HELLO - It's Been A While... Bridging the Gaps

[david_ruiz]

he point, however, is that “after much debate”, when Peter spoke “the whole assembly fell silent”; a clear indication of his authority above the other Apostles.

 

[david_ruiz]

As regards verse 19, James was only concurring with what Peter has already decided in verses 7-12.

 

[benedictus2]

You’re right. I should have said, since the time gentiles first believed the Gospel and received the Holy Spirit. You can read about it in Acts 11.

“When they heard this, they stopped objecting and glorified God, saying, “God has then granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too.”.” (v18)Up until this time they understood that if gentiles are to be counted among the people of God they must become Jews and be circumcised according to the Law. (Exd. 12:48) But based on Peter’s experience, they all understood that salvation had come to the gentiles. No conversion to Judaism was necessary.
No they didn’t. Or it would not have been necessary for Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to verify this. You are leaving that fact out in your assesment.

You appear to be under the impression that the apostles had a private meeting over this issue.

No I am not under an impression. I know it for a fact based on the Bible – Acts 15 verse 7.
As I said before, you might need to get another Bible as this seems to have been deleted from yours.

The meeting took place in the church and involved the whole congregation.

Again, please read the Bible or probably get a new complete one as your seem to be missing some verses.
The verse said that the Apostles and presbyters met together to discuss this.

Do you think that Peter received a revelation from God while convening in Jerusalem with the other apostles, telling him that the gentiles need not be burdened with circumcision?

Pray tell where I said that.

If so, who do you suppose he was referring to when he said, “we believe”?

Here you have fallen again to this protestant error or mangling the verses.
The question is not who are the “we” but “what” was “believed”.
What the apostles believed was that we are saved through grace. However, at that time, they had not ironed out the question of circumcision as it has not yet arisen. The Church was just born after all.
Peter in this speech was making a theological deduction based on this premise – that we are saved by grace - so as to better explain his decision to the aspostles. He was saying that since “we” (the apostles) believe that we are saved through grace, therefore it is not necessary to circumcise the gentles because they are saved by grace as well.
But until that time, no one has made a definitive pronouncement regarding this. From this time on, it became doctrine.

It seems rather ridiculous that Peter would receive this revelation then immediately rebuke the other apostles by saying, “Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?

The question that begins with why then starts with verse 8 and 9 where he alludes to Cornelius who was given the Holy Spirit inspite of being a gentile.
You see, you will not fall into this kind of exegetical errors if only you will take the chapter as a whole and base your exegesis on the whole chapter.

But that is what you believe, isn’t it?

No it isn’t as I have explained above

The church in Antioch sent them to Jerusalem concerning the question because both Paul with Barnabas and the Judaizers from Jerusalem were adamant.

And that is exactly the point. If they were already clear about this there would not have been a need for them to go to Jerusalem and there would not have been a need for the first council of the Church.

Since the Judaizers came from the church in Jerusalem, that is where they were sent to get the truth of the matter.

And considering that the apostles where in Jerusalem, would not these Judaizers already know that circumcision was not necessary. It is obvious from this text that the matter was not settled until Peter spoke at the council.
You keep forgetting that there was a debate before this was settled.

The implication would have been that they were sent to preach the Law by the authority of the apostles,

No, one cannot say that that was the implication. What it implies is that they took it upon themselves to preach in that manner because being Jews and considering that Jesus was a Jew they obviously thought that the law regarding circumcision remains. If you look at the decision arrived at, they still upheld some mosaic laws pertaining to “ pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood” (verse 20)

but Paul and Barnabas would have known that was not the case. In fact, on the way there they relayed the conversion of the gentiles and that news caused great Joy.

That the gentiles were overjoyed has no bearing on this discussion. The question was whether it was a set doctrine before the council that circumcision was not necessary.

As I have shown above, it was not. Until the council of Jerusalem.

 

[benedictus2]

As the bishop of the church in Jerusalem, it was incumbent upon James to set the record straight.

