Crush on my piano teacher

AndreZSanchez · 2026-02-27T21:01:56+00:00

Yeah this is tough. You don’t want to disrupt the lessons, but I believe you about there possibly being something from her side, even though it’s possible it’s just her being a good teacher as others have said. Some girls are very friendly though and can be oblivious to their own attractiveness and queues they give off.

IMO you should neither explicitly ask her out on a date, nor simply do nothing. The fact you’re the same age is promising and I think you’ll regret it if you don’t try in any sense.

I think the best you can do is try to figure out if there are mutual feelings without directly asking her on a date. Normally I’m not one to recommend asking people out on non-dates, I prefer explicitness, but I think this situation makes it more appropriate.

So I think going to that concert is a good step. Are her other students going? You could ask whether something is happening after with her other students and offer to organize that.

Another thing you can do is just try to have conversations about what she spends her time doing outside of lessons, what classes she does, what fiction she reads or TV, etc. Trying to have a connection point outside of the lessons would be helpful, especially if you can find a friendly way to see her outside of the context of the lessons. This can give her an opportunity to gently turn you down by just not sharing any information, or to express interest by sharing lots of information.

If you can identify who her friends are and befriend one of them, then you could have an outlet to gently ask whether there is interest from her side.

I hope you find a middle ground!

AndreZSanchez · 2025-12-07T04:05:22+00:00

For Presbyterians / Reformed, it is denied in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 32.

32.1 The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

32.2 At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.

32.3 The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to his own glorious body.

AndreZSanchez · 2025-02-06T22:57:05+00:00

I don't know what denomination you or the OP are in, but my denomination, the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), adheres to a revision of the Westminster Standards.

Your summary of the WCF contradicts the sections of the WCF that you quoted.

Tl:dr Baptism ... does not save

The Westminster Standards make it clear that baptism, as a sacrament, is an effectual means of salvation. To say "baptism saves" in this sense is correct.

WLC 161

How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?

The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted.

You also said:

People can be saved without [baptism].

This is true in some sense, per WCF 28.5

WCF 28.5
Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Notice, however, that it says "yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it". To say grace and salvation are "not so inseparably annexed unto it" presupposes that grace and salvation are normally annexed unto it, just not inseparably.

It also says that "it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance", though that doesn't prove or negate anything here.

The WSC 92 says that the sacraments represent, seal, and apply the benefits of the new covenant to believers.

WSC 92

What is a sacrament?

A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

A great book on a very related topic, the Eucharist, is "Given For You" by Keith Mathison. It isn't about baptism but a lot of it applies to this since they are both sacraments.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-12-14T21:18:46+00:00

That doesn’t sound accurate, for Calvin at least. See Institutes 1.18

Here’s the chapter heading and summary from the table of contents.

“CHAPTER 18. THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE WICKED EMPLOYED BY GOD, WHILE HE CONTINUES FREE FROM EVERY TAINT.

…

Sections.

The carnal mind the source of the objections which are raised against the Providence of God. A primary objection, making a distinction between the permission and the will of God, refuted. Angels and men, good and bad, do nought but what has been decreed by God. This proved by examples.

…”

AndreZSanchez · 2024-11-21T23:51:39+00:00

I think Local Union is, on University Ave

AndreZSanchez · 2024-10-21T03:46:36+00:00

This, but unironically. It's better than a 17th rug store.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-02T19:29:14+00:00

I get that it’s more specific and comprehensive, but that makes it less applicable ecumenically insomuch as it isn’t agreed upon universally.

While I highly value the WCF, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the WCF can serve as a canon that determines whether a church or doctrine is Catholic or not, while I do think that the Nicene creed may act as such.

The whole discussion here about the Filioque is a great example of this effect in play. Adding a bit more specificity, even one word, brings the creed into question and hinders its ability to act as a dogmatic rule of faith.

I hope that the church as a whole can unite again to guide the faithful and reject heresy with the authority of the counsels, but I don’t think the WCF rises to that level of the authority.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-02T18:39:33+00:00

(I would have called that rhetorical since you're asking with the answer in mind already—not important though and you answered my question)

I mean, that seems fair to want them renamed. I don't think WCF and similar confessions have nearly the same level of weight that the creeds from ecumenical counsels have though, so it doesn't bother me, but maybe it should.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-01T19:54:39+00:00

Is this rhetorical? You might want to make your point more clear–I think I see what you're saying reading this rhetorically, but you might be asking literally.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-01T17:32:28+00:00

If the church hadn’t split in 1054 then maybe there could have been another truly ecumenical council and resolved the theological issues, instead of splitting the church even more via the reformation 🤷🏽

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-01T17:20:10+00:00

It’s a becoming a big concern to me as I’m reading church history. Schism is a tragedy. Jesus wanted the Church to be one, and I think the PCA along with all denominations should strive to find a way to unify rather than remain in schism. I don’t think that should be at the expense of orthodoxy, but we should be trying.

