The Presumptive Arrogance Of Studied Christians.

[Free]

Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. Do not start new topics or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=21502

totopic

 

[Drew]

This being understood, there is no reason for any informational expert in relation to the discernment of Scripture should pressume to tell other people what they:

1.) Must realize.
2.) Need to know.
3.) Must look at.
4.) Are to grasp.
5.) Have to accept.
6.) Must conclude.
7.) Need to see as "key."
8.) Must remember.
9.) Need to look at.

Any teacher, expositor, preacher, pastor, writer, conversationalist, or forum poster who makes such statements is presumptuously arrogant. They need loving correction.

I think your assertion here needs to be qualified. Let's suppose that "A" is an expert in a certain Biblical area. Obviously A should not be rude and dismissive in suggesting that less-informed people should consider expanding their knowledge.

But A has both the right and the responsibility to encourage the less well-informed to expand their knowledge.

I am not sure what your point is here. I am particularly sensitive to the streak of "anti-intellectualism" that is arguably present in modern Christian culture. So I am a little concerned that your basic message here is that those who have done the hard work of properly studying the scriptures "have no right" to "tell others what to think".

Well, yes and no, as per what I have already written.

 

[dadof10]

Check what James said. Then check what Paul preached. James said that Gentiles couldn't eat things offered to idols. Paul said it doen't matter. James put diet restrictions on the Gentiles and Paul said it doesn't matter. Eat it, and be happy.

LOL...Paul didn't say it didn't matter. "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall. (1Corinthians (RSV) 8)

As I said to Stormcrow, these four ordinances were particularly abhorrent to the Jewish converts and therefore were to be avoided by Gentile converts for the reasons given by Paul. There is no contradiction here.

Furthermore, James put these restricitons on the Gentiles. He didn't put them on believing Jews.

The council (not James alone) put these restrictions on them for the SAKE OF THE JEWISH CONVERTS.

The way it reads, James still put the law on Jews who believed in Jesus.

What verse gives you that idea? I don't see that at all.

The fact is that Paul cared little for what the council had to say. He preached what Christ gave him. Paul went against the council.

Then Paul went against the Holy Spirit. The plain words of Scripture are "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." The Holy Spirit guided the Elders to their decision, of course Paul obeyed.

You are missing the bigger picture here, Slider. What was OMITTED from the decision was the ordinance on circumcision, which was the purpose for the council in the first place. The Elders gave a list of what was "necessary" and circumcision was not on it, therefore not necessary. And, staying on topic, this letter was BINDING on all Christians. In other words, no "Judaizers" in a specific location could compel a Gentile convert to be circumcised. This was the law of the land handed down by an ecumenical council. Again, this is the BIBLICAL MODEL for discerning and transmitting doctrinal Truth.

 

[Elijah674]

And what does the never chaging Christ Document? Heb. 13:8-9!

Josh.7

[1] But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.
(all are seen guilty by God!)

[2] And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth-aven, on the east side of Bethel, and spake unto them, saying, Go up and view the country. And the men went up and viewed Ai.
[3] And they returned to Joshua, and said unto him, Let not all the people go up; but let about two or three thousand men go up and smite Ai; and make not all the people to labour thither; for they are but few.

[4] So there went up thither of the people about three thousand men: and they fled before the men of Ai.
[5] And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men: for they chased them from before the gate even unto Shebarim, and smote them in the going down: wherefore the hearts of the people melted, and became as water.
[6] And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads.
....
[8] O Lord, what shall I say, when Israel turneth their backs before their enemies!
[9] For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great name?
[10] And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?

[11] Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff.
[12] Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed:

[[[neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.]]]

(and the 2012 ones are not by far the worse than these??? Rev. 17:1-5 has the great world/wide whore + herwelcomed back daughters! Rome has even switched her 'gears' telling all of you to not leave your church's! and why so?? because you are all in satans bed together. Matt. 6:24)

For what God did REQUIRE, you can read on if you care to??? If you do, take note of all the opportunities given Achan + the family who surely noticed that something was buried in the center of their tent! But to have Christ IN ANY FOLD, it [[MUST BE KEPT PURE]] from open sin! --Elijah
[13] Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you.
[14] In the morning therefore ye shall be brought according to your tribes: and it shall be, that the tribe which the LORD taketh shall come according to the families thereof; and the family which the LORD shall take shall come by households; and the household which the LORD shall take shall come man by man.
[15] And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.
[16] So Joshua rose up early in the morning, and brought Israel by their tribes; and the tribe of Judah was taken:
[17] And he brought the family of Judah; and he took the family of the Zarhites: and he brought the family of the Zarhites man by man; and Zabdi was taken:
[18] And he brought his household man by man; and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken.
[19] And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me.
[20] And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:
[21] When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.
[22] So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.
[23] And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.
[24] And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
[25] And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
[26] And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.

 

[Slider]

Dadof10 wrote:

“LOL...Paul didn't say it didn't matter. "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.â€
　


Well, that is pretty much saying it doesn’t matter what we eat. So yes, he did say it doesn’t matter. Now he did say don’t do something that offends a weak brother. A WEAK brother. Those of us who understand the message of grace still have a responsibility. Now what did James say?
Act 15:29


That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well, Fare ye well.

Paul didn’t say that. He said it doesn’t matter, but don’t use your liberty foolishly. And by the way, it was James and James alone who said this. He was the council. The council went along with it, but it was James’ decision alone.
　

Dadof10 wrote:

“As I said to Stormcrow, these four ordinances were particularly abhorrent to the Jewish converts and therefore were to be avoided by Gentile converts for the reasons given by Paul. There is no contradiction here.â€

No, they were only not to be done when WEAK Jewish converts were around as to not offend them. However, Paul got in Peter’s face about this very subject. When the Jewish big wigs came around, Peter got all holy and obeyed the law, didn’t he? In Galatians we learn that Paul withstood him face to face about it.

I have to admit, this confuses me. However it seems clear that we as gentiles have liberty, but we shouldn’t use it so boldly when WEAK Christians are around. Let them get strong, then have liberty.

I said:
“Furthermore, James put these restricitons on the Gentiles. He didn't put them on believing Jews. “

Dadof10 responded:

“The council (not James alone) put these restrictions on them for the SAKE OF THE JEWISH CONVERTS.â€

Oh really? Not James’ alone? I’m looking at Acts 15 right now and all I see is James speaking. And how you come to the conclusion that it was for the sake of the Jewish converts is beyond me seeing as how he was describing how Paul should preach to the Gentiles.

