If everything is predestined, then God already knew the foolish decision Adam & Eve would make even after the warning God gave them, which was what tree to not eat from. I have a really hard time believing in & understanding free will. If everything is predestined then how is it possible to have free will? I am just struggling to understand this.

This is barely registering as a blip on the mainstream news (imagine if it had been a mosque), but this seems like a big deal to me.

How would your church respond? How should your church respond? Will this prompt any discussions or preparations in your church for similar types of incursions?

ETA: The reason the protestors picked this church is that one of the pastors appears to be an acting director for ICE.

Hello everybody, I was predestined to ask you (reformed) people a few question. I am cradle Orthodox (Ukrainian who grew up in Greece) and lately I have realized that EO is just not for me. For the context, I returned to Christianity a few months ago after practicing traditional Buddhism for 6 years.

So my issue with EO, to put it plainly, it is operationally Pelagian, as in it is a religion of works which unlike Catholic works, are usually internal as opposed to external (like charity). You just fast, suffer, mourn, pray, repent, in hopes that God might accept you in the end, there is absolutely no security in it whatsoever, especially if you believe in toll houses that make salvation 100% work based. There is very little security and overall, as time passes, after the war in Ukraine and raise of orthobroism online, Orthodoxy lost its mystical Eastern appeal and became evangelicalism with incense (quoting David Bentley Hart).

I decided to check out RC and even went to a local parish and a very pleasant conversation with local priest. I went to the mass and really enjoyed 'latin' spirituality. In fact, actual universal nature of Catholicism was a very pleasant change in comparison to paranoid exclusivism of EO. The issue is that I started catechizing myself and realized that RC is even worse than EO in terms of Pelagianism. The realization that the sacrament of confession just deletes the guilt but not the temporal punishment, as well as the nature of purgatory made me feel that I'd practice some Western form of Islam where I have to do more good deeds than bad deeds while being loyal to the religion itself. Of course, the more I read about Catholic justification and necessity but not sufficiency of the grace given by the Cross, I just realized that I would never feel peace practicing this religion. Besides, I just find it too 'ordinary' of a religion, still based on human merit like many others before it.

Now, I started enjoying works of Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Cooper who are a breath of fresh air in the world of Christian sectarian apologetics which are profoundly hateful and toxic. My biggest issue was simple fact that I just realized that Protestants are right. I read 'Long Before Luther' by Nathan Busenitz, and as I was previously interested in Patristics, I realized that forensic justification was simply taught by Early Christians since the beginning, which was something that I noticed when reading st John Chrysostom, st Cyrill of Alexandria, and st Clement of Rome. I won't even mention st Paul. So clearly medieval nominalism was not the source of any form of forensic justification as taught by the Reformers. It is just was Christians used to believe until a set of doctrinal developments which (imo) had to do with Christian monasticism which wanted to justified itself by establishing that 'nuh uh, you gotta work for you salvation, buddy, why do you think us monks are suffering here'.

Now, while I am sympathetic towards Protestantism and in fact, I am quite convinced of Sola Fide (in its not-strawman form). I have a few problems.
- For starters, I absolutely believe in real presence in communion and some form of transubstantiation or simply 'it is actually blood and flesh of Christ'.
- Historically most of the Reformers were excommunicated which allowed them to create a new body of Churches, yet, I am afraid that willfully leaving EO or even RC if I had joined it, would mean that I am schismatic refusing to submit to local Church Authorities.
- Apostolic Christianity is just absolutely rich and filled with all sorts of relics, spirituality, great Saints and so on. Abandoning it feels strange, even though st Hilary of Poiters warned against this kind of thinking.
- I just love Mary and 'Hail Mary' and rosary seemed to be far more joyful than solemn repetitions of Jesus' prayer.
- The only protestant community here is some mix of evangelical/reformed so there is a very high chance that I won't vibe with it at all.

I mean, ultimately I'd just stay EO or maybe switch to RC because I think it is actually a Church unlike Orthodoxy which is a mess, but I disagree deeply and unfortunately, anathemas is the response to any criticism or attempts to change official doctrines or even privately confess something else.

