How does that say Papal Primacy? St. James mentioned St. Peter because of his witness. St. Paul didn’t bring a witness of Divine Revelation.interesting note: why in Acts 15:13 does James mention Peter’s comments but not those of Barnabas and Paul which everyone had just heard (verse 12 right before)? Papal primacy!
Because it was not a “new” doctrine – the disciples already believed and were teaching that salvation came “through the grace of Jesus Christ”.Why does the lastest This Rock magazine, in the question and answer section, say that the Council of Jerusalem didn’t define any doctrine, but merely set down principles?? Acts 15:19 is clear that the Council decided that one can be saved without being circumcised (see Acts 15 verse 1)
Remember that this was about Gentile converts, and not all Christians. Jewish converts were still expected to follow Judaic traditions including the law of Moses. They never abolished that, at least at the time of this Council.Well, I guess this comes down to the question of when the Apostles were infallible. Acts 15:6 shows us that that the Apostles needed to get issue poised in verse 1 settled, at least in their own minds. The fact that Peter Barnabas and Paul all had to present arguments for the Christian doctrines shows that they were clarifying this matter. The Christians did not have disciplinary rule commanding the practice of the Mosiac law, but at the Council considered it. The “party of the Pharisees” mentioned in verse 5 certainly did NOT believe that they should impose the mosiac law as a discipline, but that it was still the Law of God. Although the “apostles and elders” already had a grip on the truth of this issue, verse 6 clearly tells us that the Council was called to consider the question. Verse 24 shows that the Council’s decree was sent to those who were being troubled by the “party of the Pharisees”, who told them, not that they were violating a non-existent decree of the new Christians, but the old Law of Moses, which they thought was still in place. The mention of the Holy Chost in verse 28 indicates that this issue was now settled dogmatically.
Definitely it was James who was the presider of the council and ultimately the one who gave out the decision. But a council is a council and it was something that the members of the council needed to discuss and agree on. As presider of the council, it was upon James to make the declaration of the conciliar decision.St. James may have pointed to the earlier testimony of Peter alone, instead of along with that of the other two apostles who had just spoken, because it relates how right from the beginning of the Church the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost without the “law” (which definitely was understood as a “necessity of means” for salvation, as opposed to a “necessity of precept”, as the arguments of the Apostles at the Council proves). So in that regard the This Rock response was correct: its merely one example among many of the prominence of Peter. This was brought to light even further for me, however, when I found out why James may have had such a central part to play at this first Council:
“The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour Himself,…” Eusebius, Church History, 7, 19,
He was the chief elder of the Church in Jerusalem (ie. the bishop) and thus he presides the council.James seemed to have a special place at the Council because it was held at his local church, and perhaps those who opposed Peter’s viewpoint held James’s opinion in very high regard. That is all that can be proved about James’s position I think. Acts 15:23 is clear that this was a collegial act