I wrote:

“The way it reads, James still put the law on Jews who believed in Jesus. “
　

Dadof10 wrote:
“What verse gives you that idea? I don't see that at all.â€
　

Act 15:19


Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:


James (and James alone, no other member of the council added to this sentence) said “we shouldn’t trouble “THEMâ€. He never cleared the way for Jewish converts. He said don’t trouble the gentiles.

I wrote:

“The fact is that Paul cared little for what the council had to say. He preached what Christ gave him. Paul went against the council. “
　

Dadof10 wrote:

“Then Paul went against the Holy Spirit. The plain words of Scripture are "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." The Holy Spirit guided the Elders to their decision, of course Paul obeyed.â€

Well, you said it, not me. Did Paul preach what James told him to? No. James said what he thought was the “Holy Spirit†was telling him. Paul preached differently. And in case I’m wrong, I have a verse that says if angels preach something different than what Paul preached, they are cursed. James said it was the Holy Spirit, Paul didn’t. And Paul preached differently.

Dadof10 wrote:

“You are missing the bigger picture here, Slider. What was OMITTED from the decision was the ordinance on circumcision, which was the purpose for the council in the first place.â€

No, I’m actually getting the bigger picture! The smaller theatre is that of circumcision and dietary practices. That was what was being talked about, but the bigger picture is grace overall. James was preaching rules and Paul was saying grace covers everything in the flesh. It was circumcision and dietary rules that were being brought up.

God’s a comedian. What were they arguing about? A piece of skin on a part of the body that most Christians don’t even want to talk about! The penis! I mean, God’s ways are higher than ours…. But the whole thing seems ridiculous to me! Now apply that to everything in life and you see why God did it. You see why so many “Church rules†are ridiculous.
But back to the main point. No, Paul didn’t obey. He didn’t care about the Churches ruling. And it was James’ alone. He passed it, and yes, the council went along with it, but it was James’ decision.

The fact is that James freed Gentiles from many Jewish customs. He didn’t free Jews from those customs, only the Gentiles. And he placed restrictions on the Gentiles that Paul didn’t place on them.

I shoot from the hip about many things in the Bible, but this is one thing I’ve studied deeply. James and Paul were not on the same page and Paul didn’t care one lick about the Council’s (James’) decision.
　
　
　

 

[jasoncran]

:shocked! so the jews of today ( i am) in the lord should attend the local temple when the third temple is built and offer sacrifices to the lord?

 

[zeke]

:shocked! so the jews of today ( i am) in the lord should attend the local temple when the third temple is built and offer sacrifices to the lord?

Or are Jew and Gentile one in Christ Jesus and there is no 'temple made with hands' needed for Jew or Greek?

"There is neither Jew nor Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

"God...does not dwell in temples made with hands."

~ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ​

​

 

[dadof10]

Dadof10 wrote:

“LOL...Paul didn't say it didn't matter. "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.”
　
Well, that is pretty much saying it doesn’t matter what we eat. So yes, he did say it doesn’t matter. Now he did say don’t do something that offends a weak brother. A WEAK brother. Those of us who understand the message of grace still have a responsibility.

You are taking one verse out of the context of an idea. Paul is not saying it doesn't matter if Gentiles eat meat sacrificed to idols and that's it ("eat it and be happy"). He's saying the meat itself means nothing because the idols are nothing but eating it will cause a scandal, so it's better to not eat it, which is probably the basis for the letter from Jerusalem.

Now what did James say?
Act 15:29


That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well, Fare ye well.

Paul didn’t say that. He said it doesn’t matter, but don’t use your liberty foolishly. And by the way, it was James and James alone who said this. He was the council. The council went along with it, but it was James’ decision alone.

If the council went along with it, the entire council is responsible, not James alone. The plain words of Scripture say the authoritative letter was written by "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting."

Who is it from, Slider, James alone?

It continues: "Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord,"

Now, Slider. Was it James only or "the brethren, both the apostles and elders...having come to one accord" who sent this authoritative letter?

One person can suggest something which is then adopted by the group. This happens all the time and happened here.
　

Dadof10 wrote:

“As I said to Stormcrow, these four ordinances were particularly abhorrent to the Jewish converts and therefore were to be avoided by Gentile converts for the reasons given by Paul. There is no contradiction here.”

No, they were only not to be done when WEAK Jewish converts were around as to not offend them.

I think we're mixing two things here and getting confused. I'll try and be more clear. These four ordinances that were in the letter were particularly abhorrent to the Jewish mind. Even though there was NO SIN (as Paul said in 1Cor.), eating meat sacrificed to idols was still to be avoided so the Gentiles wouldn't offend Jewish sensibilities, both converts and potential converts. I don't think Paul had in mind a group of people sneaking around eating meat behind Jewish converts back. "Go ahead and eat it, just don't get caught". As he said in 1Cor. "Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall." This is ostensibly the reason for that particular ordinance.

However, Paul got in Peter’s face about this very subject. When the Jewish big wigs came around, Peter got all holy and obeyed the law, didn’t he?

No, he didn't. The "rebuke" was about how Peter behaved in public. "For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party." Jews were not allowed to eat with Gentiles, but Peter, now being Christian, could (remember his dream). Instead of simply telling this to the men who came from James, Peter withdrew, "and with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely", which means refused to eat with Gentiles. Peter's mistake was his "insincerity", not his attempt to follow the law.

I have to admit, this confuses me. However it seems clear that we as gentiles have liberty, but we shouldn’t use it so boldly when WEAK Christians are around. Let them get strong, then have liberty.

It is confusing trying to decipher which things applied to the Jewish and Gentile converts. Suffice to say, there seems to have been a time early on when there were different rules for each group.

I said:
“Furthermore, James put these restricitons on the Gentiles. He didn't put them on believing Jews. “

Dadof10 responded:

“The council (not James alone) put these restrictions on them for the SAKE OF THE JEWISH CONVERTS.”

Oh really? Not James’ alone? I’m looking at Acts 15 right now and all I see is James speaking. And how you come to the conclusion that it was for the sake of the Jewish converts is beyond me seeing as how he was describing how Paul should preach to the Gentiles.

"Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues." (Acts (RSV) 15)

Why would James say this if it wasn't at least a consideration?

I wrote:

“The way it reads, James still put the law on Jews who believed in Jesus. “
　

Dadof10 wrote:
“What verse gives you that idea? I don't see that at all.”
　

