The Universal Church

[steve-b]

I was speaking about the Acts 15 passage.

OK

then Let’s look at this a bit closer

Acts 15:
1 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. …

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. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.”

Q​

Just looking at the way vv 1-2 is written,

Why do THEY, Paul and Barnabas, have to talk to the apostles about this issue of circumcision and salvation? Is it because the Judaisers came from James and that might cause a problem for James? Or was it because neither Paul nor Barnabas had the authority to settle this issue by themselves? Why did Paul and Barnabas have to go to Jerusalem over this issue?

For space, may I offer this quick read HERE

lanman87:

I read the link. It is a lot of supposition and dancing around to try and fit the Catholic view of Peter’s primacy to the text.

It’s NOT supposition. I’m not, nor is the link I quoted, guessing or making up facts. The Catholic Church is there. Neither you or I was there.

scripture calls the Catholic Church the pillar and foundation of truth, NOT you or I.

May I suggest, let’s keep the obvious clear, and not obfuscate the obvious.

lanman87:

Plainly reading the scripture says that Peter was a delegate and debater (along with Paul and Barnabas and others) and made his case to the council and James is the one who decided . No amount of scriptural gymnastics will change that fact.

Those gymnastics aside,

Acts 15:
6 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.

IOW Peter reminds THEM, how God chose among THEM, (the other apostles), that Peter, is to be the voice, to the Gentiles settling their debate at the council. Peter, stands, and in effect,. pulls rank .

SO

James, followed Peter’s ruling.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

One is true the other is NOT.

Agree, but it is how you treat others that sometimes counts…does one pacify contentions or does one lord over etc…

One corrects with charity. If they listen … great.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Linkage is conditional . Jesus had true linkage ( lineage). Those that put him on cross also claimed linkage, to Moses and Abraham.

And he did affirm that. He told disciples to follow laws and teachings of Pharisees because they sit on Chair of Moses, but to not do what they do.

Also, why did Clement even use royal “we” ? That actually leaves one untied knot about Papacy. No other Bishop nor Apostle ever did so. And, if you do perceive half NT as intervention then you are misunderstanding roles of Apostles (who were going out there and preaching faith) and Bishops (who supervised local Church)- Apostles were both, but their roles were kinda switching. Apostles had not only authority but also duty to go and correct… which also means that IF John was alive, Corinth should have written to him.

Man can appoint but I would not rule out that God still chooses also. Yes the apostles appointed a Judas replacement, by drawing of straws. Jesus also chose another apostle, by knocking him off a horse. We never hear again of the one chosen by straws, and the other? Well, the rest is HIStory.

I don’t get this. Choosing someone by straw was commanded by God himself in OT. If you think this was a mistake, then you have read that passage wrong.

Really? I’m not sure the Catholic Church even agrees with you here.

“One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ” as a phrase appears in numerous binding things. Either two Churches began at Pentecost and we can distinguish which Apostle was Roman Catholic and which was Eastern Orthodox, or at least one of them must have come later (or both would have formed out of one, in your opinion? Still makes statement about Orthodoxy not existing in the begining true strictly mathematically speaking).

Well, first amongst equals.

What would that be good for? Our Lord was never there to appease someone or give empty honor to someone, he would always respect authority. If there is appearance of authority and dignity, there should be authority and dignity as well. How exactly would “first among equals” benefit Church? How would it protect her? Why would it even need to exit or be beneficial then?

One Bishop through which you can validate your unity with Christ, your faith in Truth and your obedience to Church, seems to make much more sense… even if those men are not sinless and they are fallible as human beings, Holy Spirit does guide them.

Precisely, in council.

Which contradicted what was Scripture (OT) at the time, btw. Kinda does show that Holy Spirit has more authority than Bible does, and that Holy Spirit can lead ordained successors to abolish what is meant to be abolished- even if written in God’s Law (Old Testament was God’s law at the time).

 

[mcq72]

Kinda does show that Holy Spirit has more authority than Bible does

Very strange statement…like saying God has more authority than His Word.

and that Holy Spirit can lead ordained successors to abolish what is meant to be abolished- even if written in God’s Law (Old Testament was God’s law at the time

Yes, no one contests this.

I would not downplay the need to be scriptural. The Holy Spirit and His inspired writing work together. The council demonstrates this, and James is respectful of this by demonstrating " being scriptural" in their decision, citing scripture.

 

[mcq72]

What would that be good for? (seeing Peter as first amongst equal)

What, is it either or and not both, a leader and yet equal?

Well it would certainly avoid some of the problems that Jesus alluded to, when one acts as a leader after the world’s fashion (saying it is Jesus’s fashion does not do away with some of the warned problems as seen with papal history).

