The Presumptive Arrogance Of Studied Christians.

[dadof10]

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?.

What I'm saying, and have been from the beginning of this thread, is the Biblical model of settling disputes within the Body of Christ is an ecumenical council, not private interpretation of Scripture. The former fosters unity, the latter, divisions. You can complain all you want to about a centralized authority, but your argument is not with me, or the Roman Catholic Church, but with Paul, the Church at Antioch, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, Luke and the Holy Spirit, who guided their decision.

 

[Slider]

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?

This is the problem with analyzing things on a line by line basis. [I'm not saying it is always wrong... I do it too. But you have to be careful when doing it so you don't miss the overall content] The quote above is in reference to a statement I made:

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

This quote is right in the middle of a wider point I was making. I had explained before and after this quote that God always had a single leader or a few leaders at the most who operated independantly. That is, except for about 400 years when every man did that which was right in his own eyes (which, incidently, is when the Pharasees and Sadducees came into power). All through the Old Testament, there was ONE leader who spoke... Not a council.

Not that there weren't attempts to form a council, of course. Korah, Dathan and Abiram did try to form a council of sorts, but it kind of fell apart.

So in proper context, my quote above refers to the history before Acts 15. I'm asking where the presidence is for the council at Jerusalem. There is none that God put together. Yet, dadof10 is using the Council at Jerusalem as its own presidence.

So we get the question, "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?" Well, it's a loaded question because in the middle of it we had "interpret".... God told his prophets what they were to say and they said it as is.

He certainly told believers to read scripture. Dan 10:21, Mark 12:10, John 7:38, John 7:42, Acts 17:11, Roman 4:3, Roman 10:11, Gal 4:30, 2 Tim 2:15, 2 Tim 3:16, JAMES 2:8. All the Apostles and Jesus read the scripture.

He certainly told believers to pray. Jesus even prayed for guidance.

Certainly doctrines should be based on scripture (not the private interpretation, but what God told his holy men). Again, 2 Tim 3:16.

But you want to talk about "interpretting"? Somebody has to! God didn't leave it up to councils either. Jesus interpreted scripture (Mark 12:10), Peter interpreted scripture (1 Peter 2:6), Paul interpreted scripture (1 tim 5:18).

I know the verse that says no scripture is of private interpretation, and I agree. That is why God sent Prophets and Apostles. God told the prophets what to say and the Apostles as well. The Bible defines an Apostle as Christ's ambassador -- that is, his spokesman. So when you have a man of God (whether it be a prophet or and Apostle) you don't even need to go to private interpretations.

So what are we told to do if church doctrine or the pastor's doctrine is disagreed upon? Well, if its against the Bible (making it a false church and a false pastor), the answer is clear. Rev 18:4 says come out of her. If you don't like that one, then Peter's second epistle deals entirely with that problem.

 

[dadof10]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

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?

I was responding to “It is not a hypothesis without strong reason however. Again, I look at the character of Paul. He never asked for the councilâ€. That Paul didn’t call the council is your “strong reasonâ€, right? It is totally irrelevant who called the council. What IS relevant is that Paul TOOK THE DISPUTE TO THE COUNCIL and didn’t try to settle it at Antioch. Why would he do that if each community was an autonomous entity? Why wouldn’t he have just settled the dispute in house?

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.

And what does verse 3 say? Here is the RSV:

"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church," (Acts (RSV) 15)

The NIV:
"So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way"

The NASB:
"And when Paul and Barnabas had [a]great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church"

The NKJV:
"2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church,"

And the KJV:
"2When 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. 3And being brought on their way by the church,"

Both the KJV's have the "men from Judea" as "determining" they should go, and the others have either "the brethren determining" or the more vague "were appointed". However, all the versions agree that it was the CHURCH that sent them on their way, NOT the "men from Judea". The men who came down from Judea were not the “churchâ€, the “brethren†in Antioch were, and they were the ones who sent them to Jerusalem.

