Originally Posted by Newman
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
2. Now for my answer. As you probably anticipated, I believe that God's inspired, infallible, inerrant, written Word is the final arbitrator in all such matters of doctrine and life. It is the Holy Spirit who leads those who are Christ's to the truth.
Well, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I think your answer is the same one the Judaizers gave is it not? When they advocated for Gentiles to observe the law in order to become Christian, they were appealing to God’s inspired, infallible, inerrant written word. As it turned out though, the final arbitrator was the church, ie. the council, guided by the Holy Spirit.
CovenantInBlood has actually answered most of what I was going to write and much the same way. But I'll add a few more things to round it off. grin My point is that the Jerusalem Council was a unique gathering both as to its members and the circumstances which brought it about. 1) The members were hand-picked by Christ, i.e., they were Apostles that had personally bestowed divine authority, and 2) the Church was in its infant stage and undergoing a major change, i.e., a new universality with the bringing in of the Gentiles to once was a predominantly Jewish Church. The Apostles were able to speak with authority based upon the infallible words of Christ and the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God; the Old Testament, which Christ Himself gave His 'imprimatur'. The Pharisees, aka: Judaizers referenced Scripture but both misinterpreted it and/or misapplied it. The problem wasn't with the Scriptures but those who read and used it.

Originally Posted by Newman
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
The problem I have with this suggestion is that 1) The Jerusalem Council is irrelevant to the issue at hand. It was a gathering of the Apostles during the infant stage of the Church wherein decisions had to be made in regard to the inclusion of the Gentiles in matters of the ceremonial law and justification by faith alone. Once the Church as an organization was established (cf. Eph 4:10-16), those called to serve in the office of Elder, Presbyter, Bishop, were to preach, teach, and maintain doctrine according to what they had been taught according to the Scriptures.
Now that I didn't expect. I didn't expect you to say the Jerusalem Council is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Hmmm. Ok, is it relevant to any discussion we might have today? Are you telling me that had the Jerusalem Council decided upon whether homosexuals and women are qualified to serve, it would be relevant, but since they decided upon some other issue it is not relevant? Also, in the New Testament, Elders and Presbyters are the same thing and already existed by this time, as did bishops, so that seems to be more irrelevant to the subject at hand than the council.
1. No, it is not relevant to any discussion we might have today. That was my point and one which CovenantInBlood also made. Again, the Jerusalem Council was unique and temporal formed to serve a particular purpose during a specific time period during the development of the Church. You don't find any other pronouncements given by the Jerusalem Council other than that addressing the issue of the verity of Paul's Gospel. ALL matters of doctrine and practice are found in the Epistles, written by holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit (2Pet 1:21). As I pointed out above, the structure of the Church is clearly stated in Eph 4:10-16 with Christ as the cornerstone, then the Apostles, and upon them (their teaching), evangelists and pastor/teachers, whose responsibility is the 'perfecting of the saints' through the preaching and teaching of the Scriptures (cf. 2Tim 3:16,14; 4:2), that body of faith once given to the saints (cf. Acts 16:5; Rom 1:5; 1Cor 16:13; Gal 1:23; Eph 4:13; Col 1:23; 2:7; 1Tim 4:1; 2Tim 3:8; Titus 1:13; Jude 1:3).

2. There was already heresy being taught in the early Church and those who did so were to be removed through discipline should they not repent (Rom 16:17; 1Cor 11:19; Titus 2:10,11; 2Pet 2:1). And history shows that these errors in teaching increased after the death of the Apostles... yes, within the Church. Corruption, hunger for power, the adding of superstitions, etc., etc., ad nauseam took hold. Yet, there has always been a remnant saved by grace who have endured these things and kept the faith with sound doctrine and life. True believers rely upon God's inspired written Word and that alone for guidance. Those who are given the responsibility of teaching the Word are to be scrutinized under the light of that Word by all who hear it.

Originally Posted by Newman
Yeah, I certainly get all that, but how do you know they’re wrong? Its interp vs. interp. To put it another way, how do you know their interpretation of scripture is wrong while yours is right? Is your interpretation infallible? I'm guessing you wouldn't claim that, so how then do you know your interpretation about what is essential and non-essential is the correct one?
My interpretation is certainly not infallible. But that doesn't mean that everything I conclude from Scripture is wrong. wink There is a consensus of what is biblical truth that one can consult from the various Confessions and Catechisms of the Church. The fact that there is so much agreement among those who also disagree about various and minor issues gives verity to my own interpretation. There is strength in numbers, especially where those numbers consist in diversity. All false religions have one source, typically an individual such as do the cults, or a small group which dictates doctrine and policy to all the other members, to which all are to give full recognition and unfeigned obedience. Questioning of the dictates of these authorities is strictly forbidden. But in the true Christian Church, the final arbiter is always God's written Word. Their may be disagreements on what the Bible teaches, but nevertheless THAT is the source from which all truth is to be found. No man is without sin and thus no man is infallible. And gathering a group of sinful men to make decisions doesn't override their fallacy. See here: The Argument for an Infallible Body, by James Henry Thornwell.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]