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

[Darryl1958]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
It is from the Catholic Catechism, or course

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Well, since you posted your comment in direct response to the absurdly heretical example I gave, it’s logical to understand that you were indeed saying that you aren’t bothered that Christians reject St. Paul’s writings.

Now, given your comment above, it appears as if it does indeed bother you that people reject St. Paul’s writings.

So how do you reconcile that with your original premise that you believe churches (although not individual Christians, peculiarly) can discern for themselves what is *theopneustos *and what is not?

And could you please answer why it is that you want to deny individual Christians this right, but state that this right should be given to churches?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Indeed.

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.

So here’s the thing jr. I am certain that there are some differences that would be terribly important to you.

So why do you get to decide that a Christian may not proclaim that Paul is a spawn of Satan, but Catholics don’t get to do the same regarding [fill in the blank with any Catholic doctrine we wish to use here]?

 

[pablope]

You start by misrepresenting what I said, which was,

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.

 

[jrtrent]

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?

I certainly respect your right to disagree, and sorry for forgetting to give a link to the source. Thank you, Darryl1958, for providing the information.

 

[jrtrent]

And could you please answer why it is that you want to deny individual Christians this right, but state that this right should be given to churches?

Sometimes it’s hard to communicate; the thought is clear in my head, but obviously I didn’t put it in understandable terms. I was trying to say that since I was a member of a church that has a particular teaching on what the canon of scripture is, I do not free to disagree with them unless I’m willing to leave that church. On the other hand, Lutherans do have some individual leeway within the teachings of their church to decide for themselves on the canonicity of at least some of the books.

Any individual who is not a member of a church, or who belongs to a church that doesn’t require adherence to a certain teaching on the subject, should be free to decide whatever they want. Each church organization is also free to decide what they will accept as scripture.

That doesn’t mean I have to approve of their choices–after all, I’m a member of a church that accepts the standard 66 books that most protestants do–but I don’t deny them their right to believe whatever they want.

 

[jrtrent]

So here’s the thing jr. I am certain that there are some differences that would be terribly important to you.

True.

So why do you get to decide that a Christian may not proclaim that Paul is a spawn of Satan, but Catholics don’t get to do the same regarding [fill in the blank with any Catholic doctrine we wish to use here]?

I don’t believe I get to decide any such thing. I can decide what I believe, but I’d never tell a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, Quaker, atheist, or any other believer what they have to believe. My faith is that there is salvation in no one else but Christ, and that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think people have the right to believe what they want to.

 

[PRmerger]

Sometimes it’s hard to communicate; the thought is clear in my head, but obviously I didn’t put it in understandable terms.

Yes, I understand.

I was trying to say that since I was a member of a church that has a particular teaching on what the canon of scripture is, I do not free to disagree with them unless I’m willing to leave that church. On the other hand, Lutherans do have some individual leeway within the teachings of their church to decide for themselves on the canonicity of at least some of the books.

I see.

But that doesn’t explain why you think individual Christians can’t examine a particular book, apply this elusive methodology (which I am still wanting to see defined 21 pages later) and decide for themselves whether it’s God’s Word.

Why can’t you do that?

Any individual who is not a member of a church, or who belongs to a church that doesn’t require adherence to a certain teaching on the subject, should be free to decide whatever they want

Astonishing.

So you are good with someone proclaiming that Paul’s epistles are the words of Satan?

Each church organization is also free to decide what they will accept as scripture.

And you’d be good with a church proclaiming that Paul’s epistles are the words of Satan?

 

[PRmerger]

True.

I don’t believe I get to decide any such thing. I can decide what I believe, but I’d never tell a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, Quaker, atheist, or any other believer what they have to believe. My faith is that there is salvation in no one else but Christ, and that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think people have the right to believe what they want to.

Well, maybe we need to talk about what we mean by “right to believe”.

Of course you and I are in agreement that our beliefs must be freely achieved, rather than imposed by an authority.

But surely you’re not saying that anyone can believe what they want to, and it’s true, right?

That is, you can’t be saying that it’s true that men are superior to women, and therefore women ought not be allowed to pray in church, right?

 

[jrtrent]

But how do you know that what you are sharing is the correct faith and teaching handed down from the Apostles? Does this not bother you? When you share your faith…how does, or do you try to fulfill the prayer of we should be one by Jesus in John 17?

I believe I have unity with other Christians in what John R. Rice had said, "“Any who have personally repented of their sins and have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and save their souls are saved.”

