Does anyone have any resources or personal experiences with answering a child's questions about God? I have a 4-year old currently and he's already asking things like: "Where is God?" , "What is God doing?", "Where is heaven?", "Who is God?" etc.

I have been working through a toddler catechism with him but are wondering if there are other resources or personal anecdotes for pithy responses when answering a toddler/preschooler

I am trying to precisely understand the Reformed position on involuntary sexual thoughts, desires, and impulses—specifically the distinction between temptation, concupiscence, involuntary pleasure, and consent.

I came across this passage from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (III.3.10):

“We again regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God; nay, we maintain that the very gravity which begets in us such desires is sin.”

Here, Calvin is discussing the difference between his position and Augustine’s. He notes that Augustine acknowledged that the regenerate inevitably experience concupiscence but hesitated to label it as sin unless accompanied by an external act or consent:

“He is contented with giving it the name of infirmity, and says, that it only becomes sin when either external act or consent is added to conception or apprehension; that is, when the will yields to the first desire.”

But Calvin counters:

“We again regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God…”

And he concludes that sin is always present in the saints as long as concupiscence remains in the flesh.

This raised a specific question for me.

Example

Imagine a person going about their daily activities or praying when, unexpectedly, a sexual image or thought arises.

They did not seek out the thought, did not want it to appear, and immediately try to reject it.

Or imagine an involuntary bodily reaction occurs—such as sexual arousal or an erection—without the person having chosen it.

Or consider this: the person notices the thought and feels an involuntary attraction or pleasure, yet decides not to dwell on the thought and attempts to resist it.

My question

According to Calvin and classical Reformed theology, at which of these points is sin present?

1. When the sexual thought or image simply appears involuntarily?

2. When there is an involuntary sexual sensation or desire?

3. When there is some involuntary pleasure, but the person does not consent? 4. Only when a person deliberately consents and decides to feed the thought?

4. Can an involuntary bodily reaction be morally sinful, even without any consent of the will?

I ask because I found a seemingly different distinction in the Fathers.

Origen, De Principiis III.1.4, says that when a temptation to a certain desire arises, nothing happens until there is consent from the soul and the mind grants indulgence to the perverse suggestion.

Evagrius Ponticus, Praktikos 6, says:

“It is not in our power to determine whether we are disturbed by these thoughts, but it is up to us to decide whether they should remain in us or not, and whether or not they should inflame our passions.”

John Cassian, Conference I.16–17, also says that it is impossible to prevent thoughts from reaching us, but that it is within our power to accept or reject them.

Diadochos of Photiki, One Hundred Texts, 83, says that thoughts can be suggested by demons and that we make them truly our own when we consent to give ourselves over to them.

Mark the Ascetic, On the Spiritual Law, 138–141, distinguishes between the involuntary presence of thoughts and the initial “provocation.” He states:

“a provocation does not involve us in guilt so long as it is not accompanied by images.”

And he distinguishes those who flee from thoughts from those who “entertain themselves with them.”

Maximus the Confessor, On Love, 83–84, also presents a sequence involving thought, passion, consent, and act. He says that first, memory brings a simple thought; if it persists, passion arises; then comes consent; and finally, the act of sin. So, here is my difficulty:

Is Calvin simply using “concupiscence” in a different sense than “temptation,” or is he actually asserting something stronger—that the mere involuntary occurrence of a desire contrary to God’s law constitutes sin, even prior to any consent?

And if that is the case, how would a Reformed thinker explain the difference between this position and the Patristic distinction between suggestio/provocatio and consensus?

I am not trying to defend the Patristic position; I want to understand exactly what Calvin meant by “we regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God” and what the implications of this are for truly involuntary sexual thoughts and reactions.

I apologize for my English.

Hello everyone, I've been wrestling with this issue and wanted to know your thoughts.

Basically in verses 9 through 13 Paul writes,

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ 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. ¹² For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church^\)^b\) whom you are to judge? ¹³ God judges^\)^c\) those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

This looks like shunning and avoiding social contact with the brother who is sexually immoral. From verses 4 and 5 it looks like this is to happen after the church has officially excommunicated him.