For the sake of argument, assume you're right, that the "men from Judea" sent Paul and the others to Jerusalem. Doesn't it bolster my point of a centralized Church authority if there were men who came from Judea (Jerusalem?) and were able to send Paul and members of the Church at Antioch to Jerusalem? Where did they get the authority? Why didn’t “the brethren" or "the church" tell these guys where to get off and simply settle this dispute themselves? If the early Church were organized as a loose group of believers, totally autonomous with no centralized authority, and no continuity of belief, they would have.

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.

OK, Why? What did the Church at Jerusalem have to do with the Church at Antioch, if church authority was as you say? Why would he have to travel clear to Jerusalem to defend his position, unless the apostles and elders in Jerusalem could in some way mediate, somehow decide?

Again, does Paul seem wimpy to you? Your portrayal of him in this thread seems to be of someone who just goes along. First, he didn’t call the council and it was not his idea, but he went along anyway. Then, the decision was made and, even though he disagreed with every point but circumcision, he handed on the decision anyway. Sheesh. The Bible portrayal is the exact opposite. He didn’t appease ANYONE. If he didn’t think the way to settle disputes was to take them to Jerusalem, he wouldn’t have gone. If he disagreed with the decision of the council he definitely wouldn’t have handed it on for observance.

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..

If he was so “bold†why did he “hand on for observance†the decision even though he disagreed with most of it? I’ll try to be more clear on the main point here later.

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.

Could you be more clear on this point? Are you saying that before the council the apostles and elders in Jerusalem believed the Gentiles had to be circumcised and obey the law to be saved?

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.

I agree. I didn't make the point the decision was binding on Jewish
converts. In fact. in a previous post I said that what was binding on Jewish and Gentile converts was different and confusing.

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

Nope, sorry. Here's where we part ways.

Acts 15:6-12 NIV

The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them."

Notice that no one argued with Peter's point, the whole assembly fell silent. This is an indication that all of them agreed.

Verse 11 also undercuts your argument that the council didn't teach the "Gospel of grace" like Paul did. Again, James held that Gentiles should abstain from these 4 behaviors that were particularly abhorrent to the Jewish mind, and the council agreed. He didn't put them under the law, he only told them to abstain for the reasons given by Paul, because it effected the consciences of some believers.

 

[dadof10]

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 said Paul asked their opinion on whether what he was teaching corresponded to what the apostles and elders were teaching. He wasn't getting input from the "false teachers" who were in Jerusalem at the council also. What in the world does "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" mean if it doesn't mean Paul had some doubts and was looking for corroboration and verification? He got the verification because "they added nothing to my message."

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.

First he's a wimpy appeaser who just goes along, even though he disagrees with the councils decision and even "hands the decisions" on to the other Church's he visits, the next sentence he's the type of person who goes against the same council. Make up your mind.

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

I never claimed I had any evidence. You are getting pretty desperate. Here is what you are responding to:

"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."

I'm complaining about YOUR argument from silence. I never said Paul preached these things, only that, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T IN HIS LETTERS, DOESN'T MEAN HE REJECTED THEM, which was YOUR point.

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.

More mis-characterization. Here is the exchange:

You: 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).

Me: 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.

You: 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.

Me: 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.

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

Me: 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.

Can you please show me where CIRCUMCISION is mentioned by either one of us? My point was that we don't know what Paul thought about meat sacrificed to idols BEFORE the council, which is the point. Please don't misinterpret my words and I'll return the favor.

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 should have known better than to try and combine two thoughts into a cogent point. I'll take them one at a time to be clear.

Responding to your claim that "just because someone says the Holy Spirit says it, doesn't make it so."

This idea undercuts all Scriptural authority. If you can say it, anyone can and for any reason. Let me use an example and prove the point.

"Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes...."

Now, apply the principle of "just because someone says the Holy Spirit says it, doesn't make it so". Where does that leave us? Just because Paul says God made him an apostle, doesn't make it so, right? Also, as I said before, apostles were those who followed Jesus while He lived, so Scripture SAYS Paul isn't one (neither is James). Same principle you use to "prove" the council was not guided by the Holy Spirit.

