How to Organize the Early Church

[3bar17]

Let’s not forget the most important passage that points to who will lead the infant church. From Christ Himself. Matt. 16:18 "“And so I say you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…” Also John 21:15-17

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
As to the specifics of this first council I will point out a couple of things:

1. Note that Paul and Barnabas saw fit to take the issue in Antioch to a central Church authority. That being the Apostles who were at the Church in Jerusalum. There-by fullfilling the command of Jesus to, “Take it to The Church”.

2)“After much discussion, Peter took the Floor…”, He reminds those gathered of a favored position that Our Lord gave him and then makes his position on the issues known. In verse 12 we are told that “At that the whole assembly fell silent”.
This statement by Luke tells me that Peter had put an end to what may well have been some pretty contentious debating. Once Peter spoke “discussion” ended and they went back to listening to Paul and Barnabas telling about the works of God among the Gentiles.

No, this wouldn’t make sense in light of the action of James as well as the agreement reached by the Council afterwards. Peter did not act in any way as the decisive point in the Council, it was James who did it.

Nowhere in my quote above did I say that Peter acted “as the decisive point”, but look at what Luke chose to record here. The council was in session, obviously there was discussion (probably heated) about the issue(s) of Mosaic Law and the Gentiles. Peter rose, reminded the Apostles of the position that God Himself gave to him, (taking the Gospel to the Gentiles) placed his views before the council and “At That the whole assembly fell silent.” Surely this indicates a position of some authority, possibly a chairmanship of the meeting. Issues of “papal” authority aside, it seems clear that Peter had the Power and authority to “Stop the show”, as it were.

I’m afraid you are looking at our discussion from an adversarial position which is not my intention at all.

The logical conclusion from this is that Peter, acting as a chairman, had brought an end to some contention in the council and got things back on track.

Reading the passage, one could not garner Peter being the chairman of the Council; again, as seen by Steadfast’s assessment, it was James who acted more the presider than Peter.

Actually, yes one could garner that Peter acted as Chairman. First there is the idea that after Peter Spoke everyone fell silent. Second is that James announced position reinforces the one that Peter had already made clear. that the Gentiles should not be subjected to Mosaic Law.
Note here that I am not declaring Peter “pope” just making the point that Peter appears to me to be Chairman at this point. Either that or James was chairing the meeting as Prelate of the Church in Jerusalem.

1. After Paul and Barnabas finished, James stood and made his presentation. This includes the phrase “It is my Judgement”, which seems to be a bone of contention between Roman Catholics and others.

I think it is important to note that James says it is “His” judgement.

This would be nonsensical as James clearly spoke with authority, not merely voicing his opinion as alleged by Catholic apologists. James making that move, in Catholic notion, would be meaningless, yet it is clear that it carried great weight in making the Council go into action in verse 22.

I firmly agree with some of what you say. James did speak with authority, but so did Peter. James statement did carry much weight in the council. James put into clear terms that which surely others had been discussing. After all isn’t that how councils work?

1. “It was resolved by the Apostles and the presbyters in agreement with the whole Jerusalem church…”

Hence we should be able to see that Peter, acting as Chairman kept things on track, James proposed the action that was ultimately accepted by the “Whole…Church”

Again, no go, as Peter clearly never acted in any way as the presider in the whole affair. One would never get that notion even after much reading and re-reading of the passage.

When I read this passage, I see this:

After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. (NAS) Acts 15:7

After reading this You can honestly say that “One would never get that notion…” (That Peter never acted in any way as presider?) I certainly got that notion.
Peter certainly did have a very large, even pivotal role to play in this council based on his God given mission to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.
The Brethren KNEW Peter was God’s choice to convert the Gentiles. How can one assume that Peter’s statements wouldn’t carry significant weight.

1. Once a decision was made, those you might still harbor doubts submit their doubts to the authority of the Church.

Actually a very Orthodox notion; the decision rests not on one man alone, but the whole Church decides on a matter of grave importance to the Church.

This isn’t just Orthodox but Roman Catholic as well. Rome makes no statements on teaching or doctrine that isn’t studied, reviewed and prayed over diligently for many months/years before hand.
One of the great mistakes many people make regarding the RCC is that “The Pope” rules like some dictator. Church councils, synods, various commissions, meetings, study groups are contantly working to deal with issues confronting the Church. It is true that, while this is all done under the “umbrella” of the Papal office, it is a far cry from a dictatorship.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I did not claim “supremacy.” I claim only that Peter’s presence as “a pillar” can be considered essential since he would have had to make the trip from Rome to attend.

I stand by my post. I do not claim that at this point in history there was anything like a full-blown ecclesiology with a developed understanding of Petrine primacy. For that matter, it appears that even the roles of “elders”, “bishops” and “deacons” were still rather blurred. However, as the Church grows, Peter’s prominence in Scripture and the prominence of the See of Rome in the Church begin to cast light upon one another.

