the pastor wrote me a letter, but i don't understand it; what does it mean?

[vnct0000]

But your thread headliner suggests you didn't understand the pastor's intent

the pastor has repeatedly told me that i don't understand his intent.

when its now very obvious you weren't anywhere close to being in agreement with probably any of those four churches that denied you membership.

church membership is largely a modern western phenomenon that was extra-biblically added to the sacrament of water baptism. organizational church membership did not exist in the original early church, except in the form of water baptism which was accepted as evidence of one's confession of faith.

I think you've been misleading from the get go of this thread.

your judgment/assumption that i'm misleading is based upon an incomplete set of facts within your thoughts. making premature judgments/assumptions without complete facts will lead to distortion, thereby hindering potential connection/relationship. you should instead suspend judgment until you get more complete facts. one way to gather more complete facts is by asking more questions before rushing to premature judgment/assumption. this approach will assist you to more greatly connect with others in your everyday relationships as well.

 

[Paidiske]

The earliest canon was that of Marcion.

The interesting thing when you compare Marcion's canon to any of those in use today, is that it was much smaller. The process of defining the canon meant including texts which some people wished to reject or treated as suspect.

The works you list have never been considered Scripture by any Christian group. The two works I'm aware of which had a pretty good claim to Scriptural status but were excluded are the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas - which clearly were read as Scripture by some early communities - and yet they are not on your list.

I suspect that you have been misled as to the status of the works you listed in the earliest Christian communities.

 

[vnct0000]

The earliest canon was that of Marcion.

the earliest canons were those of Peter and Paul. Marcion was an afterthought.

The interesting thing when you compare Marcion's canon to any of those in use today, is that it was much smaller. The process of defining the canon meant including texts which some people wished to reject or treated as suspect.

i'm not starting from Marcion's canon, as he was already much outdated in his own time.

The works you list have never been considered Scripture by any Christian group.

not to your knowledge.

The two works I'm aware of which had a pretty good claim to Scriptural status but were excluded are the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas - which clearly were read as Scripture by some early communities - and yet they are not on your list.

actually, they are on my list. you did not read the list that i provided.

I suspect that you have been misled as to the status of the works you listed in the earliest Christian communities.

i suggest that you have been misled by Marcion.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, sorry, they are on your list! I misread. I blame the early morning pre-caffeine state in which I read them.

But the rest of my comments stand. Most of those works are much too late to have been considered Scripture in the earliest church.

Look, at the end of the day, if you want to walk away from Christianity into some sort of syncretistic new-age spirituality, that's your right and I'm not really keen to argue with you. It just seems to me from what you've written that the encounters you've had have been atypical, and not representative of the best of Christianity, and I'd want to encourage you to explore a bit further before deciding there's nothing here for you.

 

[Radagast]

Most of those works are much too late to have been considered Scripture in the earliest church.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. The Muratorian Canon (c. 180) is another early canon. It includes the New Testament core (the four Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles), plus I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.

The Shepherd of Hermas is described as non-scriptural ("But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.").

The Apocalypse of Peter is described as debated ("We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.").

The Didache, Apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, and Epistle of Barnabus are the four non-canonical works that came closest to inclusion in the NT (the last two are in the Codex Sinaiticus, for example), but the last three are all 2nd century, and thus too late. The overwhelming bulk of works listed by the OP are late works which no Christian group ever considered to be Scripture.

 

[South Bound]

Based on your posts in this thread I have to agree with the pastor

Biblical ecclesiology does not allow for non-Christians being members of churches but the pastor in his letter has stated that you are welcome to attend services as a visitor

That's about the best option you've left him

 

[vnct0000]

Biblical ecclesiology does not allow for non-Christians being members of churches but the pastor in his letter has stated that you are welcome to attend services as a visitor

'biblical' ecclesiology is not biblical in that incorrectly assumes that church membership exists in scripture. furthermore, 'biblical' ecclesiology can't discern the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian in the first place, due to its extra-biblical ecclesiastic basis.

 

[vnct0000]

But the rest of my comments stand. Most of those works are much too late to have been considered Scripture in the earliest church.

your dating is incorrect.

Look, at the end of the day, if you want to walk away from Christianity into some sort of syncretistic new-age spirituality, that's your right and I'm not really keen to argue with you.

i haven't walked away from Christianity. where did you get that idea?

