[OBW]

aron,

I like the church-based analysis of scripture. But even the one case we are given was not simply the analysis by one assembly. While it was heavily Jerusalem, not all were simply from Jerusalem. It was a broader consensus. And that is how it should be. But the discussion was brought to those who were the leaders, not to the average "member." Their input was considered (assuming there was some), but it was the leadership (the nearest thing to the scholars they had) that made the decision.

We like to gripe about how the RCC does it. But at some level they have it right. Not entirely. There is no one person who can simply make statements and it is so, and just making up stuff, like the immaculate conception, praying to saints and Mary, etc., is an example of an ungrounded system. But the idea that the collective thought of the upper echelons is more in touch with the thoughts of God is somewhat sound, and is supported by the example in Acts. In Protestantism we are more enamored with me and my Bible and have created many divisions because we are unwilling to lay our thoughts at the feet of a larger group that may not conclude as we have.