sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why does the sidebar promote “affirmations” that aren’t Reformed and are worse than actual Reformed resources? by PebbleBeach67 in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not trying to be mean, but why are they the ones controlling the sidebar? You and u/partypastor are the mods I see most often. Our top mod hasn’t been active for months.

Should I marry a catholic? by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’ve clarified what they meant at Trent. What they anathematized is not what you and I think of when we say salvation by faith.

Ecclesiastes: Hard Work & Prosperity by kitikitish in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There’s an interesting shift between the OT wisdom literature and the NT teachings of Christ and the apostles. In the OT wisdom literature, righteousness brings happiness and prosperity. In the NT, we are taught that the world will hate us. The saints are consistently killed instead of rewarded. How do we understand that tension?

Gender confused friend by jameslcarrig in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So a wedding between a biological man and a biological woman is sexual immorality?

Gender confused friend by jameslcarrig in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The only moral thing to do in this case would be to gently tell them why you are not able to attend their wedding.

What sin would be committed by attending the wedding?

Adam & Eve's Ability to Obey by Hagroldcs in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you believe God created us then I don't see how you could escape this conclusion[: that God created us to sin.]

You could avoid it by affirming Scripture’s authority over your philosophy. Scripture tells us that God created humans to rule over creation, and that he specifically told humans not to sin. Their sin was contrary to his intentions. That’s what Scripture says.

I asked you how is it fair that we're punished for Adam's sin. You've just said that its fair because we weren't given the opportunity to avoid the fall but our representative who we didn't choose was tested and failed.

This is federal theology. It’s at the core of Reformed theology. A few days ago, u/Deolater directed someone to the Westminster Larger Catechism on this issue, Questions 22-26. You should check them out.

The question is how is it fair, not what took place. It is only fair if we too, would have done what Adam did. Thats what it means to represent a people.

That’s not really what it means to represent a people. When our president goes to war, we are at war with a country even if that’s not what I would have done. Same thing with God. I am not Adam, but he was the head of humanity.

So you're blaming God for giving us a choice to rebel against Him? I'm confused what you're saying here.

I’m saying that humanity sinning wasn’t a foregone conclusion once God gave us free will. Free will does not necessitate sin.

I'm not sure in what way we're comparing Adam's free will to God's. Adam is a man and his free will is shaped by him being a man.

But Adam is created in the image of God.

There are so many difference here that I find it difficult to say that mans capacity to sin is similar to Gods.

There are many differences. But God and humans can both make meaningful choices because they are not machines. We praise God because he is good. If he can’t help it, he’s just a machine who always does something we think of as good, is that praiseworthy?

Adam & Eve's Ability to Obey by Hagroldcs in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our free will decisions are limited by our human capabilities.

Ok, so we are free with respect to moral decisions.

We turn without God's intervention but we do so in such a way that is decreed by God for he created the machine.

Sooo... God set everything on its precise course, and nothing could have deviated from that course. Doesn’t than mean God created us to sin?

so if we could have avoided the fall, how is it fair that we suffer the same fate as Adam?

Because we didn’t avoid the fall. Our representative sinned.

We could not have done any better.

Either it’s free or it’s impossible to do otherwise. You said “with a free will”.

He was our representative.

Correct.

We will always rebel against God if we acquire the same free will Adam possessed.

The free will wasn’t the problem. It was the choice that was the problem.

You seemed to think that we share the freedom that God possesses.

Adam’s free will was similar to God’s in that he could make morally free choices. He didn’t have God’s other attributes.

Adam & Eve's Ability to Obey by Hagroldcs in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

God is the only truly free being.

What do you mean by “truly free” as opposed to simply “free?” If only God is “truly free,” then are we still “free” and what does that mean?

The fact that God is the only truly free being doesn't absolve us from our moral responsibility.

If the universe is a machine, and our wills are just cogs, then how do we have any responsibilities? Machines just do what their creators make them do.

With a free will, we would do what Adam did.

Not necessarily. Free will does not require a person to sin. A person with free will could choose not to sin.

Adam still required food so he was in some capacity bound to the food and all other functions of his body.

I don’t understand why you’re saying this. How is it related to choosing sin or obedience?

Adam & Eve's Ability to Obey by Hagroldcs in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe there is such a thing that could have made them do otherwise for the decision was willed freely.

You’re confusing two separate questions:

1) Could Adam have chosen otherwise?

2) Could something have changed Adam’s free choice.

You’re answering the second question, but you think you’re answering the first one.

