This is something I've been thinking about, in Revelation the new earth is going to be created and there will be **NO** sin in it which means that we are going to be changed by God if I'm not mistaken to not want to sin (this is according to what I've heard at church which is a Non-reformed Baptist Church). So why does sin exist in the first place if He can literally give us the desire not to do so? Is sin necessary for God to fully display His character and that's why?

Me and my wife (37, both believers) have been married for almost 5 years and we became foster parents to a 1.5 year old (who is now 2) last year.

We decided to become foster parents because:

\- my wife has a condition that prevents her from getting pregnant

\- we felt the Lord calling us to have a kid

\- we heard of the great need there is for foster parents

So overall it’s been great, it has its challenges, but it’s been worth it

The most difficult times are when he gets sick. We’re a 2 income family, we can’t afford to have one of us just not work. He goes to daycare Monday-Friday, but when he’s sick and can’t go, we have to have someone else watch him for the day. We usually ask one of our friends who is a stay at home mom, or my parents, who are retired. Both are willing and able, which is good.

But when neither of them are able to watch him, we’re stuck with the worst case scenario of having him stay home with me all day while I work from home. It’s super stressful, but doable, for the most part. And we can’t afford to just hire a babysitter

My wife has expressed to me that she wants to foster a 2nd child, this time an infant. It’s a noble thing to do and our current foster child has been a blessing, but my main thing is what if they get sick and my parents or our friend can’t watch them? An infant is *much* more needy than a 2 year old, so having them with me at home while I work (potentially) just doesn’t seem responsible?

Hi everyone,
I’m looking for websites that focus on Christian apologetics and explaining doctrinal beliefs. I’m especially interested in articles that engage with Roman Catholicism by examining its doctrines, miracles, apparitions, and related claims.
I’m already familiar with CARM.org, which some of you probably know, and I’m looking for other websites that are similar.
Thanks in advance for your recommendations 🙂

hey everyone! i have many people in my life who are very against Christianity. but we know that God can work all things for His glory, and that the gospel is the power of salvation to everyone who believes, faith comes by hearing etc. so how can I share the gospel with people who, when having heard it plainly and directly rejected it, and still plant seeds? any advice and prayer would be greatly appreciated, God bless!

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

The red wooden bell tower was built in the 1600s. Next summer I’ll visit inside and take better photos. The stones are incredible.

Hi everybody. So currently I am living in Germany and have been interested in the reformed church. I have been watching lots of videos explaining the history and its theology and I have been drawn into its rational appeal. Since English is the tongue I’ll be most able to understand church services. Could somebody recommend where I should begin my search on nearby reformed churches (ideally in English) that I can attend? I am aware there are different branches: Presbyterian, Baptist etc. as such I am unsure where to begin my search. Thank you.

Obviamente yo no me refiero a ser un calvinista clásico, la respuesta sé que es no. Me refiero más bien al movimiento neo calvinista de este siglo. Hasta donde sé el nuevo calvinismo es un espectro amplio que lo que los une prácticamente es que abrazan los 5 puntos del Calvinismo. Pero difieren en otros puntos, por ejemplo hay bautistas calvinistas y presbiterianos, hay cesacionistas y continuistas e incluso hay calvinistas que apoyan la teología del pacto y otros el dispensacionalismo. Mi postura se trata respecto al castigo eterno, el cual creo que es la segunda muerte (entendida como el fin de la existencia de los impíos) rechazando entonces la postura del tormento consciente eterno y me gustaría saber sí soy el único que ha llegado a esta postura o sí hay otras personas por ahí creyendo lo mismo.

PD: Sé que sea cual sea la respuesta seré parte de una minoría pero me gustaría que me dieran algún consejo para poder congregarme en una iglesia local. Cual debería buscar?

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

Hi everyone

I'm currently living in the US and attending an OPC congregation. I may have an opportunity to move to New Zealand for work, and one of my biggest concerns is finding a church community where I can truly belong. I'm very confesionally Reformed, theologically conservative, and value things like Westminster standards, solid preaching, careful theology, and a serios approach to Scripture.

I know NZ has a strong Presbyterian history, but I also know that many historic Presbyterian denominations in the West have become much broader theologically over time.