Act 15:19


Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:


James (and James alone, no other member of the council added to this sentence) said “we shouldn’t trouble “THEM”. He never cleared the way for Jewish converts. He said don’t trouble the gentiles.

How does this translate into James "put the law on the Jews"? The council was dealing with a specific heresy. They didn't take up the subject of Jewish converts.

I wrote:

“The fact is that Paul cared little for what the council had to say. He preached what Christ gave him. Paul went against the council. “
　

Dadof10 wrote:

“Then Paul went against the Holy Spirit. The plain words of Scripture are "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." The Holy Spirit guided the Elders to their decision, of course Paul obeyed.”

Well, you said it, not me.

No, you are saying it. Don't put this ludicrous statement on me. If you believe, like you said "Paul went against the council" and the Holy Spirit guided the council to their decision, which, according to scripture, He did, then the only logical conclusion YOU can make is that Paul "went against" the Holy Spirit. Nice try.

Did Paul preach what James told him to? No. James said what he thought was the “Holy Spirit” was telling him.

Wow, that's quite presumptuous. There is not one hint THE COUNCIL only THOUGHT the Holy Spirit was guiding their decision. 2

Paul preached differently. And in case I’m wrong, I have a verse that says if angels preach something different than what Paul preached, they are cursed. James said it was the Holy Spirit, Paul didn’t. And Paul preached differently.

Quite an interesting way of exegesis. Please read it again. JAMES didn't say it was the Holy Spirit, THE COUNCIL DID. Here are the relevant verses AGAIN.

"They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts (RSV) 15)

Note: The brethren, both the apostles and the elders...sent the letter, not James alone.

Note: it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us... The Holy Spirit and US, not James alone.

Dadof10 wrote:

“You are missing the bigger picture here, Slider. What was OMITTED from the decision was the ordinance on circumcision, which was the purpose for the council in the first place.”

No, I’m actually getting the bigger picture! The smaller theatre is that of circumcision and dietary practices. That was what was being talked about, but the bigger picture is grace overall. James was preaching rules and Paul was saying grace covers everything in the flesh. It was circumcision and dietary rules that were being brought up.

More creative interpretation. I guess at this point you can talk your way into the words meaning anything.

But back to the main point. No, Paul didn’t obey. He didn’t care about the Churches ruling. And it was James’ alone. He passed it, and yes, the council went along with it, but it was James’ decision.

Totally debunked above.

The fact is that James freed Gentiles from many Jewish customs. He didn’t free Jews from those customs, only the Gentiles. And he placed restrictions on the Gentiles that Paul didn’t place on them.

What restrictions? Please elaborate. And please use the actual words of Scripture.

I shoot from the hip about many things in the Bible, but this is one thing I’ve studied deeply. James and Paul were not on the same page and Paul didn’t care one lick about the Council’s (James’) decision.

If you say so.
　

 

[Slider]

If you want to be so insistant that it was a councildecision and not James’ alone, fine. Itwas James who spoke up and came up with the plan, however the council did goalong with it. Everyone exceptPaul. He didn’t. But I ask you who penned or spoke thewords? The council or James? It was James and James alone.



Now what I want you to look at is what decree James (and thecouncil) put forth:



The Gentiles were not to be bothered with circumcision.(Paul agrees)

The Gentiles were to abstain from pollution of idols in Acts15:20. (Paul agrees)

And from fornication (Paul agrees but I think we shoulddiscuss what “fornication†really means)

The Gentiles were to abstain from things strangled (Paulnever agreed to that)

The Gentiles were to abstain from blood (Paul never agreedto that)

The Gentiles were to abstain from meats offered to idols(Paul never agreed to that and preached differently)

In Galatians 2:10 we learn that James wanted Paul toremember the Poor (and Paul agreed) However, in Galatians we learn that Paul didn’t really think to much ofthe council. They “seemed†to bepillars, but added nothing to him. Manycommentaries try to spin this a Paul looking favorably on the council. Funny that it really doesn’t read that way,does it?



Here is what Paul had to say about the things James and thecouncil decided on:





Rom 14:21 It isgood neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, oris offended, or is made weak.

Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thingwhich he alloweth.





Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or indrink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:





Paul never preached what the council said.

 

[dadof10]

If you want to be so insistant that it was a councildecision and not James’ alone, fine. Itwas James who spoke up and came up with the plan, however the council did goalong with it. Everyone exceptPaul. He didn’t.

If Paul didn't go along and even disagreed with the decision of the council, why did he and Timothy "delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem"?

Does this seem like the actions of someone who rejected the decision?

But I ask you who penned or spoke thewords? The council or James? It was James and James alone.

James spoke the original words. Have you ever been part of a group that has had to come up with a decision on a subject? I have been involved with many, from Church to work to kids sports... Usually what happens is one person comes up with an idea and the others just know that's the right course. There may be some more discussion, but once the decision is made by the group, the group is the one that puts out the decision. It's owned by the group and as such, all the members take responsibility, not just the person who originally came up with the idea. The council "penned" the letter and the decision came from all of them, not just James.

Now what I want you to look at is what decree James (and thecouncil) put forth:



The Gentiles were not to be bothered with circumcision.(Paul agrees)

The Gentiles were to abstain from pollution of idols in Acts15:20. (Paul agrees)

And from fornication (Paul agrees but I think we shoulddiscuss what “fornication†really means)

The Gentiles were to abstain from things strangled (Paulnever agreed to that)

The Gentiles were to abstain from blood (Paul never agreedto that)

The Gentiles were to abstain from meats offered to idols(Paul never agreed to that and preached differently)

In Galatians 2:10 we learn that James wanted Paul toremember the Poor (and Paul agreed)

I've already addressed this in the previous post. If Paul went against the council on the subject of eating meat sacrificed to idols, he also went against John "But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols" (Rev. 2:20), along with James, the "apostles and elders" and the Holy Spirit.

Again, Paul is saying that the meat means nothing because the idols mean nothing UNLESS it is scandalous for another believer, which it will always be.

However, in Galatians we learn that Paul didn’t really think to much ofthe council.They “seemed†to bepillars, but added nothing to him. Manycommentaries try to spin this a Paul looking favorably on the council. Funny that it really doesn’t read that way,does it?

Paul doesn't address how he feels about the council. If you are referring to Galatians 2, this isn't the same visit as in Acts 15. He makes disparaging comments about some members of the Church, but we don't know who they are. We know he rebuked Peter, but that was for a specific action and had nothing to do with the council.