This notion of yours makes Scripture irrelevant.

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.

Let's apply your principle again. Nope, he wasn't. So you really have no basis for choosing his (perceived) "go ahead and eat all the meat you want, just don't get caught" over the council's "abstain from meat" OR his "doctrine of Grace" over James' (perceived) "doctrine of works", do you? A very good argument can be made, using your principle, that Paul really has no authority at all, because all his authority comes from his apostleship.

James DID lay rules on the gentiles and the Jewish believers

Which "rules" did he lay on Jewish converts?

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),

Again, I never said that, only responded to YOUR notion that unless it's prevalent in Paul's letters he DIDN'T teach it.

 

[dadof10]

This is the problem with analyzing things on a line by line basis. [I'm not saying it is always wrong... I do it too. But you have to be careful when doing it so you don't miss the overall content] The quote above is in reference to a statement I made:

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

This quote is right in the middle of a wider point I was making. I had explained before and after this quote that God always had a single leader or a few leaders at the most who operated independantly. That is, except for about 400 years when every man did that which was right in his own eyes (which, incidently, is when the Pharasees and Sadducees came into power). All through the Old Testament, there was ONE leader who spoke... Not a council.

Not that there weren't attempts to form a council, of course. Korah, Dathan and Abiram did try to form a council of sorts, but it kind of fell apart.

So in proper context, my quote above refers to the history before Acts 15. I'm asking where the presidence is for the council at Jerusalem. There is none that God put together. Yet, dadof10 is using the Council at Jerusalem as its own presidence.

That's because not everything has to have an Old Covenant precedent, especially since the Messiah was not at all the the Jews expected.

What is the OT precedent for the total fulfillment and abrogation of the Law? What about the declaration of all foods being clean? What's the OT precedent for the Messiah having 12 apostles and one of them betraying him? The decent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

What about the OT precedent for sola-Scriptura, sola-Fide, invisible church?

I could go on, the point is everything changed when Jesus rose from the dead. Everything has to have a starting point, and Jerusalem is the starting point for Holy Spirit guided councils.

So we get the question, "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?" Well, it's a loaded question because in the middle of it we had "interpret".... God told his prophets what they were to say and they said it as is.

He certainly told believers to read scripture. Dan 10:21, Mark 12:10, John 7:38, John 7:42, Acts 17:11, Roman 4:3, Roman 10:11, Gal 4:30, 2 Tim 2:15, 2 Tim 3:16, JAMES 2:8. All the Apostles and Jesus read the scripture.

He certainly told believers to pray. Jesus even prayed for guidance.

Certainly doctrines should be based on scripture (not the private interpretation, but what God told his holy men). Again, 2 Tim 3:16.

But you want to talk about "interpretting"? Somebody has to! God didn't leave it up to councils either. Jesus interpreted scripture (Mark 12:10), Peter interpreted scripture (1 Peter 2:6), Paul interpreted scripture (1 tim 5:18).

I know the verse that says no scripture is of private interpretation, and I agree. That is why God sent Prophets and Apostles. God told the prophets what to say and the Apostles as well. The Bible defines an Apostle as Christ's ambassador -- that is, his spokesman. So when you have a man of God (whether it be a prophet or and Apostle) you don't even need to go to private interpretations.

So what are we told to do if church doctrine or the pastor's doctrine is disagreed upon? Well, if its against the Bible (making it a false church and a false pastor), the answer is clear. Rev 18:4 says come out of her. If you don't like that one, then Peter's second epistle deals entirely with that problem.

Sorry, but this doesn't fly. What you call "against the Bible", some churches call Biblical doctrine. There are well meaning Christians who would call some of your doctrines "from the devil" and quote Scripture to "prove" it. Private subjective interpretation of Scripture doesn't work in practice, that's why there are so many denominations out there. The Bible has a cure for this, it's called a Holy Spirit guided council.

