For what it's worth… My Protestant analysis of Acts 15

[aridite]

Angainor:

Yes and in Acts 15, all the church leaders end the discussion in agreement, so in some ways Acts 15 isn’t really a good model for resolving real disagreements.

What happens if, after discussion is done, some Church leaders decide one thing and some decide another? Which decision is binding? If you say “the side the Pope is on”, then we have an interesting situation. In that case, all the discussion among the church leaders was for nothing. They can discuss all they want. In the end it will always be “the side the Pope is on” that is deemed binding.

It is not the case that those requiring circumcision simply were changed their minds and were convinced by the Fathers of the Council of Jerusalem. In some sense, the problem did not disappear even though it was decided what “the Church believes.” The circumcizers are still around bothering the Galatians some time after the Council. But notice that Paul says that the circumcizers are preaching a different Gospel than Jesus’. They have placed themselves outside the Church. The discussion at Jerusalem is not for nothing – it is in and through the discussion that it becomes clear what the will of the Holy Spirit is, and what side the pope will be on.

George Weigel in his biography of John Paul II relates that Paul VI proposed that ‘the pope was subject to God alone,’ but was overruled by the Fathers of that Council. They argued that the pope is subject to the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, the pronouncements of prior popes, and the decisions of legitimate Ecumenical Councils. No Council is legitimate without a pope calling and confirming it, but it is an oversimplification to say that they are a rubber stamp for whatever whim the pope proposes.

Also, Jesus gave genuine authority to all of the Apostles and their successors, so bishops do have legitimate authority in their own diocese. But to be Catholic, they have to be in union with the Successor of Peter. The pope is the leader of the College of Bishops and can no more decide doctrine in isolation, than they can.

 

[Angainor]

aridite:

It is not the case that those requiring circumcision simply were changed their minds and were convinced by the Fathers of the Council of Jerusalem. In some sense, the problem did not disappear even though it was decided what “the Church believes.” The circumcizers are still around bothering the Galatians some time after the Council. But notice that Paul says that the circumcizers are preaching a different Gospel than Jesus’. They have placed themselves outside the Church. They have placed themselves outside the Church.

Exactly. Paul uses the Gospel of Jesus to decide which side is right in a disagreement. If others use a different Gospel than Jesus’, they place themsleves outside of the Church. I don’t see what that has to do with the Pope.

 

[Angainor]

mark a:

Hello,

Is this a normal fashion for things to be done? Is it human nature to accept something shoved down your throat?

I find nothing disagreeable with your analysis of the Biblical text. A true leader leads a people by keeping them together. Especially when they disagree.

Cool.

Someone should have told that to Leo X.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Angainor:

Verse12: “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul.”

Are you sure that the discussion continued? Here’s how the Protestant The New Living Translation reads, with some of Peter’s speech removed for brevity and my emphasis:

So the apostles and church elders got together to decide this question. At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, … Why are you now questioning God’s way by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the special favor of the Lord Jesus.” There was no further discussion, and everyone listened as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

 

[Pug]

Act 15:12 - Kept silence (esighsen). Ingressive first aorist active of sigaw, old verb, to hold one’s peace. All the multitude became silent after Peter’s speech and because of it.

This is from Robertson’s Word Pictures, a Protestant reference on the New Testament. Unfortunately, the two Greek words did not come through, so I italicized them to indicate them. I think it is a font issue.

 

[Angainor]

Pug:

Act 15:12 - Kept silence (esighsen

). Ingressive first aorist active of sigaw, old verb, to hold one’s peace. All the multitude became silent after Peter’s speech and because of it. This is from Robertson’s Word Pictures, a Protestant reference on the New Testament. Unfortunately, the two Greek words did not come through, so I italicized them to indicate them. I think it is a font issue.

Alright then, there was no further discussion. The debate part of the meeting was over. Next came testimony by Banabas and Paul. The icing on the cake finally came when James, a leader of the circumcision party, judged in favor of not making it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

The meeting ended with all in agreement.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

The Council of Jerusalem is a model for what the Catholic Church became down through the ages. Councils periodically have been called. As at Jerusalem, the successor of Peter has presided over these councils. The councils’ decisions have always been with the approval of the Pope, as they were with the approval of that prime unifying force … Peter, the rock upon which Jesus said he would build his Church.

Note that the Church did not break up into factions over circumcision. They did not establish thirty new denominations, never mind thirty-thousand (as at present). And the reason there are thirty thousand Protestant sects today is that they have no unifying force like Peter to feed the lambs and keep them together in one blessed flock as Christ commanded…

 

[vern_humphrey]

6 & 7. Reverse? I don’t quite follow. Nobody disagreed with them, if that’s what you mean.

Actually, they did – that’s why Paul and Barnabas had to go to Jerusalem. And in the meeting there were those who took the opposite side.

