I'm sorry Keith, but I can't buy your simplistic logic in applying the Council of Jerusalem's ruling to the present. If the Council's rulings are eternally binding, then the apostle Paul deserved disciplinary action for denying the validity of its decision regarding eating meat offered to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8). And surely we do not really want to apply church discipline to anyone who eats the meat of strangled animals, do we? By what authority would we exempt ourselves from two of the requirements of the Jerusalem Council from eternal application, but hang on to the remaining one?
Posted in: Don’t Say No Yet (An Encouragement to Future Office-bearers in the CRC)
I'm sorry Keith, but I can't buy your simplistic logic in applying the Council of Jerusalem's ruling to the present. If the Council's rulings are eternally binding, then the apostle Paul deserved disciplinary action for denying the validity of its decision regarding eating meat offered to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8). And surely we do not really want to apply church discipline to anyone who eats the meat of strangled animals, do we? By what authority would we exempt ourselves from two of the requirements of the Jerusalem Council from eternal application, but hang on to the remaining one?