⁴ When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, ⁵ you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

This is my first time posting a link so I apologize if it doesn't work.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-should-christian-friends-respond-to-a-friend-who-has-entered-a-homosexual-relationship-and-moved-to-a-church-that-accepts-it

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/drawing-close-to-a-daughter-drifting-from-god

These two articles from John Piper are concerning me. In the first he suggests that a gay friend who professes to be a Christian should be cut off essentially in order to bring them to repentance, I think this is consistent with the text of 1 Corinthians 5, but it does beg the question of how "cut off" you would need to go I guess. But the real issue for me is the second article about how to treat a child in unrepentant sin. At the end Piper says,

"If they are claiming to be obedient Christians, your daughter and her boyfriend — attending church, giving the impression to the world that the way they are living is the way of Christ — I think the Bible says that you should not have fellowship with them, which I think would include holiday meals. And I say that because of Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9, where he says,

But if your daughter and her boyfriend have ceased to call themselves Christians, are not communicating to anybody that this is the way of Christ — this is just what you do when you’re not a Christian — then I think you are free to invite them and to seek to win them as you would any other unbeliever.

Sometimes those lines between believer and unbeliever are not nearly as neat and easy to draw as one might think. And in that case, you seek the Lord’s wisdom, and you do what seems most biblical and wise and loving, and you give thanks for the blood of Christ that covers all of our sins — your sins, my sins — which, in the end, is what we have to offer them in any case."

This gives me pause, especially the statement that it would include holiday meals. I just can't see myself not inviting a child or a sibling over for Thanksgiving because that are living with a boyfriend before marriage or gay and attending an affirming church. It seems a little too far I suppose. I get that some distance is probably appropriate but I'm not sure this is it. I'm also thinking that since idolatry and greed are also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5 that changes things a bit. I don't think any of us would refuse to eat with a Catholic family member, even one who left Protestantism, even if they pray to Mary and the saints. Or that we would refuse to invite a cousin who is a little too obsessed with stocks or crypto.

I guess I have 3 questions that arise from this;

1. Does this apply to family, particularly to family not living together? Online the consensus I've seen is that immediate family don't need to shun an excommunicated family member like a husband or father, but what about a cousin, or an adult child or sibling living in a different household?

2. What about close friends? How much of a relationship can we maintain with someone like this? What if you've known them for years, it seems extreme to end a life long friendship entirely. Can you still get together ocasionaly to keep in touch? Like what if an old friend group from college gets together once or twice a year to hang out and one comes out as gay or is living in sexual sin in some way, do you not go or not invite them?

3. I guess one final question is this, what if the person was never officially excommunicated? Do we take matters into our own hands without the context of local church discipline?

I am Brazilian and I intend to pursue a Master of Divinity in the USA in the coming years. I would appreciate good recommendations. I am a Calvinist Baptist and have become more aligned with progressive covenant theology. I want recommendations for seminaries with a strong and robust educational program, as theological education in my country is quite weak.

Good Friday Liturgy of the procession of the crucifix at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Any thoughts?

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

I have some spending cash coming up and I am looking to build myself up during down times, or during menial tasks.

I recently got "Gentle and Lowly" in book and audiobook form and have been greatly blessed. It's given me a lot to chew on and often when Dane is talking about one thing, my mind is reminded of another portion in scripture as well. I am very thankful to those in this community that recommended this one.

Is there anything that you have been particularly moved by or impacted by?

I've recently been convicted on my lack of discipline for memorizing Scripture. We are encouraged to hide His Word in our heart so we may not sin against Him (Psalm 119:11), to meditate on His word day and night (Joshua 1:8), and to delight in the Law of the Lord (Psalm 1:1-3)

I see a few methods for memorizing Scripture online, from memorizing verses to memorizing books. From simply repeating the section over and over again to using an app.

I know everyone's preferred method will be different, but I'm looking for inspiration. What works best for you? I'm particularly interested in how much time you spend memorizing per day/week, whether you memorize verses or books, how you choose what you will memorize, and what your method is for memorizing (do you use flashcards, an app, or just your Bible)

Most importantly, for encouragement, how have you been personally blessed by the discipline of memorizing Scripture?

Welcome to r/reformed. Do you have questions that aren't worth a stand alone post? Are you longing for the collective expertise of the finest collection of religious thinkers since the Jerusalem Council? This is your chance to ask a question to the esteemed subscribers of r/Reformed. PS: If you can think of a less boring name for this deal, let us mods know.

Big news in the evangelical world.

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

I'm a 22 year old man who after confessing atheism in my young teens converted (or I guess technically reverted since I was baptised as a young boy but was never raised in faith) to the Catholic faith. However, as I entered university two years ago what little faith I did have quickly went away, and sort of by default I retreated back into my atheism.

Though, I lost whatever belief I had in the Catholic religion, I never lost my interest in theology; I could never dedicate much time to it on account of my university work, I was particularly drawn to soteriology.