Here is what Paul had to say about the things James and thecouncil decided on:





Rom 14:21 It isgood neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, oris offended, or is made weak.

Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thingwhich he alloweth.





Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or indrink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:





Paul never preached what the council said.

Then why did he pass around the letter "for observance" while he traveled if he wasn't obeying it himself? Is handing on "for observance" the same thing as preaching in your opinion? Do you think Paul just handed over the letter without comment? C'mon, Slider.

Could you answer me one question. You are leaving out one Person, in your exegesis. The Holy Spirit. Outside of the Gospels, it is pretty rare in the NT to find many "thus saith the Lord" verses, but here is one. We are told by the "apostles and elders" that their decision was reached by the Holy Spirit. Do you really think Paul ignored the Holy Spirit and taught the opposite? Does that sound like Paul to you?

OK, that's two questions.

 

[Mike]

I've deleted more RCC-centered posts that came after Free's reminder to stop. Further dismissal of this warning will result in more deleted posts AND infractions.

Thank you for staying within the ToS which everyone has agreed to.

 

[Slider]

If Paul didn't go along and even disagreed with the decision of the council, why did he and Timothy "delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem"?

Does this seem like the actions of someone who rejected the decision?

Looking back on all the posts I've made on this topic, I never said that he disagreed with the entire decision. In fact, in my first post on the Council, I asked the question whether Paul agreed 100%. You correctly have pointed out that the entire council was on circumcision. Paul of course, agreed with that part. That's not in dispute. I have stated before and I will state now that I don't believe that decision mattered to Paul. He would've preached the gospel of grace anyway.

The dispute I am speaking of was the dietary restrictions given. I've listed them several times, so there is no need to go through them again. Paul wrote 13 epistles (14 if he is the author of Hebrews), and not once did he mention these guidelines other than not to use liberty as an occassion of offense. He did not forbid them, just don't do it in front of weak brethren. As I pointed out, in Romans he said, "Have it to yourself at home."

So when I say Paul didn't go along with everything the council said, unless you can show me where Paul ever said to abstain from them, I stand my ground.

As for why he circulated the decision? He was asked to. He had the decision, but again, I see no reason why it mattered to him. He was already preaching it according what the Holy Ghost was giving him.

I've already addressed this in the previous post. If Paul went against the council on the subject of eating meat sacrificed to idols, he also went against John "But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols" (Rev. 2:20), along with James, the "apostles and elders" and the Holy Spirit..

Again, I have already addressed this. The fact that Paul listened to the Council does not mean he followed everything they said. James and the Council freed them from circumcision. Great! Wonderful! Can you show me where Paul ever forbid the gentiles all the other things James placed upon them? Yes, don't offend weak brethren with your liberty.... True, but that is not forbidding them to do it.

Paul doesn't address how he feels about the council. If you are referring to Galatians 2, this isn't the same visit as in Acts 15. He makes disparaging comments about some members of the Church, but we don't know who they are. We know he rebuked Peter, but that was for a specific action and had nothing to do with the council.

Why do you not believe it is the same visit in Acts 15? I've read three Bible commentaries this afternoon concerning Galatians 2 (Barnes, Gill and Clarke) and they all indicated that Gal 2 is referring to Acts 15.

The entire book of Galatians addresses circumcision as did the Council. Why would it not be referring to the Council? Everyone mentioned in Gal 2 was at the Council except that Acts 15 doesn't mention Titus. It doesn't say he wasn't there, however.

If Gal 2 is speaking about the Council, then there is something else I'd like to bring to your attention. What did Paul tell the Galatians about it? 1. He was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcized, and 2. He was to remember the Poor. He said nothing of those dietary restrictions. Not only did he leave them out, but immediately afterwards he tells of his dispute with Peter over dietary restrictions. If those things James/the Council layed on them were so important to Paul, it probably would've been mentioned here. He doesn't mention it. Anywhere in any of his writings, but especially here.

Then why did he pass around the letter "for observance" while he traveled if he wasn't obeying it himself? Is handing on "for observance" the same thing as preaching in your opinion? Do you think Paul just handed over the letter without comment? C'mon, Slider.

He commented on the circumcision part, but no where of the "no greater burden except that..." part. Actually, he did.... Don't forbid meats, but don't offend weak brethren.

Could you answer me one question. You are leaving out one Person, in your exegesis. The Holy Spirit. Outside of the Gospels, it is pretty rare in the NT to find many "thus saith the Lord" verses, but here is one. We are told by the "apostles and elders" that their decision was reached by the Holy Spirit. Do you really think Paul ignored the Holy Spirit and taught the opposite? Does that sound like Paul to you?

OK, that's two questions.

Just one? Ok... two!?!?!

I never said that Paul ignored the Holy Spirit. James and the council saying it was the Holy Spirit doesn't make it so. When James says, "Abstain from meats under certain conditions" and Paul says that forbidding meats is the doctrine of Devils, we have to try the spirits to see what sort they are.

 

[dadof10]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Looking back on all the posts I've made on this topic, I never said that he disagreed with the entire decision. In fact, in my first post on the Council, I asked the question whether Paul agreed 100%. You correctly have pointed out that the entire council was on circumcision. Paul of course, agreed with that part. That's not in dispute. I have stated before and I will state now that I don't believe that decision mattered to Paul. He would've preached the gospel of grace anyway.

This is a hypothetical, and I couldn't disagree more. You might have a point if there wasn't a HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED DECISION. Paul would absolutely not have been apathetic toward the working of the Holy Spirit.

The dispute I am speaking of was the dietary restrictions given. I've listed them several times, so there is no need to go through them again. Paul wrote 13 epistles (14 if he is the author of Hebrews), and not once did he mention these guidelines other than not to use liberty as an occassion of offense. He did not forbid them, just don't do it in front of weak brethren. As I pointed out, in Romans he said, "Have it to yourself at home."

Did he mention abstaining from blood or strangled animals? Do you think he was apathetic about these two ordinances also?

Do you believe Paul said other things besides what was written in his letters when he was preaching? I don't think he wrote anything concerning rape, child molestation, lust or backtalking parents but I'm sure we both agree he was against them. Why? Because they were mentioned as sin in other parts of Scripture, like eating meats sacrificed to idols.

So when I say Paul didn't go along with everything the council said, unless you can show me where Paul ever said to abstain from them, I stand my ground.

Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats; 21 it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves. 23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans (RSV) 14)

Do you think he's has meat sacrificed to idols in mind here?

I have commented on this in a couple of posts.

