If we want to know what actually happened, the best source is Scripture.
Galatians 2:4*This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
Those without the apostles’ authorization and false believers who had infiltrated the ranks were teaching that Christians must be circumcised and follow Jewish law in order to be saved. There is no mention of an apostle teaching this.Susan, there were Judaizers all throughout Palestine, why specifically mention Jerusalem? It’s because in all likelihood James was a Judaizer, and he was probably not the only Apostle, that is why there was much debate at the council. If the Apostles had all been of one mind, there would not have been much debate. There are many theologians who believe that James was a Judaizer, just do a google search.
Why not? If only it were that easy. Why were the Gnostics, who were aware of what was being taught by the apostles, teaching other ideas?
The Gnostics believed they were teaching what the Apostles taught. Just what the Apostles taught secretly. EVERY heretical group believes they teach what the Apostles taught!!! St. Athanasius said the Arians could quote more verses of Scripture in their favor than those who believed in the Trinity could quote.
The non-circumcision option came after Peter’s vision a decade after Pentecost. Apparently Paul had “always” preached this from the start of his ministry. The council wasn’t about apostles disagreeing with each other. It was the Judaizers, who were not apostles, confusing churches.
Thank you. So before that option, the Apostles were teaching that the early Jewish Converts to Christianity still had to follow the Mosaic Laws. In fact, Jesus never told the Apostles that the Mosaic laws were being replaced. So for the early Jewish Christians, we can be fairly assured that the Apostles were teaching them to follow
BOTH covenants.
Which version says stop pestering?
Acts 15:19
New International Version
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Douay-Rheims Bible
For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted.
New American Standard Bible
"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
I should have used causing disquiet instead of pestering.
Was he creating a new rule? Or upholding what was already the rule?
He would not say it is my decision. He would say the rule that we have been teaching, or you know the rule.
No.
Because the Judaizers were teaching this and creating disturbances at the churches with their false teaching.
But that makes no sense. Paul and Barnabas would have known that this was false, because they would have been teaching that the Jewish Christians didn’t have to have their children circumcised. Instead they go up to Jerusalem to get a definitive answer.
Look at the council Susan. They specifically give an answer about circumcision and the Gentiles,
while still making other parts of the Mosaic laws binding on the Gentiles. No word about it not being binding on the Jewish Christians. I think from that early council, the reason there was such controversy, is because the Apostles were probably still in fact teaching the early Jewish Christians
to follow both covenants.
1.) Susan, you have said no one can be saved but by the New Covenant.
2.) Peter says that baptism saves you now.
3.) From one and two, we know that baptism is how you enter the New Covenant.
4.) Nowhere does the bible say that anyone who is not baptized can be saved. Nor do any of the early Church fathers say that anyone who is not baptized (I am not talking about baptism of blood or desire) will be saved. Nor is there any definitive Church ruling on whether one who is not baptized will be saved.
Which brings me to this point. Baptism is how we enter the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, circumcision.
You are trying to tell me that the Apostles were fine with allowing the Jewish Christians to have their infants enter the Old Covenant, which could not save, whilst denying those same Christians from letting their infants enter the New, and being saved. This is why I say from that council, infant baptism is obvious.
In John 3, Jesus says no one can enter without being born again.
Susan, are you saying that ***no one ***does not include infants?
One last comment. I am going to take it you receive some form of communion in the church you attend. There is not one verse in the bible that says communion was administered to women. If infants should not be baptized because it is not clearly shown as happening in the bible, does not your partaking of something that is not shown as having happened in the bible, make you a hypocrite?
p.s. Many people get hung up on repent and be baptized. It is a minimal criteria for entrance. But it is not repent and then be baptized. Which means Peter would be grammatically correct, as infants would not need to repent.
p.p.s. I would say the biggest problem people have with infant baptism, is they have a total misunderstanding of what Original Sin actually is. In Catholicism, it is in fact not a sin in the context that sin is normally spoken of.
p.p.p.s. All Protestants believe in Consubstantiation, not in terms of the Eucharist, they just don’t realize it.