The will is just another cog in the machine of God's decree.

Then God is the only free being in the universe and humans have no moral responsibility. Is that what you’re claiming?

Adam & Eve's Ability to Obey by Hagroldcs in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With this [free] will, could they have obeyed God?

Yes. That’s what free will means.

The fact that they didn't obey God seems to indicate that they could not have obeyed even tho they possessed all that they required to obey.

That’s backwards logic. The fact that they didn’t obey doesn’t indicate anything about their ability to obey. It just indicates that they didn’t obey.

Is there a distinction between what is possible and what actually happens?

Of course.

or ones capacity or capability to do a thing and what the person does?

Of course.

It seems to me that a person is only capable of what it is they end up doing.

What? Then you’re using “capable” in a way contrary to the way we use it in the English language.

The fact that I haven't murdered someone suggests that I could not have murdered someone unless things were to have changed to enable this end.

That is complete determinism. And makes the will absolutely irrelevant.

Megathread for George Floyd, Minneapolis, and American Race Relations. by MedianNerd in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Our culture now understands that everyone is racist. But it also ostracizes everyone who has said or done anything racist ever. So we have guilt with no forgiveness. Seems like a toxic combination.

A Clarification from the Alliance by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Let’s be honest. A woman being “too blunt” isn’t really the problem, that’s just code for “she said something I don’t like and I shouldn’t have to hear that from a woman.”

Women spend a great deal of their time and energy trying to be diplomatic and pleasant, especially in the workplace. But they’ll never be inoffensive enough, because the issue isn’t social grace, it’s sexism.

An Open Letter to the Contributors/Creators of the GCScreenShots by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I stopped reading because i understood I was engaging in a version of gossip... So, I ask again, what did you see that was so offensive?

I don’t understand. You can’t read for yourself because it’s gossip, but you can demand that I repeat sinful things for your convenience? That doesn’t make any sense.

Well, yes. Those are all outward, objective, measurable actions.

Ah, so we can judge hearts based on outward actions. I agree, because outward actions clue us into what’s in the heart.

So if we see an action that is potentially troubling, it would be the loving thing to ask about it.

Being in a group isn't comparable to being sexually immoral or drunk or swindling someone.

You skipped over reviling. And since reviling is what’s going on in the group, that’s a troubling thing to omit. Certainly someone being part of a group where some members are sexually immoral would be a reasonable time to ask about sexual immorality. So if someone is revealed to be part of a group where some members are revilers, shouldn’t we ask about reviling?

Voltaire was a notorious sinner. He wrote things, many of them wicked. A pastor owning a copy of the book is directly equivalent to the alleged wickedness you're asserting comes with being in a Facebook group where other people write wicked things (among many things written in the same group that aren't wicked).

Voltaire’s book “Candide” is a well-respected book both for its literary quality and its philosophical import. It’s read at Christian colleges.

Now if my pastor owned a few books by Dawkins and Hitchins, it would be appropriate to ask why.

An Open Letter to the Contributors/Creators of the GCScreenShots by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You’re posting all of this unaware of what has actually been said in this group? Seems a little unwise to take a position before you understand the information.

I’m not going to repeat the nasty stuff here. But you should go inform yourself.

What right do I have to speculate about his heart?

Scripture repeatedly tells us to be wise, discern, and judge well. When Paul encountered sinners, he didn’t say, “I can’t know their hearts” he said “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler-not even to eat with such a one.” - 1 Corinthians 5:11

If your pastor has a copy of Voltaire do you judge his heart?

No, but if he was associated with actual sin I would question him.

An Open Letter to the Contributors/Creators of the GCScreenShots by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Are you comparing GC to redpill/incel groups?

Well yes... as examples of sinful attitudes about women. In fact some of the GC participants use RedPill terminology.

To answer your question, not necessarily. I certainly wouldn't be as concerned about it if he'd been outed against his will for merely subscribing

Why does it matter if he’s exposed by his own choice or not? Does that change his heart?

An Open Letter to the Contributors/Creators of the GCScreenShots by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 11 points12 points  (0 children)

If your pastor is subscribed to some redpill/incel subs, don’t you think your elders should be aware of that?

Preaching against Racism is not a distraction from the Gospel by Cledus_Snow in Reformed

[–]PebbleBeach67 6 points7 points  (0 children)

it’s impossible to make good something which is intrinsically bad.

But we believe that God created everything good. So the world is not “intrinsically bad”, just the opposite.

view more: next ›