It (first amongst equal leader) would certainly lend itself to working things in council, as what happened at Jerusalem and Nicea ( called by emperor, not pope). Such has benefited the church greatly.

Was Peter dishonored by council at Jerusalem, acting in unison with others yet leading?

I don’t get this. Choosing someone by straw was commanded by God himself in OT. If you think this was a mistake, then you have read that passage wrong.

Well, we are in NT. I did not say it was a mistake. I merely pointed out that it would be a mistake to not let God pick out an apostle, a church leader, like He did original apostles, even Peter and then Paul.

 

[mcq72]

And he did affirm that. He told disciples to follow laws teachings of Pharisees because they sit on Chair of Moses, but to not do what they do

And to beware of their leaven, their wrong doctrine.

Also, why did Clement even use royal “we” ?

Because the writer was not a pope, but representative of the presbyters and church at Rome. This is after the example of the council at Jerusalem, which sent letters out to the churches, using “we” three times, us once.

Apostles had not only authority but also duty to go and correct… which also means that IF John was alive, Corinth should have written to him…Bishops (who supervised local Church)-

Not sure I would limit presbyters role to only to their church or even that one church could not have role with other churches, especially if their missionaries (apostles) founded them. I would not take narrow view of admonition of brothers and sisters in Christ submitting one to another to not include bishops,churches.

 

[lanman87]

James, followed Peter’s ruling.

James listen to the debate, heard Peter, Paul and Barnabas and ruled in their favor.

 

[mcq72]

James listen to the debate, heard Peter, Paul and Barnabas and ruled in their favor.

Yes, and i would add James citing scripture in normative fashion.

 

[steve-b]

mcq72:

Man appointed some of the popes, certainly not attributable to Holy Spirit, or in spirit of St. Peter…my opinion

I think Pope Benedict XVI would agree:

While still Cardinal Ratzinger, he was asked by Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for the election of a pope. His answer:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. . . . There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

ZP

AND

further commentary HERE

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

James, followed Peter’s ruling.

James listen to the debate, heard Peter, Paul and Barnabas and ruled in their favor.

but who stood up, ( which ended their debate)because he reminded everyone THERE, who God chose from among THEM, to be the voice to the gentiles …ergo he’s giving THEM, at the council, the answer to their debate? It’s Peter

 

[lanman87]

but who stood up, ( which ended their debate)because he reminded everyone THERE, who God chose from among THEM, to be the voice to the gentiles …ergo he’s giving THEM, at the council, the answer to their debate? It’s Peter

Just because Peter had the correct answer doesn’t mean he was in charge. If a CEO of a company is trying to make a decision between two possibilities he listens to his employees opinions, gathers all pertinent facts, and makes a final decision. But the CEO is the one who makes the decision, not the employees giving him the advice he follows.

This is analogous with the Jerusalem Council. James held the highest respect of the Jerusalem church and the apostles and elders. James listened to the debate rage, then heard/saw Peter give his experiences with the Household of Cornelius and give his take on the matter, then heard from Barnabas and Paul on how the Lord was working among the gentiles in their travels, then did what any good leader does. He makes a decision. And as mcq72 points out, his cites scripture when making his decision.

You can try and spin it however you like, but that is what the text records.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’d point out that the scripture he quotes had absolutely nothing to do with circumcision. The Church leadership just made the call on this issue, guided by the Spirit.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Another thing to point out, Popes did not always attend councils throughout the ages, but instead send legates. So for any non-Catholics who have this vision of the Pope at councils with his blow horn barking out demands, that’s not an accurate depiction of reality.

What we do not see in ACTS 15 is James contradicting Peter’s ruling.

 

[mcq72]

What we do not see in ACTS 15 is James contradicting Peter’s ruling.

First time i have seen a question being considered a ruling.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

James is respectful of this by demonstrating " being scriptural" in their decision, citing scripture.

Not entirely, as if nowadays one tried to interpret that line of Scripture as saying “yeah Gentiles don’t need circumcision” it would be viewed as very unlikely interpretation. That verse does not at all say anything about circumcision not being needed, neither does it say Gentiles will not need to follow Law of Moses. James simply furthers his point by saying “let us make it easier for Gentiles who will, according to this prophecy, seek God” instead of saying “Scripture says that we should make it easier for them”.

It (first amongst equal leader) would certainly lend itself to working things in council, as what happened at Jerusalem and Nicea ( called by emperor, not pope). Such has benefited the church greatly.

And many Robber (=False) Councils have been called by Emperors- nevertheless, that office no longer exists. So, how exactly does First Among Equals help conciliarity? I don’t really follow. Do you mean in a fashion like at Chalcedon, where Pope Leo sends his tome and everybody is like “yeah dudes Leo spoke thus Peter spoke, case solved” ? Would first among equals have this superpower to let Peter speak through him or how exactly would that safeguard councils? Would only primus be able to call them, would his councils have global impact or anything? Where do you draw the line?