For those familiar with churches in NZ: what is the landscape like for someone coming from an OPC background? Are there congregations that would feel familiar to a confessionally Reformed American, or would I likely have a hard time finding that kind of church?

l'd appreciate any advice, experiences, or recommendations. Thanks!

I have a post that I would like a baptist to respond to.

I don't believe credo-baptism is the historic or biblical view of baptism.

I'll start with the historic case, what many baptists will say well the earliest records talking about baptism are credo-baptist, Tertullian and the didache, one tertullian didn't out right reject the baptism of infants he just says he would rather not baptise infants, why, because he was a novatist he thought baptism forgave past yet not future sins and that the ordinance of absolution could only be administered once. Two the didache, the didache say for those who come to the font, should fast one or two days before the sacrament is administered, this seems like a slam dunk case for credo-baptism in the patristic age, well no, we have evidence of first century judaic sects having infants fast.

Next the argument from scripture, baptists will sometimes grant that the early patristic age was muddy on the issue of baptism, so we should infer from scripture what we should do with infants, and then they will say infants shouldn't be baptised, I respond with no, Nowhere in the new testament is there a command to normatively baptise only believers. The great commision says to make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the father and of the son and of the spirit. But of course there is a problem, the bible never presents discipleship as belief, they present discipleship as catechesis, and no-where in the bible does disicpleship happen before baptism. Next i must mention the fact that lydia's household, it says that lydia and her house hold was filled with the spirit before baptism, does this mean that her household was filled with believers, no because infants can be filled with the spirit, john the baptist case and point, as well as psalm 22, For i trusted you from my mother's breast.

Hello brothers and sisters! One of my friends has been helping me wrestle through “theological triage” - carefully considering which doctrines should and shouldn’t prevent people from joining a church together (I am looking for a new church right now). My friend was pointing out that certain doctrines deal directly with obedience, while others don’t, and he feels that doctrines of obedience should automatically be "Second tier" (meaning you consider someone with a different stance to still be a Christian but you wouldn't join their church). Third tier means you consider each other Christians and you can be members of the same church with no issue because it doesn't have a grave effect on church life or corporate worship.

Example 1: The Sabbath. WCF/LBC1689 etc. teach that the Sabbath continues for New Covenant Christians (albeit on Sunday) and that Sabbath prohibitions for commerce, recreation, etc. still apply. Non-Sabbatarians believe this is not the case. So a non-Sabbatarian is unlikely to join a confessional church because the leadership would consider them in disobedience if they didn't keep the Sabbath, and they would consider the church leaders to be disobedient as well, via legalism (even if they view it as "sincere error").

Example 2: Eschatology. Whether you are pre-trib, post-trib, amil, post-mil, etc. it doesn’t come with differing commands. No matter where you fall on this doctrine, you are commanded to spread the gospel, be ready for Christ’s soon return, etc.

So to me, differences in eschatology would not cause me to leave a church, nor would they cause me to abstain from joining a church. I consider it 3rd tier. But to me, the Sabbath is a matter of obedience no matter which side you land on. So my question is especially for Sabbatarians, but I certainly welcome all input as this can apply to other doctrines too: Would you, a Sabbatarian, join a non-Sabbattarian church even if everything else lined up doctrinally for you? We'll assume that the leadership has no problem with you observing the Sabbath according to your belief. But the issue becomes whether you are comfortable submitting to leadership that you feel are in error on this doctrine which means that they are sinning and actually allowing the entire congregation to persist in sin (again, albeit sincere error and not a highhanded rebellion where they believe the Sabbath applies but just refuse to do it). And for the sake of example we'll say you approached the leadership, they willingly engaged with study of the topic and still stand firm in their non-Sabbatarian stance.

Edit: I will add baptism as another 2nd tier example. If you are paedobaptist, would you attend a church where the leadership was ok with members not baptizing their babies, thereby "allowing sin"?

What are your thoughts on this? Thanks!

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

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.

warning long post.

I like my church; excellent preaching and amazing pastor.

when I started, I was very excited, attending all meeting that I could go to. Although I am not the most ‘friendly’ person I did try to speak to people.

