Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is The Scripture True Or Not?

The stakes have never been and will never be higher than when Christ hung on the cross. His work there was for me. He defeated sin, death and Satan for me. The tightrope analogy seems to place importance on my performance, but I participate in his life not by attempting to sin no more, but purely by undeserved grace. I hope you do, too. Any other gospel is no gospel.

That's not just the way I see it; it's the way the Bible teaches it. I have no chance of heaven, paradise, or whatever you might call it, based on my performance. If reaching heaven is based on my performance, then the crucifixion of the Son of God was unnecessary.

You'd be right to call that foolishness if you want, and you can do a riff on it if you like, but "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18.)

Steve

I did not mean to say our redemption is based on performance or good works. The tightrope is purely self-imposed. It is, in the end, completely illusory. However, it seems to be real.

Let's just say you sin against God. I don't care what the sin is, but you know you've done it. You repent, you fall down on your knees and ask for forgiveness. Perhaps it is so bad, you decide to confess it in front of your family or congregation. You know that you are forgiven.

A bit of time goes by. You fall into the same temptation that led you astray. You commit the same sin. Now what? Okay. You can repeat the process. You can repeat the process as often as you want. The forgiveness is still there from God.

However, the forgiveness is falling away at home. The minister is starting to counsel that your monthly public confessions are wearing thin on the congregation. You try your best, but temptation grips you again and . . . Ooops. There you go again.

Eventually, one of several things will happen:

1) You will lose your shame over what you are doing, stop feeling that you've sinned and go off and do what comes natural. God forgives you.
2) You continue to commit the sin, you continue to feel the ire of those around you. God forgives you.
3) You finally figure out that you're sinning against yourself. That which you hold dear has been stomped on repeatedly by you, and you finally stop doing it. God forgives you.

Nothing really changes here, except your attitude towards the sin and your acceptance of it. Your family and community may or may not come to accept it-- that's because they are human and therefore imperfect. The question is what happens inside you. That is the spiral tight rope.

We sin. We all sin. We sin constantly. God made us perfect sinning machines. We just keep going round and round and round. . . Hence, it's a spiral. Like a dog to its vomit and all that. We feel shame. We feel the flashlight of God shining through the back car window, even though it's just a truck passing by on the highway. We realize we are mortal, we repent. We are forgiven, we pick ourselves up and go right back to what we're doing. God knows we're going to sin again. We know we're going to sin again. The question is this: What next?

No, the tightrope is not God's imposition. It's ours. It's shame of sin that keeps us on it. It's fear of temptation that keeps us on it. It really is illusory, but each of us freely dabbles in the illusion.

Man goes the the doctor and says, "Doc, every time I do this, I get a sharp pain."
Doc says, "Son, just don't do that!"

". . .And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." John 8:11


What could be easier?

What could be harder?

You have to define what you mean by 'True' first.

As a matter of historical record please note the following:

"A long series of writers testify to St. John�s authorship: Justin Martyr (cir. 150 A.D.), Eusebius, Irenaeus (A.D. 195), Clement of Alexandria (about 200), Tertullian (207), Origen (233). All the foregoing writers, testifying that the book came from an apostle, believed that it was a part of Holy Scripture."

The scriptures were not originally in a book but in individual scrolls. The later church councils (Carthage and Hippo) which listed the books of the Bible were "local" and not "ecumencial" councils and therefore were not intended to inform the whole Church of new information, but rather they were recognizing at a local level what Christianity in general had proclaimed all over the world. The local councils did not have the authority to mandate anything for the Church in general.

The book of Revelation had been acknowledged and cited from early times as holy scripture, because those such as Irenaeus lived very closely in time and geography to the Apostle John. Irenaeus' instructor was Ignatius who personally knew John. Writers as far away as Carthage (Tertullian), Rome (Justin Martyr) and Eqypt (Clement) had the same knowledge that John's Revelation was inspired. The whole NT was written within the age of the apostles by men who had personal interaction with eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ's teaching and ministry.

Can any reasonable man suppose that it was a lack of good evidence which caused a hostile Rome to depart from Paganism and adopt Christianity when Christians were initially fed to the beasts for sport in the Coliseum? Can anyone explain why the Emperor Julian, the Pagan, could not take Rome back into Paganism if it was merely the power of the State which accounted for the rise of Christianity?

I would challenge people to do some research and careful thinking before they draw hasty conclusions.

