How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

[jrtrent]

And just to bring this back full circle…

You originally stated this:

“You’re presuming that disagreement is a problem that requires a solution.”

Are we to understand now that you don’t have a satisfactory answer to the problem of disagreements in what the Bible says? That you are indeed “bothered” by some Bible-quoting Christian churches teaching some really vile things?

Just to put things in context, what I originally stated referred to the canon of scripture, not the vile things that some churches teach.

You’re presuming that disagreement is a problem that requires a solution. In the early centuries of Christianity, there were similar, but different, canons held by various churches. Were these Churches non-Christian just because they had a slightly different New Testament and/or Old Testament reading list?

I still think it possible for churches to disagree over what the canon consists of, and yet to consider one another to be God-honoring, Christian churches. On the other hand, I am, indeed, bothered by churches that, despite accepting the standard 66 books that most Protestants consider to be inspired, will still ordain women and/or practicing homosexuals. To me, that’s a denial of the authority of the scriptures they claim to believe in.

 

[PRmerger]

Just to put things in context, what I originally stated referred to the canon of scripture, not the vile things that some churches teach.

Fair enough.

But the question is (and I assume you’re going to respond, again, with, “I don’t know”): why do you get to decide what’s an issue of secondary importance and what’s an issue of great import that we cannot deny as Christians?

 

[jrtrent]

But the question is (and I assume you’re going to respond, again, with, “I don’t know”): why do you get to decide what’s an issue of secondary importance and what’s an issue of great import that we cannot deny as Christians?

From your use of the word “we,” it seems you keep thinking I want to decide things for others, but I don’t. I can only decide things for myself. I had said, “I could see myself being Anglican (not Episcopal or Church of England, but some of the more conservative 1928 BCP Anglicans), Lutheran, some forms of Baptist, maybe even Orthodox, even though I realize that there are significant differences in their understandings of the sacraments, free will, church government, and more. Most other churches that come to mind have doctrinal positions that, with my present level of understanding, would preclude my joining.” Examples would include Roman Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal, ELCA Lutherans, and Assemblies of God, to name just a few. But just because I couldn’t join them doesn’t mean I deny others the right to join them, and I have family and/or friends who are members of each of those I named.

After reading systematic theologies that argue scripturally for opposing positions, I find legitimate difference of opinion on what the Bible teaches or allows regarding the understanding and practice of the sacraments (or ordinances), God’s sovereignty vs. free will, forms of worship, church government, and others. That’s why there are a number of quite different churches that I could, in good conscience, join. Some other issues seem to me quite clear-cut in scripture. I couldn’t join a church that denies the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ, nor could I join a church that ordains women or homosexuals (because they clearly don’t meet the Biblical qualifications given in Titus or 1 Timothy 3, not to mention 1 Tim. 2:12), but that doesn’t mean I presume to decide for others what they have to believe.

 

[PRmerger]

but that doesn’t mean I presume to decide for others what they have to believe.

Well, this is true, of course. But it’s a non-sequitur. How in the world could we “decide” for others? Is there some sort of mind-control device you’re envisioning?

But you do understand, jr, that you are offering a position of great nebulous inconsistency: “There is room for legitimate differences of opinion based on…??] but there is no room for some positions based on [again, a nebulous criterion that you have decided for yourself.].”

You haven’t yet worked out, it appears, what this criterion is for determining when someone has a legitimate difference of opinion and when someone has an opinion that is contrary to the loving revelation of God. At least, you can’t do this without submitting to an outside authority, namely, the CC.

 

[jrtrent]

Well, this is true, of course. But it’s a non-sequitur. How in the world could we “decide” for others? Is there some sort of mind-control device you’re envisioning?

It’s not a non sequitur; it’s an answer to your question. You asked, “why do you get to decide what’s an issue of secondary importance and what’s an issue of great import that we cannot deny as Christians?” I answered that I don’t get to decide for others, that I don’t presume to decide for others what they have to believe. How do you get from this that I’m envisioning some sort of mind-control device?

