Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

General Christian Theology
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Heirbyadoption »

No worries, I'm secure in my manhood. And valerie, I wasn't meaning to demean your earlier comment, just clarify where I was coming from. So,...
Ernie said:
Peter added some extra biblical requirements such as not braiding ribbon into ones hair, wearing gold and pearls.
(I doubt the women who had tendencies this way had pleasant thoughts about Peter the evening after his letter was read to their church but that is pure speculation.)
Peter did not say they should refrain from wearing silver so I guess silver is ok? I think not.
I think the scriptures were given us for our learning and that these injunctions from Peter are both prescriptive and a pattern for how church is expected to do today.
The general agreement I've heard so far is that, at the least, the Apostles had the authority to set forth such decrees. I'm not disputing that. But frankly, these guys either wrote the New Testament or their teachings were recorded in it. I wouldn't consider those "extra-Biblical - they're in the Bible itself...

My question is more or less whether that authority displayed at the Jerusalem council continued in force to congregations to create and enforce regulations beyond what is recorded in the Scriptures, and if so, where that ongoing right or authority is given, or derived from. Does that make sense? Does Acts 15 actually give churches the right to create and enforce extra-Biblical regulations, in your understandings?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Valerie »

lesterb wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote:I'll try to get back here after the kids are abed, but just for the record, Lester and Valerie, I is and always have been a "he." :laugh
Well, that's sort of what I thought, but then I read Valeries post and thought I must have remembered wrong.... :-| :-|
I'm very sorry, I think that headcovering topic made me think that- for some reason- i apologize! :oops: Good questions, interesting
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by lesterb »

Heirbyadoption wrote:No worries, I'm secure in my manhood. And valerie, I wasn't meaning to demean your earlier comment, just clarify where I was coming from. So,...
Ernie said:
Peter added some extra biblical requirements such as not braiding ribbon into ones hair, wearing gold and pearls.
(I doubt the women who had tendencies this way had pleasant thoughts about Peter the evening after his letter was read to their church but that is pure speculation.)
Peter did not say they should refrain from wearing silver so I guess silver is ok? I think not.
I think the scriptures were given us for our learning and that these injunctions from Peter are both prescriptive and a pattern for how church is expected to do today.
The general agreement I've heard so far is that, at the least, the Apostles had the authority to set forth such decrees. I'm not disputing that. But frankly, these guys either wrote the New Testament or their teachings were recorded in it. I wouldn't consider those "extra-Biblical - they're in the Bible itself...

My question is more or less whether that authority displayed at the Jerusalem council continued in force to congregations to create and enforce regulations beyond what is recorded in the Scriptures, and if so, where that ongoing right or authority is given, or derived from. Does that make sense? Does Acts 15 actually give churches the right to create and enforce extra-Biblical regulations, in your understandings?
It's an illustration of the church doing that, I think. It was extra-biblical at that point, though not any longer, since Acts records it.

Jesus, in Matthew 18, talked about the church binding and loosing. That could include this. Ernie has already mentioned Peter. The Bible mentions many things as principles that need to be applied or interpreted somehow. For instance, it talks about modest apparel. It talks about costly array. It tells us to come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing. All of these require human decision of some sort. The NT is a timeless book, designed to be applicable in all ages. What does it mean to avoid all appearance of evil? That will change from century to century. My wife is a modestly dressed woman, but she would have been arrested for immodesty in some times and places in history.

I think that this idea of not needing to do or not do anything except what is explicitly mentioned in the NT is a mirage. The point most often is that we don't want a person, or a congregation, or a fellowship telling us what to do or not do. We want to be the master of our destiny, not the church.
0 x
Ernie
Posts: 5446
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Ernie »

lesterb wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote: The general agreement I've heard so far is that, at the least, the Apostles had the authority to set forth such decrees. I'm not disputing that. But frankly, these guys either wrote the New Testament or their teachings were recorded in it. I wouldn't consider those "extra-Biblical - they're in the Bible itself...

