Assurance of salvation

[RichardBurger]

Assurance of salvation:
*
John 5:24-27
24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
NKJV
*
John 6:34-35
34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always."
35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
NKJV
*
John 6:46-50
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
NKJV
*
Acts 13:38-39 Paul preaching
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;
39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
NKJV
*
Romans 4:5-8
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."
NKJV
*
Romans 10:3-4
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
NKJV
*
Romans 10:10-13
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
NKJV
*
1 John 5:4-5
4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith.
5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
NKJV
*
1 John 5:9-13
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
NKJV

 

[haz]

AMEN !
Great message.


It's unfortunate however that some reject this salvation by mixing grace with works of the law.

 

[Rach1370]

Nice, I would also add these verses in favour of assurance of salvation:

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:28-30 ESV)

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life...No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 5:39-40,44 ESV)

So I would say that this tells us that as no one is strong enough to snatch them out of God's hands...that probably includes us too!
And also, we are told that unless God draws us to Christ, we really can't 'get' grace. It's all God, from beginning to end, not us...even a little.

 

[Watchwithme]

This is my favourite. Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption

 

[Butch5]

Assurance of salvation:
*
John 5:24-27
24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
NKJV
*
John 6:34-35
34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always."
35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
NKJV
*
John 6:46-50
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
NKJV
*
Acts 13:38-39 Paul preaching
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;
39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
NKJV
*
Romans 4:5-8
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."
NKJV
*
Romans 10:3-4
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
NKJV
*
Romans 10:10-13
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
NKJV
*
1 John 5:4-5
4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith.
5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
NKJV
*
1 John 5:9-13
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
NKJV

What are you getting at here? These passage indicate that the believer will be saved, however, the don't assure that a believer will continue to believe. Are you saying a believer cannot lost or are you saying a believer cannot stop believing?

 

[Watchwithme]

What are you getting at here? These passage indicate that the believer will be saved, however, the don't assure that a believer will continue to believe. Are you saying a believer cannot lost or are you saying a believer cannot stop believing?

He is not saying anything he is quoting scripture which is PRETTY OBVIOUS! That the believer is sealed for eternity is not an ambiguous or vague Christian doctrine. To cast doubt on the blessed assurance of the believer is satanic and anti-Christ in origin. Further more those who attempt to use scripture to refute scripture make of themselves a laughing stock.

 

[Butch5]

He is not saying anything he is quoting scripture which is PRETTY OBVIOUS! That the believer is sealed for eternity is not an ambiguous or vague Christian doctrine. To cast doubt on the blessed assurance of the believer is satanic and anti-Christ in origin. Further more those who attempt to use scripture to refute scripture make of themselves a laughing stock.

Is that how one keeps others from challenging their doctrines? The believer is secure as long as he remains a believer. If he chooses not to believe his assurance is gone. It's not necessary to pit Scripture against Scripture, one only needs to show the misuse of passages used to support OSAS.

 

[Watchwithme]

Is that how one keeps others from challenging their doctrines? The believer is secure as long as he remains a believer. If he chooses not to believe his assurance is gone. It's not necessary to pit Scripture against Scripture, one only needs to show the misuse of passages used to support OSAS.

A Chinese man may stop believing he is Chinese, this belief does not alter what he is. Those who are born from above,can not be unborn from above, in spite of themselves. The christian doctrines have been challenged for thousands of years by greater minds than yours but its like attacking a walled city with a pea shooter not to mention very funny to watch.

I'll put it you another way, the atheist refuses to believe in God. Does it really matter what He believes? The Christian puts their faith in Jesus Christ, not their own belief or even their own faith

 

[Butch5]

A Chinese man may stop believing he is Chinese, this belief does not alter what he is. Those who are born from above,can not be unborn from above, in spite of themselves. The christian doctrines have been challenged for thousands of years by greater minds than yours but its like attacking a walled city with a pea shooter not to mention very funny to watch.

I'll put it you another way, the atheist refuses to believe in God. Does it really matter what He believes? The Christian puts their faith in Jesus Christ, not their own belief or even their own faith

Well, that doesn't change what the Scriptures say. The promise is to the one who is present tense believing. If one stops believing he no longer has the promise of the Scriptures. You can believe the doctrines of men or you can believe what the Scriptures say, it's up to you.

