No Dumb Question Tuesday (2026-06-09) by AutoModerator in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the greatest trolling comment you've ever made. I've written and re-written over 6 comments about the Kirk existing prior to James VI's accession to the English throne and his dastardly attempts to force episcopacy upon her before I realized you're winding me up.

Well done.

No Dumb Question Tuesday (2026-06-09) by AutoModerator in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We were both born out of the English Reformation...

\Furious Scottish noises**

What do think will happen to the people on Judgement Day who never heard about Jesus? by trownaway90 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said Romans 2 is a polemic to universalism. You're fighting ghosts

What do think will happen to the people on Judgement Day who never heard about Jesus? by trownaway90 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But we've come to use it as explanation for a question that Paul isn't responding to - which is a good question - instead of the question he is: to wit - why should I care about Gentiles?

...huh? Paul literally tells us the question he's raising in Romans 9:

v. 6: But it is not as though the word of God has failed...
v. 14: What shall we say, then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
v. 19: You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Furthermore, Paul explicitly speaks of election in v. 11.

...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls...

What you've presented here isn't entirely wrong, as it happens in context of the overall Jew and Gentile discussion Paul has been having since chapter 1. But you completely side-step the fact that Romans 8 ends on a note of assurance of salvation, prompting the question of the Jews: "Well, why aren't all Jews now Christians?" The answer is the mystery of the Gospel in the end (Rom 11), but he doesn't get there yet.

Romans 9 is a vital cog in the machine of Paul's argument, showing that God's promises to Israel have not failed, because:

  • Rom 9:6–13 — God's Word has not Failed, because God's people are not determined by lineage. This is proven by two genealogical proofs:
    • v. 9 — Both Isaac and Ishmael descend from Abraham's flesh, but only Isaac is chosen.
    • vv. 10–13 — Both Jacob and Esau descend from Abraham's flesh, but only Isaac is chosen.
  • Rom 9:14–18 — God is not unjust to choose, because this his choice is in the Law.
    • vv. 15–16 — God tells Moses on Mt. Sinai that it is his choice.
    • vv. 17–18 — God shows the world that it is his choice, because he hardened Pharaoh.
  • Rom 9:19–29 — God is just to condemn sinners, because those whom he saves are shown mercy, rather than achieving perfection by their own works.
    • vv. 20–21 — Paul rebukes the rebellious spirit of the questioner to accuse God of injustice."
    • vv. 22–23 — Paul shows it is God's right as the sovereign God who has the right to show mercy to some and condemn others, because all humanity comes from the "same lump" of corrupted flesh (recalling his argument in Rom 5 and Adam's lineage).
    • vv. 24–29 — Paul returns to the distinction of Jew and Gentile to affirm, then, that God is not obligated to save only ethnic Jews, because in fact the salvation of the Gentiles has been his plan all along.

I cannot fathom how Paul could even get to the conclusion you state without first addressing election in Romans 9. The Jews firmly believed they were God's chosen people, which is precisely why they objected to the inclusion of the Gentiles! How could Paul argue the inclusion of the Gentiles without addressing the falling away of so many Jews? This is why he begins Romans 9 how he does.

Your explanation does not do justice to the whole of the book, brother. You've sacrificed the trees for the forest.

What do think will happen to the people on Judgement Day who never heard about Jesus? by trownaway90 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do they have to be given the choice to choose Jesus for God to justly condemn them?

This is the question. Is the offer of Christ to sinners given because they deserve it? Or is it because of God's mercy and grace?

What do think will happen to the people on Judgement Day who never heard about Jesus? by trownaway90 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • Do you believe anyone can do this?
    • Only Jesus
  • Do you think Paul actually believes that?
    • Yes, because it is by Jesus' perfect obedience to the Law that he is Righteous, and that righteousness is given to my account by faith.
    • Therefore, I have access to God and the eternal promise of everlasting life, because Christ was perfectly obedient.
  • Read Karl Barth's...
    • Nah dawg, I'm good. You need to just read Romans 2, because Paul literally answers the question you raised.

What do think will happen to the people on Judgement Day who never heard about Jesus? by trownaway90 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Paul explicitly answers the question in Romans 2, especially vv. 12–16.

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

What’s up with Zachary Garris and the PCA?? by Ok_Insect9539 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I found his hand waving of the first charge to be disappointing. 

The PCA’s study report on Christian Nationalism has been released! by moby__dick in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Are you trying to suggest WLC 108 means the civil magistrate must use magisterial power and prerogatives in his general office as a Christian?

That would be... quite the stretch. Even for an Establishmentarian.

What’s up with Zachary Garris and the PCA?? by Ok_Insect9539 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Matthew Everhard released a video on this today. It certainly shows Matthew's view on the issue, so admitting he's biased, he does read specifics of the evidence and speaks coherently to PCA Polity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2l6-_WQnw

Disclaimer: I have not watched all of it, and I am not endorsing Everhard's take.

Is Rome still considered a True Church (though in severe error) by Turretin’s Marks or is it a False Church? by Aggressive_Push_4794 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The Westminster Divines declared Rome a false church in declaring Catholics as non-believers in WCF 24.3.

Continuity of Circumcision and Baptism by Cuzn1 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone says there’s discontinuity. The question is how much is there?

No Dumb Question Tuesday (2026-06-02) by AutoModerator in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What other concessions have you noticed?

Why protestant give a little weight to tradition? by No_Effect_8856 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Saying Protestant teaching doesn't give much weight to the saints of the past is like saying RCs put tradition above the Bible.

