Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Peter (or James for that matter) did not have any “written scripture” at that point. BUt they made a decision for the church as a whole. And per Matt 16.19, they had authority to do so and that Heaven would back up that decision.
So it stands.
Only if they are ethnically Jewish.Does that mean you're going to have your sons circumcised and keep the Jewish law?
why would that be? Christians aren't required to circumsize their children?
Why are you so mad at the Catholic church?The Acts 15 Decree
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Turns out those men were from the church at Jerusalem. So Paul, Barnabus and Titus went down to that church to debate the matter. Paul presented his gospel to the leadership at the church of Jerusalem, some of whom held to the beliefs of the Circumcision. Peter completely agreed with Paul that salvation was solely by grace apart from complying to the laws of Moses. But James picked up on something Peter said. Namely speaking to the Circumcision on the leadership team there Peter said, "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10 Peter was referring to their making salvation out to be conditioned upon one's compliance to the Law of Moses. Paul writes extensively on that point in Galatians such as "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." Gal 3:10,11
What James does is try to find a compromise. He literally compromised the gospel. He took Peter's comment of the Law being too hard to keep, and what he did was that instead of rejecting the Law altogether as a means to salvation as Peter and Paul did, he simply cherry picked a few commands from the law and made the Gentile's salvation conditioned upon their compliance to those regulations. James says, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Acts 15:19-20
Consider how arrogant that statement is. Who does James think he is that he could tinker with the gospel in this fashion. Indeed one wonders whether a number of Paul's statements in Galatians were directed at James. Such as "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And Paul's emphasis concerning the origin of his gospel, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12 That in contrast to James' fabricated gospel. For soon thereafter in Galatians Paul references the events of Acts 15. Nor does Paul speak of this decree in any of his epistles, not even in Galatians, but rather in fact often writes contrary to them. James imposes dietary restrictions on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. Paul writes contrary to James' decree, for example, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 And the context indicates that even included meats sacrificed to idols if it didn't bother one's conscience or that of another.
Catholic Councils and Canon Law
Catholicism took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the father of Catholicism, and thus he's their goto guy when it comes to supporting their soteriology and they are the ones who inserted his epistle into the Bible which may end up being a subject of another thread.
Negligence and Hypocrisy in the church at Jerusalem
How was it that the leadership team at the church of Jerusalem included those of this heretical sect of the Circumcision? And that in light of the fact that Peter sided with Paul with regards to the gospel. Peter was not as respected in the church there as some make him out to be. Notice James' statement previously "It is my judgment". James had such a dominant role in that church that others, even the apostles were mere rubber stampers in comparison. Perhaps Peter had a misconception of humility being a trait in which you allow others to walk all over you.
Furthermore consider in Acts 11 when he returned preaching to the Gentile Cornelius, and that even reluctantly. This is how he was welcomed in his own church, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Acts 11:3,4 Note the prejudice. Obviously if even an apostle has to come up with an excuse to preach to the Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not welcomed in that church. This despite the fact that James himself hypocritically writes, "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1 Paul writes, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" Rom 10:12 and he preaches the same gospel to both. But in the church of Jerusalem there was reckoned a difference between Jew and Gentile. James even made a distinction between the two in his tinkering with the gospel. And then Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians, abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles, and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews, along with John and James. "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Though while they (James, Peter and John) agreed to this, Paul apparently didn't agree. For he continued to minister to both Jew and Gentile alike and never even mentioned the decree in any of his epistles even though in Galatians he spoke of the meeting.
Peter Rebuked for Fear and Hypocrisy
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal 2:11,12
Likely what happened here is that James wanted to make sure that the regulations he had imposed on the Gentile Christians were being observed. Interesting to note, first of all, who did James send? He sent the very category of people who had been preaching a false gospel to begin with - the group of the circumcision. Likely the same false pharisaical brothers among the leadership in Jerusalem who had insisted, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Acts 15:5 (Kind of an - in your face Paul - moment) Paul noticed that Peter was apparently afraid of these guys. Doesn't say why he was afraid, but it appears that through James' influence and his circumcision cronies, and Peter's fear and insecurity lead to the rise of Catholicism. If Paul had taken a more direct approach from the start in dealing with that sect, rebuking James directly for what he explicitly said in tinkering with the gospel, as he had publicly rebuked Peter for what Peter only implied by his actions, Catholicism and the rise of other Neo-Circumcision sects, may have been rooted out from the start. Nonetheless in his battle against the Circumcision Paul has left us with ammunition in his epistles against such sects.
