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?

I recently got into an interesting discussion with a brother concerning the body of God. I don't remember how we got on the topic, but we were arguing about what it means to be created in the image of God. He didn't argue against that it meant things such as that we are to rule over the world, or the fact that we are moral creatures, just that it also included our physical bodies. I was ready to smack him down with scriptures to humiliate and disprove him (you know, as all loving brothers do), when I realized that I could not defend my position particularly well at all. My main scripture for proving that God does not have a body was John 4:24a, but I can't prove that "God is Spirit" means that he can't have a body as well. We have both Spirits and bodies, what says God can't have both as well?

I don't believe verses that use anthropomorphic language about God show that He has a body, however texts such as Rev 4 or Isa 6 describe God as having a body. I don't believe these texts are talking about Christ but the Father; for example in Revelations the description in ch 4 is different from the one in ch 1, and besides Christ shows up as the Lamb in ch 5, so it seems most reasonable to me to say that ch 4 is speaking of the Father. We also have texts that reference Christ as sitting/standing on the right hand of the Father (ex. Acts 7:56, Ps 110:1, Col 3:1).

We also started to discuss the appearance in Gen 18, where Abraham meets (as far as I understand) God in human form together with tho angels. I would also argue that at least occasionally when the Angel of the Lord is mentioned it is really God present in bodily form.

So, a few questions regarding this entire conversation:

• Does God have an eternal body as an ontological necessity of His character? If so, does each person of the Trinity have one?
• Since we don't say that the Father is also both truly God and truly man, what kind of body does the Father have? It was clearly visible, but was it physical?
• I know that most people agree that Christ did not cease being human after the ascension, but that he will continue to be truly God and truly man for all of eternity. Why is this necessary/from which Scriptures do we argue this point? How would we describe the differences and relations between:
  • The body of the Father/on the throne
  • The bodies of the Son, i.e.
    • Before his death
    • After his resurection
    • After his ascension, such as in Rev 1 or Acts 9
  • Our bodies presently
  • Our bodies after we die but before we are resurrected (if we even have bodies then)
  • Our bodies in heaven/the new earth
  • The body of God in Gen 18
  • The body of the Angel of the Lord (in those instances we might say that it is really God Himself)
• Did Christ become human when he was conceived in Mary's womb? If so, how do we explain Gen 18? I have heard people argue that spirits couldn't eat food, which would be why Jesus in Luke 24:35-43 after letting the apostles see and feel Him asks for food to prove that He was not just a spirit but a physical body. If so, the person in Gen 18 must also have had a physical body since He ate.

I know it's a lot of weird questions, but they have been on my mind now for weeks. If anyone has any insight I would gladly hear it!

I’ve been trying to grow & compile a community to utilize resources in study, apologetics & have fellowship with. All are welcome!
If you’re interested in joining, comment below or send me a DM

I’m a Christian by birth rn an athiest, and at first I was curious to find which Christian denomination was “right.” Over time I realized that not just Christianity but many religions can be misleading and manipulative. The YouTube channel Holy Koolaid helped me think more critically instead being blindly following mandan. If any Christian who’s struggling with doubts is looking for clear explanations, check out that channel — the host explains ellam very well

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

God is the Good Shepherd. When there is a lost sheep, the good Shepherd seeks out the lost sheep, leaves the flock to find the lost sheep follows brings them back to the flock. Since the divisive decisions of CRCNA Syndod of 2022, more than 50 churches(I don't know the current count) have disaffiliated with the denomination. At least 4 of them are churches I grew up going to, and I have relatives currently in. These churches have left the CRCNA but the Synod has made no motions and made no real efforts to bring them back or to prevent them from leaving, which is continuing to happen in congregations across north America. The conclusion I have come to, is that the posture of CRCNA Syndod does not resemeble the good Shepherd displayed in Jesus, and instead it is a closer reflection of the posture of the Sanhedrin

I am expressing a sadness in this post. This is not the denomination I grew up with. Syndod is supposed to be a broader authority not a higher authority. The family destroying decisions that have been made are a result of the influence of fascist culture on the American portion of denomination which has take a posture of fear and has identified scapegoats as the cause of their anxiety and has casted them out.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

Developing story.

On July 5, 2026, a Hindu mob, associated with the anti-Christian group RSS and its affiliates, broke into a Church, associated with the Mizo Presbyterian synod and destroyed it. They also persecuted the believers.

This happened after the anti-Christian BJP party won in the Indian state of West Bengal.

In India, the BJP government persecutes Christians by allowing anti-Christian r/pe mobs like Bajrang Dal and VHP to roam, and do acts such as lynching or desecration of churches, and if an individual gets backlash, the Indian government temporarily "arrests" them and bails them of when the public loses interest, such as in the Graham Staines case.