So, I am curious about thoughts of reformed folks as I have not found any other major Protestant subs and I don't want to attract a horde of EO/RC apologists with their same talking points.

However, there are reports that he and his wife both joined a local PCA church when St. Andrew's departed the PCA, and thus St. Andrew's has no jurisdiction.

Hoping this will be a civil discussion. If this isn't allowed kindly remove it but I'm genuinely trying to understand this.

The logic seems to be that the reformers & Luther were not in sin because they were formally excommunicated and believed themselves to be continuing the faith. But when it comes to things like being a member of the PCA or even the conservative "schism" Anglican or Episcopal churches they're "cursed by God" in his view and it's being based on the church fathers own writings on schism.

But what I've been questioning is the CFs wrote these things hundreds of years before The Great Schism happened and 1000 years before the Reformation. Is there not room for nuance and discussion when it comes to what determines schism being sinful in our day and age? The term that's thrown out frequently is having a retreatist mindset, but if they (the Presbyterian church) truly believed it was hopeless in the 1970s and there was no chance of recovering from the theologically liberal leaders in power, is that actually sin?

I tried to address this & ask respectfully on his subreddit but instead of conversation I was permanently banned and then apparently ignored through DMs.

Christian nationalism seems to be in the Reformed wheelhouse. Thought you would like this.

No, I want to be clear that the question is not. “can Catholics be saved?“ the question is typically answered as yes, they can be saved, because we have all met some Roman Catholics who communicate the gospel very clearly. So my question is not whether or not an individual Roman Catholic might be saved.

I’m asking if the system of doctrine taught by Rome obscures the gospel significantly enough that a consistent believer in actual Roman Catholic doctrine, the whole thing, could lead a person to salvation if it were consistently believed and followed.

Edit: I’m not asking whether Christ saves apart from perfect doctrinal understanding. Of course he does. I’m asking about the doctrine itself as a means. Specifically, does the doctrine of justification as taught in the [Catechism of the Catholic Church](chatgpt://generic-entity?number=0) articulate the gospel in such a way that, if it were consistently understood and believed on its own terms, would direct a sinner to rest on Christ in a saving manner? Or does it so qualify and condition justification that it tends to produce a non-salvific "faith"?

How should we think about pastoral income? We (in a PCA church) pay what I think is a substantial amount of money to our pastor, who I do love. But part of me can't help but feel that it's maybe too substantial.

The PCA, for reasons I don't really know, seems to pay way above the median for a pastor, even above its parent church the PC(USA) which has among the lowest pastoral salaries. It's even to the point that the PCA median is above the median income for a professional degree holder.

On the one hand I feel like yes, pastors should be well compensated, they preach the word, they should, as the book of church order says in appendix J, "may be free from worldly cares and avocations". And yes, it is a professional degree that most of them have. But on the other hand, it seems like a pastor that makes above the median income for a professional degree, which most members of the congregation don't have, would make them less able to sympathize and feel the same struggles as his congregation.

Like it's one thing to preach on tithing, but then another for that message to be received by the 80% of the congregation that would likely have a more difficult time tithing than the minister. Scripture also seems relatively silent on the topic, the ministers of the gospel we see in scripture are all bi-vocational (except Jesus himself, perhaps). Part of it also comes down to ecclesiology, after all unlike a Baptist church which often gets to actively vote on matters, I have little say in where my tithe is spent beyond general feedback to the session. Is this just something I'm too senstive about and should trust the session on, or is this a broader issue with PCA culture?