What happened there is typical of the workings of the Catholic Church. Many Protestants seem to think the Pope gets up in the morning and says, “What shall I do today? Hmmm . . . I think I’ll make an infallible pronouncement.”

What actually happens is the issue is discussed amongst the “apostles and elders” – the bishops under the supervision of the Pope – sometimes for generations. There are three ways of infallibly settling such issues:

1. The ordinary Magisterium – the bishops agree informally and all teach the same thing, under the supervision of the Pope.
2. The Extraordinary Magisterium – an ecuminical council is convened and the bishops, again under the authority and supervision of the pope, formally debate the issue to arrive at a decision.
3. The Pope listens to all sides of an issue and announces a decision speaking ex cathedra (as the Church.)

 

[Angainor]

Gilbert Keith:

Note that the Church did not break up into factions over circumcision. They did not establish thirty new denominations, never mind thirty-thousand (as at present).

I hate to break it to you, but Catholicism is one of those factions. It takes two to disagree. When there was a disagreement, there was no Peter to keep them together in the way you think it should have.

By the way. The Church never broke up. The Church is as whole as it ever was. It is the people who broke into factions.

 

[aridite]

Angainor:

Exactly. Paul uses the Gospel of Jesus to decide which side is right in a disagreement. If others use a different Gospel than Jesus’, they place themsleves outside of the Church. I don’t see what that has to do with the Pope.

The content and implications of the Gospel of Jesus were determined (discovered) at the Council of Jerusalem under the leadership of the pope (Peter). Surely the circumcizers would claim that Jesus’ Gospel required circumcision, just as a Christian would claim it does not. To each other, the position of the other seems heterodox. It takes someone with authority to determine what really is the Gospel of Jesus. It is circular for Paul to claim on his own that circumcision is outside the true Gospel because the true Gospel does not require it. It is not circular for those who have been given authority by Jesus (as Paul was since he was an Apostle) to decide what belongs to the Gospel. Throughout Acts and Paul’s writings, it is not up to the individual Christian to decide what Christians believe, but only those who were given that authority could decide this. The successor of the Apostles, in communion with the successor of their leader, the pope, is the necessary authority.

 

[aridite]

Angainor:

I hate to break it to you, but Catholicism is one of those factions. It takes two to disagree. When there was a disagreement, there was no Peter to keep them together in the way you think it should have.

By the way. The Church never broke up. The Church is as whole as it ever was. It is the people who broke into factions.

What, pray tell, is the Church apart from the people?!?

When some Christians say that water baptism is necessary to fulfill Jesus command and others say it is not necessary, there is not unity, at least not full unity, any more. At present, there is not a single doctrine that all who call themselves Christian believe. Some Christians have more of the Gospel than others, but as long as any have only some, the Church is not one. The Church is broken, and it is a scandal. Jesus prayed that we be one, so that the world may believe through us. We are not living up to his hope.

 

[Liberian]

Angainor:

Peter was a spiritual leader, no question. He led by persuasion and theological argument. He strove for consensus among his fellow believers. He did not plant a flag in the ground and declare “my word is law”.

Angainor,

You are absolutely right on this. But planting a flag in the ground and declaring “My word is law” is extremely poor leadership technique, so Peter didn’t do it. That doesn’t make him any less the leader of the Church, though.

If I may draw an analogy, when two cars come to an intersection and one of them has right-of-way, the way the law is written the other car must yield the right-of-way. The car with the right of way is not allowed to take the right-of-way; the other car is required to yield it. There is a qualitative difference between person A yielding to person B and person B asserting over person A.

• Liberian

 

[mschoir01]

Angainor:

I hate to break it to you, but Catholicism is one of those factions.

So many of the dissenting denominations sincerely desire this to be the case, but history simply does not bear this out. It is really quite simple. The Lord chose Peter. Peter went to Rome. And the rest is…well…you know.

 

[Angainor]

aridite:

The content and implications of the Gospel of Jesus were determined (discovered) at the Council of Jerusalem under the leadership of the pope (Peter). Surely the circumcizers would claim that Jesus’ Gospel required circumcision, just as a Christian would claim it does not. To each other, the position of the other seems heterodox.

Yes, each side would think they were teaching the true gospel. One of the groups would be wrong.

aridite:

It takes someone with authority to determine what really is the Gospel of Jesus.

Why? Would the true gospel be any less true and the false gospel be any less false if there were no one around to authoritatively declare which was which?

We (you and me) are given tools to determine false teachings:
Matthew 7/Luke 6:43-45
Mark 9:38-40
1 Timothy 1:3-11
2 Peter 2
1 John 4:1-6

I’m sure there are more examples.

aridite:

It is circular for Paul to claim on his own that circumcision is outside the true Gospel because the true Gospel does not require it. It is not circular for those who have been given authority by Jesus (as Paul was since he was an Apostle) to decide what belongs to the Gospel. Throughout Acts and Paul’s writings, it is not up to the individual Christian to decide what Christians believe, but only those who were given that authority could decide this.

