Peter's "confession"

[JRKH]

Global lead!
Where did you copy this from?

St Peter spoke. Then SS Barnabas and Paul spoke. Finally St James spoke and judged. St Peter did not exercise any type of supreme rulership–just as the popes in the early Church could not declare doctrine apart from the Great Councils.

I have just reviewed the passage under discussion and it appears to me that no one can be shown to be excersizing any clear authority. Scripture simply does not state it in so many words.

I do find these points: (Source New KJV at Studylight.org)
In verses 7, 8 and

And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us… **Then all the multitude kept silent **and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

The highlighted portions above certainly indicate Peter exersizing some authority. Whether Papal or no I cannot say. However Luke, in relating the events of the council is telling us that there was much disputing, but when Peter rose to speak he silenced the debate. Then Barnabas and Paul were able to finish their report on their mission.

Then James Speaks:

And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree,… Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Finally Luke relates the result of the council:

Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. They wrote this, letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings

The Letter is not written under either Peter or James, but rather from the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren.

What do I draw from this.

1. Peter, as was known to the assembly, was Chosen by God to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.
2. Peter had sufficient authority in council to silence debates and disputes since Luke relates that after Peter Spoke the council was silent while Paul and Barnabas’ completed their report.
3. James spoke after the completion of the report, and affirmed much of what Peter had already said about not placing undue burdens on the Gentiles.
4. In the conclusion of the council it is made quite clear by Luke that the resulting letter was from the “Church” and not from any individual.

My conclusion from all of this is that we cannot draw any conclusion re: the office of Pope from this first council. Nor, in my opinion should we, for the Church was still in an embryonic stage at this point. Much that would develop later - many points of heirarchy, theology, and devotions had not even been thought of at this time.

Food for consideration.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

but if you twist these versus to say that Peter had no Chief authority then you cause Chrysostom to contradict himself

That is the point my friend! St John Chrysostom talks about the respect and honor due to the bishop of the pre-eminent Church of Christianity–the Pope of Rome. He also talks about the honor and respect due all Apostles and all bishops. He speaks of the Great Councils. He speaks of many things, that is why they called him Golden-tongue. But he does **not **speak about a supreme/infallible Roman pontiff.

althought it is not specified, he is considered the primary representative of the team. is he equal in EVERY respect?

There you have it. He has a primacy of sorts. But he he cannot play the game as the only player on the ice. He cannot make up the rules on his own.

 

[Mickey]

My conclusion from all of this is that we cannot draw any conclusion re: the office of Pope from this first council.

I agree with much of what you say brother James. I would dispute a couple of points:

How do you know that they did not remain silent because Paul and Barnabas began speaking? Also, James clearly states:** “Therefore I judge”**

Having said that, St Peter did speak first–and correctly. You see my friend–it was the first Ecumenical Council. It was the Church deciding!

And that is my main problem with the post schism papacy. Theoretically, today’s Pope can declare doctrine apart from an Ecumenical council by the authority of his supremacy and ex-cathedra charism of infallibility. That would have been an impossibility in the undivided Church.

Peace and blessings to you and your family.

 

[JRKH]

I agree with much of what you say brother James. I would dispute a couple of points:

How do you know that they did not remain silent because Paul and Barnabas began speaking? Also, James clearly states:** “Therefore I judge”**

Simple. Because the opening verse indicates that there was much disputing before Peter Spoke and then Silence after he spoke.
How much more obvious could Luke make it that Peter Caused them to, “Sit down, shut up, and listen!!”

As to James using the word “Judgement”. You seem to be calling this an ecumenical council with one breath and then declaring James the Leader with the another Breath.

The reason I say that we can draw no conclusions one way or another is simply because there is insufficient direct evidence given here. How many were at this council? Why is Peter’s and James’ comments the only ones recorded. How long did the council last? Who was Chairman? Who wrote the actual letter? etc ad infinitem…

Having said that, St Peter did speak first–and correctly. You see my friend–it was the first Ecumenical Council. It was the Church deciding!

See my note above, how can the council be ecumenical while James is doing the “Judging”?

And that is my main problem with the post schism papacy. Theoretically, today’s Pope can declare doctrine apart from an Ecumenical council by the authority of his supremacy and ex-cathedra charism of infallibility. That would have been an impossibility in the undivided Church.

