Why so many theologies?

[BobRyan]

Luke 11:20 is a parallel:
"If by God's finger I drive out demons, then for you God's imperial rule has arrived."

Satan was believed to have been an agnel whose job was to accuse and test humans before God.
Job 1:6-12 and 2:1-7. Today it seems like other people and groups have taken on that task.

Christ said that Satan "is a liar and murderer" God never "gave him the job" of doing that.

Satan was at one time Luciver - the star of the morning - standing in the presence of God -- a holy perfect being - until the day sin was found in him -- due to his pride.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dadof10]

Here is the riddle. Why would the Lord come in person to establish a new spiritual people (Israel) and not leave them a theology and doctrine. According to the Second Covenant Scripture, Jesus did leave His people with one theology and doctrine straight from His mouth. So how did we go from one theology that was again given by God Himself to mutltiple and different theologies? I believe carnality is at work again and everyone is right in their own eyes.

Jesus left His people with an authoritative, Holy Spirit guided Church, this is how Truth is transmitted throughout time. Reading and interpreting Scripture for ourselves and attempting to extract theology from our own personal interpretation, is not how God set things up. This is non-Biblical. Nowhere in Scripture do we see this model, but we do see the model of an authoritative Church in Acts 15:

1"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 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, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." 12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
16 `After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,
17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'
19 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."

The decision they made was guided by the Holy Spirit, and written in letter form:

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."

Then in Acts 16 the decisions reached in Jerusalem were held binding.

4"As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem."

Notice there was a doctrinal dispute, the Apostles and "elders" held a council, came to a Holy Spirit guided decision and held this decision binding on the local church communities. This is how Truth in doctrine and theology is arrived at and passed on, and this is how the Catholic Church still works to this day.

 

[Veritas]

According to the Second Covenant Scripture, Jesus did leave His people with one theology and doctrine straight from His mouth. So how did we go from one theology that was again given by God Himself to mutltiple and different theologies? I believe carnality is at work again and everyone is right in their own eyes.

I guess it doesn't seem that bad to me. I know we Christians argue here alot but there is a suprising amount of harmony. The discord happens because no one is perfect. Every single person will have their slight variation on "theology", its up to God to judge the heart.

For those who are Catholic I appreciate what that particular church has done in history but I only see it as a particular church and I think it has it's failures just as any other.

 

[francisdesales]

According to the Second Covenant Scripture, Jesus did leave His people with one theology and doctrine straight from His mouth. So how did we go from one theology that was again given by God Himself to mutltiple and different theologies? I believe carnality is at work again and everyone is right in their own eyes.

I guess it doesn't seem that bad to me. I know we Christians argue here alot but there is a suprising amount of harmony. The discord happens because no one is perfect. Every single person will have their slight variation on "theology", its up to God to judge the heart.

For those who are Catholic I appreciate what that particular church has done in history but I only see it as a particular church and I think it has it's failures just as any other.

Craig,

I think if we imagine the Church as divinely-established, rather than an organization that is strictly human, the differences become much more "real", don't they? Reading the NT makes it hard to deny that Christ delegated authority that He had been given from the Father. Rejecting this authority from God is a rejection of Christ, isn't it (Luke 10:16, for example)

Certainly, it is up to God to judge our hearts, but this does not include our ideas of theology. God will judge our conscience and how we obeyed Him - but how much obedience is involved when we relegate God's Church to a simple human organization?

Just something to meditate on.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Every single person will have their slight variation on "theology", its up to God to judge the heart.

Veritas,

We are talking about concrete things here. Doctrine, theology and Truth. I agree that, in the end, God will judge the heart, but what about the head?

I don't think that after "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem", that it was still an open question. At that point, the case had been closed, the council had made it's decision. The only thing left for the local communities to do was either submit and obey, or disagree with the decision and apostasize from the Apostolic Church. There was no "searching the Scripture" to see whether they agreed with the decision or not, then forming their own church based on their own personal interpretation of "Scripture".

My point is, that this is the Biblical model for discerning and disseminating docrtrinal Truth.