 

[Watchwithme]

Well, that doesn't change what the Scriptures say. The promise is to the one who is present tense believing. If one stops believing he no longer has the promise of the Scriptures. You can believe the doctrines of men or you can believe what the Scriptures say, it's up to you.

I haven't seen any scripture from you Butch. Your God isn't very powerful is he Butch? Can't even save you, you have to save yourself. Sounds like you are in deep dodo mate. Good luck with that! In fact lets be honest, you don't really need a saviour when its up to you.

 

[Butch5]

I haven't seen any scripture from you Butch. Your God isn't very powerful is he Butch? Can't even save you, you have to save yourself. Sounds like you are in deep dodo mate. Good luck with that! In fact lets be honest, you don't really need a saviour when its up to you.

Ahh, the straw man, your statement is fallacious. No one saves themselves. I don't need to post Scripture, you can't show me any that says a person can't be lost. That's simply inferred and then presented as evidence, which in realty doesn't exist.

 

[Watchwithme]

No one saves themselves.

I agree.

 

[Stan]

He is not saying anything he is quoting scripture which is PRETTY OBVIOUS! That the believer is sealed for eternity is not an ambiguous or vague Christian doctrine. To cast doubt on the blessed assurance of the believer is satanic and anti-Christ in origin. Further more those who attempt to use scripture to refute scripture make of themselves a laughing stock.

OK watch, how about you quote from scripture, to support the ad hominem attacks you just made on Butch?
I have to rebuke your for your very unChristlike comments throughout these forums.

His question was valid. Does the OP believe in OSAS? Do you?

 

[neophyte]

St. Jerome once wrote: " To be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ ." There is only "One True" Interpretation, that One True Interpretation is not to be found within the Thirty-plus Thousand conflicting man-made interpretations invented by you Protestants.Definition of a Protestant, is anybody who protests against Christ's "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

 

[Stan]

Stan says...once an ignoramus, always an ignoramus. This is not an issue of LACK of knowledge, but an issue of lack of humbleness and grace.
God said it in His Word and I believe it. Let God be true and every man be a liar.

 

[neophyte]

Stan, knowledge ! it is an issue of lack of" correct" knowledge, how can any Protestant claim to have the 'full' knowledge of Christ's Teachings if he/she has only an errant understanding of Holy Scripture because of mis-interpretation, Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief ?
If one of your church/sect believes differently from you and your ilk , while both churches claim that their interpretation is the only correct interpretation ,then tell me who is able to decide "authoraitively'' what is correct and what is not.How can you accept this kind of confusion and disunity if Jesus preached against this, as found in [ Romans 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 1:10 ]

 

[Stan]

Stan, knowledge ! it is an issue of lack of" correct" knowledge, how can any Protestant claim to have the 'full' knowledge of Christ's Teachings if he/she has only an errant understanding of Holy Scripture because of mis-interpretation, Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief ?
If one of your church/sect believes differently from you and your ilk , while both churches claim that their interpretation is the only correct interpretation ,then tell me who is able to decide "authoraitively'' what is correct and what is not.How can you accept this kind of confusion and disunity if Jesus preached against this, as found in [ Romans 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 1:10 ]

It is part of our duty as Christians to "AS far as it is up to us, to be at peace with one another". The fact that Protestants as a whole, do not accept infallibility, is why we continue to read and exegete scripture. We are NEVER satisfied until we have a consensus. You and your RC organization believe God has given ONLY you, the truth in the Word of God, and yet you have trouble refuting most clear scripture on your own. Mormons, JW's and many other religions know their 'church' doctrines very well. The problem is, they DON'T know the Bible. As Christians, there are basic beliefs we all pretty much agree on. I learned the following in RC elementary school.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.​

2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.​

3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.​

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.​

5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.​

6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.​

7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.​

8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,​

9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,​

10. the forgiveness of sins,​

11. the resurrection of the body,​

12. and life everlasting.​

Amen.​

This I still whole heartily accepted by me today. It is the basis that defines true Christian beliefs. This is a post salvation belief.
Everyone's opinion is valid if supported by scripture that THEY can defend. It shows an understanding of God's Word.
We may not always agree on every topic, but basics are set. Once a person pulls out the denomination card to justify their beliefs, they lose all credibility with me. Jesus established His church(body) within His brothers and sisters, NOT in an institution or faceless denomination.