Theoretically is a long way from practicality…
I honestly think that, If you will take the time to examine the issue;
What the Office of Pope is -
How it is exersized -
How he is chosen -
How documents and decisions are formulated and rendered -
You would find that this authority, this infallibility issue is really more of a ceremonial function used to render doctrinal decisions that are already accepted by the majority of the Church, or at least have been exhaustively studied by the Magesterium before any announcements are made.

I realize and accept that the authority is real, and theortically could be problematic, but in practice, and as understood within the Church there just aren’t any “off the cuff” decisions tossed down from the Holy Father.

Peace and blessings to you and your family.

And to you and yours.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

How much more obvious could Luke make it that Peter Caused them to, “Sit down, shut up, and listen!!”

No. St Peter was not a dictator.

The passage reads:
12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. (DR)

It does not seem obvious to me at all that everyone held their peace as a result of St Peter’s words. I think you are reading into it.

As to James using the word “Judgement”. You seem to be calling this an ecumenical council with one breath and then declaring James the Leader with the another Breath.

Not at all. The Scripture uses the word “judged”. Jerusalem was St James jurisdiction.

The reason I say that we can draw no conclusions one way or another is simply because there is insufficient direct evidence given here.

What we do know, is that this was the model for the first Ecumenical Council.

See my note above, how can the council be ecumenical while James is doing the “Judging”?

See my response above.

I honestly think that, If you will take the time to examine the issue;

I have taken more time than I care to admit. But I will not stop researching. I am somewhat of a bookworm.

You would find that this authority, this infallibility issue is really more of a ceremonial function used to render doctrinal decisions that are already accepted by the majority of the Church, or at least have been exhaustively studied by the Magesterium before any announcements are made.

Then the 1870 doctrine should be dropped for the sake of the reunion of the Churches.

 

[Jason_W]

it was God who made the judgement about gentiles receiving the gift of salvation. and that they should be baptized. and agian it was through Peter that he gave this revalation as we see in Acts ch.10:34-35

And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Peter spoke this after the revelation.

Acts 10:44-48 **While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. **

after this Peter went up to Jerusalem and the circumcision party, which were the jews , both Apostles and brethren, criticized Peter because he was having gentiles baptized who were not circumcised. but did Peter change his mind after the Apostles and others criticised him? not at all. but it was quite the opposite.
after Peter spoke lets see what happend.

Acts 11:18

**When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.” **

but then after Peter silenced those at Jerusalem, some men came down from Judea , and they said the same as before, that you must be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas had a lengthy debate, but it was not final, as we see ,

Acts 15:1-2

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

they werent silenced on Pauls or Barnabas’ account.

Acts 15:6-7

**The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. **

Peter is talking about what happend in ch. 10 but notice what happens after he is finished speaking.

Acts 15:12

** And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. **

after Peter spoke they kept silent, and now they listened to Pual and Barnabas give testamonies.James does not make a judgement on gentiles being baptized and not circumcised, it was already made when Peter spoke back in chapter 11. but James does say , lets send letters to the gentiles instructing them on how they ought to act. it states James replied, not he opened his mouth or he stood up. his judgement was on how the gentiles should conduct themseves after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. and im sure Peter agreed. back in ch.11 though the Apostles in Jerusalem who were with the circumcision party, which would include James, criticised Peter. but Peter did not agree with the criticism. so he exercised his Authority. some could have said it was just a dream he had or he was tricked by the evil one. but they didnt , they believed.

 

[JRKH]

No. St Peter was not a dictator.

The passage reads:
12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. (DR)

It does not seem obvious to me at all that everyone held their peace as a result of St Peter’s words. I think you are reading into it.

Not at all - If anything I am taking it at face value.

First thing recorded = there was much dispute.
Second thing recorded = Peter’s Spoke
Third thing recorded = The assembly was silent.

The only way to say that they weren’t silent due to Peter’s discourse is by “Reading into it”

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

St. James’ closing words at the council were about the local application, to his Jewish sheep, of what had been globally settled by Peter’s deciding words–it was globally settled because after he spoke there was silence–in council.

