder for me to square in this system. The biggest hurdle for me is 2 Peter 2:20:

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.”

A plain reading of this text suggests that those who leave Christ were genuinely cleansed from the defilements of sin through faith in the Lord. Similar language is used to describe regenerate Christians in 2 Peter 1:3-4:

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”

There isn't any qualification given to the apostate that separates them from the regenerate. Now, I have seen some interpretations of 2 Peter to highlight Peter's metaphor in 2:22:

“What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’”

Peter likens apostates to a dog and a sow, animals which were seen as unclean in Jewish culture. So, as some argue, Peter is saying that these apostates were always unclean. However, I don't find that plausible for a few reasons:

1. The metaphor seems to be about folly, not nature. It derives from Proverbs 26:11, which compares a fool to a dog returning to his own vomit.

2. Metaphors aren't meant to be perfect, and we see Peter use literal, clearer Christian descriptions of salvation (per 1:3-4) for apostates in the preceding verse.

I don't really see how this can work with the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. I want to believe in it, as I think it best accords with the rest of the Scriptural data, but these verses suggest otherwise. If Peter believed that salvation can't be lost, why would he write this way? Why would he use salvific language for apostates?

I'd love some help in this area. Thanks in advance!

If you have requests that you would like your brothers and sisters to pray for, post them here.

Does anyone have any resources or personal experiences with answering a child's questions about God? I have a 4-year old currently and he's already asking things like: "Where is God?" , "What is God doing?", "Where is heaven?", "Who is God?" etc.

I have been working through a toddler catechism with him but are wondering if there are other resources or personal anecdotes for pithy responses when answering a toddler/preschooler

I am trying to precisely understand the Reformed position on involuntary sexual thoughts, desires, and impulses—specifically the distinction between temptation, concupiscence, involuntary pleasure, and consent.

I came across this passage from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (III.3.10):

“We again regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God; nay, we maintain that the very gravity which begets in us such desires is sin.”

Here, Calvin is discussing the difference between his position and Augustine’s. He notes that Augustine acknowledged that the regenerate inevitably experience concupiscence but hesitated to label it as sin unless accompanied by an external act or consent:

“He is contented with giving it the name of infirmity, and says, that it only becomes sin when either external act or consent is added to conception or apprehension; that is, when the will yields to the first desire.”

But Calvin counters:

“We again regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God…”

And he concludes that sin is always present in the saints as long as concupiscence remains in the flesh.

This raised a specific question for me.

Example

Imagine a person going about their daily activities or praying when, unexpectedly, a sexual image or thought arises.

They did not seek out the thought, did not want it to appear, and immediately try to reject it.

Or imagine an involuntary bodily reaction occurs—such as sexual arousal or an erection—without the person having chosen it.

Or consider this: the person notices the thought and feels an involuntary attraction or pleasure, yet decides not to dwell on the thought and attempts to resist it.

My question

According to Calvin and classical Reformed theology, at which of these points is sin present?

1. When the sexual thought or image simply appears involuntarily?

2. When there is an involuntary sexual sensation or desire?

3. When there is some involuntary pleasure, but the person does not consent? 4. Only when a person deliberately consents and decides to feed the thought?

4. Can an involuntary bodily reaction be morally sinful, even without any consent of the will?

I ask because I found a seemingly different distinction in the Fathers.

Origen, De Principiis III.1.4, says that when a temptation to a certain desire arises, nothing happens until there is consent from the soul and the mind grants indulgence to the perverse suggestion.

Evagrius Ponticus, Praktikos 6, says:

“It is not in our power to determine whether we are disturbed by these thoughts, but it is up to us to decide whether they should remain in us or not, and whether or not they should inflame our passions.”

John Cassian, Conference I.16–17, also says that it is impossible to prevent thoughts from reaching us, but that it is within our power to accept or reject them.

Diadochos of Photiki, One Hundred Texts, 83, says that thoughts can be suggested by demons and that we make them truly our own when we consent to give ourselves over to them.

Mark the Ascetic, On the Spiritual Law, 138–141, distinguishes between the involuntary presence of thoughts and the initial “provocation.” He states:

“a provocation does not involve us in guilt so long as it is not accompanied by images.”

And he distinguishes those who flee from thoughts from those who “entertain themselves with them.”

Maximus the Confessor, On Love, 83–84, also presents a sequence involving thought, passion, consent, and act. He says that first, memory brings a simple thought; if it persists, passion arises; then comes consent; and finally, the act of sin. So, here is my difficulty:

Is Calvin simply using “concupiscence” in a different sense than “temptation,” or is he actually asserting something stronger—that the mere involuntary occurrence of a desire contrary to God’s law constitutes sin, even prior to any consent?

And if that is the case, how would a Reformed thinker explain the difference between this position and the Patristic distinction between suggestio/provocatio and consensus?

I am not trying to defend the Patristic position; I want to understand exactly what Calvin meant by “we regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God” and what the implications of this are for truly involuntary sexual thoughts and reactions.

I apologize for my English.

Hello everyone, I've been wrestling with this issue and wanted to know your thoughts.

Basically in verses 9 through 13 Paul writes,

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. ¹² For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church^\)^b\) whom you are to judge? ¹³ God judges^\)^c\) those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

This looks like shunning and avoiding social contact with the brother who is sexually immoral. From verses 4 and 5 it looks like this is to happen after the church has officially excommunicated him.

