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

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrift
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My question was somewhat rhetorical but really - Do you think these questions have never been asked and answered? Maybe by the 2nd century? Maybe by the 4th century? 16th? Or is it that the answers to these questions haven’t fit your methodology? Who’s methodology will be the one we should hold to and will this methodology be sufficient 500 years from now? How will this methodology be carried through to generations to come?
Again, as stated before in response to another post, this question presumes that only one singular authority has the capability to examine this criteria, which simply isn’t the case. It’s rhetorical nature is hence problematic. Even unbelievers are capable of examining this criteria for what makes a book inspired, and God has used it to win many to Christ (such as CS Lewis or Lee Strobel). How will this methodology be carried through in generations to come? The same as it has always between learned men, or those willing to put forth the effort into the research. The question of who did the methodology was never an issue - in fact, to bring it up is really a non sequitor.
 
Again, as stated before in response to another post, this question presumes that only one singular authority has the capability to examine this criteria, which simply isn’t the case. It’s rhetorical nature is hence problematic. Even unbelievers are capable of examining this criteria for what makes a book inspired, and God has used it to win many to Christ (such as CS Lewis or Lee Strobel). How will this methodology be carried through in generations to come? The same as it has always between learned men, or those willing to put forth the effort into the research. The question of who did the methodology was never an issue - in fact, to bring it up is really a non sequitor.
Hmmm, I beg to differ. There is one singular authority, that is God, who through His Holy Spirit worked through the Church to establish the Inspired books.

Without this authority, it would be a non-sequitur indeed:

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NonSequitur.jpg
 
It appears as if you are proclaiming that each Christian may use a particular methodology to discern what is theopneustos and what is not.
Perhaps not each Christian, but maybe each church. My church accepts the common 66 books held by most Protestants to be inspired. As long as I’m a member of that church, I don’t have the right to say that any of those books are not inspired. Lutherans, at least in the LCMS and perhaps in others, have a little more individual leeway when it comes to some of the disputed writings (the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews).
And what do you propose will be the solution when 2 Christians disagree about what is inspired?
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? Was a church unable to preach the Gospel because they decided not to include Barnabas or Revelation or any of the other commonly disputed books?
 
Even unbelievers are capable of examining this criteria for what makes a book inspired, and God has used it to win many to Christ (such as CS Lewis or Lee Strobel).
No one is positing that non-Christians can’t “examine this criteria”, BW.

What has been argued, ad nauseum, is that neither you nor I get to set the criteria.

[SIGN1]In fact, there is no set of criteria/methodology that would work to include the 27 NT books and exclude the rest of the 400 ancient Christian texts.[/SIGN1]

Oh, and I see that you visited my Profile Page. Thanks for your interest in me. 🙂
 
Perhaps not each Christian, but maybe each church
Oh, dear.

You folks who don’t have a central authority can’t even decide what baptism means. How are you all going to decide the NT canon?

There’s tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming their own authority to interpret the Scriptures.

Now you want to proclaim that each of these tens of thousands of Christian denominations, some led by some really whacky folks, get to decide for themselves what’s the Word of God?

That’s just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

I am completely astonished by your proposal here, jr.
 
Oh, dear.

You folks who don’t have a central authority can’t even decide what baptism means. How are you all going to decide the NT canon?

There’s tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming their own authority to interpret the Scriptures.

Now you want to proclaim that each of these tens of thousands of Christian denominations, some led by some really whacky folks, get to decide for themselves what’s the Word of God?

That’s just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

I am completely astonished by your proposal here, jr.
👍👍 Luckily most Protestants accept the authority of the Catholic Church with regards to the Canon. Could you imagine what a difficult problem it will be for Hotels? I think they will just decide not to include a bible, because every time they include a bible they will be offending all their guests even if they are Christian. Every church out there with their own version of the bible. Every time you visit a non-Catholic Church the bible will just be different… And don’t start me on the discussing scripture… It will not be enough to discuss everyone’s interpretation of the same verse of the bible… Now some non-Catholics (like the gnostics already do) will claim error and say the book altogether is not inspired so it can be ignored.
 
You folks who don’t have a central authority can’t even decide what baptism means. How are you all going to decide the NT canon?
If you’re curious about the decisions of any church regarding their sacred writings, if any, just ask them.
Now you want to proclaim that each of these tens of thousands of Christian denominations, some led by some really whacky folks, get to decide for themselves what’s the Word of God?
They already get to decide for themselves what the Word of God is, but isn’t it amazing how much agreement there is?
 
You don’t see this as a problem:

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

This church proclaims:

Proving that Paul is the false apostle from Revelation 2:2 is very easy thing to do.

Proving that Paul is a false prophet is also a very easy to do.
There are lots of churches, Christian and non-Christian, that teach things I don’t agree with. Why should this one bother me more than any other?
 
jrtrent,

So the Apostles spoke of ONE TRUTH, but the many churches have different truths, and many times the truths of one group contradict another. Is this what the God wants? Is this what the Apostles taught?

