The Council of Jerusalem . . .  

Daniel and I just talked about bringing the eps back down to ca. 30 mins ! Lol Thank you for that feedback and for the really generous comments! Glad that the series has been helpful so far 👍🏻

Great to have you aboard, Sean, and thanks for the kind words!

Thanks man! Spread the word ;)

Thanks! Perhaps down the road. What, specifically, do you have in mind on the topic of justification that you would like to hear us cover?

@@TheCatholicBrothers Perhaps what Trent means by 'Increases in Justification,' Justification not merely being an imputation, and perhaps whether or not Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom taught imputed righteousness.

But also support how Justification is a process rather than merely it being a legal declaration. You guys come from an Anglican background so I know y'all could slam dunk this lol

@@catholicgabe2876 haha I like it. I definitely see us naturally hitting this topic when we come to the Pelagian Controversy in our First 500 Years series. That will surely springboard us into all sorts of dialogue on grace and justification. 👍🏻

Yes, it is. Peter is the lead apostle, both by the accounts of the Gospels, the account in Acts, the epistles, and the witness of the early Christian writers.

Because this was a council that took place among the actual apostles, so it’s not typically counted among the ecclesiastical (and ecumenical) councils.

I think it’s a both/and situation. To me, and to most scholars, it seems clear that he is referring to the vision and Cornelius incident that followed. But he was shown the vision and sent to Cornelius *because* he was leader of the apostles.

@@TheCatholicBrothers me too. I would like to think that the opposing side caved in to his authority, rather than, they 'finally accepted his opinion'. Because, we know it was getting really hot, seems like the Judeans and Pharisees were no slouches themselves and they defended their opinion well. Peter's position (given by God) made the decision, for me.

Check out our episodes on James and the Jerusalem church.

I don’t know how you can conclude that James decides the issue when Peter is the one who speaks, after much debate, telling the assembly that to insist on circumcision would be to put God to the test, and once Peter has finished speaking, the assembly falls silent and yields the floor for Paul and Barnabas to recount how God had confirmed what Peter is deciding, and then James (who led the party that needed the most convincing) acquiesces *in reference to Peter’s speech* - “Simon has declared” (Acts 15:14-18) issues supplementary decrees for implementing the decision in a letter to the churches, and shows how there is actually provision in the Law for this, since the laws regarding resident aliens did not require circumcision but merely adherence to the Israelite sexual code, and certain dietary restrictions. The language from James of “Therefore, I judge that we should not trouble….” is certainly not to be taken as James rendering the decision; it is James recognizing that Peter’s decision is correct. When James says “we should not trouble those…,” he is obviously not referring to the whole assembly (since at least half of the assembly was already in agreement with Peter and Paul), it is rather James referring to his own party in Jerusalem who had, theretofore, been of the mind that Gentiles needed to be circumcised. The idea that James decided the issue is a very contorted reading of the account, IMO, and seems to be more influenced by prior ideological commitments to downplay Peter’s authority as leader of the apostles than it is by an unbiased, contextual reading of the narrative.

@@TheCatholicBrothers contextual reading makes me ask what you make of the fact that James speaks last in this meeting, or of the other textual references in my first comment? Do you feel that the word 'declared' is an accurate translation in 15:14?

In Gal 2, Paul says Peter acted out of fear. Says absolutely nothing about authority. We only hear Paul's side of the story too. Could Peter have had reasons of prudence to act as he did? Paul gives no indication he "won" the confrontation, as he does earlier regarding the council of Jerusalem. You're gonna have to be more specific about what you are conjuring out of Acts 21.

@@tonyl3762 are you replying to me or to Kyle?

@@TheCatholicBrothers Kyle, not you. You responded very well to part of his comment. Thought I'd address the other parts. This is Catholic Tony L, not SDA tony, who I am tragically often confused for.