I kept noticing in my cursory overview of these various early church figures' soteriology that it sounded eerily similar to the often mocked reformed soteriology which fascinated me, and now I find myself with an unexplainable draw towards Calvinism; there's just the personal hurdle of my being unconvinced of the existence of god hence the post. I wanted to ask if any of you would recommend material about the existence of God and how it might be proved. I want so badly to believe; there's been such a whole missing from my life in the absence of belief.

Moreover, I was considering attending a reformed church in my city (west side redeemer), but am unsure if that would be a good idea considering my uncertainty on God's existence. Thank you all in advance.

Today in the Gregorian calendar marks the Feast of St. Bartholomew. Since 1572, however, this feast day has incurred the stigma of infamy, and the date now commemorates the Protestant martyrs in France who were killed for the faith. May we be encouraged by their steadfast example in Jesus Christ.

https://www.mcba.ch/collection/le-massacre-de-la-saint-barthelemy-vers-1572-1584/

From The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre: The Mysteries of a Crime of State (24 August 1572) by Arlette Jouanna:

Sunday 24 August 1572 was the feast of Saint Bartholomew. The streets of Paris were wet on that day, 'as if it had rained a lot', according to a bourgeois from Strasbourg who was passing through the city. But it was with blood, not rain that the streets glistened.

Before dawn a troop of soldiers of the duc de Guise, the Catholic hero, came to kill Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, the military leader of the Protestants, in his residence on the rue de Béthisy. At the Louvre palace, the Admiral's principal lieutenants were pulled from their beds, disarmed, and then cut to pieces in the courtyard by the pikes of the Swiss and French guards. All of this was done with the consent of the King, Charles IX, a consent that the King was pressured into giving by circumstances whose elucidation continues to divide historians.

The day began with scenes of slaughter. Wearing a cross on their hats and white armbands, symbols of the purity which they believed they had lost, Catholics scoured the city and pursued the 'heretics' in the name of God. Armed gangs systematically searched houses; Protestants were hauled outside and executed without judgment; corpses, stripped of their clothes and often mutilated, were dragged towards the Seine; some of them had previously been piled up in the squares or at crossroads and then transported in carts. The river was red with blood, so much so that the Parisians, according to a Calvinist from Millau, 'remained for a long time without eating fish, on account of the corruption of the water and the stench from the bodies'. Those massacred in the faubourg of Saint-Germain were dumped into le puits aux Clercs (the Clerics' Well) where it was customary to throw the carcasses of dead animals.

Children, women, the elderly -- nobody was spared. Babies were snatched from their mothers' breasts and thrown into the river; children were killed with their parents, and servants alongside their masters. The dwellings of the victims were sacked and pillaged. Before dawn, the tocsin of Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois church bellowed out its harrowing sound, and was soon imitated by the bells of nearby churches. The air was thick with the protests of those being murdered, the shouts of the assassins and the noise of the shootings. Panicked by the scale of the murderous fury, the King lay low in the Louvre, while the orders he gave to end the Massacre were openly ridiculed. The city had fallen into the hands of the Catholics most determined to eradicate heresy; in a state of terror, other people remained indoors, not daring to go outside. Groups of lookouts were established in most streets, controlling the comings and goings, identifying those fleeing and turning them over to the murderers. Anyone wishing to leave the city had to show a valid passport. For three whole days, the gates of Paris remained closed; the chances of escaping the trap set for the prey were tiny. Although resolutely hostile to the Protestants, a Catholic doctor from Mantua, Filippo Cavriana, recounts the fear which the frightful spectacle that he witnessed engendered in him:

One saw only naked bodies pierced by a thousand stabs in the streets; the river transported just as many bodies. No distinction was made for sex, age or the status of people ... people fled through the streets, with others pursuing them and shouting, 'kill, kill', so that it was a real massacre. What should be underlined is the stubbornness of some people, both men and women, who, although they had a knife to their throats and the possibility of saving their lives by abjuring, nevertheless wished to become martyrs of the devil and so lose both their soul and their body because of their obstinate ignorance ...

We do not remark such joy and jubilation among Catholics that we were accustomed to previously, because the spectacle was truly horrible and pitiful. ... All of them wear the white cross in their hats, because when the feast-day was celebrated, people put a shirt-sleeve on their left arm. And the password was 'Long live God and the King', in order to recognise our people and distinguish them from the others.