God Bless, Mark

 

[BobRyan]

In Acts 17:11 "They SEARCHED the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"

In Gal 1:6-12 Paul says to THE CHURCH "IF WE (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should bring to you a DIFFERENT gospel -- let them be ACCURSED".

There is no room at all for the assumption that the individual churches abandoned these methods.

In fact in 2Cor 11 Paul expresses concern that the churhes might be easily duped by a church leader coming along after Paul with erroneous doctrine --

2 Cor 11
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Paul argues AGAINST the notion of "simply believe whatever you are told to believe as long as it is a highly respected head/leader of the church telling you to do it".

In Acts 20 Paul argues that "WOLVES" will arise from WITHIN the church teaching bad doctrine.

Paul tells Timothy to STAY at Ephesus to squash the tide of bad doctrine arising from them EVEN then!

As for Acts 15 -- the whole reason for that debate was that they needed an answer for a question that they could not resolve from scripture. The Apostles in Jerusalem debated then came to a conclusion that was biblically sound NOTICE that IN the text it says "For Moses is preached from the Synagogues every Sabbath" (just as we saw in Acts 13). They were not making an "anti-Bible" statement but a PRO-Bible statement in Acts 15.

Their decision was not AGAINST the bible - but in FAVOR of it.

Even in the OT Gentiles were not told to become circumcised Jews as a means of salvation. Paul argues in Romans 4 that Abraham is father of the faithful BOTH to the circumcised (Jews) AND to the non-Jews.

In Heb 8 the New Covenant promises is NOT "believe whatever people tell you to believe -- ask no questions.. study no Bible" -- rather the NEW Covenant is "they shall ALL be taught of God" Heb 8.

In 1John 2 - the Apostle says "you have no need for anyone to teach you for HIS ANNOINTING TEACHES YOU".

The Holy Spirit comes to EACH person as "the Spirit of Truth" -- in fact He goes to the entire world as the one who "CONVICTS of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16:8-16.

The benefits and blessings of the Gospel include Christ (the way the TRUTH and the life) brought to EACH person via the Holy Spirit of TRUTH - as well as fellowship with fellow believers as well as the instruction of the Apostles.

But this notion of shutting off the Holy Spirit from believers and then telling them "to believe whatever they are told" is not found in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Pogo]

BobRyan -

Thank the Lord for your contributions to this forum!

I'm sure that there is much scriptural interpretation that we might find where we disagree, but not here.

I've copied this, as well as several other posts of yours, to a text document, for my edification.

You are a great communicator!

I'm looking forward to reading more of your contributions!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[francisdesales]

The benefits and blessings of the Gospel include Christ (the way the TRUTH and the life) brought to EACH person via the Holy Spirit of TRUTH - as well as fellowship with fellow believers as well as the instruction of the Apostles.

But this notion of shutting off the Holy Spirit from believers and then telling them "to believe whatever they are told" is not found in scripture.
in Christ,

Bob

Bob,

I agree with the gist of your post (and have enjoyed many of your posts lately).

Extra-biblical writings make it clear that itenerant preachers were not given free reign among communities - their teachings were judged against what they had already been taught by the Apostles, both orally and in written form. Over and over, Paul tells the recipients of his letters to hold onto what they had been taught. Thus, the Apostlic Tradition (tradition as per the ancient definition - what has been handed down, oral and written) was the rule of faith, the determinant for the local churches on whether an itenerant preacher or a newly elected bishop was actually adhering to the Gospel "once given".

I believe from this mindset, we can derive the so-called "sense of the faithful". Clearly, we are indeed called to judge the ordinary preacher vs. what has ALREADY been given and compare it to measure the worth of the said preacher. No preacher himself is infallible, so clearly, we should hold them up to the true Apostolic Traditions given.