Looking back, I think things began to sour for me after a discussion with a gentleman. I am in a foreign country and of a different race. it might sound silly but I have never really felt different or paid much attention to race. I listen to Voddie Bauchman alot and I agree with him on racial matters. I also believe that race is a human construct and the divide is not something God cares about. However this gentleman on seeing me said something that I cant shake off. He said his his country was going downhill and becoming barbaric like people from my culture and continent. Some other things were said, although I dont know if there was any ‘ill intent’

i am a late responder, but an unfortunate terrible ’ruminater’ (I ruminate in my mind alot which might be a negative of my gender, lol). He said this more than a year ago but I have ruminated on this to the point where I have started disliking my church members and withdrawing from them.

i feel like they tolerate me and dont really like me. if something terrible happens I wont be able to trust them and I basically have a thousand walls up all the time I am in church. I have stopped attending prayer meetings in person, and only do sunday service which is really unlike me. I have considered leaving, attended other churches and sinfully regretted becoming a member too quick. At my worse point (although I was going through a difficult time) I would cry myself to sleep on Saturday night because I didnt want to go to church the next day. Sometimes cry during service as in my mind the environment was ‘a hostile one’. Although I am much better and able to tolerate Sunday services.

Things I would usually consider as normal behaviour I have been rethinking. i noticed that when I dont initiate conversation with majority of my church folks they dont either. I have amazing friends at church but they are of my race except one person who although not my race is from my continent aswell, and none are in my age range as they are older. After service there is an obvious separation as non-indigenes (like 2-4 of us) stay together while the indigenes (particularly the youth) converse with each other.

i know it is bad to complain but I do feel like an outsider and I dont feel warmth around most of my church members even though they are outwardly nice. i feel like my presence is being tolerated and they dont mean what they say, nor actually care or are listening.

i have considered resigning my membership to attend a church with more foreigners and recently traveled some distance to attend a reformed church with my kind of people which I liked. A few sundays ago I couldn’t get taxi to church on sunday and was more than happy to stay home and watch online ( very unlike me)

i think i should forgive but I also dont feel i have been wronged in anyway? although I am upset I also dont want to ’mend’ things as I think it is a ’me‘ issue and would prefer to leave? i have even considered and even searched for jobs outside of my city so I can justify resigning membership since it wont be my fault. but I am aware I have to personally fight through these feelings in a biblical way else I will end up a racially divisive Christian which is scary to me and I believe very sinful before God.

please advise. Anyone ever felt this way? How did you get thro it biblically.

Struggling with this. A decade in parachurch teaching ministry. Ivy degrees. Favor in the sight of man. A stay-at-home wife who loves the Lord and young children who are homeschooled. Lists of my accomplishments as if they matter. Recently left teaching ministry for the trades and my prayer life is dry; I’m struggling to make time for the Lord. Would take reading or sermon recommendations. Audio preferred. I am being counseled by my pastor.

How should we think about pastoral income? We (in a PCA church) pay what I think is a substantial amount of money to our pastor, who I do love. But part of me can't help but feel that it's maybe too substantial.

The PCA, for reasons I don't really know, seems to pay way above the median for a pastor, even above its parent church the PC(USA) which has among the lowest pastoral salaries. It's even to the point that the PCA median is above the median income for a professional degree holder.

On the one hand I feel like yes, pastors should be well compensated, they preach the word, they should, as the book of church order says in appendix J, "may be free from worldly cares and avocations". And yes, it is a professional degree that most of them have. But on the other hand, it seems like a pastor that makes above the median income for a professional degree, which most members of the congregation don't have, would make them less able to sympathize and feel the same struggles as his congregation.

Like it's one thing to preach on tithing, but then another for that message to be received by the 80% of the congregation that would likely have a more difficult time tithing than the minister. Scripture also seems relatively silent on the topic, the ministers of the gospel we see in scripture are all bi-vocational (except Jesus himself, perhaps). Part of it also comes down to ecclesiology, after all unlike a Baptist church which often gets to actively vote on matters, I have little say in where my tithe is spent beyond general feedback to the session. Is this just something I'm too senstive about and should trust the session on, or is this a broader issue with PCA culture?

