Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[jmcrae]

Here’s a hypothetical back to you. The reformers were Catholics yes?? Yes.

They were excommunicated by lawful authorities in the Church, and lost any lawful authority they may have had, at that time. (The only ones who actually had any lawful authority, to begin with, were the Anglicans - the rest of the Reformers were simple priests and lay people; not Bishops - they never did have any authority officially to interpret doctrine.)

So technically speaking when the reformers broke off, that new movement consisted of Catholics.

Lay people and simple priests, yes.

So really Protestants are Catholics.

They were excommunicated Catholics who never did have any authority to ordain anybody, or to interpret doctrine, even when they were in full communion with the Church.

Catholics in disagreement with Rome that is. How do we know the Holy Spirit didn’t create this move??

Because it fragmented into at least five radically self-contradictory movements within the first ten years of its existence, had no discernable authority to correct errors (which therefore remained uncorrected) and has been dividing against itself ever since.

 

[Kay_Cee]

C’mon, people, can we please stay on topic?

Please, please, please, pleeeeeaaaase?

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting topic, but please open another thread if you wish to discuss it. We’re trying very hard not to let this thread get derailed into a discussion about Catholicism vs. Protestantism.

Essentially, this thread is about how to choose a church if Catholicism (for whatever reason) is not an option. Yes, it’s hypothetical, but let’s please stay within that scenario. Thank you!

Whoops, I took the bait.

Sorry, everybody!!

 

[Kay_Cee]

Whoops, I took the bait.

Sorry, everybody!!

Thank you, jmcrae!

 

[khutcheson]

Let’s stick to the scenario I pointed out above where we have two denominations teaching opposing doctrines about the Eucharist. How does a Protestant solve this dilemma? I’m really very curious to know. I’ve often wondered how Protestants decide which denomination to belong to.

Oh, and I echo guanophore’s welcome. I hope we can learn much from each other.

Thanks for the welcome.

IMHO, a Protestant should solve this dilema by prayer, by asking the Holy Spirit to guide him or her to the right church. I can’t think of any other answer.

As a practical matter, I think many Protestants select a church based on friendships, family or convenience and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Christ commanded us to be a community.

Your example is a good one I must admit. The reason I started exploring Catholicism was my discomfort with the casual approach my church takes towards communion.

On a separate, but related note, I think that a lot of the theological debates that divide Protestants not only serve to divide us, but also serve to distract us from more important issues like obediance. I believe that we need less theological debate and more obediance to God in our lives.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Thanks for the welcome.

IMHO, a Protestant should solve this dilema by prayer, by asking the Holy Spirit to guide him or her to the right church. I can’t think of any other answer.

You can’t? I can.

As a practical matter, I think many Protestants select a church based on friendships, family or convenience and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Christ commanded us to be a community.

You’re absolutely right that community is important. I would venture to say, however, that truth is more important.

Your example is a good one I must admit. The reason I started exploring Catholicism was my discomfort with the casual approach my church takes towards communion.

Yes. “Test everything. Retain what is good.” 1 Thess. 5:21

On a separate, but related note, I think that a lot of the theological debates that divide Protestants not only serve to divide us, but also serve to distract us from more important issues like obediance. I believe that we need less theological debate and more obediance to God in our lives.

Okay, but since we should obey, we need to know what those commandments are. Jesus did say, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” Sounds like He’s telling us to do something, but in the dilemma I posted, what would that something be? What evidence should a Christian look at to determine that? We’ve already looked at scripture and asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. Now what?

 

[jmcrae]

IMHO, a Protestant should solve this dilema by prayer, by asking the Holy Spirit to guide him or her to the right church. I can’t think of any other answer.

What I don’t understand is why they can’t know by means of some kind of outward signs, or historical evidence.

It’s not like there could be more than one right church, or that there could be “right for me,” and “right for you,” other than very superficially.

It’s either Christ’s Church (in which case, there would be some tangible evidence of that), or it isn’t.

 

[deacon_d]

The Scriptures tell us quite plainly that Jesus founded a Church. (Matthew 16:18-19) He promised that His Church would be around until the end of time, protected from “the gates of Hell” (any kind of doctrinal error) by the Holy Spirit, to teach us all true doctrine and to guide us in the right path with regard to moral living.

Where does Jesus use the words doctrinal error?? He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church period. That means if we believe we will not go to hell and satan could never prevail over us (the church).

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us to the truth. If the Holy Spirit is in us all, technically HE’s guiding us all to the truth. Jesus never said the Holy Spirit would prevent you from teaching false doctrine or prevent you from misunderstanding.

