If you’re out for the rewards, that says you’[re in this for yourself, not for God.
I’m not out for any rewards, and if I end up getting any I’m giving them back – I’m out for Jesus and all the rewards are His in the first place.
1 Like
No, it doesn’t. It reveals some of His character in relation to a nation of tribes in the Bronze Age. Mervin is totally correct: only in Christ do we see who God is. Indeed it is only in the Cross that we see who God is, and at the same time see what it means to be human!
Of course not, since He fulfilled it – so it has no hold over us any more.
No, or you are calling the Holy Spirit a liar since He told the church at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 that all of Moses is reduced to just four admonitions.
2 Likes
Thank you.
That is the attitude I expect from a Christian.
Richard
1 Like
I am sorry that you seem to be prou of this attitude and even go to the extent of justifying it.
My point is not whether the rewards are there or not but whter they should constitute a motivation for beleiveing or following God.
Pascal’s wager is a cynical excuse for allowing God to exist, but that is all that it is. If you are going to claim allegience, as in being a “Christian” then you are doing more tha conceding His existence, you are identifyng His standards and attempting to reach them. It is an attitude of mind not a justification.
Yes Scripture includes the benefits of faith, but it is also clear about hypocrissy and deceit.
The Foxes have holes and the birds have nesst but the son of man has nowhere to lay His head.
I could quote you many more citations where the faithfull are shown to suffer for their faith. Whtehr that suffering is justfed by"reward" at the end is not the point. We do what we do, and say what we say because it is right,raqther than to get a pat on the back and luxuriate in the thanks of God.
Richard
1 Like
Theology is complicated because God is God and we’re not. One reason to be suspicious of non-Trinitarian theology is that one God in one person or three Gods in three persons simplifies and is easy to understand. But reality is complicated.
Human anger almost always has the component of self-righteousness and defensiveness. Yet we should be angry at abuse, at hypocrisy, at the wrongs in the world. The Bible affirms God’s sovereignty in all that happens, not in a simplistic way like the Far Side with God about to press the “Smite” button on the computer, but working towards the ultimate goal of a renewed creation. Why not just go straight to the renewed version and skip this one? We don’t know. God does restrict how He acts; again, we don’t know the particular reasons. There is judgement and wrath against sin, yet it’s not simplistic. Are the people killed by the landslides and flooding from Hurricane Helene worse than everybody else? Highly unlikely. Does the death toll reflect the fact that the state legislature here in North Carolina cancelled the geological survey’s efforts to identify landslide-prone areas, over fears that it would hurt real estate profits? Yes. The victims generally aren’t the culprits of that particular sin. But our sinfulness affects humanity in general.
In part, this is inherent in sin. If you presume to ignore the law of gravity, you are likely to have negative consequences. But it might cause problems for someone you fall on.
If you presume to ignore the moral law, things are likely not to go well, also. People will be distrustful and angry if you steal from them, even if your particular action is not caught. But that makes it harder for honest people in need.
Both Old and New Testament emphasize that we should be thinking “why was I not judged?” rather than “I must be better than them.” God provides a way of salvation, but there are consequences if we refuse it.
2 Likes
From yourpost I would guess that the consequences are for others not ourselve?
Perhaps we need to separate slavation from forgiveness. Slavation is ultimately saving from udgement and punishement. Forgiveness is more to do with works. We can sin unintentionally or we can choose to. The first is easy to forgive the second throws up other ethical or moral grounds. Humans have a sense of justice but God has shown, and Jesus taught, that it is the intent rather than the action that matters God. I guess this is where the notion of repentance being paramount comes into our theology. We hold onto the notion that deliberate crimes should be punished not forgiven. I am less than convinced that this still applies to God’s forgiveness. God can forgive the sin but leave open the judgement of intent or value
I think we still would like justice when someone’s sin affects us or those we love. These “consequences” are a true test of our faith in God’s justice and where we can actually “Judge” His forgiveness or not. Leaving it in His hands is probably the greatest trust we can have, and the most difficult.
Richard
That was a point made in the sermon at a Pentecostal church I was guided to to get a clear statement of why Mormonism is a mess.
A great question for speculative metaphysics!
A county government in Oregon tried that. At the required public hearing, most of the Geology faculty of Oregon State University showed up to explain why it was a really stupid idea.
1 Like