But you do understand, jr, that you are offering a position of great nebulous inconsistency: “There is room for legitimate differences of opinion based on…??] but there is no room for some positions based on [again, a nebulous criterion that you have decided for yourself.].”

You put in question marks, but I specifically stated that I find legitimate difference of opinion on certain issues after reading systematic theologies that provide scriptural arguments supporting opposing views on those issues. I also provided scriptural evidence for why I oppose the ordination of women and homosexuals, and could also list scriptures supporting the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ.

You haven’t yet worked out, it appears, what this criterion is for determining when someone has a legitimate difference of opinion and when someone has an opinion that is contrary to the loving revelation of God.

Again, I’m not trying to work out criteria for determining when someone else has a legitimate difference of opinion, only for determining legitimate differences of opinion that I can live with, which is why I listed several churches that, despite very real differences in certain points of doctrine, are nevertheless churches I could join in good conscience. I am in no way trying to determine that for anyone else.

At least, you can’t do this without submitting to an outside authority, namely, the CC.

Well, it always comes back to that, doesn’t it? You are of the opinion that the Roman Catholic church has some special authority granted to it, and I am not.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not a non sequitur;

Haha! I guess if it’s a non-non-sequitur that makes it a sequitur, eh?

I answered that I don’t get to decide for others, that I don’t presume to decide for others what they have to believe.

The point is, jr, that you can’t decide for others anyway. As if that were even possible. :whacky:

You put in question marks, but I specifically stated that I find legitimate difference of opinion on certain issues after reading systematic theologies that provide scriptural arguments supporting opposing views on those issues. I also provided scriptural evidence for why I oppose the ordination of women and homosexuals, and could also list scriptures supporting the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ.

And yet there are those who use the very same “systematic theologies” that you use and come to absolutely different conclusions regarding priestesses and ordination of practicing homosexuals.

What is your solution to this?

Again, I’m not trying to work out criteria for determining when someone else has a legitimate difference of opinion, only for determining legitimate differences of opinion that I can live with, which is why I listed several churches that, despite very real differences in certain points of doctrine, are nevertheless churches I could join in good conscience. I am in no way trying to determine that for anyone else.

What would you say, then, to the Reverend Fred Phelps who says, “I used your systematic theology and have decided that God hates f*gs!”

What recourse do you have? Do you tell him that his opinion is a legitimate one based on his own study?

If not, why not? He has discerned for himself what he believes to be the right conclusion based on your systematic theology.

Well, it always comes back to that, doesn’t it? You are of the opinion that the Roman Catholic church has some special authority granted to it, and I am not.

Indeed.

Without it we see the rotten fruit of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, some even declaring that God hates a certain group of people.

 

[jrtrent]

The point is, jr, that you can’t decide for others anyway. As if that were even possible. :whacky:

You keep intimating that I think I have the right to decide things for others, when I’ve said no such thing.

And yet there are those who use the very same “systematic theologies” that you use and come to absolutely different conclusions regarding priestesses and ordination of practicing homosexuals.

What is your solution to this?

Just what problem do you see in this that needs a solution? I can’t decide for others, so what they think is not my problem.

By the way, the systematic theologies I use are those by Pieper, Calvin, Berkhof, and Boyce, none of which even addresses the items you mention.

What would you say, then, to the Reverend Fred Phelps who says, “I used your systematic theology and have decided that God hates f*gs!”

What recourse do you have? Do you tell him that his opinion is a legitimate one based on his own study?

If not, why not? He has discerned for himself what he believes to be the right conclusion based on your systematic theology.

Again, why even pose this question when you’ve already made the point that I can’t decide for others, a thought that I never entertained to begin with? I need no aid or recourse to deal with Mr. Phelps’s opinions because his opinions pose no problem that I need to solve, just like the opinions of the Pope pose no problem I need to solve, nor do those of any other leader of a religious organization to which I do not belong.

