Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity could possibly become a minority religion in US as early as 2045…

Absolutely!

Indeed...

Grace...

Easy as pie... or as impossible as moving a mountain.

Each man makes his own choices.

Antlers,

1-God has not lost one single individual he intended to catch. He is far above the need for a good salesperson. We are to present the Gospel, not convince people.

2-Thousands of years later, how distorted would the Gospel be without reliance on documentation? A good story changes daily and is highly distorted in a week.

3-Der Fuhrer and the Third Reich's first and foremost approach was corruption of the Church, obviously ignoring Biblical principles. It worked with the majority of the Germans, who originally had no ill intentions, buying into the Third Reich's ideology as Christian! What would Bonhoeffer have done without the Bible as the rock?

4-Without reliance on the Bible, how are we to discern false prophets?

Statistics related to the fad of fake churches which are nothing more than country clubs is meaningless. They need to go away, as they are Satans best weapon. I've long said Satin would rather you be in most churches in the United States than a strip club. There you sit on Sunday morning, feeling all good about yourself, headed straight to hell.

That line from the Apostles' Creed "he descended into hell" is true but it's been twisted by some churches. They say that Jesus suffered in hell. That's not scriptural. Jesus did descend into hell, but not for punishment. He went as the supreme God to tell those suffering there that all was accomplished.

I appreciate you answering questions about Unitarianism. It’s one sectthat I have not studied. I was surprised to find that it was part of the counter reformation and that the movement has the long history that it does.

From what I’m reading, in addition to not accepting the doctrine of the trinity, Unitarianism denies original sin.

When thinking about that and the idea of salvation how does a Unitarian look at the saving work of Christ, salvation, how salvation is defined? How does one know that they are saved?

As to Roman Catholicism, I am not. My 56 years has been an interesting pathway from an Ana Baptist upbringing to Lutheranism. I am a member of a LCMS congregation.

That is true....yes, I only believe in God the Bible, but I thought you knew that....and as I stated many times, I do respect others beliefs and would not diss them...

Maybe so, maybe so....but sometimes I feel the same as Aces...and sometimes I feel you two are Demons trying to corrupt our Christian values.....and I can assure Aces is not speaking with nasty, bitter and twisted, bile and hatred....just please halt your responses regarding why our Christian beliefs are synonymous to believing in Santa, fairy-tailes, and unicorns. We know you two are atheist, that is your choice, so be it......and there is a difference between normal polite discussions and pissing people off discussions.

This one....>>>So, do you believe that Spinoza was right about the nature of God? I wasn't talking about respecting what he or others believe.<<<

ctsmith,

The Apostle Paul, in his 1st letter to the Corinthians, makes a pretty clear justification for adjusting one’s approach based on who one’s audience is. What was his mission…? “Win” em’ and “save” em’. What was his approach…? Whatever it took to “win” em’ and “save” em’. He wasn’t committed to a method, but he was clearly committed to a mission.

“… so that by all possible means I might save some.” Which means…? “All possible means.” So he might take one approach one day and a different approach a different day ~ are we reading him right…? “All possible means.” Is that really necessary…~ shouldn’t we just present the Gospel and let the seed fall where it may…? “All possible means.”

Ain’t it enough to just present the Gospel the same way every time regardless of who one’s audience is…? “All possible means.” Why go to such lengths…? “… for the sake of the Gospel.”

Why shouldn’t we opt for the “all possible means” approach…? Why shouldn’t we decide to do whatever it takes…? Our culture nowadays clearly questions biblical authority. So, like Paul, why shouldn’t we adapt our approach to reach other’s…? Especially in light of the decline in Christianity that was mentioned in the OP…?

The unfortunate reality of history is that more often than not it is not the method that is changed but the method that changes the message.

Antlers,

Interpret how you want, but when Paul said by all means possible I don't believe he meant depart from scripture. I'm sure I can turn up plenty of Paul's writings that stress the importance of scripture.

Again, without scripture, how do we discern? Who is the authority?

Jesus himself said that whoever will not accept you, shake the dust from your feet when leaving their home. He failed to mention "winning" techniques. Many of Jesus interactions were quite opposite of "winning". Jesus told the anxious young rich man who seemed thirsty to be a disciple to sale all his possessions and follow him. To this the man dropped his head and moped away. Not a very "winning" answer from Jesus.

Again, I see the decline of "Christianity" (as loosely defined in this thread) a good thing, most are frauds. Satan is the master of deception. Its evident you aren't on the right path in the strip club drunk as Cooter Brown while your wife and kids are back at home.

Straight from the mouth of Jesus:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers'"

Thats news, be specific as all the "Christian" religious I am familar with dangle the afterlife BS

But I’m simply advocating for a different approach…one that’s focused on the event-based version of our faith rather than on the text-based version of our faith…not a different message. It’s about approach, not theology. I understand that it ‘feels’ like theology to some ~ and maybe even threatening theology to some.