 

[Slider]

I said Paul asked their opinion on whether what he was teaching corresponded to what the apostles and elders were teaching. He wasn't getting input from the "false teachers" who were in Jerusalem at the council also. What in the world does "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" mean if it doesn't mean Paul had some doubts and was looking for corroboration and verification? He got the verification because "they added nothing to my message."

He never asked for an opinion. He was fighting against the FALSE BRETHREN, not the false teachers.

First he's a wimpy appeaser who just goes along, even though he disagrees with the councils decision and even "hands the decisions" on to the other Church's he visits, the next sentence he's the type of person who goes against the same council. Make up your mind.

Paul... A nonapostle, johnny come lately and now wimpy. I understand what you are trying to do. You are trying to pin those titles on me. It ain't working!

Paul went there (to the council) to fight. That ain't a wimp.

I never claimed I had any evidence. You are getting pretty desperate. Here is what you are responding to:

Why are you even bothering with me with this then? Paul never said anything in his letters pertaining to the laws James laid down, and your response is "Just because he didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't believe it." Yet, I have evidence that Paul preached that all meats are clean. I have evidence that Paul didn't care whether his congregation at meats offered to idols. You have nothing! Your defence is, "just because he didn't write about it doesn't mean he wasn't against it!"

"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."

Ok... I'm saying that Paul preached that any meat -- whether strangled, offered to idols, or otherwise -- was ok. I made my point.... I even have scripture to back it. However, I made my point.

See, you can claim that Paul preached against it, and I can claim he didn't. It's in the abyss, according to you, and you are claiming that Paul was against it, or might of been against it, or I don't have any evidence because not everything Paul preached was written.

So yes, I'm arguing that the Bible is silent about that and you are arguing that just because the Bible is silent about its still right!

I'm complaining about YOUR argument from silence. I never said Paul preached these things, only that, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T IN HIS LETTERS, DOESN'T MEAN HE REJECTED THEM, which was YOUR point.

Ok, fine. So what do you believe? Tell me. I'm saying that Paul never wrote against it, and you are saying that my arguement is silent. Even though I have verses that say Paul said all meat was clean and able to eat. I am not arguing from silence. I'm going on what we know Paul said. You are the one that is saying "just because he didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't believe it"

More mis-characterization. Here is the exchange:

Yea... More of the same... It's more of the arguement that just because Paul didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't believe it. Yet you have scripture on your side, or so you say.

I should have known better than to try and combine two thoughts into a cogent point. I'll take them one at a time to be clear.

Yea, you should have. It isn't my job to make your point clear, that's yours. I was routing for you and pulling for you and giving you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't really believe that you wer calling James a bonafide apostle (even though he rejected Christ when he was alive) and Paul a non apostle.

Which "rules" did he lay on Jewish converts?

I've already addressed this. Must I do it again?

Dadof10, you seem very adamant to defend the council's decision. Yet everything I read tells me in the Bible tells me that Paul didn't care. Why are you so vigorously defending this council when there is no evidence and evidence against the notion that Paul sought approval?

There is no presidence for a council on God's word (except by the Pharasees and the likes of Korah). There is no evidence that Paul needed the council's approval. There is no evidence that Paul asked for the council.

 

[Slider]

That's because not everything has to have an Old Covenant precedent, especially since the Messiah was not at all the the Jews expected.

What is the OT precedent for the total fulfillment and abrogation of the Law? What about the declaration of all foods being clean? What's the OT precedent for the Messiah having 12 apostles and one of them betraying him? The decent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

What about the OT precedent for sola-Scriptura, sola-Fide, invisible church?

I could go on, the point is everything changed when Jesus rose from the dead. Everything has to have a starting point, and Jerusalem is the starting point for Holy Spirit guided councils.




Sorry, but this doesn't fly. What you call "against the Bible", some churches call Biblical doctrine. There are well meaning Christians who would call some of your doctrines "from the devil" and quote Scripture to "prove" it. Private subjective interpretation of Scripture doesn't work in practice, that's why there are so many denominations out there. The Bible has a cure for this, it's called a Holy Spirit guided council.