As for why he circulated the decision? He was asked to. He had the decision, but again, I see no reason why it mattered to him.

Because the Holy Spirit gave it to him to preach.

He was already preaching it according what the Holy Ghost was giving him.

I agree. The decision, the ENTIRE decision, was given to him by the Holy Spirit. And he definitely preached it. That's what "delivered to them for observance' means.

Why do you not believe it is the same visit in Acts 15? I've read three Bible commentaries this afternoon concerning Galatians 2 (Barnes, Gill and Clarke) and they all indicated that Gal 2 is referring to Acts 15.

The entire book of Galatians addresses circumcision as did the Council. Why would it not be referring to the Council? Everyone mentioned in Gal 2 was at the Council except that Acts 15 doesn't mention Titus. It doesn't say he wasn't there, however.

Wow, that came out wrong. I shouldn't post when I'm tired. Let me clarify.

Gal. 2:1-10 was the same visit from Paul as the council (Acts 15). Gal. 2:11-14 (Paul's rebuke) was not, it happened in Antioch. Sorry for the confusion.

If Gal 2 is speaking about the Council, then there is something else I'd like to bring to your attention. What did Paul tell the Galatians about it? 1. He was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcized, and 2. He was to remember the Poor. He said nothing of those dietary restrictions.

So what? You are arguing from silence. Just because he didn't mention it in his letter to the Galatians, doesn't mean he was apathetic.

Not only did he leave them out, but immediately afterwards he tells of his dispute with Peter over dietary restrictions.

It wasn't over dietary restrictions, it was over Peter being "insincere". He ate with the Gentiles (no mention of what kind of food) until the Jews came, then "withdrew". Again, Jews weren't allowed to eat with Gentiles, no matter what the cuisine. It was that a Jew was sitting at table with a Gentile that was scandalous to the Jews.

I never said that Paul ignored the Holy Spirit. James and the council saying it was the Holy Spirit doesn't make it so.

Sorry, but yes it does. You are ignoring the plain words of Scripture to promote the notion that Paul and James were at odds. The only reason I can think of is the whole "NOT justified by faith alone" thing in James' letter. You seem to have the idea that any verse that is difficult to reconcile with something in Paul's letters must be explained away somehow. Taking a preconceived position into Scripture is called eisegesis and is no way to discern Truth.

When James says, "Abstain from meats under certain conditions" and Paul says that forbidding meats is the doctrine of Devils, we have to try the spirits to see what sort they are.

So, why do you come down on the side of Paul? He doesn't say that the Holy Spirit gave him this, but the council does. It seems if you're going to "try the spirits" you should come down on the side that has the approval of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Slider]

This is a hypothetical (whether Paul would've kept preaching without the council's approval), and I couldn't disagree more. You might have a point if there wasn't a HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED DECISION. Paul would absolutely not have been apathetic toward the working of the Holy Spirit.

Of course it is hypothetical because it is a hypothetical situation. It's equally hypothetical to say he would've required gentiles to be circumcized if the council didn't make the decision he did.

It is not a hypothesis without strong reason however. Again, I look at the character of Paul. He never asked for the council. He already fought with the Judiazers and defended his stance on circumcision (see Acts 15:1-2). He wasn't afraid of any authority other than Christ (he argued with Peter, John and Barnabas not to mention countless Pharasees). He declared he was ready to die for the Gospel several times. And he also said anyone who preaches a different gospel whether it be an angel, an apostle or even himself was acursed.

This does not sound like a man who was going to change his teachings (which even Peter admitted was of the Holy Ghost) based on the Council's decision, which up to that particular point in time (and even after, perhaps) still did not believe his message of grace and still did believe in following the Law.

If you believe Paul needed that approval (and without it, he would've required circumcision) please give me your reasoning.

Did he mention abstaining from blood or strangled animals? Do you think he was apathetic about these two ordinances also?

Do you believe Paul said other things besides what was written in his letters when he was preaching? I don't think he wrote anything concerning rape, child molestation, lust or backtalking parents but I'm sure we both agree he was against them. Why? Because they were mentioned as sin in other parts of Scripture, like eating meats sacrificed to idols.

Your overall arguement here (unless I am reading you wrong) is "just because Paul never wrote about it doesn't mean he was apathetic towards it". Rape, child molestation, lust and backtalking have nothing to do with this topic.

As a side note, paul did cover lust and backtalking. He also indirectly spoke of the other two.

We can't say Paul preached these things outside of the letters he wrote. Abstainng from blood and strangled animals were part of the Law. Paul however declared we were free from the law.

Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats; 21 it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves. 23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans (RSV) 14)

Do you think he's has meat sacrificed to idols in mind here?

Verse like this is where we are not understanding each other. Paul in these verses is not supporting the council's decision on abstaining from certain meats, as I perceive you seem to believe (if I am misunderstanding you, please let me know). Paul is actually saying the opposite. He is saying they don't affect your salvation, but don't use your liberty as an occasion to offend. In verse 22 he states, "has thou have faith? Have it to thyself before God." (according to the KJV).

Paul never preached the rules of the council. This verse and others say he said it was ok, as long as you don't offend your weak brethren with it.

Because the Holy Spirit gave it to him to preach.

I agree. The decision, the ENTIRE decision, was given to him by the Holy Spirit. And he definitely preached it. That's what "delivered to them for observance' means.

And it was given to him BEFORE the council's approval. Again, this is why I don't believe Paul needed the approval.

Gal. 2:1-10 was the same visit from Paul as the council (Acts 15). Gal. 2:11-14 (Paul's rebuke) was not, it happened in Antioch. Sorry for the confusion.

So what? You are arguing from silence. Just because he didn't mention it in his letter to the Galatians, doesn't mean he was apathetic.

He gave quite a history of his journeys to the Galatians, and included his accounts of the council. Yet he left that out. How are you going to claim Paul had an opinion on something if he never expressed it?

Sorry, but yes it does. You are ignoring the plain words of Scripture to promote the notion that Paul and James were at odds. The only reason I can think of is the whole "NOT justified by faith alone" thing in James' letter. You seem to have the idea that any verse that is difficult to reconcile with something in Paul's letters must be explained away somehow. Taking a preconceived position into Scripture is called eisegesis and is no way to discern Truth.

On the contrary, I am just the opposite. If is see two people (James and Paul) having a difference in opinions, I don't try to explain it away. I'm not the type of person to claim, "Both apostles were right!"

