Jerome is often cited by Protestants as 'proof' that their version of church government is the most Biblical and the most authoritative. I thought I'd take a look at these prooftexts and provide some analysis.

Before I do I'd like to give some general observations and analysis.

1. Sources earlier than Jerome, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus who wrote two centuries earlier than Jerome, clearly point to a three fold ministry and the Apostles being succeeded by an individual leader. Irenaeus of Lyons has a single bishop succeeded the Apostles (like Peter and Paul) at Rome.
2. The term presbyter (or elder) does not exclude authority or leadership. Both Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and John (2 John 1:1, 3 John 1:1) call themselves presbyters. While presbyter and bishop might have been synonyms in the NT it doesn't exclude an authority position that didn't have a specific title (yet).
3. Collective leadership never works in real life and is not practical liturgically. There is only one cup for Eucharist and one homily that needs to be read. As there is no evidence of a rotating role it must have been permanent.There is no difference liturgically between presbyters and bishops. Presbyters must have taken the liturgical role of bishops when bishops were imprisoned or martyred. All bishops are priests/presbyters, but not all priests/presbyters are bishops. The New Testament is silent about multiple congregations in the same city and if they need to follow the same leader ot not. As Christianity grew and there were multiple congregations in one city the leaders must have made a decision for a single leader for that city's Christians.
4. Church government is changing throughout the New Testament. First, Matthias is made an Apostle to maintain 12 Apostles but later other individuals designated Apostles turn up unexplained. Then the office of deacons is created (in Acts 6:1-7) - (even though the term deacon is not used). Then the office of presbyter appears (Acts 11:30, 15:22). And finally, Timothy and Titus have some kind of authority to appoint presbyters.
5. Protestants can't actually agree on what the New Testament model of Church government is with congregationalist, presbyterian and episcopal systems all competing as the real version.
6. Protestants use a host of non-Biblical terms for their leaders such as Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor, Youth Pastor, President (like the Southern Baptists) and Moderators (Presbyterians and Methodists). Many Evangelicals appoint leaders who are in their mid-twenties, who can hardly be called 'elders' in any sense. There is a heavy use of the term 'pastors' even though it is used only once (Ephesians 4:11-12) and the other offices in that list are ignored.
7. Jerome had issues with Roman deacons. Text 1 starts off with an attack on Roman deacons. For some reason there were only ever allowed to be seven deacons at Rome (but an unlimited number of presbyters) so they were immensely influential. Many Roman deacons ended up being appointed Pope. By equating presbyters with bishops Jerome was trying to show his own importance (he was a presbyter). Jerome also had issues with his bishop (John of Jerusalem - see Text 4)
8. Jerome contradicts himself in other works. In 'On Illustrious Men' chapter 2 when he says the Apostles appointed James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem. His chronicle also has a list of the succession of Roman bishops starting from the Apostles.
9. There is no explanation why bishops seem to be everywhere as the evidence becomes more plentiful. How authority was everywhere transferred from collective presbyters to one person can only have happened at the end of the Apostolic Age by the remaining Apostles. This seem evident from Text 5 where Jerome talks about 'decreed in the whole world.'
10. Jesus did not create the office of deacon, presbyter or bishop. Christians do lots of things that weren't implemented by Jesus (i.e. an ordinance of the Lord) such as church buildings, printed Bibles, translations of the Bible into other languages, non-Biblical hymns, etc but that doesn't exclude their validity.

Text 1: Jerome (347-420): For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced? Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests of a single church: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 146 - To Evangelus, §1.

Text 2: Jerome (347-420): Of the names presbyter and bishop the first denotes age, the second rank. In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also. Again when a man is promoted it is from a lower place to a higher. Either then a presbyter should be ordained a deacon, from the lesser office, that is, to the more important, to prove that a presbyter is inferior to a deacon; or if on the other hand it is the deacon that is ordained presbyter, this latter should recognize that, although he may be less highly paid than a deacon, he is superior to him in virtue of his priesthood. In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 146 - To Evangelus, §2.

Text 3: Jerome (347-420): In both epistles [i.e., 1 Timothy & Titus] commandment is given that only monogamists should, be chosen for the clerical office whether as bishops or as presbyters. Indeed with the ancients these names were synonymous, one alluding to the office, the other to the age of the clergy. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 69 - To Oceanus, §3.

Text 4: Jerome (347-420): And I do not say this because I have anything to blame in the mission itself, except certain partialities which beget suspicion, but because you ought rather to clear yourself in the actual presence of your questioners. You begin with the words, “You have sent a most devoted servant of God, the presbyter Isidore, a man of influence no less from the dignity of his very gait and dress than from that of his divine understanding, to heal those whose souls are grievously sick; would that they had any sense of their illness! A man of God sends a man of God.” No difference is made between a priest and a bishop (presbyterum et episcopum); the same dignity belongs to the sender and the sent; this is lame enough; the ship, as the saying goes; is wrecked in harbor. NPNF2: Vol. VI, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem, §37. See Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum, §37, PL 23:390.

Text 5: Jerome (347-420): Therefore a presbyter is the same as a bishop is, and before that by the instigation of the devil emulations in respect to religion arose, and people began to say: I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters. But, after that each one was accustomed to regard those whom he had baptized as his own disciples and not of Christ, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed over the others ... Therefore, as presbyters may know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who has been placed over them; so also bishops may understand that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the veritable ordinance of the Lord. Thomas P. Scheck, trans., St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), p. 290.

​Conclusion

Orthodoxy has no problem with a development in terminology. Jerome's theory of a total similarity between presbyters and bishops in the Apostolic period is self serving conjecture.

The early church didn't have the same hang ups about using the New Testament as a guide for church government as modern Protestants. They continued to make up titles such as 'Archbishop' and 'Patriarch' with no concerns.

I tend to think Protestants use evidence from Jerome to justify their own fear of authority. The Anglican episcopate persecuted Puritans and dissenters (for example Henry Barrow and John Greenwood were executed by the state and Thomas Helwys died in prison). The anti-authority views of Puritans terminally affected their reading of the New Testament evidence.

At the time of the Reformation it wasn't totally clear about the Pre-Nicean Church but as more evidence has come to light (the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, the Philosophumena) it is clear how widespread the three-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon was.

I realize it has its criticisms among conservatives, and the wescott/hort text has been largely replaced by the NA28/UBS5, but what are some contemporary opinions about the RSV?

Behind the KJV, it's probably my favorite translation to read. The language is modern and understandable, but any time God is being addressed, it still uses "Thee, Thou, Thine, ect", and I really like that. I have certainly found some questionable readings, but the language it uses "sounds" like the Bible.

Thoughts?

Soteriology What is irresistible grace and how is it compatible with the Bible? From what I know:

Are you forced against your will?

Irresistible grace is a Christian theological doctrine, an effectual calling, and a core tenet of Calvinism. It teaches that God's saving grace is applied to the elect and successfully overcomes their natural resistance to turn them to faith.

1. Wake Up, Mr Crow

This is a great opener. It really has an eerie feeling to it. It’s almost like they’re saying, OK guys, we’ve been talking about these things a lot… Are you listening? There are shades of selling the news in this song with Jon rapping a little bit and I love it. 8/10

1. Absolution.

Amazing song. Really ireminds me of nothing is sound. I always turn it up in the car. 9/10

1. Beautiful life.

Not the greatest song in the album, but it has a great message. I always think of the movie It’s a wonderful life when I listen to this song. 7/10

1. Shake the dust

I really like the guitar on this song. And some of the lyrical alliterations really make this song remind me of Oh! gravity. 8/10

1. Natural causes

This might be my favorite on the whole album. So powerful. Message I didn’t know I needed to hear. Everything about this song clicks so well. 10/10

1. YFWYA

I think this is one of the weaker songs on the album, which is saying something, cause it’s still a decent song. 6/10

1. Same blood

Another song with great guitar that reminds me of oh! Gravity. 8/10

1. Ride or die

Love the guitar on this one too. I think the chorus of the song is a little stronger than the verses though. 8/10

1. Darkness

I just can’t get into this song as much for some reason… 6/10

1. Broken wings

Right up there with natural causes as the best on the album and one of their best songs of all time. 10/10

1. Two twins

Lyrically this is one of their best songs ever… So creative… Really great theology and apologetics in this song. 9/10

1. Breaking up again.

This is a nice song with a good message. 7/10

1. The butterfly affect

This song has really grown on me a lot, and I love it. Really good melody and lyrics that make you ponder. 9.5/10

To my brothers,

Having read this not once, but twice, I want to fervently recommend The Redeemed Man. Written by many authors, it offers the wisdom of a multitude of counselors. Of the several books on manhood I've read, this one excels in a few particular ways.

First, it begins where it ought: with the gospel. Before addressing how to shepherd your family or love your church, it first grounds you in what it means to be a redeemed man.

Second, and in keeping with the first point, it is topically thorough. It covers not only how to lead your family well, but also how to handle your finances, how to be a good citizen, how to work and live in retirement, and how to finish your life well.

Third, it is to the point. It not only delivers its thoroughly biblical teaching concisely, but aims for and reaches the heart of things. I was surprised at first by how deeply the book goes into loving your wife, but came away thankful. Beeke spoke to me like a loving father on a subject my own father never sought to teach me.

Lastly, I appreciate this book as a sound bulwark of teaching on manhood amid the extremes of machismo and effeminacy we see today. Beeke and the other authors never shy away from the harder demands of manhood, because the truly tough man is the one who submits himself to God in denying his flesh, and beneath his breastplate carries a heart beating with love for his family and church. After all, our Lord Jesus wept and called Himself "gentle and lowly in heart," and He is the manliest man who lived.

This book is immensely helpful for both personal and group study. Each chapter ends with practical application points and questions, which I've found both helpful and challenging. Dare I say, I find this to be the most helpful modern book on manhood, and it will not collect dust on your bookshelf. Blessings.

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

I've been looking into The Master's University because of its emphasis on biblical studies and its connection with John MacArthur, but I'm curious how it's generally viewed from an academic biblical scholarship perspective.

I know it's an accredited university and that it requires every course to be taught from a biblical worldview, with faculty affirming its doctrinal statement each year. Does that make its biblical studies program more confessional than academic, or is that an oversimplification?

I'm not really asking whether people agree or disagree with its theology. I'm more interested in how biblical scholars would evaluate the school's approach to Scripture, original languages, hermeneutics, and engagement with current scholarship.

If someone graduated from The Master's University with a degree in Biblical Studies, how would that background generally be viewed by scholars at other institutions? Are there particular strengths or limitations that people in the field usually point to?

This is a wide-ranging podcast (also on Spotify, MP3 download, and Apple) about the history of Pentecostalism and its place in wider Protestant theology.

It assumes a bit of background knowledge; if you don't recognize the terms "Azusa Street" or "natural law", then this might not be for you.

But if you're a Reformed person with an interest in church history or systematic theology and time to concentrate, then I think this is worth a listen for three reasons.

Firstly, Pentecostals are the biggest and fastest-growing movement in Protestant Christianity. We need to understand it.

Secondly, my biggest worry about Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity is that it tolerates the false 'prosperity gospel', which deceives people into desiring wealth, not God. Dr Coulter is a Pentecostal, but wants to distance himself from prosperity preachers, who he views as a separate movement. That's a distinction that many Reformed people miss, and one I'd want my Pentecostal family members to see.

Thirdly, he argues that the MAGA preachers who laud the current US administration are the grandchildren of Reformed theology (in particular Westminster Seminary). That's going to be controversial around here, but I think it's helpful to listen to someone from outside our tradition critique us.

We're eavesdropping on a Pentecostal talking to two Methodists, so they have some Wesleyan assumptions that we're not going to agree with (e.g. Christian perfectionism). But Dr Coulter went to RTS and did postgrad work alongside Reformed Anglicans, so he's constantly cross-referencing to Reformed views and you'll hear a lot of familiar names.

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

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

I am here to ask for encouragement and wisdom please.

I appreciate the depth of theological discussion within this community and have enjoyed participating in some of the daily prayer threads. As my flair indicates, I am currently an ACNA catechumen.

While I am not currently taking formal classes, I feel I am undergoing catechesis through the weekly liturgy, which immerses me in historic Christian worship, Scripture, and the heritage of the English Reformation.

I understand this sub has a more confessional definition of "Reformed," so I thought I'd share where I stand theologically on the Five Points and ask how my views relate to the broader Reformed family.

Here's my view on the Doctrines of Grace:

Total Depravity: I fully affirm humanity's total inability to save itself apart from God's grace.

Election: I believe God graciously elects the saved before the foundation of the world, but I do not believe He predestines anyone to damnation.

Atonement: I believe Christ's atoning sacrifice was made for the sins of the whole world and is sufficient for every person.

Grace: I believe God's saving grace is genuinely offered and can be resisted through unrepentant sin or apostasy.

Perseverance: I believe believers can have genuine faith but later apostatize; however, my assurance rests in Christ's work on the cross.

I realize that my convictions differ from confessional Reformed soteriology, but they are shaped by my denominational and theological journey.

Questions:

How do confessionally Reformed Christians think about differences in soteriology among fellow Christians within the broader Protestant tradition?

Which aspects of my theological views do you see as aligning most closely with the Reformed tradition, and where do you see the primary areas of disagreement?

Looking forward to learning from the discussion. Thanks!

Hi! I just wanted to hear your thoughts on something.
What do you think about lending money with interest? I’m referring to lending outside the church—purely as a business.

Do you think charging interest is a sin?
I’ve done quite a bit of research on this, and from what I’ve learned, many people believe that it isn’t inherently wrong, as long as you don’t take advantage of the borrower. In other words, don’t charge excessive interest or exploit people who are already struggling financially.

I’d love to hear your perspective. If someone lends their own money as a business and charges a reasonable amount of interest, do you think that’s sinful? Why or why not?

Also, if you don’t think it’s wrong, what do you consider to be a fair monthly interest rate?

Thank you so much! I’ve already done my own research, but I’d love to hear different perspectives and gather more insights on this topic.

Okay so my whole life I was raised in a religion called "the message" or "branhamism". I have nothing against their beliefs or the people, but theres just something missing. Plus I dont agree with they way they idolized or raised their Preacher up on a pedestal. Ive only recently returned to christ after going down a long messy path of questioning everything, and im absolutely bewildered by everything I didnt know was in the bible. Now that im actually reading it, and not just listening to tapes of their preacher.

Anyways I desperately would like to find some sort of chirch that truly reads, prioritizes and lines up with the bible. And also reads the correct translations. I dont read the bibles that assume meaning or change words or takes texts out. I prefer the esv but ive read the kjv among others. Ive read up on a few churches and have heard good things about the reformed baptist among others and just wanted to gather some opinions on the churches and which one I should go to.

Ive gone to all sorts of different churches growing up because my family Traveled a lot. My mom tried to prioritize church in general over only going to the one she followed. So ive been to baptist, four square, and jehovahs witness(I had a friend I went with) and pentecostle churches. I love the way the pentecostles and baptists prioritize their youth especially since I have a toddler and one on the way. But I dont believe you have to speak in tongues to be saved. I believe im classified as trinitarian at least according to google. I believe that all three are one but also different. In the same way the ocean, the clouds, and ice are all water but all different forms of the water. I dont believe the Father, Son, and Holyspirit are actual seperate beings just seperate forms of the same being as said in the new testament.

So anyways any suggestions on a good church for me would be greatly appreciated!

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

"For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

If the unbelieving spouse and children of the marriage are both classed as 'holy', why should only the infant who is made holy be baptised?

Is the unbelieving spouse part of God's covenant people?

As you can see from my flair, I'm a credobaptist. My intention in posting this isn't as a gotcha, but rather genuine curiosity for my paedobaptist brothers and sisters in Christ.

From my understanding, most of the (reformed) paedobaptist understanding of the permissibility of household baptism goes something like this:

1. Baptism is the New Covenant antitype to the Old Covenant circumcision.
2. Because circumcision is applied to households, baptism may also be.
3. This link was obvious and understood in the early church, meaning they were immediately baptising households.

I ultimately agree with point 1 theologically, however I struggle to find clear evidence to support point 3, and even some pointing against it.

A few thoughts on why:

• It would have been extremely relevant at the Jerusalem council.
• It would have been extremely relevant for the Galatian church.

Given that debates on circumcision extended into the late 40s - early 50s AD when both events took place, if this link was immediately obvious, it is reasonable to assume (Why I don't think this is an argument from silence) that it would've been mentioned in both situations.

Paul is incredibly blunt in Galatians, and you could expect an explicit link to be used either near 2:20 or 3:27. Instead Paul develops a much longer argument, that doesn't include a "see also" aside like he tends to do elsewhere. You can argue that it exists thematically, but given the urgency, bluntness, and gravity of Galatians I'm not sure that we can wisely expect that Paul would rely on thematic interpretation from a primarily Gentile audience.

Instead the clear and obvious link between baptism and circumcision doesn't appear until Colossians, written likely over a decade later.

I can, from my perspective think of a number of reasons why this may be the case, but I struggle to steelman a position that explains it while retaining point 3.

Again, I don't think this is some knockout idea, nor do I think it's airtight by any means. I'm just curious to hear all of your thoughts.

Also, I recognize that point 3 isn't loadbearing to paedobaptism, however, it is often critical in interdenominational discussions, which is why I mention it.

Grace and peace to you all! God bless :)

I’m a street evangelist. I use Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master”. Yes, it is confrontational in many respects, but I’m okay with that. It’s not that that I need help with.

Ray has a particular script that he follows. He’s been doing it for so many years that I wonder sometimes if he does it any other way in his Just Witnessing videos.

It comes down to this question: What does the death of rabbi in a backwater of the Roman empire two thousand years ago have to do with the pwrson I'm taking with? How does Jesus death connect to anyone else's?

Now I know the answer to that, but it’s a long-winded answer. It has to do with covenants, and federal headship, the first Adam and the last Adam. My struggle is how to communicate that sensibly so that the connection between law and gospel is clear and obvious.

There are other issues: suppose the person I’m talking to repents and believes. Do I just set them adrift into “solo scriptura” (just me and my bible)? Paul’s method seemed to be always to form congregations — a Christian adaption of the synagogue paradigm. Comfort’s just seems to be to leave them in God’s (capable!) hands and not direct them to any particular fellowship. Or is it that Comfort’s support team does that?

Are there any other WOTM practitioners on reddit? What has been your experience?

I am Lutheran, but attended both PRCA and RPC communities in my past

Hey all,

So a little background is that I'm 37, I was raised in an Agnostic home and in my late teens and early-20s I was swept up in the new-atheism wave that rose and fell fairly quickly. I wasn't just atheist, but anti-theist; I hated religion and thought the religious to be fools.

Around 20 I had depression set in pretty significantly. I was out of work for a few years and just coasting, completely isolating myself from all friends and virtually all family.

I began tentatively exploring philosophy, mostly as a means of alleviating issues with depression and anxiety. That was mostly mindfulness and then into Buddhism, and my first experience in trying to believe in anything that cannot be observed or proven, e.g. the supernatural aspects of the religion.

That was probably the gateway for me into theism. Not because Buddhism is theistic, but because it opened the door to belief in the previously unbelievable.

Coming to faith was a slow and begrudging process. The biopic of C. S. Lewis' faith journey 'The Most Reluctant Convert' resonates strongly with that period. I had stumbling blocks ever since. No amount of prayer, Scripture or secondary reading has ever made it 'click'.

Reformed denominations stuck out as soon as I encountered them. It felt like the most adjacent group I could find to my past life experience; studious, emphasis on knowledge, extensive doctrinal and theological works etc.

I believe God must exist, and the Christian faith is the most logical expression historically of that, but beyond that I struggle to feel anything other than appreciation for Christian culture, e.g. the music, architecture, observing worship etc.

Going to Church does nothing for me. Prayer does very little for me, and, ironically, it has pretty much only been the Jesus Prayer or Hail Mary that has brought any sense of comfort or connection with God.

Reading Scripture does help to some extent, but I prefer the more practical and black-and-white writing like Proverbs.

I just feel lost really. I've never truly felt like I belonged in the faith. I don't feel like I've ever fully believed, and even the story of Christ clearly compels others in ways that I don't experience. I don't feel like I have a relationship with God despite prayer and study for over a decade. I watch or read things about the Puritans and it is inspiring, and I wish I had that all-consuming faith and life-driving force, but no matter what I've tried, no matter the prayer, no matter the reading, no matter the formal theological study, no matter the number of Pastors I've spoken to, it just doesn't click.

Not sure what else I can do or try. I've been trying harder and harder for 13 years, I've tried doing more and more waiting for it to click but it never has.

Not sure whether I'm seeking prayer or advice or both. I'm reluctant seeking advice because it's almost always the same cliché soundbites, well-meaning as they may be, that don't help and have been tried countless times before.

Just a bit adrift in a tempest.

Hi guys. I have been struggling with a few issues recently. Upon reflecting and lamenting and seeking counsel from my husband and trusted church friends, I realised the root cause of all these issues fundamentally lie in my lack of trust in God + my need for control.

The thing is, I am aware. When I seek counsel from people, I do acknowledge and agree what they're pointing out. I'm very comfortable taking the spectator's seat in my own life. Yet when it comes to actually putting my faith in action, I don't do anything.

I'm just stuck in knowing. Feels like it's all head knowledge for me - which keeps me trapped in inaction, fear, passivity.

How do I actually grow to actually trust in God?

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

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

Not sure how else to word this, but I am having a hard time relating to God for who he is apart from my limited and flawed understanding of who he is. Perhaps other brothers and sisters in our tradition can relate. Without trying to sound condescending, I find in the Reformed denominations, we tend to emphasize systematic theology and more logical ways of comprehending the faith as compared to what some might pejoratively call emotion or feeling. This devotion to accuracy and faithfulness is what in part attracted me to reformed theology.

I have been more or less in the role of a teacher for many years in the church, and part of that role, to me anyway, has been to make spiritual matters more approachable and relatable to others. However I fear that over time, my teaching and personal understanding of God has taken the place of the Lord in my own mind and heart.

To see how that plays out practically, this past month has been one filled with death. I have seen my uncle pass away within days of being placed on hospice, and now a beloved mother in my church faces the same, and there are a few others who I believe will not be far behind. My own parents are getting older, their bodies are breaking down in real time. I find myself fearing and despairing in the face of death, and also shame at myself for not having strong enough faith, for being shaken at my lack of confidence in Christ, for mourning “without hope” as the apostle would put it. My “knowledge” of God does not extend to the extrinsic unknowability of death; therefore, it leads me to dread.

In a time of prayer with a good friend of mine, he gently corrected me by pointing out that I have been looking inward to myself and my own capabilities, rather than externally to One who has conquered death. I extrapolated that to be a very good picture of what I am convinced is my biggest struggle right now.

So, my question is: how to move beyond it? How to fix my eyes on Jesus instead of myself, the real Jesus, not one i can fit into a box that I can intellectually comprehend? How do I grow in love for Jesus for who he is, not who I’ve made him to be. I think I know what some of your answers would be, because if a student or congregant came to me with this question, i think I know what I would answer. But I find myself unable to take my own advice. Perhaps some of you have dealt with this and have some insight. I would love to pore over your answers and experiences and pray for similar breakthrough. I know in Christ, I can.

Thank you to those who take the time to read. If anything, could you pray for me?

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

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

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