Why does Theology have to be so complicated?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

: You’re also assuming that survival to adulthood, but no longer, is a sufficient criterion to make a belief system to be worth considering

No, I think it is more being able to make a decision as opposed to just accepting what you are told.

Whether a religion is worth onsidering is rather like asking Why you killed your father. IOW it is a loaded statement that devalues religion. (belief system)

I am guessing (by your tone) that you, yourself, do not value such a thing.

Before you even consder a belief system there needs to be a void or vacancy for it to fill. If you do not see the need or even the existence of God you will not consider any sort of beleif system worth considering.

Richard

[Miekhie]

@adamjedgar

Omg…the two covenants are the same with the exception that in the second it is God who promises to write His laws on the hearts and in the minds, God is the one making the oath…in the first, the people made an oath to follow laws written on tablets of stone.

Im sorry to be blunt here but its frustrating…Why cant people get this right by going and actually reading and comparing what the bible actually says about the two covenants instead of believing wives tales that arent biblical?

Hi Adam,

No need to be blunt here. You need to be careful about claiming biblical because there is nothing in the Bible that implied that God was the one making the oath in the NT or the people made an oath to follow laws. You need to stick close to the Bible if claiming to be biblical.

[Miekhie]

@adamjedgar

Also, if we take Christs parents model…what happened? Christ was dedicated as a child, then baptised as an adult.

You should know better that as a Jew, Jesus was circumsized on the 8th day. There was no need for this event to be mentioned because it was a universal practice in judaism.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

“Worth considering” is not the same as accepting. Yes, people with wrong beliefs may survive, but the fact that they have survived, and in some cases across many generations, suggests that they have a functional belief system, whereas a brand new idea does not have that pedigree. Other types of evidence might support a decision to reject an established belief and accept a new one. And beliefs may have a wide range of mixture of correct and incorrect components, cf. C. S. Lewis’s essay on “horrid red things” [a child said that something was poison - it has horrid red things in it].

You are saying that it is wrong to say that something is wrong. Besides being self-contradictory, the assertion also is widely used for an excuse to hold whatever view one wants rather than critically examining one’s own beliefs for accuracy. By affirming that vaccine avoidance is generally a bad idea, you are assuming that the medical evidence in favor of the COVID vaccine generally being a much better health bet than not getting it is correct and those with different beliefs are wrong. Of course, that assumption is very well grounded in a lot of evidence. But it contradicts the assertion that saying that other views are wrong must be arrogant and therefore can be rejected.

Of course, it is quite true that people tend to be arrogant, even when they are correct and other beliefs are wrong.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

Richard,
Forgiveness has never changed between the testaments…the model has always been the same.

The Old Testament Sanctuary service begins with the sacrifice…the altar of sacrifice is the first element inside the tabernacle courtyard.

The atoning sacrifice in the Sanctuary service symbolises Christs sacrifice on the cross.

Also, take what the new testament tells us about Abraham (deemed righteous centuries before the cross)

Romans 4:3: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”
Galatians 3:6: “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith”
Genesis 15:6: "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness

So this means Abraham was saved by faith 2000 years before the apostle Paul wrote about the idea.

Humanity has always been offered this method of salvation.

The only difference between the two
covenants…

1. The Old Covenant was written on tablets of stone
2. The New Covenant is written in our hearts and in our minds.

You say that that nothing has to be done to receive a gift…actually that isnt quite true.

1. You must accept it
2. Righteousness requires one to choose to believe …

Act 16.31
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

You are suggesting that foriveness of sin is automatic. Thats not correct. God cannot forgive unconfessed sin. Part of the process of confession is recognising the wrong and then asking for forgiveness.

God then immediately.forgives us without any “payment” if you like.

Theres no payment because Christ has already made payment…he died on the cross. Thats what His death is all about, making atonement for sin…which has always been planned since the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13.8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

The reason this was planned from the foundation of the world id suggest, is because Lucifer had already rebelled in heaven prior to the creation of earth and so sin existed at that time. The test of the charge against God by Lucifer was either universal or, lucifer was cast this this planet because it was in the planning of this creation that Lucifers rebellion began. It would be only natural to expect that this becomes the testing ground…which id suggest the book of Job illustrates.