It is clearly incorrect to slavishly follow a teacher without reference to this "deposit of faith", whether Protestant or Catholic. Even the Code of Canon Law states this. Earlier this month, the United States Catholic Catechism (2006) had a sentence changed primarily because the writings of a Catholic Apologetic website writing to the bishops responsible for the catechism (which is NOT the "official" Catechism, but one written for Americans. Don't ask me why there was a need for another Catechism...). The subject was on whether God's covenant still remained with the Jews - which would imply that Jews didn't have to enter the Church. The Bishops admitted their mistake and retracted the sentence. At any rate, I understand your rationale, and this case is a good example of how even bishops can make mistakes when they forget the constant teaching of the Catholic Church... In the end, however, one must subject themselves to some authority outside of themselves - otherwise, it becomes a dangerous situation where one equates their opinions with the Holy Spirit.

If you are interested in the article, let me know, I'll post it here.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

In Acts 17:11 "They SEARCHED the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"

There is no room at all for the assumption that the individual churches abandoned these methods.

Actually, you are leaving out that "they" were Jews.

"The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

What were the "things" the Beroeans were looking for? The answer is in Acts 17:2-3

"1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."

Just because they examined the Jewish Scriptures to see if it was necessary for "the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead", doesn't make it a "method" for the Christian Church.

In Gal 1:6-12 Paul says to THE CHURCH "IF WE (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should bring to you a DIFFERENT gospel -- let them be ACCURSED".

I went to Bible Gateway and "searched the Scriptures" to try and find a version that translates the word "euaggelizÃ…Â" as "bring". All the versions use either the word "preach" (oral) or "proclaim" (also oral). Could you please let me know which version you are using? Thanks.

Paul argues AGAINST the notion of "simply believe whatever you are told to believe as long as it is a highly respected head/leader of the church telling you to do it".

When did I ever say that "a highly respected head/leader of the church" creates doctrine? Catholic theology "argues AGAINST" it, too , that's why we have councils. But once a decision is made, obedience is expected, like in Acts 15-16.

In Acts 20 Paul argues that "WOLVES" will arise from WITHIN the church teaching bad doctrine.

Paul tells Timothy to STAY at Ephesus to squash the tide of bad doctrine arising from them EVEN then!

There have been debates over doctrine from the very beginning. How they are resolved is what we are talking about here. In neither of the above verses does it mention solving the problems using Scripture alone.

As for Acts 15 -- the whole reason for that debate was that they needed an answer for a question that they could not resolve from scripture.

How so? Where is it mentioned that they first tried Scripture?

The Apostles in Jerusalem debated then came to a conclusion that was biblically sound NOTICE that IN the text it says "For Moses is preached from the Synagogues every Sabbath" (just as we saw in Acts 13).

I agree it was Biblically sound, but that's not the reason James says that Moses is preached.

"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."

The council is still upholding some of the Jewish Law (abstaining from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood). They aren't scrapping the whole thing because "Moses has had in every city those who preach him". These were still operative, whereas circumcision was not. James didn't want scandal.

They were not making an "anti-Bible" statement but a PRO-Bible statement in Acts 15.

Their decision was not AGAINST the bible - but in FAVOR of it.

They were making neither a pro nor anti Biblical statement. They were making a decision on a point of doctrine, and it's not even mentioned that they used Scripture at all. That means that Biblically it's possible to make doctrinal decisions that are binding on the faithful without using Scripture.

But this notion of shutting off the Holy Spirit from believers and then telling them "to believe whatever they are told" is not found in scripture.

I never said that. The Holy Spirit works through the Church Christ founded. This is found in Scripture, unlike the dysfunctional, distructive, divisive doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[dadof10]

In the end, however, one must subject themselves to some authority outside of themselves - otherwise, it becomes a dangerous situation where one equates their opinions with the Holy Spirit.

Well put, Francis!

 

[mondar]

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says...

Deu 13:1 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder,
Deu 13:2 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

False and wrong theologies go back as far as the serpent in the garden of Eden. Some might look at the existence of different theologies in a post modern way. The post modern attitude is that "well there are many different paths to the truth." In the passage above, the different paths do not lead to the truth. Only one path leads to truth. The purpose of competing theologies is not to have different paths that lead to the truth but so that God can "Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul." God will know hearts by the theological choices we make.

