When the issue of circumcision arose from the men from Judea, Paul and Barnabas disputed with them. The matter was taken to the apostolic and elder council in Jerusalem.
There, it is recorded, "the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter."
Within the meeting this is recorded:
"And... there had been much dispute..." I have been involved in similar discussions and I imagine the discussion regarding circumcision was quite lively.
Then, we see Peter stand to address the group. After he says his piece, this is written: "Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul."
Paul and Barnabas report that "God worked through them, many miracles and wonders, while they were with the Gentiles."
After the group was silent, James the brother of Jesus finalizes the matter by his judgement. He declares "Therefore I judge..." Notice it's not "we judge" or "we have voted". James the brother of Jesus presides over the council, not Peter. After much discussion, it is the judgement of James that goes forth from the council to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
In the letter, although James judges the matter, it is recognized as the judgment of the Holy Spirit and the group "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..."
We argue here, and amongst ourselves nearly everywhere you find believers, for several reasons:
1) Democracy has entered the church. Everyone's view is equally valid, and therefore, invalid. Also, elders vote on church direction instead of being led by the Spirit.
2) We look to seminaries and colleges to validate leadership. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit separated men for leadership and sent apostles to recognize elders. These were men who had been tried by many fiery trials and had shown their faith and commitment to the Lord. We have nullified the Spirit's ability to give us direction and have cancelled the apostolic calling all together.
3) We've kicked out the prophets who teach believers that we can hear from God. Now, the people rule. The issue or person who gets the most votes wins or gets rehired. This is the mystery of the Nicolaitans, whereby the church is dominated by the will of the majority.
4) Dispensationalism. Even though clear patterns of church governance can be read in scriptures, we think "that was then, this is now".
Imagine here, if you will, a recognized council of leaders who, after much discussion, would let the judgement of matters up to a specific leader. He would say, "We've discussed the matter of water baptism... Here is my judgement on the issue." And then, what is declared is the doctrine of the site. It's impossible, right? We don't really know each other, we don't know how each one has been dealt with by the Lord, and many of us, so addicted to democracy, would never permit such an arrangement, anyway. So arguments will go on here as they do in the church. And, like the church in the world, few will mature, forever being tossed to a fro by winds of doctrine.