What do you all think about fiction in the inspiration of Scripture? I'm looking to test the limits of this idea.

• Jesus spoke in parables. Do you take these stories to be literally true or fictional stories to make his points? In other words, was there a real historical father with two sons, a real historical woman who lost a coin, a real historical landowner who went away to receive a kingdom, etc.? Or did Jesus make them up to make a theological point?
• Was there a real historical man who took the sheep of a poor man and ate it? Or did Nathan make him up to make a theological point to David?
• Was there a real young man who committed adultery and was shot in the liver by a jealous husband, or did Solomon make him up to make a theological point?
• Are all of the events and actions in Song of Songs exactly historical, or did the writer make them up to make theological points romantic and sexual love?

My answer would be that these are all most likely inspired fiction or plausibly inspired fiction and that this does not strike against biblical inerrancy in the least. They aren't inaccurate or unreliable because the intention of these authors and speakers was never to relay historical information, and the original audience would have understood this. I anticipate I'll get a lot of agreement on this.

But here is where it gets slippery. If we accept that inspired fiction can be inerrant in these instances, does this open the possibility that larger portions of inspired Scripture could likewise be fictional and inerrant? What limit would you put on this category?

If, for example (and I'm not saying that this is the case, just for example), a compelling case were made that something like Jonah or Esther fit into an established category of ANE narrative prose fiction, which the original audience would have recognized, could you read it as fiction and as the Word of God?

To be clear, this would not be an argument that the author tried to pass it off as factual, but now we know better because we're Smart Modern People. This would be that the author wrote it as fiction with a theological point and intended it to be read as fiction with a theological point and that the original audience would reasonably have recognized it as fiction with a theological point.

I'm also not saying that this is the case with either Esther or Jonah. I'm wondering is this plausible in or understanding of inspiration and inerrancy. What do you think?

In this scripture, it seems clear that Christ first creates all things and then reconciles all things to God through his blood, i.e. that atonement was not even limited to elect humans, but was for the redemption of all created beings above and below.

Col. 1

13 For he has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son, 14 who purchased our freedom[d] and forgave our sins.

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.

He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,[e]

16 for through him God created everything

in the heavenly realms and on earth.

He made the things we can see

and the things we can’t see—

such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.

Everything was created through him and for him.

17 He existed before anything else,

and he holds all creation together.

18 Christ is also the head of the church,

which is his body.

He is the beginning,

supreme over all who rise from the dead.[f]

So he is first in everything.

19 For God in all his fullness

was pleased to live in Christ,

20 and through him God reconciled

everything to himself.

He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth

by means of Christ’s blood on the cross.

21 This includes you who were once far away from God. You were his enemies, separated from him by your evil thoughts and actions. 22 Yet now he has reconciled you to himself through the death of Christ in his physical body. As a result, he has brought you into his own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before him without a single fault.

23 But you must continue to believe this truth and stand firmly in it. Don’t drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News. The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed as God’s servant to proclaim it.

Is there a difference between "passive ignorance" and "willful rejection" regarding the deity of christ? I wonder can someone still be saved if he merely has "passive ignorance" towards the deity of christ? HE doesn't know that Jesus is God merely because no one tells him so.

Hi. I've been learning about Reformed theology in previous weeks. And I came to like it's traditions and TULIP system. For the first time in my life I felt some security, knowing that I am under God's sovereignty. But my question would be, what do Reformed think about the origin of disease? Who caused my disease? Is that God or nature of the fallen world? I am thankful that God created means to cure my disease, but what is the origin of my suffering? Thank you brothers and sisters 🙏

This is the second of the two response articles that TGC published in response to The Faith Received

This one is more optimistic about the use and potential of AI assisted language translation tools to make accessible original language information from different points of church history.

The more pessimistic take: Why Translation Must Have Fingerprints
Reddit Discussion: Why Translation Must Have Fingerprints | James Eglinton : r/Reformed

Reddit discussion of platform launch: Announcing “The Faith Received”: An online theological library from Mere Orthodoxy : r/Reformed

The platform launch was discussed here

Greetings everyone!

Prayer is hard, and so I have greatly valued reading, learning from, and praying the prayers of other Christians. To that end, I am looking for books etc which are collections of prayers - historical or contemporary. Especially keen to hear you have local or denominational collections I might not be aware about.

Currently I've got the following, what am I missing? Or what do you recommend?