As to whether I’m sharing the correct faith, I believe the teachings of my church can be scripturally supported. I also acknowledge, however, that other churches find scriptural support for their teachings, too, even those that are opposed to mine. These are the things that I don’t find bothersome. If I’m sharing my faith with someone, and they’re taking it seriously, studying the scriptures, maybe they end up saying that believer’s baptism makes more sense to them than infant baptism, and they become a Baptist instead of an Anglican. Well, praise God, because they’ve still become a child of God.

I want to point out too…Paul, in Gal 2:2, recounts how he went, by revelation to him…to go to Jerusalem and meet with the Apostles to get assurance that his gospel is not in vain.

John Gill comments on that verse this way:

lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain: which is said, not with regard to himself, as if he had entertained any doubt of the doctrines he had preached, and needed any confirmation in them from them; for he was fully assured of the truth of them, and assured others of the same; or that he questioned the agreement of the apostles with him; or that his faith at all depended on their authority; but with regard to others, and his usefulness among them. The false teachers had insinuated that his doctrine was different from that of the apostles in Jerusalem, and so endeavoured to pervert the Gospel he preached, and overthrow the faith of those that heard him; and could this have been made to appear, it would in all likelihood have rendered, in a great measure, his past labours in vain, and have prevented his future usefulness

As an extension of my question…how are following the example of St. Paul?

Not being an apostle, and not receiving the divine revelations he was privileged to get, I can’t presume to follow his example. My duty is to share my faith as given to me by the church I belong to, and if I stick with our formularies, I will be faithful to my church and, I believe, to God.

Well…those early Christians were Christians because they were baptized, not because they had Scriptures…and had bishops and presbyters appointed by the Apostles…to continue the work of the Apostles when they had gone to the Lord.

Those who succeeded the Apostles also continued the work…without Scriptures.

By the time the apostles died, their writings were already complete, and the churches were sharing them. Not that every church necessarily had every writing that eventually became recognized as canonical, nor did every church recognize the same books as canonical, but my point was simply that it didn’t take uniformity of the NT canon for these churches to be Christian churches.

The canon is not a source of dispute betweeen the CC and the Orthodox Church…but it was made a point of contention by protestants (some)…in their effort to disprove the Catholic Church.

I don’t think of it as a point of contention, and am glad it isn’t. It’s simply a fact that different churches recognize different books as canonical, and yet they are all Christian.

I think you have this wrong, but I will let Lutherans (JonNC) to post a correction.

But this notwithstanding…do you think this is ideal? Do you think this is correct?

So if someone does not want what is being said in an epistle, in a part of a book…that that individual can disregard that epistle?

I got the information from Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, which is a systematic theology long accepted by LCMS Lutherans. I’m not sure if that’s current teaching. I think I asked about this in another thread, but don’t remember seeing a response. Pieper’s explanation is that they simply recognize the early distinction that was made between the homologoumena and the antilegomena and are content to let each person appraise them as he sees fit.

Actually, if you look at the Lutherans…they have broken into different synods.

What I was thinking of was different individuals within one synod, like the LCMS, who may accept different books as inspired, yet all have accepted the same doctrines. What that tells me is that those 7 disputed books are not needed to establish the doctrines the church follows.

 

[PRmerger]

I also acknowledge, however, that other churches find scriptural support for their teachings, too, even those that are opposed to mine. These are the things that I don’t find bothersome.

I am astonished, jr, astonished, that you would be able to claim that you don’t find this church’s teachings, which will cite Scripture ad nauseum, to be bothersome.

 

[PRmerger]

By the time the apostles died, their writings were already complete, and the churches were sharing them.

What of the preachings of Matthias, Andrew, Philip, Thomas? Were they not apostles?

Why do you not recognize that which they proclaimed as being theopneustos?

 

[jrtrent]

I am astonished, jr, astonished, that you would be able to claim that you don’t find this church’s teachings, which will cite Scripture ad nauseum, to be bothersome.

You do find the most interesting examples!

I like your earlier question, “But surely you’re not saying that anyone can believe what they want to, and it’s true, right?” Of course truth is simply what is, whatever a person believes about it; however, your question is quite thought-provoking. Too sleepy to give it much thought tonight, though.

 

[PRmerger]

You do find the most interesting examples!

I like your earlier question, “But surely you’re not saying that anyone can believe what they want to, and it’s true, right?” Of course truth is simply what is, whatever a person believes about it; however, your question is quite thought-provoking. Too sleepy to give it much thought tonight, though.

You are a man of integrity, I think!