Yes, as pertains to the Church in Jerusalem but not the whole Church.

It was his idea to write the letter

No, as I keep saying, the text does not bear this out. Read Acts better.
This is actually what it said and nowhere does it state that it was James idea.
*22 Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
23 This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind,
25 we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. *

 

[benedictus2]

Howdy.Thanks for keeping us close to reading it all .I got a whole different view of James’s statement , than “only concurring” with Peter. Why would he speak at all ? He seems to speak as with an authority to make the final call, quite decisively , with further directions , and scriptural insight , much like a judge. Indeed ,many have said he was the president of the council , seeing that he was bishop of Jerusalem.

He was indeed the bishop of Jerusalem and he had authority in that Church. But he was none the less concurring with Peter. It was Peter who made the pronouncement that this is to be so, because it was to him that God made this revelation regarding the Gentiles. Otherwise, we would have read that after “After much debate, James spoke”.

Because the issue is relating to Judaic practices and he was after all the bishop of the Jewish Church, it was important that he makes a stand as well, especially since the Judaizers came from his church.

It was important that he made the scriptural insight for the Jews because it is the Jews that he is guiding and they need to see the connection of this to the OT.

The decision was already made once Peter spoke. But now there is a need to fine tune what will be required of the Gentiles.

There seems to be this recognition of Peter as being the head of them. Even John, he got to the tomb first but he waited for Peter and it was Peter who entered the tomb.

I think for the Apostles, it was a matter of following Christ in His very clear choice of Peter as the head of His disciples.

 

[benedictus2]

What other apostles were there ,besides James (and Paul) ? It is not clear that it shows his authority over others .Certainly that he was a leader ,a first amongst equals .He did not chair over the council , nor did he issue the decree,

Yes, he did. Verse 7.

As a matter of fact, we can see here an echo of what was happening at Ceasaria Philippi in Matthew 16.

There was confusion as to who Jesus was and Peter through God’s guidance breaks through that confusion.

Here we see the same thing. Confusion and then clarity. It was also like an echo of genesis, God bringing order out of chaos. And in these instances He uses Peter to bring that clarity.

nor was he the only testator to God’s doings, nor was he above “scripture” that helped seal the deal .

Did we say he was the only testator? He was the prime testator because it was to Him that God chose to reveal how to deal with the Gentiles.

What took Peter so long to speak ?

What took James longer?

Was he not the one who received the dream ,the vision ,of going to the gentiles with God’s blessing ?

How about the possibility that he was allowing everyone to have their say?

Did he not see the Holy Spirit fall upon them at his preaching ?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with it. What he saw in the vision was that gentiles will be admitted but the vision said nothing about circumcision. It was only when the debate arose that he would have been able to apply that vision to this particular issue of circumcision.

Was Peter still afraid of the Judaizers ?

Paul seems to think so but I think it was more a case of not wanting to ruffle their feathers. After all, they were commanded to preach first to the Jews.

He should have been the first to speak , but he was not . …

Yes he was or don’t you have verse 7 as well? What is it with protestants that this verse seems to be missing from your Bibles?

…I have heard Catholics say many things , that Peter presided over the council , that he gave the decision (pronouncement) ,

Read Acts 15. If you stop chopping up verses you will realize this to be true as well.

Let me ask yo this, why do you feel you need to chop scripture to prove a point?

that scripture was "unauthoratative "at the council.

I don’t think anyone said scripture was “unauthoritative” at the council but the decision was not made based on Scripture. It was based on Peter’s speech and his appeal to the truth that we are saved by grace.

Peter and Paul had outstanding testimony,for they were our two most outstanding apostles

No one doubted that Paul is an outstanding apostle. But if you really are scripturally solid in your theology, then you cannot escape the fact that Jesus continually singled out Peter. This is the way Jesus operated. If He had so wanted, He could have chosen Paul as part of the twelve but he did not. This is God’s will. This is God’s way of acting.

