Acts 15: Why these three things?

[barnhart]

I'll stir the pot a little. Does everyone agree the conclusions of the Jerusalem council were universal or a response to a place and time.

[Neto]

I'll stir the pot a little. Does everyone agree the conclusions of the Jerusalem council were universal or a response to a place and time.

I used to be really strong on that third one as well, but James' logic as he expressed it seems to suggest that he was thinking in terms of getting along with the Jewish Christians. But then on the other hand, we still need to do that. Perhaps there are other things that should be added to the list, at least in certain settings. (For instance, if you work among Muslim peoples, don't use your left hand to eat, etc. I think this is an important reason why it's good that I was not sent to a Muslim country for missionary work, as was my first allocation. I doubt that the mission even knew that I am left-handed, and intensely so. I think that ought to be considered by the sending agency.)

[Josh]

I'll stir the pot a little. Does everyone agree the conclusions of the Jerusalem council were universal or a response to a place and time.

The latter, but are still binding unless reversed by a later church conference.

[Soloist]

On what ground’s would determine what is a valid church conference?

[Josh]

On what ground’s would determine what is a valid church conference?

That would be a question for what you believe is valid church organisation and your ecclesiology. It is clear from the NT, however, that the church does indeed have the authority to convene a church conference and to decide things.

[Soloist]

On what ground’s would determine what is a valid church conference?

That would be a question for what you believe is valid church organisation and your ecclesiology. It is clear from the NT, however, that the church does indeed have the authority to convene a church conference and to decide things.

So effectively you believe the Holdermen can?

If you read Acts, the Apostles and the Elders were the ones who convened the council.
The Apostles and the elders agreed, then the church agreed.
It’s clear the Apostles had that authority, it’s less clear that the church did.

[Josh]

So effectively you believe the Holdermen can?

I would say that I believe "the church" can convene a church conference and make decisions about how to apply what Jesus taught to the present-day world.

If you read Acts, the Apostles and the Elders were the ones who convened the council.
The Apostles and the elders agreed, then the church agreed.
It’s clear the Apostles had that authority, it’s less clear that the church did.

I don't really consider the apostles to somehow be something special who had authority to convene a council or conference. They were simply people who followed Jesus. "Apostle" means "someone who is sent out". It is sensible to believe that the church has both existed since then and that it also has had leaders who are appointed / ordained.

I'm not sure what you mean by "elders". Do you mean bishops of the early church (which aren't really attested in the NT although it does talk about how they should be ordained)?

[Soloist]

I don't really consider the apostles to somehow be something special who had authority to convene a council or conference. They were simply people who followed Jesus. "Apostle" means "someone who is sent out". It is sensible to believe that the church has both existed since then and that it also has had leaders who are appointed / ordained.

I'm not sure what you mean by "elders". Do you mean bishops of the early church (which aren't really attested in the NT although it does talk about how they should be ordained)?

Act 15:4  And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:5  But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6  And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

I’m referring to the passage itself. I would say it’s clear they were called Elders.
As for apostles, I find it hard to believe you don’t see authority given to them.

[Josh]

I’m referring to the passage itself. I would say it’s clear they were called Elders.
As for apostles, I find it hard to believe you don’t see authority given to them.

I don't see them as somehow having higher authority than that of anyone who has existed since them. I simply view them as the first leaders of the church. The actual canonisation of scripture, etc. came long after they were gone, and the apostles themselves never spoke of themselves as somehow having higher elevated authority. (The Catholic view is a bit different, and would view Peter as the first pope, etc. and that is where they get their idea of the Pope having higher, elevated authority.)

It does not seem to me that the Jerusalem Conference was a once and done thing and that the church could never convene conferences like that again.

[Neto]

On what ground’s would determine what is a valid church conference?

That would be a question for what you believe is valid church organisation and your ecclesiology. It is clear from the NT, however, that the church does indeed have the authority to convene a church conference and to decide things.

So effectively you believe the Holdeman can?

If you read Acts, the Apostles and the Elders were the ones who convened the council.
The Apostles and the elders agreed, then the church agreed.
It’s clear the Apostles had that authority, it’s less clear that the church did.

I would say that what is clear is that they did it. I do not automatically build doctrine on the historical recorded events. Luke reports that it was well accepted by the non-Jewish believers, and by perhaps most Jewish believers. The apostles later also asked Paul to finance and participate in a sacrifice in the temple, for cleansing. They thought it was a good thing, and hoped that the Jewish believers of the circumcision party would be pleased and that it would satisfy them that Paul was not speaking against the Mosaic Law. Luke doesn't tell us whether that was acceptable proof for that group. In neither case is there a 'witness' from the Holy Spirit, or a revelation to the apostles that these were the best possible actions to take. (The latter seems to have been more of a "council of the leadership", as it appears clear to me that the believing circumcision party were not aware of this meeting, or the conclusion they came to.)