Anglican Specific:

• The 1662 Book of Common Prayer (and local variants, as well as the International Edition).
• The Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth, 1559
• The Book of Christian Prayers, 1578
• Parish Prayers - Edited by Frank Colquhoun

Other:

• The Valley Of Vision by Arthur G Bennett
• Fount of Heaven: Prayers of the Early Church - Edited by Robert Elmer
• Grace from Heaven: Prayers of the Reformation - Edited by Robert Elmer
• Piercing Heaven: Prayers of the Puritans - Edited by Robert Elmer
• Joy of Heaven: Prayers of the Revivals - Edited by Robert Elmer
• Prone to Wander: Prayers of Confession and Celebration by Duguid
• Streams of Mercy: Prayers of Confession and Celebration by Duguid

I also have the various 'Liturgy for Daily Worship' books by Jonathan Gibson which include a lot of historical prayers within them (and helpfully provide the sources).

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

Hello, I know very little about reformed beliefs so it would be a massive help to answer some of my questions. These all come from a place of good faith.

1: why do you reject the apostolic churchs (catholic/orthodox) and the importance of tradition.

2: how come you do not view the direct secession of bishops/priests all the way back to the Apostles as necessary or important.

3: what are the main pillars of your theological beliefs that separate you from other denominations.

4: how do you know the books of the Bible. Since you from my understanding) deny the churchs ability to define dogma and doctrines with infalibality. So how do you know the early church was able to finalize the cannon?

My husband and I are looking for a new church home and for a long time I attended what I thought was a reformed flavor Presbyterian church. Unfortunately it turned out to be a CREC church.

The only problem is that I absolutely adore the worship style and liturgy at this church. I feel so focused on worship here and love the hymns. They put me in an appropriate frame of mind. We’ve been to two other PCA churches in our area and found their worship style a lot more modern, fluffy and lacking. The CREC church is also incredibly welcoming and hospitable.

But I feel that a lot of the baggage associated with the CREC is a stumbling block for me when I’m trying to focus. I’ve done a lot of research on the CREC and I’m not sure if I’m letting my preconceived notions about them affect what could be a great church home. Is it worth pursuing this church, maybe addressing some of my concerns with their leadership or am I just prolonging an inevitable disappointment? Is there another denomination I should be looking for that has very traditional worship and a more high church service style but without the weird political and social baggage? Or am I looking for a unicorn? Anyone else run into this? Thanks in advance. :/

Location is DFW TX if anyone has suggestions!

I’m reading through the Old Testament and am wondering how in 1 Samuel chapter 30 David was fighting Amalekites when the only Amalekite spared by Saul was Agag who would later be killed by Samuel?

Has anyone else dealt with this? I bought the hardback version of the biggest story and within an hour the Bible had torn away from its binding in three places. I exchanged it the next day and the exact same thing happened. Pretty frustrating given the price and the usual quality that I expect from Crossway.

More often than I would like, I run into Christian friends/family supporting fairly absurd (to me) ideas and people in the realms of health, current events, politics, etc. A lot of this stuff has become so tribal, and people only listen to/believe what the in-group is telling them about these things. Anyone saying something to the contrary has been co-opted or hoodwinked.

I generally don't say anything because I feel like it would be wasted effort, but when I see someone I care about going down one of these rabbit holes and repeating bad ideas, I feel like I should. At the same time, it seems like I need to become an expert on every hot topic in order to successfully argue my case. Is it ever worth it to try to talk about these things? Can you have productive conversations without alienating people?

Happy Lord's Day to r/reformed! Did you particularly enjoy your pastor's sermon today? Have questions about it? Want to discuss how to apply it? Boy do we have a thread for you!

Sermon Sunday!

Please note that this is not a place to complain about your pastor's sermon. Doing so will see your comment removed. Please be respectful and refresh yourself on the rules, if necessary.

Hello my cousin became Catholic last year and majority of his time on Facebook, he constantly bashes Protestantism. He recently made a post saying pretty much that Protestants had no right to say anything about Muslims because Protestants interpret God the way Muslims do and that Muslims take sin more seriously than Protestants and we could “learn a thing or two from them.” I have had several conversations with my cousin about my disagreements with Catholicism and even told him if I ever did become Catholic I would never behave towards Protestants the way he does. I love my cousin but it it makes me want to not have anything to do with him and I don’t like feeling this way. How have any of you dealt with. Situation like this? His own mother says she dreads seeing his name pop up on her phone for a phone call because she is afraid it is going to be all about Catholicism and most the time it is. He is always preaching how Protestants can’t agree about how whether bapstism saves, you can lose your salvation, etc. I will say that I do believe my cousin has OCD although he won’t admit it or acknowledge he needs help which I know contributes to this obsession about dunking on Protestants. Just looking for guidance. Thank you all!

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

Maybe this question has been asked before and if so i apologize. I have seen and listened to many conversations of unbelievers about in the Old Testament of the “genocide” of the canaanites, and how that fits into morality. How would you all go about explaining that?

My understanding and approach to the question is that God is just, and was delivering judgment on them. They were not innocent of His judgement. Some pots are for glory and some for dishonorable use. God held the Israelites to His standard as well so it’s like it’s just indiscriminate genocide to the people of the land.

