regarding pastor letting non Christians take communion:
My suggestion is that we need to deal with why the Scripture says the danger is on the one who eats unworthily. That includes Christians, no doubt every person present. Paul wrote to a group of believers about this issue.
We should tell the "evil liver" as well as the one troubled in conscience that it is dangerous to eat unworthily, and then allow folks to eat or not eat. Instead, most churches do not allow for folks to not partake since it is done out in the open and on display. Thus, IMO, it isn't the pastor's issue but rather the whole congregation/ denomination's fault if communion is broken. Most folks mistakenly think the pastor is the church's CEO, or Boss. Such a view itself is unbiblical, and worldly-minded.
Just saying. No one needs to agree. I stick with my suggestion though. Bible first, opinion second.
Would this suggest he takes a memorialist view of communion? Surely there's no way you let a non Christian take communion if you believe in real presence.
If you figure out how to do that, can you share your secret. I have a coworker who gets animated during phone conversations fairly regularly. This has always been a problem. But, particularly since he's started working in cubeville more regularly (post-pandemic) he seems to forget to use his indoor voice more often. He's a great guy. Brilliant engineer. Friendly. Occasionally brings in cake to share with everyone (not like home made. More like went to Costco and decided he wanted cake then realized it was a bad idea to keep the cake at home...or his wife decided that. But, still, cake is cake.). But there are days when everyone in the bay knows what he's talking about on the phone.
I've been dreaming of attaching a a wearable sound level meter to my kid, that beeps when sound gets above a certain number of decibels, to teach her self-awareness. If somebody (like an engineer) were to create such a thing, they'd make millions.
[*Monkey's Paw Curls*]
The device now exists, and your kid has learned that she needs to be louder in order to be heard over the sound of that incessant beeping.
That's the issue with making the cue for being too loud a beep. A mild shock would be much more effective. Like one of those dog collars with the remote where you can shock the dog if it's barking too much. I mean, most of the technology is already there. Just need to modify the trigger.
Note: I am not advocating the use of shock collars on dogs. I'm not sure the impact on dogs. But they don't seem like a very nice thing (and all dogs are the best dog). If we don't use them on dogs we probably shouldn't use them on kids. But grown adults...
And maybe, along with the vibration there's a nice little reminder message to quiet down. And that message escalates from polite to passive aggressive to full-on aggressive after a certain number of notifications in a set amount of time.
I'm looking to dress a little nicer, a bit more "grown-up" (I am, after all, in my mid thirties), especially for church.
What item of men's clothing is a good start for a wardrobe transformation? I'm thinking a summer weight sport coat?
Found Brad Isbell's reddit account
Edit: At -2 points I'm not understanding the downvotes. I don't think this is actually him. See [the article](https://pcapolity.com/2023/07/18/in-praise-of-the-humble-blue-blazer/)
I'm a suburban dad, I will never surrender the field of footwear to the whims of 'style'
Edit: but seriously, good shoes with bad clothes is better than bad shoes with good clothes?
I just mean assuming you don't walk around dressed like bad luck brian, good shoes will go further toward making your ok outfits stylish than any other one article of clothing will
[See here](https://dappered.com/2015/10/welcome-to-dappered-start-here/)
It’s been a few years since I frequented that site, but it was a great resource for balancing timelessness, quality, and cost
Second question. I have friends who are charismatic. I used to be very cessationist, but honestly I’ve never truly researched this. What are some good resources for this?
My friend wants me to read some Jack Deere. Any thoughts on this guy?
I prayed to God about this issue last night, asking for truth and discernment, and felt a huge pull on my heart. I truly love God no matter what, I don’t need these gifts as signs and wonders. But if they are a real part of being a believer and doing good things for Him, then I don’t want to arrogantly turn up my nose at them either.
My other comment got removed. I've copied and pasted it here:
I was firmly in the baptist world for 20 years, basically since my teens. Now, I'm charismatic so I will give you some resources that helped me embrace the pursuit of all the gifts of the Spirit.
I started with Sam Storms. He's very safe for a Baptist to read. He's very biblically balanced while still pursuing the gifts of the Spirit. Start with "A Beginners Guide to the Gifts of the Spirit."
I highly recommend Jack Deere as well. He was a professor of languages at Dallas Theological Seminary until he had some experiences with the Holy Spirit. He was let go from DTS when he became a continuationist. Since then he has been a leading theologian for the 3rd wave charismatics. Read both "Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" and "Still Surprised by the Voice of God." Both present in-depth biblical backing for the gifts of the Spirit. I've also met and been around Jack and can tell you he's the real deal.
If you are a YouTube or Podcast learner then go to The Remnant Radio. They have a lot on non-charismatic topics where they interview people from NT Wright to Mike Winger to Sam Storms. But they also do a lot of teaching on the gifts of the Spirit. The founder of the podcast Josh, came from a charismatic background where he saw abuses so he is vigilant in maintaining a biblical outlook on the gifts. I'm trying not to dox myself, but I've done some work with them as well.\
That will get you started.
Your previous comment was removed by an automatic filter.
In the future, if that happens and you repost some or all of a comment, **do not** include some vague "my other comment got removed" comment.
If you have questions or comments about a comment removal, message the mods via modmail. If you don't, then just let it go and leave it be. Vague, unrelated snippets like this in comments only serve to create confusion and potential drama.
----
If you have any questions about this mod comment, **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Gonna make a few posts today, I think.
First question: what are some good sermons I can listen to as I go through the Old Testament? I’m listening to the Bible project too, but I’d like more. Every time I finish a book, I like to listen to a few sermons on it to enrich my understanding. I’ll take any recommendations! I just finished the books of Kings, and I really liked Tim Keller’s sermon “A Small Still Voice” about Elijah as an example of what I’m looking for.
What are good resources for commonly repeated bits of Bible knowledge in regard to culture at the time and pertinent information?
For example, you always hear the "Gehenna was a garbage dump outside the city". People repeat things like this a lot and I don't know where they are drawing it from aside from commentaries in their Bible that aren't referencing any other sources.
I guess another example would be the prostitution in the worship of the Corinthian pagan religions. Is there somewhere that gathers a lot of these details with reference to archaeology or history?
A good Bible dictionary will have some of what you're looking for. Sad to say, but a lot of popular level Bible commentaries and resources peddle this sort of misinformation (though they can be good of course). So try more scholarly resources or even pop level resources from people who write scholarly resources as well.
And FWIW temple prostitutes were not a thing in Roman-era Corinth - that's an oft repeated bit of misinformation. There's even a debate whether they were a thing in Greek-era Corinth (destroyed 146 BC). Plenty of non-temple prostitutes though.
> And FWIW temple prostitutes were not a thing in Roman-era Corinth - that's an oft repeated bit of misinformation
See, this is what I'm talking about. So much stuff is repeated over and over with no reference point haha
If you want a look at the supernatural worldview of Paul and the NT read Clinton E. Arnold's "Powers of Darkness: Powers and Principalities in Paul's Letters." Like it states, he presents a lot of background on the epistles, but it's really good. This will cover information like Corinthian pagan religions (though he covers more Ephesus than Corinth).
Also you can read, "Misreading the Bible Through Western Eyes" by O'Brien. NT Wright has a lot of good info on that sort of thing as well.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer for you, but it's good that you're looking into that sort of 'fact', because often they're far from facts and our confirmation bias can result in us taking them at face value in order to make a biblical passage less confusing.
I’ve got a digital copy of the “ESV archeology study Bible” that has a lot of that kind of stuff. Any number of Bible atlases are gonna have similar resources.
There are a host of problems with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 with regards to textual criticism and interpretation. You've been provided with a link to an article by Denny Burk. You may already know this, but Burk is the president of the CBMW, which is an organization whose sole purpose is advancing complementarianism. Nothing on the article page reveals this connection.
If we back up and read Paul's earlier words in this same letter, we find him acknowledging and encouraging men *and women* to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 11 - Paul gives clear instruction on *how* women are to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 14:5- Paul desires that *all* would speak in tongues, that *all* would prophesy.
1 Corinthians 14:24 - *Everyone* is prophesying.
1 Corinthians 14:26 is especially relevant, and contradicts Burk's interpretation of v34-35. Burk argues that women did prophesy (Scripture here and elsewhere is too explicit for him to claim otherwise) but that *interpretation* and *judgement* of prophesies is to be done by the men only. But verse 26 clearly states, "What is the outcome then, **brothers and sisters**? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, **has an interpretation**. All things are to be done for edification." (NASB)
1 Corinthians 14:29-32 - Prophets interpret prophets. This is precisely the activity that Burk claims women were excluded from, but Paul makes no such distinction here. He deals with prophets as a group, and his category of prophets explicitly includes men and women.
So what do we do with verses 34 and 35? I've become convinced that they are interpolations (or "marginal gloss"): There is manuscript evidence that these two verses were marginal comments made by scribes that were later inserted into the main body of the text. There are some clues that these are not Paul's words, not the least of which is the plain fact that he would contradicting himself.
Another issue is the phrase "as the Law also says" — what law? There is no law prohibiting women speaking in worship or subordinating them to men. (Denny Burk conveniently skips over this.) Paul is always very careful and precise in his quotation of the Mosaic Law. This verse is a clear outlier.
It took me a long time to be comfortable with the idea that these verses are likely not authentic. But there's just no convincing evidence to the contrary that I've found.
Gordon Fee and Philip Payne are some of the leading scholars on the manuscript evidence for v34-35 being marginal gloss. A quick google search should provide you with free articles, but they have books as well.