The Apostles did have special insight into the truth because of the Holy Spirit. Their written accounts in the New Testament are the best way I know of to find out what they taught.

 

[Angainor]

aridite:

What, pray tell, is the Church apart from the people?!?

When some Christians say that water baptism is necessary to fulfill Jesus command and others say it is not necessary, there is not unity, at least not full unity, any more. At present, there is not a single doctrine that all who call themselves Christian believe.

Right, but there is a single doctrine that all who truely are Christians believe. There may be “extra” doctrines that do not harm the Christian faith but may strengthen it for certian people. Take circumcision. In Acts 15 it was decided that circumcision was not required for Gentile Christians. I don’t think they made the Jewish Christians give up the practice. It was helpful for them, and did not detract from true Christian faith.

The same was true of [post=913835]food sacrificed to idols[/post] (1 Corinthians 8). Some still believed it was still wrong to eat it. Paul knew it didn’t really matter, but advised Christians not to eat it around those who thought it was wrong, so as to not cause them to stumble.

Some Christians find different tools, but there is only one Gospel.
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.”
Mark 9:38-41

aridite:

Some Christians have more of the Gospel than others, but as long as any have only some, the Church is not one. The Church is broken, and it is a scandal. Jesus prayed that we be one, so that the world may believe through us. We are not living up to his hope.

True Christians do not have more or less of the Gospel than other true Christians. Unity in the sense you wish for would be nice, but The Church is not broken.

 

[mark_a]

Angainor:

Cool.

Someone should have told that to Leo X.

Yeeeooouuuch!!!

God knows they tried.

I think the expression “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is fitting.

 

[linus]

5. Actually, Paul and Barnabas were sent by the church (verse 3) to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this matter.

Very good. “Therefore being sent on their way by the church…” (vs. 3). They were not sent “to the church.” The “church” is made up of all true believers, everywhere.

 

[RyanL]

linus:

Very good. “Therefore being sent on their way by the church…” (vs. 3). They were not sent “to the church.” The “church” is made up of all true believers, everywhere.

So are you saying they were sent by “all true believers, everywhere” to Jerusalem? I don’t see that in the text…

BTW, who constitutes “true believers”? Is there a specific list of things you have to believe to be a “true believer”? Is there anyone prior to 1500 A.D. who agrees with you?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Angainor]

RyanL:

BTW, who constitutes “true believers”? Is there a specific list of things you have to believe to be a “true believer”?

It’s called the Gospel.

RyanL:

Is there anyone prior to 1500 A.D. who agrees with you?

JC

 

[twf]

Angainor: What constitutes the Gospel? Of course we all agree on the basics, but not necessarily on the particulars. Where do you draw the line?
With all due respect, can you find a single Father, or even a group that was deemed heretical, that postulate the modern Evangelical understanding of the Gospel and Christianity prior to the Reformation? You will not be able to do this. The doctrines of the Reformation were novelties in Christianity. Protestants will say that their doctrines are based upon Scripture…but according to who? Look how fractured Protestantism is…sola scriptura has not worked, with dozens of competing schools of theological thought.
The New Testament Church was governed by the Apostles, who were ordained by Christ, and given the power to bind and to loose (Matthew 18). The Apostles ordained other men to assist them in their ministry (the presbyters in each city, and ‘vice-Apostles’ such as Timothy and Titus), and it was to these men, the Apostles and their appointed co-workers, that the people turned for spiritual guidance and the correct teaching of the Faith. Paul commands his flock to “hold on to the traditions handed down to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes. 2:15) and claims that the church is the “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Why would the fundamental structure of the Church be so dramatically changed after the death of the Apostles? Why would Christ give us strong, authoratative leadership to begin with, but then leave us clean and dry for subsequent centuries? Clearly, without authority, we, as imperfect sinners, can not maintain unity nor properly pass on the fulness of the deposit of Faith (looking at all the splintering in Protestantism and Christianity in general). The early Church, which can be clearly seen in the writings of the Fathers, was governed by bishops, whom they believed were the successors of the Apostles. St. Ignatius expresses this concept very clearly in his letters at the beginning of the 2nd century. St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John, and since John had only died several years prior to St. Ignatius’ writings, this system of episcopal government must have already existed during the Apostle’s lifetime, as it is apparently well established throughout the Christian world by AD107 when these letters are written. Many of the Early Fathers tell us that the Apostles themselves ordained bishops in each city, and that the bishops of their day could trace their ordinations to the Apostles themselves, demonstrating their apostolic authority and right to govern the Church in Christ’s name. Does it make sense that the governing structure of the Church was dramatically altered after the death of the Apostles, without any record of this happening, in or out of Scripture, and at the same time, the entire Christian Church around the world did not get the message, but continued to follow false prophets claiming to exercise the full teaching, binding, and loosing authority of the Apostles?

In Christ,
Tyler