Local Congregation

[Eliyahu]

It could be argued that the apostles formed such a governing body. They were the ones people turned to for guidance during these early years. When they spoke people listened and obeyed. This sounds like earthly leadership.

It is the distinct silence of the epistles and other parts of the Bible on the matter of church polity that does not rule out congregations organizing into larger organizations with a headquarters or what have you.

Again details about who were in attendance are next to nill. You cannot say with 100% authority that there were no representatives from other areas.

Maybe if any, they were negligible. If they were so powerful as they are today, they couldn't be missed as we read so many epistles without mentioning them.

 

[Chemnitz]

Maybe if any, they were negligible. If they were so powerful as they are today, they couldn't be missed as we read so many epistles without mentioning them.

Huh? This could use some clarification. As I have no idea to what you are referring to in your statement.

 

[Tom Butler]

Here are my observations on the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

The meeting took place in Jerusalem because that's where most of the apostles were.

There were differing opinions, both within the Antioch Church and at the Jerusalem council (v. 7 "much disputing").

After hearing all the arguments, James (apparently leader or pastor) stood up and said (paraphrasing), "Okay, listen to me. Here's my sentence (decision)." He outlined his position, proposed that a letter be drafted outlining the position. James basically dictated the the letter, and appointed Judas Barnabas and Silas to go with Paul and Barnabas to meet with Gentile converts personally.

The other apostles, elders and members concurred. (v.25 "it seemed good to us being assembled with one accord").

So the delegation went down to Antioch, called a church meeting, read the letter to much rejoicing from those who heard it.

If this letter was binding, it was because of the great authoritative weight given to the opinions of the apostles, more than an order to be obeyed.

It's the kind of weight we give to the New Testament writers, the kind of authority recognized in assembling the canon.

My church is bound by those writings because it agrees to accept them as so, not because such binding is imposed on it.

It does not appear that the Jerusalem council's decision was binding, but it was authoritative, thus accepted. So, to answer the OP, this decision does not diminish the local congregation's ability to govern itself.

 

[Eliyahu]

It does not appear that the Jerusalem council's decision was binding, but it was authoritative, thus accepted. So, to answer the OP, this decision does not diminish the local congregation's ability to govern itself.

I think you view this correctly.

The argument on this issue has been about any central authority of head quarters etc. vs the exclusive authority of the local church.

I believe nobody objects to the judgment made in Jerusalem in Acts 15.

The question is whether we should consider that conference as the first Council of the churches in the meanings similar to Nicea Council (325), Ephesus Council ( 431), Chalcedon Council ( 451), II Lateran Council (1139), Trent Council (1545), II Vatican Council (1962), etc.

I disagree with such notion. Moreover, I would deny even the regional synod.

The Bible denies even the denomination itself ( 1 Cor 1:11-17), without passing it thru Jerusalem.

Jesus Christ instructed 7 churches directly in Revelation, that the believer should listen to what the Holy Spirit says to the church ( Rev 2-3)

Holy Spirit instructed Antioch church directly ( Acts 13:1-3)

The Meeting of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was not called for by the Elders of Jerusalem. If it had been a formal Council, they must have had an agenda and have been called for the convocation throughout the churches in the empire the number of which may have reached more than 100 by that time.
They didn't do so. But the church of Antioch dispatched Paul, Barnabas, and some of them to Jerusalem, because some from Judaea came down to Antioch and stirred up the people there.

It is important that the Conference was not called for by Jerusalem, but it was just a visit by the people from Antioch for the Biblical fellowship.

Throughout the Bible, the believers are commanded to listen to and obey to the Holy Spirit, never to any Council or Head Quarters of church organization. There are so many detailed instructions on the local church leaders ( 1 Tim 3:1-13, Titus 1) but there is no statement for the central organization in the Bible.

 

[Tom Butler]

It is important that the Conference was not called for by Jerusalem, but it was just a visit by the people from Antioch for the Biblical fellowship.