Thanks mercygate,
this is the sort of thing I’m trying to explore. Let’s try to get away from the armchair debates of our respective takes on Scripture and look at the Church as it existed back then and consider the logical development of the Church over the first three or four centuries. Maybe there are different ways it could have developed, but it did develop a certain way and with logical reason.

I’d love to hear more from our Orthodox brethren about how and why they feel their councilior structure is more "biblical, or keeps the faith better, or whatever. After all that’s why I started the thread.

Peace
James

 

[Milliardo]

The James you mentioned was not James the Apostle. It was James the “brother” of Jesus (brother from different mother).

Irregardless of who it might be, the passage is still clear that it wasn’t Peter who presided over the Council, but James. That is the point here.

So, it does not mean that Big James made the decision.

Reading the passage itself, this wouldn’t make any sense. It is clear from the passage that James came to a decision, and the Council acted on that decision that he made.

Peter rose, reminded the Apostles of the position that God Himself gave to him, (taking the Gospel to the Gentiles) placed his views before the council and “At That the whole assembly fell silent.” Surely this indicates a position of some authority, possibly a chairmanship of the meeting.

It doesn’t indicate chairmanship in the meeting; it is more likely that the Council silently came to a deadlock on the situation, and while it deliberated on the issue Paul and Barnabas recounted what they had done. This was done to give time for the Council to make a decision, and after which James finally rose to declare his decision. Peter’s (name removed by moderator)ut was important, that much we can see. However, gleaning from the passage it shows he doesn’t have the final say on the matter.

Actually, yes one could garner that Peter acted as Chairman. First there is the idea that after Peter Spoke everyone fell silent.

As pointed out, that doesn’t necessarily mean so. If in a meeting for instance, someone gives a brilliant idea that no one can add anymore to it, does that mean the one who did so is chairman? It happens in meetings, and even the chairman or presider himself is at a loss as to what to add next that there would be a moment of silence. It certainly doesn’t mean the one speaking and made some speech that would hush the assembly would be the chairman himself. The conclusion that what happened proved Peter to be the chairman is premature then, if not totally baseless.

Second is that James announced position reinforces the one that Peter had already made clear…

Again, a premature arrival to a conclusion. Going back to the premise above, a chairman agreeing to a plan made by one of his subordinates would mean the subordinate is also the chairman himself? That is meaningless. So the conclusion arrived again here has no basis. It’s merely wishful thinking. Note that the passage is an historical event–it is not about some teaching or other. Historical events cannot be read in context; it seems Catholic apologists want this passage to be read in context, which cannot be so as the event speaks for itself.

I firmly agree with some of what you say. James did speak with authority, but so did Peter.

There is no debate here; Peter and all the Apostles carry much weight in the meeting, as we see.

After reading this You can honestly say that “One would never get that notion…” (That Peter never acted in any way as presider?) I certainly got that notion.

No, it wouldn’t garner as such. Note that Peter was merely recounting his role and experience, in which then his speech helped the Council make a decision. It doesn’t show here he is making a declaration that he is the presider of the Council; indeed, as I have noted, one would get this notion only if he stops on that verse and ignore the rest of the passage. But going through the whole passage, one would not get that notion.

This isn’t just Orthodox but Roman Catholic as well.

I made that note since it is more Orthodox in thinking than Catholic, though the Catholic Church does believe this in principle. However, as posted by another someplace in this forum, the final arbiter for the Catholic Church would still be the Pope; for Orthodoxy it is important that the whole Church, as represented by all the bishops in Council, makes that decision, not just one man.

 

[JRKH]

Irregardless of who it might be, the passage is still clear that it wasn’t Peter who presided over the Council, but James. That is the point here.

Reading the passage itself, this wouldn’t make any sense. It is clear from the passage that James came to a decision, and the Council acted on that decision that he made.

It doesn’t indicate chairmanship in the meeting; it is more likely that the Council silently came to a deadlock on the situation, and while it deliberated on the issue Paul and Barnabas recounted what they had done. This was done to give time for the Council to make a decision, and after which James finally rose to declare his decision. Peter’s (name removed by moderator)ut was important, that much we can see. However, gleaning from the passage it shows he doesn’t have the final say on the matter.

I note above that you are, on the one hand saying that the “council” took time to make a decision, but then immediately say that James rose to “Declare HIS decision”. It cannot be both. Either James, “Lorded it over the council” by declaring his decision, or he merely summed up what the Council had decided.

