I know we're not supposed to discuss specific figures, but given Abraham Kuyper's important role in the history of Reformed political philosophy, I would love to know if anyone has any good book recommendations for those trying to get into him. I think the Acton Institute is supposed to have some good resources, but I would love to get recommendations from y'all.
Baffled Reformed-ish Anglican here:
A friend of mine who's a reformed baptist and I, were discussing various points of theology over coffee and he explained the following framework, which i cannot find in the reformed confessions but, he said was common among the reformed.
Are these positions common among the reformed? Im not really sure what to make of them?
Sei que as denominações reformadas/calvinistas têm fama de serem menos acolhedoras e mais legalistas do que as igrejas tradicionais como PCA, OPC e EPC Church. Sei também que, na Holanda, o hipercalvinismo é desenfreado em algumas pequenas denominações e que os holandeses são mais cautelosos e reservados do que, digamos, os franceses. Para quem mora na Holanda: vocês já viram alguém tentar dissuadir alguém de se tornar membro de alguma congregação específica?
The devil tempts us, he is a liar, accuser of the brethren, causes believers to sin etc. etc. All these are standard doctrines reformed or otherwise. But i never understood how exactly he does all these. He lies, but how does one hear his voice exactly? He tempts but how? It is said he has no access to my thoughts. Then how does he influence my will or decision? I do believe he exists but i do not understand how it all works at all.
Meanwhile, i feel I do not even need the devil as an explanation for the temptations and deception and sins. My own sinful human nature does all these as a full time job. I do not know what to belive.
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.
There is an independent reformed baptist church drawing 100-200 attendees each Sunday, with a senior teaching pastor who is gifted in preaching and teaching, a few elders, and a board of deacons. The church presently does not have a youth minister (small group of grades 7-12; the church is new and growing so most youth are under 4th grade right now), music minister (currently run by volunteers and paid subs managed by a volunteer coordinator - experience is sub-par, but the preaching is the draw), or any kind of assistant pastor. What would be the best next hire for the church and why?
I’m curious about the reformed perspective (positive or negative) to Molinism as it relates to soteriology.
I should start by saying that Molinism isn’t actually a soteriology, which is why I think it can belong in the reformed discussion, although it has soteriological implications. It is a philosophical theory about God’s knowledge stemming from verses like Romans 8:28-30, 1 Samuel 23:11-12, and Matthew 11:21-23 among others. It is wide enough to encompass a number of sub-views, some more reformed than others.
I learned under a dichotomy between Calvinist/Arminian views, and I always felt that reformed soteriological views were more rooted in scripture. I did, however, find a calvinistic framework poorly equipped to answer certain theodicy questions as well as a lot of specific scriptures that had been previously challenging.
I’ve found Molinism to be a better framework for addressing some of my issues with both Calvinist and Arminian views. That being said, I understand some reasons that it isn’t always very popular in reformed circles and I wanted to get more clarity.
I have a tremendous respect for the legacy and intellectual integrity of the reformed perspective, so I’m writing all of this in humility and affection for you all as brothers in Christ.
Brief description of Molinism:
For those who aren’t familiar, Molinism (at a very simple level) suggests that God evaluates all possible worlds that he could create based on his logically prior decisions (one being to make humans with free will). After evaluating those possible worlds (and how free agents would respond in all of those scenarios and including His own possible interactions within those possible worlds), he actualizes one (our world) for His glory and according to His purposes.
Maximally Saved Universe (MSU) molinists would argue from 2 Peter 3:9 that God’s plan would have actualized the world with the most number of saved people possible according to His will. Thus if you are a Christian there was another unactualized world where you weren’t but not vice versa. (This sub-view isn’t true of all molinists, and while I think it's possible, I am not convinced)
Addressing common criticisms:
This puts people in control of God: this is a wise pushback, especially to MSU molinists. The reason I think it struggles is that the world that is actually created is due to God’s desire first and foremost. Since in an unrealized counterfactual world you or I aren’t Christians, God creating a world where we actually really do freely choose Him still puts Himself as the primary cause.
What about effectual grace?: I don’t personally see a conflict between effectual grace as described in the Westminster confession and Molinism’s framework. I do, however, think there is a difference between modern expressions of "irresistible grace” found in the TULIP acronym and the idea of “effectual grace”.
Grace and peace to you all in Christ our savior.
Si conoces algo de Mexico . Sabes que actualmente estamos es crisis y persecución por varias razones .
1 ) Un gobierno de izquierda socialista con una mujer q gobierna inepta y feminista , que defiende narcos .
2 )Lá iglesia católica Romana . Demasiada influencia .
3 ) Los bautistas que se dicen reformados cuando no Ló son , al mismo tiempo se oponen al presbiterianismo reformado .sin tomar en cuenta los evangélicos pentecostales que se oponen al cristianismo reformado .
4)Lá iglesia nacional presbiteriana IPN se a vuelto pentecostal y cree falsas doctrinas Asi como las promueve , una es el falso evangelio de la teología. De Barth.
Entre otras cosas ;
Si estas en mexico y eres reformado comunícate conmigo .
Can someone explain what is meant by Divine Simplicity in Christian theology?
From my research, it is summarised as God being identical to God's attributes, but I really don't understand it to be honest.
When atheist friends scoff at you (or the Bible or God), and you forbear regardless (and even try to lovingly confront their false beliefs or defend the Bible's reliability) out of love for them and also love for God, how do you go on when you run out of energy?
