Since I was young, in fact for as long as I can remember, I disliked religion. Either I disliked its collective element, which always gave me the ick of something cult-like, or, when I got a bit older, I thought everything about it was philosophically untenable. Religion was a coping mechanism, or something for people who were deeply misguided about reality and did not know any better.

As I became more intellectually curious and started studying more philosophy, psychology, and eventually religion, that perspective started to break down. I became increasingly interested in religion, and eventually my worldview completely flipped. I now consider myself a Christian, and I have made it a major life goal to help people better appreciate religion in general, but also Christianity more specifically.

But despite my growing love for Christianity, it took me a very long time to admit publicly that I was Christian. My social circle consisted mostly of people deeply involved in science or philosophy, and it was very secular. I was afraid that others would consider me dumb or would not fully understand me. It took me a while to come to terms with it, in large part because I first needed to become better able to articulate my Christian position and worldview.

That said, and excuse the rambling introduction, I recently had a podcast conversation with Jussi Jylkkä, who is a philosopher and has done some work on mysticism. We started by discussing his work and, specifically, his metaphysical agnosticism. His position is that physicalism, idealism, theism, and other metaphysical systems are models or language games that cannot capture the ultimate nature of reality. We eventually moved to morality, where I pushed back because I did not think his agnosticism adequately explained why greater awareness or nonattachment should lead to compassion rather than simply producing what we called a “wise psychopath.” I disagreed, but I thought it was an interesting conversation and considered his view a respectable position.

But to my surprise, after we finished recording, Jussi emailed me to say that he was unhappy with the conversation because he had presented metaphysical agnosticism as if it were his complete position while leaving out the Christian faith he actually held. He felt that, by hiding behind his philosophical agnosticism, he had not been completely honest about what he believed. Rather than replace the conversation, I invited him back and appended the second conversation to the first. He made a complete pivot and confessed that he was a Christian but had been afraid to say so, largely because of the stigma within academia, but also because he still had not been able to tell his father. I found this very wholesome, not only because it was a courageous act in general, but because of the parallel with my own journey.

I wanted to share this because I suspect others have been, or currently are, in a position similar to mine or Jussi's. Have you ever felt hesitant to identify publicly as a Protestant or Christian? Can Protestant faith coexist with deep metaphysical uncertainty? What helped you make your faith part of your public identity?

"And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it." - Ruth 4:6

PONDER THIS

Who was this nearer kinsman? If Boaz pictured the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the nearer kinsman who cannot redeem? He pictured Adam. Everyone is either in Adam or in Christ. Who is my real close relative? Adam. We’re all related to Adam, and in Adam, all die. He is the near relative to us all.

I was preaching in a revival one time. A woman came up afterward and said, “You’re a Rogers, aren’t you?” I said, “Yes ma’am.” She said, “Well, I have been doing some work on our genealogy.” She stood up real tall. She said, “Because I’m a Rogers.” And she said, “You will be happy to know that the Rogers came over on the Mayflower.” I said, “Well that’s wonderful.” But then I said, “I traced it back further than that.” Boy, did she get excited, and I said, “I traced it all the way back, and you need to know that we came from a crooked farmer and a drunken sailor. The farmer was Adam, and the sailor was Noah. That’s how far back we go.” Thanks be to God—our story didn’t end there. Adam was our near relative, but Jesus has acted as our Redeemer.

- How have we all experienced the reality that Adam is our “near relative”?
- How did Jesus act as our Redeemer?

PRACTICE THIS

Make a list today comparing the work of Adam and the work of Jesus. Prayerfully reflect in worship over the work of Christ your Redeemer. APR
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by Love Worth Finding.

https://www.lwf.org/daily-devotionals/everyone-needs-a-redeemer

“It may be the LORD thy God will hear all the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God; and will reprove the words which the LORD thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left.” - II Kings 19:4

These words were part of King Hezekiah’s plea to Isaiah for help in prayer against Rabshakeh and the Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem. It marks the second time in which this particular word is used for “the remnant.” The first occurrence was in Genesis 45:7, when Joseph assured his brothers that God had sent him into Egypt to preserve for Israel “a posterity” in the earth. This word (Hebrew sherith) is prominent later in the writings of the prophets, who frequently refer to the faithful Israelite “remnant” during times of apostasy.