As pointed out, that doesn’t necessarily mean so. If in a meeting for instance, someone gives a brilliant idea that no one can add anymore to it, does that mean the one who did so is chairman? It happens in meetings, and even the chairman or presider himself is at a loss as to what to add next that there would be a moment of silence. It certainly doesn’t mean the one speaking and made some speech that would hush the assembly would be the chairman himself. The conclusion that what happened proved Peter to be the chairman is premature then, if not totally baseless.

Well said. However, regardless of whether Peter actually Chaired the Council (and I don’t say he did or did not) this passage shows that Peter’s authority was such as he could stop the debate.

Again, a premature arrival to a conclusion. Going back to the premise above, a chairman agreeing to a plan made by one of his subordinates would mean the subordinate is also the chairman himself? That is meaningless. So the conclusion arrived again here has no basis. It’s merely wishful thinking. Note that the passage is an historical event–it is not about some teaching or other. Historical events cannot be read in context; it seems Catholic apologists want this passage to be read in context, which cannot be so as the event speaks for itself.

Again, you seem to think that I am trying to declare one or the other as being Chairman. I am Not!! Peter may have Chaired it, or James. To the purpose of this thread it does not matter. The point is that, early on in the Church there was seen a need for Authority. Peter’s authority, as stated in this passage, is that he was selected by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and everyone at the meeting knew this. Whether that translates to a Chairmanship at this particular meeting is less important.

There is no debate here; Peter and all the Apostles carry much weight in the meeting, as we see.

Agreed

No, it wouldn’t garner as such. Note that Peter was merely recounting his role and experience, in which then his speech helped the Council make a decision. It doesn’t show here he is making a declaration that he is the presider of the Council; indeed, as I have noted, one would get this notion only if he stops on that verse and ignore the rest of the passage. But going through the whole passage, one would not get that notion.

You are making the same mistake here that you accuse us of. Peter is not merely recounting his role and experiences. He made a declarative statement of his postion in council. That God had selected him to preach to the Gentiles. As such he had the best claim to making substative (name removed by moderator)ut to the decision, and it was his considered judgement that the council should not lay on the Gentiles a bunch of laws that the Jews themselves found “Hard to bear”. This is a bit stronger than your view of “merely recounting his role and experience” and is born out by the decision ultimately reached and action taken.

I made that note since it is more Orthodox in thinking than Catholic, though the Catholic Church does believe this in principle. However, as posted by another someplace in this forum, the final arbiter for the Catholic Church would still be the Pope; for Orthodoxy it is important that the whole Church, as represented by all the bishops in Council, makes that decision, not just one man.

And to a certain degree this can be seen as a simple matter of structure. However as I explained, the Pope never does make a decision on his own. Decisions are always the result of prayerful deliberations in “councils” whether they be Bishops, or Magisterial. The Pope makes the declarations. Not unlike what you are saying James did in that first council.

It is abovious that we, as two clearly earnest seekers after the truth, see the same passage in different lights. Certainly this is not uncommon, and so we must come to some understanding. This is why Jesus instructs us to “take it to the Church”. But now we have a problem. You are Orthodox and I am Roman Catholic. Which Church do we take it to?

Peace
James

 

[swariffin]

Reading the passage itself, this wouldn’t make any sense. It is clear from the passage that James came to a decision, and the Council acted on that decision that he made.

It was not clear also that Big James made the decision. Any body including Big James may bring up an idea. If the council then decided to be in favor of Big James, it did not mean that Big James made the decision. Do you believe that all decisions made by the Church comes from the Pope only, without hearing (name removed by moderator)uts from another? If that so, why do they need a council anyway? Do you believe that all the encyclic issued by the Pope, were written by the Pope himself?

 

[dosdog]

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is an example of concordant judgment. At that council James echoed the policy established through Peter by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10), explained by Peter to the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts11), and enunciated by Peter at the council (Acts 15).
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

Acts Of Apostles 10
44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also

Acts Of Apostles 11
Peter defends his having received the Gentiles into the church.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 Saying: Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them?

Acts Of Apostles 15
A dissension about circumcision. The decision and letter of the council of Jerusalem.
6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them:

Persecution Strikes the Church
ACTS 5:16 - 8:3
According to the Talmud, Pharisaism made little secret of its contempt for Hellenists and, unlike those from Syria or Babylonia (regions that are often considered extensions of the Holy Land in Talmudic discussions), they were frequently categorized by the native-born and assumedly more scrupulous populace of Jerusalem as second-class Israelites (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, “Acts,” page 329)

The specific problem Luke mentioned was that the Hellenistic Jewish widows of the Jerusalem church “were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food” (6:1). That is, the church apparently had an organized charity, and part of it was a daily “soup kitchen” for the needy, such as the widows. But the widows from the Grecian Jewish community were not getting their fair share.