It just seems to me from what you've written that the encounters you've had have been atypical, and not representative of the best of Christianity, and I'd want to encourage you to explore a bit further before deciding there's nothing here for you.

my experiences have been representative of the leadership of a dozen mainstream evangelical churches.

 

[vnct0000]

The Muratorian Canon (c. 180) is another early canon. It includes the New Testament core (the four Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles), plus I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.

the muratorian canon was authored by an apostate who did not embrace the full writings of the original apostles.

The Shepherd of Hermas is described as non-scriptural ("But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.").

The Apocalypse of Peter is described as debated ("We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.").

this apostate author has no significant authority.

The Didache, Apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, and Epistle of Barnabus are the four non-canonical works that came closest to inclusion in the NT (the last two are in the Codex Sinaiticus, for example), but the last three are all 2nd century, and thus too late. The overwhelming bulk of works listed by the OP are late works which no Christian group ever considered to be Scripture.

your dating is incorrect.

 

[Paidiske]

'biblical' ecclesiology is not biblical in that incorrectly assumes that church membership exists in scripture.

Church membership - in the sense of filling in a form and being voted into membership - is a late development. But church membership in the sense of being part of the body of Christ is very much Scriptural.

i haven't walked away from Christianity. where did you get that idea?

You're talking about starting your own religion, which would be incompatible with Christianity.

my experiences have been representative of the leadership of a dozen mainstream evangelical churches.

Maybe you ought to look outside evangelicalism. What you've described doesn't sound normal or healthy to me.

 

[Radagast]

the muratorian canon was authored by an apostate who did not embrace the full writings of the original apostles.

this apostate author has no significant authority.

your dating is incorrect.

So you say. I say you're wrong, but I'm afraid I have no interest in further discussion.

 

[vnct0000]

Church membership - in the sense of filling in a form and being voted into membership - is a late development. But church membership in the sense of being part of the body of Christ is very much Scriptural.

and how do you discern if one is a part of the body of Christ?

You're talking about starting your own religion, which would be incompatible with Christianity.

how so?

 

[Paidiske]

and how do you discern if one is a part of the body of Christ?

The primary thing is baptism. But of course people can renounce their baptism; so it would also for me be about a desire to live as a follower of Christ.

how so?

To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ. You can't do that while starting another religion. Christianity makes an exclusive claim on the religiosity of its adherents.

 

[Goatee]

From how the OP is posting i can now see how it could be that he has been rejected by several churches!

 

[Paidiske]

Reading someone's thread on the internet is very different to having them as part of your congregation for a significant period of time.

 

[vnct0000]

The primary thing is baptism. But of course people can renounce their baptism; so it would also for me be about a desire to live as a follower of Christ.

the Church does not acknowledge my baptisms.

To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ.

the Church tells me that i follow a different Christ.

You can't do that while starting another religion. Christianity makes an exclusive claim on the religiosity of its adherents.

what exclusive claim?

 

[Paidiske]

the Church does not acknowledge my baptisms.

They want you to be baptised again? That is not necessary (unless your former baptism was by a non-Christian groups such as LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses).

the Church tells me that i follow a different Christ.

What do you think of that?

what exclusive claim?

We can only worship God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We can't worship anyone/anything else, and we can't worship in any way other than the pattern Jesus established for us.

 

[Goatee]

vnct0000, my dear friend. I hope you truly find what you are looking for. Maybe it would be best to take a step back and re asses the situation. Ask God for guidance buddy.

 

[vnct0000]

They want you to be baptised again?

no, they don't wish me to participate in Christianity.

That is not necessary (unless your former baptism was by a non-Christian groups such as LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses).

i was baptized by two Christian churches. but then the Church had nullified those baptisms, so i had been subsequently baptized by LDS.

What do you think of that?

The Church has communicated to me that my thoughts regarding the identity of Jesus Christ are irrelevant, based on ignorance.

We can only worship God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We can't worship anyone/anything else, and we can't worship in any way other than the pattern Jesus established for us.

how are you relating this to other religions?

 

[vnct0000]

vnct0000, my dear friend. I hope you truly find what you are looking for. Maybe it would be best to take a step back and re asses the situation. Ask God for guidance buddy.

thank you. i'm currently under a muslim sufi.