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

Just a note, I will not be responding to my opponent's rebuttal this round, rather I shall save that for round 4 and 5. In this round I will be rebutting my opponent's round 2 contribution. Also, I will assume that all places in round 2 that my opponent writes "Council of Trent" that he means "Council of Rome" as that has been established that it was simply a matter of mistaken labeling. I would also like to thank him for his gracious treatment of my forfeit mishap. On with it. Contention 1) It is baseless to assume that God must have intervened if the canon was being formed in error at the Council of Rome. My opponent points out various instances of canonical books falling out of disuse, or non-canonical books being used. He then goes on to note that two prominent reformers questioned the canon as it was given to them by the Council of Rome. The first major issue with this is the fact that it is non-sequitor. If God did or did not promise to preserve his canon is irrelevant. I have not argued, nor will I, that the canon necessarily must be preserved exactly as God directed at the Council of Rome. In fact, I would be quite foolish to do so, since I deny the inclusion of certain apocryphal texts. The fact that Deuteronomy fell out of use (although potentially telling that it was restored to use under a godly King) or that the Church of Ethiopia used a non-canonical text is irrelevant. Contention 2) Paul sometimes claims to be speaking for the LORD. My opponent argues that " In order for this to be true, nothing that Paul says may contradict something the LORD has said previously. " I am not refuting this contention. Contention 3) Paul sometimes claims to be "just saying. "My opponent alludes to 1st Corinthians 7 in which Paul qualifies a statement by saying "I, not tot the Lord" (1 Cor 7:12) and claims that Paul is stating that this is simply his personal opinion. However, when we look prior to this verse we see him make a similar qualifying statement but it is the converse "not I, but the Lord. " (1 Cor 7:10). When we look at the words he writes, we find that he is essentially quoting a teaching of Jesus. Most modern scholars interpret this as Paul distinguishing between words that are quotes of Jesus, and words that are not. So when we see Paul indicate that these words are his, not the Lords, he is not saying that this is simply his opinion, he is rather qualifying them as saying "this is not a direct quote. " This makes them no less authoritative. Contention 4) There is no reason to expect a teacher to come after Jesus. My opponent claims that the apostles are not "to come up with new doctrines" and are only told to fulfill the role of messenger. This seems to be suspect when the very next passage my opponent cites instruct them to teach. Beyond that, Christ left many "gaps" in his teaching that we must contend with, and the Early Church did so. Doctrines on the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the nature of Salvation, and many more are issues that Jesus leaves rather open. In addition, the prohibition against calling themselves teachers is not addressed to the Disciples, rather it is addressed to the Pharisees who were being chastised for elevating themselves at the cost of others. Contention 5) Paul contradicts Jesus on the general issue of the Law of Moses. My opponent has a challenge to contend with in this contention. There are several Old Testament figures who precede the Law who are considered righteous. Noah was never circumcised, Abraham did not offer sacrifices at the Temple, and Joseph married foreign women. Each of these people stand condemned by the Law if my opponent is correct. However, if Paul is correct and adherence to the is the result of faith, then these persons have nothing to worry about. We shall see more about this in contention 6. Contention 6) Paul contradicts Jesus on Salvation doctrine. My opponent argues that one must keep the commandments in order to obtain eternal life. He the story of the rich young ruler, the Parable of the Trespasser, the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, the Parable of the Sower, and the Parable of the Unprofitable Servant as support for what one might call a "Total Obedience Salvation. "Rather than address each one individually, I would like to instead discuss the soteriology of Christ. No where in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life, when we see someone declared saved, do we see obedience come first. In every account, Christ declares someone saved, and subsequently demands obedience. There are three accounts which I would like to highlight. The healing at the pool of Bethesda (John 5), the woman caught in adultery (John 8), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23). In the first account we see the account of a man lying at the pool of Bethesda. At this pool, when the waters are stired, the first person into the water is healed. Jesus approaches the man and asks if he wishes to be healed, and the man says yes. Jesus immediately declares the person healed and he arrises and walks. Jesus later finds the man in the temple and says See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you. ” (v14) We see that all that was required of the man to be healed was a desire to be healed. Once the person has been healed, Christ then exhorts the man to sin no more. However, obedience comes after healing, not before. The next account is the famous incident with the woman caught in adultry. The Pharisees drag a woman who they caught in adultry before Jesus and ask what to do with her. Jesus says that the person with no sin should throw the first stone, no one is able to, and they depart. Jesus then asks the woman who condemns her, and she says "no one. " Next Jesus states that he does not condemn her (even though he was the only sinless one who COULD condemn her) and bids her to go and sin no more. (v11) Again, we see Jesus extending salvation (in this case in the absense of condemnation) prior to the command of obedience. Christ fogives her whie she is still in sin and incomplete obedience, not in complete forgiveness. Finally, the thief on the cross. In this account we see a man who has been tried an executed for a capital offense, who confesses that he deserves the punishment he is recieving. He simply asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus comes into his kingdom, and Jesus declares that this man will be with him in paradise today. (v43) It is clear that this man has not lived in obedience to Christ's commands (He was likely there for murder), however the only thing that Christ required of him was the faith he demonstrated. It is clear from this soteriology that Christ does not have the severe doctrine of obedience driven salvation that my opponent imputes to him. Christ expects obedience as a RESULT of salvation, not as a cause. Furthermore, Paul expresses the same thing in the various lists of sins that cause one to not "inherit the kingdom" (1 Cor 6:9-11 is one example). Contention 7) Paul contradicts the other Apostles specifically on the issue of meat offered to idols. This is true. I will not deny it, however when the issue of if Gentile believers were bound by the Mossaic law came up at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), the other Apostles (namely Peter) concluded that Paul was correct and deffered to his stance. The issue in Revelation 2 was that Ballam was teching the Jews to do things contrary to Mossaic law. Now, no one will contest the fact that Jewish Christians who wish to remain Jewish Christians (as opposed to becoming Gentile Christians) must maintain the purity laws prescribed for Israel (including circumcision). However, the Apostles agreed that Gentile Christians did not need to maintain these ritual purity laws. If we dismiss Paul because he held this perspective, we must also dismiss the 12. My opponend does not dismiss Peter because of this issue, so he cannot dismiss Paul.