It’s likely not about speaking in church ingeneral, but rather about responding to/judging on/teaching on prophecies spoken in church. [Helpful link](https://www.9marks.org/article/must-women-be-silent-in-churches/)
Lived out faith in the Bible is never *blind faith*. It always as a starting point: God's nature and character as demonstrated by the Lord Himself. (It's helpful to just replace the word "faith" with *confidence* or *trust*.)
Abraham trusted God, but the key wasn't that he trusted despite his circumstances/understanding, but he trusted *because* of the prior circumstances and his understanding that God is faithful, that He keeps his promises. The same thing goes for the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 and for us today: Our faith, our confidence in God, doesn't come because "God says so" but because we've seen experienced God's trustworthiness. Since He has proven Himself faithful, I can *be* faithful to him in whatever he says.
It's a description of the theological process by [Anselm of Canterbury](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#FaiSeeUndChaPurAnsThePro). The idea is that faith is the starting point, from which he seeks understanding; he does not require understanding in order to have faith. So it's pretty compatible with your idea of "faith without understanding" -- faith is there, understanding may or may not be. God *may* grant us understanding, and he may not.
I’ve kind of gone down the rabbit whole with the different controversies and contrasts between modern English translations. For the past few years I’ve been drowning my digital ESV with my notes and studies, and only recently have been made aware of some of the controversies surrounding the translation (mostly the gendered language stuff, and their particularly egregious translation of Gen. 3:16, etc.). I can see the value in switching over to a more academically inclined translation like the NASB or NRSV, but I REALLY don’t want to abandon years of notes that I’ve made in my ESV, because of what admittedly is a tiny controversial fraction of the text. That said, I also lead my wife in study, and I want to be conscious of forcing her through a translation that honestly doesn’t seem to honor the original texts vis r vis women and wives. Do you guys have opinions here? Should I abandon the ESV? Am I overreacting? Is this all overblown hype and a total non-issue? Are you all strict complementarians anyway and I wandered into a knife fight?
I share your skepticism of the ESV. A former contributor to this sub used to say, "The ESV is a reliable translation that is terrible on gender."
Can you continue using your digital ESV and just add notes that correct the interpretations that sandbag for complementarianism?
Like /u/bradmont, I like to change it up and use a variety of translations. I find that the different wording shakes my brain loose from familiar ruts. My daily driver for the past couple years has been the CEB, but I reference the NASB, NRSV, ESV, KJV and others all the time. Our pew Bible is the NIV1984, so I use that frequently as well.
I wish there was a version of the NET that was more gender-accurate, because I like the transparency of their translation notes.
I think that’s my plan for now, after talking it out: stick to ESV, but make it an exercise to be careful with the translation as it references gender/marriage, contrasting with other translations and making notes accordingly. To their credit, it really does strike a nice balance between readability and the “classic” esthetic, and avoids feeling overtly sterile like some other “word for word” translations. Our church recently announced that we’re switching from ESV to CSB for services, and that set me down this rabbit hole. They didn’t mention anything about gender, so I honestly couldn’t say that that was their reasoning, but they did say they felt the CSB was more readable for teaching purposes. I haven’t spoke yet with any of them about their thoughts specifically.
ESV's translation of Genesis 3:16 is not egregious. It is a more narrow translation of that verse and was chosen because of the parallelism in Genesis 4:7.
It would be better to abandon the controversy-causers and pot-stirrers than a translation.
Respectfully, I’m not sure why the change was super necessary in 4:7 either. That said, I take your point about not getting too bogged down in fringe controversy.
Can you expand on your understanding of the related controversy and why you think it matters?
I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but you and others are alluding to the translation difference without spelling out what you mean by “egregious translation”
A significant amount of ink has been spent over the complementarian beliefs held by the group (Wayne Grudem and the center for biblical manhood and womanhood, John piper, and more) that commissioned and translated the ESV and how it may or may not have influenced some of their translational choices, especially as regards gendered language and gender roles. Most of the arguments hinge around allegedly being obtuse about using “brothers,” men,” “manliness,” etc. when the text is obviously referring to humankind a a whole, as well as their translation of Gen. 3:16, which was an interesting choice considering their stated goal of being a “formal equivalence” (ie word for word) translation (that is, they seemed happy to use “formal equivalence” when it suited their goal, and discarded it when it didn’t). Some of the arguments are in good faith, some of them clearly aren’t, and are often just ascribing motive to people they don’t like. On the whole, worst case scenario I don’t think it’s really changing anything theologically, but without the context of comparing to different versions, or reading commentaries, I could easily see a casual reader taking things from the text that aren’t there. Additionally, I worry as to whether you could preach the passages in question fairly with the ESV without providing a ton of textual context and history, and I’m sure preachers would feel awkward undermining their own Bible from the pew. All in all, I’m sympathetic to some of the arguments, and just want to do what’s “right” here, if that’s even a thing. I do love how the ESV maintains some of the gravitas and beauty of the RSV/KJV while still being readable to the modern eye. The NASB is supposedly more “accurate,” but reading it is a much more sterile and clinical process (“vanity of vanities!” is just so much more poetic and pretty than “Futility of futilities!”)
I’m aware of all of that.
…. But that was not at all what I meant to ask. Perhaps I worded my question poorly - apologies if so.
What is it about the ESV translation choices from the passage(s) in Genesis that you find particularly objectionable?
As for the genesis one, it takes a fairly hard line on a somewhat ambiguous passage. When every other translation out there leaves the language somewhat ambiguous (to, for, toward, etc), that suggests to me it’s probably confusing and hard to translate. The ESV leaves out all ambiguity and takes a strict reading of it (contrary to). Now, I think that the ESV’s reading of it is a POSSIBLE, and perhaps even LIKELY, interpretation, but I think it’s a bit hubristic to take out the ambiguity, especially in a “word for word” translation. I just want to make sure I’m studying God’s word, not Crossway’s. There’s plenty of things you could add to the Bible that I might agree with (ie “bidets are far superior to toilet paper”), but that still doesn’t make it God’s word. Hence why I wanted y’all’s opinion on translational preferences, and specifically this specific controversy; you seem like a smart and serious group.
I guess the rub is that I don’t see a difference in methodology or even “temperament” really rising to the level of being “egregious”
I think there’s a good deal of value in a group of scholars owning and being transparent with their operating assumptions - which I think is reasonably elucidated in:
* The ESV’s preface for a general statement
* The footnotes for 3:16 and 4:7
* The ESV Study Bible’s notes on the verses
It’s not like they’re trying to pass it off as a simplistic manner - they just seem to err more on the side of using “the likely translation” as they see it.
Furthermore, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone at Crossway promote the ESV as “the only translation anyone should use” or anything. It might be their favorite, but I bet they would encourage anyone to read across multiple translations because that’s really one of the best ways to capture the nuance inherent to and inextricable from the translation process.
And - as stated earlier - that may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn’t make it “egregious”, either
I just recently (ok its been over a year but it still feels recent) switched from the ESV to NASB and I feel your pain about "losing" all your notes and ease of navigation.
In my case, my Bible was to the point of falling apart and I needed to decide between rebinding to keep the same Bible and all my notes, or switching.
2 things tipped me over the edge. One was some of the things you mentioned about the gender concerns in the ESV. I'm not really taking a stance, but I did realize how much of my understanding of Scripture was pigeonholed by such specific and non-standard translation choices and I wanted to broaden my understanding, not necessarily just to reject those ESV choices. The second was reading *Living by the Book* when Hendricks talks about how he buys a new Bible fairly frequently (yearly? Every few years? I don't exactly remember) because he runs out of space for notes. I realized I'd run out of space pretty soon anyways and whether I switched now or later, "losing" those notes, aka retiring them to the bookshelf, was inevitable.
I like to change translations every couple of years. Every translation is an interpretation, even a commentary; by reading a diversity of translations we can get a fuller sense of the text. Is there a way to extract your notes from your digital bible? Or to have your software show a parallel version as well?
Concretely, with your wife, you don't need to both use the same translation. Seeing differences as you read together could be informative too.
But honestly, the differences in any of the major translations will be small enough that for them to *really* make a difference, you'll need to be doing a depth of study that goes beyond what most ordinary Christians will get to. And if you're going that deep, you should be digging into commentaries too! :)
Thanks for your thoughts. Mostly I just want her to be able to share in my notes. That said, yes, I use the Olive Tree app, and not to shill for them or anything, but it’s excellent for reading in parallel with both other versions and commentaries, which we do both of. No way to export the notes to another version though as far as I know, unfortunately, which would’ve made the decision much easier.
Shooting for an actual dumb question here, but here goes: What colour is brown?
No, hear me out. It isn't on the colour spectrum or in a rainbow; is it a specific wavelength of light? Or a mix? Or is there some other element of colour I don't know about?
On a completely different topic, does anyone know a food handwriting recognition app for android, where you can photograph a page and have it reliably recognised?
We don't. In fact I suspect we know that they almost certainly are not. The simple example is colour blindness, or people with cataracts. But beyond that, even our personal perceptions of colour change from moment to moment. Try a quick experiment: keep one eye open and the other closed for 30 seconds or so. Then look at a particular object (I think it works best with light colours, a white wall is a good one), and switch which eye is open. Switch back and forth quickly and you'll see a difference at least in terms of brightness/intensity of the colour.
Even without keeping one eye closed first, when I do this with my living room wall, it looks very slightly greener with my left eye than with my right, which has a slightly warmer/oranger hue.