Why are you so mad at the Catholic church?
You should like it,,,Augustine was catholic and thanks to him John Calvin got his ideas.
You continue to misquote what catholics believe.
You want to pit James against the others. He was Jesus' brother - I think he knew better than you or I what Jesus believed.
Acts is speaking about CIRCUMCISION.
Paul did NOT abolish the law...he only stated we are no longer under the law as the Jews had been...
Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law.
Not a dot would be removed from the law till the end.
Your O.P. is much too long and has too many errors in it to be taken seriously by anyone familiar with Christian doctrine in general.
Read the text. That was to GENTILE Christians ONLY.Christians aren't required to circumstance their sons because the Council of Jerusalem decided it wasn't necessary.
He's an intelligent person and I'm not saying he should be ashamed.his post is better than most. I don't think he should be ashamed of this post.
He's an intelligent person and I'm not saying he should be ashamed.
What I'm saying is that one should post correct doctrine of a faith to which they don't belong.
What if I posted wrong doctrine for the calvinist faith?
I'm sure the other member would not be too happy about this.
I ask for intellectual honesty.
That's pretty funny.I think various congregations take themselves to seriously on online forums to often. You don't go on an online forum to get love usually. If a person needs companionship they should call someone on the phone, send a private message or email someone or go to church
That's pretty funny.
Have you been on forums long?
Some people come here for fellowship and make THIS their church.
No it doesn't make sense.true but why not have a private chat between 2 or more people? Why let the wolves come in and pounce on your sheep friends? Doesn't that make sense?
No it doesn't make sense.
Why should I have a private conversation with anyone?
I don't know anyone here...I'm here to SHARE the word of God. There are persons reading along that we're not even aware of...this is mostly for their benefit since no one here is going to change each other's mind.
It's a good place to learn too. No one knows everything and there's much to be learned here -- not that this is my choice for learning --- that would be a church.
Now, I don't know who my sheep friends are since I have none here. And yes, it's those wolves I'm here for. Why let them run loose?
Oh, I see.alot of what you are saying is what i'm getting at. There are mean people from every denomination on this forum and too think you are going to go on an open online forum and have every body be nice to us is irrational in my opinion.
The council at Jerusalem's most critical achievement was to affirm that Gentiles did not first have to become Jews in order to receive salvation in Jesus Christ. This was the effect of not requiring circumcision for conversion. The question is the purpose of the ensuing "James clause":
therefore I judge not to trouble those from the Gentiles turning to God,The church had a real problem on its hands. The Jews were thoroughly indoctrinated into the laws of Moses, while the Gentiles were not and likely were not willing to be. How then were the growing churches to have any sort of peace and unity within? James acknowledges the problem here by citing that the law of Moses is proclaimed in virtually every city, and makes the suggestion to require a couple of the most obvious dietary laws, and for good measure the necessity of sexual morality - a fairly new concept to many of the Gentile converts - in order that the two camps can coexist together and begin to become one flock just as the Lord had envisioned.
but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses has those proclaiming him in every city, from generations of old, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." -Acts 15:19-21
That is a good point RDKirk and one that I have never considered before.Just as a point, it appears to me that the letter written by the Counsel in Acts 15 actually forms the first written document of the New Testament.
Another very good point and that makes perfect sense.I would point out that the acts prohibited to the Gentile Christians were specific acts of pagan temple rituals. They had essentially backed up what Paul was already teaching his Gentile congregations (1 Corinthians 10).
You mean like "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 which I already had mentioned in the OP. Doesn't sound like Paul took issue with eating meat from strangled animals. Nor, unlike James, did he view salvation as contingent upon abstaining from eating such things. The Acts 15 decree had to do with salvation being contingent upon compliance to regulations. James disagreed with Peter and Paul and viewed salvation as contingent upon which what one eats and drinks.I would point out that the acts prohibited to the Gentile Christians were specific acts of pagan temple rituals. They had essentially backed up what Paul was already teaching his Gentile congregations (1 Corinthians 10).
No. No compromise. The GOOD NEWS GOSPEL of JESUS did not change.He literally compromised the gospel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?