My question is more or less whether that authority displayed at the Jerusalem council continued in force to congregations to create and enforce regulations beyond what is recorded in the Scriptures, and if so, where that ongoing right or authority is given, or derived from. Does that make sense? Does Acts 15 actually give churches the right to create and enforce extra-Biblical regulations, in your understandings?
It's an illustration of the church doing that, I think. It was extra-biblical at that point, though not any longer, since Acts records it.
Exactly. At the time the New Testament was being written, everything the Apostles were saying was extra Biblical. At what exact point in history did Peter's instructions about jewelry and clothing become authoritative for all people and all times? At what point could members of the church say, "All instructions from these certain men are good for all people at all times because they wrote about these things in their letters, but anything they said outside of that context, has no universal authority."
This whole extra-biblical discussion is a rather modern thing.
lesterb wrote: Jesus, in Matthew 18, talked about the church binding and loosing. That could include this. Ernie has already mentioned Peter. The Bible mentions many things as principles that need to be applied or interpreted somehow. For instance, it talks about modest apparel. It talks about costly array. It tells us to come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing. All of these require human decision of some sort. The NT is a timeless book, designed to be applicable in all ages. What does it mean to avoid all appearance of evil? That will change from century to century. My wife is a modestly dressed woman, but she would have been arrested for immodesty in some times and places in history.

I think that this idea of not needing to do or not do anything except what is explicitly mentioned in the NT is a mirage. The point most often is that we don't want a person, or a congregation, or a fellowship telling us what to do or not do. We want to be the master of our destiny, not the church.
:up:
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by JimFoxvog »

LesterB wrote: What does it mean to avoid all appearance of evil? That will change from century to century. My wife is a modestly dressed woman, but she would have been arrested for immodesty in some times and places in history.
This verse is one where looking at different translations is really helpful. The ESV is typical: [bible]1Thes 5,22[/bible] This probably, according to most modern translators, does not refer to what something might look like to someone else.
0 x
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Ernie wrote:
lesterb wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote: The general agreement I've heard so far is that, at the least, the Apostles had the authority to set forth such decrees. I'm not disputing that. But frankly, these guys either wrote the New Testament or their teachings were recorded in it. I wouldn't consider those "extra-Biblical - they're in the Bible itself...

My question is more or less whether that authority displayed at the Jerusalem council continued in force to congregations to create and enforce regulations beyond what is recorded in the Scriptures, and if so, where that ongoing right or authority is given, or derived from. Does that make sense? Does Acts 15 actually give churches the right to create and enforce extra-Biblical regulations, in your understandings?
It's an illustration of the church doing that, I think. It was extra-biblical at that point, though not any longer, since Acts records it.
Exactly. At the time the New Testament was being written, everything the Apostles were saying was extra Biblical. At what exact point in history did Peter's instructions about jewelry and clothing become authoritative for all people and all times? At what point could members of the church say, "All instructions from these certain men are good for all people at all times because they wrote about these things in their letters, but anything they said outside of that context, has no universal authority."
This whole extra-biblical discussion is a rather modern thing.
lesterb wrote: Jesus, in Matthew 18, talked about the church binding and loosing. That could include this. Ernie has already mentioned Peter. The Bible mentions many things as principles that need to be applied or interpreted somehow. For instance, it talks about modest apparel. It talks about costly array. It tells us to come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing. All of these require human decision of some sort. The NT is a timeless book, designed to be applicable in all ages. What does it mean to avoid all appearance of evil? That will change from century to century. My wife is a modestly dressed woman, but she would have been arrested for immodesty in some times and places in history.

I think that this idea of not needing to do or not do anything except what is explicitly mentioned in the NT is a mirage. The point most often is that we don't want a person, or a congregation, or a fellowship telling us what to do or not do. We want to be the master of our destiny, not the church.
:up:
I appreciate all the replies. Lester, per your last statement first, though - that honestly strikes me as simply dismissive (not personally, but possibly of an avenue you don't feel worth pursuing). Just my impression though, and I probably misread it.
At the time the New Testament was being written, everything the Apostles were saying was extra Biblical.
In a technical sense, this is true, and yet are we straining to defend the authority of congregations to create and enforce any practices they (or some of them) feel to try to squeeze into their box of practices in the name of Biblical principles? Again, if we truly take the church of Acts as our example, and we believe there was any kind of authority or power limited to the apostles, then at their closure (and therefore of the canon) is the only place we can begin to truly talk about extraBiblical. Everything until or up to that point would be Biblical, just as it was recorded.
This idea of not needing to do or not do anything except what is explicitly mentioned in the NT is a mirage. The point most often is that we don't want a person, or a congregation, or a fellowship telling us what to do or not do. We want to be the master of our destiny, not the church.
I don't know about "most often", but your statement is certainly not always true, hence my original question. Yes, we battle postmodernism and scriptural minimization all around us, and yes, many times people just want free rein to never submit to anyone, but it's also a fact that we have a generation of Anabaptist young people sincerely desiring more than the denominational squabbles, blind adherence, and dry rigidity they witness in many (certainly not all) of their parents and grandparents generations, and they've also been raised to consider the Word as their ultimate foundation (now that'll get you in trouble...). It's inevitable that they should ask if the vast body of extraBiblical church practices and applications bear any responsibility for the struggles they have seen among the previous generation(s), or if the church has full reign to create and enforce and they just need to be more submissive.

