Peter / councils

Interesting comment here at 115 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/#comment-79299

I would like to challenge your assessment of the canonical evidence. Especially as it pertains to the book of Acts. It seems that you would like to use Acts 15 as evidence of the early Church operating under the same governing principles as today’s confessional reformed. you cite that 1. James made the decision 2. The decision of the council was not presented as James’ but as a group decision and 3. the council consisted of a plurality of presbyters and elders. I want to first show that the Council itself is a perfect example of the RC conception of conciliar infallibility and then also refute the idea that it was James and not Peter presiding over the council.

Acts 15:28-29: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.”

Do reformed protestants today cite the Holy Spirit when delivering decisions reached by a plurality of elders and presbyters? If so, how is it that the PCA can justify its schism from the PCUSA? I have heard people say before that this council was governed by apostles and so inspired in a way that future councils could not be but this response seems to simplistic in that it assumes the truth of reformed views on cessationism a priori. Scripture is our model for everything, including Church government, and all parties appeal to it for their own views (including yourself in this very post). If Scripture teaches that a council of the Church is authoritative and binding, then it is implausible and unreasonable to assert that no future council can be so simply because it is not conducted by apostles. In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and

“. . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached
by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.” (Acts 16:4)

This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding — with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! This would seem to insinuate infallibility and a irrevocable decision not up for further discussion or dissent. No one was at liberty to disobey these decrees on the grounds of “conscience,” or to declare by “private judgment” that they were in error (per Luther). Far from being evidence for reformed church government I think that we have a prime example of RC (or at least EO) infallible conciliar authority.

Scripture wasn’t written in a vacuum and when one considers the way the ECFs considered future Councils (as infallible and protected by the Holy Spirit) this line of reasoning is only strengthened. Eminent reformed historian Phillip Schaff writes that

The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final.

Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: “What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever.” The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: “The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council.” Pope Leo speaks of an “irretractabilis consensus” of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm.

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342; available online: see this particular portion online: § 65. The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils)

Thus, Tradition stands firmly on the side of the Roman Catholic Church’s view of Acts 15 and its perpetuity as an example for future councils than that of the reformed and their conception of fallible councils and majority opinion.

I would also object to James as “being the one who made the decision”. Carl Olsen supplies evidence that it was actually Peter who presided over the Council of Jerusalem when he writes…

As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says.

Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.

As mentioned, Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)”

He then follows this up with 10 other scriptural evidences of Petrine primacy including…

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), except Galatians 2. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).

2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).

3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2).

4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

9. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.

When one weighs these evidences against Peter “referring to himself as a fellow elder” there doesn’t seem to be much of a controversy. In summary then I find that Acts 15 if used as an example for Church government is a fatal blow to the reformed conception of conciliar fallibility and sola scriptura. Tradition also sides with the RC view of Acts 15 and the idea that the Holy Spirits protection and authoritative stamp would be with all christian councils in perpetuity and not just confined to the pages of the book of Acts. I defy the idea that James presided over the Council of Jerusalem and that Peters self reference as a “fellow presbyter” undoes the mountain of scriptural evidence we have for petrine primacy and the role of binding and loosing given to Peter when he alone obtained the Keys to the Kingdom.