Correct. James utilized the counsel of someone outside his own jurisdiction and said as much Acts 15:14, that he was basing his statement on Peter’s words. And when he said in v. 19 that “we should not trouble the Gentiles,” he is only referring to the Jews, specifically from Judea (v. 1), who were teaching otherwise. It was they who should stop troubling Gentiles. James reaffirms that he was making a judgement specifically regarding these Judeans in his jurisdiction who caused the problem (v. 24). Peter’s knowledge about including Gentiles was directly related to the vision he had in Acts 10, when God revealed to him to include that which he previously thought unclean, namely Gentiles. Later in the chapter, he applies it:
Acts 10:44-47 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Again, in Acts 11:2-17 Peter explained his revelation on baptizing Gentiles. James recognized this revelation coming from Peter and so made his local judgement accordingly. Peter had already been baptizing the uncircumcised prior to the Jerusalem council.

Here’s a good article breaking down the matter as well.

 

[Mickey]

they werent silenced on Pauls or Barnabas’ account.

Are you sure?

 

[Mickey]

Not at all - If anything I am taking it at face value.

First thing recorded = there was much dispute.
Second thing recorded = Peter’s Spoke
Third thing recorded = The assembly was silent.

Fourth thing recorded = SS Paul and Barnabas spoke.

Neither of us can prove why they went silent. Could it have been because of what St Peter had just spoken? Yes. Could it be because SS Paul and Barnabas were about to speak. Yep.

The Council going silent either shows respect for St Peter–respect for SS Paul and Barnabas–or respect for the whole process. What is your point here?

 

[Mickey]

James recognized this revelation coming from Peter and so made his local judgement accordingly.

Yes. St James presided over the first Ecumenical Council.

 

[JRKH]

Fourth thing recorded = SS Paul and Barnabas spoke.

Neither of us can prove why they went silent. Could it have been because of what St Peter had just spoken? Yes. Could it be because SS Paul and Barnabas were about to speak. Yep.

The Council going silent either shows respect for St Peter–respect for SS Paul and Barnabas–or respect for the whole process. What is your point here?

Mikey,
I respect you - I really do! But you are just not recognizing the the significance of the order of things. You are needing to find alternate possibilites since you do not accept the RCC view. If this were any other literary work describing the events of some council, would you have all of these concerns? Would you feel the need to minimize the significance of a person rising making a declaration and the assembly falling silent?
The sequence of events speak for themselves.

If we go back a bit further in the text we see that Paul and Barnabas had already arrived and told the Brethren what God had accomplished. The Pharisee converts then demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised and keep Mosaic Law. This dispute was the reason for convening the council.
The first thing Luke tells us then is that there was much disputing/debating - Then Peter Rises and Speaks. After this the assembly is said to be silent and listens to Paul and Barnabas.

So your third possiblity, respect for the process, goes away because they obviously didn’t respect the process before Peter Spoke. They were Disputing before and silent after. The second possiblity, Respect for SS Paul and Barnabas, seems unlikely since they weren’t silent for them before Peter Spoke. The only Logical conclusion can be that Peter silenced them by his discourse and “God Ordained” mission to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.

I agree that we cannot “know for sure” and that is the point I tried to make a few posts back, but we do have evidence demonstrating that Peter did excersize some authority, and there is further evidence that many in the early Church considered the Bishop of Rome to be the legitimate successor to St Peter.

I also agree that this council is a reasonably good example of a Church council where everyone gets a say, it sometimes can be tumoltuous, a consensus is reached and decision is handed down. Of course this sort of councilior paradigm is certainly not unique to the Church. Nor does it negate the later development of the Heirarchy to include a capital city for God’s Kingdom on earth and a line of Chief Stewards of that Kingdom.

God’s Kingdom on earth is a single Kingdom, not a group of contending kingdoms. As it is a single kingdom we have a single Steward. This is Right, Normal and Just. Not all of the Stewards have been Holy men, but we have been fortunate indeed that he Spirit of God oversees those governing the Church on Earth and assures that the Kingdom will not fail.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

This whole discussion about James VERSUS Peter strikes me as off the mark. There is no VERSUS.

Queston to MarcoPolo: Did you accept the answer that the Catechism speaks of the Church being founded upon Peter and upon Peter’s confession in paragraph 424?

 

[MarcoPolo]

ueston to MarcoPolo: Did you accept the answer that the Catechism speaks of the Church being founded upon Peter and upon Peter’s confession in paragraph 424?

Yes…and I am guilty of being off subject myself…this thread was answered by post #14.

 

[Jason_W]

Are you sure?

Am i sure they werent silenced on Pauls and Barbabas’ accout?
absolutley! it couldnt be any more clear, at least i dont think it could.