 

[neophyte]

Stan,allow me to give you an example of what "Church' is all about, this: how did that One True Church back then decide this matter? First of all, let me emphasize that the problem Paul had with Peter was not simply some sort of “pastoral” issue, but was indeed a theological one. Did the Gentile converts to Christianity have to be circumcised, in particular, and, in general, follow the Mosaic Law – with the dietary regulations and such – in order to be fully Christian or not? This was an issue that threatened to tear the early Church apart. Peter, due to his vision and his experience with Cornelius (Acts, chapter 10), did not think so. Paul did not think so. Yet, a very powerful group of Jewish Christians, known by us as the Judaizers, and called the “circumcision party” by Paul (Gal 2:12), did think so. Their influence was great enough that when they found out Peter was hanging out with uncircumcised Gentiles they raised such a stink t hat Peter “withdrew from table fellowship,” as Dr. Leithart puts it, with the Gentile Christians. That then caused Paul to raise the roof with Peter. So, Peter was catching it from both sides. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
And we know this wasn’t just some small isolated incident, because if you read Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he takes them to the woodshed for letting themselves be influenced by the Judaizers. In Galatians 5, he specifically tells them that if they receive circumcision, “Christ will be of no advantage to you…You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law.” The “law” he is speaking of here, is the Mosaic Law…the Old Testament law. He calls what the Judaizers are preaching “a different gospel” (Gal 1:6).
So, again, this is not simply a pastoral issue, it is an issue in which the sa lvation of souls is at stake. Paul told the Galatians that if they receive circumcision, as the Judaizers were trying to make them do, then they would be severed from Christ. If you are severed from Christ, you have lost your salvation. It is indeed a theological issue. As I said, this is an issue of good theology vs. bad theology; an issue of right theology vs. wrong theology; an issue of what is the truth?
This issue was so big, and the passions of folks on both sides so strong, that if it wasn’t resolved, it threatened to tear the Church apart. So, what did the early Church do? How did the early Church decide what was good theology and what was bad theology? What was right theology and what was wrong theology? How did the early Church decide the truth? Did James, who appears to have been the head of the Judaizers (Gal 2:12), do as Martin Luther did and simply break off and form his own church with its own truth? Did he do as many Protestants do today when they feel their church is wrong or their pastor is wrong and simply break off and form their own church…their own denomination…with their own truth? Did James commit one of those occasional “acts of faithful separation” ? No! Never in the Bible, even in the Old Testament when Israel quite often strayed, do we find priests, prophets, or kings breaking away and forming a new church or a new denomination. It just doesn’t happen. Well, one exception, when the Kingdom of Israel split off from the Davidic kingdom after the death of King Solomon. They essentially did form their own church…their own religion. But, it was a false religion.
So, what did the Church do? The Church, according to chapter 15 of the Book of Acts, called a council, the Council of Jerusalem, to discuss the problem and to answe r the question of whether or not the Gentile Christians had to be circumcised and had to follow the precepts of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:5). And, what did the Church decide? The Church decided that, no, the Gentiles did not have to follow the Mosaic Law and they did not have to be circumcised (Acts 15:7–11). What did James and the Judaizers do? Do we read about them storming out of the Council and starting their own church? No. We see that James, once Peter had spoken, conceded the issue and simply asked that four conditions be put on the Gentiles (Acts 15:19–20). James yielded to the authority of the Council…to the authority of the Church. The decision of the Council was binding on James. The decision of the Council of Jerusalem was binding on all Christians. ALL Christians.
Did Martin Luther follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? ; No. Did John Calvin follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? No. Does any Protestant, when they break off from one denomination and form another follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? No. Does Stan and his brothers"" follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? No.
Stan and fellow Protestants builds their case around the example of Peter withdrawing from “table fellowship” with the Gentiles, and the subsequent conflict that resulted between Peter and Paul because of it. Yet, while you and your ilk use the Scripture concerning the conflict and division resulting from Peter’s actions, and the actions of the Judaizers in general, you people stop short of citing Scripture as to how this conflict, and how this division within the early Church, was resolved. I wonder why ?
The reason you Protestants cite the problem, and not the solution to the problem – the solution that is very clearly laid out by Scripture – is pretty obvious.All you Protestants don't want to go there. Because, to go there, is to be so catholic that you are Catholic. Scripture shows us that the ultimate way to solve the problem of theological differences within the Church, is to take the issue to a council that has the authority to decide such problems and whose decisions are binding on all the faithful. An authoritative council? A council that when it speaks is speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28)? A council that has the authority to bind all Christians to hold to its decisions (Matt 16:19; 18:18)? The Bible very plainly shows us there is such a thing. Yet, there is no such animal within all of Protestantism. There has been no such animal within Orthodoxy since the split between Rome and Constantinople. Yet, there is indeed such an animal within the Catholic Church. So, the only place that all Protestants could possibly turn to find a biblical solution to the problem of theological differences – theological differences that result in people withdrawing from table fellowship with one another – is the Catholic Church. No wonder he mentions the scriptural problem, but not the scriptural solution.
One last thing to note here when talking about the Council of Jerusalem. I need to highlight the fact that the Council of Jerusalem did not operate on the principle of Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone as the sole authority in matters Christian. If it had operated on that principle, then the only Scripture they had at the time – the Old Testament – would have clearly pointed them to a different decision than the one they made, because the Old Testament is very clear that it was necessary for a man to be circumcised in order for him to be in covenant with God (Genesis 17:9–14). So, if they had gone by the Scripture alone, then the decision would had to have favored the position of the Judaizers. The only conclusion one can draw, then, is that Sola Scriptura was not part of the theological environment that the Council of Jerusalem, and the early Church, operated within.