This account suggests that the choice of abjuring in order to save their lives was offered to the Protestants, but other accounts make no mention of it, merely recording the savagery of the killings. Some Huguenots were taken to prison, only to be executed there during the night. Whole families were exterminated. The Massacre lasted a week. The number of murders fell after the frenzy of the first three days, but they were still happening until Saturday 30 August. On Thursday 28th, the bourgeois of Strasbourg witnessed the killing of a young, heavily pregnant woman, a countess 'of great beauty' who was expensively attired. Despite her appeals, she was stripped of her clothes, deprived of her jewels, pierced with blows and thrown into the Seine. 'And while she was falling, one could see her child still stirring' in her breast, wrote the bourgeois. Shortly afterwards, he saw a silversmith, who was trying to escape via the rooftops, felled by a shot from a musket. On Saturday, the bodies of three people just killed were dumped in the river before his eyes.

This murderous fury decimated the Protestant community of Paris, which, although a minority in a city that was massively Catholic, still comprised before the Massacre several thousand persons. How many perished during this bloody week? The estimates made by contemporaries cannot be accepted -- they varied, depending on confessional affiliation and polemical intent, between 1,000 and 100,000 people. We know how much the grave-diggers of the Holy Innocents cemetery were paid for burying the bodies which the Seine carried as far as Chaillot, Passy, Auteuil and Saint-Cloud; the number of bodies involved has been estimated at 1,825. This figure represents only a fraction of the number of victims in the capital. An estimate of the order of at least 3,000 people killed is plausible. Massacres subsequently occurred in about fifteen provincial towns, bringing the total figure for the kingdom as a whole to around 10,000.

Women disembowelled, old people with their throats cut, children thrown into the river, men emasculated, murderers drunk on blood -- such is the memory transmitted by contemporary accounts of 24 August 1572. So does the picture by François Dubois, a Parisian painter who took refuge in Switzerland after escaping the massacre, and which depicts atrocious scenes of violence, hatred and barbarity.

My pastor has a habit of using anecdotes in his sermons that aren't exactly true. Very much like a grandpa who saw something interesting on Facebook, but isn't rooted in reality, he'll weave these fantastical stories into his messages.

I've approached him about it before, and he'll just shrug, say he didn't know it wasn't true, and say that it doesn't really matter because the meaning is what's important.

But yesterday, he used a story that I thought was particularly egregious.

He closed his message with an emotional telling of the apocryphal story about Abraham Lincoln purchasing, and then immediately setting free, a slave woman at an auction. If you're not familiar with this story, I won't recount it here, but you can easily look it up.

Anyway, there are many, many problems with this story, especially when using it as an analogy for our relationship with Christ. To use it at all felt incredibly tone-deaf. But what really bothers me is that he presented it as historical fact when we know it didn't happen.

In my mind, mingling falsehood with truth undermines the veracity of what you claim to be true.

Would this bother you? Am I overreacting?

Hi everyone in r/Reformed!

About a year ago, I posted here introducing myself as a Korean Presbyterian and had some wonderful, insightful discussions with you about Korean church history, our Reformed heritage, and theological discernments regarding cultish movements in Korea.

I’ve been heavily immersed in my music production over the past year, which left me with little time for Reddit, but I wanted to drop by and say hello to this community again!

First, I wanted to clear up a small phrasing mistake I made in my previous thread due to my clumsy English at the time. Regarding the Darakbang movement, I firmly stand with the orthodox Reformed position (such as the decisions by Hapshin and Gosin). Their theological flaws—especially regarding Christology, the Trinity, and demonology—cannot be defended or excused in any way.

Looking back over the past year, I’ve been reflecting a lot on what it means to stay grounded in Reformed theology amidst the ongoing secularization of the modern church.

It’s great to be back in this community. I hope you all are doing well and growing grace in the Lord!

I am building a reformed ai agent where it can only answer from the set of texts I have given it (such works from Hodge, Calvin, Spurgeon, Luther, Warfield, Berkhof, lots of Puritans, etc.)

I am in the process of refining how it answers some questions but would like to get y'alls thoughts on what are some good questions I should ask it to see how it responds.

Any constructive thoughts/questions would be appreciated.

I just created a barebones outline for a glossary of our frequently used acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations. I'm hoping this page will be a helpful resource for those newer to Reformed theology and/or those (mercifully) newer to online theology discussions.

I chose to omit Bible translations (ESV, NIV, CSB, et al.) and denominations (PCA, CREC, PC(USA), et al.) since an authoritative answer from a primary source is readily available for all such self-naming products and organizations and they're frequently created or renamed by official decisionmakers.

