The place of Sacred Tradition in the first Church Council.

[Xeno.of.athens]

The council that The Acts of the Apostles chapter fifteen documents may be summarised thus:

1. A lie, a heresy in fact, was spread by some from Jerusalem in the city of Antioch, the heresy was "a Christian must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved"
2. This heresy was opposed by the Christians in Antioch, many of whom were Gentiles and likely not circumcised.
3. Paul and Barnabus were sent to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles of Christ about this matter.
4. A council was called, the matter was debated for some time then saint Peter spoke and related his experience with evangelisation among the gentiles, he offered this as revelation from God (part of the deposit of Sacred Tradition) and as conclusive evidence that circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses was not required for salvation.
5. Saint James, who was bishop of Jerusalem, took up the matter raised by saint Pater and concluded that a letter dismissing the heresy be circulated among the churches. especially the one in Antioch.
6. The letter was written and carried back to Antioch.

Saint James did quote an Old Testament passage as supportive of Saint Peter's presentation.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Up to that time Scripture would have supported the circumcision party beyond any doubt. Even Christ was circumcised.

Luke 2:21 "And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus..."

Which means that the Jerusalem Council overrode the traditional interpretation of Scripture.

Authority had been handed to the church - what you bind on earth will be bound in heave, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 

[BobRyan]

The council that The Acts of the Apostles chapter fifteen documents may be summarised thus:

1. A lie, a heresy in fact, was spread by some from Jerusalem in the city of Antioch, the heresy was "a Christian must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved"
2. This heresy was opposed by the Christians in Antioch, many of whom were Gentiles and likely not circumcised.
3. Paul and Barnabus were sent to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles of Christ about this matter.
4. A council was called, the matter was debated for some time then saint Peter spoke and related his experience with evangelisation among the gentiles, he offered this as revelation from God (part of the deposit of Sacred Tradition) and as conclusive evidence that circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses was not required for salvation.
5. Saint James, who was bishop of Jerusalem, took up the matter raised by saint Pater and concluded that a letter dismissing the heresy be circulated among the churches. especially the one in Antioch.
6. The letter was written and carried back to Antioch.

Saint James did quote an Old Testament passage as supportive of Saint Peter's presentation.

Peter's testimony in Acts 15 came directly from a vision given to him by God in Acts 10. Peter relates his experience and what God taught in that regard.

So interestingly the Acts 15 problem was that "Some" Christian Jews were simply "making stuff up". There was no OT or NT command in scripture saying that gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved. In fact as we see in Acts 13, 17,18 - gentiles were in the Synagogues every Sabbath and even the non-Christian Jews were not insisting that gentiles be circumcised.

Another thing to notice is that the "solution" that James argues for - is based on the fact that it is beyond doubt that the Word of God given through Moses was being heard "every Sabbath".

IN Acts 18:4 we see both gentiles and Jews being taught the gospel "Every Sabbath" in the Synagogue.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Peter's testimony in Acts 15 came directly from a vision given to him by God in Acts 10. Peter relates his experience and what God taught in that regard.

So interestingly the Acts 15 problem was that "Some" Christian Jews were simply "making stuff up". There was no OT or NT command in scripture saying that gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved. In fact as we see in Acts 13, 17,18 - gentiles were in the Synagogues every Sabbath and even the non-Christian Jews were not insisting that gentiles be circumcised.

Another thing to notice is that the "solution" that James argues for - is based on the fact that it is beyond doubt that the Word of God given through Moses was being heard "every Sabbath".

IN Acts 18:4 we see both gentiles and Jews being taught the gospel "Every Sabbath" in the Synagogue.

While what you wrote is mostly true it nevertheless misses the point that Saint Peter's vision was not yet written down as scripture, the book of The Acts of the Apostles was not yet written, so saint Peter's vision was Sacred Tradition handed down by word of mouth and it was the decisive argument in the council.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The church council still had to make the resolution and override the Scriptural mandate for circumcision.

It is notable the vision was given to Peter as he had been nominated as the "rock". It wasn't given to any of the other apostles.

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible-

Verse by Verse: The Primacy of Peter

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible. Here is a list of Bible verses every Catholic should know to defend the doctrine of the papacy.

www.catholic.com

“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock [‘Peter’ is Greek for ‘rock’] 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19).

