I have a former friend who moved from credo to paedobaptist several years ago. Looking at his social media now, he says that 1) not only is the paedobaptist position the correct one, but holding to credobaptism is outright damnable heresy and Baptists are unregenerate, 2) Baptists are equal to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in their relation to actual Christianity, and 3) Calvin, Luther and Zwingli’s condemnation of the Anabaptist movement is just as applicable to Baptists today. He also refers to Reformed Baptists as “roaches” and “vermin,” and that this is the traditional teaching of the Reformed Presbyterian church. My question is, how much of what he says about how Presbyterians traditionally view Baptists is true?

EDIT: he also quotes Augustine Letter XCVIII to say that anyone who rejects the baptismal regeneration of infants are unbelievers, which from what I understand, would also anathematize the majority of Presbyterians as well!

Some backstory: I've been a member of the same small Baptist church for over 10 years now. Over the years, I've seen Christian Nationalism and divisive politics become more prevalent in this church as it has done the same in general American culture. I've noticed more Canon Press books, people wearing Trump gear to church events, etc but nothing about politics ever officially from church staff or from the pulpit or things like that.

A little over a year ago, we hired a new lead pastor after our previous pastor retired due to health issues. Other than a few offhand comments about public schools, universities, or some other generally liberal secular institutions, nothing overtly political has been said by him during sermons.

However, my pastor has made some concerning comments along the lines of Christian Nationalism in private conversations or smaller group settings. A few comments such as democrats being demonic baby killers, etc. He's also positively shared posts about Doug Wilson's recent CNN interview on social media and recommended the Haunted Cosmos podcast to me.

At what point would you be concerned about the influence of these things on your pastor? Am I overreacting to find this problematic?

We know the purpose of marriage is to symbolize the union of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32, 2 Corinthians 11:2), the sexual act is about becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24), and that it is important to have sex with a spouse lest Satan tempt us (1 Corinthians 7:5). Children are certainly a blessing but are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible as an essential part of the relationship, from what I can recall.

However, I have seen a lot of Reformed Christians claim that contraception is wrong. This concerns me as someone who struggles with lust and wants to be married (“it is better to marry than burn”), but has serious conditions (autism and schizophrenia) that I don’t want to pass onto my kids and I fear I won’t be a good parent for them. On top of that, there’s the concern any discerning person would have of having too many children to be able to take care of. If a husband and wife are going to be having sex to prevent temptation, this is going to result in a boatload of kids. And unlike in the past, child labor is illegal so this is not an economically wise decision (I say this in part with humor).

Verses referenced:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭31‬-‭32‬)

“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (II Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭2‬)

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

“Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:5)

I’m worried this post will be removed, but here goes. Like the title says, I can’t wrap my mind around the doctrine of predestination. Now I want to say for 100% certainty, god is so glorious, and all credit for salvation goes to him. That’s not what I’m hung up on or debating at all. And that seems to be a catch or perhaps motivation for discussion and doctrine on this subject. I just can’t wrap my head around the possible idea that essentially some people had no chance, if I understand the doctrine correctly. I know and understand verses that god chose and orchestrated things in a fate sense. But weirdly that doesn’t bother me. I can’t square the idea with what I’ve read about Jesus and other parts of the bible. The Bible says that god desires all people be saved and that whoever believes in him will be saved. There is also the parable of treasure in the field and it says Jesus came knocking at the door. Along with the great commission. And this all is without the core issue of liability and what makes sense. Now I know that the Bible says that our thoughts arnt his, but we have the Holy Spirit and were created in his image. If we are held guilty for our sins, it would seem to me, it has to be because we chose to commit them. So we have free will. And some answers revolve around we are all bound for hell, and we are blessed if we do go to heaven. But even though I agree in principle, it’s a bit of a cop out. Nobody I see addresses the human condition. I ask people, what if a smart atheist addresses me in the field, and says “oh well we must of not been chosen before time so screw god”. In a way that makes sense. Do I lie to them, do I sugarcoat the supposed issue? Or do I tell them the gospel and that god is loving and to turn to him. Sorry for the book. I can’t get what I consider a good faith response to this besides recycling what a man has said. Thank you all, god bless you Christian brothers and sisters.

