I suspect we agree on this - the reason I'm taking the time to talk about Divine Command Theory again is the suggestion that God's morality could be different from ours. What we know to be right (even when we fail to adhere to it, which is depressingly often) is what God regards as morally right.

Of course God's morality can be different from ours (if we take 'ours' as society). You look at what society calls good and it totally contradicts what God has said in his word. I am not sure what Divine Command Theory is - do you mean we just obey God because he said it? In a sense we do, but not blindly. We obey God because we know he's right, and he has given us abundant evidence that he is right, so when there are things that seem right (Proverbs 14:12) we don't go that route and we choose God's way instead.

There are OT passages which are challenging to those who see the Bible through a Christotelic Christ centred lens, but this is not one of them.

FTFY Changed it for those of us who had no idea what that word meant.

Changed it for those of us who had no idea what that word meant.

The Bible says we are to indoctrinate our children - see Deuteronomy 6 and Proverbs 3 for instance. But far from producing psychological damage this is designed to help them! Nobody is forcing us to teach our kids nonsense; we can stick to sensible Bible principles.

What's this "fresh breath of the spirit"? The spirit uses toothpaste?

I would debate Hitchens right now. I'd fancy my chances too.

The cross before the crown.

Very insightful. The reverse golden rule, or silver rule, or whatever you want to call it, sounds a lot like the gospel the world preaches "if it doesn't harm other people it's OK". Proactive positive religion is what the truth is all about.

Oh sorry, thanks for the clarification .

I think it's saying that the experiential knowledge of the mercy of God will be a motivating factor in new covenant.

Acts 16.14 is interesting because "the Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul". So far the consensus exposition of "God changing our heart" seems to be that "we change our heart by reading God's word" or similar. I find it hard to read that sort of process into Acts 16.14. The process in Acts is that God works on our heart so that we come to respond to his word. We might read God's word all our lives and not respond.

"The Lord opened Lydia's heart" could mean anything. It could mean she had been encouraged by reading the Scriptures. It could mean she had experienced the mercy of God. It could mean something had happened in her life to make her think about things. We don't know.

Sorry to be picky, but 'they can change their heart' or 'God can change their heart'?

God does it, but he tells us how - through his word and through his chastening.

The difference between the old and new covenants is not the Law, per se, it's the application. The old covenant was based on abiding by law but the new covenant is about living by faith. So Deuteronomy 6, under the old covenant, was just about rote law keeping. Under the new covenant the principles therein are eternal. Jesus used the spirit of the passage in Deuteronomy to overcome his temptations.

I am not sure what you mean "seems to say the new won't be like that." Like what?

My articulation's not so clear. I suppose the question at this point's become the 'How does God write on our hearts?' one, and the related, "How does the spirit (if it does) help the believers live righteously (bearing in mind that they can't 'do it alone' [to probably misuse a phrase from Radey])?"

If you look at Deuteronomy 6 it explains how the law is written on the heart - by diligently teaching it. Verse 6 says it must be in our heart and the subsequent verses show how this is done. The passage is linked with Proverbs 3 which puts Bible study in tandem with chastening.

The difference between the old and new covenants is how the law is received. Under the old covenant the tendency for the Israelite was to receive the law as instructions from a taskmaster to slaves. But in Romans 8 Paul says "you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the spirit of adoption whereby we cry 'Abba, father'". In other words the spirit of God gets inside us by receiving the law of God as a child receives instructions and chastening from their parents - it's a completely different spirit. The spirit of God enters us when we experience his loving kindness as a father pitying his children. That loving kindness was expressed to us in graphic form with the giving of his son to die for us, and that's why Hebrews 9 tells us the blood of the new covenant is so much more efficacious than the blood of bulls and goats.

So it's about understanding God, as a father, instead of a hard man who reaps where he does not sew and gathers where he does not straw.

Richard, how does the blood of Christ getting to my conscience = God giving me a new heart? Sorry if it isn't obvious to you, but my reading of what you have said seems like I get myself a new heart by thinking about Jesus a lot or something.

I am just going by what the Bible says. The old and new covenants are ratified by blood, and the difference is shown in Hebrews 9, which is in the context of the new covenant (chapter 8). If you want to make something else up without Bible commentary then feel free but the answers are usually in Scripture and that's the passage I go to to explain what's going on.

"Thinking about Jesus a lot" isn't a good summary.

Under the old covenant they sacrificed bulls and goats. Under the new covenant God gave his son. See Hebrews 9:13-14. The blood of Christ gets to our conscience like the blood of bulls and goats never could.

Is that the James Tabor involved with the Original Bible project? Whatever happened to that in any case?

Don't get upset because you cannot provide a verse which you think thwarts the Trinity....I have yet to find a Unitarian who can...of which, pretty much tells me their confidence level in their world-view...yes?[/size]

Personally speaking I have more confidence in the lack of evidence for the Trinity in the Bible than just about any other topic. It's simply not there. The whole Bible, all its principles, are contrary to it. If I accepted the Trinity I would have to throw the Bible message away. It's hard to debate something that is so outside the realm of what the Bible teaches.

We need to concentrate on a theology of creation and that is too often forgotten in this subject.

1,000,000% agree.

Thanks again. My reply was more along the lines of 'How did Christ save us by placing himself in a position in which the Law cursed him?'.

To demonstrate we are saved by faith not law.

This probably won't be helpful but for what it's worth, apart from prophecy especially concerning Israel, the fact that the Bible contains astonishing wisdom about human nature and the development of the spiritual mind, and the way it connects together to form a beautiful tapestry of truth, are all reasons to have faith that it is the Word of God.

This probably won't be helpful but for what it's worth, apart from prophecy especially concerning Israel,

I have started a new thread to discuss prophecy. See here.

the fact that the Bible contains astonishing wisdom about human nature and the development of the spiritual mind, and the way it connects together to form a beautiful tapestry of truth, are all reasons to have faith that it is the Word of God.

Sure, I could use this as proof when talking with the software engineers I work with. How do you like my chances of convincing them?

I don't think you can use it as a preaching idea, it's something you come to appreciate through Bible study.

I have a very real problem with the fact that relatively few scientists, engineers, and similar technically minded people are christians. Can you help me understand why that might be the case?

Really? I know plenty of technically minded people in the truth. I think the logic of Bible study appeals to that mindset a lot of the time.

This thread has been very interesting. It's certainly true that many people will come across these issues and be challenged by them. It's good to see them discussed.

You can find this stuff aired and answered extensively in the CMag, Testimony, and a number of works in our community. The answers are also readily available online. If people in our community are genuinely being challenged by this, then it's a tragedy. It makes me utterly embarrassed to be a member.

The reason it's challenging is because very few Christadelphians have looked into things like textual criticism and so forth. It's just not something that's ever been an issue for the past x number of years. Looking into things like that in today's busy world is difficult for most people. The spare 10 minutes people have to do some of this sort of study doesn't cut it.

I personally (in real life) know nine people who have a problem with this stuff. Four of them have left. I'd be willing to bet that people with this problem don't talk to you about it Richard, because it's not an easy subject to broach.

But I ask people about it. I am also getting people to write articles on things like the canon of Scripture. But most people are like "textual criticism is nonsense, the Bible is the word of God - look at Israel!"

Jonno, you are a horrible person online.

Once again I have had enough of communicating with you and instead of trying to understand me you've put many words in my mouth and it's plain disgusting.

I won't try and explain myself because it's pointless talking to you.

And just for the record I have done a whole whack of preaching and hardly ever come up against these sorts of issues. Now please twist what I said.

Methinks I was misunderstood. Never mind.

Why can't I delete my own posts?