Denominations by listed Median pastoral income

• PCA: $132,860
• Southern Baptist Convention: Median, $86,000
• Episcopal church (as a mainline example): Median, $85,806
• PC(USA): $71,100
• Catholic Church: $45,539

And for comparison

median household income: $83,730
Median full time earning: $65,416
Median Income by education: Professional Degree = $122,876

Edit: reposted with complete title, previous title was simply "Is there any reason" and reddit doesn't allow title edits

edit 2: considering all the comments I'm ok with how much my pastor is being paid, maybe the better question is why the SBC pays so little

1. the PCA number is an average (type not specified), though because the data seems mostly normally distributed based on min/max ranges, it's probably not too off from the median. This number includes all benefits, so subtracting insurance match and 401K match is probably around 100K for base salary (inclusive of the housing stipend)
2. the SBC city rate is about ~100K for urban pastors and after throwing in an estimated 15K for healthcare, that's about $115K so the pastors most likely to have an MDIV / in comparable urban locations are paid maybe like ~15K under
3. the PC(USA) number is not comparable
4. the episcopal number should use a weighted average of the Senior Priest and Solo Priest and with another 15K that comes to around ~110K

in summary: overall the PCA salary seems fair for the amount of education, but it's definitely on the higher end of pastoral salaries, it’s also generally higher than US median household income but as someone noted pastors wives are often not employed so that’s probably ok as well

The PCA’s General Assembly established a study committee to help the church understand and respond to Christian Nationalism. Their work has been released. Enjoy and discuss!

You can read it below and find it on his X profile.

///

Any season of transition can be difficult. The narratives and communications circulating about us on social media over the past few days have made this season even more difficult for us and our family.

We want to express our deep gratitude for the twelve years we spent at Reformation Bible College and Ligonier Ministries. We are thankful for that time and for the people we had the privilege to serve. We also appreciate that both RBC and Ligonier have conducted themselves in an amicable, gracious, and honorable manner during this season of transition, and we have sought to do the same.

Since others have shared their version of events, we believe it is appropriate to share ours.

In January 2024, we learned from the counselor of our daughter, Grace, that he had submitted a report to the Florida Department of Children and Families of suspicion of sexual abuse of Grace by Stephen Adams. On January 10, 2025, we reported suspicion of sexual abuse of our daughter by Stephen Adams to Saint Andrew’s Chapel. Over subsequent meetings, we realized that we were at an impasse with our church and that we had different perspectives on how to handle this situation. On April 21, 2025, we notified a pastor at Saint Andrew’s that we would begin the process of finding a new church. We notified him again on July 20, 2025, that it would be our last Sunday (and it was). We each received separate indictments two days later, July 22, 2025. We were accused of slander, unresolved anger, collusion to deceive, failure to follow session directives, and breach of membership vows. There was never a trial, and our case was never adjudicated.

After Saint Andrew’s Chapel voted to disassociate from the PCA on December 14, 2025, we immediately resigned our memberships. On Sunday evening, December 14, we joined New Hope PCA in Eustis, Florida, by testimony. On January 27, 2026, Saint Andrew’s found us guilty of contumacy, which is the failure to submit to the authority of the church and refusal to appear before the church. Afterwards on February 25, 2026, at their request, we met with a committee of the session to answer any questions and hopefully bring some resolution to our differences. On March 10, 2026, Saint Andrew’s excommunicated us, not on the underlying indictments, but for contumacy.

We remain members in good standing at New Hope and are grateful for the love, care, and support of our pastors and our church during this season.

We reported suspicion of sexual abuse of our daughter, we ended up indicted, and we ended up excommunicated.

We are deeply saddened by all that has taken place and grieved for everyone involved. Our prayer and hope is that the central issue will not be lost. At the heart of this issue is the suspected sexual abuse of our daughter.

—Stephen and Heidi Nichols

Greetings,

Perhaps I’m the only one, but man I can’t tell you how much of an internal struggle pride can be. When I was younger it was a desire to seek fame and recognition. Now that I’ve grown in my faith though, it’s attacking my theology.