. Peter ,first among equals, and not “over” the others, in my humble opinion, and a bridge too far to gap.

Yes, first among equals. But you have it right there. FIRST.

 

[benedictus2]

Paul wrote to the church he was instrumental in starting.

I have no problem with the idea both Peter and Paul were in Rome.

I’m confused: is your church the RCC or the CC? Some here speak forcefully that the church is the CC.

You misunderstand, Dokimas.

The Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church. The word Roman was added I think by the Anglicans. But the Chuch of Christ is referred to only as the Catholic Church whose main See is in Rome because it was St Peter’s See.

The Church does not refer to herself as the Roman Catholic Church but simply as the Catholic Church.

Strictly speaking the term Roman Catholic Church specifically refers to the Church in Rome in the same way that we have the American Catholic Church and the Canadian Catholic Church, etc, etc. But all these Churches are in communion with Rome and we all form simply the Catholic Church.

Also, the term denotes what Rite within the Universal (Catholic) Church belongs to.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

If they were already clear about this there would not have been a need for them to go to Jerusalem and there would not have been a need for the first council of the Church.

You act as though Paul and Barnabas were not sure about the Gospel they were preaching. Do you really think they thought they might have been mistaken? In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul said, “How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets.”

Paul and Barnabas were absolutely clear about what they were preaching. Why else would they have “no little dissension and debate” with the men from Jerusalem? Did they say, well we’re not sure so let’s go down to Jerusalem and get clearance from the other apostles? No, they argued with the men at great length. It was the church in Antioch that sent them to Jerusalem because to them, there was no clear victor in the debate.

You appear to be under the impression that the apostles had a private meeting over this issue.

No I am not under an impression. I know it for a fact based on the Bible – Acts 15 verse 7. As I said before, you might need to get another Bible as this seems to have been deleted from yours.

Let’s look at verse seven.

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

It’s funny how you condescendingly keep telling me that my Bible must be missing this verse while at the same time you are removing it from the context of the story.

After Peter was finished the whole assembly fell silent. A better translation of the Greek would be, the multitude fell silent. This does not imply that the apostles and elders met privately. But I know you have an ideology to protect, so let’s see how an unbiased source interprets “whole assembly.”

“…and when Paul and Barnabas had gone up to Jerusalem to the apostles on account of this question, and the whole Church had convened together, Peter thus addressed them…” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.14)

Will you tell me that Irenaeus interpreted verse seven wrong, or that it must have been missing from his copy of Acts?

If indeed you think Irenaeus and I are wrong, please tell me who you think Peter was rebuking and accusing of testing God? Since you believe (based on six words of the text mind you) that the apostles held a private debate, which of the apostles were on Peter’s side and which were not? And which of the apostles sent men out to preach the Law to the gentiles? I ask this because whoever Peter was debating was being accused of preaching the Law to the gentiles. I don’t know what your Bible says, but mine says that none of them sent those men. So Peter must have been talking to others in the congregation.

“Peter in this speech was making a theological deduction based on this premise – that we are saved by grace - so as to better explain his decision to the aspostles. He was saying that since “we” (the apostles) believe that we are saved through grace, therefore it is not necessary to circumcise the gentles because they are saved by grace as well. But until that time, no one has made a definitive pronouncement regarding this. From this time on, it became doctrine.”

The fact that there was no pronouncement explains why some of the Jewish believes were troubled by gentiles not converting to Judaism. But don’t confuse that with what the apostles understood concerning gentiles. When they heard the news of the first gentile converts they rejoiced and thanked God. They did not go about telling them to be circumcised and keep the Law.

Here you are saying that “Peter in this speech was making a theological deduction,” but in an earlier post you said, “Peter had to make a decree that it was not necessary based on what God had revealed to him.” Could you clarify; did he, in your opinion, deduce the answer or did God reveal it to him?

Either way you interpretation is confusing. According to you, Peter had no prior understanding on this matter, yet he rebuked the other apostles? Why would he do that if he didn’t even know for himself until that moment? Can you answer that?

