The difference is they used scripture in context and they didn’t go outside of scripture.....unlike the roman catholic church. See the immaculate conception and assumption of mary for examples.
Please show the scripture that Catholic Church uses to prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it.
So, if the Catholic church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then we can safely presume that each and every decision is unanimous.
Is that the case? That every doctrinal decision and statement totally and completely in unity as would be if being led by the Holy Spirit?
Because, that’s the very same argument that Catholics use to try to discredit non-Catholics.
Or is it *Rules for thee but not for me* time again?
But they did not do as Rome, which claims that her universal magisterial decrees on faith and morals are and will forever be infallible, but which guarantee does not apply to the arguments for them.
Instead, they said (Acts 15:28) that they thought, supposed (dokeō, which does not mean good, the word for which is not here in the Greek) that the Holy Spirit would have them decide the disciplinary judgment which they described.
This is simply not a “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” type statement, the veracity of which rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
Instead, while their judgment was authoritative as was that of the OT magisterium, (Dt. 17:8-13) in neither case was it because they presumed ensured magisterial infallibility of office, but instead it required an was established upon actual Scriptural warrant and support (which is how the church began), unlike that of Rome. In which, as Keating asserted,
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
James invoked Amos 9:11, 12 as foretelling this latter day incoming of the Gentiles, while he decree that the Gentiles abstain “from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20,29; cf. 21:25) was itself based upon Scripture. (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14) Idolatry is the mother of sin, and “pollutions of idols” refers to a multitude of things, including eating things sacrificed to idols as part of worship to fornication, but which is unconditionally condemned. The prohibition of “things strangled” is derived from the prohibition against consuming blood.
Forgot to deal with this in the preceding post, as you do not actually have a solution, for the Jews and Judaizers could also claim their decision had the authority of the Holy Spirit directly.
For indeed, "unto them were committed the oracles of God," "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; (Romans 9:4)
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5)
In contrast, Peter and the rest were followers of an itinerant prophets in the desert who ate insects and another itinerant Preacher(no disrespect implied in either case), both of whom were rejected by the historical magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses.
Under the Roman model for authority and determination of Truth, upon what basis should 1st c. souls have rejected the magisterium and followed itinerant preachers? To what did they appeal to for the veracity of their message? Rome?