God enters into all things. God declares the end from the beginning. If you want to say the Holy Ghost (who was already on Paul's side) influenced or guided the council's decision based on that, fine. However, just because someone says the Holy Ghost made the decision doesn't mean he did. If the Holy Ghost did guide this decision, fine. He also guided Paul not to preach the part about dietary regulations.

 

[Slider]

It is an innate part of human culture to recognize and appoint various authorities and experts on any number of given issues. The concept of authority, however, is easily confused in English speaking societies because the English word "authority" has two distinct meanings, not very often discerned when people deal with authority.

The two basic meanings of "authority" exist:

1.) The possession of informational expertise, having atypical knowledge, greater discernment, and finely discriminative capacity upon a given area.

2.) The holding of determinitive power over some other person or persons, whereby the holder of the authority can possibly control the actions, expressions, and status of another.

These two definitions do not overlap in their content, although any given person "in authority" may have both definitions operative within themself.

This being understood, there is no reason for any informational expert in relation to the discernment of Scripture should pressume to tell other people what they:

1.) Must realize.
2.) Need to know.
3.) Must look at.
4.) Are to grasp.
5.) Have to accept.
6.) Must conclude.
7.) Need to see as "key."
8.) Must remember.
9.) Need to look at.

Any teacher, expositor, preacher, pastor, writer, conversationalist, or forum poster who makes such statements is presumptuously arrogant. They need loving correction.

I’d like to reply to the OP, and show why I have taken thestance I do. When reading the OP at it is, it seems at the very least,reasonable. However, it reminds me ofwhat was said against Moses when he was challenged. It reminds me of the time when the Bible saysthat every man did that which was right in his own eyes.



God always has a leader. He didn’t for about 400 years when every man was doing that which wasright in his own eyes. Those weren’tgood times.



So I look back at Biblical history and wonder, when did Godever have a council decide anything? Iam having a very spirited and good conversation about the Council, but Godnever needed one. He never sent acouncil to his prophets. Why would hesend one to Paul?



Was not Samuel doing well? Yet the people wanted a king. Thingsfell apart at that point. Yes we gotDavid from that, but did not everything Samuel prophecies about come topass?



I read this OP, and while I understand what it is trying tosay, it is not God’s plan. God sendsleaders to lead us. The prophets as wellas the Apostles were sent to us to tell us what we must realize, what we must lookat, what we must grasp, accept and look at… On down the line. This is the wayGod did it in the Old Testament, and I see the pattern in the NewTestament.



So the original post, while it goes against modern societies’way of thinking, goes against what God’s plan is. The OP says that if anyone tells us what tothink and believe, then they are arrogant and need loving correction. Well, they said the same thing about folkslike Isaiah. That didn’t turn out sowell, did it?



The OP seems like a plea from someone to make his owndecisions, and what he or she believes the HS is trying to tell them. In other words, let me do what seems right inmy own eyes.



God doesn’t seem to work like that. In the NT he sent people (Apostles, Prophets,Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers) for the perfecting of the Saints. I don’t see anywhere where a sheep canperfect himself.



No… These folks aren’t presumptuously arrogant, nor are theyin need of loving correction! If theyaren’t sent by God, they are to be ignored. But if they are sent by God, they must be followed.



You can’t be saved without a preacher.

 

[dadof10]

Of course it is hypothetical because it is a hypothetical situation. It's equally hypothetical to say he would've required gentiles to be circumcized if the council didn't make the decision he did.

It is not a hypothesis without strong reason however. Again, I look at the character of Paul. He never asked for the council.

Again, irrelevant. He took the concerns of the Church of Antioch to the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. He obviously agreed that this is how disputes should be settled. This point is key, Slider. There was a dispute within the Church at Antioch while Paul was there. He and the leaders in Antioch decided to send the issue to Jerusalem for a decision and not to make a decision themselves, EVEN THOUGH PAUL WAS IN THEIR MIDST. Paul was the one chosen to take it there and that's what Paul did, took it to Jerusalem. What he didn't do was search Scripture for relevant Bible verses, pray for the Spirit's guidance, decide based on his own personal interpretation of Scripture, send a letter to Jerusalem with HIS decision, then leave the Church and start his own if the others didn't agree.

He already fought with the Judiazers and defended his stance on circumcision (see Acts 15:1-2). He wasn't afraid of any authority other than Christ (he argued with Peter, John and Barnabas not to mention countless Pharasees). He declared he was ready to die for the Gospel several times.

Exactly. So did the other apostles, elders, and members of the Church. What you are describing is the PROCESS used to come to a decision. Because Paul was involved with the process and actually disagreed with other members, doesn't mean if the council went against him he wouldn't have submitted.

And he also said anyone who preaches a different gospel whether it be an angel, an apostle or even himself was acursed.

Hummm....He said it, huh? According to your logic, so what? (More on that later)

This does not sound like a man who was going to change his teachings (which even Peter admitted was of the Holy Ghost) based on the Council's decision, which up to that particular point in time (and even after, perhaps) still did not believe his message of grace and still did believe in following the Law.

How did you get that the council “did not believe his message of grace and still did believe in following the Law.†from Acts 15? Are you seriously making the case that the APOSTLES in Jerusalem were teaching works salvation and adherence to the law, contrary to Paul? Am I reading you right?

Why did he go to Jerusalem in the first place?

Galatians 2:2 NIV

I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Sounds like he was asking their opinion on what he was preaching and whether it lined up with what the apostles and elders taught. Hardly the image of a lone wolf out there stubbornly preaching what came to him by personal revelation, ignoring all else, needing no one. This seems to be your image of Paul. In reality, he was a Churchman, a member of the teaching body of the Church.

If you believe Paul needed that approval (and without it, he would've required circumcision) please give me your reasoning.

I never said that. I'm simply saying that your whole argument relies upon the notion that IF the council had ruled against Paul, he would have split from them. You are using a hypothetical situation as your main argument against the plain words of Scripture. I don't have to delve into hypotheticals, I have Scripture on my side.

Your overall arguement here (unless I am reading you wrong) is "just because Paul never wrote about it doesn't mean he was apathetic towards it". Rape, child molestation, lust and backtalking have nothing to do with this topic.

You are reading me right. Paul preached for how many decades to how many thousands of people? We only have 13 letters of his. Certainly he preached things NOT in his letters. You are arguing that if Paul had really been on board with the decision, his view would have been prevalent throughout his letters. An argument from silence is a pretty weak one, especially when the council and the book of Revelation say to abstain from the meat.