I say go get me a Budweiser from the fridge please. You bring me a Miller. I say, I said Budweiser. You say, I thought you just meant a beer by saying Budweiser so I grabbed the first thing. (Crude example I know). It’s very easy to misunderstand. It’s for this reason that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to us all. Not just the Pope or Magisterium. That way if someone innocently mis-taught something, the Holy Spirit is there to guide. If the Holy Spirit controlled the way we taught then no one would ever disagree. No schism would ever happen.

In Acts 15, we see the Apostles making use of the authority that Christ gave them (Matthew 18:18), rather than looking to the Scriptures (Old Testament) for their answers. In fact, their conclusions and the rulings that they made go completely contrary to what seems to be required under Old Testament law, since at that time, Christianity was still a sect of Judaism, and the Old Testament is abundantly clear that in order to convert to Judaism, Gentiles must submit to the Law of Moses (including dietary law), and be circumcised.

You are correct about converting to Judaism. You have to be circumcised in order to be a Jew. But we are no longer under Mosaic law, we are under GOD’s grace both circumcised and uncircumcised.
Jesus never gave instructions to have them circumcised although he didn’t say the apostles couldn’t require it. But I believe Peter summed it up perfectly when he said:

Acts15: 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

So Peter is admitting that even the Jews couldn’t adhere to their own laws. And GOD doesn’t appear to be making this a requirement. I agree the church should have authority but that authority does not reside in Rome with one person or one group. Jesus makes this very clear when he speaks out against exercising authority over one another.

One explanation is that “Sola Scriptura wasn’t in effect, yet,” and that the Book of Acts itself is in the Bible. (It was put there by a Catholic Pope, several centuries after the events described in it took place.)

Which raises a new question - when (if ever) did Sola Scriptura “come into effect” and why is there no record of this quite radical change in Church policy anywhere in the Scriptures themselves? Certainly, the Early Fathers (the leadership of the subsequent generations of the Early Church) saw themselves as successors to the Apostles, with the Bishop of Rome as the “pre- eminent authority,” to use St. Irenaeus’ words (Against the Heresies, book III, chapter 3) due to the fact that the Bishop of Rome was the Successor to the Chief Apostle and Shepherd of the Church (John 21:15-19), St. Peter.

Now, if the modern-day Catholic Church is not that Church, then where is that Church?

First the church was not founded in Rome. It was actually founded in Jerusalem. And many other Christian churches were founded long before Peter and Paul ever went to Rome. So to ascribe authority to Rome on this premise doesn’t hold water. Paul actually wasn’t planning to stay in Rome. Only visit on his way to Spain. We don’t know why Peter went to Rome. Only that he supposedly died there. His ossuary interestingly though was found in Jerusalem under the mount of olives where Jesus prayed.

As far as scripture, here’s an interesting quote from Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipians.

"For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; "

I believe all Apostles would assume we are well versed in sacred scripture. Why? Look at 2 Timothy 3:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

You’re saying switching to sola scripture was a change in church policy. That assumes there had to be an initial policy. What was it specifically? Many Christians prior to 100AD and even after worshipped and observed the Lord’s Supper in their houses. What policy were they following? Given the education level of these people I doubt they would even be able to comprehend the volumes of catechisms that exist today. It’s not about policy and authority. It’s about Faith. You’re making the same mistake the Jews made that Jesus called them down on. They got so focused on scriptural law and were proud that they were experts on it they didn’t realize the scriptures actually pointed to Jesus. Catholics are so caught up on authority and policy they seem to be losing sight of Jesus as well.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

Where does Jesus use the words doctrinal error?? He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church period. That means if we believe we will not go to hell and satan could never prevail over us (the church).

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us to the truth. If the Holy Spirit is in us all, technically HE’s guiding us all to the truth. Jesus never said the Holy Spirit would prevent you from teaching false doctrine or prevent you from misunderstanding.

Which means that the Church cannot teach error, since the Church has the Holy Spirit. And those who follow the Church and are members of the Church also share to some extent in the Holy Spirit.

I say go get me a Budweiser from the fridge please. You bring me a Miller. I say, I said Budweiser. You say, I thought you just meant a beer by saying Budweiser so I grabbed the first thing. (Crude example I know). It’s very easy to misunderstand. It’s for this reason that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to us all.

But not in equal measure, or else we would all agree. We don’t.

You are correct about converting to Judaism. You have to be circumcised in order to be a Jew. But we are no longer under Mosaic law, we are under GOD’s grace both circumcised and uncircumcised.

At the time of Acts 15, when those events were taking place, the followers of Christ considered themselve Jewish, and Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, just like the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Essenes, etc., all of whom were bound by the Mosaic law, and required (if they were male) to be circumcised.