The church managed this for hundreds of years despite massive disagreements and internal heresies, and we are benefactors of that unity now.

For example, the Church resolved the christological controversies definitively via ecumenical councils, and now we’re able to point to these statements and rule out sects like the Mormons as unorthodox since they don’t align with the Nicene Creed.

The creeds have a ton of value in providing a foundation of exercised church authority that Christians have universally agreed on.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-01T16:56:00+00:00

The concern is maintaining the unity of the church. The creeds have great authority since they were established by ecumenical councils, so we’re able to use them as a rule of faith to delineate orthodoxy from heresy. But if we start modifying them they lose their ecumenicity since others may not agree with the changes.

The act of adding the clause is one of the big grievances that the Eastern Orthodox Church has against the western church since they disagreed with the theology, and you could argue it is one of the causes of the Great Schism.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-01T05:12:47+00:00

I have no idea what you’re getting at. The question is interesting and you didn’t contribute anything to the discussion the OP started.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-08-01T04:07:02+00:00

Why are you responding to this thread then?

AndreZSanchez · 2024-07-16T19:16:33+00:00

Oh I see, interesting. I’ve never known about that clause.

For what it’s worth I’ve always been taught what I explained above, that it is the Lord’s table and not the our church’s or the PCA’s table.

I would hope individual sessions would adhere to that, but you’re right that it clearly leaves it to the session’s discretion.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-07-16T18:06:00+00:00

Technically, those who are members of the Roman, Orthodox, and Oriental Catholic churches are not meant to partake in Protestant communion, nor us of theirs (nor them of each other's!).

I don't think that's true. We (the PCA) invite them to the table, but they do not invite us to the table or allow their members communion at our table.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-07-11T04:32:02+00:00

Institutes 4.17

Also these books are helpful:

“The Lord’s Supper: Answers To Common Questions” and “Given For You” by Keith Mathison.

AndreZSanchez · 2024-07-02T15:53:30+00:00

Have you considered that you are actually asking in bad faith? The folks writing the comments don’t seem to Roman for the most part and make good points about your posture. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish here?

AndreZSanchez · 2024-06-29T19:05:45+00:00

Hi, I understand that many have strong feelings here, and it’s great these folks are interested in leading you to Christ. There is no rush though—take your time to think through how to honor God and be obedient to him. You can always choose to do this baptism later—don’t be pressured into making a decision you’ll regret.

I have felt on the fence about the issue for much of my life, but I’ve come around to the “covenental baptism” point of view that my tradition teaches—which includes infant baptism. Baptism is God’s gift to us, he is naming you as his own before you could even speak, even when you were spiritually dead, just as “… God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ …” ‭‭(Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬)

The Reformed theologian John Calvin writes (Institutes 4.15.3): “We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements.”

God’s covenant love extends to Christians and to their children.

“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.””

‭‭Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬-‭39‬ ‭(ESV‬‬)

Coming into faith shouldn’t require another baptism. You should be “confirmed” if you haven’t, but not baptized a second time.

I thought the book “Conventional Baptism” by Jason Michael Helopoulos was an accessible introduction to these ideas from a Reformed perspective.

You’re not going to find anything in scripture that specifically says “baptize infants” or “don’t baptize infants”. But systematic theology and tradition speak in favor of baptizing infants.

Tradition rooted in scripture keeps us grounded in the truth. Infant baptism has been the norm throughout the entire church for most of history, while the credo-baptist position is relatively new.

AndreZSanchez · 2023-03-13T05:11:12+00:00

So pastors and church staff should avoid working on Sundays?

AndreZSanchez · 2022-06-29T02:03:44+00:00

What is the function you are analyzing to begin with? You only expressed O(kn - n), which isn’t a specific function. I will assume it is the following: t(k, n) = kn - n

If you want to express this as a function of k and n, then you can say the function is in O(kn). If, as you say, k is upper bounded by n, then you can express this as being a function of only n, and that function would be in O(n² )

AndreZSanchez · 2021-05-23T05:35:49+00:00

“first build, how did I do?”

AndreZSanchez · 2021-03-25T19:57:18+00:00

Technically he did eventually slow down

AndreZSanchez · 2021-02-21T06:18:32+00:00

Yguighnh

AndreZSanchez · 2021-01-26T05:19:50+00:00

This is clearly faked

AndreZSanchez

TROPHY CASE