30 replies to this topic

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on Oct 31 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Acts 15 is an example of an ecclesia making non-essential rules about non-doctrinal and non-essential issues. This tells us that ecclesias are free to make such rules. If the rules are made in good faith, with a spiritual motivation (as in the case of Acts 15) then we can and should live with those rules (as Paul instructs) even if we don't agree with them.

No. The content of the letters sent by from Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, goes strongly against what you say:
[indent]Acts 15:23 The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the holy spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.[/indent]
A. This was not the ecclesia at Jerusalem making rules on a "non-doctrinal" issue. The letters were all about an important issue of doctrine, and were sent to oppose the false teaching that Gentile believers had to keep the law of Moses.

B. This was not a "non-essential" issue: "to lay upon you ... these necessary things". Paul in his letter to the Galatians confirms the seriousness of the wrong view that he is opposing: [indent]Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?[/indent]
C. Even if you say the letters came from the Jerusalem ecclesia, this was not an ecclesia making rules for itself. The letter was sent from apostles and elders and brethren from more than one ecclesia, gathered in Jerusalem. It was not written for the believers in Jerusalem, as they were Jews; rather it was sent to Gentile believers in ecclesias elsewhere, specifically, to the Gentile brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.

D. It was not a set of rules made by men of themselves, from their own reasoning alone, even men of good faith, having a "spiritual motivation". They say: "... it seemed good to the holy spirit, and to us ...". The holy spirit was instrumental in the process. This does not correspond to the situation of ecclesias today.

E. Arising from D, the power of what was said was from heaven: it was not a merely human ruling. In the letter to Thyatira, in Revelation 2, the son of God condemns those who allowed two of the things specifically prohibited, in the letters from Jerusalem, to be actively taught and practised by "Jezebel". Fornication and the eating of things offered to idols in Rev 2:20 directly match Acts 15:29 points 1 & 4. He also confirms the authority of those requirements, in himself: [indent]Rev 2:24-25: I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.[/indent]The first part "put upon you no greater burden" directly matches the wording of the letters, Acts 15:28. The "that which ye have" may indeed be a reference to one of those letters.


In summary, for all of the above reasons, Acts 15 has no bearing whatever on the making of any rules by ecclesias today.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 31 October 2009 - 05:00 PM.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 31 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Acts 15 is an example of an ecclesia making non-essential rules about non-doctrinal and non-essential issues. This tells us that ecclesias are free to make such rules. If the rules are made in good faith, with a spiritual motivation (as in the case of Acts 15) then we can and should live with those rules (as Paul instructs) even if we don't agree with them.

No. The content of the letters sent by from Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, goes strongly against what you say:
[indent]Acts 15:23 The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the holy spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.[/indent]
A. This was not the ecclesia at Jerusalem making rules on a "non-doctrinal" issue. The letters were all about an important issue of doctrine, and were sent to oppose the false teaching that Gentile believers had to keep the law of Moses.

B. This was not a "non-essential" issue: "to lay upon you ... these necessary things". Paul in his letter to the Galatians confirms the seriousness of the wrong view that he is opposing: [indent]Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?[/indent]
C. Even if you say the letters came from the Jerusalem ecclesia, this was not an ecclesia making rules for itself. The letter was sent from apostles and elders and brethren from more than one ecclesia, gathered in Jerusalem. It was not written for the believers in Jerusalem, as they were Jews; rather it was sent to Gentile believers in ecclesias elsewhere, specifically, to the Gentile brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.

D. It was not a set of rules made by men of themselves, from their own reasoning alone, even men of good faith, having a "spiritual motivation". They say: "... it seemed good to the holy spirit, and to us ...". The holy spirit was instrumental in the process. This does not correspond to the situation of ecclesias today.

E. Arising from D, the power of what was said was from heaven: it was not a merely human ruling. In the letter to Thyatira, in Revelation 2, the son of God condemns those who allowed two of the things specifically prohibited, in the letters from Jerusalem, to be actively taught and practised by "Jezebel". Fornication and the eating of things offered to idols in Rev 2:20 directly match Acts 15:29 points 1 & 4. He also confirms the authority of those requirements, in himself: [indent]Rev 2:24-25: I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.[/indent]The first part "put upon you no greater burden" directly matches the wording of the letters, Acts 15:28. The "that which ye have" may indeed be a reference to one of those letters.