Jesus never gave instructions to have them circumcised although he didn’t say the apostles couldn’t require it. But I believe Peter summed it up perfectly when he said:

Acts15: 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

When St. Peter made this declaration, this is the point at which Christianity became a separate, unique religion, and not just another sect of Judaism.

First the church was not founded in Rome. It was actually founded in Jerusalem.

That’s true. The headquarters of the Church were moved from Jerusalem to Rome when the Apostles were carried to Rome in chains.

And many other Christian churches were founded long before Peter and Paul ever went to Rome. So to ascribe authority to Rome on this premise doesn’t hold water.

We don’t ascribe authority to Rome on that premise. Rather, we ascribe authority to the successors of the Apostles, and they happen at this moment to be living in Rome. When the Vatican had to move to Avignon for a short period of time, the Pope was the Bishop of Avignon - but he was still the Successor of St. Peter.

Paul actually wasn’t planning to stay in Rome. Only visit on his way to Spain. We don’t know why Peter went to Rome. Only that he supposedly died there. His ossuary interestingly though was found in Jerusalem under the mount of olives where Jesus prayed.

That was supposedly St. James’ ossuary, first of all, and secondly, that ossuary has been proven to be a fake. (Get your conspiracy theories straight, man!! )

As far as scripture, here’s an interesting quote from Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipians.

"For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; "

I believe all Apostles would assume we are well versed in sacred scripture. Why? Look at 2 Timothy 3:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Being well-versed in the Scriptures is certainly a requirement for every Catholic who is capable of it - but being well-versed in the Scriptures is not the same thing as believing in Sola Scriptura (salvation comes from the Bible alone). The opposite of Sola Scriptura is not “no Scripture at all” but rather, keeping the Scriptures in their proper place in the order of things. First the Magisterium (Jesus appoints the Apostles), next, the Holy Tradition (Jesus teaches the Apostles the Gospel by word of mouth, which they then pass on to others by word of mouth), and next, the Scriptures (the Apostles write various letters and memoirs which are then circulated around the Church, and eventually canonized as the New Testament by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD).

You’re saying switching to sola scripture was a change in church policy. That assumes there had to be an initial policy. What was it specifically?

They followed the Holy Tradition, which is the teachings of the Apostles.

Many Christians prior to 100AD and even after worshipped and observed the Lord’s Supper in their houses. What policy were they following?

They were making use of the Sacraments of the Church according to the Holy Tradition and they were using them according to the disciplines of that time that they had been given by the Apostles and their successors.

Given the education level of these people I doubt they would even be able to comprehend the volumes of catechisms that exist today.

And they didn’t have a Bible yet (that came about in 405 AD), so they certainly weren’t operating according to Sola Scriptura.

 

[deacon_d]

What I don’t understand is why they can’t know by means of some kind of outward signs, or historical evidence.

It’s not like there could be more than one right church, or that there could be “right for me,” and “right for you,” other than very superficially.

It’s either Christ’s Church (in which case, there would be some tangible evidence of that), or it isn’t.

I can give you a simple answer to this. Yes it is Christ’s church. But your definition is that Christ’s church is the Roman Catholic church. I beg to differ. All believers IN Christ are part of HIS church. You want to label it. I don’t. Forget the label and historical evidence.

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians he criticizes them for division:

4 When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world? 5 After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. 6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. 7 It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow. 8

As Paul says it doesn’t matter who does the planting and watering (Roman Catholic/Protestant), GOD is responsible for the growth. I believe some people grow stronger in spirit in the Roman Catholic church. Many do not. Many grow stronger in spirit in a Protestant church. GOD knows this as he knows what’s in our hearts. So HE will determine where we will grow spiritually the strongest. This is how determined HE is to have a relationship with us. I believe you started Protestant. Obviously that wasn’t fulfilling you spiritually. GOD knew that so he moved you to the Roman Catholic church. I wasn’t growing spiritually in the Roman Catholic church. GOD moved me to a non-denominational church.

Tell what’s more important, to be a Roman Catholic, or have a lasting true relationship with GOD and Jesus. Isn’t it obvious by now???

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

I can give you a simple answer to this. Yes it is Christ’s church.

Which one?

But your definition is that Christ’s church is the Roman Catholic church.

I believe that because I look at the historical evidence that I have available to me, and it seems as though, when you go back to it, it’s the Roman Catholic Church that Christ founded, primarily because of the Pope being the successor to the Apostle Peter.

I beg to differ. All believers IN Christ are part of HIS church.