We can't say Paul preached these things outside of the letters he wrote. Abstainng from blood and strangled animals were part of the Law. Paul however declared we were free from the law.

No, but we can say what the decision of the council was and that the Holy Spirit guided the decision (more on this later, as well), and that Paul only taught things revealed by the Spirit. We can say that he didn't preach the opposite.

Verse like this is where we are not understanding each other. Paul in these verses is not supporting the council's decision on abstaining from certain meats, as I perceive you seem to believe (if I am misunderstanding you, please let me know). Paul is actually saying the opposite. He is saying they don't affect your salvation, but don't use your liberty as an occasion to offend. In verse 22 he states, "has thou have faith? Have it to thyself before God." (according to the KJV).

He is saying that to offend your brother with what you eat or don't eat is a sin. It's the reason eating meats offered to idols was rejected by the council.

Paul never preached the rules of the council. This verse and others say he said it was ok, as long as you don't offend your weak brethren with it.

How do you know? He PREACHED other things besides what was in his letters, talked to people, interacted with them for CENTURIES. The Church teaches the things that were preached, but never written down.

And it was given to him BEFORE the council's approval. Again, this is why I don't believe Paul needed the approval.

Again, how do you know? Galatians was written after the council, but some revelation could have been “given to him†before, we just don’t know. You are making quite a few assumptions here.

He gave quite a history of his journeys to the Galatians, and included his accounts of the council. Yet he left that out. How are you going to claim Paul had an opinion on something if he never expressed it?

Did Paul teach and preach what the Holy Spirit taught? Does Scripture say the decision of the council and the Holy Spirit, was that we abstain from meat sacrificed to idols? Did Paul personally hand this decision on as he traveled? Does the book of Revelation condemn eating meat sacrificed to idols? That's how. The problem you are having grasping this fact is your preconceived notion that Paul and James taught opposite doctrine. The problem is with your a'priori interpretation, not Scripture itself. Scripture doesn't contradict.

On the contrary, I am just the opposite. If is see two people (James and Paul) having a difference in opinions, I don't try to explain it away. I'm not the type of person to claim, "Both apostles were right!"

Too bad, because that's the truth.

I'd like to expound on your view and show you why I think it's misguided. I'll start with this view:

God enters into all things. God declares the end from the beginning. If you want to say the Holy Ghost (who was already on Paul's side) influenced or guided the council's decision based on that, fine. However, just because someone says the Holy Ghost made the decision doesn't mean he did.

More assumptions. The Holy Ghost was on Paul’s side, as opposed to who? This is by far your weakest argument because you are not relying on any kind of Biblical fact or rational argumentation only your opinion pitted against the plain words of Scripture. But let's look more deeply at your hypothesis and see where it leads. I'll use 1Cor. 1:1 as the example, although I could use almost ANY of Paul's exhortations.

Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes.... (1Corinthians (RSV) 1)

Paul calls himself an "apostle", yet we know that the apostles were the 12 who followed Jesus during His ministry. Paul didn't follow Jesus during His ministry, so he can't be an "apostle", right? Paul SAID he was made an apostle "by the will of God", but "just because someone says the Holy Ghost made the decision doesn't mean he did". Now, there is no doubt that James was a bona fide Apostle. He traveled around with our Lord and learned directly from Him while Paul was practicing Judaism and getting ready to kill Christians.

Now to your claim that Paul and James taught contrary doctrine. Let's suppose that's true. My question is, why would you believe some Johnny-come-lately, non-apostle who obviously makes things up over someone who actually lived with our Lord, learned from Him first hand and received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (assuming you believe James actually did)?

I have asked many people who believe that Paul and James “taught different doctrine†this question, and have yet to receive an answer. I asked you in my last post, but you ignored it. If these two apostles taught different doctrine, why do you come down on the side of Paul as opposed to James? What criteria do you use?

So there’s no mistake, I believe Paul and James (and all the other authors of the books of the Bible) were in complete agreement. They may have argued with each other or other members, even apostles and elders, but when a decision was reached there was submission to the Church. It’s a fact that Scripture doesn’t contradict and it’s our responsibility to reconcile passages and verses that may seem difficult. Assuming contradictions in Scripture leads to all kinds of problems, like the ones outlined above.

 

[dadof10]

So I look back at Biblical history and wonder, when did Godever have a council decide anything?

Acts 15. When did God ever tell individual believers to read Scripture, pray for guidance, interpret it as they saw fit, create doctrines based on this interpretation and leave the church if their doctrine disagreed with their pastor's personal interpretation?

The council had the Holy Spirit's approval, does your novel way of personal authority?

 

[zeke]

Acts 15. When did God ever tell individual believers to read Scripture, pray for guidance, interpret it as they saw fit, create doctrines based on this interpretation and leave the church if their doctrine disagreed with their pastor's personal interpretation?

The council had the Holy Spirit's approval, does your novel way of personal authority?

Clarification please - are you trying to say that each autonomous congregation of the Lord's church today is subject to some man-made council or organization? The church that Jesus established does not have a central earthly headquarters in Rome, Salt Lake City or anywhere else - right?.

 

[Tina]

Acts 15. When did God ever tell individual believers to read Scripture, pray for guidance, interpret it as they saw fit, create doctrines based on this interpretation and leave the church if their doctrine disagreed with their pastor's personal interpretation?

Pretty much sounds like the pope and his flock ...

 

[Slider]

Again, irrelevant. He took the concerns of the Church of Antioch to the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. He obviously agreed that this is how disputes should be settled. This point is key, Slider. There was a dispute within the Church at Antioch while Paul was there. He and the leaders in Antioch decided to send the issue to Jerusalem for a decision and not to make a decision themselves, EVEN THOUGH PAUL WAS IN THEIR MIDST. Paul was the one chosen to take it there and that's what Paul did, took it to Jerusalem. What he didn't do was search Scripture for relevant Bible verses, pray for the Spirit's guidance, decide based on his own personal interpretation of Scripture, send a letter to Jerusalem with HIS decision, then leave the Church and start his own if the others didn't agree.

There are so many things incorrect in this statement. First off, what is irrelevant? What is it you think we are discussing? I was under the assumption that we are discussin whether Paul needed the council's approval or not. So Paul's overall character and how he conducted himself is irrelevant?