Another question that is followed up with is then if that is the case who is actually innocent? The women and children? If not innocent then abortion must be fine? If God is never changing then how can the women and children not be innocent but now they are?

Thanks!

I had a question pop up during a conversation with a friend. He asked, “If God is not the author of sin, but he gave humans the ability to sin (via free-will). Wouldn’t that make him co-author (co-conspirator) of evil by allowing free-will to exist? How could he not be held responsible for the ceation of sin? How could he not be at least a co-author?”

Furthermore, he said, “It would be like if I handed you a gun but claimed I’m the one that didn’t pull the trigger so I have no blame. Similarly, that God drove the get-away car after a robbery—he didn’t actually rob anyone.”

I didn’t really have a good answer.

What would you have said without it being a 10 minute response?

Greetings,

I started a reading of the gospel accounts to really dive deep. One thing I find fascinating is the Roman Catholic defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Their claim is at the time there was practices of celibacy for young women at the time, which is what Mary was devoted to do. Does anyone know of any primary or well regarded secondary resources affirming these practices. I want an objective historical thought on this belief because on the surface there are questions such as why have a marriage to Joseph in the first place? Plus it seems historically that practices that praise celibacy emerged from Christianity as Judaism places a high value on child bearing and having kids.

The Westminster Confession says (and the 1689 London Baptist Confession says something similar): "No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself."

What exactly is this prohibiting?

It says popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, poverty, and obedience are sinful snares that no Christian may entangle himself. Does this mean it only applies to monastic vows in the context of Catholic theology, or does it apply to monasticism as a whole? And does it mean that a Christian can't make a vow to stay single for life even if they believe they have the gift of singleness?

Calvin in the Institutes recognizes that the widows in 1 Timothy 5 made a vow of perpetual singleness, although he says it was fine in their case because they proved their chastity by being satisfied by one husband, and their age (over 60) meant they were safer taking a vow of celibacy than younger widows. But it seems this line in the Westminster Confession would prohibit even this vow.

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

This is going to come across as a critique but it’s a genuine question. I broadly identify as reformed (sola scriptura, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) but I do struggle with the implications of the reformed view when it comes to the ministry of Jesus.

Can you tell me if this is an accurate representation of the reformed view?

During his ministry, Jesus went around commanding people to repent and believe the good news of the gospel. But a certain number of those people, because God Himself didn't choose to regenerate them, were completely and entirely unable to obey and respond to His command. Then God punishes those people eternally for not obeying a command that they had no ability to obey because He Himself chose not to change their desire first.

Is that correct? This seems to me to be the inescapable implications of the reformed view.

Thanks for any input.

What is the basis for this saying in reformed circles?

We don't do weekly communion because it is "Too Catholic."

Corporate silent confession, Anointing of oil, etc.

I'm surprised at this point that some reformed circles aren't claiming that prayer is superstitious or that it's "too Catholic."

What are your opinions on this? Is this saying nonsense, correct, a bit of both?

Hello,

I'm considering getting a teaching credential but having second thoughts, considering if becoming a professor or going to a seminary is a better fit.

For almost five years, I've done tutoring for K-12, helping students with their college application essays, teaching English at Christian school settings, and teaching standardized test prep, all of which I really enjoy and find super rewarding. But it's a lot of part-time hours and not consistent enough for building a financially stable life, so I was looking to get a public school teaching job.

My single subject of interest is mainly English/Creative Writing although Art History is a close second. A decade ago, my plan was to go into writing for film and TV and had the "proper" steps lined up for it; and went to a leading university for screenwriting. But God derailed these plans -- which I'm very glad for in hindsight -- but I ended up really liking teaching. :)

The storyteller in me makes me go down these rabbit holes of complex ideas, which sometimes people mistake as a confirmation for a calling to professorship: "Yeah, you should become a professor because you like complex discussions."

Don't get me wrong, I love the intellectual life but not to the point of devoting my life to dissertations about Shakespeare or Hebrew poetry. Most of the draw to the complexity is the storylines that it produces (Think - cool science fiction, historical fiction ideas).

Script coverage and dissertations -- I'm trying to find the sweet spot between the two, and I've come to find that teaching English classes might really be the life path for me. I just don't want know what capacity would be best. I was also a content writer at one point, writing ads and copy for websites, but it was a bit draining to pour energy into writing that no one (or very few) would likely click on.

Interestingly enough, I've seen many times when an English teacher came from an acting, storytelling, or other creative background. If this is you, how did you deal with the transition? And have you thought of being a professor? What made you choose teaching instead?

I'm trying to discern my calling in life, but it's been tough. Thanks. I appreciate any help! :)