The believing person in Israel had the same theological quandary we have today. Which prophet do I believe, which teacher do I follow. The ancient Israelite wondered if he should follow the priests in Jerusalem. Later in Israels history this very situation would occur where the leadership in Jerusalem went apostate.
Jer 2:8 The priests said not, Where is Jehovah? and they that handle the law knew me not: the rulers also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.
As the nation of Israel advanced through the centuries, they apostatized or departed from the scriptures and the faith. I am sure these priests in Jerusalem wanted the people to follow them. They made claims to know God, but they did not know God.

How would people know which prist was a priest of God? They had to read the scriptures! They had to red the instructions in Deuteronomy. What happens when the priests, the teachers of the Law no longer taught the oracles of God found in the scriptures? Then these Israelites had to consult the law themselves and follow their own consciences.

One of the more notable and noble people in the scriptures were the Beroeans. They were not willing to trust even the apostle Paul without checking his word against the scriptures.
Act 17:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

The answer lies not in following the watchtower society, or the prophets and apostles in Salt lake city, nor in any group of people that will interpret the word of God for you. You must consult the word of God itself. If your heart is pure, you will read it right. For God tests you, and is proving you to show that your heart is right. The only way, is for you to consult the scriptures themselves. I do not say it is easy to study the word of God, but I do say that the scriptures were understandable to the original audience (perspicuity of scriptures). I dont intend to sell my soul to any other man or any prophet or any priest or any apostle. I will study the scriptures and work in them and follow my own conscience.

In conclusion, their should be competing theologies. Its the way it always was and the way it always will be. Its the way God knows your heart. The Israelites of old did not need a special interpreter to follow Deuteronomy 13. The priests in Jerusalem would have explained the text away. Read it for yourself, and know the Lord.

 

[BobRyan]

Extra-biblical writings make it clear that itenerant preachers were not given free reign among communities - their teachings were judged against what they had already been taught by the Apostles, both orally and in written form. Over and over, Paul tells the recipients of his letters to hold onto what they had been taught. Thus, the Apostlic Tradition (tradition as per the ancient definition - what has been handed down, oral and written) was the rule of faith, the determinant for the local churches on whether an itenerant preacher or a newly elected bishop was actually adhering to the Gospel "once given".

I believe from this mindset, we can derive the so-called "sense of the faithful". Clearly, we are indeed called to judge the ordinary preacher vs. what has ALREADY been given and compare it to measure the worth of the said preacher. No preacher himself is infallible, so clearly, we should hold them up to the true Apostolic Traditions given.

It is clearly incorrect to slavishly follow a teacher without reference to this "deposit of faith", whether Protestant or Catholic. Even the Code of Canon Law states this. Earlier this month, the United States Catholic Catechism (2006) had a sentence changed primarily because the writings of a Catholic Apologetic website writing to the bishops responsible for the catechism (which is NOT the "official" Catechism, but one written for Americans. Don't ask me why there was a need for another Catechism...). The subject was on whether God's covenant still remained with the Jews - which would imply that Jews didn't have to enter the Church. The Bishops admitted their mistake and retracted the sentence. At any rate, I understand your rationale, and this case is a good example of how even bishops can make mistakes when they forget the constant teaching of the Catholic Church... In the end, however, one must subject themselves to some authority outside of themselves - otherwise, it becomes a dangerous situation where one equates their opinions with the Holy Spirit.

I agree with most of this. However we do not equate our opinions to the Holy Spirit any more than the highest church leader may simply refer to "his opinion as that of the Holy Spirit".

I also agree that church members in subjection to local church leaders and to some extent to central church leadership as long as the body of Christ is approving of the direction they are going.

However the point in 2Cor 11 and Gal 1:6-11 is very cleary "though WE (apostles) OR an angel from heaven" should come to you preaching a different gospel -- other than what they had at the writing of the letter to the church in Galatia in the first century A.D. -- "let him be accursed".

When Paul references "WE" Apostles and "An angel from HEAVEN" he is referencing the very highest authorities known to communicate with the church outside of direct communication from the Holy Spirit.