[St.Roymond]

@Roy

So if a student asks a teacher e.g. whether they are a baptist, the teacher isn’t allowed to answer? Even when not in class?

Carefully – the guideline I was given when student teaching was “Don’t answer where anyone but the asker can hear”.

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

The Old Testament Tabernacle and Sanctuary Service teaches that its only confessed sins that may be forgiven.

Irrelevant – the New Testament trumps the Old.
Read Galatians, especially ch. 3.

@adamjedgar

God cannot forgive unconfessed sin.

Jesus disagrees:

Some came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

No confession there, just forgiveness on the basis of faith.

@adamjedgar

Lucifer had already rebelled in heaven prior to the creation of earth

Where is that in the text?

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@St.Roymond

@adamjedgar

The Old Testament Tabernacle and Sanctuary Service teaches that its only confessed sins that may be forgiven.

Irrelevant – the New Testament trumps the Old.
Read Galatians, especially ch. 3.

you know St Roymond if you actually read the book of Galations???

Galatians 3:6: “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith”

Its very important for all Christians to understand what the symbolism of the Old Testament Sanctuary actually means for The New Testament Gospel. Knowing about the sanctuary/salvation process doesnt save us, but it sure helps if we have a road map before us…otherwise how the heck do we know we are heading in the right direction or on the right road?

Again, The ALTAR OF SACRIFICE IS THE FIRST ELEMENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT TABERNACLE (it symbolises the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross). How you cannot understand that very very obvious fact is beyond comprehension.

Ill make it really easy for you mate…look at the images below. If you cant see what is plainly obvious…Christ death on the cross is the FIRST element in the process of ultimate forgiveness for sins and righteousness by faith!

Without atonement, there is no forgiveness. The old testament Sanctuary proves that biblical fact!

There is a reason why Christ said in John 14:6

• I am (God of Moses)
• The Way (altar of sacrifice/Cross)
• The Truth and (cleansing from sin and pathway to the bread of life/table of shewbread inside the sanctuary)
• The Life (Holy of holies…redemption)

Baptism represents our commitment prior to entering into the Sanctuary itself and partaking of the table of shewbread, the wine, being given the holy spirit in the holy place…

The sanctuary is critical in understand what all the parts of the gospel actually mean and how salvation works.

[heymike3]

@Roy

It is arrogant to assume that you are correct, and everyone with different beliefs is wrong.

Not totally wrong. I can’t imagine anyone being totally right or totally wrong.

But a person may have good evidence for believing something that puts them at odds with a great number of people. There is a common tendecy today for people to believe that no one could be right about something like this… but that’s not how history has worked… so it’s a still a real and reasonable possibility.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@adamjedgar

You say that that nothing has to be done to receive a gift…actually that isnt quite true.

1. You must accept it

Why?

@adamjedgar

Righteousness requires one to choose to believe …

Who was talking about righteousness?

@adamjedgar

You are suggesting that foriveness of sin is automatic. Thats not correct.

Who says so?

@adamjedgar

God then immediately.forgives us without any “payment” if you like.

of course. it is a gift!

Why do you think we should pay for our sins?

That is human justice not God’s

@adamjedgar

Theres no payment because Christ has already made payment

Preciseley! There is nothing more needed.

You are just trying to justify your need for power or superirority

“I’m OK, you are not!!”

@adamjedgar

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Does not mean that if you do not beleive you won’t be saved.

The salvation is already there. Identifying and accpeting it is for our peace of mind not God’s. God does not need human help to save. God deos not demand pennance or even righteousness. That is the whole point. God wants us to be free from the guilt and burdon of sin.

Now if you want to be righteous, that is another matter.

The trouble then is vanity. That was the problem with the Pharisees. They flaunted their righteousness.

It’s a bit like humilithy. If you look for it, it disappears.

All this business of the world being sinful is just an excuse to impose God onto them. That is not what God wants. He wants willing followers not coerced ones

Jesus came to forgive sins, and He did. Why are you trying to deny it?.

