Once again I decided to read ahead to see what material we will be covering this Sunday. We are now up to Chapter 15. Our heroes are back in Antioch in Syria when they get word that some rival preachers are in town and are going around telling the male Gentile converts they have to be circumcised in order to be saved. This naturally is rather upsetting to the Gentiles, so they turn to Paul for answers.
But instead of coming up with a rule on the spot, Paul and some others take a trip down to Jerusalem to visit James and the other apostles. Yes, I know the Catholic church says Peter was the first pope, but James seems to be taking over much of the leadership. They hold a council and it is decided to leave the Gentiles be. If they don't want to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic laws that is just fine. And everyone seems to be happy for awhile.
But who were these other preachers? Paul's letters are full of references to false teachers and false doctrines. Where did they come from? According to the Gospels, which hadn't been written yet when Paul and his friends were traveling around spreading the Word, Jesus attracted huge crowds. Yet the emphasis is on the core twelve that followed him. What happened to all these others? Were they inspired to start churches on their own? If so, the New Testament does not recognize them as legitimate. The only churches that are considered legitimate are those that are under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem Council. Even Paul, maverick that he was, bowed to the authority of James and Peter and the other Twelve. This is a far cry from the situation we have today. I had to laugh to myself the other day when the preacher was talking about his church being a gospel outpost just like in New Testament times. This isn't exactly virgin territory here. There are at least 5 long-established churches within a five mile radius, and I don't think they'd take kindly to the idea that this community has never heard the Gospel before.
The problem, as I see it, is if you are going to be faithful to the Bible, then how does one justify all these different denominations? I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where it says that if you don't like the church you are in, or if you feel that the church has lost its way, you can leave and start a new church. Any more than if I don't like who is President of the United States I can start my own government. Some folks tried that 150 years ago and found out that they were wrong. That is still a sore subject in some parts of the South to this day.
Now I have been told that the reason the Reformation happened is that the Catholic church had hopelessly corrupted the Gospel and there was no choice but to separate. But if that is so, why did it take 1500 years for the Holy Spirit, who is supposed to be guiding the Christian community, to inspire people like Martin Luther and John Calvin to do something about it? Or, if you are Mormon, why did it take until the 1830's to restore the true church? Something's not right here. If I put a GPS device in my car and trust it to take me to California but it doesn't inform me until I am an hour away from New York City that I am on the wrong road and that I should have turned left when I turned right, you know where that GPS device is going to go! And religion, as the preachers like to tell us, is a much more serious matter than getting on or off the wrong exit. Our eternal destiny is at stake, so we'd better get it right.
Yet everyone gathers around his or her favorite preacher and never stops to question whether this person's authority is legitimate by New Testament standards. Look at Harold Camping's followers. They accepted every word even though Harold Camping's previous track record at predicting the end of the world wasn't any better than his latest attempt. But what makes John Calvin or Martin Luther or any of the others any better than Harold Camping? And lest you think I am just picking on the Protestants here, I have similar questions about papal infallibility. I think the historical record can speak for itself.
I am scientifically minded, and I don't apologize for it. Harold Camping has amply proved himself wrong. He made a specific, testable prediction. It didn't come to pass. Now, let's look at the others.
But instead of coming up with a rule on the spot, Paul and some others take a trip down to Jerusalem to visit James and the other apostles. Yes, I know the Catholic church says Peter was the first pope, but James seems to be taking over much of the leadership. They hold a council and it is decided to leave the Gentiles be. If they don't want to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic laws that is just fine. And everyone seems to be happy for awhile.
But who were these other preachers? Paul's letters are full of references to false teachers and false doctrines. Where did they come from? According to the Gospels, which hadn't been written yet when Paul and his friends were traveling around spreading the Word, Jesus attracted huge crowds. Yet the emphasis is on the core twelve that followed him. What happened to all these others? Were they inspired to start churches on their own? If so, the New Testament does not recognize them as legitimate. The only churches that are considered legitimate are those that are under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem Council. Even Paul, maverick that he was, bowed to the authority of James and Peter and the other Twelve. This is a far cry from the situation we have today. I had to laugh to myself the other day when the preacher was talking about his church being a gospel outpost just like in New Testament times. This isn't exactly virgin territory here. There are at least 5 long-established churches within a five mile radius, and I don't think they'd take kindly to the idea that this community has never heard the Gospel before.
The problem, as I see it, is if you are going to be faithful to the Bible, then how does one justify all these different denominations? I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where it says that if you don't like the church you are in, or if you feel that the church has lost its way, you can leave and start a new church. Any more than if I don't like who is President of the United States I can start my own government. Some folks tried that 150 years ago and found out that they were wrong. That is still a sore subject in some parts of the South to this day.
Now I have been told that the reason the Reformation happened is that the Catholic church had hopelessly corrupted the Gospel and there was no choice but to separate. But if that is so, why did it take 1500 years for the Holy Spirit, who is supposed to be guiding the Christian community, to inspire people like Martin Luther and John Calvin to do something about it? Or, if you are Mormon, why did it take until the 1830's to restore the true church? Something's not right here. If I put a GPS device in my car and trust it to take me to California but it doesn't inform me until I am an hour away from New York City that I am on the wrong road and that I should have turned left when I turned right, you know where that GPS device is going to go! And religion, as the preachers like to tell us, is a much more serious matter than getting on or off the wrong exit. Our eternal destiny is at stake, so we'd better get it right.
Yet everyone gathers around his or her favorite preacher and never stops to question whether this person's authority is legitimate by New Testament standards. Look at Harold Camping's followers. They accepted every word even though Harold Camping's previous track record at predicting the end of the world wasn't any better than his latest attempt. But what makes John Calvin or Martin Luther or any of the others any better than Harold Camping? And lest you think I am just picking on the Protestants here, I have similar questions about papal infallibility. I think the historical record can speak for itself.
I am scientifically minded, and I don't apologize for it. Harold Camping has amply proved himself wrong. He made a specific, testable prediction. It didn't come to pass. Now, let's look at the others.