The answer is simple lack of authority. The Catholic Church used it on deciding the canon, and now you see that the Books inside the Holy Bible for the MOST part is consistent across different churches, and only the interpretations are for the MOST part inconsistent across different churches.
 
There are lots of churches, Christian and non-Christian, that teach things I don’t agree with. Why should this one bother me more than any other?
Because as a Christian…should it not bother you that there are error being taught about Christ and His Gospel?

How does these differing beleifs go in line with this from Ephesians 4…one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

And should you not strive to fulfill the prayer in John 17…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
 
Perhaps not each Christian, but maybe each church. My church accepts the common 66 books held by most Protestants to be inspired. As long as I’m a member of that church, I don’t have the right to say that any of those books are not inspired. Lutherans, at least in the LCMS and perhaps in others, have a little more individual leeway when it comes to some of the disputed writings (the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews).

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? Was a church unable to preach the Gospel because they decided not to include Barnabas or Revelation or any of the other commonly disputed books?
Presuming? The Arian heresy was a presumed disagreement or a fact of history and life? Was it not settled at Nicaea in 325 AD? The canon is no different regardless what community used what books or what have you not. The matter was resolved at varous councils. If not,then why are we using only 27 NT and not 30 or 20 or 10. Get the picture?
 
Originally Posted by jrtrent
There are lots of churches, Christian and non-Christian, that teach things I don’t agree with. Why should this one bother me more than any other?
Hhmmm? I am curious about something? I wonder why ecumenical councils were called in the early church,if different teachings really made no difference to each individual? :cool:
 
Hhmmm? I am curious about something? I wonder why ecumenical councils were called in the early church,if different teachings really made no difference to each individual? :cool:
Indeed.

It* is a lie that must be believed in order to deny the authority of the Catholic Church.

*It = “it doesn’t really matter that there are differences in Christian beliefs”.

It is astonishing to me what must be swallowed in order to remain recusant to the fact that a central authority is needed. One can actually state, (with a straight face, I presume), “Why should it bother me if someone proclaims that St. Paul is a spawn of Satan?” That position is the preferred position, because the alternative “Otherwise, I must submit to the authority of the CC” is so horrific to some that even “I don’t care if someone says St. Paul is of the devil” isn’t bothersome.

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/43539475222/when-someone-says-seriously-that-the-rock-is-a-good
 
If you’re curious about the decisions of any church regarding their sacred writings, if any, just ask them.
This is a non-sequitur.

You are proposing that churches (here, read fallible men) can examine the over 400 ancient Christian texts and decide for themselves if they are the Word of God.

You proclaim this because you realize what the alternative means: you must submit to the authority of the CC.

But you also say you don’t really think individual Christians should have this authority.

That prompts the question: why not?

Why do a group of 4-5 fallible men get to determine what theopneustos, but not individual Christians, jr?
They already get to decide for themselves what the Word of God is, but isn’t it amazing how much agreement there is?
Heh. 😃

They are in agreement because they defer to the authority of the CC, which discerned for them what’s inspired and what’s not.
 
Indeed.

It* is a lie that must be believed in order to deny the authority of the Catholic Church.

*It = “it doesn’t really matter that there are differences in Christian beliefs”.

It is astonishing to me what must be swallowed in order to remain recusant to the fact that a central authority is needed. One can actually state, (with a straight face, I presume), “Why should it bother me if someone proclaims that St. Paul is a spawn of Satan?” That position is the preferred position, because the alternative “Otherwise, I must submit to the authority of the CC” is so horrific to some that even “I don’t care if someone says St. Paul is of the devil” isn’t bothersome.

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/43539475222/when-someone-says-seriously-that-the-rock-is-a-good
Pride…pride…my friend.
 
There are lots of churches, Christian and non-Christian, that teach things I don’t agree with. Why should this one bother me more than any other?
:hmmm:

I read that St. Augustine said: “I have met many who wanted to deceive, but none who wanted to be deceived”

I suppose that St. Augustine had not encountered people who espouse your paradigm before. He would have to amend his comment to, “…but some who don’t care if they or others are deceived.”
 
It is astonishing to me what must be swallowed in order to remain recusant to the fact that a central authority is needed. One can actually state, (with a straight face, I presume), “Why should it bother me if someone proclaims that St. Paul is a spawn of Satan?” That position is the preferred position, because the alternative “Otherwise, I must submit to the authority of the CC” is so horrific to some that even “I don’t care if someone says St. Paul is of the devil” isn’t bothersome.
You start by misrepresenting what I said, which was, “There are lots of churches, Christian and non-Christian, that teach things I don’t agree with. Why should this one bother me more than any other?” That’s a bit different than saying I don’t care if someone says St. Paul is of the devil. I engage in the common Christian activities such as sharing my faith, inviting others to my church, supporting missonary activity, and so on precisely because I do care that people hear and believe the truth. Having never heard of him before, I know next to nothing of Douglas Nicholson, other than that he is a self-proclaimed bible researcher who has no church. Why should he be of more concern to me than the many other religious groups that teach things other than what I believe?