It was for more than just fellowship. This was the first encounter with the Judaizers, and there was a need to settle the most important doctrinal issue: How does one come into a right relationship with God?

There was intense debate, and it was the pursuasiveness of Paul, reinforced by Peter,who brought them into agreement.

I'm sure there was fellowship, made much sweeter after they came into one accord.

 

[Eric B]

I believe nobody objects to the judgment made in Jerusalem in Acts 15.

The question is whether we should consider that conference as the first Council of the churches in the meanings similar to Nicea Council (325), Ephesus Council ( 431), Chalcedon Council ( 451), II Lateran Council (1139), Trent Council (1545), II Vatican Council (1962), etc.

I always noted that the so-called "ecumenical catholic councils" did not begin with this first Church-wide Apostolic decision, but rather only the one called by emperor Constantine. That right there shows a self-admitted discontinuity between the apostles and the later Church.

 

[Eliyahu]

It was for more than just fellowship. This was the first encounter with the Judaizers, and there was a need to settle the most important doctrinal issue: How does one come into a right relationship with God?

There was intense debate, and it was the pursuasiveness of Paul, reinforced by Peter,who brought them into agreement.

I'm sure there was fellowship, made much sweeter after they came into one accord.

The word "Fellowship" is mostly used in our brethren churches, for the Bible Discussion, Bible Conference, Bible Study Meeting, Bible teachings and lessons, Praise with hymn songs, accompanied by the meals and friendly fellowship.

I am quite sure that there is a huge difference between the Council of Catholic or any big conference of any denominations and the Meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Jerusalem didn't call for the conference! Jerusalem didn't make the announcement, but Paul, Barnabas, and some more believers from Antioch visited Jerusalem. We find no indication that the other churches were invited. The visit might have been without notice.
The exclusive authority of the local church is quite sure, IMO.
There is no church above churches. Our Head Quarter is in Heaven of which the Head is Jesus Christ.

 

[Eliyahu]

I always noted that the so-called "ecumenical catholic councils" did not begin with this first Church-wide Apostolic decision, but rather only the one called by emperor Constantine. That right there shows a self-admitted discontinuity between the apostles and the later Church.

Officially, yes, from Constantine. ( 313-325 Nicean Council period)

But the Secular church which will start to persecute the true believers was lurking from the time of 251 AD when Fabian died in Rome, and there was a split between 2 groups,

one pursuing the quick and rapid growth of the church by accepting the apostates who yileded to the Idolatry during the persecution, headed by Cornelius, believing that the more people with bigger building means the great success in the Gospel ministry and the apostate should be accepted as long as they repented, condemning the others who do not accept the "repented Apostates-idol worshippers during the persecution" as the hypocrites. They must have accepted the new comers as long as they accept the teachings, without serious testimony of the belief.

the other group who tried to keep the faith strictly to be faithful with Lord, believing that the growth and the success of the church means that the true believers bear the fruits according to the teachings of Bible, not the increase of buildings and numbers of people, avoiding the sins, refusing the apostates who betrayed the Lord during the persecution unless they showed the great change and the repentance to endure any persecution if they encounter such persecution next time, headed by Novatian. They accepted only the truly born again believers as their members, then the number of the church people was not increased very fast.

Eventually the first group led by Cornelius succeeded in the business of increasing the people, very much able and competent in managing the people and building, and a type of church easy for the unbelievers to participate in without repentance or serious agony, no need to be broken-hearted. These type of people are very much concerned about the buildings and property when they split each other.

The second group may have regarded the buildings and the properties not as important, and gave them up, and quickly became the minor group in the city of Rome.

Then the first group started to condemn the second group led by Novatian as a Cult or Heretics! The Cornellius group would have been called "Orthodox".
Then they started to pray for the Empire, for the Emperor referring to Romans 13. They eventually pursue the State-Church and started to persecute the true believers as long as they had the power.