But if you believe false things about Christ, then do you really “believe in” Christ? Can an Episcopalian, who believes the official tenet of his faith that Christ approves and blesses homosexual marriage be said to “believe in” the same Christ that I believe in? (And by that standard, can the Episcopalian Church be considered Christ’s Church? And if they can’t, then who else can’t? Isn’t that why we need some kind of objective standard to go by, instead of relying on our own personal judgement?)

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians he criticizes them for division:

4 When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world? 5 After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. 6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. 7 It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow. 8

They were all teaching the same doctrines, though, and faithfully according to the Holy Tradition of the Apostles. They weren’t teaching differently from each other.

Tell what’s more important, to be a Roman Catholic, or have a lasting true relationship with GOD and Jesus. Isn’t it obvious by now???

There is no contradiction: anyone who is sincerely looking for Christ and growing closer to Him in a personal relationship will end up in the Catholic Church, even if they don’t start off there. But those who are seeking their own desires, or a “feel-good” experience, or justification for their sins, will end up somewhere else.

 

[khutcheson]

What I don’t understand is why they can’t know by means of some kind of outward signs, or historical evidence.

Like what?

It’s not like there could be more than one right church, or that there could be “right for me,” and “right for you,” other than very superficially.

Depends how you define the “church”. If the term "church refers to the body of believers, then there can be but one church. whether all believers worship together is another story.

It’s either Christ’s Church (in which case, there would be some tangible evidence of that), or it isn’t.

Again depends on how you define church. I certainly hope it’s Christ’s Church. The tangible evidence I look for has to do with obedience to His Word.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;3313577:

What I don’t understand is why they can’t know by means of some kind of outward signs, or historical evidence.

Like what?

Like some kind of documented Apostolic succession, or archaeological/historical evidence of their church organization being headed by the Apostles in the first century AD, and churches of their kind being dotted all over the Middle East, dating back to the first century, and corresponding in location to the ones that St. Paul and St. John were writing to, and stuff like that.

Depends how you define the “church”. If the term "church refers to the body of believers, then there can be but one church. whether all believers worship together is another story.

If it is one body of believers, then although they might be in different parts of the world, and worshipping in different buildings, they would do so in such a way that there would be no question that they are all members of the same organization as each other, and that Christ founded. One way to show that would be to watch where travellers go to Church on Sundays, and that they wouldn’t feel like they are “visitors” but that this is just another building and community of their Church, and the essential format of worship is the same, and the teachings are all the same, etc.

 

[khutcheson]

But if you believe false things about Christ, then do you really “believe in” Christ? Can an Episcopalian, who believes the official tenet of his faith that Christ approves and blesses homosexual marriage be said to “believe in” the same Christ that I believe in? (And by that standard, can the Episcopalian Church be considered Christ’s Church? And if they can’t, then who else can’t? Isn’t that why we need some kind of objective standard to go by, instead of relying on our own personal judgement?)

There is no contradiction: anyone who is sincerely looking for Christ and growing closer to Him in a personal relationship will end up in the Catholic Church, even if they don’t start off there. But those who are seeking their own desires, or a “feel-good” experience, or justification for their sins, will end up somewhere else.

Any church that promotes doctrine directly in opposition to the Word of God would seem to fail the test. I agree we need an objective standard. The Bible seems to work nicely. The Bible’s teachings on homosexuality (or any other sexual sin for that matter) are clear to me.

I don’t agree that anyone sincerely looking for Christ will end up in the Catholic Church. In fact, this point strike me as funny–I was 20 years old before I realized that Catholics were interested in a personal relationship with Christ. Now my beliefs back then were uninformed, or even ignorant, but the idea that one cannot be Protestants AND dedicated to a personal relationship with Christ is no better. I know many Protestants who are very committed Christians.

I do agree that anyone looking for a feel good experience will have a difficulty finding Christ. I also agree that (unfortunately) many Protestant churches today are offering a feel good experience, emphazing Christ’s love, but not the duty of obediance to God. However, the fact that many churches fail, doesn’t mean that many don’t hold true to the Gospel. Turning back to the topic of this thread, one way to determine which (non-Catholic) church to attend the obedience test–does the church preach obedience to God’s word in areas like divorce, sex outside of marriage etc. seems a good place to start.

IMO, if the church is obedient to the clear commands of scripture, then many doctrinal differences shrivel in importance.

 

[khutcheson]

Like some kind of documented Apostolic succession, or archaeological/historical evidence of their church organization being headed by the Apostles in the first century AD, and churches of their kind being dotted all over the Middle East, dating back to the first century, and corresponding in location to the ones that St. Paul and St. John were writing to, and stuff like that.