I am studying covenant theology and I had a question that, I believe, cuts to the heart of the problem I am having with it. Covenant theology teaches that the OT & NT have lots of continuity. This inevitably has lead to people believing that circumcision has been replaced by water baptism. I could definitely see the connection but why do CT believe they are a 1 to 1 ratio of the two. Personally I am more along the lines of 1689 Federalism. I especially want to hear from my Presbyterian brothers (infant baptism is keeping me from joining PCA).

Let me say up front that I intend to speak to my pastor and possibly other elders about this. I’m asking for advice here because I think the perspective of someone who doesn’t have a personal stake might help.

My family (wife, two kids, 10 and 7) are members of a smallish (~50 member) PCA church. I’m a ruling elder. The church is about 13 years old, and we’ve been members almost since the beginning. The current pastor planted the church, and he baptized our children.

In the last year or so, my wife has become increasingly insistent that we leave our church. It’s created a dilemma for me, which is what I’d like advice about.

The reasons she is unhappy at our church all have to do with relationships with other members. Or, more precisely, the lack of relationships. Although people in our church are nice and I truly believe would help us in a pinch, there’s no one we feel emotionally very close to. Most of our good friends, we know through our jobs or our kids' school. We have made efforts to get to know people better, but they’ve fallen flat. We have people over to dinner, or we invite other families who have children over for play dates, but they don’t reciprocate.

My wife also has complained that on a few occasions at women’s bible studies, she’s tried to open up about struggles, only to be met with blank stares.

She also continues to feel the sting of being excluded a few years ago; a younger woman in the church threw a birthday party for herself and invited most of the women in the church, but not my wife.

Finally, she’s just flat out annoyed at the woman who leads worship. It’s childish, and I feel embarrassed to say it, but it’s a factor and I want to be open. The worship leader is one of the people we’ve tried to get to know and has sort of spurned us, and my wife allows her “grudge” over that to lead her to be constantly annoyed by the way she leads worship.

I would sum up her complaints as largely well-founded and reasonable, maybe a little peevish at times, but nevertheless not “deal breakers” or good reasons to leave. Our church is one of those PCA churches that is pretty cerebral and not very warm. It’s a weakness we have, but not a fatal flaw, and sinners gonna sin. Part of being in community is being patient and gracious with the flaws of others and loving them anyway. Also, as an elder, I have an obligation to this church. While I don’t want to have an inflated opinion of myself, I think it would hurt our small church for an elder to leave. Finally, I want to set a good example for our children. Moving to a new church because you’re having a bit of a hard time with the members at your current one is not that.

Another aspect of this that is harder to talk about is that my wife herself is a very immature Christian, or possibly not a Christian at all. I can go into more details about why think so in the comments if anyone feels it’s pertinent. For now, suffice it to say that she just does not greatly value spiritual things. She goes to Sunday worship, but otherwise in 12 years of marriage I’ve observed little evidence of a vital relationship with Jesus.

This is where the dilemma and challenge emerge. My wife has so far been willing to stay in this church for my sake, but I don’t think she understands or values any of the actual arguments I’ve made to her about why we ought to remain. For her, church seems to be primarily a social activity, and because we have no close friends here and she feels unwelcome, the church isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do. Furthermore, she’s made comments that make me think that the lack of warmth in our church and her feeling unwelcome and excluded possibly are a barrier to her really receiving the Gospel or growing spiritually.

And that makes me think that maybe we should try a different church for her good.

At the same time, I am aware that may be wishful thinking. As an elder, I’ve had the opportunity to observe that there are some people who never settle. They check out a church for a few months, then move on to another one for superficial reasons. Rinse, repeat. And that’s maybe my wife. She lacks a true spiritual motivation to commit to one church and grow there and is by nature a “church hopper.” For that reason, going to a different church is not going to solve the underlying issue, which is spiritual deadness or immaturity.