When making an honest inquiry into the authenticity and inspiration of the scriptures we need to first establish and agree upon a reasonable set of laws of evidence which can be used as criteria to judge the character of any ancient document.

If the skeptics will provide such a reasonable list of laws of evidence which they would accept the discussion could proceed in a reasonable manner. If they cannot produce such criteria, then this evidence that they have not made an honest inquiry into the matter.

Speaking of research and origins, some my find this well researched and heavily referenced web site interesting.

http://www.pocm.info/

I am quite aware of such theories. If such theories were true why did the ancient Pagan world persecute Christianity as a new sect? Read Tacitus and Seutonius, the early pagan Roman historians--they do not see Christianity in any way as the outgrowth of Paganism, but rather coming from the teachings which sprung from Jesus of Galilee who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

The OT also has always stood in stark contrast to the pagan religious teachings around them. Where in ancient Pagan religion is the teaching of a Holy God who cannot sin or a God of love who desires a personal and saving relationship with His children through the Messiah?
It is paganism which borrowed some trinitarian concepts from OT prohecies and corrupted them, not the other way around.
This website is a perfect example of non-critical thinking and shallow historical research.

You got that part right. In Not the Way It's Supposed To Be: A Breviary of Sin (1995, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co.), Cornelius Plantinga wrote "Faithful warriors against these sins thus experience familiar failures, slight improvements, backslidings, painful consequences Pyrrhic victories, broken treaties, and humiliating compromises. The Scriptures claim that human beings need powerful outside intervention to control and eventually conquer their faults, but all veterans of the sin wars know this by personal experience as well." St. Paul, a higher authority than Shaman, Everyday Hunter, or Dr. Plantinga, offers a wonderful exposition of this problem in the 6th, 7th and 8th chapters of Romans, citing Christ as that powerful outside intervention. At the heart of his argument is this verse (6:6), "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin."


But the Bible doesn't offer us that option. Yes, we are very competent "sinning machines" -- but we can't blame God for making us so. Again, in Not the Way It's Supposed To Be, Plantinga wrote, "Somebody in the chain of influences leading to [here, Plantinga uses racism as an example of sin] knew better, and this is true even if you have to follow the chain back to our first parents, who emerged good and innocent from the hands of God." (Emphasis added.) Creation (which is called "very good" in Genesis 1:31) precedes the Fall of man in every translation of the Bible.

Now, to confess my own sins. These debates are stimulating and enjoyable, but I suspect they are more profitable to me than to those I address. And they entangle me in at least two of the so-called seven deadly sins (pride, envy, anger, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust.) Pride and sloth come to mind. I think I have something important to contribute that my pride says people need, so I offer my thoughts when I should be doing work that is more productive and I wind up in sloth. I doubt that I am the only one guilty of these sins, but if I recognize them I need to do something about them. So, I'm considering a sabbatical from this forum or, we might say, a "fast" from this exercise.

Steve

Have you ever studied historical methodology? I need to know how to frame a critique of this argument.



"The keys of hell and the guarantee of salvation were in the hands of the goddess, and the initiation ceremony itself a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace." [Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21]

And, "Be of good cheer, O initiates, for the god is saved, and we shall have salvation for our woes." [Firmicus Maternus, The Error of Pagan Religions, 22.1]



Please note the above quotes are taken directly from the web site you scorn. You might want to actually read the site, look at the quoted references and sources and then critique, rather than making a judgement probably based on looking at the home page.

There are huge section of the OT that are lifted whole cloth from earlier Sumerian writings. Stuff that predated Judaism by quite a while. So it would be hard to argue that it was these pagans that were doing the 'borrowing'.

Yes

Bill Klinton, "You'll have to define what the meaning of "is" is."

Please note that whether or not Scripture is derivative has no impact on it's validity, unless you are a literalist who believes, like the Muslims, that the Bible is basically dictation taken directly from God, rather than work inspired by God but set down by men of imperfect and corruptible flesh.

This is of course a fundamental argument that has been going in within Christianity the reformation at least. The idea that it is going to be settled on a web board devoted to hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities seems at the very least to be Hubris of the highest order.

And likewise the caliber debates: 30-60 vs 270, et al, but like those we cuss and discuss and share ideas. Old hash for the old hash slingers, but every now and again, something new may pop up. That's what keeps me here.

Not even the same thing. There is a huge difference between a spiritual 'Truth' and a scientific 'Truth'. An objective truth is one that can be demonstrated and proved, independently verified or falsified (i.e. proven false, not faked)

This is a particular pet peeve of many of us trained in the sciences: that those making religious arguments try to equate a religious truth with a scientific one. The latter involves a rigorous methodology, the former doesn't even require reason.