The seven men chosen were Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas, a Gentile convert to Judaism from Antioch (6:5). The men had Greek-sounding names, and it is presumed that they came from the Hellenistic segment of the Jerusalem church
wcg.org/lit/bible/acts/acts6.htm

Some of the Hellenistic Jewish Christians (as represented by Stephen in the Book of Acts) were killed during this period, but most survived and fled from Jerusalem, founding new Christian communities in the process

The new Christian communities sprang up wherever the Hellenistic Jewish Christians settled. Suddenly there were churches in Samaria, Cyprus, and Syria. When word of their existence percolated back to the Twelve Palestinian Apostles in Jerusalem, they sent delegates to approve of the work conducted by the Hellenistic Apostles. The spread of Christianity beyond Jerusalem was due to the evangelizing efforts of the myriad of unnamed, Hellenistic Jewish Christians fleeing persecution. the Hellenistic Apostles accepted that the new communities were extensions of the Jerusalem community
writerscafe.org/writing/badwolf/247968/

Antioch
At the juncture of three important trade routes, it was a large and sophisticated city when Christianity began. The population at the time has been estimated as perhaps a half million, and not less than three-fifths of that amount; although it was a Greek speaking Hellenistic city, there were large numbers of every kind of Near-Eastern nationality, and just as many different kinds of religions. There was also a large Jewish community
writerscafe.org/writing/badwolf/247968/

The Christian message came early to Antioch; after the martyrdom of Stephen in Jerusalem about 35 A.D., many Christians left the city to go to Cyprus, to Phoenicia (Lebanon), and Antioch.
sacred-destinations.com/turkey/pisidian-antioch.htm

The first Bishop was St. Peter before his travels to Rome. The third Bishop was the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius of Antioch. Antioch became one of the five original Patriarchates
experiencefestival.com/a/…ory/id/1748222

 

[JRKH]

First of all, thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. I didn’t quite expect us to get so involved with the first council, but that is what I get for having expectations.

Anyway, to summarize:
It appears that we pretty much agree that the organization of the early Church recognized a need and desirability for authority in order to assure the protection of the True Faith. The Church exersized this authority through the Bishops and, when necessary Councils.

We also seem to agree that if anyone in the councils did not fully agree with the decisions reached by the council, they would willingly submit to the decisions in order to maintain and assure unity.

There does seem to be some contention among us (not unexpected) as regards the idea of this or that person leading or chairing a council. While we will need to address this eventually, I want to keep this thread on track as far as how we feel the Church should be organized.

So now we move well into the second century. The situation is this:
The Church is no longer governed by the original apostles but by Bishops who were, in many cases, trained “at the feet of” an original Apostle.
Despite persecution, she is growing at a phenomenal rate, stretching across the Roman Empire and beyond.
This growth brings with it many new challenges including new Heresies, and growing difficulties in maintaining and disseminating the Truth of the Gospel.
It is impossible to call a general council of Bishops due to the fact that the Church is still illegal in the Roman Empire.

The Church needs a way to:
Assure consistent teaching. (at this stage there still is no clearly defined canon)
Encourage the Faithful who face persecution.
Ensure that the entire Church has consistent and reliable communication.

Keeping the above in mind, how does the Church tackle these obstacles?
Certainly the writings of Bishops (Church Fathers) are important, but how can these be disseminated quickly?
Is the “single head” the best solution? One person with authority over the Church?
Would some sort of “permanent council” be better?
Should the leadership move around, or should there be a specific city declared as home base?

I put these questions before all of you, not as Church historians looking backwards but as Church leaders of the time looking forward. If you can put yourself in that time, how would you want to proceed?

As always, any ideas, plans thoughts etc will be welcome.

Peace
James

 

[Milliardo]

I note above that you are, on the one hand saying that the “council” took time to make a decision, but then immediately say that James rose to “Declare HIS decision”. It cannot be both.

To makes things simpler, James made the decision and the Council ratified that decision. In other words then, it still comes down to both.

Well said. However, regardless of whether Peter actually Chaired the Council (and I don’t say he did or did not) this passage shows that Peter’s authority was such as he could stop the debate.

Yes, we agree as much on this–Peter’s role here cannot be undermined, no matter what our views are.

Again, you seem to think that I am trying to declare one or the other as being Chairman. I am Not!! Peter may have Chaired it, or James. To the purpose of this thread it does not matter. The point is that, early on in the Church there was seen a need for Authority.

The need for authority had been handled quite well by the early Church actually, by passing it to the bishops, who were the authority for the early Christian communities.

You are Orthodox and I am Roman Catholic. Which Church do we take it to?

Peace
James

Ah, now that would all come down to which side is one on.

 

[JRKH]

You are Orthodox and I am Roman Catholic. Which Church do we take it to?

No - which side is Jesus on?

Peace
James