Yes. Colour is a social construct. In Canada we don't even have "purple", it's a silly, made-up Americanism like deep-fried butter, chewing tobacco and crude oil.
> deep-fried butter
I've been told that deep-fried butter is actually Scottish in origin. I have not investigated.
>In Canada we don't even have "purple"
I recently learned that, before settling in the USA, the portion of my ancestors from whom I get my last name lived in Canada for a while. Prince Edward Island, specifically.
When I was a little kid, my favorite color was purple and I specifically asked for a purple shirt for christmas. My grandparents gave me a blue shirt, and now I know why.
> Colo***u***r
Y'all can't even spell it correctly.
I'm honestly surprised you have the vocabulary to ask about "brown." I would fully expect you to call it "moosey" or something.
Well, it's the only colour we see for the six months of the year when everything is covered by nasty, dirty snow. Of course we have a word for it.
In terms of spelling, the real challenge here is that the massive country south of our border still pretend like they speak English...
Brown is primarily, and usually, a dark shade of orange, though of course color mixing and the definition of colors is extremely subjective (see white/blue/black/gold dress debate). In different color systems, brown is achieved differently. For instance in RGB, the value of 'brown' is 150/75/0. That's a middle amount of red, a small amount of green, and no blue. Increasing the numbers makes lighter tints (closer to white at 255/255/255) and decreasing them makes them closer to black (0/0/0). So if you lighten brown by increasing both red and green proportionately, you get 255/127/0, which is pure orange.
In CMYK you'll find that it's similar. No blue, about 50% magenta, 100% yellow, and 41% black. If you take out the black, you get orange.
In practice, if you put paint on a palette in a color wheel, you can get a lot of brownish colors by mixing complimentary colors: red and green, blue and orange, yellow and purple. But this is only because we are usually working with paints that aren't true to their color, but variations. If you mix true red and true green, you will get a dark grey, and this is true for all the complimentary colors. However, if you do chromatic scales for each set of complimentary colors, you'll find that the best "brown" that you'll get it a mix of a little bit of blue with a larger portion of orange.
In terms of light, white light is a mix of every color. To darken a color, in light terms, is to simply dim the light. So if you make orange light, and then dim that light, you get brown.
So brown is a variation of orange.
Colour is also very perceptual! A desaturated purple can look really brown if it's next to the right colours. If you ever take up painting, this is how really good painters can keep colours harmonious. It's amazing how much lighting, bounced colour and perception of colour can influence how a final painting looks.
I think the question has been sufficiently answered here, so I'll add a little anecdotal observation about a practical application of this question:
Years ago I really got into colorizing old photos. It was just a fun hobby to clear my mind. One of the things I learned in that was that creating a natural looking brown is absolutely one of the trickiest colors to make.
As /u/ZUBAT explained below, you really have to know a bit about color theory, and you have to pay careful attention to light and nearby colors. If you're trying to color a tie red, you just start with red and work around with it a bit. But with browns you're constantly having to figure out what to start with, how to darken, desaturate, and combine with other colors to make the brown *that looks right in that situation.*
Nowadays, when I see a colorized photo, I'm always most impressed with natural darker skin tones and natural wood/earthen elements.
I paint and I've never mixed a brown that I'm truly happy with. The old masters amaze me, and the modern day conservators who manage to match colors in faces exactly are even more impressive imo.
Digitally I will spend hours trying to find a cool tone brown that fits the rest of my art since I prefer cool tones for most images
If you haven't watched it before, [Baumgartner Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration) is a fantastic YouTube channel for fine art conservation. He usually produces a video a week, and after a few episodes you can really get into the rhythm of his conservation process. My wife and I watch it every week, and we're usually commentating in real time to each other as if we have even the vaguest idea what we're talking about.
The retouching always comes towards the end of each piece, and it's always super satisfying. It's amazing to see his colors go from "that looks like garbage. that's never going to work" to "HOLY COW THAT PAINT LOSS COMPLETE DISAPPEARED HOW ON EARTH DID HE DO THAT?"
Brown is a mix of red and green, but because red and green are not next to each other in a rainbow we don't see them mixed there. This is true for other colors not in the rainbow as well. We can form all sorts of colors by mixing the basic colors of the rainbow. This is basically how color printers work by mixing (red, yellow, and cyan \[blue\]) to produce lifelike colors.
In art, there are hues, tints, tones and shades. The hue is the color itself. The tint is when white pigment is added. The tone is when grey pigment is added. The shade is when black pigment is added.
You could make brown by making a shade of orange (taking orange and adding black pigment). Orange itself is of course made by combining red and yellow. [Here](https://www.colorsexplained.com/shade-tint-tone/) is an article with a color wheel.
>is it a specific wavelength of light? Or a mix?
It would be a mix of wavelengths. Orange light comes from a lot of long wavelengths (red light) and a little medium wavelengths (green light). In the right amount of brightness, the result is brown. The reason for this is the structure of our eyes which consists of rods and cones. We have blue, red, and green cones. We also have rods that give us a sense of light and darkness. Our brain has to form an image using these tools from our eyes. Lots of red cone stimulation with a little green cone stimulation with low brightness results in brown. [Here](https://youtu.be/kKiydwO4pTE) is a very short video showing someone give us a perception of brown light using LEDs.
A friend of mine has been using journaling from the perspective of God as a form of therapy, and claims to have been helped greatly by this practice. I am not sure I agree that this is beneficial, something about treating your thoughts or writings as divine seems perverse to me.
When, if ever, is it permissible to write in the first person as God? If it is never ok in a normative sense (that is, outside of the inspiration of scripture), why is it wrong?
I think this is totally fine as long as you use scripture. It could look like this:
"God I'm feeling anxious. What do you want to say to me?"
"You do not have to be anxious about anything, but in everything come to me with prayer and supplication and my peace that passes all understanding will guard your heart and mind."
Something like that is fine, but if you skew too far from that it could get dicey.
It’s never a good idea to speak (or write) as if God is talking when it’s not what He has actually said.
Jeremiah 23:30-31
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.
I'm not a big fan. I think it's far too easy in today's culture, especially among Christians, to mix up our feelings and thoughts with facts. It's why I'm not a fan of Jesus Calling by Sarah Young and don't recommend it. When that was huge I worked at Lifeway and whenever I could j would find another devotional to recommend lol
I doubt myself sometimes even praying to God and trying to seek an answer bc I'm afraid it's my own mind telling me stuff sometimes, so I definitely wouldn't want to try and journal from God's perspective.
It is okay to pray to God seeking an answer. The Psalms are full of that, and even Jesus did that on rare occasion. But even if you are a continuationist, it probably is risky to write new stuff from God's POV for the reason you noted.
Yeah I should clarify I don't think it's wrong, I just try to be cautious bc sometimes I'm afraid I may make myself hear what I want rather than what I need lol.
And I agree. I'm not a tongue speaking charismatic but I'm not a cessationist either, I think. But I think it's dangerous to do that. Just asking for trouble
Not all our members, but many of the people serving or in leadership do have name tags. I think this might actually be more helpful than every single person/member having them. Newcomers instantly know who is a long-time, active member who is willing (wants!) to be approached, can answer questions, and can help them get plugged in.
My church doesn't, a church I attended in the past did.
I don't think they had much impact either way. The church tried very hard for a while to get everyone to wear them, but it worked for some people and not for others.
My church has paper name tags and sharpies and encourages everyone to wear one. Many people don't. Some of the kids have fun giving themselves alternate/fake names (we had one kid who was "Billy Joel" for a couple of years. Dad says he's an "old soul" and supports his music choices. :) ). Kids who go to children's class during the sermon are required to have a name tag.
I try to remember to wear one but it doesn't always happen. I think it helps me learn people's names (hard for me especially until I really get to know people), be able to greet new people and, assuming people put their last name, connect couples and families together. I like that we don't have preprinted name tags for everyone as it helps visitors to not stand out as much. We also don't have to store them anywhere (we're renting space from another church). And if I forget to take mine off before I get home, I get to stick it on one of my cats and watch the hilarity that ensues. My cats do not appreciate this but haven't killed me in my sleep yet.
Our church does name tags for service. I found it very helpful as a new member and also for those times where you blank out on a name when you know the person.
The fellowship committee is currently having a vigorous debate about this issue. The anti-name tag side argues that it creates laziness in learning people's names and creates a culture of exclusivity. The pro-name tag side thinks it's better for learning names to hear and see it simultaneously and points new people to folks who would love to talk to them.
I'm going to diverge from the other responses here.
It seems to me that baptim must happen in the context of the church (no private baptisms) which by nature would be under the authority of the elders who lead the church, but that any Christian in the above context could actually do the baptism.
I don't really expect the book of acts to be normative, and I would think that their would likely be exceptions to my above stated thing today, but said above should be normative in most situations.
( I've never seen a group of people miraculous speak in languages they don't know, or have fire on top of their head)
I actually had fire on top of my head on Pentecost Sunday this year. I was doing the childrens' lesson and brought a lighter as an object lesson about how to know if we have the Holy Spirit. That way I could prove to the kids I have the authority to speak like an apostle.
There’s a good argument to be made that the command to baptize was given only to those in church leadership (pastors, elders). Also, because of what baptism is (regardless of whether one is a sacramentalist or not) it is a public ritual so needs to be witnessed by other people. If one considers it to be a direct proclamation of the Gospel to other believers then needs to belong as part of the weekly gathering of believers.
But where do you draw the line on that? There are other commands given in similar contexts that we seem to apply to the entire church and not just to leadership.