Roman Catholic is nothing but the transformation or the extension of Roman Empire which persecuted the Truue Christians, transformed into the Religion which is full of Paganism. This kind of State-Church needed to call for the Council to instruct the One-Way human made instructions.

Though some portion of above mentioned history is added by myself personally for better understanding, but the basic structural development was the same as we see the church development today.
We can find this kind of development in the history if we dig out further.

 

[Matt Black]

I always noted that the so-called "ecumenical catholic councils" did not begin with this first Church-wide Apostolic decision, but rather only the one called by emperor Constantine. That right there shows a self-admitted discontinuity between the apostles and the later Church.

So, um, what about eg: the Council of Elvira in Spain in 303, and the Council of Arles in 314, which had nothing to do with Constantine?

 

[Eric B]

Well those aren't numbered with the Seven either. I don't know what they were about, and never heard of them, but the point was that you would expect Jerusalem to have been the first, rather than the one called by Constantine, marking the Church's wedding to secular power.

 

[Zenas]

Let's consider another New Testament example where the churches were not acting completely on their own. In Titus 1:5, Paul instructs Titus to remain in Crete and "appoint elders in every city as I directed you." (NASB) Here we see two things. First, Titus is serving at the pleasure of Paul the apostle. Second, he is exercising authority over the churches in the cities of Crete, of which we know there were many. To the untrained eye this certainly looks like apostolic authority being exercised by someone who is not an apostle (bishop perhaps?). It also looks like the Cretan congregations were expected to submit to the authority of Titus. There is no reference to words like "recommend" elders or "elect" elders. Titus was simply told to appoint elders. And who were these elders? They were either pastors or they were men appointed to be overseers. So it would seem that we have congregations led by elders who were appointed by an emissary (bishop?) of an apostle. Wow! That looks likes three layers of hierarchy over the local congregation.

 

[Eliyahu]

Let's consider another New Testament example where the churches were not acting completely on their own. In Titus 1:5, Paul instructs Titus to remain in Crete and "appoint elders in every city as I directed you." (NASB) Here we see two things. First, Titus is serving at the pleasure of Paul the apostle. Second, he is exercising authority over the churches in the cities of Crete, of which we know there were many. To the untrained eye this certainly looks like apostolic authority being exercised by someone who is not an apostle (bishop perhaps?). It also looks like the Cretan congregations were expected to submit to the authority of Titus. There is no reference to words like "recommend" elders or "elect" elders. Titus was simply told to appoint elders. And who were these elders? They were either pastors or they were men appointed to be overseers. So it would seem that we have congregations led by elders who were appointed by an emissary (bishop?) of an apostle. Wow! That looks likes three layers of hierarchy over the local congregation.

It was the development process. Even today, the Biblical churches dispatch elders to the area where the new church should be established. It doesn't mean that the new church should report to the old church.
There is no indication that God wants the human beings to become subordinated to another human being or that One chuch should be subject to another church, There is no church above church shown in the Bible. We must see thru the fact that the new churches needed the assistance from the established churches all the time. But thereafter we can hardly imagine that the new church continued to submit themselves to the old church, but we can certainly believe that they had to submit to the Holy Spirit.
This truth is taught by Jesus Himself here:

Rev 2:
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


For everyone of 7 churches, Jesus said they should hear what the Holy Spirit says to them, not to any head quarters or any human organization.

The Holy Spirit is very near us, He may be the person nearest to us all the time.

It doesn't make sense that the new church should be established for themselves independently or that unbeliever should be born again for himself or for herself independently by the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus sent the Apostles, and Jesus Himself introduced Himself as an Apostle sent by God. Emissary or Apostle came from the Hebrew word" Shalach" Send, and its passive form " Shiloach" was translated into Greek " Shiloam" which was shown as the name of the pond where the Blind man washed his eyes. We were spiritually blinded but when we went to "the true Shiloam" -Jesus christ- we could have our eyes opened up. That's why Paul assigned the job to Titus and Timothy.