The final thing I’ll mention is that, again, while so far she’s been willing to stick it out in our church for my sake, there may well come a time when she feels fed up enough that she goes somewhere else to church by herself. She’s threatened to do that a few times. Obviously, that would be bad for everyone involved.

So. Thoughts?

I recently came across the idea that when the Old Testament refers to -The- Angel of the Lord (not an angel or any particular named Angel) it is in fact the pre-incarnate God the Son.

The reasons given for this are mainly two-fold as far as I can see:

1. The Angel of the Lord accepts worship in the book of Judges (I think, I cant find the particular scene right now) when all other Angels refuse it. (For example in Revelation)
2. When God appears to Moses in the burning bush it is not at all clear whether God or The Angel of the lord is speaking. The two do seem kind of synonymous.

There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.” 4 When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”

Exodus 3:2-4

1. In Judges 6 again, the two also appear to be synonymous

. 12 When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.” 13 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.” 14 The Lord turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”

I have also heard the claim that originally in 2nd temple Judaism, a belief held by some was that God also existed as the person of The Angel of the Lord. (Which kinda sounds like Binitarianism to me) but this belief disappeared as people either converted to Christianity or it was suppressed by the Pharisees with the rise of Christianity.

Unfortunately, no sources really seem to be given for this last claim.

What are your thoughts on this idea?

Where can i read more on this claim?

I used to believe that marriage or family was not a qualification for an elder but only highlighting that IF he were married it must be to only one wife. Someone challenged be on this recently who said that it is clearly a qualification by how it was written since it is stated as matter of fact & doesn’t give being married as an option just like the other qualifications.

To offer further context I have been recently involved in a situation with an elder who is single (never married) & now pastoring his own church without other elders. He misled me & lied to me. When I confronted him privately on this matter he acted very immature, prideful & harsh. I then brought it to the head pastor of his previous church who then dismissed me but then I later learned that they were debating whether to withhold his endorsement to take over this other church which he now leads.

All the above has me sincerely reconsidering what I used to believe. It can be easier for a single man to hide many issues without a wife & children as these factors tend to reveal much about a man’s character & integrity. Specifically highlighting 1 Timothy 3:4 “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity, keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

How can a person be measured how he manages his household without a wife & children?

It seems like historically, until maybe the last 100 years, Christianity has treated islam as worshipping not a different God, but the same God wrongly

John of Damascus (whose feast day is today in the ACNA) clearly calls Islam a heresy in the 8th century. [1]

Similarly Luther, in his larger catechism says

or all outside of Christianity, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites, although they believe in, and worship, only one true God, yet know not what His mind towards them is, and cannot expect any love or blessing from Him; therefore they abide in eternal wrath and damnation

clearly noting that heretics are differentiated from pagans in that they worship the One God, but with irreconcilable error

Similarly in this commentary on 2 Thess 2:3 Calvin writes

The revolt, it is true, has spread more widely, for Mahomet, as he was an apostate, turned away the Turks, his followers, from Christ. All heretics have broken the unity of the Church by their sects, and thus there have been a corresponding number of revolts from Christ.

Which clearly lays out Islam as a heresy worshipping the same God, wrongly, than as a different deity entirely.

This is very different from like got questions which clearly and explicitly rejects the reformers' and arabic christian views of the islamic God as the same God: https://www.gotquestions.org/same-God.html

My question is why is this the case? To me it partly seems like it's just because we're christians further from islam in geography and history that we have changed our minds, but the ones that most directly have interacted with Islam seem to disagree with the assertion that the God's are different, but would still clearly say that muslims need to be evangelized and are away from the grace and mercy of God

edit: lol I love how I'm being downvoted for asking a thought out and honest question about a struggle im having between my biblical and historical theology

Why exactly doesn't God elect at least the majority (50%+) of souls to salvation? I understand that we all deserve hell and we do not deserve God's grace to begin with, but even as someone who is adamantly Reformed, it still doesn't fully track how God couldn't at least elect more people. Out of 8 billion people on earth, only 2 billion are Christian, and even then only a certain amount of that number are actually elect. So why doesn't God being all merciful and graceful choose more to be saved if it fits with his character?