That is not to say that there are not religious 'truths'. But if you try to apply spiritual dicta to the physical world, it seldom works well.

Agreed. Every once in a while there a pearl thrown out amongst the offal.

The foundational proposition which you/the website would need to sustain is that Christianity/Judaism is a borrow of Paganism. When making this statement you will need to answer why the Jewish prophets and teachers abhorred paganism and yet you say they copied it. Further you will need to answer why the contemporary Pagan writers (to Christianity) such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, and the Emperor Julian all attack Christianity is a new and aberrant sect. If anyone should know whether Christianity borrows from Paganism, the contemporary hostile-to-Christianity Pagans would. They actually called the Christians Atheists because they denied the divinity of the gods and called them demons. You see unless you can demonstrate this point the rest of the proposition fails entirely. We could debate details of history all day to no avail, but this proposition needs sustained by answering the above questions or the whole theory self-destructs.

I have specifically chosen not to cite the passages from the above writers, because if you arrived at your position from careful historical study, you would be already familiar with the pertinent quotes. If you indicate that you have not done your study, then we can bring some citations to the table.



This shows a fundamental difference between Christianity and Paganism.

1. We do not believe in goddesses nor does the Pagan goddess become God in human flesh which is an essential tenet to the Christian view of salvation. Salvation by Christ is based upon Him being completely human and perfectly divine.

2. Salvation is not merely for our woes or calamities, but for our sin and sin nature. Salvation is based upon a loving God desiring close fellowship with His people. This fundamental principle is not expressed in the cited text.

3. We do not believe that divinity has ever sinned or ever needs saved, but that it is sinless. Again, my point is sustained that only Christianity teaches a perfectly holy sinless God.

4. The two texts indicate a god and a goddess at work in the salvation of man. Christianity teaches that their one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

These texts highlight differences between Christianity and Paganism, not similarities. The evidence you provided sustains the Christian position rather than yours, and until these issues are addressed it is evident that the skeptics are reading into history their presuppositions.

Do you place any faith in these statements? If so, then you are guilty of mixing faith and reason. If not, then why should another believe what you have no faith in?

So, "science" has never been revised, updated, negated, redone? I was a member of The Royal Astonomical Society for 35 years and finally gave up on it because of it's constant revisions of "the Truth" of "science", so-called! I've not given up on astronomy but on the dogmas and assumptions of "scientists" who affirm the unprovable theories of "origins".

I well recall the "revelation" of "The Big Bang Theory" as reported in ASTRONOMY and SKY & TELESCOPE! "Well", I thought, "They seem to finally be getting their act together. That's about as close to the Bible as science can get, I suppose, especially coming from those who deny the Bible."

In a moment of time so incalculable that it defies scientific analysis, all of the energy of the whole universe was released from "something" so infinitesimal that it could not be measured. "Theories" were invented to explain this phenomenon.
The Bible affirms: "In the beginning God created", out of nothing. "Science" affirms: "out of nothing, nothing created itself into something". Believing in a Creator makes more sense to me than believing in "nothing"! Either way, we are left with believing something. There's no "repeatable" evidence that something originates from nothing! Therefore, your so-called scientific method is missing! You are left with believing WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE! The same accusation you, and others on here, level at those who do believe the Bible!

And, BTW, many scientists are Christian AND believe the Bible!
And, many are creationists! But, also, several, who have denied the theory of evolution as unscientific (unprovable), and demonstrated scientifically the degeneration of the speed of light, have been vilified and lost their status in universities. No prejudice in "science", eh?

And, for the record, I believe the Biblical record of creation, the fall, redemption through Jesus Christ, and the resurrection. Nothing you've said has in any way altered that firm conviction. There is ample evidence... no need for more.

Jesus said: "This is the judgment, that Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." John's Gospel, chapter 3, verses 19 and 20.

well, if the believers and the scientists can't come together, then maybe what we need to do is offer another "field" to further the discussion?

i'm thinkin' philosophy as counterpoint to the other two, uh, science and religion.

and of course later, the psychologists and medical people can weigh in and claim some of the "common ground."

just funnin' guys, pleae no offense intended. now, how will we ever figure out how many teeth a horse has?

Get down off your horse. I'm trained in the sciences too and it in no way impedes my faith. Sorry to burst your self-aggrandizing bubble.