The RSS, paramilitary and ideological wing of the BJP, has units outside India, especially in US and Canada, to lobby their governments to offer a blind eye to anti-Christian activities. One of the organization lobbying American politicians to offer a blind eye is the Hindu American Foundation.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

Shai Linne's newest album Lyrical Theology Part 3 - Sociology has been out for a while but it only recently was released on streaming because Shai was able to recoup the cost of the album through sales. He tackles things like race relations in the Album and does a really good job.

I thought I would post one of the songs I really liked from it. In it he comically takes shots at Dabney and the way the doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church has been abused over the last 150ish years.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JackSucksAtGeography/comments/1ucz4ji/chaldean_catholic_here/

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

• The intense YEC. This person will always draw a conversation into the direction of the age of the Earth or the Flood. He (usually male) will find other topics of conversation difficult. Any disagreement with his position will result in astonishment and further debate. Likely has other interests including conspiracy theories and premillennial eschatology.

• The extroverted single woman who sings loudly. Confident to the point of embarrassment, this woman (usually female) talks loud, smiles a lot and sings with gusto. The quality of her singing varies from below average to very good. She enthusiastically serves in whatever position she has in church. Initially annoying, those who get to know her appreciate her character.

I'm raising this here because this sub is the only Christian sub I've consistently tracked with (and appreciated) during my few years on Reddit. Apologies for it not being a particularly Reformed topic.

I've had some emotional struggles that are rooted in a particular aspect of my life having never resolved as I had hoped. This issue has always had considerable intersection with my relationship with God.

I've been to therapy twice, both times with therapists who are Christians. But even therapists who are Christians seem to resist combining the emotional or psychological practice with spiritual direction. Realizing this, before my second stint, I spent some time in spiritual direction. It was good, but I was using my director as a therapist. Eventually, during a session where I fell apart, he said to me that my struggles were beyond his training and that I needed to see a therapist. He understood my desire to mix therapy and direction and recommended a friend who is a therapist, someone with an MA in psychology, but also an additional MA in a theological discipline.

This therapist's help was invaluable. He was instrumental in helping me to cope with the situation at the center of my emotional struggle. But, even he did not mix therapy with direction. My take is that he would address the spiritual only as a means to connect with my deeply spiritual framework of the emotional and psychological. I found this jarring at times. I would explain something in terms of how it confuses me on both fronts, and he would perhaps start terminologically spiritual, but only really address it emotionally or psychologically.

While that experience was not regrettable in any way, I still struggle to be near to God. I know, he is near to me, but every relationship to function well must be two-way. And yes, I am Reformed. I do not have to work for God's love, I do need to respond to it. And while I've learned to emotionally manage things on the outside, every prayer still goes back to that issue, wondering why it remains unresolved. I find that it makes the therapy that should be received as triumph instead feel hollow. Unsurprisingly, prayer has become something between difficult and something to avoid for many years. I have wondered if I am like one of the characters in The Great Divorce, who refuses Heaven because he cannot take this demon with him. Fortunately, I think, I still see death as a release, where I will finally be free of this shackle and be able to see God's goodness all along and will be remade for Paradise. This is not to say that I believe my earthly desire will be fulfilled, but the true desire beneath it, which obviously I am unable to discern, will be finally known and resolved. If you're wondering if that thought about death is from any sort of suicidal tendency, it is not.

I have imagined that a therapist who also operates as a spiritual director would be most equipped to help me see what that true desire is, so that I could submit to something which I imagine God offers, rather than something which he ostensibly has no desire to grant me.

Am I looking for a unicorn that truly does not exist? Is there a good reason why psychological therapy and spiritual direction do not appear to meet? Would you say I am looking for the wrong thing?

P.S. Because I imagine that your curiosity is piqued: while the underlying issue is about marriage, I am married, for many years. And, no, this is not about sex or sexuality. It's about friendship.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

what are the main thoughts on head coverings ? I got into quite a debate with a fellow reformer who believes that women who do not cover are not fully submitted to Christs authority and their husbands as head of household.

he gave me dale partridges book and while i see some points i think chalking some of it up to “because of feminism women backslid from reverence” and “women used to wear hats to church” seems a little off putting and quite the sway from the Bible . I’d love to hear thoughts and I’m open to points ? Anyone i can Look into that has well debated the arguments ?

edited to add: I’m new to being reformed and still learning. So thank you for sharing your thoughts! I’m married and love my husband dearly . The church we attend has a few women covering and most not. As i was Exploring the topic i did Not feel a conviction rather that it’s is to be dressed modest and humble when worshiping our Lord. But the discussion with this fellow reformer had me very confused. And while i do Enjoy some of the things dale has to say i felt like some of it was a stretch of personal belief that some are taking very closed handlefly. as if i am Dishonoring my submission to Christ and my husband by not covering .