 

[Episkopos]

Yet, there is indeed such an animal within the Catholic Church.

The RC "animal" certainly makes great claims. :)

 

[Stan]

Stan,allow me to give you an example of what "Church' is all about, this: how did that One True Church back then decide this matter? First of all, let me emphasize that the problem Paul had with Peter was not simply some sort of “pastoral” issue, but was indeed a theological one. Did the Gentile converts to Christianity have to be circumcised, in particular, and, in general, follow the Mosaic Law – with the dietary regulations and such – in order to be fully Christian or not? This was an issue that threatened to tear the early Church apart. Peter, due to his vision and his experience with Cornelius (Acts, chapter 10), did not think so. Paul did not think so. Yet, a very powerful group of Jewish Christians, known by us as the Judaizers, and called the “circumcision party” by Paul (Gal 2:12), did think so. Their influence was great enough that when they found out Peter was hanging out with uncircumcised Gentiles they raised such a stink t hat Peter “withdrew from table fellowship,” as Dr. Leithart puts it, with the Gentile Christians. That then caused Paul to raise the roof with Peter. So, Peter was catching it from both sides. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
And we know this wasn’t just some small isolated incident, because if you read Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he takes them to the woodshed for letting themselves be influenced by the Judaizers. In Galatians 5, he specifically tells them that if they receive circumcision, “Christ will be of no advantage to you…You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law.” The “law” he is speaking of here, is the Mosaic Law…the Old Testament law. He calls what the Judaizers are preaching “a different gospel” (Gal 1:6).
So, again, this is not simply a pastoral issue, it is an issue in which the sa lvation of souls is at stake. Paul told the Galatians that if they receive circumcision, as the Judaizers were trying to make them do, then they would be severed from Christ. If you are severed from Christ, you have lost your salvation. It is indeed a theological issue. As I said, this is an issue of good theology vs. bad theology; an issue of right theology vs. wrong theology; an issue of what is the truth?
This issue was so big, and the passions of folks on both sides so strong, that if it wasn’t resolved, it threatened to tear the Church apart. So, what did the early Church do? How did the early Church decide what was good theology and what was bad theology? What was right theology and what was wrong theology? How did the early Church decide the truth? Did James, who appears to have been the head of the Judaizers (Gal 2:12), do as Martin Luther did and simply break off and form his own church with its own truth? Did he do as many Protestants do today when they feel their church is wrong or their pastor is wrong and simply break off and form their own church…their own denomination…with their own truth? Did James commit one of those occasional “acts of faithful separation” ? No! Never in the Bible, even in the Old Testament when Israel quite often strayed, do we find priests, prophets, or kings breaking away and forming a new church or a new denomination. It just doesn’t happen. Well, one exception, when the Kingdom of Israel split off from the Davidic kingdom after the death of King Solomon. They essentially did form their own church…their own religion. But, it was a false religion.
So, what did the Church do? The Church, according to chapter 15 of the Book of Acts, called a council, the Council of Jerusalem, to discuss the problem and to answe r the question of whether or not the Gentile Christians had to be circumcised and had to follow the precepts of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:5). And, what did the Church decide? The Church decided that, no, the Gentiles did not have to follow the Mosaic Law and they did not have to be circumcised (Acts 15:7–11). What did James and the Judaizers do? Do we read about them storming out of the Council and starting their own church? No. We see that James, once Peter had spoken, conceded the issue and simply asked that four conditions be put on the Gentiles (Acts 15:19–20). James yielded to the authority of the Council…to the authority of the Church. The decision of the Council was binding on James. The decision of the Council of Jerusalem was binding on all Christians. ALL Christians.