And EVEN in the case of the Holy Spirit - John says in 1John 4 to TEST the spirits -- do not simply believe whatever they say - but test them against the Bible truth we know to be established.

My argument is not against being in subjection to church leadership -- my argument is that Paul never leaves the church member "off the hook" but insists that ALL be test even if the message comes from himself -- or one like himself (an Apostle) or even a direct visit from an Angel from heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

However the point in 2Cor 11 and Gal 1:6-11 is very cleary "though WE (apostles) OR an angel from heaven" should come to you preaching a different gospel -- other than what they had at the writing of the letter to the church in Galatia in the first century A.D. -- "let him be accursed".

When Paul references "WE" Apostles and "An angel from HEAVEN" he is referencing the very highest authorities known to communicate with the church outside of direct communication from the Holy Spirit.

And EVEN in the case of the Holy Spirit - John says in 1John 4 to TEST the spirits -- do not simply believe whatever they say - but test them against the Bible truth we know to be established.

My argument is not against being in subjection to church leadership -- my argument is that Paul never leaves the church member "off the hook" but insists that ALL be test even if the message comes from himself -- or one like himself (an Apostle) or even a direct visit from an Angel from heaven.

Test them against what? Our opinions?

No, against the Traditions of the Apostles, both in oral and written form. Notice how the later works of the NT speak of "holding onto the traditions taught? That is our frame of reference, Bob. Our frame of reference to test AGAINST is the teachings of Paul and James and Peter and John. We believe that THEY had been given the power to bind and loosen Christians in the community, and that what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven. In other words, we believe that Jesus had delegated and established the authority given Him by the Father to the Apostles - and their successors.

Yes, we are to test the spirits, but it must be tested against something outside of ourselves. Otherwise, we end up deluding ourselves, equating our mind with the mind of the Spirit of God.

This is why the charism of infalliblity is so important to Christians.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

If your heart is pure, you will read it right. For God tests you, and is proving you to show that your heart is right.

Mondar,

What if you and I read the same Scriptures, and come to different (even opposite) conclusions? How are we to know which one of our hearts is right? It seems you are saying that if someone disagrees with your theology his heart is in the wrong place or impure.

The only way, is for you to consult the scriptures themselves.

Can you show where this is in Scripture?

In conclusion, their should be competing theologies. Its the way it always was and the way it always will be.

Not according to Acts 15-16. It was not left to the individual communities to reject the decision made in Jerusalem. 16:4 "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem."

There is no evidence either in Scripture or the historical record, that competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church.

God Bless, Mark

 

[Bubba]

Not according to Acts 15-16. It was not left to the individual communities to reject the decision made in Jerusalem. 16:4 "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem."

There is no evidence either in Scripture or the historical record, that competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church.

God Bless, Mark

Mark,
It was the little guys coming to the big guys (Jerusalem Council) with complaints against them, see Acts 15:5 "On their arrival at Jerusalem [18] they (Paul and Barnabas) were welcomed by the Church, by the apostles and elders, and they reported how greatly God had worked with them. But some members of the Pharisees' party who (in spite of Jesus' earlier confrontations with them) had become believers stood up and declared that it was absolutely essential that these men be told that they must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses."
Bubba

 

[dadof10]

Not according to Acts 15-16. It was not left to the individual communities to reject the decision made in Jerusalem. 16:4 "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem."

There is no evidence either in Scripture or the historical record, that competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church.

God Bless, Mark

Mark,
It was the little guys coming to the big guys (Jerusalem Council) with complaints against them, see Acts 15:5 "On their arrival at Jerusalem [18] they (Paul and Barnabas) were welcomed by the Church, by the apostles and elders, and they reported how greatly God had worked with them. But some members of the Pharisees' party who (in spite of Jesus' earlier confrontations with them) had become believers stood up and declared that it was absolutely essential that these men be told that they must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses."
Bubba

Bubba,

Great handle, BTW. I think the false doctrine (Gentile circumcision) was pretty widespread. Paul and Barnabas debated with the Judiazers in Antioch, also. Acts 14:27-15:2 "and from there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled. 27 And when they arrived, they gathered the church together and declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they remained no little time with the disciples.