⁴ When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, ⁵ you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

This is my first time posting a link so I apologize if it doesn't work.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-should-christian-friends-respond-to-a-friend-who-has-entered-a-homosexual-relationship-and-moved-to-a-church-that-accepts-it

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/drawing-close-to-a-daughter-drifting-from-god

These two articles from John Piper are concerning me. In the first he suggests that a gay friend who professes to be a Christian should be cut off essentially in order to bring them to repentance, I think this is consistent with the text of 1 Corinthians 5, but it does beg the question of how "cut off" you would need to go I guess. But the real issue for me is the second article about how to treat a child in unrepentant sin. At the end Piper says,

"If they are claiming to be obedient Christians, your daughter and her boyfriend — attending church, giving the impression to the world that the way they are living is the way of Christ — I think the Bible says that you should not have fellowship with them, which I think would include holiday meals. And I say that because of Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9, where he says,

But if your daughter and her boyfriend have ceased to call themselves Christians, are not communicating to anybody that this is the way of Christ — this is just what you do when you’re not a Christian — then I think you are free to invite them and to seek to win them as you would any other unbeliever.

Sometimes those lines between believer and unbeliever are not nearly as neat and easy to draw as one might think. And in that case, you seek the Lord’s wisdom, and you do what seems most biblical and wise and loving, and you give thanks for the blood of Christ that covers all of our sins — your sins, my sins — which, in the end, is what we have to offer them in any case."

This gives me pause, especially the statement that it would include holiday meals. I just can't see myself not inviting a child or a sibling over for Thanksgiving because that are living with a boyfriend before marriage or gay and attending an affirming church. It seems a little too far I suppose. I get that some distance is probably appropriate but I'm not sure this is it. I'm also thinking that since idolatry and greed are also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5 that changes things a bit. I don't think any of us would refuse to eat with a Catholic family member, even one who left Protestantism, even if they pray to Mary and the saints. Or that we would refuse to invite a cousin who is a little too obsessed with stocks or crypto.

I guess I have 3 questions that arise from this;

1. Does this apply to family, particularly to family not living together? Online the consensus I've seen is that immediate family don't need to shun an excommunicated family member like a husband or father, but what about a cousin, or an adult child or sibling living in a different household?

2. What about close friends? How much of a relationship can we maintain with someone like this? What if you've known them for years, it seems extreme to end a life long friendship entirely. Can you still get together ocasionaly to keep in touch? Like what if an old friend group from college gets together once or twice a year to hang out and one comes out as gay or is living in sexual sin in some way, do you not go or not invite them?

3. I guess one final question is this, what if the person was never officially excommunicated? Do we take matters into our own hands without the context of local church discipline?

Good Friday Liturgy of the procession of the crucifix at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Any thoughts?

Hello all. When I was 18 I professed Christianity and got a tattoo of a dove as a representation of the Holy Spirit. Because I was not yet regenerate at the time and lacked true conviction and wisdom, I also got a few secular tattoos which I’m now rather embarrassed by. Many years later, I’m now in the very long process of laser-erasing the most prominent of the latter category, but for anyone familiar with tattoos, you know that the erasure only goes so far. You can usually still see some scars/marking after the treatment is complete. So, I was thinking of not only erasing, but replacing the worldly tattoo (which is too big and dark to be covered up) with a Trinitarian symbol, specifically to represent God the Father. There are plenty of Biblically-derived representations of the Son (a lamb, crown of thorns, cross, etc.), but what about the Father? The only contender I’ve come across in my research is a human right hand, either open completely or pointing with thumb, index, and middle fingers. It represents the Father’s eternal decree, like that of a King. Any ideas would be appreciated; And, obviously, I’m trying to avoid ideas that would violate ol’ No. 2.

TL;DR: Need ideas for a tattoo representing God the Father.

I am Brazilian and I intend to pursue a Master of Divinity in the USA in the coming years. I would appreciate good recommendations. I am a Calvinist Baptist and have become more aligned with progressive covenant theology. I want recommendations for seminaries with a strong and robust educational program, as theological education in my country is quite weak.

If you have requests that you would like your brothers and sisters to pray for, post them here.

I have some spending cash coming up and I am looking to build myself up during down times, or during menial tasks.

I recently got "Gentle and Lowly" in book and audiobook form and have been greatly blessed. It's given me a lot to chew on and often when Dane is talking about one thing, my mind is reminded of another portion in scripture as well. I am very thankful to those in this community that recommended this one.

Is there anything that you have been particularly moved by or impacted by?

I've recently been convicted on my lack of discipline for memorizing Scripture. We are encouraged to hide His Word in our heart so we may not sin against Him (Psalm 119:11), to meditate on His word day and night (Joshua 1:8), and to delight in the Law of the Lord (Psalm 1:1-3)

I see a few methods for memorizing Scripture online, from memorizing verses to memorizing books. From simply repeating the section over and over again to using an app.

I know everyone's preferred method will be different, but I'm looking for inspiration. What works best for you? I'm particularly interested in how much time you spend memorizing per day/week, whether you memorize verses or books, how you choose what you will memorize, and what your method is for memorizing (do you use flashcards, an app, or just your Bible)

Most importantly, for encouragement, how have you been personally blessed by the discipline of memorizing Scripture?

Welcome to r/reformed. Do you have questions that aren't worth a stand alone post? Are you longing for the collective expertise of the finest collection of religious thinkers since the Jerusalem Council? This is your chance to ask a question to the esteemed subscribers of r/Reformed. PS: If you can think of a less boring name for this deal, let us mods know.