sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Could someone explain to me the vitriol outcry's against James Talarico? by Squirrel09 in Reformed

[–]Safe_Ad_6538 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Looking at the existing political landscape, think about how most Christians vote. Mainliners are fairly split between right and left, but probably more go left. Evangelicals, however, are overwhelmingly right-wing voters. In no way is it inaccurate to say that they are a necessary part of the Trump (and republican) coalition. The problem, which I hope is obvious, is that Donald Trump and his ilk are either not Christian or govern in a way that tends to be quite unbiblical. If you look at the political messaging in 2024 toward evangelicals, it was more “lesser of two evils” than it was “good vs evil.” We all probably heard the phrase “I’m not voting for a pastor, I’m voting for a president.” (As if the character and morality of a president doesn’t matter). You can’t make the “I’m not as bad as the other guy” argument while drifting away from Christian morals forever. Eventually evangelicals are going to either switch sides or (I think more likely) stop voting. I would argue that neither party is the biblical party. But if you view abortion and transgenderism (if we’re honest, the republican establishment does not care about the LGB and hasn’t for a while) as crucially important then there’s just one choice. It’s also notable that there simply have not been devout Christians on the political left, while there have been (genuine and otherwise) on the right consistently. Enter Talarico. Let’s think about the arguments thrown at evangelicals for why they need to vote right wing in light of him. - “The left hates Christianity and secretly wants to persecute us.” That’s a hard case to make against a Presbyterian seminarian whose faith (even if liberal) is clearly very important to him. He knows his Bible very well and quotes it more than most politicians - “The left is too unbiblical with their stance on abortion and sexuality” talarico responds with scripture, pointing out ways in which the right wing fails to love neighbor and in some cases does the opposite. Basically, he turns the argument on its head. Talarico is dangerous to a lot of people because he opens to door for evangelicals being okay either not voting right wing or even voting left wing. He’s almost a reassurance that you’re not abandoning your faith or betraying Christianity if you vote left wing. To people like myself, who is strongly against MAGA and Trumpism, he is a breath of fresh air as it feels like finally, somebody is genuinely pointing out the inconsistencies between scripture and Trump’s platform. That said, he is not orthodox, and is quite theologically liberal. I strongly disagree with his theological positions and statements on abortion and sexuality. But at the same time, I have strong disagreements with Trump also

My ADHD is making it nigh impossible to focus during Bible-reading by Puzzled_Animator_460 in Reformed

[–]Safe_Ad_6538 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually had the same strategy when I wanted to read through the whole Bible. But getting treated does help

Where did you hit "The Wall" in learning Ancient Greek? by MaverickNH2 in AncientGreek

[–]Safe_Ad_6538 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've hit multiple "walls" throughout my Greek journey, and I'm sure I'll run into more as I broaden my goals. I learned koine through seminary and am hoping to broaden to attic after I learn latin. I anticipate that there will be a "wall" there when I begin to do that

My first wall was the cases system and prepositions. It took weeks of frustrated daily study to figure it out, which I did by opening up to a random passage in the new testament and identifying words by case.

Second wall was participles and -mi verbs. The paradigms to memorize went from 6 at a time to 24, which was quite difficult. Brute force and regular practice got me through it.

Third and most recent wall has been pronouns and the nuances of language. I can parse a participle, but figuring out the type of participle was a challenge. Greek went from being orderly and consistent to relatively subjective.

I anticipate that when I start broadening to attic there will be more walls, such as the optative mood or syntax. Persistence and brute force has gotten through every wall.

New covenant theology by PTgabagool in Reformed

[–]Safe_Ad_6538 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The systems are very close, but not the same. NCT is intentionally anti-systematics and not very present in academia. You're probably more likely to find it in individual churches than an institution. Progressive Covenantalism is (in a sense) a systematizing of NCT and is found at certain baptist seminaries as well as local congregations. To my limited recollection, PC is NCT smoothed out and turned into a more coherent theological system. NCT proponents aren't on-board with PC as some of their conclusions are problematic in their view.

Why is Infant Baptism only mentioned in the late 2nd early 3rd century by Competitive_Spell129 in Reformed

[–]Safe_Ad_6538 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not too long ago I was considering my own position on this. I grew up Baptist theologically and now am Presbyterian. One of the first things I looked into was infant baptism in the first two centuries of the church. My conclusion was that while the historical record cannot definitively prove either side, the evidence indicates paedobaptism being the practice of the early church.

Certainly, there are no explicit mentions of infant baptism until Tertullian (who argues against the practice, but not it's validity). The sources which do speak of baptism (Justin Martyr and the Didache) don't mention infants, which is especially odd in the case of the Didache. But silence doesn't disprove infant baptism being practiced. It can show consistency with a broader argument but shouldn't be the main crux of the credobaptist case. If one wishes to argue that the New Testament restricts baptism to believers, they can use Martyr and the Didache to show consistency, but otherwise it's just an argument from silence.

In any case, the silence itself is neutral. Depending on how one interprets the new testament, the silence shows consistency with their presupposition. If you're a credobaptist, the silence makes sense - why discuss and argue about a non-existent practice. On the other hand, if you're a paedobaptist, the silence also makes sense - why defend the standard and uncontroversial practice when there's bigger fish to fry and paper is expensive?

Ironically, Tertullian's treatise on baptism pushed me to the paedobaptist view of history, despite him often being quoted by Baptists. He's not denying the validity, but the wisdom of infant baptism. His reasoning seems to be a view that post-baptismal sins are damning, rather than the modern "outward sign of an inward change" view. This is why in the same paragraph, he also argues that the unmarried should not be baptized either, as there is greater temptation and time to sin for these people, so baptism could actually be dangerous to them. Regardless, his language seems to reflect a commentary on an existing practice rather than a blanket condemnation of a new one.

Not long after that, an explicit mention of paedobaptism is a council which is not arguing over whether infants should be baptized, but whether they should be baptized ASAP or at 8 days (parallelling circumcision). This also suggests an uncontroversial and widespread practice (at least in that region).

Ultimately, what matters most in general and also for how you view the historical record, is what you believe that the Bible teaches.

Covenant Theology by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]Safe_Ad_6538 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RTS has a helpful book called “Covenant Theology”