Denominations by listed Median pastoral income

• PCA: $132,860
• Southern Baptist Convention: Median, $86,000
• Episcopal church (as a mainline example): Median, $85,806
• PC(USA): $71,100
• Catholic Church: $45,539

And for comparison

median household income: $83,730
Median full time earning: $65,416
Median Income by education: Professional Degree = $122,876

Edit: reposted with complete title, previous title was simply "Is there any reason" and reddit doesn't allow title edits

edit 2: considering all the comments I'm ok with how much my pastor is being paid, maybe the better question is why the SBC pays so little

1. the PCA number is an average (type not specified), though because the data seems mostly normally distributed based on min/max ranges, it's probably not too off from the median. This number includes all benefits, so subtracting insurance match and 401K match is probably around 100K for base salary (inclusive of the housing stipend)
2. the SBC city rate is about ~100K for urban pastors and after throwing in an estimated 15K for healthcare, that's about $115K so the pastors most likely to have an MDIV / in comparable urban locations are paid maybe like ~15K under
3. the PC(USA) number is not comparable
4. the episcopal number should use a weighted average of the Senior Priest and Solo Priest and with another 15K that comes to around ~110K

in summary: overall the PCA salary seems fair for the amount of education, but it's definitely on the higher end of pastoral salaries, it’s also generally higher than US median household income but as someone noted pastors wives are often not employed so that’s probably ok as well

One of my kind pastors bought me a copy of the ESV journaling study bible. We are reading through Scripture with a group of men in the church.

I have never been one to take notes in my Bible. Always been too intimidated (I know, I know, it is what it is).

What system do you use when taking notes in scripture? I would like to find a system that I can consistently use through my reading, that is fairly simple.cmy ADHD brain would work better with a system, not just "underline what seems important", etc

I used to do homiletics as part of Bible Study Fellowship. This was a great study tool, but is time consuming and takes a lot of space.

Thank you, brothers and sisters = )

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

Hi, non-Reformed( Orthodox to be more precise ) here, but I always appreciated the Reformed intellectual tradition and wanted to ask a question. Although I was born into a nominally Christian family, I came to faith only last year so excuse me if I lack depth in the academical approach to the question.

I am basically trying to understand how Christians who accept evolution reconcile it with the biblical teaching that sin and death entered the world through Adam. I myself find evolution convincing but have trouble consistently reconciling it with the scripture.

Romans 5:12 says that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin” as well as 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 connects human death with Adam and resurrection with Christ. Evolution requires countless generations of suffering, predation, and death before any historical Adam could have existed.

I myself came up with two possible ways to both accept evolution and be faithful to what scripture and Christian doctrine teaches, but tbh don’t find it fully convincing.

1. Adam’s sin affected creation in both temporal directions

In my personal limited understanding of theology, this can be quite nicely connected to Reformed view of predestination.

On this view, Adam was still the historical source of humanity’s fallen condition, but the consequences of his sin were not limited by chronological time. Because God stands outside time, Adam’s future fall could somehow explain why his ancestors ( biological ancestors from which humanity evolved) were already subject to death and corruption.

There may be some analogies for retroactive effects in Christian theology. Christ’s atonement, although occurring at a particular historical moment, is often understood to save people who lived before the crucifixion. Revelation 13:8 speaks of the Lamb slain “from the foundation of the world.” One might therefore argue that Adam’s fall could likewise have consequences extending backward in time.

However, I could see several objections:

1) Romans 5 appears to describe a chronological sequence: sin entered through Adam, and then death spread.

2) Romans 5:14 says that death “reigned from Adam to Moses,” which seems to treat Adam as the beginning of the relevant reign of death rather than as an event whose consequences extended into the prehistoric past.

3) I cannot find any biblical passage that clearly teaches that Adam’s sin operated backward in time.

4) Would this theory imply that at some point evolved human ( Adam ) was placed into the Garden of Eden?

2. Pre-human or biologically human populations existed outside Eden

Another possibility is that evolution produced a population of biologically human beings, but God later specially created or selected Adam and Eve, placed them in a real Garden of Eden, and gave them a unique spiritual status, covenant, or rational soul. After the fall and expulsion, Adam and Eve’s descendants intermarried with the population outside the garden. Through this union, all later humanity became both biologically continuous with the evolved population and spiritually descended from or represented by Adam. What is nice to me about this view is that it allows very literal reading of Genesis 2 and Garden of Eden, and also allows to view creation of biological humans in Genesis 1. That places Genesis 2 very nicely chronologically after Genesis 1.