15 1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 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."

It seems like either there were also dissenters in Jerusalem or the ones in Antioch went to Jerusalem also to plead their case, I don't know.

 

[francisdesales]

There is no evidence either in Scripture or the historical record, that competing theologies were tolerated in the early Church.

God Bless, Mark

Paul makes that pretty clear over and over again. Consult the beginning of 1 Corinthians - or maybe Paul's attitude towards the Judaizers.

Toleration of false teachings is the heresy of relativism.

Regards

 

[Veritas]

I think if we imagine the Church as divinely-established, rather than an organization that is strictly human, the differences become much more "real", don't they? Reading the NT makes it hard to deny that Christ delegated authority that He had been given from the Father. Rejecting this authority from God is a rejection of Christ, isn't it (Luke 10:16, for example)

Sure, I agree Christ delegated authority, but I think He does to all of us (Christians). And I do see the Church as divinely established. I call it the invisible Church made up of all the true Christians throughout all the various denominations (and now nondenominations).

Certainly, it is up to God to judge our hearts, but this does not include our ideas of theology. God will judge our conscience and how we obeyed Him - but how much obedience is involved when we relegate God's Church to a simple human organization?

I do think pretty much all church (as in the churches we go to on Sunday and such) IS just how we happen to organize it. I believe it is the simple relationship with Christ that we live out with our lives that truely matters. And yeah, I'm sure I'll be judged on my concience and how I obeyed Him and I know I'll come up short, which is why my hope is in Christ's promise to me.

 

[Veritas]

Veritas,

We are talking about concrete things here. Doctrine, theology and Truth. I agree that, in the end, God will judge the heart, but what about the head?

I don't think that after "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem", that it was still an open question. At that point, the case had been closed, the council had made it's decision. The only thing left for the local communities to do was either submit and obey, or disagree with the decision and apostasize from the Apostolic Church. There was no "searching the Scripture" to see whether they agreed with the decision or not, then forming their own church based on their own personal interpretation of "Scripture".

My point is, that this is the Biblical model for discerning and disseminating docrtrinal Truth.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I would agree that is the Biblical model I just don't think a certain denomination has a corner on the market on this. And, I'm talking about disagreements on much finer points than what was discussed in Acts 15. When they were saying: 1 "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." ...thats a pretty huge misconception.

Peter rightly states: 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. ...and... 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." ....confirming the very basic groundings of the whole point of Christianity. This is a point that I would say most denominations that claim to be Christians adhere too.

 

[francisdesales]

Sure, I agree Christ delegated authority, but I think He does to all of us (Christians).

In a sense, but I think that idea is taken way too far in some modes of Christianity. Christ left the Apostles to bind and loosen. Why did Christ establish such an heirarchy? Because men take it upon themselves to "know" what the Spirit teaches them, and often against what the Spirit says to the REST of the Church! In addition, men need to be disciplined by those whom they hold in high regard or have been given authority from above, such as St. Paul writing the Corinthians and threatening to bring the big stick!

We have authority to read Scriptures, but not override the Church, or ignore our leaders (yea, even Protestants are supposed to follow their leaders...!)

And I do see the Church as divinely established. I call it the invisible Church made up of all the true Christians throughout all the various denominations (and now nondenominations).

How can you take a problem or issue up with the "invisible church"? Really, that "invisible church" idea is not found in Scriptures, except in the eschatological sense at the end of time (after the angels come to harvest the fields...)

I do think pretty much all church (as in the churches we go to on Sunday and such) IS just how we happen to organize it. I believe it is the simple relationship with Christ that we live out with our lives that truely matters. And yeah, I'm sure I'll be judged on my concience and how I obeyed Him and I know I'll come up short, which is why my hope is in Christ's promise to me.

Well, we believe the Church is divinely instituted by Christ Himself when He built upon the apostles a community of believers. You seem to think that the Church is merely a human organization that is not really part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I am not about to judge you, Craig. But does your conscience tell you that we are to obey Christ COMPLETELY?

Regards