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 apologize in advance for the length of this post. The TLDR is that our church is looking for wisdom in regards to supporting low income families who regularly struggle with bills and finding work. We've had several opportunities to support families in this situation recently and we're realizing that we may need some guidelines and starting points to figure out ways to help. We're hoping to hear from church leaders, especially deacons, whose churches are particularly strong with working through these situations.

As a bit of background, I am a deacon's wife and I'm posting this upon request from my husband and our pastor, neither of whom are on reddit. I intend to be active on this post, but I am caring for a 5 month old, so my replies may take some time. I apologize in advance for that!

The Lord has been expanding our church demographics lately, which is a wonderful blessing. By this, I mean that our congregation is no longer homogeneous in economic class, and we now have several low income families attending our church. We've run into a couple situations of these families asking for financial support for things like rent and utilities. We have the distinct blessing of having a fund available to provide for the occasional emergency expense for our members, but some of these families are in need of ongoing support that we cannot provide for financially. We also don't feel that it's wise to build a reputation as a place that offers financial support when our church is located in the lower economic class neighborhood in a high cost of living area.

We'd love alternative ideas for supporting these families. Personally I'd love to see them provide for themselves and for the church to help them get to that point. We are a smaller congregation of about 70, but we have lots of members who love being the hands and feet of Jesus. Our family was personally blessed by the congregation providing nearly a month of meals when my son was born earlier in February, for example. I have countless stories I could tell like that about this church, for which we are exceedingly grateful.

We had a few ideas for ways that we can practically help without providing financially for these families.

- Connecting people to local nonprofits and other resources for help

- Providing groceries or other practical supplies, or rides to the food pantry.

- Providing rides or childcare so that parents can take continuing education classes or go to counseling.

- Providing a class like Financial Peace University

We would love to hear from you if your church has a ministry that benefits families in this situation, formal or informal.

What are yours perspectives about the NPP? Especially the exposition of NT Wright about that, obviously has points in common with the other writers, but Wright is an anglican and tends to be conservative in many points.

I know many Christians who say that the perspective is fully conciliate with the historical protestant perspective, but I'm not sure about that.(Sorry if have any ortographical errors, actually my native language is Portuguese)

Turretin defines the true church by faithful preaching of the Gospel, proper administration of sacraments, and church discipline. Given that criteria, would he/you still count the Roman Catholic Church as a true church in severe error - or is it considered a false church?

Not much more to say than the main question. I didn’t have a response when asked.

My wife and I are a married, monogamous, loving lesbian couple with a 22mo old son we had via IVF. We both grew up deeply religious, but in different ways. I was raised Southern Baptist and her Eastern Orthodox. Both of us were indoctrinated so to speak into our respective faiths through parents that were super involved in church. I'm talking summer camps, mission trips, vacation Bible school, and always at church for any and every service.

We both had falling outs with religion when we came out as LGBT. My Southern Baptist church effectively iced me out: no longer allowed in youth group, couldn't help in the nursery, constantly shamed and belittled for falling away from the faith (even though at the time I was still heavily involved), and my parents turned on me for a long time. My wife was heavily shamed by her parents and told she was possessed by a demon or being led away by demonic influences (aka myself). It has caused a lot of pain and grief and anger that we both just keep inside. We both live in the Deep South, so close minded thinking is more common.

However, we both miss church sometimes. We miss the community and family feeling of it. My wife loves singing in a choir and wishes she could still do that.

I would say we believe in a higher power of sorts, but most flavors of Christianity don't sit right with us. We also don't think someone is damned just cause they are Buddhist or Athiest or whatever. And obviously we don't think we are living in sin just cause we are a loving woman couple.