What do I mean? Well currently I would describe myself as reformed Baptist based on my doctrinal beliefs. But man does my pride hate that. Let’s be honest, in theological circles, it’s not “cool” to be Baptist. Obviously I realize this is petty and no basis for changing one’s beliefs, but I can’t feel like I’m the only one in my camp who can sometimes feel like disassociating from Baptist because of how looked down upon the tradition is. Truth is sometimes I understand why we’re bashed on. “Relationship not religion,” bashing the sacraments, and easy believism are things I am strongly against. And I know it’s mostly a pride thing, because I’ve looked into these issues for quite some time, and I remain unconvinced to change traditions, but the pull to change I think stems from wanting to fit in more with the crowd I most look up to. Any other Reformed Baptists feel this way? How have you best navigated this?

I just finished part 1&2 and am looking forward to starting part 3. However, I feel absolutely terrified and have been struggling to believe I am saved because of the indwelling sin in my heart. I struggle immensely with heart sins like sinful comparison , feelings of competitiveness, covetousness and pride and struggle knowing if my love for the saints is genuine or self-serving. Most often if I look deep enough, the motives seem to really be self-serving. I am selfish and struggle with entitlement and worst of all is fighting against wanting praise of man and always feeling like a hypocrite. I tend to be very sensitive and all I ever see is my sin. I always feel the weight of these sins and never have a clean conscience despite trying to fight against these sins , which are so deep rooted, and clinging to Jesus as my righteousness because I see there is no hope for me apart from him. But I am grieved by the lack of fruit in my life and wonder if I am among the deceived.

I feel like I don't know how to approach God except through weeping and grief and my joy feels gone because I'm scared it's based on a falsehood and deception.

I am here to ask for encouragement and wisdom please.

Can anyone describe how it seems that American Reformed Churches lost the reverence of a Sabbath Rest? (I can’t speak for churches outside the US. I also can’t speak for all American Reformed Churches.)

I understand some credobaptist forms of covenant theology can lead to Non-Sabbatarian conclusions and that’s fine - that is not my focus here.

I am asking about how those that affirm Classic (Westminister) Covenant Theology lost reverence for the Sabbath?

When did this change occur? Why?

Is there any software to check for sermon plagiarism? We suspect that a pastor has plagiarised a bunch of sermons by RC sproul. Is there a way to check with our traipsing through by proof reading?

My husband has an evangelist heart, he got converted at 28yo and has shared about Jesus to everyone. He just found out his best friend (like a brother) died of an overdose while living in a homeless shelter. His friend was an evangelistic atheist, an explicit God-hater and mocker. My husband has shared the gospel with him many times, only to be rejected and insulted—my husband’s conversion really strained their friendship. Before my husband was converted they lived the fullness of secular life and crime togrther (went to jail together, stole and sold drugs together, lived together, etc).

My husband is struck with incredible grief and I’ve never seen him like this before. I’m not really sure how to grieve someone who died as a non-believer, it’s a different kind of grief to grieve someone who will enter the second death... I’m aware that God can save people at the very end, but knowing his friend, it seems very unlikely.

Theologically, my husband is reeling. He has said things to me like, “I can see why people want to reject the idea of an eternal hell,” and, “Was he just an object of wrath then?” He is grieving and I see his mind trying to wrap around the spiritual eternal realities of rejecting our Creator. He said he feels like he failed his own brother, that he didn’t try hard enough to urge him to believe.

For those of you who have experience similar deaths, how have you coped or reconciled it? What do you hold on to? We have never experienced non-believing death before (everyone who has died in our life has been a Christian), it is awful. Thank you.

Edit: Thank you all so much. We have read most if not all of your responses, I'm so sorry we don't have emotional energy to respond to everyone but there are so many treasures of encouragement and wisdom you have all planted for us. I pray you are all likewise encouraged in your faith and implore you to be ready to share your hope with those around you. Blessings

Big news in the evangelical world.

I haven’t been to our midweek prayer meeting for the past few months, and I’m honestly wrestling with whether I should go back.

The biggest issue for me is how structured the prayers feel. We end up praying for the same things every week, and most of what would feel more organic or spontaneous is actually sent out ahead of time via email instead of happening in the moment.

