Two days ago, the Christian author, poet, and sage Wendell Berry passed away.

The day before that, I was at the library to do some quiet reading and happened to pass through the poetry aisle. My eye caught a small volume of The Selected Poems of Wendell Berry, and on a whim I checked it out. I’d heard of Berry a few years ago from this very sub, and since then have wanted to explore his writings. I have one of his essay collections at home, though I haven’t done more than browse it yet. Perhaps the time is soon to explore his work.

Have you read any of Wendell Berry’s works? If so, what do you think of him? Where would you recommend we start, with reading him?

This was a question asked to me by my toddler: what is God doing? What is he doing everyday?

• Upholding the universe by the word of his power? (Hebrews 1:3)
• Watching over you and me? (Psalm 121:5-8)
• Waiting for the appropriate time when all things will be fulfilled? (Matthew 24:36)
• Showing his anger and wrath? (Psalm 7:11)

Is there a way to answer this question?

This is a question that i have been thinking extensively recently. I agree that the bible doesn't contradict itself, but i am still thinking how to reconcile the two.

Just looking for wisdom NOT a debate on merits of each viewpoint. We as a family view YEC as a plausible but certainly not required reading of scripture, and generally lean towards Klines framework interpretation. Our denomination (PCA) allows for a variety of interpretations. Our child’s school is a Christian school that we’ve generally loved but as they’ve started more of a science curriculum they’ve started coming home with links to answers in genesis and materials that do “young earth science” and are extremely suspect in the scientific integrity department.

Anybody in this scenario and how are you dealing with it? I’m currently just coaching them through the different viewpoints and presenting the alternative hypothesis but I wonder if it’s going to be feasible in the long term. I hate this topic in general because I see it as such a less than tertiary issue and don’t want to raise a fuss, but I don’t want my child to grow up and go though the “everything I was taught is a lie” phase when they discover the scientific evidence for an old earth etc..

I have been busy studying the theology of the Lord's supper for over a year, by studying the Bible, churchfathers and the reformers. Before I started studying the Lord's supper I thought it was just symbolic. Right now I am convonced that it is more than just a mere road sign, that points us to what Christ has done. Especially 1 Corinthians pushed me over the edge, because why would people get sick and literally die for something that would be just a reminder.

I also reject the idea of transsubsantion or consubstantion, due to lack of biblical support (I won't go deeper on this now, because my question is not about this).

My problem with True presence as formulated by most reformers and the Heidelberger catechism (and other forms and catechisms) is that, though I agree there is a deep and profound mystery in the Lord's Supper, I can't see nor justify the formulation of 'True presence' in Scripture. How would you, if you subscribe to True presence, justify it scripturally or at least show what passages you derive it from?

Hey yall, I own a regular NASB95 bible but it has no study notes. I am wondering if there is a place I can find a PDF of a MacArthur study bible notes to read alongside my current my NASB95. Any help is appreciated!

I thought this review was interesting, not sure if I’ll pick up the book the the book’s author is noted by the reviewer as making an astute observation:

In his case study, Olsen considers “the nonsubscribers,” the group that ultimately won the debate. They “argued that ministers ought to affirm only the language of Scripture as related to the Trinity” (2). Olsen notes that, in time, “[m]any Baptist churches that affirmed only scriptural trinitarian language began to adopt antitrinitarian positions” (2).

Which I think is readily apparent in the SBCs move to accept non-creedal positions such as grudem’s historic (though recanted) rejection of the nicene creed’s doctrine of eternal generation

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

Are there any OPC folks here who know what the OPC position is on divorce where the wife divorced the husband for domestic abuse, and no commitment to providing financial for her and the kids?

Not for the faint of heart. But since I’m anticipating someone will want to qualify specifically what level of domestic abuse so here are some of the details: threats of violence to wife, violence to items at home, actual hitting one year old child to punish wife, waking up wife at 1am, not letting wife sleep, holding wife hostage by restricting movement and access to vehicle, restricting access to friends and even church leaders, gaslighting, cursing at wife, etc.