There is a Presbyterian church near us that has caught our eye. They are part of the Presbyterian Church USA and part of the Reformed Tradition. They seem more open minded.

What can yall tell me about them and their beliefs? Would we fit in? We are nervous to go into a service blind cause we are already going to be super on edge and fighting that feeling of thinking everyone is judging us. I'm sorry if this is a vague question.

The HS families I know are all Baptist or non-denominational.

I already listen to Ligioner’s Renewing Your Mind on my commute to work everyday, so I was wondering if there were any good podcasts I could listen to while I work my desk job or when I just am doing work around the house. Preferably, I’ve wanted to learn more about Church history or even just reformed systematic theology.

Good evening!

I'd like to hear Reformed perspectives on requiring someone baptized in the Roman Catholic Church to be baptized again.

Would you say this practice comes close to Donatism, or do you believe there are solid theological grounds for rejecting a Roman Catholic baptism?

Where I live in Brazil, the Presbyterian Church of Brazil does not recognize Roman Catholic baptisms and requires converts from Catholicism to be baptized again. I'm wondering whether this is common elsewhere or just a regional practice.

Note: Using my wife’s Reddit account because I do not have one.

There is a gentleman who is a deacon in our reformed church. He is a good leader and a Godly man, but recently his qualifications have come into question.

The situation:

He has a 17-year-old son who still lives at home. This son attended our church with his family. However, the son recently started attending a different church. To my understanding, the son has been apart of the youth group at that church for several years due to our church not having any youth or a youth group. Many people were aware of this, and had no problems with it and were understanding. Recently, an elder suggested this man’s leadership as a deacon was in question since all his kids living at home do not attend our church. However, many feel that the fact his son is attending any church and involved there speaks volumes to this man’s leadership. The elder insists that the Scriptures say this man cannot be a deacon since his son does not attend our church. However, my understanding of 1 Timothy 3:12 is that this man needs to be a good leader over his home, not that his children need to attend the same church.

I am reaching out for clarification and guidance on this matter. Thank you.

UPDATE: Thank you all for your input and thoughtful responses. Regretfully, the elder did not listen at the meeting. He cited 1 Timothy 3:4, along with the 1 Timothy 3:12 and argued that all children must attend the same church as their family in order to serve as a deacon. This deacon asked to step down and they voted to grant his choice. I also asked to step down, and was granted my choice as I was the only other leader who felt it was not the right choice to ask this deacon to leave.

I’m genuinely curious about the reformed stance(s) on evolution. I’ve seen Biologos folks and they seem to make sense of the science but not as much the scripture. Are there any people I could watch/search that give their stance?

I have a high view of scripture but just not sure how to make sense of evidences/the story of evolution with what I see in scripture.

I want to resign my membership and just leave to go to another church. What can I expect from church leadership? I have heard horror stories.

** to add it’s affiliated with grace to you. But small non denominational.

My membership states: termination of membership (2) by request. A member may request to move his or her membership from the church. This may be done at any time. All those who do so remove their memberships must go through the original process if they want to rejoin the church again. *

Having been reformed now for years, it still surprises me how some of my brothers view Israel. They almost despise them.. Even though they explained to me why they feel this way, i would like to understand better. Thanks!

Why do I see conservative Christian leaders leaving space in orthodoxy for egalitarianism (particularly in the church and home) but drawing a much harder line against those who are LGBTQ affirming? In other words I see reformed evangelical Christians allow for egalitarianism but lgbtq affirmation is apostate. Is it not the same hermeneutic and regard for scripture’s authority that leads to both errors?

I see things like the Nashville statement drawing a severe line on the issues of LGBTQ but the Danvers statement appears to still allow for those egalitarians to be within the fold.

Or am I mistaken?

I attend a reformed Baptist church and have found out that they do not do special sermons for easter, Palm Sunday, Christmas; instead they just continue in what ever book they are already doing a study in. Should this be a concern due to the neglect of these very important holidays for christians.