Did Martin Luther follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? ; No. Did John Calvin follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? No. Does any Protestant, when they break off from one denomination and form another follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? No. Does Stan and his brothers"" follow this scriptural example of how to settle theological differences? No.
Stan and fellow Protestants builds their case around the example of Peter withdrawing from “table fellowship” with the Gentiles, and the subsequent conflict that resulted between Peter and Paul because of it. Yet, while you and your ilk use the Scripture concerning the conflict and division resulting from Peter’s actions, and the actions of the Judaizers in general, you people stop short of citing Scripture as to how this conflict, and how this division within the early Church, was resolved. I wonder why ?
The reason you Protestants cite the problem, and not the solution to the problem – the solution that is very clearly laid out by Scripture – is pretty obvious.All you Protestants don't want to go there. Because, to go there, is to be so catholic that you are Catholic. Scripture shows us that the ultimate way to solve the problem of theological differences within the Church, is to take the issue to a council that has the authority to decide such problems and whose decisions are binding on all the faithful. An authoritative council? A council that when it speaks is speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28)? A council that has the authority to bind all Christians to hold to its decisions (Matt 16:19; 18:18)? The Bible very plainly shows us there is such a thing. Yet, there is no such animal within all of Protestantism. There has been no such animal within Orthodoxy since the split between Rome and Constantinople. Yet, there is indeed such an animal within the Catholic Church. So, the only place that all Protestants could possibly turn to find a biblical solution to the problem of theological differences – theological differences that result in people withdrawing from table fellowship with one another – is the Catholic Church. No wonder he mentions the scriptural problem, but not the scriptural solution.
One last thing to note here when talking about the Council of Jerusalem. I need to highlight the fact that the Council of Jerusalem did not operate on the principle of Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone as the sole authority in matters Christian. If it had operated on that principle, then the only Scripture they had at the time – the Old Testament – would have clearly pointed them to a different decision than the one they made, because the Old Testament is very clear that it was necessary for a man to be circumcised in order for him to be in covenant with God (Genesis 17:9–14). So, if they had gone by the Scripture alone, then the decision would had to have favored the position of the Judaizers. The only conclusion one can draw, then, is that Sola Scriptura was not part of the theological environment that the Council of Jerusalem, and the early Church, operated within.

Well your story falls flat on it's face due to the following scripture. 2 Peter 3:14-16;

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. [sup]15 [/sup]Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. [sup]16 [/sup]He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.​

I fear your lack of understanding of the actual Bible and what the NEW Covenant is all about, is a huge detriment to your ability to grasp God's will. Your continued condescension towards Protestants does NOT emulate how Peter and Paul were able to reconcile their differences. Peter eventually deferred to Paul and the New Covenant and as I have shown above, FULLY supported Him and the message Christ called Paul to preach. Peter recognized that Paul had the mind of Christ and did NOT let his allegiance to his Judaism/Orthodoxy, get the better of him. He learned this in Acts 10...you may want to read it to see how God taught Peter how the New Covenant did NOT function the same way the OLD one did. He was quite elated if you read his recount of it in Acts 11:1-18.