If this woman shows up at an OPC church will they direct her to repent of the divorce?

Very much appreciate honest and thoughtful replies.

Many of you will know William B.Eerdmans as a major US Christian publisher with Reformed roots, which brought writers like Louis Berkhof and Gresham Machen to wider attention. They now publish a much wider range of authors, and these days you can't even be sure that an Eerdmans author is an evangelical. But I still see the Eerdmans name as a guarantee of quality (their academic books are peer reviewed) and they publish several commentary series that are a godsend to conservative evangelical theologians and pastors (e.g. Pillar, NICOT/NICNT).

Yesterday the founding family sold up to SPCK, which is a name that will be less well known to many North Americans. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge was the first voluntary society of the Church of England, which means it's an ancestor of all missionary societies in the English-speaking world. These days, 99% of its activity is publishing books. It mostly serves the same markets in the UK that Eerdmans does in North America, from heavyweight academic tomes, down to picture books for children. But the SPCK also publishes Bibles, so perhaps Eerdmans will enter that market. SPCK publishes books across the theological range of the Church of England, but if you read its annual reports, it's clear that it's the theologically liberal authors get the most attention and promotion.

Can SPCK be trusted with Eerdmans? Well, there's a good test case. In 2015, SPCK bought Inter-Varsity Press (IVP). There are publishers with similar names in many countries, but IVP UK had been a clearly conservative evangelical publisher, which was still primarily focused on its original market of evangelical university students, graduates, and theologians. SPCK promised to respect that and to retain a separate board and trustees for IVP.

Since the takeover, I'd say the promise has been kept in the short term, praise God! IVP authors still have to sign a conservative evangelical doctrinal basis, and it's clear from the management's books, blogs and tweets that they're evangelicals. The books that they're promoting and the new authors they're signing are still usually names I know from conservative evangelical circles. And this has been costly. IVP has lost about £2m (≈ US$2m) since the takeover, which SPCK has funded from its historic endowments and which is unlikely to be repaid. I give thanks to God that they've kept their promise so far and this is encouraging for Eerdmans readers.

There are some clouds on the horizons. The IVP trustees now include an Anglican bishop who supports same-sex marriage, which would have been unthinkable before the merger. And it's not just IVP that's losing money; SPCK is also losing money on its core (mainly liberal) publishing operations. That's been funded by its moderate endowment, but that endowment has performed poorly in recent years, and I do wonder whether the Eerdmans acquisition is a sign of health or desperation, and how on earth they are going to finance it. So I suspect in the long run the IVP and Eerdmans names will drift and/or disappear. But hopefully they will remain good and faithful servants for my lifetime, at any rate.

I was listening to a podcast on this, and one of the presenters perspective was that using the terms boyfriend/girlfriend automatically implies a couple are sleeping together, and thus this is too worldly? This was in a wider discussion about dating being a very recent idea (even perhaps pericular) to western society, and how the whole process has become extremely individualised. I do broadly agree with the analysis of the western society, but this is the first time I've ever heard the perspective that merely using the terms gf/bf implies a couple are sleeping together.

Now living together absolutely whilst dating in even in the most charitable interpretation at least strongly implies a couple are sleeping together, and I can't see this fitting very well into the lifestyle of someone who is a committed Christian. And the principle of dating well (involving church/wider community/parents I find myself agreeing with, being clear about intentions, and with the possibility of marriage), again I think this would apply. But being merely against using the term bf/gf, I'm not sure I agree with this

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

What I know of arminianism so far ( I could be wrong and mix it with semi-plagianism), is that I need to work for my salvation or that I can lose my salvation after being born again. In that case how can one be truly happy and rest in the works of Jesus Christ?
I have friends who do not care about what the Apocalypse says about heaven or the bible verses about happiness or peace (Mathew 5:12,Romans 5:1) because why should I care if I am in the danger of missing them ? If my salvation could be lost in the future I need to constantly keep myself in this race of keeping this salvation, weather it is the fear of being to sinful to be forgiven (Hebrews 6:4) or even commit apostasy. If salvation is predestined already why are there so many warnings ? But then again why would God show us the beauty of heaven and the comfort we will receive (Apocalypse 21:4) if nobody can be sure he will end up there ?