Finally, while I'm thinking out loud:
The Bible mentions many things as principles that need to be applied or interpreted somehow. For instance, it talks about modest apparel. It talks about costly array. It tells us to come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing. All of these require human decision of some sort.
And yet, are you sure that the context of binding and loosing is a blank check for a congregation to create a list of practices and applications, rather than teaching the principles that the Scripture teaches?
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by lesterb »

My point is basically that the idea of "Bible only" isn't possible. What is modesty? Frankly the Bible doesn't say. So someone needs to make a judgment call. If we don't let the brotherhood do it, the bishop will do it. If we don't let either of those happen then we'll all end up doing what is right in our own eyes.

That leads to chaos. In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Are you sure that the young people you mention are as honest about all this as they would have you believe? It's possible, I'm sure, but it hasn't been my experience. I would say that in almost every case where I've run into that argument it's been used as leverage to say "you have no right to tell me what to do unless your concern is listed in the Bible." In a lot of those cases, when you do go to the Bible they say "that's only your opinion."

But that's only been my experience. Maybe your's is different.

My opinion is that if people genuinely believe what you describe, they will not be looking for loopholes to allow something the church doesn't "like". They will be sensitive to the feelings of others. And they will be looking for ways to walk closer to God instead of ways to satisfy the flesh.

I agree that in many settings the idea of church control has been overdone. But I've also seen what tends to happen where there is no church control, and it isn't pretty. My question is: How do we find a middle ground that avoids those extremes? Or to reword it: How do we help ourselves, our family, and our brotherhood to have a genuine experience with Christ that leads us to WANT to follow HIM, rather than self. If we could accomplish that, a lot of these other questions would be moot.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Valerie »

This last part about young people- in Holmes County, there is a church that was started with a lot of former Amish (possibly former Mennonites)- their quick to say "we don't have man made rules, but follow the Bible only". What I have noticed about this particular group of Christians, is that I see the young ones covering their heads 'somehow' and modestly dressed 'somehow'- maybe this is rare (oh just remembered there is another such church in Tuscarawas County) so at least in these 2 cases, they are covering and modest but they don't have what they call 'man made rules'. However, I would agree that Lesterb's experience exists more. When some of these formers join other established denominations, they tend to not just forsake what they call man made rules but also believe some passages are 'not for today's culture'..

I would add that what heirbyadoption is conveying is probably their young people seeing/observing other young Christians who love the Lord without what they consider extra Biblical and have strong faith and are serving in ministries. So then they start to question their own-
0 x
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5222
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by ohio jones »

Valerie wrote:they don't have what they call 'man made rules'.
They have them, they just call them something else so they can feel good about saying they don't have something that they actually do have.

Basically what they have is the equivalent of Oral Tradition, a bit more recently formed.
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council

Post by Heirbyadoption »

what heirbyadoption is conveying is probably their young people seeing/observing other young Christians who love the Lord without what they consider extra Biblical and have strong faith and are serving in ministries.
No... not really. I'm talking about young people who AREN'T necessarily looking to pitch useful tradition or avoid accountability (yes, they exist), but who want to be able to understand and articulate the authority for said things if they are to pass them on, and alternatively to be honest IF and where that authority does not exist and their inherited traditions and forms are therefore unjustified (justified and beneficial are two different things, bear in mind) and unBiblical/antithetical to the Gospel message in any way... I'll try to get back in here shortly after my next appointment to expand a bit.
0 x
Post Reply