Now, if my bishop decided it was okay for him to start ordaining women priests, or if my pastor started teaching that we could earn or buy indulgences, those would be problems I’d need to deal with because the church would have become something other than what I had joined.

 

[PRmerger]

You keep intimating that I think I have the right to decide things for others, when I’ve said no such thing.

Exactly. It’s a straw man you’ve created.

Just what problem do you see in this that needs a solution? I can’t decide for others, so what they think is not my problem.

The problem is with your paradigm that everyone gets to determine what is inspired and what is not leads to doctrinal chaos and confusion.

And it leads to a futile system of evangelization. For in your attempt to evangelize folks at the Westboro Baptist Church, they will simply throw your paradigm back at you: "I have studied the same systematic theologies as you have and I am quite certain that God has revealed that he hates a group of people.’

And you will be helpless in responding. You can only say, “Well, that’s your decision”.

Catholics will say, “No. You are incorrect, WBC folks. Let me show you the reason I have for the hope that is in me! You cannot read the Scriptures divorced from the Faith that gave you these Scriptures, for you will surely arrive at erroneous conclusion.”

By the way, the systematic theologies I use are those by Pieper, Calvin, Berkhof, and Boyce, none of which even addresses the items you mention.

Oh, I am 100% certain that if the Rev. Fred Phelps, who is by all accounts well-read and brilliant (a lawyer by training I believe) read those authors he would be able to justify his vile theology using their writings.

Again, why even pose this question when you’ve already made the point that I can’t decide for others, a thought that I never entertained to begin with? I need no aid or recourse to deal with Mr. Phelps’s opinions because his opinions pose no problem that I need to solve, just like the opinions of the Pope pose no problem I need to solve, nor do those of any other leader of a religious organization to which I do not belong.

Now, if my bishop decided it was okay for him to start ordaining women priests, or if my pastor started teaching that we could earn or buy indulgences, those would be problems I’d need to deal with because the church would have become something other than what I had joined.

 

[jrtrent]

Exactly. It’s a straw man you’ve created.

Oh, I see. You misrepresent my position as being the one you actually hold yourself because you think that as a Roman Catholic you have an authority that I lack to decide whether a particular belief is scriptural or not.

You cannot read the Scriptures divorced from the Faith that gave you these Scriptures, for you will surely arrive at erroneous conclusion.

I understand that you sincerely believe that the Roman Catholic church is the continuation of a church that Christ founded, and that it is infallible in its teaching office. What you need to understand is that you are on a non-Catholic religions forum and that non-Catholics do not share that belief, no matter how many times it gets brought up. For Protestants, the doctrines and practices Rome added that are not found in the New Testament are proof that the Catholic Church is very fallible, indeed; however, as Boettner has stated, “It may charitably be assumed that there are good Christians in all denominations, including the Roman Catholic.” (Roman Catholicism, pg. 26)

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I see. You misrepresent my position as being the one you actually hold yourself because you think that as a Roman Catholic you have an authority that I lack to decide whether a particular belief is scriptural or not.

http://elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

I understand that you sincerely believe that the Roman Catholic church is the continuation of a church that Christ founded, and that it is infallible in its teaching office.

And you have acknowledged this as well, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

Unless you want to provide us with the methodology you utilized to discern which of the over 400 ancient Christian texts are inspired?

You want to tell us that you examined each of the 27 books of the NT, examined them and applied your methodology and discerned that these books were inspired…

and then you went to the other hundreds of early Christian texts, applied your methodology and were able to reject them?

Yes? That’s how you came to an understanding of the NT canon without the authority of the CC?

If you say so…

 

[Patavium]

jrtrent,

Please point to me the Church that compiled the NT canon. which Church was it? or are you going to claim that the Early Church did, and then the Early Church was swallowed by the earth for many years?

Here is a hint:
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html