Acts, 15:1-2

** But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. **

1.Paul and Barnabas had no SMALL dissension and debate.

2.they were appointed with some others,to go to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders about this question.

now Paul was not there when Peter was criticized by the Apostles and other Jews for baptizing gentiles, he did not know that they were SILENCED by Peter. but Barnabas was there and in ch 11 he set out to find Paul. so Paul found out through Barnabas that Peter declared gentiles do not have to be circumcised to be saved. they spent at lest a year in Antioch metting with the Church, so this was nothing new by the time Paul and Barnabas had the debate with the Judeans.

Acts 15:4

**When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. **

when they get to Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas start to declare all that God had done with them.but then some with the party of the pharisees rose up, and stated, it is necessary to have them circumcised and charge them to keep the law of Moses. so we see they are not silenced yet.

and after there had been MUCH debate. so we have at least two lengthy debates now, with Paul and Barnabas speaking at least twice on this matter.

vs 7-11 record were Peter ROSE and spoke, after which ALL the assembly kept silence.

i couldnt be any more sure. but its not a matter of James vs Peter or Paul vs Peter. its the simple fact that God choose to reveal salvation to the gentiles THROUGH Peter. after all if there is no one with the CHIEF AUTHORITY then there would be no way to resolve the question. this is clear in Protestant churches, if you dont agree with the pastor or with some doctrine, then you can just go start your own church and so on.

 

[toaslan]

Yes. St James presided over the first Ecumenical Council.

Dear Mickey, That is not a conclusion supported by the evidence so patiently laid out for your review on this thread, after the OP was answered.

Your conclusion continues to be how you read the passage before you got all this (name removed by moderator)ut.

It would be unreasonable for you to fail to appreciate any merit in all the ideas here which seem so new to your view.

Do you yet notice upon precisely what James bases his “judgement”, upon which word you hang so much?

What reasons of James preface his “judgement”? What reasons does he give?

Does his judgment conflict with Peter’s judgment?

Can you go farther, and see that he is affirming Peter’s judgment?

Can you see that he is actually falling into line with Peter?

Do you see that it was James’ people who were raising the question which the larger Council was called to decide?

The question is decided: at what precise point is the question decided, Mickey? And at what point is the decision echoed?

We are showing you that it is expected and fitting for James to explicitly state that he accepts and will execute that decision. The fittingness is based mostly on it being James’ people who pressed the issue and threatened converts; also on it being James’ place to speak toward the end as the local “host” and local bishop with the local authority.

This better explains why the record specifically includes the very words of James’ affirmation, rather than the explanation you had before you got all this (name removed by moderator)ut.

Again, if you bend your eyes on** what the silence of the assembly means**, you will see a key you apparently have not noticed before.

blessings.

 

[toaslan]

Yes…and I am guilty of being off subject myself…this thread was answered by post #14.

It’s true we’ve gone off on a tangent. Maybe Mickey would like to take this on again from the beginning, and if so, I invite him to start a new thread, something like “James presided at the Council of Jerusalem.” I for one would join it. But maybe Mickey would like to ruminate on what he’s got so far.

I want to thank Mickey for sparking, and Jason, JRKH and MarcoPolo for their work on, the interesting discussion of this very interesting Council.

 

[Mickey]

Mikey,
I respect you - I really do! But you are just not recognizing the the significance of the order of things. You are needing to find alternate possibilites since you do not accept the RCC view.

You are wrong James. It is cut and dry. I am not making anything up. It was an Ecumenical Council. It was the Church speaking. SS Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James spoke. St Peter spoke first. St James spoke last. As the bishop of Jerusalem, St James presided over the council.

St Peter was not acting as a supreme pontiff. I do not know what you are trying to prove?

 

[Mickey]

Am i sure they werent silenced on Pauls and Barbabas’ account?
absolutley! it couldnt be any more clear, at least i dont think it could.

The Council going silent either shows respect for St Peter–respect for SS Paul and Barnabas–or respect for the whole process. What is your point here?

 

[Mickey]

Your conclusion continues to be how you read the passage before you got all this (name removed by moderator)ut.

What don’t you understand about the words, “which cause I judge”.

Again, if you bend your eyes on** what the silence of the assembly means**, you will see a key you apparently have not noticed before.

There is no secret here. Eyes do not need to bend. It was an Ecumenical council presided over my St James.