Richard

[knor (Kai)]

Yes, that is true, our understanding about words and concepts are different.
Yet, there is a great difference between Bible and Qur’an in this respect.

We have translations about the biblical scriptures and we treat them (almost) as the original message. We cite a translation and claim that this is what God has told.

In Islam, it is a strict teaching that only the original text, written in Arabic, is the authoritative text. The translations do not even use the simple title ‘Quran’ but instead something like ‘The meaning of the holy Qur’an’, to make this difference clear.

It is another matter how original the ‘original’ Qur’an is. I have read that the earliest known texts of Qur’an were not identical. There were differing variants and one of these variants became later the standard text.

There is also the point that the Qur’an has internal contradictions. With Qur’an, this is not as big problem as with the biblical scriptures as there is an accepted solution to this problem. When the author (Muhammad) got a new ‘revelation’, that revelation nullified all previous teachings about the same topic. So, if the teaching was first ‘let them live’ and later, there came a teaching ‘kill them’, the latter teaching is what is valid today. That makes it important to know what was the original order of the texts (Surahs) in the Qur’an.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RichardG

@Roy

: You’re also assuming that survival to adulthood, but no longer, is a sufficient criterion to make a belief system to be worth considering

No, I think it is more being able to make a decision as opposed to just accepting what you are told.

I was replying to this:

@paleomalacologist

The fact that their parents’ beliefs have been adequate to allow them to survive to adulthood suggests that they are worth considering.

Do beliefs that result in relatively early death merit much consideration?

@RichardG

Whether a religion is worth onsidering is rather like asking Why you killed your father. IOW it is a loaded statement that devalues religion. (belief system)

I am guessing (by your tone) that you, yourself, do not value such a thing.

Before you even consider a belief system there needs to be a void or vacancy for it to fill.

Not necessarily a void or vacancy - perhaps just a feeling that there may be something better than the current belief system. Lots of people change religion without ever having no religion, for reasons varying from radicalisation to marriage.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@paleomalacologist

You are saying that it is wrong to say that something is wrong.

I’m not.

That’s the second time in a row that you’ve characterised my post as something that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything I actually wrote.

Please stop.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@RichardG

You are just trying to justify your need for power or superirority

“I’m OK, you are not!!”

I haven’t a clue what this means…what are you talking about?

Now back to the point of your answer…free gifts and acceptance…

You have to accept a gift quite simply because even atheism believes “that one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make the bloody thing drink”…the horse has to choose to drink.

@RichardG

@adamjedgar

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Does not mean that if you do not believe you won’t be saved.

Thats exactly what it means!!!

1 John 1:9

New International Version

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

the above text is pretty clear. however, God isn’t requiring us to carry a black book of our sins around with us, ticking off the ones we have confessed and asked forgiveness for…that’s a gross over-exaggeration of what is asked of us and i do not believe it is even close to what God intended. But that does not in any way mean that salvation is automatic…it is not.

In addition to the above, Christ gave us a rather specific example of how an individual who did not seek salvation may be saved…this text below is why i believe that there will be atheists in heaven…and i reckon God is going to get a real kick out of seeing the shock on their faces when they realise they have been saved…

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
MAT.25.37-40.KJV

If you honestly cannot understand the simplicity of this…its better to go away, study the sanctuary and the gospel in depth…then come back and debate it.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@heymike3

@Roy

It is arrogant to assume that you are correct, and everyone with different beliefs is wrong.

Not totally wrong. I can’t imagine anyone being totally right or totally wrong.

But a person may have good evidence for believing something that puts them at odds with a great number of people. There is a common tendecy today for people to believe that no one could be right about something like this… but that’s not how history has worked… so it’s a still a real and reasonable possibility.

That’s true - but this case doesn’t involve evidence.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@paleomalacologist

The fact that their parents’ beliefs have been adequate to allow them to survive to adulthood suggests that they are worth considering.

Do beliefs that result in relatively early death merit much consideration?

I am sorry but it would appear that you are misunderstanding the dynamis of what was suggested. It is not so much that there might be an early death as to the longevity of any belief. IOW the belief has lasted at least 15-20 years so that should amount to something.