Well, we are in NT.

Apostles did not have NT, and that passage of OT was supposed to be fulfilled after Judas betrayed our Lord. OT is not obsolete just because NT exists. Some things were abolished, yes, but not prophecies about future. They either did happen or will.

I merely pointed out that it would be a mistake to not let God pick out an apostle

God can pick out Apostle by controlling that sheer randomness, as He undoubtedly chose in that passage. Even if God did not control that random factor, it was His will not to control it. God did pick out Apostle Matthias is rightful Apostle as willed by God.

Not sure I would limit presbyters role to only to their church or even that one church could not have role with other churches, especially if their missionaries (apostles) founded them. I would not take narrow view of admonition of brothers and sisters in Christ submitting one to another to not include bishops,churches.

I agree, but writing to John makes much more sense as his authority as Apostle is higher than that of their successors… well… unless Papacy I guess.

And to beware of their leaven, their wrong doctrine.

I don’t think leaven refers to doctrine, as He said “obey everything they teach you”. He even explicitly stated “don’t do as they do”.

Because the writer was not a pope, but representative of the presbyters and church at Rome.

Fair enough.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Have it your way.

James does not contradict his position.

Better?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

but who stood up, ( which ended their debate)because he reminded everyone THERE, who God chose from among THEM, to be the voice to the gentiles …ergo he’s giving THEM, at the council, the answer to their debate? It’s Peter

Just because Peter had the correct answer doesn’t mean he was in charge. If a CEO of a company is trying to make a decision between two possibilities he listens to his employees opinions, gathers all pertinent facts, and makes a final decision. But the CEO is the one who makes the decision, not the employees giving him the advice he follows.

Who are you thinking is the CEO here, and who are the employees?
ianman87:

This is analogous with the Jerusalem Council. James held the highest respect of the Jerusalem church and the apostles and elders. James listened to the debate rage, then heard/saw Peter give his experiences with the Household of Cornelius and give his take on the matter, then heard from Barnabas and Paul on how the Lord was working among the gentiles in their travels, then did what any good leader does. He makes a decision.

You can try and spin it however you like, but that is what the text records.

Peter ends the debate. He actually pulls rank. He reminds those present that

Acts 15: 7
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 …

Circumcision for newbies to the faith, for salvation, was NOT part of the deal, which was the issue they were debating. Who ended the debate? Peter.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

That’s the way it looks to me as well. James presides and the mouth to the gentiles intervenes.

And what’s interesting is how Jesus let the Church leadership handle this. He is God and knew the great debate was coming. He could have very easily told them the answer before he ascended – but he did not. Here we see the keys in Matthew 16 at work.

 

[mcq72]

Not entirely, as if nowadays one tried to interpret that line of Scripture as saying “yeah Gentiles don’t need circumcision” it would be viewed as very unlikely interpretation

Disagree. The intent was to be scriptural. One scripture sufficed,tho there could have been more. But yes, agree Amos is not explicit to Gentiles keeping the law, but It is implied, for by the very definition of gentile that could no longer be the differentiator ir qualifier. Amos does not say the Gentiles will become Jews (circumcised and yoked to the law)… it is enough they were " chosen" to also come in to the fold, as gentiles ( those without the law). And just as Abraham was justified before his circumcision and the law, so to the gentiles, before any ceremony. Again, Amos and other prophecies do not say the whole world will become " Jewish", yet all God praisers will be sons of Abraham, by God’s choosing.

James simply furthers his point by saying “let us make it easier for Gentiles who will, according to this prophecy, seek God” instead of saying “Scripture says that we should make it easier for them”.

Partly agree but would give the Spirit more credit, that is obedience to the what the Spirit was saying, thru the essence of the gospel, which Peter plainly and simply spoke, silencing all others, being brought into subjection by obeying the Shepherds voice…" we believe that thru grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they ( gentiles), being purified by faith."

I would see it plain that thru the Spirit thru scripture, and God’s choosing and miraculous baptizing of Gentiles ( Cornelius and Paul’s converts), and Peter’s and Paul’s utterances, even declarations of God’s work, that James could only utter obedience to what the Spirit was saying.

I am not citing SS, but certainly what God alone was saying thru His writ, thru His actions and signs and wonders (amongst uncircumcised gentiles), and thru His apostles (Peter and Paul) was graciously received and made bound on earth thru and by council’s obedience to the Shepherd’s voice.

 

[mcq72]

This is analogous with the Jerusalem Council. James held the highest respect of the Jerusalem church

I think Eusebius said James was the “bishop of the apostles” in this instance.