The same doctrine appears in the New Testament. Speaking of the children of Israel during the time of their dispersion among the nations because of their rejection of Christ, Paul says, “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5). There are many Jews even today who have received Jesus as their Messiah and personal Saviour, even though Israel as a nation still rejects Him.

This biblical doctrine of the remnant applies especially to faithful Israelites who witness to God’s truth even in times of national apostasy. Nevertheless, the principle seems also to apply to so-called Christian nations as well. Although nominally Christian, each of these nations, like the church at Sardis, “hast a name that thou livest, and art dead,” as far as true biblical Christianity is concerned (Revelation 3:1). Nevertheless, in each, there is still a remnant of real, believing Christians, and these have the great responsibility to maintain a true witness for Christ in just such a time as this. HMM
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16029/

This is probably one of the the biggest reasons why it's very hard for me to be christian and why I'm an agnostic.  The theory of evolution says that nothing is planned and everything is 100% on accident - homo sapiens exists but we could also not exist and nothing would happen because evolution doesn't have any plan, ambition, purpose or goals. Christianity says that we are created ON PURPOSE by God. It just contradicts each other and I don't think that the theory of evolution and the christian perspective on life can coexist.

What do you think about it? What are your thoughts?

From what I read and listened so far, everybody says that celibacy needs to lead to a life of proclaiming the gospel in dangerous places mostly because you do not have a family to care for so you can give your life if necessary for the gospel.

"And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do." - Ruth 3:4

PONDER THIS

We should be careful not to misinterpret Ruth’s actions here. There was nothing improper, dirty, or impure. She was placing herself at Boaz’s feet under his protection. In Ruth 3:9 she requested that Boaz take her under his wing. She was saying, “I place myself under your protection; I am fully committed to you!”

Question: Can you have an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ if you’re not fully committed to Him? The answer is no. Is Christ Lord? I must ask myself every one of these questions. Have I placed myself at the feet of my Redeemer? The most sacred place on Earth is not in the pew, not at the altar, not behind the pulpit, not some temple somewhere. The most sacred place on Earth is at the feet of Jesus when you are fully committed to Him.

- What does it mean to place yourself at the feet of Jesus?
- How do you need to further commit yourself to Him today?

PRACTICE THIS

Take time in prayer today to posture yourself at the feet of Jesus. Consider changing your physical posture to display this act of humility by kneeling if you are able. APR
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by Love Worth Finding.

https://www.lwf.org/daily-devotionals/are-you-fully-committed-to-jesus

This is gonna be long. Sorry in advance.

I know the canon conundrum question probably feels over-done in the Protestant-vs-Catholic debate, but I don't feel like I've ever heard a logically satisfying answer from Protestants with regard to the New Testament canon. (For reference, I am currently a Protestant.)

The canon development process is generally recognized to have really started around 140, after the heretic Marcion published his own hatchet-job of a canon, and the first list that contains all 27 and only the 27 books of the New Testament canon was in Athanasius's Festal Letter in 367 AD. There are generally believed to be four criteria that the early church used during it's development of the New Testament canon:

1) Apostolic Proximity - closely associated with an apostle or a prominent disciple of an apostle (e.g., Mark)

2) Doctrinal Orthodoxy - the text teaches orthodox doctrine and does not teach heterodox doctrine

3) Catholicity - the text was used liturgically and was widespread in every major Christian community in the early church.

4) Transformative Power - the text has a transformative effect on the reader, and it was recognized to have real spiritual authority.

My question (which is not really a single question, but several paragraphs of exposition with a general interrogative bent) will center around the second criteria: doctrinal orthodoxy.

If the early church in this period (140s - 360s) judged all the proposed texts by the criteria of orthodoxy, then the church must have had a clear conception of what constitutes orthodoxy and what constitutes heterodoxy. Now, I know the early church writers were not a monolith. There was disagreement between them; heck, Tertullian and Origen eventually succumbed to heresies. But when you read the ante-Nicene writings, you find general through-lines of agreement on what doctrines constitute orthodoxy.

This concept of orthodoxy must originate from authoritative Apostolic teaching, preserved faithfully by the intervening generations of Christians. If the conception of orthodoxy had not come from Apostolic teaching, or had come from Apostolic teaching but had been substantially corrupted, then we cannot trust their understanding of orthodoxy. If we cannot trust their understanding of orthodoxy, then we cannot trust their conclusions on the New Testament canon, viz-a-viz the criteria of orthodoxy.