 

[commenter]

… By the time the apostles died, their writings were already complete, and the churches , like the LCMS, who may accept different books as inspired, yet all have accepted the same doctrines…

The Sola Scriptura argument for the canon just seems circular. They say we know these books were inspired because they were written by the apostles, and have true doctrine, and we know those were the apostles because these same books said they were. We know the doctrine in those books is true because it is based on those very same books!
The Christians in the first 3 or 4 centuries did NOT accept the same doctrines, they had theologies widely differing from each other. The Christians who accepted other (non-Catholic) theologies followed “objective criteria” to define their differing canons. They had scholars, lists of books, and Christian communities using other books that don’t appear in our 27, as well as using some books that are in our 27. You can only say that in 250 AD there was “unity” in canon and in doctrine, if you exclude all the Christian churches, scholars, and ancient lists of books that the Catholic magisterium rejected, and they in turn rejected the magisterium. There was “unity” in canon and doctrine in 300 AD only if you mean that portion of the Church in unity with the Pope. The development of our canon only makes sense if you include the action of a single authoritative magisterium, able to publicly reject wrong theologies and wrongly proposed NT books, even if the consensus at the time supported the gnostics, or whoever, against the magisterium.

 

[jrtrent]

What of the preachings of Matthias, Andrew, Philip, Thomas? Were they not apostles?

Why do you not recognize that which they proclaimed as being theopneustos?

If by “you” you mean me personally, even without reading them (and I don’t even remember hearing about them) I wouldn’t accept them simply because my church doesn’t. If you’re asking why my church doesn’t, it’s an area of research I haven’t delved into. There are questions I have about some of my church’s practices, but its decisions regarding which books are canonical isn’t one of them.

I like your earlier question, “But surely you’re not saying that anyone can believe what they want to, and it’s true, right?” Of course truth is simply what is, whatever a person believes about it; however, your question is quite thought-provoking. Too sleepy to give it much thought tonight, though.

I’m not sure I’m approaching your question correctly, but I’ve posted before that I don’t think any church, my own included, has everything right. I agree with this quote from Smith’s Bible dictionary, “. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work.”

Another blurb from Smith’s Bible Dictionary emphasizes what Christians hold in common when compared to non-Christian faiths, “This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who give credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor.”

I am astonished, jr, astonished, that you would be able to claim that you don’t find this church’s teachings, which will cite Scripture ad nauseum, to be bothersome.

Interesting picture. What church is represented there? Regardless, I think the thrust of your question is how far “out there” do I think a church can go in their beliefs and still consider them Christian, and if I place limits on them, by what authority do I do that. It’s a great question, and one I realize I have no answer to. 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. However, I’m fairly liberal when it comes to calling members of such churches Christian–unlike many Protestants, I even think the Catholic Church is Christian (an opinion I formerly rejected).

I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer for you, but I’m afraid that’s just where I’m at.

 

[PRmerger]

If by “you” you mean me personally, even without reading them (and I don’t even remember hearing about them)

No, jr. There are no extant writings of those apostles.

But their preaching is still visible to us today through the Catholic Church.

That’s my point.

If you limit the apostolic kerygma to only that which was put to writ, you are missing a boatload of apostolic teaching, aren’t you?

In fact, we know that St. Paul preached in the synagogue for 3 months, right? It’s logically impossible for all of what he said to have been contained in the NT writings.

What a shame it would be to not be able to sit at his feet and hear every word that this man uttered!

Except, thankfully, if you’re Catholic, you have the assurance that you do have all of his message. We retained it through Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure I’m approaching your question correctly, but I’ve posted before that I don’t think any church, my own included, has everything right. I agree with this quote from Smith’s Bible dictionary, “. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work.”

Well, the Catholic Church, too, does not claim to be perfect.

But I am astonished that you would think that Jesus came to earth, taught for 3 years, established a Church, gave us His Word, but then left us with no assurance 2000 years later that we haven’t corrupted His Revelation.

That’s illogical, unreasonable, and denies the words of Jesus Himself that he would not leave us orphans.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting picture. What church is represented there?

The Westboro Baptist Church.

Regardless, I think the thrust of your question is how far “out there” do I think a church can go in their beliefs and still consider them Christian, and if I place limits on them, by what authority do I do that.

Exactly.

And a great followup question would be: and why don’t you allow Catholics to do this? We simply draw the line at a different place than you, but you are, indeed, drawing a line.

It’s a great question, and one I realize I have no answer to. 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. However, I’m fairly liberal when it comes to calling members of such churches Christian–unlike many Protestants, I even think the Catholic Church is Christian (an opinion I formerly rejected).

I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer for you, but I’m afraid that’s just where I’m at.

Yes, this, unfortunately, is not satisfactory. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer for you, but I’m afraid that’s just where I’m at.

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?