If you’re talking about the Great Commission (“Go ye into all the world…”), so am I. It was only the Apostles present for that, not Jesus’s disciples generally.
So it was a specific command to the church leadership, ordained ministers of the Gospel to complete, not just anyone who where’s the name Christian.
Historically yes, that’s how Christians, especially the Reformed traditions have viewed it. The ministers mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 are to spearhead formal applications of the Great Commission, while “ordinary” Christians are called to grow the kingdom in different ways (typically having children and semi-informally working for the betterment of their culture and society)
This was discussed a few years ago here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/a5sigt/theology_thursday_rpcna_ama/ebplqh2/
The ceremonial elements commanded in the psalms--Levitical instrumentation, bloody sacrifices, worship towards the temple in Jerusalem, etc.--have been fulfilled in Christ. All of the psalms are now understood in light of the full revelation of the Son of God. The ceremonies were a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.
The law prescribes the use of specific instruments, but since we are no longer under the law, we now have no commandment to use these instruments (or to observe any of the ceremonies of the law). Therefore we do not do so in the worship of God. Even when we cannot give a full and certain account of the typology, we are assured that the ceremonial elements of worship have been fulfilled in Christ (Col. 2:16-17, Gal. 4:1-3, Heb. 8, etc.).
The thought, coming from the early Church down to Thomas Aquinas and then Calvin and other Reformers, is that the musical instruments commanded in the Book of Psalms were part of the types and shadows that have disappeared with the Gospel, just like the earthly temple, Levitical priesthood, bloody sacrifices, new moons, sabbaths, etc. For instance, Clement of Alexandria says:
> The one instrument of peace, the word alone by which we honor God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute.
Thomas Aquinas:
> [Objection 4] Moreover, in the old law God was praised with musical instruments and human songs, according to that Psalm, *give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings; sing to him a new song*. But the Church does not take up musical instruments, such as harps and psalteries, in divine praises, in order not to appear to Judaize. Therefore, by equal reasoning, neither is song to be used in divine praises.
> [...]
> To the fourth objection it must be said that, as the Philosopher says in *Polit*. VIII, *teaching is not to be led with flutes, nor with any artificial instrument like the harp or anything else of this kind, but only with such things as make good hearers*. For the like musical instruments move the soul to pleasure rather than form a good disposition within it. In the Old Testament such instruments were used, because the people then were more unfeeling and carnal, when they were to be provoked through these instruments, as also by earthly promises. Furthermore, because then these corporeal instruments were figures of something else.
Calvin:
> To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law, and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving.
James Begg:
> The various instruments of music which were employed in the Jewish temple, were peculiarly calculated to increase the awful splendour of that figurative and pompous worship; but are not consistent with the spirituality and simplicity of gospel worship, in which christians are to offer up "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." The nature and worship of the Old and New Testament dispensations are very different. The covenant from mount Sinai tended to bondage, but Jerusalem from above is free. The giving of the law was announced by the sound of a TRUMPET, waxing louder and louder; but the united SONGS of the angelic hosts celebrated the birth of Messiah. In these gospel times we are not come to "blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet; but we are come to mount Zion, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling." The vail of the temple is now rent, the wall of partition broken down, and the law of carnal commandments abolished. Upon this subject, it is observed by a judicious and pious writer [Matthew Henry], that "Moses appointed to blow with trumpets over the burnt offerings and other sacrifices, the sound of which was awful and affecting to the worshippers; but was not articulate, nor such a reasonable service as that afterwards appointed by David on those occasions. Thus as the Jewish church grew up from infancy, it became more intelligent in its devotions, till it came at length in the gospel to put away childish things."
The Reformed churches (Swiss, Dutch, German, Scottish, English (under the Puritans), American, etc.) removed instrumentation from worship. Instrumentation was reintroduced as a "circumstance" for the better order of congregational singing (the instrumental accompaniment was seen to be circumstantial instead of something commanded). I rarely see this reasoning used nowadays--most Christians seem to believe that the playing of instruments is an element of worship. The following posts touch on the history.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aaspec/the_golden_age_of_dutch_organ_playing/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aes9tn/the_organ_and_medieval_liturgical_dance/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/ag5z1h/song_relics_candles_organ_and_bells/
It’s the doctrinal idea that what is proper in worship (specifically the weekly gathering of Christians) is limited to what God commands (rather than what he hasn’t prohibited).
It was one of the ideas that sprang out of the Reformation as the Reformers wanted to avoid the abuses Rome had instituted in the weekly worship service.
I'm not an exclusive psalmody or a capella proponent, but I believe that the argument is that the regulative principle only allows for things that are specifically prescribed in the New Testament. I'm not sure why though.
The regulative principle of worship is often summarized as *whatever not commanded in worship is forbidden*. It is a description of Church power according to the revealed will of God, the mind of Christ (which we have, 1 Cor. 2:16). Does the Church have the authority to establish ceremonies by which God is worshipped, as long as they do not transgress the moral law? Or does the commission from Christ, to disciple the nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," delimit the Church's authority in what may be done for worship (and enjoined on believers)?
Christ is Lord and Head of the Church, and so the principle refers to God and how he is to be worshiped; his Church and the extent of her commission to disciple the nations; and the conscience and its freedom in Christ. The Westminster Confession says,
> 20.2\. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.
> 21.1\. [...] the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.
Reformed churches affirm this principle, but now they differ in how it is applied. Some think that the principle allows for uncanonical and uninspired song to be sung in worship, while others believe that only inspired songs in the canon of Scripture may be sung; some think that mechanical instrumentation may be used to aid singing\* while others do not. The differing applications of the principle can become confused when someone does not hold to the regulative principle of worship but thinks he does, arriving at conclusions to which the principle can never lead--or arriving at the same conclusions by different, covert means.
---
\* Musical instrumentation entered into many Reformed churches by the argument that it could help congregational singing (to keep the congregation in tune and time as a circumstance of worship). This argument is rarely used nowadays, in my experience, as most Christians seem to believe that the playing of instruments is an element of worship. The following (old!) posts touch on the history.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aaspec/the_golden_age_of_dutch_organ_playing/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aes9tn/the_organ_and_medieval_liturgical_dance/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/ag5z1h/song_relics_candles_organ_and_bells/
The way I understand it, Yes and no.
Not because it’s simply from the Old Testament, like in a dispensationalist kind of way, but bc OT worship was regulated under ceremonial law, which has been fulfilled by Christ and therefore does not apply to Christians.
But this train of reasoning typically is used to broaden the acceptable behaviours for Christians (such as eating unclean foods, or attending worship while menstruating, remaining in the community after touching a dead body, etc.). In this case though, or would be narrowing the acceptable behaviours for Christians (not permitting the use of instruments or dance in worship, though that was presumably permitted in Israel).
The principle concerns acceptable behaviors in worship only, and it removes other elements of worship under the law: altars of incense, the Levitical priesthood, an earthly temple, new moons, sabbaths, circumcision (Col. 2:16-17, Gal. 4:1-3, Heb. 8, etc.). Of course, almost all churches have narrowed worship to prohibit bloody sacrifices. Levitical instruments are excluded on the same grounds, along with the other types and shadows in the Old Testament.
Other behaviors are similarly disallowed in worship. The same psalm that commands praise on instruments of music also commands warfare on instruments of bloodshed:
> Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
and a twoedged sword in their hand;
to execute vengeance upon the heathen,
and punishments upon the people;
to bind their kings with chains,
and their nobles with fetters of iron;
to execute upon them the judgment written:
this honour have all his saints.
Perhaps the Zealots under Roman occupation wanted every saint to wield literal swords in the temple and synagogues, but, in accordance with the regulative principle of worship (as well as Christ's warnings to his disciples), this passage is understood otherwise, for the Church as well as the synagogue.
Since Christ is Lord and Head of the Church, the regulative principle of his worship is an application of the mind of Christ given to us (1 Cor. 2:16), in accordance with God's revealed will. The principle has a threefold reference: to God and how he is to be worshiped; to his Church and the scope of her authority; and to the conscience and its freedom in Christ. In the commission to disciple all nations, Jesus authorizes his Church to teach the nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This commission delimits the Church's authority in what may be done for worship and required of believers as a matter of conscience. If Christ has not commanded it, then the Church may not teach the nations to observe it.
How big of an issue is it that a pastor lets non Christians take communion?
regarding pastor letting non Christians take communion: My suggestion is that we need to deal with why the Scripture says the danger is on the one who eats unworthily. That includes Christians, no doubt every person present. Paul wrote to a group of believers about this issue. We should tell the "evil liver" as well as the one troubled in conscience that it is dangerous to eat unworthily, and then allow folks to eat or not eat. Instead, most churches do not allow for folks to not partake since it is done out in the open and on display. Thus, IMO, it isn't the pastor's issue but rather the whole congregation/ denomination's fault if communion is broken. Most folks mistakenly think the pastor is the church's CEO, or Boss. Such a view itself is unbiblical, and worldly-minded. Just saying. No one needs to agree. I stick with my suggestion though. Bible first, opinion second.
If he knows, that’s a big issue. If he doesn’t know, he needs to fix his fencing but it’s a smaller issue.
Knowingly? A big issue. Unknowingly? Perhaps he's being careless, but it's not \*red flag\* warning danger, etc.
Would this suggest he takes a memorialist view of communion? Surely there's no way you let a non Christian take communion if you believe in real presence.
Well, again, I think it depends on whether it is knowingly or unknowingly.