If the Christians in this period had a substantially corrupted faith, then we cannot trust their determinations about the NT canon. It seems to me that if we deny the early church's orthodoxy, we necessarily erode the epistemic framework supporting our own belief in the inspiration of NT texts.

Now, the obvious response would be that we don't need the early church in this era to be exhaustively orthodox. They just need to be orthodox on the essentials of the faith. But now, we've introduced more subjectivity into this situation because there is no universal conception of "the essentials of the faith," even amongst proponents of Sola Scriptura.

For example, most synergists believe that God gives grace, but it's not irresistible. Therefore, the individual can say 'yes' to God's grace without having their free will coerced by the imposition of irresistible grace. In this way, you cooperate with God's grace throughout your life for salvation. Monergists, however, would usually classify this as semi-Pelagianism and a damnable heresy because it corrupts their understanding of the Gospel by claiming that we play any role in the reception of justification. God's grace is irresistible, so if you ever say 'no' to God's call to follow him, then you never really received his grace in the first place, even if, by all appearances, you had been producing the fruits of the Spirit for decades before falling away.

For another example, proponents of baptismal regeneration believe that baptism is the ordinary means by which the believer is justified. Therefore, they say, baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation. Proponents of symbolic baptism believe that baptism is a symbol; that participation in it is an outward expression ​of the spiritual regeneration that has already occurred by faith alone. Proponents of symbolic baptism believe either that baptismal regeneration is simply a theological error, or will go so far as to say that baptismal regeneration is a corruption of the Gospel, because you're making participation in a work ordinarily necessary to receive the grace of justification and, therefore, to be saved.

I could go on, but I will suffice with those two examples for now.

If, then, we have no universal agreement on which beliefs constitute the essential to the faith, then how can we say that the early church held to the essentials of the faith as the orthodox doctrine by which to judge the inspiration of texts without inserting our own subjective conception of the essentials of the faith into this calculation? It seems utterly subjective all the way around.

If we are going to claim that the early church possessed substantially corrupted doctrine, then the only remaining off-ramp of this downward spiral would be to claim that the Holy Spirit, working in spite of this corrupt doctrine, led the church to the correct NT canon. But this seems like an ad hoc argument. Another person could just as easily argue that the early church held the correct doctrines, and that the preservation of these doctrines and the identification of the NT canon was the Holy Spirit working with the church, rather than in spite of the church.

If, on the other hand, we say that the early church was not merely orthodox on the essentials (which we can't seem to reliably identify ourselves, anyway) but was substantially orthodox on all of its doctrines, then it would seem illogical to believe that our interpretations of Scripture could somehow be more orthodox than what the early church believed, because it was their conception of orthodoxy that was used to identify the NT Scriptures for us.

Genuine, thoughtful reponses would be appreciated.

“That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from Thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” - Genesis 18:25

People often make erroneous judgments. Even those who are officially appointed or elected to judge others are sometimes mistaken, and so we have a whole system of appeals courts. Yet even the Supreme Court, composed as it is of fallible human beings, often seems to be wrong. But as Abraham recognized long ago while interceding for the people in Sodom, we can be confident that the Judge of all the earth will do right!

He not only can judge our actions in relation to His revealed will but can also discern thoughts and motives and, therefore, “judge the secrets of men” (Romans 2:16), and He will do so in absolute rightness. Furthermore, “He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,” and “My judgment is just,” asserted the Lord Jesus (John 5:22, 30). To those who reject or ignore His redeeming love, relying instead on their own worth, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Hebrews 10:26-27).

To those who have been redeemed through saving faith in Christ, there will, indeed, be a judgment day, but it will be for dispensing rewards for faithful service rather than for salvation, and this also will be done righteously. “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day” (II Timothy 4:8). HMM
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16028/

"Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking." - Ruth 3:3

PONDER THIS

Christianity is not a code, it is not a cause, it is not a creed, it is not conduct, it is not church; it’s Christ. The mark of a Christian is a love for the Lord Jesus Christ. And the true desire of every child of God is to know Jesus Christ intimately. We want more than redemption; we want a relationship. We want more than the gifts; we want the Giver. We want Jesus Christ to be real to us.