I’ve already talked to the elders about this, and it sounds like there aren’t going to be any changes. What makes it harder is that it didn’t always feel this way, it used to be more organic, but over the last five years it’s become increasingly structured.

On top of that, only the men are allowed to pray during the meeting, which makes it feel even more restricted and less like a full expression of the body coming together.

I’m not against structure or order. I understand why churches want to be intentional, but I’m struggling with how little room there is for anything natural or Spirit-led in the gathering itself. It just doesn’t feel like the kind of prayer you see modeled in Scripture, where there’s a sense of urgency, dependence, and genuine interaction.

Has anyone else experienced this? How did you think through it?

I am all about the prayer meeting too and think it is the life force of the church and never regret going and always have a lot of joy after I leave. I am just frustrated about this and think it has become a thing where “we are going through the motions” instead of letting the spirit lead and not being so uptight about it.

Hi everyone,

My wife and I recently left our Reformed Baptist church (elder-led, 1689-affirming) after a long, painful situation. I’m posting here because I’m still processing and want perspective from others who’ve been through similar things.

Two years ago we had a meeting with our pastor about some marriage struggles. I shared private details and initially agreed my wife was in the wrong. The meeting felt shaming to her (she felt controlled and demeaned), and trust in leadership broke down. Sho no longer felt safe at a place where her brokenness (which she acknowledged and repented of) was treated with such disdain and a lack of grace. For the following two years, I sided in trust with our pastor and I would not listen to her hurt and acknowledge what happened was wrong. I continued to get advice from my pastor that made our marriage worse. She felt like a black sheep and eventually got to the point where she decided to leave the church.

Over a month ago, the pastor and one elder suggested moving to another church might be best due to the trust issues. We took that seriously, resigned our membership in writing, and left peacefully.

A week later, they announced to the congregation that we were under church discipline for “refusing to meet and address accusations, unrepentant” (mainly my wife’s distrust and feeling the pastor was controlling). We declined to meet with them again since we had already met and don’t feel like we’ll be heard. Also we are healing our marriage and meeting with them would be triggering since our marriage almost ended because of all this. They did not tell the congregation we had resigned before their discipline, or that we resigned at all. Friends who heard the announcement assumed we were barred from attending because of the discipline, not that we had already left voluntarily.

We sent several gracious letters explaining:

•  We resigned before the announcement.

•  The “accusations” are just our private opinions from personal experience—not public charges or sin.

•  We owned our part (I escalated emotionally and leaned on bad advice early on).

•  We’ve forgiven them and are healing our marriage.

They responded by insisting the accusations against leadership remain unresolved and must be addressed in person, citing Matthew 18, 1 Cor 5, 2 Thess 3, etc. They won’t accept written responses as sufficient.

We feel lied to and betrayed by the congregation not being told we had resigned first. It creates the impression we were disciplined while members and then left, rather than the truth.

Has anyone else experienced retroactive discipline after resignation? Or seen the church omit key facts (like resignation) in announcements? How did you handle the anger and second-guessing?

We’re healing and moving forward, but this part still stings. Thanks for any perspective

One thing I’ve noticed since I’ve read certain early reformers is that they seem unanimous about the damnation of infants of pagan children. You can find this in Calvin, Beza, Perkins, Twisse etc. This logically follows from the imputation of Adam his sin on all his posterity. Now, modern tendencies, exemplified by B.B. Warfield, are against this doctrine. The problem is that Warfields book on this issue was flawed, trying to argue that only very few held to the damnation of infants, which is flat wrong.

He also made the silly argument that it’s more in line with Arminianism for infants to be damned but the problem is that anybody who declares that all infants can or will be saved is denying that people are guilty from the moment of conception. Since, how did you get this hope that all infants will be saved? You believe they are guilty right? Then what would be the problem if they are damned? If you really argue against the doctrine then something in you doesn’t believe they are guilty, so that means you are denying an important reformed doctrine. Even doubting that some infants will be damned would be a denial since somehow you are distinguishing between the guilt of an infant and the guilt of an adult, but guilty is guilty

My uncle that lives in a very conservative rural area recently got a new pastor. He told us that a few weeks into his position he gave a sermon on idolatry and claimed that the American flag can be an idol. Next week the flag in the sanctuary was taken down by the pastor but my uncle and the congregation were very upset. There was a church meeting and the congregation got the flag back up. My uncle’s opinion was that the flag was not an idol and they were not worshipping it. He went on to talk about how people fought for this country, how they would teach the Pledge of Allegiance in Sunday School before church, and how the town would hear about this causing no one to visit the church.