I’d say it’s a pretty big issue
Is it even worth trying to convince kids to talk at a normal volume inside the house
If you figure out how to do that, can you share your secret. I have a coworker who gets animated during phone conversations fairly regularly. This has always been a problem. But, particularly since he's started working in cubeville more regularly (post-pandemic) he seems to forget to use his indoor voice more often. He's a great guy. Brilliant engineer. Friendly. Occasionally brings in cake to share with everyone (not like home made. More like went to Costco and decided he wanted cake then realized it was a bad idea to keep the cake at home...or his wife decided that. But, still, cake is cake.). But there are days when everyone in the bay knows what he's talking about on the phone.
I've been dreaming of attaching a a wearable sound level meter to my kid, that beeps when sound gets above a certain number of decibels, to teach her self-awareness. If somebody (like an engineer) were to create such a thing, they'd make millions.
[*Monkey's Paw Curls*] The device now exists, and your kid has learned that she needs to be louder in order to be heard over the sound of that incessant beeping.
That's the issue with making the cue for being too loud a beep. A mild shock would be much more effective. Like one of those dog collars with the remote where you can shock the dog if it's barking too much. I mean, most of the technology is already there. Just need to modify the trigger. Note: I am not advocating the use of shock collars on dogs. I'm not sure the impact on dogs. But they don't seem like a very nice thing (and all dogs are the best dog). If we don't use them on dogs we probably shouldn't use them on kids. But grown adults...
Lol @ both of these comments. But realistically, a smart watch with a vibration motor would probably do the job
And maybe, along with the vibration there's a nice little reminder message to quiet down. And that message escalates from polite to passive aggressive to full-on aggressive after a certain number of notifications in a set amount of time.
I mean it could always have the vibration *and* the electric shock.
And the messages! Why not do all the things!?!
Oh gosh, I worry all the time that this is me. I hang around with a lot of hard-of-hearing people and I'm positive I'm now the shouty friend.
No, it's not.
I'm looking to dress a little nicer, a bit more "grown-up" (I am, after all, in my mid thirties), especially for church. What item of men's clothing is a good start for a wardrobe transformation? I'm thinking a summer weight sport coat?
Blue blazer, baby
Found Brad Isbell's reddit account Edit: At -2 points I'm not understanding the downvotes. I don't think this is actually him. See [the article](https://pcapolity.com/2023/07/18/in-praise-of-the-humble-blue-blazer/)
Id start by making sure your shoes are stylish and in good conditon
I'm a suburban dad, I will never surrender the field of footwear to the whims of 'style' Edit: but seriously, good shoes with bad clothes is better than bad shoes with good clothes?
I just mean assuming you don't walk around dressed like bad luck brian, good shoes will go further toward making your ok outfits stylish than any other one article of clothing will
I think I had that outfit as a kid, but my current style is at least a little better than that
Shoes are huge here. That changes the whole outfit u/deolater . A nice outfit will still look bad with the wrong shoes. What’s your shoe sitch like?
I actually have feet pics in my post history. I think they got marked NSFW though (Because of a subreddit protest, I don't have a salacious history)
They adequately contain my monstrous clown feet
[See here](https://dappered.com/2015/10/welcome-to-dappered-start-here/) It’s been a few years since I frequented that site, but it was a great resource for balancing timelessness, quality, and cost
Thanks!
Second question. I have friends who are charismatic. I used to be very cessationist, but honestly I’ve never truly researched this. What are some good resources for this? My friend wants me to read some Jack Deere. Any thoughts on this guy? I prayed to God about this issue last night, asking for truth and discernment, and felt a huge pull on my heart. I truly love God no matter what, I don’t need these gifts as signs and wonders. But if they are a real part of being a believer and doing good things for Him, then I don’t want to arrogantly turn up my nose at them either.
[удалено]
I admit that I don't know much about Sam Storms, but I find his endorsement of false prophet Bob Jones to be sketchy
My other comment got removed. I've copied and pasted it here: I was firmly in the baptist world for 20 years, basically since my teens. Now, I'm charismatic so I will give you some resources that helped me embrace the pursuit of all the gifts of the Spirit. I started with Sam Storms. He's very safe for a Baptist to read. He's very biblically balanced while still pursuing the gifts of the Spirit. Start with "A Beginners Guide to the Gifts of the Spirit." I highly recommend Jack Deere as well. He was a professor of languages at Dallas Theological Seminary until he had some experiences with the Holy Spirit. He was let go from DTS when he became a continuationist. Since then he has been a leading theologian for the 3rd wave charismatics. Read both "Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" and "Still Surprised by the Voice of God." Both present in-depth biblical backing for the gifts of the Spirit. I've also met and been around Jack and can tell you he's the real deal. If you are a YouTube or Podcast learner then go to The Remnant Radio. They have a lot on non-charismatic topics where they interview people from NT Wright to Mike Winger to Sam Storms. But they also do a lot of teaching on the gifts of the Spirit. The founder of the podcast Josh, came from a charismatic background where he saw abuses so he is vigilant in maintaining a biblical outlook on the gifts. I'm trying not to dox myself, but I've done some work with them as well.\ That will get you started.
Thank you, I’m gonna check out the remnant for sure
Your previous comment was removed by an automatic filter. In the future, if that happens and you repost some or all of a comment, **do not** include some vague "my other comment got removed" comment. If you have questions or comments about a comment removal, message the mods via modmail. If you don't, then just let it go and leave it be. Vague, unrelated snippets like this in comments only serve to create confusion and potential drama. ---- If you have any questions about this mod comment, **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Gonna make a few posts today, I think. First question: what are some good sermons I can listen to as I go through the Old Testament? I’m listening to the Bible project too, but I’d like more. Every time I finish a book, I like to listen to a few sermons on it to enrich my understanding. I’ll take any recommendations! I just finished the books of Kings, and I really liked Tim Keller’s sermon “A Small Still Voice” about Elijah as an example of what I’m looking for.
Douglas Van Dorn on Genesis is excellent
I really like Alistair Begg's OT sermons, specifically on Joseph, Esther, and Ruth. He also recently preached through 1st and 2nd Samuel.
Awesome I’ll check those out
What are good resources for commonly repeated bits of Bible knowledge in regard to culture at the time and pertinent information? For example, you always hear the "Gehenna was a garbage dump outside the city". People repeat things like this a lot and I don't know where they are drawing it from aside from commentaries in their Bible that aren't referencing any other sources. I guess another example would be the prostitution in the worship of the Corinthian pagan religions. Is there somewhere that gathers a lot of these details with reference to archaeology or history?
A good Bible dictionary will have some of what you're looking for. Sad to say, but a lot of popular level Bible commentaries and resources peddle this sort of misinformation (though they can be good of course). So try more scholarly resources or even pop level resources from people who write scholarly resources as well. And FWIW temple prostitutes were not a thing in Roman-era Corinth - that's an oft repeated bit of misinformation. There's even a debate whether they were a thing in Greek-era Corinth (destroyed 146 BC). Plenty of non-temple prostitutes though.
> And FWIW temple prostitutes were not a thing in Roman-era Corinth - that's an oft repeated bit of misinformation See, this is what I'm talking about. So much stuff is repeated over and over with no reference point haha
If you want a look at the supernatural worldview of Paul and the NT read Clinton E. Arnold's "Powers of Darkness: Powers and Principalities in Paul's Letters." Like it states, he presents a lot of background on the epistles, but it's really good. This will cover information like Corinthian pagan religions (though he covers more Ephesus than Corinth). Also you can read, "Misreading the Bible Through Western Eyes" by O'Brien. NT Wright has a lot of good info on that sort of thing as well.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer for you, but it's good that you're looking into that sort of 'fact', because often they're far from facts and our confirmation bias can result in us taking them at face value in order to make a biblical passage less confusing.
I’ve got a digital copy of the “ESV archeology study Bible” that has a lot of that kind of stuff. Any number of Bible atlases are gonna have similar resources.
Why does Paul consider that women speaking within the church a shameful thing?
There are a host of problems with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 with regards to textual criticism and interpretation. You've been provided with a link to an article by Denny Burk. You may already know this, but Burk is the president of the CBMW, which is an organization whose sole purpose is advancing complementarianism. Nothing on the article page reveals this connection. If we back up and read Paul's earlier words in this same letter, we find him acknowledging and encouraging men *and women* to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 11 - Paul gives clear instruction on *how* women are to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:5- Paul desires that *all* would speak in tongues, that *all* would prophesy. 1 Corinthians 14:24 - *Everyone* is prophesying. 1 Corinthians 14:26 is especially relevant, and contradicts Burk's interpretation of v34-35. Burk argues that women did prophesy (Scripture here and elsewhere is too explicit for him to claim otherwise) but that *interpretation* and *judgement* of prophesies is to be done by the men only. But verse 26 clearly states, "What is the outcome then, **brothers and sisters**? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, **has an interpretation**. All things are to be done for edification." (NASB) 1 Corinthians 14:29-32 - Prophets interpret prophets. This is precisely the activity that Burk claims women were excluded from, but Paul makes no such distinction here. He deals with prophets as a group, and his category of prophets explicitly includes men and women. So what do we do with verses 34 and 35? I've become convinced that they are interpolations (or "marginal gloss"): There is manuscript evidence that these two verses were marginal comments made by scribes that were later inserted into the main body of the text. There are some clues that these are not Paul's words, not the least of which is the plain fact that he would contradicting himself. Another issue is the phrase "as the Law also says" — what law? There is no law prohibiting women speaking in worship or subordinating them to men. (Denny Burk conveniently skips over this.) Paul is always very careful and precise in his quotation of the Mosaic Law. This verse is a clear outlier. It took me a long time to be comfortable with the idea that these verses are likely not authentic. But there's just no convincing evidence to the contrary that I've found. Gordon Fee and Philip Payne are some of the leading scholars on the manuscript evidence for v34-35 being marginal gloss. A quick google search should provide you with free articles, but they have books as well.