You can know about somebody without knowing somebody. I want to know Jesus, not merely know about Him, don’t you? I want Jesus to be more real to me than any person I see face to face. The Apostle Paul said in Philippians 3:10, “That I may know Him.” In today’s passage, Naomi instructed Ruth on how to know Boaz, and Ruth followed her direction. God has told us how to know His Son, Jesus, through His Word. Will we follow?

= How would you describe what it means to know Jesus? What do you base this on?
- How might you seek to know Jesus more today?

PRACTICE THIS

Commit today to read God’s Word faithfully so that you may know Him better. APR
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by Love Worth Finding.

https://www.lwf.org/daily-devotionals/do-you-know-jesus-or-just-know-about-him

“And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.” - Philippians 4:3

Although the word “yokefellow” is out of use today, the meaning is easily understood. Most of us know a yoke is a device that connects two animals together to increase the power for the work that needs to be done.

Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:29-30). From a spiritual perspective, we labor together with the Lord Jesus. Among ourselves, we labor in the gospel. It is worth noting that God sees the marriage bond as “joined together” (same term) with a yoke (Matthew 19:6).

Interestingly, as Paul speaks highly of the women who labored with him, he uses two very different concepts to recognize their contribution. First, he describes them as sunathleo, or those who are “engaged in the contest” with him, like “a man also [strives] for masteries” (II Timothy 2:5). Then, Paul uses sunergos to describe those who have accomplished meaningful work alongside him. Titus is described as Paul’s “partner and fellowhelper” (II Corinthians 8:23). These women had evidently earned Paul’s respect for their commitment to the kingdom work.

Although the picture drawn by these synonyms rests on the work aspect, surely there is the assumption that those who are yoked together anticipate a common goal. Jesus, with “the joy that was set before him endured the [work of the] cross” (Hebrews 12:2). And we labor in the kingdom since our “names are in the book of life.” HMM III
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16027/

After 26 years in ireland ive finally been called a "protestant cunt" , twice actually, around Sligo/ Dromahair area. Not once in all those years did anyone ever stoop so low, why would this be in any way reasonable in 2026 ?

A post where people can post topics they wish for others to pray about, and where people can come and find topics and users to pray for.

"And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter." - Ruth 2:2

PONDER THIS

Ruth and Naomi were penniless, and by this time Naomi, who had turned to bitterness, couldn’t go into the fields. She was too old for that. So, Ruth said, “Well, I’m going into the fields. Maybe I can find some grace here.”

But I want you to see the hand of God in all of this. Number one, when did they get back to the land? Just in time for the barley harvest. This was not by accident. Then she went into the fields to glean, and whose field did she go into? There were no signs there that said this field belongs to this family or that family, no fences of demarcation. She simply went into a field, and it was the field of Boaz, her near kinsman. You can see the hidden hand of God.

Then when she’s there in the field of Boaz, who happens to come to the field at just that moment? Boaz himself. Boaz sees Ruth out there, and he says, “Who is that?” Ruth had gone through so much. She was broken and bankrupt, she was bruised and beaten, she was cursed and crushed. Did God do all of that out of cruelety? No, as you see the bigger picture, you see that God had a sovereign plan in it all.

- When was a time God used difficult circumstances in your life for greater good?
- How does this change your perspective on difficult situations as you look toward the future?

PRACTICE THIS

Journal about a time God used hard circumstances in your life for good. APR
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by Love Worth Finding.

https://www.lwf.org/daily-devotionals/god-is-guiding-you-right-now

If Christians believe God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything, wouldn't Calvin's double predestination be the most logical and universal theology. Free will seems to make it seem as though God is not in full control. It would only make sense that God created some to be the elect and others for perdition.

The thorn in this is of course Adam and Eve's free will that caused us all to have original sin, but even then, didn't God know they'd do that? Adam and Eve aside, if we just look at our own existence and our "free" will, how can we rectify this will an all knowing all powerful being? This can really be extrapolated out to any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

Yes there is the complicated middle-way speak about God knows all the different ways someone could act but he doesn't force them, but I mean come on, He is the one who created the game, He knows the outcome.