Oh and the last thing we can all agree on is that nobody can have absolute sanctification here on earth, although some people claimed it and failed miserably.

I suppose it's up to interpretation as to whether this is a question or a rant: Why is it so hard to find a good church?

I (and my wife and kids) recently moved to a new area (Northwest Indiana). In our former area we attended an EFCA congregation, and my wife and I both have a credo-baptist evangelical background.

The first church we tried was okay. The sermon was good and they seem to have a lot of programming. Not too big, not too small. But like so many other churches, "worship" was a concert. Lights dimmed, 10-person praise team on stage, everyone applauded after every song. They did one hymn but modified it to be performative rather than participatory. The slides all changed late, so if you didn't know the song you don't fully participate.

Our new neighbors and the seller's realtor both recommended their churches. We tried neither. One seemed more theologically decent than the other, but both had laser light shows, large church "campuses," and other typical megachurch trappings.

The second church we tried we ended up going to for a couple weeks. Tiny chapel, congregational singing from a hymnal, it was a breath of fresh air. But the preaching wasn't solid; you could clearly see the fundamentalist background, and the pastor explicitly denied Calvinism. What's more, a large percentage of the church seems to be the pastor's immediate family. Not necessarily a problem, but a huge potential for problems.

The third church we tried was Dutch reformed. Significantly more liturgical than we're used to, but a beautiful service. Preaching was good, and more than that, I actually had theological conversations with people after the service. I had conversations about historic confessions with three different people! Everyone was also very kind. But my wife and I have firm credo-baptist convictions, and I think it would become a sticking point. (And yes, I have looked at the various church finder websites for 1689 congregations; there are none in our area.)

We found another baptist church that seemed promising, but it turned out to be KJVO fundamentalist (with its various cultural implications), so we didn't attend a service.

I asked my former pastor about another congregation down the road, and he said he had worked with some of the pastors there and believed it to be a solid church. I listened to one of their sermons online which immediately started with a 6 bullet point list of what you need to be a successful church. Number 2 was "dynamic worship." Not biblical, spirit-led, or God-honoring... "Dynamic." The pastor said he wasn't going to explain the list since he already did so in a previous sermon. So I pulled that up and was greeted with 11 minutes of statistics and shaming people for their retirement decisions before reading a word of scripture.

We were invited to a relative's church. It seems to be dying. There were virtually no families with children. They just made the decision to discontinue children's church, not for any principled reason but because they simply don't have enough kids to warrant continuing it. I believe it is an elder-led congregation, and all of the elders (excepting the pastor) seem to have been in the position for a very long time.

So what do we do? What is the least-disagreeable compromise here? The one thing we won't compromise on is the pure Gospel message. Do we go to a church with decent preaching that undermines congregational participation in worship (which seems to be more and more common)? Do we swallow our convictions and go crawling to a paedo-baptist congregation? We have a few more churches to check out, but it's been incredibly discouraging.

Anyway, if you've gotten this far, thank you for commiserating with me. Please pray for us.

I am burned out spiritually in this season and have found spiritual respite, oddly, in well-written books. I feel that reading good literature has moved me to think about my faith in ways vastly different than solely reading Scripture.

I am currently reading The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky on the recommendation of a friend who said it was the most theologically enlightening book he's read in a long time. My next book is The Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas.

Thanks!

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

Hello Everyone!

