Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Deo volente

And yet, in Acts 15:1-21, Peter does not seem to be the one in authority. At the council of Jerusalem, the apostles and many elders came together to settle a controversy regarding the relationship of Judaism and Christianity (Acts 15:1-5). The question was: Did Gentile converts need to be circumcised? There was a lot of debate about this and Peter made an important contribution, but not a decisive one (Acts 15:7-11). James was the one who gave the final speech (Acts 15:13-21). Speaking from the Old Testament, which was the authoritative norm of the early church, James was the one who passed judgement on the issue. (Acts 15:19-21). The council then formed a concensus, and the matter was closed. Peter neither ruled the council nor decided its outcome.


3,144 posted on 07/28/2010 6:57:06 PM PDT by small voice in the wilderness (Defending the Indefensible. The Pride of a Pawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3141 | View Replies ]


To: small voice in the wilderness

excerpt from Question #2 at the page linked below:

If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter “rose” and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says “all kept silent.” When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter’s definitive teaching.

After Peter settles the issue, Paul and Barnabas speak in favor of Peter’s teaching. Only then does James come in. A few things about James’ discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope’s teaching at a regional or ecumenical council. This is what James does. He agrees with Peter’s definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James’ speech, he says “it is my judgment.” The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.

So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter’s judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter’s teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. You should also point out to your friend that Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html


3,145 posted on 07/28/2010 7:19:58 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3144 | View Replies ]

To: small voice in the wilderness; Deo volente
Good point -- Peter plays the role of elder brother, the final earthly decider for the Faith. Why? Because he had the simple faith and the grace given from above.

The other apostles WERE important, very important and they were responsible for their sees, hence the Patriarch of Moscow, of Antioch, of Alexandria are responsible for their sees.
3,233 posted on 07/29/2010 1:38:44 AM PDT by Cronos (Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3144 | View Replies ]

To: small voice in the wilderness; Deo volente; Mad Dawg; dsc; narses; Quix; Iscool; bkaycee; ...
You should also point out to your friend that Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).
Brilliant. Thank you
3,235 posted on 07/29/2010 1:40:42 AM PDT by Cronos (Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3144 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson