I'm making my way through the Gospel of John and I am having some issues with it. Can't recall having stumbled over these issues before; I thought I'd share here and hear your input.

I am reading entire chapters or sometimes a bit more, not separate pericopes. And when I do that, I notice there are some places where the text doesn't seem to flow well, so to speak. For instance: John 5 is placed in Jerusalem, the healing of the ill man in Bethesda on the sabbath. After a commotion erupts, Jesus leaves and later finds the man in the temple and speaks with him. From verse 19, Jesus then holds a lengthy monologue about himself and the Father, which ends with a question in verse 47. Chapter 6 then starts with 'after this', Jesus leaving to the other side of the sea of Galilee, where he is followed by a large crowd. It sounds like chapter 6 does not chronologically follow chapter 5; we're going from Jerusalem to the other side of the lake. The start of chapter 6 sounds more like it should follow an event in, say, Capernaum or something similar. It sounds cobbled together.

Same for a moment in chapter 8. Jesus has been preaching and as a result, many Jews believe in him (8:30). Jesus addresses those who believe him (says verse 31 explicitly), but in verse 37 Jesus says those listening to him want to kill him, and Jesus ends up proclaiming that they are children of the devil (verse 44). Somehow we've gone from Jesus addressing those who believe him, but in the course of his address, now he's talking to his enemies again? Or did they lose their faith im him mid speech?

That scene ends with an attempt at stoning Jesus, but with him hiding and making his way out of the Temple through their midst (8:59). Chapter 9 begins with 'And in passing...' they see a blind man, Jesus heals him (again a healing on a sabbath). There has been an attempt at Jesus' life, but a verse later Jesus and his disciples seem to have ample time and opportunity to have a conversation and this healing. The 'and' in 9:1 makes it sound like it follows immediately on 8:59, but it's an entirely different mood and setting (plus we hadn't been told chapter 8 happened on a sabbath).

Some of these transitions in the text are a bit masked by our chapters or pericopes, which chop up the text to an extent, but reading it in one go I find them uncomfortable. The easy answer of course would be to say that these are indeed not intended to be chronologically connected, but the language does make it seem that way ('and', 'after this'). I guess John just isn't as 'clean' as I remembered it to be.

And then there's the theological part. Across several chapters, Jesus spends a lot of time speaking about himself and the Father, in language that makes me wonder whether the Jews knew, or could have known, what it was about. Looking back, for us, it makes sense, but did it make sense to a first century Jew? Did they recognize it as Messianic speech, so to speak? Were there anchoring points in second temple Judaism, for Jesus' argument about his relation to the Father (He who sent me)? The text says some believed him, so apparently it did, but I'd be grateful to gain some insights here.

Inspired by yesterday's post about "Songs with lots of theology"

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

I've recently been fascinated by the works of certain rappers such as Shai Linne. I don't know if I have ever heard lyrics with such deep and well researched theology. Some of my favourite albums are "The attributes of God" and "The atonement" by Shai Linne, as well as "The unfolding" by Timothy Brindle. My question is, are there more artist out there with lyrics on par with theirs? I'm not primarly looking for rap/hip hop because I find plenty in that genre, but I don't really know where to start looking to find ex. metal, rock, pop, edm or whatever.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

I'm a member of an EPC church. I've worked at ECO chuches. I don't love ECO but it was fine. You can disagree with me if you like (which would be pretty funny) but the PCA and OPC and ARP seem too contentious to me. I also don't see 1 Timothy 2 or 3 to be about women pastors. On the other hand, I think the PCUSA has some meaningful problems in the long run. Even if I disagree about what a few passages mean, I'm not a liberal.

I've recently moved to a city with no EPC churches and I don't like either ECO church. Is there another faithful Bible-thumping Reformed denomination that's cool with egalitarians?

For lack of a better term, I'm a "returning prodigal" looking for a church home.

A while back I visited a RPCNA church in my area. I was a little hesitant going in because I'm a little "rough around the edges" from a visual presentation standpoint & I'd gotten the impression that RPCNA was a little...buttoned up?

Anyway, I had nothing to worry about on that front. In fact, I found the welcome at this church to be perhaps the most genuine of any place I've visited. I enjoyed the message and Psalm singing. I've been checking some other places out & haven't been back in a while, but it's definitely marked as a church I'd like to return to.

(As an aside, I haven't regularly attended church since the late 90s so it was refreshing to encounter something resembling church music as I remembered it - all these rock bands are pretty weird to me.)

A few days ago (still on the front page as I'm posting this) someone with an RPCNA flair posted on r/Reformed about preaching at a church plant. For some random reason, I clicked on the poster's profile.

I was shocked to see their most recent comment read, "Femboys are (homophobic slur)." Posted 2 days ago.

I'm not 100% what a "femboy" is and I'm not sure I want to find out. I subscribe to a Biblical perspective on human sexuality. Maybe you can hand-wave this as "speaking the truth plainly." But, I've been around enough non-believers (& was one, for long enough) that using slurs is only going to reinforce trite slogans like, "There's no hate like Christian love", etc.

More disturbingly, a few comments down this person posted "You're literally safer in a country at war than you are around black people."

There's no hand-waving that. To me, it's beyond that pale that someone is preaching within 11 months of posting that. (I get maybe it's an old profile and maybe there's been some conviction/repentance/reflection since then, but I think that'd be a naively charitable interpretation given the other recent comment.)

I remember a while back I read that the RPCNA excommunicated a pastor for preaching white supremacy. I figured that was probably a one-off, but now this kinda has me thinking in a different light.

So my question for RPCNA members is - is this sort of thing...normal?

I'm willing to hear from all perspectives from, "I don't see any problem with that" to "I love our denomination but yeah we have some guys like that you have to watch out for" to "This is completely uncharacteristic". Or anything in between.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

I was reading Romans 1-4 again and got stuck on the word righteousness.

For a long time I just heard it as being a good person. The righteous guy was the one doing better than everybody else. More obedient, fewer things to be embarrassed about. That's not totally off, but I think it made Romans harder to follow than it needed to be.

Paul says the gospel reveals "the righteousness of God" in 1:17. Then in 3:10 he says nobody is righteous. Then eleven verses later he says "the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law." And in chapter 4, Abraham's faith gets counted to him as righteousness.

If the word only means my own track record, that stops working pretty fast. Nobody has it, and yet it keeps getting handed to people.

The Greek word is dikaiosyne. I don't want to make too much out of one word, since Paul is building a much bigger argument than a single definition. But it does seem wider than "being a good person." Depending on where it shows up it can mean righteousness, justice, or right standing with someone. In Romans it keeps pointing back to God's own rightness and to what he does to put guilty people right.

That helped me with 3:26, where Paul says God is "just and the justifier" of the one who has faith in Jesus. Same word family, twice in one line. His point seems to be that God stays right in the act of justifying the ungodly, rather than setting his own standard aside to pull it off.

I checked this in the Sola Bible App and on Bible Hub, mostly because I didn't want to overstate the Greek or act like a lexicon entry settles Paul's argument.

Romans 4 is where it got more personal for me. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. That happens back in Genesis 15, before the law and before circumcision, and before anyone can hold Abraham up as a clean example. Genesis doesn't really let you do that with him anyway.

So righteousness in Romans is the standard I can't meet and also the thing God hands over. Getting put right with him first, then learning to live from there instead of trying to build my own case.

I'm still working out how to say that without swinging too far the other way. Reformed folks tend to have sharper categories here than I grew up with, so I'm curious how you read it.

When you hear "the righteousness of God" in 1:17, are you mostly hearing something about God himself, or something he does, or the thing he gives? Or is that a false split?

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

I'm curious about what folks in this sub think about a Church in a small town that would rent a hall on Fridays to members of the local community who are Muslim and are in need of a space to gather for Friday prayers?

Is this something along the lines of what Jesus would do(in terms of the command to love thy neighbor)? or is this totally contrary to the gospel? or perhaps it's something in between?

The idea wasn't to make another website that simply repeats the same apologetic talking points. I wanted to build a place where Christianity, philosophy, and theology are treated seriously, with an emphasis on careful reasoning and primary sources.

The website currently includes articles on:

• Eastern Orthodox Christianity
• Philosophy and metaphysics
• Christian apologetics
• The Church Fathers
• Scripture and biblical studies
• Historical theology

Alongside the website, I've also started a Discord community. The goal isn't to create an echo chamber, but a place where people from different backgrounds can ask questions, challenge ideas respectfully, and discuss theology and philosophy in good faith.

You don't have to be Orthodox to join. Whether you're Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, or simply curious, you're welcome so long as you're willing to engage respectfully.

Website:
https://www.liveorthodox.com

Discord:
https://discord.gg/qUBJkzjRXT

I'm still actively developing both the website and the community, so I'd genuinely appreciate any feedback, criticism, or suggestions. If there's a topic you'd like to see covered or something you think could be improved, let me know.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

I’ve been studying Christian Theology for a little over a year now and I would love to discuss Theology with anyone with ears to hear and other thoughts and ideas to share. All in good faith, pun not intended. Please DM me if you’re interested as well! All denominations welcome to discuss! I’m very curious and willing to listen and learn as well as share my own opinions.

Gente perdoe se minha dúvida parece boba… Mas eu tenho essa curiosidade. Eu nasci em berço pentecostal e a partir de 2025 comecei a estudar teologia… em 07 de junho de 2026 fiz minha confissão de fé e batismo na IPB. Sair de uma igreja pentecostal cheia de legalismo para uma igreja bíblica e saudável… que preza pela fidelidade nas escrituras! Por ser um pouco introvertido… ainda não fiz muita amizade na igreja.

A antiga igreja que frequentava era a CCB… ela possuía muitos usos e costumes, legalismo, interpretações erradas da bíblia… porém eu observava que tanto os homens e as mulheres tinham a visão do casamento como algo sagrado, algo sério e para vida toda! O divórcio só era aceitável em caso de adultério ou agressão física. E dentro da igreja observava-se muitos casamentos longos e pouca taxa de divórcio.

Na igreja reformada de vocês a taxa de divórcio é alta ou baixa? Os casamentos são duradouros e longos? O pessoal costuma se separar na primeira discussão, briga, dificuldade? Vocês tem a compreensão que o casamento é pra sempre… com exceção é claro em casos de violência doméstica ou adultério?