The Inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the NT must be Reconsidered

Response to "On the Canon"I do not question the need for each generation to assess and validate the council's decisions in regard to what was included in the Canon and what was not. However, I vehomently disagree with my opponent's assessment that Pauline documentation should be excluded. Response to "On Paul's Personal Opinion"I would like the reader to note that my explanation that this is not simply a manner of personal opinnion was left unadressed. As I stated above, when Paul says "I not the Lord" he is not intending to delineate between a divine mandate and his human preference, rather he is delineating between what is a direct quote from Jesus and what is not. This delineation was not rebutted and therefore stands. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that Paul's use of the word "unmarried" refers to a specific class of unmarried persons. Specifically those who were once married and no longer are. Furthermore, Paul here is responding to a specific statement that was made to him in a prior letter. The original Greek indicates that the phrase "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" is a quote from a prior letter. This is noted by the fact that the grammer of the sentence is abnormal compared to the rest of the letter, indicating that Paul is quoting someone else rather than constructing the sentence. Furthermore, the opening of the chapter indicates "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. " It was the Corinthian church who was asserting that sexual relations were undesirable, likely because of a neo-Platonic/Gnostic influence. In addition we see in verse 8 that Paul uses a diad. The first is "unmaried" and the second is "widows. " He then says "even as I am" in reference to the state of these perosons. There is very strong evidence that Paul was once married, as one of the requirements for Pharissaical leadership was being married. It is likely then that when Paul converted, his Wife left him (note that Paul has a great deal of concession for those who are abandoned in marriage elsewhere in the letter) and he became "unmarried. " In addition to this, in verse 26 of the chapter paul references "the present distress. " These instructions are only in light of this distress. Many scholars point to a grain famine in Corinth and assert that Paul is saying that "in light of the famine you are experiencing" it is better not to marry. This is bolstered by the fact that in other letters (Ephesians namely) there is no such preference toward celibacy shown. We even see that in 1 Timothy, marriage appears to be a prerequisite for Eldership/Bishopship. Furthermore, we see that this does not stand in contradiction to the teachin to be fruitful and multiply, for Christ himself expresses similar sentiments. The disciples state "If such is the case (divorce only being permissable upon adultry) then it is better not to marry. " Christ responds by saying that there are some who are eunuchs from birth, some who have been made eunuchs by others, and some who have chosen this themselves. A eunuch is someone who has chosen to obstain from sexual relationships and therefore marriage. Christ then says "Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. " Indicating that if a person is able to chose to obstain from marriage, that they should. (Matthew 19:10-12) If Paul is dismissed for this aesthetic teaching (if it is indeed an aesthetic teaching) then we must also dismiss Christ himself. Response to "Do the 'gaps' left by Jesus need to be filled? )My opponent claims that there is no command to "fill the gaps. " I will not disagree with him, however there is also no prohibition. As such, this point is moot and can be discarded from the arguments of both parties. Response to "Salvation according to Jesus")My opponent seems to attempt to impute the "Reformed" perspective onto Paul. While I would agree with him on this, I am also self aware enough to know that the majority of the Church does not. Many Eastern Orthodox Christians read Paul and do not see a strict Penal Substitution Atonement theory. Hundreds of Methodists read Paul and do not see the same kind of predestination or election that Presbyterians do. Furthermore, millions of Catholics do not see Sola Fides at all. My opponent has established a strawman with which to argue by placing the teachings of Jesus against the teachings of John Calvin (Representative of the Reformed Theological Position) and then claiming that Paul and Jesus do not agree. Even though I believe that John Calvin's interpretation of both Christ and Paul is correct, it is not equitable to dismiss Paul based on Calvin's interpretation of Paul. My opponent then continues to give examples where obedience, endurance, or another thing is a required aspect of salvation. What is shocking is that I do not disagree. However, I disagree about if they are instrumental or resultative. Take for example a pregnancy test (I know it seems out there, but bear with me). Lets pretend that we are all women and may be pregnant, and lets pretend that all pregnancy tests are 100% accurate. Now, if I take the pregnancy test and it comes up negative, it means I am not pregnant. However, that is not because the pregnancy test influences the fact that I am pregnant. Rather, it is because it is an indicator of my pregnancy. Each of the points my opponent makes functions in a similar way. I will use Persecution as the example, and will briefly comment on other examples. My opponent notes that endurance through persecution is a condition of eternal life. That is, eternal life is contingent on endurance. However, is it not also possible that endurance is indicative. If this is the case, then those who do not endure are not saved to eternal life. But we see that in the example of the pregnancy test that this is not a contingency relationship. Just as the pregancy test is an accurate indicator of pregnancy, but does not determine if you are pregnant or not, so also endurance is an accurate indicator of eternal live, but does not determine if you are eternally saved. Another way to think of it is this: A person who is saved WILL endure (vs) a person who is saved MUST endure. My opponent argues that the later is true, while I would argue the first. There can be no resolution on this, as both are legitimate biblical interpretations. This plays out in the unforgiven servant as well as my opponent's other examples (a person who is saved WILL forgive, if they do not forgive it is indicative that they are not saved). The Sheep and Goats - My first point of conention is that it is inaccurate to say that the Goats did not know the Lord. The Goats indicate that they know the Lord, but did not see him in the least of these. The second is this: Can a Goat make a decision to transform into a Sheep? Can a Sheep become a goat if they lose their faith? No! Goats were created as Goats and Sheep were created as Sheep. If anything this is an indicator of the eternal predestiny of believers and unbelievers. Self-Mutilation - My opponent argues that Paul disagrees with the severity of sin, that dealing with sin in an extreme way is unpauline. He then demonstrates again his poor understanding of Paul, in that the phrase "All things are permissable, but not all things are beneficial" is something the Corinthians were saying and Paul was responding to (Same as "It is good for a man. .. " from above). Clearly Paul does not believe that all things are permissable or beneficial as he has several lists which indicate who will not be inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven (most applicable is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)I think I have made my point and am short on space.