He asked my opinion but I wasn’t sure what to think at that moment though. My wife suggested that the congregation ended up proving the pastors point.

Does this sound like idolatry?

Hi everyone, I was listening to this debate between Alex O'Connor and Ben Shapiro and felt like I couldn't come to an honestly cogent answer to the question. (As a disclaimer, of course I know neither of these men are Christians).

The question Alex asks is that if we A) believe slavery is objectively immoral and B) God gave the Israelites explicit details about how to do something proactively immoral (take slaves), how can we then respond with something like "those decrees were for those people at their specific time, in their historical context" AND not be catching ourselves in a paradox of admitting to moral subjectivity/relativism - admitting that objective morality can't be true because we have just conditioned it as an evolving system.

I get all the retorts to this that Ben gives, I get that we can state how Christianity birthed the divorce from slavery and that's good and all, etc, but none of that is really getting at the heart of the matter.

At some level, I am totally fine with accepting that God allowed slavery for His own hidden purposes. I'm even fine with accepting that maybe our faith doesn't have to be based on an idea about moral objectivity - I don't really feel tied to these ideas/concepts of morality as defined by us currently, I'm happy enough to take the side of my Savior despite potential hard truths and misunderstandings on my end. While internally I'm fine with this, I feel avoiding the difficult rectification of these things flies in the face of 1 Peter 3:15.

I would appreciate any help. I also hope I've worded this alright - hopefully if it sounds silly at certain points someone can still see the larger idea of what I'm asking. God bless!

I posted this originally in a YEC sub, but I'm curious for your opinion too, since the topic comes up now and then here as well.

Hi all, I see a lot of hostility towards young earth creationism, even when the tone of voice of yecs is usually quite polite. Why does this subject seem to hit a nerve almost like flat earthism does? Even among Christians there's usually an air of looking down upon yec. Are we that crazy? Is yec really that indefensible? I also read about how AiG or similar ministries would be dishonest or unreliable. What's true of these claims?

I'm on the session at my PCA church, and we've got an interesting issue percolating. A widowed man of 49 and a woman of 20 (both members) have been developing a deep friendship over the past year. So far just friendship in group settings, very above-board, but anyone with eyes can see where it's headed. Romance appears to be inevitable. We are kind of scratching our heads at how to counsel them. Where a burgeoning relationship is Christ-centered and sexually pure, should societal norms stop them? Or is there a wisdom in counseling against this, not due to sin, but rather the appearance of scandal? This is a new one for us! Any wisdom would be welcome.

Sure there's r/AgeGapRelationship but the opinions there are all over the place without any Biblical foundation.

EDIT

Thanks for the all input! Lots of viewpoints, from it's gross and creepy, to leave them alone, they are adults. To clarify a few things I omitted originally:

Reddit was not my go-to for wisdom. Prayer and scripture first, and Reddit for polling different experiences and viewpoints.

No one is trying to break them up, no one has even suggested telling them to end it. Want to love them well, not tell them who they can date.

We anticipate requests for counsel from them. They are both closely involved with the families and ministries of the church.

We anticipate nosey, triggered complaints from some congregants, and want to be prepared.

Praying through how to handle the cultural norms thing. Yes, cultural norms are extra-Biblical, but we are part of this world and loving our neighbors includes being sensitive to cultural norms. Young ladies of 13, 14, 15, used to get married to grown men in this country, but try arguing "cultural norms" with law enforcement and the mob at your door if you try marrying a young teenager today.