I find myself either winsome but twisting truth (whether about myself or the gospel) or either standing firmly doctrinally but diffident (and have to fight myself from slipping into being ashamed of the gospel or doubting God's existence).
I used to be able to juggle both, but maybe because I've come across so much scoffing over the years I sometimes lose my marbles or confidence over a slight twitch or an irritable comment from my friends.
I keep having to backtrack my comments and correct myself, often to their dismay (because they thought, at a previous moment, that I was "on their side" on an issue).
Lately, my words are not coming out right. It's not fear of man, not exactly. But i have this irrational fear of saying the wrong thing, and it somehow makes things worse sometimes.
There was a time when i knew less theology and less vocabulary. My words came out way more sincerely and smoothly, and it seems like I've lost my "mojo" and thick skin. Have you had this happen to you?
Although I can't stand the thought of my friends being condemned to hell, I also can't stand their scoffing like I used to. I've lost my "tough skin." The more time i spend with other believers, i am reminded of what my other friends are missing out on and it hurts. I feel very stuck.
I want to push back on the frequent recommendation of MLJ’s Spiritual Depression for people with clinical depression.
As someone who’s had chronic depression that was eventually treated with medication, I was recommended this book. I see a lot of people on this sub say it’s good, and I think it’s a good general book for people going through a period of spiritual dryness. But I have to say it’s not good for people with real clinical depression.
Reading it felt extremely uncomfortable because it seems to completely mischaracterize depression. Maybe that’s why MLJ called it “spiritual depression,” but he doesn’t seem to be limiting it to that, since he explicitly brings up Major Depressive Disorder symptoms and Spurgeon.
IMO I really have to agree with this review: https://psychiatryresource.com/bookreviews/spiritual-depression-review especially on how it seems tone-deaf and even potentially stigmatizing toward people with real depression.
But I wanted to hear your thoughts on this.
I come from a country that is pretty atheist. 33% of the population believe in God, but only 6% attend church monthly. My dad will outright say that he is an atheist. My mom has always believed in God, but she started to take her faith more seriously when I was a teenager (I’m 22 now). Nowdays she attends church once a month, but isn’t actively reading the Bible which I think is hindering her spiritual growth. I know she tries not to sin and I can see the effort to live according to God’s will in many of her actions, but I’d say she’s pretty spiritually immature and lacks discernment. I’m not sure what to do really? How can I help my dad to find God or my mom to grow in her faith, when I also have my own personal challenges
I’m in a bit of a weird spot and feeling slightly gaslit by my congregation. I attend an independent Bible church (Calvinist-leaning) that has been without a Senior Pastor for 16 months. The search committee has finally brought in a candidate—we've heard him once, we hear him again this Sunday, and then we vote.
Because we are independent and have no denominational pipeline, this feels like a "mail-order bride" situation. We are hiring a stranger. Our structure has also shifted: he wouldn't be "Senior Pastor," but "Lead Teaching Pastor" and an Elder.
While his character is vetted and his writing is academically excellent, I am struggling with the "apt to teach" (1 Tim 3:2) qualification.
The issue: He is completely unengaging, lacking any connection or affect. He reads what is essentially a well-written white paper, but there is no sense of proclamation or "living voice." I find myself unable to follow his train of thought because there is no emphasis or engagement to hold the attention of the listener.
I feel that in Reformed-adjacent circles, there’s often a "badge of honor" associated with being "dry." There is a fear that being engaging violates 1 Cor 1:17 (preaching with "eloquent words of wisdom"). But I’m struggling to see how someone is "able to teach" if their delivery is a functional barrier to the congregation actually receiving the information.
Is "engagement" a part of being "apt to teach," or is that just a modern preference for entertainment?
Am I being too hard on him, or is "reading an article" fundamentally different from the biblical office of preaching?
I've been musing lately on whether we're far enough from COVID rhetoric to develop a robust theology of physical presence for worship. Looking back, everyone made impassioned arguments but I'm not sure anyone was even-keeled enough to make their decisions solely based on the Word and necessary consequence, rather than reactive to the times and the magistrate's decrees.
Is physical presence essential or accidental to Christian worship? If we livestream congregational worship for 6 months, have we been meeting virtually for 6 months or not having church at all for 6 months?
I have my own positions, I took a position during COVID--but I couldn't defend it as an application of a purely doctrinal requirement. And in the midst of that time, rhetoric was already at such a fever pitch that it basically couldn't be discussed, much less defended without reference to the times.
Has anyone done any pure theology work in this space? I re-skimmed my copy of Desiring the Kingdom by JKA Smith, and he doesn't seem to have anticipated the need for a declarative statement of the Bible's theology of presence (he seems to go more from the heart outward/upward). Did any Christian theologian do the work needed to answer these questions prior to the "contamination" of knowing how the pandemic was handled?
Can we derive any position from first principles, or Scripture alone, without reference to technologies, modern historical events, or hypotheticals? My desire is for robust, theological work on two main points:
If you have requests that you would like your brothers and sisters to pray for, post them here.
My pastor made a great point at our men’s prayer breakfast today. Sometimes our sin is like eyebrows. I cannot seen them, but you can see them clearly. We need each other to lovingly point out where we are falling short.
Wondering if you guys had any church history podcasts or just pretty good podcasts in general? TIA
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.
Hello, just curious if any if the catholic converts on this sub were married when they left the Church? How did your wives take it, and how did you handle family?
My family is non-religious, but she and her family are all Trads.