 

[benedictus2]

You act as though Paul and Barnabas were not sure about the Gospel they were preaching. Do you really think they thought they might have been mistaken? In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul said, “How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets.”

Paul and Barnabas were absolutely clear about what they were preaching. Why else would they have “no little dissension and debate” with the men from Jerusalem?

I have little time today so attend to the rest of your post later.

In the meantime ask yourself this
First: if they can make decisions and they need no other because they were sure of their preaching whey did they need to go Jerusalem to clarify this?

Second: When was this letter written? Was it before or after the council in Jerusalem?

Third: Did this letter have anything to do with circumcision?

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH;7484478:

What other apostles were there ,besides James (and Paul) ? It is not clear that it shows his authority over others .Certainly that he was a leader ,a first amongst equals .He did not chair over the council , nor did he issue the decree, nor was he the only testator to God’s doings, nor was he above “scripture” that helped seal the deal .What took Peter so long to speak ? Was he not the one who received the dream ,the vision ,of going to the gentiles with God’s blessing ? Did he not see the Holy Spirit fall upon them at his preaching ? Was Peter still afraid of the Judaizers ? He should have been the first to speak , but he was not . …I have heard Catholics say many things , that Peter presided over the council , that he gave the decision (pronouncement) , that scripture was "unauthoratative "at the council. Peter and Paul had outstanding testimony,for they were our two most outstanding apostles . Peter ,first among equals, and not “over” the others, in my humble opinion, and a bridge too far to gap.

We don’t know who was involved in “much debate”. It is not written as if someone was taking minutes of the meeting. Peter may very well have spoken during the debate. It is clear, however, that he had the last word concerning the subjection of Gentiles to Mosaic law. James’ judgment and position as to how to implement the decision was accepted. Bishops in the Church today are certainly heard as well and their advice implemented on many occasions. Witness our current Pope and his previous position.

 

[rinnie]

Hello All,
It has been a LONG while since I have been here but I am back - for now… Don’t know if any of y’all will know me but I am here to help answer / ask questions while try to bridge a gap of understanding between us non-catholics and catholics.

I feel with a bit of unity we can become such a powerhouse the world has never seen and Christ’s light could shine that much brighter. But there are some big canyons that some find hard to bridge.

Do any of you ever think it will be possible to bridge the gaps?

YES!! I Do! And it came to me just today. To bridge the gaps we need a bridge. How do we build a Bridge??

LOVE, LOVE CAN BUILD A BRIDGE. LOVE CAN DO ALL. It is by the LOVE of Christ that all can be achieved.

Now we must all reach deep in our souls and find that LOVE that is in us all. And then we can all become ONE in Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

It was Peter who made the pronouncement that this is to be so,

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, he did. Verse 7.

As a matter of fact, we can see here an echo of what was happening at Ceasaria Philippi in Matthew 16.

I prefer what a following thread said ,that Peter may have spoken during the dispute also ,We do not know .We do know there was "much disputing ,there was conversation ,by people ,BEFORE Peter stood up and spoke.We do not know if this was his first verbal (name removed by moderator)ut. ]

Read Acts 15. If you stop chopping up verses you will realize this to be true as well.

Why do you insist that because we do not have your same conclusion ,we must not have read the same thing ,as if your argument is more scripturally solid. On the contrary ,it is your position that requires outside help ,from “tradition” ,not mine. I will reiterate , in God’s wisdom He was very precise in scriptural renderings of things,so as to prove the hearts of men,elst we would know all things.

I don’t think anyone said scripture was “unauthoritative” at the council

To be fair you have not , just other Catholic apologeticists,when debating sola scriptura ,and how things should be done, as in this council.

but the decision was not made based on Scripture. It was based on Peter’s speech and his appeal to the truth that we are saved by grace.

Now I feel you are picking and choosing as to why James made his pronouncement.This is a perfect example of the importance of being scriptural to provide boundaries ,even when a pope or apostle speaks.The importance of scripture(and peter and paul and james) is in the eyes of the beholder.

