The Last Church That You Would Agree With Until Restoration

[Deborah13]

Since we are "what ifing", why didn't Paul simply handle this dissension in Antioch? Why didn't he simply search the Scriptures and make a decision? Why did he feel the need to take it to Jerusalem?

Well, I would say for the same reason that a priest/pastor would go to his denomination to help in decisions. The church was young and they were intergrading people with Very different backgrounds so they needed to agree on how they would handle these differences.

 

[dadof10]

Since we are "what ifing", why didn't Paul simply handle this dissension in Antioch? Why didn't he simply search the Scriptures and make a decision? Why did he feel the need to take it to Jerusalem?

Well, I would say for the same reason that a priest/pastor would go to his denomination to help in decisions. The church was young and they were intergrading people with Very different backgrounds so they needed to agree on how they would handle these differences.

I agree, Deborah. The issue was basically, do the Gentile converts have to become Jewish first. Do they need to be circumcised? Do they need to keep the Mosaic law? There are references in Scripture to Paul keeping the Mosaic law, so it's reasonable to assume that most or all the Jewish converts to Christianity kept obeying the Law. So, the big question was, do the Gentiles have to keep the Mosaic law,\? After all, Paul does and even Jesus did. This was the first real doctrinal issue for the early Church. I agree with you that they were integrating Gentiles into a "Jewish sect", but my concern here is HOW they settled disputes.

There were a group of people who thought that Gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep the law, that it was necessary for salvation. There was another group who thought they didn't, that circumcision and keeping the law was beneficial, but that it wasn't necessary for salvation. This was the dispute, now, how was it settled? Did they "search the Scriptures" to find the answer? Well, they probably consulted Scripture, but a good case could be made from the only Scripture they had at the time (the OT) that circumcision WAS necessary for salvation. They called a council of the apostles and elders. Each side made their case and a decision was reached. This decision was guided by the Holy Spirit and was binding on ALL Christians, not just those at Antioch. I can give you the verses that back up everything I said above, if you want. I'm in a hurry this morning.

My point is, this is the Biblical model for settling disputes within the Church, no matter what the dispute entails. I'm pretty sure Paul expected the Judaizers to submit to the authority of the council also, as he expected the other Christians to. Whether they did or not is a mystery. There was not a "division". We don't see the Judaizers running off to start their own denomination with Paul's blessing. We don't hear that it's OK if they do because "we agree on the essentials".

 

[WIP]

Might be nice to go back and listen to Jesus Himself teaching at the temple.

Now that would be worth attending!!

 

[Elijah674]

Who would listen? Especially if they did not know who it was that was speaking!

--Elijah

 

[jasoncran]

better learn Hebrew or aramiac. I would visit the some of the sages that influenced paul after a visit to the messiah.im talking about hillel. very bold and yet gentle and loving man. josephus might get a visit. I would also visit adam Clarke, Matthew henry. and also barnes

 

[Slider]

Looking at the original post, it's a bit tough to answer. I suppose if I were to give an answer I would want to sit under Paul's ministry when he was in Rome. Any of Paul's missionaries would've been great, but I would chose what was happening in Acts 28:22-24. That would've been when he was at his wisest and fully seasoned.

I like Martin Luther and I'm a full supporter of his message he brought on grace. However, he had some errors too and even though he shed a lot of errors from the Catholic Church, he still brought a lot of them with him. I don't hold that against him, as he was just beginning to understand the things he discovered.

Paul said in Acts 20 that grevious wolves were about to enter in. Looking at what John said in the book of Revelation, we see that happening. I know a lot of people don't believe in the "7 Church ages", but aside from that, many of those Churches Paul set up. His prophecy in Acts was fulfilled. As for the 7 Church ages.... I do subscribe to that view, and along with the Acts 20 "prophecy" (if I can call it that) churches have taken a down turn since Paul, Peter and John left.

Paul also said something interesting in I Cor 13. He said he (we) know in part. But he said that when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part will be done away with. So even Paul thought there was something better than his ministry coming. I believe a big part of that "something" was the final version of the Bible. Why? Paul was speaking truth and the Word in Asia Minor and Europe mostly, Peter was in Antioch, John.... wherever he was until he was on Patmos and on down the line.... No communication between them for years perhaps. Maybe they did, but I don't think Peter ever read any of Paul's epistles, Paul never read Peter's and John neither of theirs. Yet when they were put together, we have something none of the Apostles had in a sense. The full collection!

Not sure if I explained that the best I could.... But there it is. I don't think the "that which is perfect is come" is all about the Bible. But it is a big part of it. It's more as if the Word must be accessible and preached correctly. The congregation must have access to it, be able to read it and there must be a preacher able to unfold it's mysteries and truths. I don't think this was possible until the last couple of hundred of years.

With that in mind.... There is no other Church in any other age that I would want to be in other than the one I'm in now.

 

[Slider]

Come to think of it, just out of interest I would've liked to visit John Calvin. I admire his knowledge and ability to explain stuff so thoroughly... I also admire his gaul to call a spade a spade! Now, you folks that get so uptight about TULIP and OSAS, settle down! He was not the originator of the TULIP theory and he spent 2 or 3 chapters on predestination in his entire writings, which are dozens of books!

Overall, if history is correct, I wouldn't want to be under his ministry.... Frankly I don't like his character much. But he would've been interesting to visit.