I'm absolutely guilty...In front of all those well meaning Christians, I have presented by pearls before the swine.

 

[Slider]

Acts 15:3....

And being brought on their way by the church, the passed through Phoenica and Samaris, delaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they cause great joy unto all the brethren.

This verse doesn't say that the Church at Antioch sent him. Paul WAS the church. He was the leader and the Apostle. Understanding what the Greek means is the key. He was summoned by those of Judea (which he called false brothren) and went to fight. The Church at Antioch simply provided him with an escort and funds. It doesn't mean that the Church (and the non exsistent council of the Church of Antioch) determined that Paul shoud go and ask for permission to preach grace.

Paul already had his mind made up. He argued with them and stood his ground, and then when asked to go to Jersusalem (and he said in Gal, that they wanted to bring them into bondage, I wonder if that's mean spiritual or physical), he didn't go their to plead or ask... He went there to fight. That's hardly a wimp and one who said, "I'm not only willing to be arrested for the Gospel, I'm willing to die for it!"

 

[dadof10]

He never asked for an opinion. He was fighting against the FALSE BRETHREN, not the false teachers.

Then answer the simple question. What does this mean?

" 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.

Galatians 2:6 NIV

As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.

Paul... A nonapostle, johnny come lately and now wimpy. I understand what you are trying to do. You are trying to pin those titles on me. It ain't working!

Paul went there (to the council) to fight. That ain't a wimp.

I cant decide whether you are ducking the point or just not getting it. You have advanced the notion that Paul just went along with the decisions of the Church in Antioch and the council EVEN THOUGH HE DISAGREED WITH THEM. That doesn't sound like Paul to me or to you, when it suits your purpose. Paul didn't appease anyone. Therefore, (and here's the point) he did NOT disagree with the Church in Antioch or the council's decisions because he passed them on for observance, which he would not have done had he disagreed with them. You have made a big deal about what Paul would and wouldn't do based on the kind of person Paul was. I'm not trying to tie anything around your neck that you wouldn't agree with, I'm simply using your own methods to get you to see my side.

Why are you even bothering with me with this then? Paul never said anything in his letters pertaining to the laws James laid down, and your response is "Just because he didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't believe it." Yet, I have evidence that Paul preached that all meats are clean. I have evidence that Paul didn't care whether his congregation at meats offered to idols. You have nothing! Your defence is, "just because he didn't write about it doesn't mean he wasn't against it!"

OK. Maybe this is where were missing each other.

Yes, Paul preached that all meats are clean, there is nothing unclean about eating meats sacrificed to idols, this is what Paul preached and I agree. However, the council NEVER called the meats "unclean", it never claimed that eating the meat (or the other ordinances) effected our salvation. There is no contradiction between Paul's letter and the council's. What the council DID say was simply to abstain. That's it. This, of course, begs the question: "If the meat is clean, why do we have to abstain?" The answer was given by Paul, (I'm paraphrasing) "because it offends Jewish consciences."

I have evidence that the early Church condemned the eating of the meat. One from the council, guided by the Holy Spirit (which, I notice, you didn't respond to) and one from Revelation (which you've never responded to) , so its not true that I have nothing. Paul's references to the meat and these two instances I've mentioned can easily be logically reconciled, if one will look at the subject with an open mind instead of with an agenda.

Ok... I'm saying that Paul preached that any meat -- whether strangled, offered to idols, or otherwise -- was ok. I made my point.... I even have scripture to back it. However, I made my point.

See, you can claim that Paul preached against it, and I can claim he didn't. It's in the abyss, according to you, and you are claiming that Paul was against it, or might of been against it, or I don't have any evidence because not everything Paul preached was written.

So yes, I'm arguing that the Bible is silent about that and you are arguing that just because the Bible is silent about its still right!

The Bible is not silent about it, Revelation is not and neither was the council or the Holy Spirit. All three are unanimous that Gentile converts should abstain. Paul's letters are not the whole Bible.