I thought this thread was about how to determine which NON-Catholic Church to attend.

 

[jmcrae]

Any church that promotes doctrine directly in opposition to the Word of God would seem to fail the test. I agree we need an objective standard. The Bible seems to work nicely. The Bible’s teachings on homosexuality (or any other sexual sin for that matter) are clear to me.

Okay. So, then, you want to go to the Church that gave you the Bible. (Which one was that, again?)

 

[deacon_d]

Which means that the Church cannot teach error, since the Church has the Holy Spirit. And those who follow the Church and are members of the Church also share to some extent in the Holy Spirit.

Had to be 2 posts. Sorry

No you’re making the wrong assumption. You’re assuming the church can’t teach in error. Jesus never said that. He said we would be guided to the truth. Not that we would then teach in error. I could try hard to teach but someone may still not understand. Think of how many Roman Catholic teachings are misunderstood even by Roman Catholics. Look how those same Roman Catholics are mis-teaching their own beliefs. It’s a ripple effect. But this is where the Bible keeps us grounded.

We don’t share to some extent in the Holy Spirit. That would imply you can have more of the Holy Spirit than me. That’s what the gnostics claimed.

But not in equal measure, or else we would all agree. We don’t.

But that’s not because someone else has more of the Holy Spirit. Jesus never said there were degrees of the Holy Spirit in us. Show me that in scripture please.

At the time of Acts 15, when those events were taking place, the followers of Christ considered themselve Jewish, and Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, just like the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Essenes, etc., all of whom were bound by the Mosaic law, and required (if they were male) to be circumcised.
When St. Peter made this declaration, this is the point at which Christianity became a separate, unique religion, and not just another sect of Judaism.

Christianity was not a sect of Judaism. It couldn’t have been because the Gospel was being proclaimed to the Gentiles who were not Jewish. The initial Christians were Jewish but Jewish law did not apply to Christians. We see this before Peter gave his speech in Acts. Paul and Barnabus were at Antioch when Jews arrived and said that Gentiles had to be circumcised. Paul and Barnabus never spoke with Peter and they both said emphatically no. Then they went to Jerusalem by request of the church in Antioch, stopped off along the way in Phoenicia and Samaria and saw that Gentiles were converting there as well. They weren’t getting circumcised. Your sequence is out of order. Christianity did not brake off as a separate religion after Peter’s sermon. It already broke off. Peter had already been at the house of Gentiles and they converted. Peter did not tell them to be circumcised. This was the gripe the Pharisees had. Christians did not have to be Jewish first. This was all happening way before they even met at Jerusalem. It’s for this reason that James dispatched the letter clarifying things for them. To prevent false teachers from invading.

has to be contd. Sorry

 

[jmcrae]

I thought this thread was about how to determine which NON-Catholic Church to attend.

If the True Church is a non-Catholic Church (that is, if we stick to our assumption that the Catholic Church is not, in fact, the True Church), then that particular non-Catholic Church is the one that we should all be attending, right?

And there would be evidence in history and in archaeology that Christ had founded that specific non-Catholic Church, rather than (as I have come to believe) the Catholic Church.

 

[khutcheson]

Okay. So, then, you want to go to the Church that gave you the Bible. (Which one was that, again?)

Dude, if THAT Church stuck to the Bible, then I would be there.

 

[jmcrae]

Had to be 2 posts. Sorry

No you’re making the wrong assumption. You’re assuming the church can’t teach in error. Jesus never said that. He said we would be guided to the truth.

What’s the difference? How can we be guided into the truth, without being taught the truth?

Not that we would then teach in error. I could try hard to teach but someone may still not understand. Think of how many Roman Catholic teachings are misunderstood even by Roman Catholics.

But the teachings are still always there. Their poor understandings can always be corrected.

Look how those same Roman Catholics are mis-teaching their own beliefs. It’s a ripple effect. But this is where the Bible keeps us grounded.

Actually, this is where the Holy Tradition keeps us grounded. The Bible, by itself, can’t correct anyone’s errors, or point out to them that they are believing something inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles.

Christianity was not a sect of Judaism. It couldn’t have been because the Gospel was being proclaimed to the Gentiles who were not Jewish.

So were all of the other sects of Judaism; that’s why there was a Court of the Gentiles in the Temple - that was where Gentiles who were being converted to Judaism would gather for worship.

The initial Christians were Jewish but Jewish law did not apply to Christians.

Actually, that’s what they were meeting to determine at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 - that fact was not established officially until St. Peter made the ruling at the end of that Council. Before that, it was open to interpretation, and as we see when we read that chapter, different people were interpreting it differently from each other.