But is the foundation of Christianity theology…? Or is it an event in history….? Paul said that apart from that event in history…the resurrection…our faith is useless. I’d add that apart from ‘that’ event, our theology is useless as well. It makes sense to me that we should be driving home the reality of the resurrection every chance we get…!

The approach that most of us grew up with simply doesn’t work anymore in our present culture. In a culture that had high regard for the Bible from the get-go, a traditional approach held its own. But those days are over. And they’ve been over for a long time.

There has always been a school of thought that is Gnostic and expects as standard extra biblical revelation.

An Assembly of God pastor once told me that they believe in private revelation but that they always check that against scripture.

Well heck. If I’m going back to the Bible to confirm a “revelation” why wouldn’t I just spend that time and energy to go to the text in the first place and out in the effort to understand what’s there?

This I can agree with. You are just being a provocateur. I've known all along that you don't minimize the authority of Scripture. But sometimes your postings come across that way.

And no, I don't believe a witness should drop a Bible in man's lap and the job is done.

A different approach? other than the God-breathed scripture that is beneficial for doctrine, for proof, for correction, for instruction? 2 Timothy 3:16-17. God’s scripture is our guide for our faith, what we believe, and what we practice. It outdoes man’s views, man’s opinions, man’s traditions, and man’s interpretations, no?

The sufficiency of scripture is a cornerstone of our faith. The writers of scripture spoke from God, not of themselves and were carried along by the Holy Spirit, 2 Peter 1:21. Scripture came from God, not men.

Theology itself is a study of scripture, and scripture, the Word of God, teaches us how to understand the revelation of God and the God of the Bible Himself. Scripture governs theology, not the other way around.

There are traditions in which what you’re saying happens every Lord’s Day in The Supper.

The real event is laid forth in the words of consecration and the sacrificed body & blood consumed by those present through the elements. It is quite literally a Christian Passover.

The core message of Christianity is that God has sent His Son to live the perfect life we cannot live, to die, and to be raised so that those who look to that Son in faith may be forgiven.

We don’t save ourselves at all. Everything that needs to be done has been done by God Himself.

How do ye know?

Don't even think about telling me" Faith".

Yeah, you don't know.

In the book of Acts, Luke documents 4 different instances where Peter and Paul both adjusted their approaches based upon who their audiences were. And they adjusted their approaches based upon the assumptions of their audiences. They tailored and adapted their approaches accordingly, but their core message remained the same.

That’s all I’m suggesting.

In Acts 2, Peter was preaching to Jews…who held their scriptures in high regards…and he leveraged their scriptures to connect their existing beliefs to a current event ~ their Messiah had come, they killed Him, and God raised Him from the dead.

In Acts 10, Peter was preaching to Gentiles, and he didn’t leverage scripture at all…he didn’t quote from scripture at all…because they didn’t consider the Jewish Scriptures authoritative. So Peter focused on the well-known and verifiable events surrounding Jesus’ life and death, and His resurrection. And he drove it home that Jesus came for Jews ‘and’ Gentiles.

Peter’s messages differed in their approach, but both messages had the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus as their central theme because that’s what mattered most. And that’s still what matters most.

In Acts 13, Paul is in a synagogue preaching to Jews, and he walked them through their scriptural history from Egypt to King David ~ and then he pivoted to the fact that their Messiah had come and that He was descended from David. Then he drives home the details of Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion, burial and resurrection. And he connected it all to God’s scriptural promises to their ancestors; and he made it crystal clear that Jesus did for them what the Law of Moses couldn’t.

In Acts 17, Paul was preaching to Gentiles in Greece. But his approach here was WAY different than his approach to Jews in Antioch. He compliments them regarding their interest in the gods (the place was full of idols). He didn’t fire a scripture verse at em’ about “graven images.” His mission was to “win” some and “save” some. So he chose not to quote scripture at all. But he referenced a God that they missed. Then he referenced Jesus without mentioning His name, and told them what this man came to do, and proved it by being raised from the dead.

Paul, like Peter, knew when it was appropriate to leverage scripture and when it was appropriate to leverage something else. His approach to Gentiles in Athens clearly differed from his approach to Jews in Antioch ~ but the core of his messages was the same: that God has done something great in the world to benefit all of humanity, and He’s authenticated and punctuated this great thing by raising someone from the dead…!

The traditional approach to preaching that most of us grew up with is perfectly designed for a culture that doesn’t even exist anymore. But 1st century Christian leaders have modeled a way to move forward, to “win” em’ and “save” em’, “by all possible means”, “… for the sake of the Gospel.” Why shouldn’t the body of believers nowadays…which is hemorrhaging members, and not even attracting new members…follow their lead…?