from an old professor

I frequently read the blog of a former professor of mine. I tend to agree with little to nothing he has to say and, because of that, I won't be linking to his blog in this post lest he should gain a wider audience for the things he says.

Today he had a quote from a lady that went like this:

"The question of which scriptural teachings are “non-negotiable,” and which bear multiple plausible interpretations, continues to divide the church, as it has ever since Peter and Paul debated the circumcision and dietary laws."

-- Marilyn McEntyre, "Dogma and Disagreement", God's politics

Let me just say a couple of things about why this kind of statement is dangerous to the church (I would say dangerous to the Gospel, but the Gospel is never in danger because it will always win.)

1. Peter and Paul didn't have an ongoing theological debate where both sides thought they were right. Paul corrected Peter and Peter recanted the position. (Galatians 2, Acts 10 and 15)

2. This was not a quibble over differing views of circumcision and dietary laws, it was vital to the Gospel. (It was either free or it was with works, see Galatians 2.)

3. By not stating the real nature of the debate (the Gospel) she opens the thought that ALL matters of faith and practice are open to interpretation.

4. The debate between Peter and Paul clearly shows that when it is a matter pertaining to the nature of the Gospel it is not open to interpretation (since God intervened with a vision to Peter.)

These kinds of "questions" being asked are dangerous because of their deceptive nature and hostility toward the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-joe