Originally Posted by Robin
What he said was that the Jerusalem Council was unique because the Apostles were there. Apostolic authority has not been available to any subsequent Council other than through the inscripturated writings of the Apostles. He did not say that the Council - even with the Apostles present - was infallible. No one is suggesting that.
He did suggest that. He said “church councils since that time; I'm including the modern councils of Synods, General Assemblies and such, have erred, do err and will continue to err…” Now I took that to mean that the Jerusalem Council was infallible whereas the subsequent councils were not. But, ok, if he was only saying it was unique, then fine, but that’s not really saying much. All councils are unique. If Pilgrim was saying that the Jerusalem council was fallible, is he also saying they erred? Is so, how did they err?

Originally Posted by Robin
Originally Posted by CiB
What Pilgrim is saying is that the Jerusalem Council was unique. It is not repeatable [because the Apostles are no longer with us] & not a clear paradigm for the resolution of disputes regarding doctrine & practice in the post-apostolic era.

Originally Posted by Newman
Is this based on scripture or on opinion? I ask sincerely.

You need Scripture proof that the Apostles died? I suggest the book of Acts...
Aha. A glib retort. You're a man after my own heart. :cool: Well, no, I don’t need scripture for that…we both have to go outside of scripture (last I checked, Acts doesn’t record the death of the apostles.) Obviously though, I was wondering where in scripture it says that Timothy, Titus, Apollos etc. can’t hold a Council with the apostolic authority granted to them. If its clear and essential, then maybe you can point that out to me. If the Jerusalem council was fallible, and subsequent councils are fallible, then…

Originally Posted by Robin
But as for resolving disputes regarding doctrine and practice, the Scriptures were always applied by both the Jerusalem council and every legitimate council since. Now we have more Scripture to refer to in modern councils than they did at the Jerusalem council (if you need Scripture proof of the New Testament's authority, start a new thread).
“Legitimate council” ???? I thought all councils err. confused Ok, so if all councils err, what then is a legitimate erring council and where can I find this definition in scripture?

Originally Posted by Robin
Interpretation of Scripture is not some individual thing, but in councils of elders/bishops/presbyters who are bound to adhere to "the faith once delivered," a consensus is reached and passed along as the "official doctrine" of that denomination.
So basically councils provide for the resolution of disputes and the strengthening of the faith in the post-apostolic era. Except for the “denomination” part, that sounds exactly like what the Jerusalem Council did, except you told me that the council was NOT a clear paradigm for the resolution of disputes in the post-apostolic era. If it was not a clear paradigm, upon what are you basing the concept of councils you just described?

Originally Posted by Robin
The consensus can be wrong and does not carry the same weight as Scripture, but in the visible church it can and should be accepted and taught. It can also be challenged and reconsidered by future councils. As long as those councils adhere to the authority of infallible Scripture and "the faith once delivered," they are unlikely to amend their earlier findings. When they abandon the authority of Scripture and the analogy of faith, they end up reaching absurd, foolish conclusions like the PCUSA and other denominations have, which fly in the face of infallible Scripture.
Again, sorry to repeat, but….where is all this to be found in scripture? Future councils? Are you using the Jerusalem council as the clear paradigm?

Last edited by Newman; Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:56 PM.