I thought it a strange leap to refer to him after my comment that the lack of uniformity among the early churches with respect to the canon of scripture did not keep those churches from being Christian and proclaiming the gospel. There remains a lack of uniformity today among Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants about the canon of scripture. Some Lutherans, as previously mentioned, give individual liberty to members with respect to how they regard 7 of the 27 NT books, yet that doesn’t keep them from being able to share a common faith and accept the writings in the Book of Concord as being truly reflective of Biblical Christianity.
 
It* is a lie that must be believed in order to deny the authority of the Catholic Church.

*It = “it doesn’t really matter that there are differences in Christian beliefs”.
The Roman Catholic church recognizes that there are differences in belief between themselves, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants, yet it can see them all as brothers in Christ.

one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Similarly, even those Protestants who have been most vocal about the errors of Romanism don’t deny that there are true Christians to be found there. Boettner said that the Roman Church “teaches the inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection of the body, a future judgement, heaven and hell, and many other Scripture truths.” And these are truths that were denied by many mainline Protestant churches when Boettner began writing, churches that had adopted liberal/modernist views and essentially denied the faith. And John R. Rice wrote, “Any who have personally repented of their sins and have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and save their souls are saved. In spite of the trappings and forms of Romanism, some, no doubt, have in their hearts found the Saviour.”

Even in Apostolic times there were differences in belief among Christians. Some were corrected by the apostles in their writings (the Judaizing and Gnostic heresies), while others weren’t so important.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Matthew Henry commented on Luke 9:49-50 (And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.) by saying:

“If ever any society of Christians in this world, had reason to silence those not of their own communion, the twelve disciples at this time had; yet Christ warned them not to do the like again. Those may be found faithful followers of Christ, and may be accepted of him, who do not follow with us,” and added in the parallel passage in Mark, “If sinners are brought to repent, to believe in the Saviour, and to live sober, righteous, and godly lives, we then see that the Lord works by the preacher.”

For you, all that seems to matter is your belief in the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and that no other church has the right to express its faith or beliefs except in expressions of acceptance of that same authority, but I see the Lord working by the preachers of many different denominations. Yes, churches disagree about what the Bible teaches on certain things, and yes, it’s true that many of these differences don’t seem terribly important to me. I’m more interested that, regardless of denominational differences, people accept the gospel.

Paul puts the gospel in a nutshell: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, He was buried, and He rose again the third day (see 1 Corinthians 15:3–4). . . The gospel is the message that God will give us pardon from our sins and eternal life with Him in heaven, if we will turn away from our sins and turn to Him, accepting His Son, Jesus Christ, as our Savior and Lord. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). This simple message is for all the world. harvest.org/knowgod/new-believer/foundations-for-living/gospel.html
 
The Roman Catholic church recognizes that there are differences in belief between themselves, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants, yet it can see them all as brothers in Christ.

one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Similarly, even those Protestants who have been most vocal about the errors of Romanism don’t deny that there are true Christians to be found there. Boettner said that the Roman Church “teaches the inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection of the body, a future judgement, heaven and hell, and many other Scripture truths.” And these are truths that were denied by many mainline Protestant churches when Boettner began writing, churches that had adopted liberal/modernist views and essentially denied the faith. And John R. Rice wrote, “Any who have personally repented of their sins and have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and save their souls are saved. In spite of the trappings and forms of Romanism, some, no doubt, have in their hearts found the Saviour.”

Even in Apostolic times there were differences in belief among Christians. Some were corrected by the apostles in their writings (the Judaizing and Gnostic heresies), while others weren’t so important.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Matthew Henry commented on Luke 9:49-50 (And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.) by saying:

“If ever any society of Christians in this world, had reason to silence those not of their own communion, the twelve disciples at this time had; yet Christ warned them not to do the like again. Those may be found faithful followers of Christ, and may be accepted of him, who do not follow with us,” and added in the parallel passage in Mark, “If sinners are brought to repent, to believe in the Saviour, and to live sober, righteous, and godly lives, we then see that the Lord works by the preacher.”

For you, all that seems to matter is your belief in the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and that no other church has the right to express its faith or beliefs except in expressions of acceptance of that same authority, but I see the Lord working by the preachers of many different denominations. Yes, churches disagree about what the Bible teaches on certain things, and yes, it’s true that many of these differences don’t seem terribly important to me. I’m more interested that, regardless of denominational differences, people accept the gospel.

Paul puts the gospel in a nutshell: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, He was buried, and He rose again the third day (see 1 Corinthians 15:3–4). . . The gospel is the message that God will give us pardon from our sins and eternal life with Him in heaven, if we will turn away from our sins and turn to Him, accepting His Son, Jesus Christ, as our Savior and Lord. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). This simple message is for all the world. harvest.org/knowgod/new-believer/foundations-for-living/gospel.html
Sorry,but I disagree and the belief that thousands of denominations make no difference. That is relativism,not what Christ founded.

Kindly show us the source for the highlighted section?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top