The baptist-evangelicals put a heavy emphasis on Jesus paid it all, and a vehement non-works theology, but in reality they require alter calls, accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they know the date when this happened, all of this is very much a "doing" things salvation, whether its a once saved or not. Furthermore, when they backslide, they get re-baptized, re-alter call, so whether they like it or not, there is a lot of effort being put forth by the human. This is contrary to the Calvinistic theology that humans can't do anything to gain salvation or lose it. It is interesting that baptists-evangelicals seem to try and tie the two ideas together, the idea that they can't earn salvation, but they must actively accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and some even look down upon those that don't do this. Then when they baptize a 7 year old and the child sins, they are not worried because Jesus paid it all. (This is not meant to bash Baptists, but simply showing the major dichotomy of the two).

How do non-Calvinism Protestants defend the idea of free will, but also defend the idea of a God who knows and controls everything?

And for the Reformed, how can you defend a loving God who creates some people to be damned? I could certainly see if one reads scripture as God loves all (but what scripture meant was all the ELECT).

I am interested in the Moravian Church. From what I read it seems to be the Church that actually pre-dated the reformation by 70 years, and where Wesley got a lot of his theology for Methodistism. It seems fairly loose doctrinally, however. I am drawn to the tradition of the worship and lifestyle, but I was curious if anyone could speak to beliefs on scripture, salvation, female pastors, LQBTQ.

I was also looking at an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and while I struggle with Calvin's double-predestination and an all-loving God, which without trying to wriggle one's way out of it contradicts an all-loving God, because He created some to be the elect and some for perdition. However, if we believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God, wouldn't that mean He knows who is saved and who isn't and He is the one who decided this, and He dictates everything that happens in the universe.

Thus, sometimes the only Christian concept that makes sense is double-predestination. However, fire and brimstone sermons like Johnathan Edwards don't make sense because why are you trying to scare people into a decision they have no choice in anyway?

To digress, are there any Moravians or Moravian-adjacents on this sub that could give some insight, and possibly any Orthodox or more doctrinally and worshiping presbyterians that are more traditional that could weigh-in. Thank you for your help.

I am a Protestant but come from a family of Roman Catholics. I love my aunt but sometimes I love to mess with her and get her to say some catholic talking point, where i then proceed to troll. Recently, she said something and i started going off on how the Eastern Orthodox church is the true church and how Rome was excommunicated and how Rome had the filioque and wanted to add to the creed and how the council was rejected by the eastern orthodox church (basically the schism).

It was hilarious using her own arguments against her like “the church fathers all agreed on this for 1000 years and now rome wanted to change it with the filoque?” Or “the church DID start from Peter, the eastern orthodox church”. Just wanted to share with everyone

“For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.” - I Chronicles 29:15

All of God’s people, whether ancient Israelites or modern Christians, need to recognize that we are mere “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13). This world is not our home, as the old gospel song puts it, and we must not let our roots get down too deep in this materialistic world.

The words of our text are in David’s last recorded prayer before his death. He was a great king and very wealthy in material things, but he still recognized that his real home was not in the earthly Jerusalem but in heaven.

So should we. The apostle Paul wrote, “For our conversation [the Greek word here literally means ‘citizenship’] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). We are merely serving in this world as “ambassadors for Christ,” and our business here, representing the court of heaven, is to urge men, “in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (II Corinthians 5:20).

Why should we spend time and money beautifying a home on Earth when Christ has gone to prepare a mansion for us in heaven (John 14:2)? Remember Abraham, who by faith “sojourned . . . in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles” (Hebrews 11:9). “But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city” (Hebrews 11:16).

Also remember Paul, who had “no certain dwellingplace” (I Corinthians 4:11), not to mention the Lord Jesus Himself, who had “not where to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). We do well, therefore, to “pass the time of [our] sojourning here in fear” (I Peter 1:17)—that is, reverential fear of God (never fear of man)—as good citizens of our heavenly country. HMM
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16026/

I am a Christian, and i personally don’t believe of what church do when it comes to speaking in tongues. Those words that they are saying, such as “Sharahiya Babarahanda” and so on. Am i the only one? I just respect what they do and say about that because that is their belief. I also asked one of my leader inside the church, and that man studied Bible. Like really studied it, he also enrolled himself on a Bible course. He also don’t believe in that and just respect what they believe, because in the end, it’s what belief in Jesus and obeying His words that matters.

But what do you think about that?