Ok, fine. So what do you believe? Tell me. I'm saying that Paul never wrote against it, and you are saying that my arguement is silent. Even though I have verses that say Paul said all meat was clean and able to eat. I am not arguing from silence. I'm going on what we know Paul said. You are the one that is saying "just because he didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't believe it"

Take it easy, Slider. I realize you are getting frustrated. As I said above, and have been saying from the beginning, Paul simply gave the reason for the ordinance. He is not "going against the council". The Holy Spirit guided its decision and to go against it would have been to go against Him. Paul is not going against the book of Revelation either, because it's sacred Scripture . He is simply making a practical argument as to why something that is in-and-of-itself clean, has been rejected by the council and the Holy Spirit. You would see it if you weren't so stuck on the notion that Paul and James taught differing doctrines. I'm sure you reconcile difficult verses all the time. Ask yourself why not in this case. There is overwhelming Scriptural evidence to support my point.

Yea... More of the same... It's more of the arguement that just because Paul didn't write it doesn't mean he didn't believe it. Yet you have scripture on your side, or so you say.

Two words. Council and Revelation. I don't say, they do.

Yea, you should have. It isn't my job to make your point clear, that's yours. I was routing for you and pulling for you and giving you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't really believe that you wer calling James a bonafide apostle (even though he rejected Christ when he was alive) and Paul a non apostle.

Good. Thanks. I was just trying unsuccessfully to make a point.

I've already addressed this. Must I do it again?

Dadof10, you seem very adamant to defend the council's decision. Yet everything I read tells me in the Bible tells me that Paul didn't care. Why are you so vigorously defending this council when there is no evidence and evidence against the notion that Paul sought approval?

Because your view of Paul doesn't jibe with the rest of Scripture. You are writing from the position that Paul is the Bible, James disagreed with Paul and there is no reconciliation of the two. Acts plainly says the decision was made by the Holy Spirit and you say that just because someone says it, doesn't make it true. The book of Revelation paints eating meat sacrificed to idols in a hellish light, and you ignore this fact like it's not even part of Scripture. I'm passionate about the truth of Scripture, all of Scripture, and it bothers me when I see someone misuse it to promote a non-Biblical doctrine.

There is no presidence for a council on God's word (except by the Pharasees and the likes of Korah). There is no evidence that Paul needed the council's approval. There is no evidence that Paul asked for the council.

Again, so what? You have yet to prove that there needs to be an OT precedent for all NT practices, and that the only way Paul could have agreed with the Holy Spirit guided council is if he personally called the council.

 

[dadof10]

Acts 15:3....

And being brought on their way by the church, the passed through Phoenica and Samaris, delaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they cause great joy unto all the brethren.

This verse doesn't say that the Church at Antioch sent him. Paul WAS the church.

The verse says "So, being sent on their way by the church" or "And being brought on their way by the church" (KJV) Is your view that Paul alone sent himself and the others on their way?

He was the leader and the Apostle.

The leader of what? The Church at Antioch?

Understanding what the Greek means is the key. He was summoned by those of Judea (which he called false brothren) and went to fight.The Church at Antioch simply provided him with an escort and funds.

The Greek word "propempō" (brought in the KJV, ) means:

1) to send before
2) to send forward, bring on the way, accompany or escort
3) to set one forward, fit him out with the requisites for a journey

The BLB says the proper interpretation for Acts 15:3 is "to set one forward, fit him out with the requisites for a journey", so you are right, and so am I. So, the church "set them forward" and "fit them out with the requisites for a journey". It did both.

It doesn't mean that the Church (and the non exsistent council of the Church of Antioch) determined that Paul shoud go and ask for permission to preach grace.

C'mon, Slider. Really? This is a TWO strawmen. I never said there was a "council of Antioch", nor that Paul went to ask any kind of permission. I know you are getting frustrated because of the mountain of evidence piling up against your notions, but please try and refrain from strawmen. It only clouds the issue and wastes your and my time.