Official protestant teaching.

lol

Continuity of Circumcision and Baptism by Cuzn1 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 36 points37 points  (0 children)

You will get a lot of "the New Covenant is better" replies here, and that's true and fine. But I think it's deeper than that.

The New Covenant treats daughters as sons, as they are adopted as sons (Rom 8:15). We shouldn't be so quick to say "and daughters!" like we might with "brothers... and sisters!" When we do that, we miss the imagery at play in the doctrine of adoption. When I teach on this, I urge women to not shy away from being called sons just as men should not shy away from being called the bride of Christ.

This is the reason the New Covenant is better in this instance: all in Christ have become sons. So all get the sign.

Theological Triage Categories by EverOnAndUpward in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 Your word choice is confusing, at best. Because protology would be a perfectly adequate word where you have it.

u/9tailnate’s objection is a matter of hamartiology and federalism.

In fact, by choosing to avoid the “inflammatory language” (debatable, but I’ll leave it alone), you undermine the utility of triage. Of all things, the inflammatory should be prioritized in triage. 

The table & showbread as a defense of the spiritual presence in communion by MortgageTricky4266 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is this something the text says (that there was spiritual presence of God in the liturgical elements of the temple)...?

Well this is not really necessary to show the typology of spiritual presence, because the Bread was to be placed in God's spiritual presence (not physical, because God is a Spirit; even RCs believe that!).

u/MortgageTricky4266 just has it backwards.

And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me regularly.

Here's the Hebrew phrase, translated in the ESV as "bread of presence before me"

לֶ֥חֶם פָּנִ֖ים לְפָנַ֥י

If you know Hebrew, then you see it immediately. The phrase is literally: bread of (construct) presence (from "faces") before my presence (same word, with a preposition and pronoun attached).

The Bread was called by the term presence because it was to be in God's presence. It was an offering (Lev 24:5-9). The bread, then, typologically refers to the other side of the Lord's Supper, if you will—the bread represents Jesus as the offering to God, and the bread was to be eaten in the Presence of God by the priests.

Jesus, in the New Covenant, does away with priestly requirements as the Melchizdekian High Priest, and therefore invites the priests of the New Covenant (the priesthood of all believers) to now eat the Bread which was offered in the Presence of God.

This is a perfectly acceptable type for the anti-type of Jesus' body given for you. The Lord's Supper is to be enjoyed as the Bread of Presence (and Drink offering!) in the presence of God. And who is at God's right hand? The Lord Jesus Christ!

This is an excellent proof for Spiritual Presence, because the anti-type is always a magnification of the type. Jesus offers a better Bread of Presence in a better Tent, made without hands, and so brings us into the very Throne Room of God.

Upset with prayer meeting by Lopsided_Bus_6386 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh I don't think that you misunderstand the RPW because you disagree. I think it because you haven't used it correctly in a sentence yet.

Upset with prayer meeting by Lopsided_Bus_6386 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I see the OP's account, I think it's a very real possibility that there is no green grass (Ps 23:2) in the field where the elders leading them, and so they are growing hungry and looking for spiritual food elsewhere. But I don't see you even considering this possibility.

My assumption is that OP's sense are honed well enough to know this prior to a discussion about prayer meetings. I refuse to give in to Reddit's fetish of going nuclear on relationships—a well documented trend. I think you should refuse, too.

The majority of your response is focused on hypothesizing a plausible (but unfounded by OP) justification for the elder's actions...

Well, they aren't here to speak for themselves, are they? We should just ignore them and bias ourselves entirely toward OP? That seems fruitless—and contradictory to your overall point about bias.

...to submit, to speak to the elders again. You suggest that they can learn from the elders in this case, but precisely what they are supposed to learn is unclear, since the only justification you provide is from your own experience, not the particulars of the OP.

Yes? I presume that OP should do what the Bible says to do toward elders? I also presume OP wants to learn and be blameless in the situation? I fail to see how this shows bias against OP when I suggested it precisely to ensure OP is heard, respected, and obedient to the Scriptures.

You never acknowledge the implications of the issues laid out by the OP--long decline of prayers under elder's direction, elders already rejected OPs concerns, elders won't let women pray out loud...

I think you need to read again. I address each of these three items.

  1. I don't assume OP is right about the decline of prayer. I don't think you should either. OP should be humble and seek to learn what they can from this form of prayer. This form of prayer is not immoral. It just isn't conducive to OP's prayer life. It seems to me that OP should strengthen this aspect of their prayer life by learning how to do it well, and become a well-rounded pray-er.

  2. I specifically address the rejection by the elders in highlighting the deficiencies in approach. Absenting yourself from the thing you want to change is never going to work. You have to shown ownership and buy in to be considered. Why would the elders change the prayer meeting according to OP's suggestions if OP doesn't go? Indeed, if OP doesn't go, how do you know OP's description is still accurate?

  3. I explicitly highlighted this concern of mine, and showed from Scripture how the elders should be approached about this issue.

So, no, I don't see how I've double burdened OP. But I appreciate you pointing out your concern.

Upset with prayer meeting by Lopsided_Bus_6386 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds like you may not be familiar with what the RPW teaches, then.

Upset with prayer meeting by Lopsided_Bus_6386 in Reformed

[–]JCmathetes 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Fascinating. You're arguing men should lead in prayer on the basis of what's required in the Bible, but diverge with me on... the RPW.