However, a static or habitual beleif where by there is little or no feedback or advantage would appear to be empty and meaningless. From a pragmatic or callous viewpoint, many Christians seem to be going through the motions on a Sunday without it penetrating into their daily lives. Such a “beleif system” would aear to have little merit.

@Roy

perhaps just a feeling that there may be something better than the current belief system.

This would appear to be the crux of the matter. Obviously I do not know your background or experience of Christianity (if it is Christianity you are questioning)

There has to be a practical side to a beleif system through the week as as s for it to have merit. Whether that is just peace of mind or at least comfort, either of which may not be obvious to an onlooker, or whether it guides them through the week as a sort of anchor or stability. Whatever, there needs to be more than just a vague notion or idea with no practical application.

As a Christian, my beleifs help me to cope with what life throws at me. How it does that is probably beyond the scope of this forum, but suffice it to say, for me, at least, Christianity is a 24/7 way of life rather than a weekly pilgrimage.

I think you need to find a beleif system that fits your values and lifestyle rather than to impose one due to family or other pressures or existance. But, that does mean you have to understand what these benefits are, which may be the problem here.For me, te benefits are mental rather than physical, which is why they are harder to both see, and explain.

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@adamjedgar

@RichardG

You are just trying to justify your need for power or superirority

“I’m OK, you are not!!”

I haven’t a clue what this means…what are you talking about?

ask @mitchellmckain.

Richard

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

i didnt copy it off Mitchells post…i havent seen his post…i quoted it from YOUR post!!!

Is that not your image in the top left???

So if your wrote it, I’m asking you what it means.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RichardG

@Roy

@paleomalacologist

The fact that their parents’ beliefs have been adequate to allow them to survive to adulthood suggests that they are worth considering.

Do beliefs that result in relatively early death merit much consideration?

I am sorry but it would appear that you are misunderstanding the dynamis of what was suggested. It is not so much that there might be an early death as to the longevity of any belief. IOW the belief has lasted at least 15-20 years so that should amount to something.

Perhaps I am, but I think there’s an implicit assumption that beliefs are constant throughout some-one’s lifetime. One’s parents’ beliefs when one is born or thereafter may be nothing like the beliefs they held for most of their life.

@RichardG

However, a static or habitual beleif where by there is little or no feedback or advantage would appear to be empty and meaningless.

Now that I do agree with - beliefs (worldviews) should be modified based on new events and information.

@RichardG

@Roy

perhaps just a feeling that there may be something better than the current belief system.

This would appear to be the crux of the matter. Obviously I do not know your background or experience of Christianity (if it is Christianity you are questioning)

There has to be a practical side to a beleif system through the week as as s for it to have merit. Whether that is just peace of mind or at least comfort, either of which may not be obvious to an onlooker, or whether it guides them through the week as a sort of anchor or stability. Whatever, there needs to be more than just a vague notion or idea with no practical application.

As a Christian, my beleifs help me to cope with what life throws at me. How it does that is probably beyond the scope of this forum, but suffice it to say, for me, at least, Christianity is a 24/7 way of life rather than a weekly pilgrimage.

I think you need to find a beleif system that fits your values and lifestyle rather than to impose one due to family or other pressures or existance.

I think I have, though my values and lifestyle are largely a result of the ‘beliefs’ I have settled on (which are based on experience, evidence and research) rather than the other way around.

@RichardG

But, that does mean you have to understand what these benefits are, which may be the problem here.For me, te benefits are mental rather than physical, which is why they are harder to both see, and explain.

There are health and financial benefits too.

[knor (Kai)]

@St.Roymond

@knor

This difference in the interpretation leads to different conclusions about the need to baptize infants. If salvation is tied to being a member of ‘our church’, then baptizing the infants becomes logical

Baptizing infants is logical regardless; it isn’t a baptism into an organization but into Christ. This is shown by the fact that baptisms don by heretics have always been considered valid so long as they were done as the scripture instructs.

Here we are stumbling to the questions: what is the baptism described in NT scriptures, and what happens in baptism?

I guess our differing perspectives follow from a different interpretation about baptism and therefore, differing answers to these questions.