“I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:33).
God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).
The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).
Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).
Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).
Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).
Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).
Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).
After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).
Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just “Peter and the twelve. ”
Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.

 

[ozso]

While what you wrote is mostly true it nevertheless misses the point that Saint Peter's vision was not yet written down as scripture, the book of The Acts of the Apostles was not yet written, so saint Peter's vision was Sacred Tradition handed down by word of mouth and it was the decisive argument in the council.

What difference does it make when the word of mouth matched what was written down by Luke?

 

[Bob Crowley]

The action of the church council took place long before Luke wrote it down. Luke's record was after the event. The church's authority was applied first.

 

[ozso]

It ultimately comes down to deciding whether or not God wants you doing unbiblical things the church came up with centuries later.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

This account in Acts is not dealing with church tradition. It is dealing with certain men from Judea who were teaching “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Which is not from church tradition but from The custom (Law) of Moses. Which was given by God to rule the nation of Israel and not the church.

 

[ozso]

The action of the church council took place long before Luke wrote it down. Luke's record was after the event. The church's authority was applied first.

It was about 16 years before. But again, what difference does it make when the verbal matches the written?

 

[Bob Crowley]

The decision by the church about circumcision preceded the written New Testament record.

Luke's testimony simply reaffirmed the church's authority, not the other way around.

The council made the decision, using the authority granted to it by Christ at the same time He declared Peter to be the Rock.

Christ affirmed Peter as the Rock long before that was written down by Luke as well.

Luke later wrote the "minutes" if you like, but the "minutes" are only a record of Peter's primacy and the church's authority. Christ gave Peter his primacy and the church its authority.

Christ established an office long before later generations tried to ignore it.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

From the beginning, righteousness sometimes indicated ignoring of the offices.

38 And John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw a certain one casting out demons in Your Name, who does not follow us, and we forbade him, because he does not follow us.” 39 And Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in My Name, and will be readily able to speak evil of Me: 40 for he who is not against us is for us;
Mark 9:38-40

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What difference does it make when the word of mouth matched what was written down by Luke?

Does it? I see nothing in Acts 15 that exactly matches the sheet story.

 

[ozso]

Does it? I see nothing in Acts 15 that exactly matches the sheet story.

What do you mean by sheet story?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What do you mean by sheet story?

Have you read Acts?

 

[jas3]

From the beginning, righteousness sometimes indicated ignoring of the offices.

38 And John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw a certain one casting out demons in Your Name, who does not follow us, and we forbade him, because he does not follow us.” 39 And Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in My Name, and will be readily able to speak evil of Me: 40 for he who is not against us is for us;
Mark 9:38-40

And yet, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

The exorcist in Mark 9 was working prior to the establishment of the Church as distinct from Judaism. We see later Jewish exorcists working outside the Church being overcome by the demons they try to cast out in Acts 19. Maybe more relevant, our Lord Himself says to respect the office of the "seat of Moses," even if those who hold it are personally unrighteous.

This is not to say that you have to follow a heretical bishop into his heresy, but you also can't just decide you don't need a bishop and go off and do your own thing.

 

[ozso]

Have you read Acts?

Yes I have. I just didn't get "sheet story" as a refence to what's more commonly called Peter's Vison in Acts 10:9-22. What does it have to do with Acts 15? Specifically Acts 15:20 I presume. Considering there's no reason to conclude the verbal account was any different than the written account.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes I have. I just didn't get "sheet story" as a refence to what's more commonly called Peter's Vison in Acts 10:9-22. What does it have to do with Acts 15? Specifically Acts 15:20 I presume. Considering there's no reason to conclude the verbal account was any different than the written account.

It's the sheet story:

Acts 10:11 NASB and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,​

 

[ozso]

It's the sheet story:

Acts 10:11 NASB and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,​

What does it have to do with Acts 15? Specifically Acts 15:20 I presume. Considering there's no reason to conclude the verbal account was any different than the written account.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What does it have to do with Acts 15? Specifically Acts 15:20 I presume. Considering there's no reason to conclude the verbal account was any different than the written account.

I did not say it had anything to do with Acts 15.