He could have chosen Paul as part of the twelve but he did not.

I and many others think God did choose Paul as one the twelve ,replacing Judas.Or what ,shall drawing lots be our guiding way ?

Yes, first among equals. But you have it right there. FIRST

Again ,you pick and choose ,for will you say “equals” in authority ?

[/QUOTE]

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7490233:

We don’t know who was involved in “much debate”. It is not written as if someone was taking minutes of the meeting. Peter may very well have spoken during the debate.

Agreed

It is clear, however, that he had the last word concerning the subjection of Gentiles to Mosaic law.

Probably, but Paul had strong testimony also of great works without circumcision. Peter’s last words , was it because they saw Peter as "pope’ ,or that his experience (vision,etc),and words of truth, and that he was a leader type that quieted them ?, His last words were that of testimony,or words “from the floor”.The last words on mosaic law came from James.

James’ judgment and position as to how to implement the decision was accepted. Bishops in the Church today are certainly heard as well and their advice implemented on many occasions. Witness our current Pope and his previous position.

Yes ,but is the pope today a testator ,a witness as Peter was ,or does the pope make the judgment and last call as James did .Not sure. You at least say James made the judgement , but it contradicts that Peter had the last word on it ,in my opinion.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Here Protestants are, as usual, reading Acts as if the Church who wrote it 20 centuries ago didn’t know what happened at the Council of Jerusalem and what it meant.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[david_ruiz]

Here Protestants are, as usual, reading Acts as if the Church who wrote it 20 centuries ago didn’t know what happened at the Council of Jerusalem and what it meant.

 

[jmcrae]

Jim Dandy;7499466:

Hello Jim Dandy. Shall I say , here Catholics, as usual, are reading Acts as if the Church in Acts is the same Roman Catholic Church 20 centuries later ?

It is!

The Council at Jerusalem set the pattern for all of the Councils that followed, so by looking at more recent Councils, we can see how the Council of Jerusalem must have been.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7500707:

It is!

The Council at Jerusalem set the pattern for all of the Councils that followed, so by looking at more recent Councils, we can see how the Council of Jerusalem must have been.

Howdy jmcrae.If only it were so .Not all elements of the Body are at the councils anymore , ever since one “bishop” began declaring things that were not present at Jerusalem, like said “bishop” being universal , supreme, having the last word. The exact opposite of a humble Peter. But alas, there is enough in scripture , and certainly in history to shape your theory… Let me know next time there is a council, when bishops from all elements of the Church of Christ are present, and testimony is heard of present day Holy Spirit activity , with scriptural boundaries (not tradition), and all bishops are equal in commission and authority but unique in experience and anointing, of which any one could be “president” of the council, and the outcome is one of consensus , not dictation from one , however well esteemed. Please let me know.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;7500717:

Howdy jmcrae.If only it were so .Not all elements of the Body are at the councils anymore

There were both Protestants and Jews present at the Second Vatican Council - as observers, of course, since they are not in full communion with the Church. But the demographics of the Second Vatican Council were certainly very similar to those of the Council of Jerusalem - Jews, Christians in schism, and all those in full communion with Peter - and Protestants have always been invited to attend Councils, throughout the existence of Protestantism - ever since Trent, although Vatican II was the first time any of them actually showed up.

Let me know next time there is a council, when bishops from all elements of the Church of Christ are present, and testimony is heard of present day Holy Spirit activity , with scriptural boundaries (not tradition), and all bishops are equal in commission and authority but unique in experience and anointing, of which any one could be “president” of the council, and the outcome is one of consensus , not dictation from one , however well esteemed. Please let me know.

You would find The Document of Vatican II by Walter M. Abbott, S. J. to be interesting reading, I think.

 

[david_ruiz]

Sorry, I thought I toned it down quite a bit from an alledged statement of papal authority written by Cardinal Manning.
[/quote]