alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
In Rom. 8:32 we are given freely all things together with Christ. Obviously, all legitimate things.
But who is going to judge for other people what is objectively legitimate? You? What if I judge that bowling is irresponsible and unnecessary? Does that make it unlawful for anyone to do at any time? With no apparent experience of climbing, you want to judge it a sinful activity.
As to pre-fall mankind: God commanded them to replenish the earth and subdue it. Replenish doesn't mean "hang out in this garden with all your descendants." Rather, it meant that even before the fall they were supposed to go explore the world and populate it. Noah is told to do something similar after the flood.
As to the sixth commandment, I maintain that an activity that may seem dangerous or irresponsible to the inexperienced is not a violation of it if one has every intention and reasonable expectation of surviving. Sure, we could be killed or injured doing almost anything: I don't ski because of the clear and apparent danger of breaking my legs. But I don't call it sinful when others do; it is a legitimate pastime.
If you're going to judge all activities by whether they are absolutely necessary, you're going to have a tough time proving that. Scrabble? not necessary: must be sinful. A bike ride? same. Where do you draw the line? And before you say again that I'm not engaging by reducing examples to the ridiculous, allow me to repeat that rockclimbing, even without a rope, can be carried on by the competent with greater safety than many, many, ordinary everyday activities like bike riding or football playing or roller skating.
You "maintain that an activity that may seem dangerous or irresponsible to the inexperienced is not a violation of [the sixth commandment] if one has every intention and reasonable expectation of surviving." On what authority do you base this subjetive interpretation of the sixth commandment? The Westminster Larger Catechism- an authoritative document adopted by the Presbyterian churches- declares that "immoderate recreations" are a violation of the sixth commandment. The Heidelberg Catechism- another authoritative document of the Reformed churches- declares " I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself." Surely "extreme" sports- a moniker applied to these sports by the practitioners of them- are, by definition, not moderate and ergo are immoderate. You must tell me why they do not come under the category forbidden by the catechisms or why I should discard the declaration of a binding constitutional document (in my case the LC) in preference to your subjective feelings on the matter. It should also be noted that under the sixth commandment the LC also prohibits "excessive passions". Is not one of the main reasons for these extreme sports the rush of adrenaline, excitement, the sense of danger? These are surely excessive passions which are completely unnecessary.
None of the Scripture you reference gives a justification for the activities you have mentioned. Climbing a mountain is not subduing it. Extreme mountain biking is not subduing the land. Where are the examples in Scripture of the Lord settling His people on perilous mountain peaks? Rather it is in the wide open valleys He took them. I do not claim this as a prohibition of any specific activity. I reference it merely as an example of how the Lord has led His people to settle the land. The history of human settlement repeats this pattern. You have claimed the Lord's command to replenish and subdue the Earth makes extreme, or immoderate, recreations lawful. But I do not see the history in Scripture of bearing that interpretation out.
You ask who will judge what is lawful for other people: me? And then you go ahead and offer your own categorical judgements on what activities are lawful. I am no more bound to your subjective judgment as to what is lawful as you are to mine. You criticise me for calling certain activities sinful (in this discussion I have called no specific activity sinful) and then you make the categorical, objective statement that the activities to which you refer are "legitimate". Again, on what authority?
Once more I have condemned no specific activity here. I have raised concerns as to a laissez-fare attitude in regards this matter. As you can give me no scripture reference declaring your activities lawful (and I can give none prohibiting them by name) we must go on general principles found in Scripture. Matthew 4:7 "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (by the by spoken in the context of Satan tempting Christ to jump off from a very high peak); Matthew 25:52 "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." And, of course, the sixth commandment itself. We have the teachings of godly men from the past as to dangerous sports. And we have the nature of the sports themselves.
Finally, I did not say that necessity was the supreme factor in judging the lawfulness of any particular activity. I added it to a list of other factors which should be considered. But certainly necessity would overrule "lovely" as a consideration.