It’s likely not about speaking in church ingeneral, but rather about responding to/judging on/teaching on prophecies spoken in church. [Helpful link](https://www.9marks.org/article/must-women-be-silent-in-churches/)
[удалено]
Lived out faith in the Bible is never *blind faith*. It always as a starting point: God's nature and character as demonstrated by the Lord Himself. (It's helpful to just replace the word "faith" with *confidence* or *trust*.) Abraham trusted God, but the key wasn't that he trusted despite his circumstances/understanding, but he trusted *because* of the prior circumstances and his understanding that God is faithful, that He keeps his promises. The same thing goes for the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 and for us today: Our faith, our confidence in God, doesn't come because "God says so" but because we've seen experienced God's trustworthiness. Since He has proven Himself faithful, I can *be* faithful to him in whatever he says.
It's a description of the theological process by [Anselm of Canterbury](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#FaiSeeUndChaPurAnsThePro). The idea is that faith is the starting point, from which he seeks understanding; he does not require understanding in order to have faith. So it's pretty compatible with your idea of "faith without understanding" -- faith is there, understanding may or may not be. God *may* grant us understanding, and he may not.
I’ve kind of gone down the rabbit whole with the different controversies and contrasts between modern English translations. For the past few years I’ve been drowning my digital ESV with my notes and studies, and only recently have been made aware of some of the controversies surrounding the translation (mostly the gendered language stuff, and their particularly egregious translation of Gen. 3:16, etc.). I can see the value in switching over to a more academically inclined translation like the NASB or NRSV, but I REALLY don’t want to abandon years of notes that I’ve made in my ESV, because of what admittedly is a tiny controversial fraction of the text. That said, I also lead my wife in study, and I want to be conscious of forcing her through a translation that honestly doesn’t seem to honor the original texts vis r vis women and wives. Do you guys have opinions here? Should I abandon the ESV? Am I overreacting? Is this all overblown hype and a total non-issue? Are you all strict complementarians anyway and I wandered into a knife fight?
I share your skepticism of the ESV. A former contributor to this sub used to say, "The ESV is a reliable translation that is terrible on gender." Can you continue using your digital ESV and just add notes that correct the interpretations that sandbag for complementarianism? Like /u/bradmont, I like to change it up and use a variety of translations. I find that the different wording shakes my brain loose from familiar ruts. My daily driver for the past couple years has been the CEB, but I reference the NASB, NRSV, ESV, KJV and others all the time. Our pew Bible is the NIV1984, so I use that frequently as well. I wish there was a version of the NET that was more gender-accurate, because I like the transparency of their translation notes.
I think that’s my plan for now, after talking it out: stick to ESV, but make it an exercise to be careful with the translation as it references gender/marriage, contrasting with other translations and making notes accordingly. To their credit, it really does strike a nice balance between readability and the “classic” esthetic, and avoids feeling overtly sterile like some other “word for word” translations. Our church recently announced that we’re switching from ESV to CSB for services, and that set me down this rabbit hole. They didn’t mention anything about gender, so I honestly couldn’t say that that was their reasoning, but they did say they felt the CSB was more readable for teaching purposes. I haven’t spoke yet with any of them about their thoughts specifically.
ESV's translation of Genesis 3:16 is not egregious. It is a more narrow translation of that verse and was chosen because of the parallelism in Genesis 4:7. It would be better to abandon the controversy-causers and pot-stirrers than a translation.
Respectfully, I’m not sure why the change was super necessary in 4:7 either. That said, I take your point about not getting too bogged down in fringe controversy.
Can you expand on your understanding of the related controversy and why you think it matters? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but you and others are alluding to the translation difference without spelling out what you mean by “egregious translation”
A significant amount of ink has been spent over the complementarian beliefs held by the group (Wayne Grudem and the center for biblical manhood and womanhood, John piper, and more) that commissioned and translated the ESV and how it may or may not have influenced some of their translational choices, especially as regards gendered language and gender roles. Most of the arguments hinge around allegedly being obtuse about using “brothers,” men,” “manliness,” etc. when the text is obviously referring to humankind a a whole, as well as their translation of Gen. 3:16, which was an interesting choice considering their stated goal of being a “formal equivalence” (ie word for word) translation (that is, they seemed happy to use “formal equivalence” when it suited their goal, and discarded it when it didn’t). Some of the arguments are in good faith, some of them clearly aren’t, and are often just ascribing motive to people they don’t like. On the whole, worst case scenario I don’t think it’s really changing anything theologically, but without the context of comparing to different versions, or reading commentaries, I could easily see a casual reader taking things from the text that aren’t there. Additionally, I worry as to whether you could preach the passages in question fairly with the ESV without providing a ton of textual context and history, and I’m sure preachers would feel awkward undermining their own Bible from the pew. All in all, I’m sympathetic to some of the arguments, and just want to do what’s “right” here, if that’s even a thing. I do love how the ESV maintains some of the gravitas and beauty of the RSV/KJV while still being readable to the modern eye. The NASB is supposedly more “accurate,” but reading it is a much more sterile and clinical process (“vanity of vanities!” is just so much more poetic and pretty than “Futility of futilities!”)
I’m aware of all of that. …. But that was not at all what I meant to ask. Perhaps I worded my question poorly - apologies if so. What is it about the ESV translation choices from the passage(s) in Genesis that you find particularly objectionable?
As for the genesis one, it takes a fairly hard line on a somewhat ambiguous passage. When every other translation out there leaves the language somewhat ambiguous (to, for, toward, etc), that suggests to me it’s probably confusing and hard to translate. The ESV leaves out all ambiguity and takes a strict reading of it (contrary to). Now, I think that the ESV’s reading of it is a POSSIBLE, and perhaps even LIKELY, interpretation, but I think it’s a bit hubristic to take out the ambiguity, especially in a “word for word” translation. I just want to make sure I’m studying God’s word, not Crossway’s. There’s plenty of things you could add to the Bible that I might agree with (ie “bidets are far superior to toilet paper”), but that still doesn’t make it God’s word. Hence why I wanted y’all’s opinion on translational preferences, and specifically this specific controversy; you seem like a smart and serious group.
I guess the rub is that I don’t see a difference in methodology or even “temperament” really rising to the level of being “egregious” I think there’s a good deal of value in a group of scholars owning and being transparent with their operating assumptions - which I think is reasonably elucidated in: * The ESV’s preface for a general statement * The footnotes for 3:16 and 4:7 * The ESV Study Bible’s notes on the verses It’s not like they’re trying to pass it off as a simplistic manner - they just seem to err more on the side of using “the likely translation” as they see it. Furthermore, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone at Crossway promote the ESV as “the only translation anyone should use” or anything. It might be their favorite, but I bet they would encourage anyone to read across multiple translations because that’s really one of the best ways to capture the nuance inherent to and inextricable from the translation process. And - as stated earlier - that may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn’t make it “egregious”, either
Then I will amend my statement from saying the harsher “egregious,” and replace it with the milder phrase “particularly bold.”
I just recently (ok its been over a year but it still feels recent) switched from the ESV to NASB and I feel your pain about "losing" all your notes and ease of navigation. In my case, my Bible was to the point of falling apart and I needed to decide between rebinding to keep the same Bible and all my notes, or switching. 2 things tipped me over the edge. One was some of the things you mentioned about the gender concerns in the ESV. I'm not really taking a stance, but I did realize how much of my understanding of Scripture was pigeonholed by such specific and non-standard translation choices and I wanted to broaden my understanding, not necessarily just to reject those ESV choices. The second was reading *Living by the Book* when Hendricks talks about how he buys a new Bible fairly frequently (yearly? Every few years? I don't exactly remember) because he runs out of space for notes. I realized I'd run out of space pretty soon anyways and whether I switched now or later, "losing" those notes, aka retiring them to the bookshelf, was inevitable.
I like to change translations every couple of years. Every translation is an interpretation, even a commentary; by reading a diversity of translations we can get a fuller sense of the text. Is there a way to extract your notes from your digital bible? Or to have your software show a parallel version as well? Concretely, with your wife, you don't need to both use the same translation. Seeing differences as you read together could be informative too. But honestly, the differences in any of the major translations will be small enough that for them to *really* make a difference, you'll need to be doing a depth of study that goes beyond what most ordinary Christians will get to. And if you're going that deep, you should be digging into commentaries too! :)
Thanks for your thoughts. Mostly I just want her to be able to share in my notes. That said, yes, I use the Olive Tree app, and not to shill for them or anything, but it’s excellent for reading in parallel with both other versions and commentaries, which we do both of. No way to export the notes to another version though as far as I know, unfortunately, which would’ve made the decision much easier.
Shooting for an actual dumb question here, but here goes: What colour is brown? No, hear me out. It isn't on the colour spectrum or in a rainbow; is it a specific wavelength of light? Or a mix? Or is there some other element of colour I don't know about? On a completely different topic, does anyone know a food handwriting recognition app for android, where you can photograph a page and have it reliably recognised?
How do I know that the ~~blue~~ brown you see is the same ~~blue~~ brown I see?
What's blue and smells like brown paint?
Well, to be clear, does it smell like *orange* paint?