Paul already had his mind made up. He argued with them and stood his ground, and then when asked to go to Jersusalem (and he said in Gal, that they wanted to bring them into bondage, I wonder if that's mean spiritual or physical), he didn't go their to plead or ask... He went there to fight. That's hardly a wimp and one who said, "I'm not only willing to be arrested for the Gospel, I'm willing to die for it!"

Please read my post before this one, especially the part about Paul being a wimp. I'm not the one who is saying he just went along, even though he disagreed, you are.

I would still like an answer to this question, if you don't mind. I asked it in my last post. Just so we understand each other.

You: 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.

Me: Could you be more clear on this point? Are you saying that before the council the apostles and elders in Jerusalem believed the Gentiles had to be circumcised and obey the law to be saved?

 

[JoReba]

lol, is that being presumptuosly arrogant aswell ; )

as a discussion, I was wondering on what part do those who arnt 'in authority' or who dont have the gift of teaching, pastoring, or other expertise in ministry have in regards to respecting these God given roles? and what level do people need to humble themselves to those who's authority or knowledge exeeds there own?

and how does english and modern interpretation of authority relate to biblical Authority, or does it not relate at all?
And how can we distinguish those who have the Gift of authority (and maturity in) vrs those who claim it (or immaturity)

just to turn this topic into a conversation rather than a statement.

You cannot turn anything into a "conversation" when its existing format is already a conversation. Please speak with informational authority, next time.

And, I agree, that is all you are able to "just" do." God Bless all forms of self assigned intuitive authority as they attempt to aline themselves with God's standard by merely talking about ideas rather than by materially demonstrating them. Correct?

 

[JoReba]

Woodlandapple

Ah. but this thread is a statement. If you have a problem with the statement, then it becomes a conversation. Or more apt, a debate between two people who have a difference of opinion.


JoReba

Peter makes it clear there is no authority among those who are in Christ. No Lords of the realm, as it were. Except the Lord Jesus Christ, of course. Paul says things that could be construed as authority, but if that is what he meant, then it is a direct contradiction to what Peter clearly says.

Authoritative people might say that you are anti-authoritarian. But it seems to me that a valid problem among Christians is brought up. The language used that is enumerated in the account does appear at first glance to be rather authoritarian.

But we must also realize (sorry) that each of us in our own way believes that what we believe is the truth. Otherwise we are believing a lie of our own making. So it is natural to present the truth as we see it as the truth that it is to us. It can be done with arrogance, denouncing and denigrating every other view as heresy. Or it can be done in.... I was going to say in love, but that is too subjective. It can be done with respect for the other person whom we realize is as limited and as fallen as we are. And giving the benefit of the doubt that such a one is simply, like ourselves merely searching for a greater understanding of truth and will with an open mind and Spiritual discernment, not only recognize the truth when we see it, but will change to conform to it. While also realizing that not all actually fit that bill.

The phrases enumerated are common buzz words. I use many of them myself. But I don't consider myself to be arrogant just because I use buzz words. Give me different buzz words that have the same meaning, but are more acceptable, and I will use them instead.

Sometimes a judgment can also be a sign of arrogance.

FC

Do buzz words bolster your thoughts? Lol.

At all times anyone speaking to other people things as I listed in the original post is arrogant when the speaker cannot prove authority over their listener.

Do you use your own life examples to supposedly prove your own spoken ideologies? Is that self centered, or not? Answer ... ?

 

[JoReba]

Then how are we to discern truth from Scripture? Is Truth simply subjective?

Scripture itself tell us how to find the truth in Scripture. By The Holy Spirit.

 

[JoReba]

Then why did Paul write this to the Corinthians?

For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down. 2 Corinthians 13:10 (NASB)

Or this to Titus?

These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15 (NASB)

Before I write a single word on these fora, I study to make sure I know what I'm writing, so that I can present my view with authority. Whether anyone accepts or rejects what I write is entirely up to them. If that makes me "presumptively arrogant", so be it. From what I've seen on this board (and others), there's more than enough of that to go around.