When we look at the opening verses of Acts 15, we see that men from Judea came down and claimed that the gentiles be circumcised. So it was not a dispute within the Church at Antioch like you claim. The strife came from the outside. The picture you are trying to paint is that Paul decided he had to go to Jerusalem to plead his point, but that is not what happened. When the men from Judea (Galatians calls them "false brethren") Paul and Barnabas disputed with them on the spot. It was the men from Judea who decided that Paul should go to the council. Please look at Acts 15:2

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

So while Paul and Barnabas did go, it was not their idea. Paul did not go to the council to ask permission, he went their to defend his position.

Hummm....He said it, huh? According to your logic, so what? (More on that later).

This is referring to my statement that Paul said anyone who preaches a different gospel whether it be an angel, an apostle or even himself was acursed. Yes, he did say it. Please look at Galatians 1:8:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

I have a feeling you are going to say it doesn't matter because Galatians was written after the Council. Remember, I said this to show Paul's character. That is, what type of person he was. The point is that he was bold enough to go against the grain and stick to what he, as the ambassador of Christ, was given in terms of doctrine..

How did you get that the council “did not believe his message of grace and still did believe in following the Law.†from Acts 15? Are you seriously making the case that the APOSTLES in Jerusalem were teaching works salvation and adherence to the law, contrary to Paul? Am I reading you right?

My goodness! Why did the council happen in the first place? It was whether or not the gentiles had to follow the law (specifically, circumcision)! At the start of the council, they believed that the gentiles DID have to be circumcised, that grace didn't cover it, and they had to obey the law of Moses.

Next, who was the decision made about? Was it the Jewish believers or the Gentiles? Please look at Acts 15:19:

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Nowhere is Acts 15 were the Jewish believers relieved of this burden. And to hammer the point more, please read Acts 21:20-24. James is speaking here, and describes how believing Jews are still zeolous for the law.

Furthermore, even with the council's decision, James still layed parts of the law on the gentiles.

Why did he go to Jerusalem in the first place?

Galatians 2:2 NIV


I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.


Sounds like he was asking their opinion on what he was preaching and whether it lined up with what the apostles and elders taught. Hardly the image of a lone wolf out there stubbornly preaching what came to him by personal revelation, ignoring all else, needing no one. This seems to be your image of Paul. In reality, he was a Churchman, a member of the teaching body of the Church. .

Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.


That's the KJV and it hardly shows Paul "needing to be sure". This is especially so when he just said in verse 1:8 that if anyone preaches another gospel they are accursed. It is also especially so when he called those who brought him to Jerusalem false brethren and said they seemed to be pillars and added nothing to him. It really helps to read this verse in proper context.

I never said that (Paul needed the council's approval). I'm simply saying that your whole argument relies upon the notion that IF the council had ruled against Paul, he would have split from them. You are using a hypothetical situation as your main argument against the plain words of Scripture. I don't have to delve into hypotheticals, I have Scripture on my side

But you did say this:

He obviously agreed that this is how disputes should be settled.

And you said this:

This is a hypothetical, and I couldn't disagree more. You might have a point if there wasn't a HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED DECISION. Paul would absolutely not have been apathetic toward the working of the Holy Spirit.

These statements by you indicate to me that you believe that Paul would've gone with the decision that the gentiles had to be circumcised if the council came to that decision. Of course it's hypothetical, however again, I have my scriptural reference that shows Paul wasn't the type of person that would've.

You are reading me right. Paul preached for how many decades to how many thousands of people? We only have 13 letters of his. Certainly he preached things NOT in his letters. You are arguing that if Paul had really been on board with the decision, his view would have been prevalent throughout his letters. An argument from silence is a pretty weak one, especially when the council and the book of Revelation say to abstain from the meat.

You have no evidence.... You can't say Paul preached these things when the only evidence we have (his letters) never mentions it. In fact, I've given you plenty of times the scripture that says there are no dietary restrictions on the gentiles.

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. -Romans 14:22

Again, how do you know (it was given to him before the council)? Galatians was written after the council, but some revelation could have been “given to him†before, we just don’t know. You are making quite a few assumptions here.

Again, Acts 15. He argued his point that circumcision doesn't apply to the gentiles in Antioch before the council came to be, and on his way to the council he preached it in Phenice and Sameria. So yes we do know that Paul already was preaching liberty and I am not making an assumption. It's in the scripture.

Paul calls himself an "apostle", yet we know that the apostles were the 12 who followed Jesus during His ministry. Paul didn't follow Jesus during His ministry, so he can't be an "apostle", right? Paul SAID he was made an apostle "by the will of God", but "just because someone says the Holy Ghost made the decision doesn't mean he did". Now, there is no doubt that James was a bona fide Apostle. He traveled around with our Lord and learned directly from Him while Paul was practicing Judaism and getting ready to kill Christians.

Now to your claim that Paul and James taught contrary doctrine. Let's suppose that's true. My question is, why would you believe some Johnny-come-lately, non-apostle who obviously makes things up over someone who actually lived with our Lord, learned from Him first hand and received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (assuming you believe James actually did)?

I'd like to believe that it is not your intention to claim James was an apostle while Paul wasn't. You have made many mistakes in that statement. First off, Paul doesn't merely call himself an Apostle. Romans 1:1 says he was called to be an apostle. 1 Cor 1:1 says he was called to be an apostle by the will of God. So does 1 Cor 1:1. Gal :1 says he was an apostle not of men, but by Jesus Christ. And in Acts 9 we actually read the accounts of Jesus calling him to be an apostle.

Second, you are mistaken that James followed Jesus during his (Jesus') ministry. John 7:5 says his brethren didn't follow him. James the half brother of Jesus was not called among the 12. I have yet to find a biblical scholar or scripture that suggests James followed Jesus' ministry.

Yet you call him a bona fide apostle and Paul a non apostle? Even James never called himself an apostle! There is only one verse that hints he may have been, and that's Gal 1:19 where Paul says, But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. I am not saying James wasn't an apostle, but if there is a question on which of the two was an apostle, it isn't James!

I have asked many people who believe that Paul and James “taught different doctrine†this question (why would I believe the 'johnny come lately, non apostle Paul' over James), and have yet to receive an answer. I asked you in my last post, but you ignored it. If these two apostles taught different doctrine, why do you come down on the side of Paul as opposed to James? What criteria do you use? )

Simple... Because Paul was called to be an apostle and preach the message of grace. James DID lay rules on the gentiles and the Jewish believers. You claim Paul did preach those dietary restriction but have no scripture to back that up (only the arguement that it doesn't matter that it was never written, but he did anyway), and despite the scripture where Paul said they didn't have to follow the law on dietary restrictions.