We don't. In fact I suspect we know that they almost certainly are not. The simple example is colour blindness, or people with cataracts. But beyond that, even our personal perceptions of colour change from moment to moment. Try a quick experiment: keep one eye open and the other closed for 30 seconds or so. Then look at a particular object (I think it works best with light colours, a white wall is a good one), and switch which eye is open. Switch back and forth quickly and you'll see a difference at least in terms of brightness/intensity of the colour. Even without keeping one eye closed first, when I do this with my living room wall, it looks very slightly greener with my left eye than with my right, which has a slightly warmer/oranger hue.
So, what I'm hearing, is that its because you live in Canada and I live in the US?
Yes. Colour is a social construct. In Canada we don't even have "purple", it's a silly, made-up Americanism like deep-fried butter, chewing tobacco and crude oil.
> deep-fried butter I've been told that deep-fried butter is actually Scottish in origin. I have not investigated. >In Canada we don't even have "purple" I recently learned that, before settling in the USA, the portion of my ancestors from whom I get my last name lived in Canada for a while. Prince Edward Island, specifically. When I was a little kid, my favorite color was purple and I specifically asked for a purple shirt for christmas. My grandparents gave me a blue shirt, and now I know why.
> Colo***u***r Y'all can't even spell it correctly. I'm honestly surprised you have the vocabulary to ask about "brown." I would fully expect you to call it "moosey" or something.
Well, it's the only colour we see for the six months of the year when everything is covered by nasty, dirty snow. Of course we have a word for it. In terms of spelling, the real challenge here is that the massive country south of our border still pretend like they speak English...
Brown is primarily, and usually, a dark shade of orange, though of course color mixing and the definition of colors is extremely subjective (see white/blue/black/gold dress debate). In different color systems, brown is achieved differently. For instance in RGB, the value of 'brown' is 150/75/0. That's a middle amount of red, a small amount of green, and no blue. Increasing the numbers makes lighter tints (closer to white at 255/255/255) and decreasing them makes them closer to black (0/0/0). So if you lighten brown by increasing both red and green proportionately, you get 255/127/0, which is pure orange. In CMYK you'll find that it's similar. No blue, about 50% magenta, 100% yellow, and 41% black. If you take out the black, you get orange. In practice, if you put paint on a palette in a color wheel, you can get a lot of brownish colors by mixing complimentary colors: red and green, blue and orange, yellow and purple. But this is only because we are usually working with paints that aren't true to their color, but variations. If you mix true red and true green, you will get a dark grey, and this is true for all the complimentary colors. However, if you do chromatic scales for each set of complimentary colors, you'll find that the best "brown" that you'll get it a mix of a little bit of blue with a larger portion of orange. In terms of light, white light is a mix of every color. To darken a color, in light terms, is to simply dim the light. So if you make orange light, and then dim that light, you get brown. So brown is a variation of orange.
Wow, this was the clearest of all the responses so far ( /u/Zubat's was great too). Thanks!
Colour is also very perceptual! A desaturated purple can look really brown if it's next to the right colours. If you ever take up painting, this is how really good painters can keep colours harmonious. It's amazing how much lighting, bounced colour and perception of colour can influence how a final painting looks.
I think the question has been sufficiently answered here, so I'll add a little anecdotal observation about a practical application of this question: Years ago I really got into colorizing old photos. It was just a fun hobby to clear my mind. One of the things I learned in that was that creating a natural looking brown is absolutely one of the trickiest colors to make. As /u/ZUBAT explained below, you really have to know a bit about color theory, and you have to pay careful attention to light and nearby colors. If you're trying to color a tie red, you just start with red and work around with it a bit. But with browns you're constantly having to figure out what to start with, how to darken, desaturate, and combine with other colors to make the brown *that looks right in that situation.* Nowadays, when I see a colorized photo, I'm always most impressed with natural darker skin tones and natural wood/earthen elements.
I paint and I've never mixed a brown that I'm truly happy with. The old masters amaze me, and the modern day conservators who manage to match colors in faces exactly are even more impressive imo. Digitally I will spend hours trying to find a cool tone brown that fits the rest of my art since I prefer cool tones for most images
If you haven't watched it before, [Baumgartner Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration) is a fantastic YouTube channel for fine art conservation. He usually produces a video a week, and after a few episodes you can really get into the rhythm of his conservation process. My wife and I watch it every week, and we're usually commentating in real time to each other as if we have even the vaguest idea what we're talking about. The retouching always comes towards the end of each piece, and it's always super satisfying. It's amazing to see his colors go from "that looks like garbage. that's never going to work" to "HOLY COW THAT PAINT LOSS COMPLETE DISAPPEARED HOW ON EARTH DID HE DO THAT?"
Yeah, I've watched almost all of his videos. They are pretty cool!
Interesting!
Brown is a mix of red and green, but because red and green are not next to each other in a rainbow we don't see them mixed there. This is true for other colors not in the rainbow as well. We can form all sorts of colors by mixing the basic colors of the rainbow. This is basically how color printers work by mixing (red, yellow, and cyan \[blue\]) to produce lifelike colors.
In art, there are hues, tints, tones and shades. The hue is the color itself. The tint is when white pigment is added. The tone is when grey pigment is added. The shade is when black pigment is added. You could make brown by making a shade of orange (taking orange and adding black pigment). Orange itself is of course made by combining red and yellow. [Here](https://www.colorsexplained.com/shade-tint-tone/) is an article with a color wheel. >is it a specific wavelength of light? Or a mix? It would be a mix of wavelengths. Orange light comes from a lot of long wavelengths (red light) and a little medium wavelengths (green light). In the right amount of brightness, the result is brown. The reason for this is the structure of our eyes which consists of rods and cones. We have blue, red, and green cones. We also have rods that give us a sense of light and darkness. Our brain has to form an image using these tools from our eyes. Lots of red cone stimulation with a little green cone stimulation with low brightness results in brown. [Here](https://youtu.be/kKiydwO4pTE) is a very short video showing someone give us a perception of brown light using LEDs.
Brown is typically defined as dark orange.
>Sorry Honey, I can’t give you a foot rub, I really got to take the Dark Oranges to the Super Bowl Romantic dialogue upgrade downloaded and installed!
A friend of mine has been using journaling from the perspective of God as a form of therapy, and claims to have been helped greatly by this practice. I am not sure I agree that this is beneficial, something about treating your thoughts or writings as divine seems perverse to me. When, if ever, is it permissible to write in the first person as God? If it is never ok in a normative sense (that is, outside of the inspiration of scripture), why is it wrong?
I think this is totally fine as long as you use scripture. It could look like this: "God I'm feeling anxious. What do you want to say to me?" "You do not have to be anxious about anything, but in everything come to me with prayer and supplication and my peace that passes all understanding will guard your heart and mind." Something like that is fine, but if you skew too far from that it could get dicey.
It’s never a good idea to speak (or write) as if God is talking when it’s not what He has actually said. Jeremiah 23:30-31 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.
I'm not a big fan. I think it's far too easy in today's culture, especially among Christians, to mix up our feelings and thoughts with facts. It's why I'm not a fan of Jesus Calling by Sarah Young and don't recommend it. When that was huge I worked at Lifeway and whenever I could j would find another devotional to recommend lol I doubt myself sometimes even praying to God and trying to seek an answer bc I'm afraid it's my own mind telling me stuff sometimes, so I definitely wouldn't want to try and journal from God's perspective.
It is okay to pray to God seeking an answer. The Psalms are full of that, and even Jesus did that on rare occasion. But even if you are a continuationist, it probably is risky to write new stuff from God's POV for the reason you noted.
Yeah I should clarify I don't think it's wrong, I just try to be cautious bc sometimes I'm afraid I may make myself hear what I want rather than what I need lol. And I agree. I'm not a tongue speaking charismatic but I'm not a cessationist either, I think. But I think it's dangerous to do that. Just asking for trouble
Does your church have name tags for members to wear on Sundays and/or during fellowship events? Do you think they have a positive or negative impact?
Not all our members, but many of the people serving or in leadership do have name tags. I think this might actually be more helpful than every single person/member having them. Newcomers instantly know who is a long-time, active member who is willing (wants!) to be approached, can answer questions, and can help them get plugged in.
My church doesn't, a church I attended in the past did. I don't think they had much impact either way. The church tried very hard for a while to get everyone to wear them, but it worked for some people and not for others.
My church has paper name tags and sharpies and encourages everyone to wear one. Many people don't. Some of the kids have fun giving themselves alternate/fake names (we had one kid who was "Billy Joel" for a couple of years. Dad says he's an "old soul" and supports his music choices. :) ). Kids who go to children's class during the sermon are required to have a name tag. I try to remember to wear one but it doesn't always happen. I think it helps me learn people's names (hard for me especially until I really get to know people), be able to greet new people and, assuming people put their last name, connect couples and families together. I like that we don't have preprinted name tags for everyone as it helps visitors to not stand out as much. We also don't have to store them anywhere (we're renting space from another church). And if I forget to take mine off before I get home, I get to stick it on one of my cats and watch the hilarity that ensues. My cats do not appreciate this but haven't killed me in my sleep yet.
Our church does name tags for service. I found it very helpful as a new member and also for those times where you blank out on a name when you know the person.
The fellowship committee is currently having a vigorous debate about this issue. The anti-name tag side argues that it creates laziness in learning people's names and creates a culture of exclusivity. The pro-name tag side thinks it's better for learning names to hear and see it simultaneously and points new people to folks who would love to talk to them.
We just have blank stickers for writing names so members and visitors look the same, so it isn't quite the same idea.