For what it's worth.

Yes, I see what your comments are worth.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians because he was an Apostle, as were all who wrote NT Scripture. Are any Christian talkers and writers today of the same authority as The Apostles? If they are are not, then they need to be reminded they are not authoritative whenever they presume to have God's Authority as presumptive speakers and arrogant writers.

 

[JoReba]

Here's what I mean...

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=40550&pagenumber=

And other resources I use:

http://www.tertullian.org/works.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/index.htm

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html/

http://ncbible.info/MoodRes/History/WorksofFlaviusJosephus1.pdf

http://ncbible.info/MoodRes/History/EusebiusChurchHistory.pdf

And that's just a start. I. for one, am sick and tired of reading the regurgitated garbage coming from the disciples of so-called "Biblical scholars" today, namely the Tim LaHayes and Jack van Impes of the church. Want to get closer to the truth?

Get closer to the source.

'Nuff said.

And one more thing:

I don't accept this idea that everything is just a matter of "personal interpretation", as though each and every interpretation carries the same amount of weight and is - therefore - all either equally true or false. There is a right way to interpret the Bible and a wrong way to do it and you'll forgive my "presumptive arrogance" if I believe my way is better than others I see posted here.

Who are you to tell us, "Nuff said?"

Feeling kinda presumptive, today ... ? Lol. Guess what, people have more to say than you can control by telling them, "Nuff said."

Lol.

 

[JoReba]

I think I understand what you are trying to say JoReba, but I still don't agree. Sheep to sheep... That is, paritioner to paritioner, you would be correct, and I think I know why you wrote this. We get a lot of "well that's your interpretation!" And sometimes that is true. These message boards are full of mere sheep bleeding and baaing. Me included.

The problem with your essay is that it isn't true. It sounds very similar to the men who confronted Moses and said, we are famous too. Would you put this essay before him? Would you put it before Paul? Some of us are truly in authority. Not me, and I'm not pointing to anyone else except my Pastor whom I truly believe is called of God.

There was a time that every man did that what was right in his own eyes... That's about the time God packed up and left for 400 years until Jesus came.

Today, is it any different? Will you be willing to follow a preacher above yourself?

I will give credence to any preacher who materially demonstrates all he speaks and urges people to do, as Jesus and The Apostles materially demonstrated all they spoke and urged other people to do.

As far as "following a preacher" today goes, they need to be "followed" by their listeners no more than a first grade teacher needs to be followed by mature adult who can apprehend God's Written Word for himself.

 

[JoReba]

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.

How does Scriptural study qualify as "hard work?" Lol.

Remember, all of today's Theological study and "hard work" by Believing Intellectuals has not yet produced anyone of the same caliber and effect as were Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Persia as they each simultaneously served extremely Pagan despots while faultlessly serving God. They each were able to daily show immense Wisdom from God in order for them to be in complete authority over Pagan populaces, Pagan economies, Pagan governance, Pagan monarchies, and Pagan society without getting killed, sanctioned, or fired from their positions.

Yet today, studied "Believing Intellectuals" in the face of today's huge problems of national and world governance can only sit in their Little Ivory Towers to wring their hands in impracticality, make a few little dissertations to selected audiences, and try to pretend sincerely ideological words equate to action.

Where are the Daniels and Josephs of today? Apparently, they are not coming from Christian who use "hard work" to study Scripture. Lol.

 

[JoReba]

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.

Was there something you were trying to say other than merely blurting Scripture?

Lol.

 

[JoReba]

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

<b>"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​

</b>​

Please remember The World is not yet "In Christ," so Jews and Greeks, Males and Females, still do exist.

 

[JoReba]

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.

A babbling, presumptive, and arrogant preacher will save no one.

Just because there are preachers in The Bible does not mean today's preachers are like them. Please recognize the true value of what pops into your personal head as a "reminder" in response to statements made by others, and the true value of how things "seem" to yourself.

Jesus constantly corrected falsely spoken ideologies which He was aware of. Do you follow Jesus?