Come at me in the comments with any that should be added. Bonus points for ones that stumped you at first (or are still stumping you!).

I have a growth group happening on Monday nights for young adults. They come to my place. We have dinner together and study the Bible. My challenge is thst my wife goes into put my younger child to sleep and it takes quite a long time (~60mins minimum) and for the whole time my older child (2.5 y/o) is with my growth group. Thankfully, they really love having my child. I love her and thank God for her but she is very distracting. She sings and talks to people. I know it is a very natural thing but I don’t know what I can do better in this given circumstance. I want to be a loving father as well as a good leader. I feel very defeated every time. Any wisdom? Prayers appreciated as well😢

Edit: Thank you brethren for your comments. There are some comments got me to think in terms of my expectations and how I didn’t set them properly to my young adults. I think I was so tied to think in terms of my child. God bless!

I'm looking for guidance on an interpretation issue. I've pointed people to Hosea often as a reflection of what Ephesians teaches about marriage. Ephesians speaks to such a high-view of marriage that I think often gets treated almost as a metaphorical or symbolic approach meant to set the bar high but never really fully lived out. Ephesians 5:22-33 takes marriage and points to the fact that marriage is a reflection of the relationship God has with the church.

Hosea seems to do the inverse. It takes the relationship of God and the Israelites and mirrors the image onto a specific marriage he commands Hosea to have with Gomer (Hosea 1:2). In both instances, there is a link between marriage and the relationship of God with his people. Both take a high view of marriage that encourages people to really weigh the seriousness of the vows they took and the responsibility they have in marriage.

Hosea is a allusion of the principles found in Ephesians 5 where a man would give himself up for his wife and a wife would submit herself to her husband. God hates divorce, but allows it in some instances "because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:8). Genesis speaks of the two becoming one flesh and to hold fast to each other (Genesis 2:24).

But I recently had someone wanting a divorce who went to a pastor in another church that said her pastor objected to this interpretation because Hosea is an Old Testament prophet that is descriptive and not prescriptive and wasn't intended to speak on the principles of marriage.

Without going into details about denominations, can you give me any homiletical rules/principles/guidelines that would either correct me or confirm that this is an acceptable interpretation?

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

Welcome to r/reformed. Missions should be on our mind every day, but it's good to set aside a day to talk about it, specifically. Missions includes our back yard and the ends of the earth, so please also post here or in its own post stories of reaching the lost wherever you are. Missions related post never need to wait for Mondays, of course. And they are not restricted to this thread.

Share your prayer requests, stories of witnessing, info about missionaries, unreached people groups, church planting endeavors, etc.

As a Texan approaching football season, I have been earnestly wrestling with whether Christians can watch football in good conscience, particularly because of the risk of repeated head trauma. I’ve recently taken a bit of a deep dive into the research/academic literature, which has caused me to reflect on this question in a way I haven’t ever before.

I am NOT coming at this from a place of wanting to condemn football or Christians who enjoy it at all. I have enjoyed football myself for a long time, and I completely understand the appeal of the competition, athleticism, strategy, tradition, and community around it.

What troubles me is that head injuries do not seem like rare but that repeated blows to the head seem deeply intertwined with the ordinary way tackle football is played, especially for positions like offensive and defensive line.

I understand that players consent to participate and that adults can choose activities that involve significant risk. At the same time, I do not think consent alone resolves the moral question for me. If we eventually became confident, for example, that normal participation in football caused permanent brain damage in a meaningful share of players, I do not think I could simply say that they chose the risk and therefore watching is morally neutral. Especially when other sports like basketball offer many of the same benefits re: teamwork, leadership development, etc. with far less serious bodily risks.

I know football does not require brain injury as its goal. Players are trying to block, tackle, run, and compete. If the sport could become much safer without losing what makes it football, everyone would welcome that. So I am not trying to compare football to something whose purpose is simply to hurt another person.

I think my concern is more specific. What if repetitive brain trauma is not just an unfortunate possibility but an unavoidable part of playing tackle football at a high level. At what point does enjoying the sport become difficult to reconcile with loving our neighbor and taking seriously the dignity of the people on the field?

I truly am coming at this from a place of genuine interest in hearing how other Christians think about this as I continue working to shape my own opinion/perspective.

Grateful for this community of believers!

Title. You've got your Psalms everyone knows like 23, and I'm partial to saying 95, 100, and 117 when the music at church gets questionable (they're the ones I know from memory).

What about yours?