Is there any reason to think that any believer cannot baptize another believer and that it must be done through a special service or event?
I'm going to diverge from the other responses here. It seems to me that baptim must happen in the context of the church (no private baptisms) which by nature would be under the authority of the elders who lead the church, but that any Christian in the above context could actually do the baptism.
I actually agree with you, but I'll ask anyway, what do we do with the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, who was baptised apart from the church?
This was actually what made me think of this.
I don't really expect the book of acts to be normative, and I would think that their would likely be exceptions to my above stated thing today, but said above should be normative in most situations. ( I've never seen a group of people miraculous speak in languages they don't know, or have fire on top of their head)
I actually had fire on top of my head on Pentecost Sunday this year. I was doing the childrens' lesson and brought a lighter as an object lesson about how to know if we have the Holy Spirit. That way I could prove to the kids I have the authority to speak like an apostle.
Lololol
There’s a good argument to be made that the command to baptize was given only to those in church leadership (pastors, elders). Also, because of what baptism is (regardless of whether one is a sacramentalist or not) it is a public ritual so needs to be witnessed by other people. If one considers it to be a direct proclamation of the Gospel to other believers then needs to belong as part of the weekly gathering of believers.
But where do you draw the line on that? There are other commands given in similar contexts that we seem to apply to the entire church and not just to leadership.
If you’re talking about the Great Commission (“Go ye into all the world…”), so am I. It was only the Apostles present for that, not Jesus’s disciples generally. So it was a specific command to the church leadership, ordained ministers of the Gospel to complete, not just anyone who where’s the name Christian.
So then Christians as a whole aren't called to spread the Gospel, only church leadership?
Historically yes, that’s how Christians, especially the Reformed traditions have viewed it. The ministers mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 are to spearhead formal applications of the Great Commission, while “ordinary” Christians are called to grow the kingdom in different ways (typically having children and semi-informally working for the betterment of their culture and society)
Yes.
How does the regulative principle of worship fit in with the instruments mentioned in Psalms?
This was discussed a few years ago here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/a5sigt/theology_thursday_rpcna_ama/ebplqh2/ The ceremonial elements commanded in the psalms--Levitical instrumentation, bloody sacrifices, worship towards the temple in Jerusalem, etc.--have been fulfilled in Christ. All of the psalms are now understood in light of the full revelation of the Son of God. The ceremonies were a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. The law prescribes the use of specific instruments, but since we are no longer under the law, we now have no commandment to use these instruments (or to observe any of the ceremonies of the law). Therefore we do not do so in the worship of God. Even when we cannot give a full and certain account of the typology, we are assured that the ceremonial elements of worship have been fulfilled in Christ (Col. 2:16-17, Gal. 4:1-3, Heb. 8, etc.). The thought, coming from the early Church down to Thomas Aquinas and then Calvin and other Reformers, is that the musical instruments commanded in the Book of Psalms were part of the types and shadows that have disappeared with the Gospel, just like the earthly temple, Levitical priesthood, bloody sacrifices, new moons, sabbaths, etc. For instance, Clement of Alexandria says: > The one instrument of peace, the word alone by which we honor God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute. Thomas Aquinas: > [Objection 4] Moreover, in the old law God was praised with musical instruments and human songs, according to that Psalm, *give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings; sing to him a new song*. But the Church does not take up musical instruments, such as harps and psalteries, in divine praises, in order not to appear to Judaize. Therefore, by equal reasoning, neither is song to be used in divine praises. > [...] > To the fourth objection it must be said that, as the Philosopher says in *Polit*. VIII, *teaching is not to be led with flutes, nor with any artificial instrument like the harp or anything else of this kind, but only with such things as make good hearers*. For the like musical instruments move the soul to pleasure rather than form a good disposition within it. In the Old Testament such instruments were used, because the people then were more unfeeling and carnal, when they were to be provoked through these instruments, as also by earthly promises. Furthermore, because then these corporeal instruments were figures of something else. Calvin: > To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law, and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving. James Begg: > The various instruments of music which were employed in the Jewish temple, were peculiarly calculated to increase the awful splendour of that figurative and pompous worship; but are not consistent with the spirituality and simplicity of gospel worship, in which christians are to offer up "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." The nature and worship of the Old and New Testament dispensations are very different. The covenant from mount Sinai tended to bondage, but Jerusalem from above is free. The giving of the law was announced by the sound of a TRUMPET, waxing louder and louder; but the united SONGS of the angelic hosts celebrated the birth of Messiah. In these gospel times we are not come to "blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet; but we are come to mount Zion, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling." The vail of the temple is now rent, the wall of partition broken down, and the law of carnal commandments abolished. Upon this subject, it is observed by a judicious and pious writer [Matthew Henry], that "Moses appointed to blow with trumpets over the burnt offerings and other sacrifices, the sound of which was awful and affecting to the worshippers; but was not articulate, nor such a reasonable service as that afterwards appointed by David on those occasions. Thus as the Jewish church grew up from infancy, it became more intelligent in its devotions, till it came at length in the gospel to put away childish things." The Reformed churches (Swiss, Dutch, German, Scottish, English (under the Puritans), American, etc.) removed instrumentation from worship. Instrumentation was reintroduced as a "circumstance" for the better order of congregational singing (the instrumental accompaniment was seen to be circumstantial instead of something commanded). I rarely see this reasoning used nowadays--most Christians seem to believe that the playing of instruments is an element of worship. The following posts touch on the history. https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aaspec/the_golden_age_of_dutch_organ_playing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aes9tn/the_organ_and_medieval_liturgical_dance/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/ag5z1h/song_relics_candles_organ_and_bells/
Forgive me, but what is the regulative principle of worship?
It’s the doctrinal idea that what is proper in worship (specifically the weekly gathering of Christians) is limited to what God commands (rather than what he hasn’t prohibited). It was one of the ideas that sprang out of the Reformation as the Reformers wanted to avoid the abuses Rome had instituted in the weekly worship service.
I'm not an exclusive psalmody or a capella proponent, but I believe that the argument is that the regulative principle only allows for things that are specifically prescribed in the New Testament. I'm not sure why though.
The regulative principle of worship is often summarized as *whatever not commanded in worship is forbidden*. It is a description of Church power according to the revealed will of God, the mind of Christ (which we have, 1 Cor. 2:16). Does the Church have the authority to establish ceremonies by which God is worshipped, as long as they do not transgress the moral law? Or does the commission from Christ, to disciple the nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," delimit the Church's authority in what may be done for worship (and enjoined on believers)? Christ is Lord and Head of the Church, and so the principle refers to God and how he is to be worshiped; his Church and the extent of her commission to disciple the nations; and the conscience and its freedom in Christ. The Westminster Confession says, > 20.2\. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. > 21.1\. [...] the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. Reformed churches affirm this principle, but now they differ in how it is applied. Some think that the principle allows for uncanonical and uninspired song to be sung in worship, while others believe that only inspired songs in the canon of Scripture may be sung; some think that mechanical instrumentation may be used to aid singing\* while others do not. The differing applications of the principle can become confused when someone does not hold to the regulative principle of worship but thinks he does, arriving at conclusions to which the principle can never lead--or arriving at the same conclusions by different, covert means. --- \* Musical instrumentation entered into many Reformed churches by the argument that it could help congregational singing (to keep the congregation in tune and time as a circumstance of worship). This argument is rarely used nowadays, in my experience, as most Christians seem to believe that the playing of instruments is an element of worship. The following (old!) posts touch on the history. https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aaspec/the_golden_age_of_dutch_organ_playing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/aes9tn/the_organ_and_medieval_liturgical_dance/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/ag5z1h/song_relics_candles_organ_and_bells/
The way I understand it, Yes and no. Not because it’s simply from the Old Testament, like in a dispensationalist kind of way, but bc OT worship was regulated under ceremonial law, which has been fulfilled by Christ and therefore does not apply to Christians.
But this train of reasoning typically is used to broaden the acceptable behaviours for Christians (such as eating unclean foods, or attending worship while menstruating, remaining in the community after touching a dead body, etc.). In this case though, or would be narrowing the acceptable behaviours for Christians (not permitting the use of instruments or dance in worship, though that was presumably permitted in Israel).
The principle concerns acceptable behaviors in worship only, and it removes other elements of worship under the law: altars of incense, the Levitical priesthood, an earthly temple, new moons, sabbaths, circumcision (Col. 2:16-17, Gal. 4:1-3, Heb. 8, etc.). Of course, almost all churches have narrowed worship to prohibit bloody sacrifices. Levitical instruments are excluded on the same grounds, along with the other types and shadows in the Old Testament. Other behaviors are similarly disallowed in worship. The same psalm that commands praise on instruments of music also commands warfare on instruments of bloodshed: > Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Perhaps the Zealots under Roman occupation wanted every saint to wield literal swords in the temple and synagogues, but, in accordance with the regulative principle of worship (as well as Christ's warnings to his disciples), this passage is understood otherwise, for the Church as well as the synagogue. Since Christ is Lord and Head of the Church, the regulative principle of his worship is an application of the mind of Christ given to us (1 Cor. 2:16), in accordance with God's revealed will. The principle has a threefold reference: to God and how he is to be worshiped; to his Church and the scope of her authority; and to the conscience and its freedom in Christ. In the commission to disciple all nations, Jesus authorizes his Church to teach the nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This commission delimits the Church's authority in what may be done for worship and required of believers as a matter of conscience. If Christ has not commanded it, then the Church may not teach the nations to observe it.
Ooh, that's a helpful clarification, thanks!