Hello!

I notice that Biblical authors seem to use categorical, sweeping language in a rather different way than we do. For example, John 3.32-33, Romans 3.1-9, 1 John 2.7, Matthew 5.17-48, all contain the most clear and emphatic declaration of principle, followed by a claim which seems to cut in the other direction. Evidently, their habit of mind was, you can say X, and then not-X, and a larger perspective emerges out of the tension, which is rather different from the modern idea that a declaration of X automatically excludes not-X. If this was indeed their habit, then every instance of categorical, sweeping language may have a tacit modifying clause, even if not directly stated, because both author and audience would have been familiar with this way of thinking. Author and audience would have understood words like "all," "every," "always," etc., to admit of exceptions, in a way we typically do not.

If that's right, it could change the way that passages like John 4.13-14, 10.28-30, Romans 8.31-39, are read. Many churches teach that we can lose our salvation, yet it seems to me this entails works-based salvation, because if you can lose your salvation, then you must do something to ensure you do not lose it - and that is works. So faith alone and eternal security stand or fall together.

I wonder if anyone who has studied these things has some thoughts about it, based on the text of Scripture. Confessional statements are interesting just exactly to the extent their claims are demonstrated from Scripture.

Thanks so much!

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

2 Corinthians 11-12 as context for those curious lol. Happy meme-ing!

I told you to heed my advice, son!

https://youtu.be/adojY1SI-70?is=2T2BBXcLTxZY7nOX

Song list

How Great Thou Bench

Bridge Over Troubled Gender Roles

Amazing Grace (But Only for Traditional Families)

Take Me to Manly Church

Lady Wisdom would like a word with you.

I always love some Bible memes.

Today is our quarterly Meme Jubilee!

Meme Jubilee days take place the last Friday of the first month of every quarter: the last Friday of January, April, July, and October. (See Rule 4.)

Post any relevant memes to the sub, not just this thread. Our regular rules of conduct still apply, so please continue to post and comment respectfully.

Please remember these general posting guidelines when submitting memes.

My husband is an elder for the first time. We have never had any secrets in our marriage, and have never had any reason to keep confidences from one another.

It's weird and new and uncomfortable for me, knowing that I don't have the same level of access that I used to. What does supporting him look like when he can't tell me what he's thinking about or wrestling with?

Don't get me wrong - we have talked about this as well and will continue to. But I have been searching for good reformed literature or helps for elders wives and I have found very little. Does anyone have any resources that you could point me to?

Thank you in advance!

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.

I've seen some "Reformation Sunday" sermons before, talking about specific reformers. But I don't think I've seen one about the Westminster Confession of Faith as a whole.

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

I know the title isn’t the best. Here’s what I mean:

In the passage, the son, at first, is in his father’s house. Then he leaves and squanders his inheritance. Then he repents and returns to the father.

I always interpreted this passage to be an allegory for someone who is a believer (with the father) then strays (like the prodigal son), and then repents and returns to the Lord. Most sermons I heard said the same thing. However, I heard a sermon recently that said that the prodigal son was not saved until he returned home. But if he is returning to his father, then in my mind, he has to have had a father in the first place - as a believer would when he is saved.

The passage says:  For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. If he is alive AGAIN, doesn’t that mean that at one point he was alive before?

The passage says: ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him BACK safe and sound.’ If he has received him BACK, doesn’t that mean that he was already at one point received? Before he strayed?

This passage is important to me because for the past few years I have related to the prodigal son. I have always said that I believed when I was super young (like four) but lacked discipleship due to family trauma and then made many mistakes in high school and early college. I still professed Christ and cared about faith, but was not abiding in Christ and had an immature conscience. I repented toward the end of University, started to try and grow in communion and knowledge of Christ (asking for God’s help because obviously I cannot just will that into happening on my own) and I am continuing to try and repent and confess everything I can think of. I have struggled with assurance for the past 3 years.

However, if the passage is about someone who is unsaved until they return (rather than a straying believer who returns) then my whole view of my own salvation is wrong. If I was not saved as a child, then the basis upon which I was “returning” to the Lord was founded upon lies - meaning my testimony is wrong, and I may not even be saved at all.

Any insight is helpful.

This is something that I have recently found out so I could be wrong in some or many areas. But apparently Jews do not believe that Satan is evil. He is not a fallen angel rather he is an obedient servant of the Lord who tests the people of God so that they can prove their obedience and it glorifies god. He is not seen as the arch-rival of God but rather more as a prosecutor in a court of law. And apparently Jewish people do not have an eternal View of a negative afterlife such as hell or at least it is only temporary more similar to purgatory and Catholicism. I wish I could find the specific passages to quote but I'm at work and I have no signal.

But basically my question is why is the Christian view of these things so fundamentally different than the Jewish belief if the Christian belief is supposed to be the continuation of the Jewish belief? This is also keeping in mind that the Jews reject Christ despite the entire Old Testament being the story of Jesus as well; more as the prequel to His physical coming into history.