Simplifying what's complicated or the opposite? One or other abounds.

In theology, oversimplifying can cover to deflect challenges. From a wider perspective, hide the difficulties and conclude. When questions are encouraged by God.

The reason there's no mass political awake and/or Jesus uptake -- not enough right questions. Assumed answers the blocker. Ask, seek, knock. Then what?

There's need to meet an orthodox line-up. The more-evangelical tendency. Appeals to; News/Bible says it. And I-believe-it-that-settles-it. "What's said, look...". Leaders or teacher/s under. Say.

Firm, sure, confident, conviction. This a whopper big need where faith-in involved. As the hymn goes; 'Standing on the promises of God my Savior; Standing, standing, I’m standing on the promises of God'.

There's need to believe -and- question. Depends on context.

Had a rare-as-rare comeback on a Billy Graham comment/Aangirfan. What y'know? And: 'KJV' (Note emphasis/note, even this, a dig...). 'Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways'.

Unveiled criticism of me being open. When; a) No one in years-now or hardly can remember when, someone dares more like bother, to challenge. b) Christians who might suspect would. Do as above and go; reduction and verse wave. Very religious zealot and think can 'prove' this or that. Ones who do public outreach.

So what doing?

Heard someone (will remain anon), explain a deep complex sum up of two things. Revelations of dynamics and -- said to be -- '12 dimensions'. The elite-elite lot, hijacking this secret knowledge, for their god-like aspirations. The battle for humanity. God wanting this for mankind and good. Entity-enemies on the upset. All came to him, via 'deep research' and elite whistleblowing.

Why 'two things'?

One is the beliefs of the cult lot. The other is the nature of reality. Terrain, landscape, backdrop.

Threw in '...but we have free-will' and this to counter the fantastic visions of a hyper-reality a done deal. Give hope. Ends up embracing multi/simulated/universe and we're moving 'in the mind of the other' -- thinking.

'Free' -- gone. No comprende senor.

Might well be the belief of that-lot but ain't Biblical. OK, its basis not explained. Man's a Christian. Thank God. Even so.

What we have Bible-wise are a few deep foundations. Choices made in these, determine the floors or otherwise of one's thesis. Here's where we begin. Top of the list; Classic -or- Open -- Theism. Number one leading light.

(Assuming: Christ and the cross and done for all. God loves and here to rescue. Holy Spirit in person and getting personal for operations for God's realm invasions. Encounters. Outrageous grace, calling an army of God forward with authority. Process, forgiveness and direction.

Etc,).

To m'plea come preach and b'done:

The Biblical disclosure is clear and for purposes first. Demonstrations of claimed concepts count most -- telling what is, subservient. Philosophising? Some value, some time, but not the primary reason we're to know.

This to Believe and do/obey. A/our/the -- Loving One.

Imagine listening to someone explain magic. As in close hand, cards, what have ya. Nope, magic, for doing.

Theology of the New Testament especially -- does the talk. Jesus the lens and sum up and all in. Makes clear, go-do-likewise. While contrasts what-not and calls for action over talk. Paul and crew say this too. Goes for Genesis on. Action speaks...

Discernment might call to suss the evil alt. to God's build. Evangelism might best-explain. The Prophetic might speak to error. And there's room for open discussion, especially across lines of dispute.

Yet missing the Bible itself, as the means and language for fighting faith, is why Church flounders and flaky

To be clear-as: No Bibles in the early church was the one difference today and God-given, knowing, an addition. Almost all else that passes for 'going to Church' isn't a necessity. Useful at best and not so, when a dumb weight, in need of turning over of tradition. Not 'Biblical' but assumed-OK developments. A fitting, not a fixture.

Won't list all... but Sundays. Rows and Priests. Buildings and Sermons. Liturgy, the lot. Singing an exception and some communication as in called 'teaching'. Semons? So far as but read the early church and pause/period. What meets the aim. Otherwise, again, called 'sin'.

Community living is down, as with pray/proclaim/prophecy. Daily meeting. Break bread, Baptisms for believers and make up the rest as/when/do/what/ever/led/or -- seems good and right. To them/us and God.

Into/this/this morn... eh.

The simplicity that matters is when complicated-talking is a second-best way to go. Might stimulate some, inspire, strengthen, shape ideas, offer knowledge, so on...

BUT, if it's used to cover-up something better and more God's 'what?' Then it's trouble. Junk. Wasted. Filler.

Suggest: over-complication and man's elaborate -- watched my millions -- tumbling out talk. A way to deal with and the excuse for a lame and sleeping church.

The God he's ended up surmising on a basis of so-called Classic Theism. With certain liberal apologetics. Fair enough but it's the ground he speaketh from.

Hopes exposure of these 'truths' will galvanise opposition and resistance arises. IF he'd left it 'this is what they believe' very fair-enough. Mix with, is-what-is -- mucho problematic. For what influence on some, this might have. Of course this a vain and lost concern. Not worth a fuss about. Them waters muddy and not gonna clear. Good enough and right enough man has a go and much relief, more open than closed.

So note here: To watch complicating the simple and not as nuanced and open could be.

As for the promises and faith-words and living on... keep it all so simple. IN Christ etc. etc. etc. Sit, stand, walk and live in and on.

and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that [is] in the Christ;

OR:

your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.