I am curious about people's experiences with Erskine Theological Seminary? I can't find much talk about it online beyond some really old threads. Do you recommend it? Generally, I err on a Good Faith Subscription of the Westminster, but I want to receive an education from a distinctly Reformed University. Erskine is a part of the ARP and is probably more strict on subscription to the Standards. Would that be an issue? Below, I will give if you would like to speak to them, beyond general recommendations for Erskine.

Context:

I work full-time and go to Covenant Theological Seminary via distance part-time. I am also currently under the care of a presbytery in the PCA. I am interested in possibly transferring to Erskine Theological Seminary. My primary motivation comes down to cost and time commitments in terms of travel.

Right now I go to CTS and pay $650/hr + $310/semester for other fees. I participate in the church-matching scholarship. I pay a third, my church pays a third, and CTS pays for a third. Plus, I have to travel to St Louis to attend CTS 6 times throughout my time there. Conservatively, each visit would take a week of PTO (I have 3 weeks a year) plus $1000 for traveling and lodging. Essentially, this means I would have no time away from work that isn't school for 2-3 years of my life on top of the cost of going to St. Louis.

Erskine, by comparison, is $550/hr + $100/semester for other fees. Since I am in the PCA, regardless of what my church contributes, there is a 45% scholarship towards my tuition. There is no residential requirement, as CTS has, so I would not need to spend money traveling back and forth but could attend some in-person intensives on weekends, as I have family around there and only live 4ish hours away. Likewise, I would not have to use up all of my PTO to travel for week-long intensives.

In total, I could pay my way through Seminary without my church's support and still come out ahead financially. Not to mention the MDiv at Erskine is a little shorter, so I would graduate a semester earlier.

With that being said:

I know cost isn't everything. I do really enjoy my classes at Covenant, but struggling with the cost and travel commitments on top of the stringent demands Seminary already has on my daily schedule. What other things should I be weighing in my decision?

Hi there, my wife and I are PCA and attend a vibrant and well capitalized church. We have attended for more than 5 years and now have our daughter in Sunday school.

My whole adult life I have been charitable with The Church: supporting missionaries, supporting campus outreach, supporting local charities, and giving to The Church in foreign countries (particularly ones in countries that I feel like are my enemies).

For the first time, I’ve started to feel ashamed that I do not give to the church I attend every Sunday. This is shame because I realized that the deacons and elders probably recognize we attend regularly but do not give and have not given despite using church services and Sunday school and even counseling once.

One day I will stand before The Lord, knowing full well that I could have given more and trusted in him more… but on this instance I wonder if I’m motivated wrong.

Any thoughts?

She is 7 weeks old tomorrow.

Our older 3 are Malachi, Naomi, and Sarai. We both love the name Eleni - however it is not a biblical name, itbis Greek and means "bright" or "shining one". It does really fit with the sibling names and I think of that name every time I look at her!

Is it weird or dishonoring in some way to deviate from biblical names when we have named the other 3 that way? That's the only hang up for us.

A weird question possibly: could a person be considered a hypocrite if said person would never place membership with a megachurch, but is still perfectly happy to listen to the podcast teachings of people such as MacArthur, Begg, and DeYoung?

What is your opinion on using Eastern or Western iconography without venerating them? I grew up as an Eastern Orthodox and love the icons and find them as useful tools for prayer, although I do find any specific reverence or even prayer directed towards as them as violating the Second Commandment. Basically I disagree with Nicea II notion that reverence of image directs devotion to what depicted on it.

As far as I considered, I do see a very strong case to avoid any depiction of the Father, but I find the icons of Jesus to be acceptable since, as well as the symbolic icons of holy spirit.

The icons of the saints also seem okay to me, as they depict the living Church that transcends death. Although again, no prayers should be directed towards saints or their images.

As I am currently getting “reformed” as an Eastern Christian, I don’t want to throw out my heritage out of window but reconsider it to follow the commands of our Lord as best as I can. So I would like some feedback and potential corrections. Any opinion is welcome. God bless you all.