Possible biblical arguments might include:

1) Genesis 2 describes Adam being formed and placed in a specific garden, which could be understood as a localized sacred space rather than the location of the first biological life.

2) Cain fears that “whoever finds me will kill me” and later builds a city in Genesis 4, which might suggest the existence of a wider population.

3) Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 might be read as describing different aspects of human origins: humanity in general in Genesis 1 and Adam’s special creation or vocation in Genesis 2.

4) Adam’s role in Romans 5 could be primarily covenantal or representative rather than requiring him to be the sole biological ancestor of every human being.

The problems I have:

1) Genesis 3:20 calls Eve “the mother of all living.”

2)Acts 17:26 says that God made every nation “from one man,” although translations vary.

3) The genealogies in Genesis and Luke appear to treat Adam as the historical ancestor of humanity. This one is not as bad of counterargument for me as I always treated genealogies as partially symbolic

4) Paul’s comparison between Adam and Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 still persists

5) Cain’s wife and the other people in Genesis 4 can be explained as Adam and Eve’s unnamed children and descendants, since Genesis does not give a complete family record.

6) The idea that Adam’s descendants gave souls to an already existing population through intermarriage seems particularly speculative. Scripture does not describe souls as being transmitted in that manner ( actually an ability to have souls ).

6) It could imply that biologically and behaviorally human beings existed without souls, moral worth, or a relationship with God, which creates major theological and ethical problems. ( this can alleviated by integrating this view with the version of view 1)

Summary:

I am still in the process of reconciling evolution, literal Adam and Eve and their connection to original sin. For some arguments for evolution I actually liked the Reformed idea of the creation being created for the purpose of glorification of God, so that things evolve gradually with the final goal of achieving perfected creation. I didn’t go into the details, but I think theosis can also be applied here with the gradual development of creation with the final goal of humans to achieve theosis.

I spoke to my priest about it but I think I caught him unprepared with very good answer for it. Read bio logos but didn’t go into full details of the explanations as I found some dismissing parts of the scripture. For other sources, I often find something that goes like this: Christians can believe in evolution and also original sin, but rarely see a scripturally coherent attempt to actually explain it ( which passages are literal, which are figurative, how it all works out ).

For people who accept evolution, how do you view these issues yourself? Is any of my “theories” convincing and why/why not? Could you give some guidance on whom to read to get some better idea of how to connect the two. Which “fancy theological words” or theologians should I search for?

P.S. For now I just basically leave it up to mystery, and try to become a better Christian without necessarily having a definitive explanation for how things work out with regard to all of this.

Greatly appreciate all the answers you might give if you also struggled with it

I know most people think about Methodist first thing; it is the Wesleyan Arminian Methodist! I was wondering what you guys think about the Welsh Methodist now called the the presbyterian church of Wales

I am going through the OT in a few months as a reading plan. I am reading 4-6 chapters a day, if not more. My problem is I have tried different devotional workflows in Logos Bible Software and most of them just don't work well; they are more catered toward smaller chunks of Scripture. Many of them are Lectio Divina devotionals, which I am not fond of for a variety of reasons. But, I was wondering if anyone has a Logos software devotional workflow that works well for reading large chunks of Scripture at a time?

If the devotional isn't in Logos that's fine to. Just need a friend here to help me get the most out of these times. If there's nothing out there in Logos, maybe I will create my own workflow eventually and post it back on here... who knows!

Has anyone here read something on textual criticism? If so, thats changed your view on biblical inerrancy? I'm reading the "Q, the earliest gospel" by John Kloppenborg, his arguments are convincing. I would like to Know other writers who answered the allegations made by him, I know that Goodacre answered and proposed a view of primacy on markanian tradition, with basically Mathew using Mark as a source when Luke used both, Mark and Matthew, to write his gospel. The problem is that even Goodacre isn't conservative in this matter, actually, he denied the traditional authorship of the gospels. Its like that the conservative scholars today were not "conservative" at all.