In summary, for all of the above reasons, Acts 15 has no bearing whatever on the making of any rules by ecclesias today.

Mark, you're conflating two separate issues.

It was necessary to make the rules, for the sake of those with a weak conscience. That's the sense in which Paul uses the word "necessary." But it is not necessary for all Christians to abstain from blood, from things strangled or from things offered to idols. Obviously it is necessary for all Christians to abstain from fornication; that's the only necessary rule. The other three are not necessary.

Paul said it was "necessary to lay upon you these things." He did not say that all of those things were necessary. Three of those rules were completely non-doctrinal, with reference to non-essential issues. Acts 15 is extremely relevant to the making of any rules by ecclesias today. It constitutes both a precedent and a guide.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on Oct 31 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

It was necessary to make the rules, for the sake of those with a weak conscience. That's the sense in which Paul uses the word "necessary." But it is not necessary for all Christians to abstain from blood, from things strangled or from things offered to idols. Obviously it is necessary for all Christians to abstain from fornication; that's the only necessary rule. The other three are not necessary.

I believe it is also entirely necessary for us to abstain from blood! The sense of that I understand to be about the taking of human life (as in Gen 4:10-11, 9:5-6, 2 Chr 22:8, Prov 1:11, Mt 23:30,35, etc), not about eating black pudding or similar, or about transfusions.

Quote

Paul said it was "necessary to lay upon you these things." He did not say that all of those things were necessary.

No. The necessity was in the things themselves - "these necessary things". The Greek does not support the way you render that: I can only assume you've misremembered what it actually says.

Quote

Three of those rules were completely non-doctrinal, with reference to non-essential issues. Acts 15 is extremely relevant to the making of any rules by ecclesias today. It constitutes both a precedent and a guide.

No. You haven't dealt with the several points I made, which show that not to be true.

[Richie]

Mark Taunton, on Oct 31 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

No. The necessity was in the things themselves - "these necessary things". The Greek does not support the way you render that: I can only assume you've misremembered what it actually says.

So we can just apply this legalistically to today? Those things are easy to abstain from.

What's the spirit of it Mark?

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 31 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

It was necessary to make the rules, for the sake of those with a weak conscience. That's the sense in which Paul uses the word "necessary." But it is not necessary for all Christians to abstain from blood, from things strangled or from things offered to idols. Obviously it is necessary for all Christians to abstain from fornication; that's the only necessary rule. The other three are not necessary.

I believe it is also entirely necessary for us to abstain from blood! The sense of that I understand to be about the taking of human life (as in Gen 4:10-11, 9:5-6, 2 Chr 22:8, Prov 1:11, Mt 23:30,35, etc), not about eating black pudding or similar, or about transfusions.

Is that what you think Acts 15 is talking about? Can you provide examples of the Greek phrase here rendered 'abstain from blood' meaning 'don't kill people'?

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 31 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

It was necessary to make the rules, for the sake of those with a weak conscience. That's the sense in which Paul uses the word "necessary." But it is not necessary for all Christians to abstain from blood, from things strangled or from things offered to idols. Obviously it is necessary for all Christians to abstain from fornication; that's the only necessary rule. The other three are not necessary.

I believe it is also entirely necessary for us to abstain from blood! The sense of that I understand to be about the taking of human life (as in Gen 4:10-11, 9:5-6, 2 Chr 22:8, Prov 1:11, Mt 23:30,35, etc), not about eating black pudding or similar, or about transfusions.

Mark, that is a frankly bizarre interpretation. "Abstain from blood" means "don't eat stuff with blood in it." It doesn't mean "don't kill people."

Quote

Quote

Paul said it was "necessary to lay upon you these things." He did not say that all of those things were necessary.

No. The necessity was in the things themselves - "these necessary things". The Greek does not support the way you render that: I can only assume you've misremembered what it actually says.

I refer you to my previous argument.

What is necessary about refusing food offered to idols, and things strangled? Are these necessary for today's Christians?

Quote

Quote

Three of those rules were completely non-doctrinal, with reference to non-essential issues. Acts 15 is extremely relevant to the making of any rules by ecclesias today. It constitutes both a precedent and a guide.

No. You haven't dealt with the several points I made, which show that not to be true.

None of your points have shown anything of the sort, and I have dealt with them.

[Flappie]

Acts 15:19-21
“Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Every version I've looked has v21 starting with "for", so what follows in v21 is the reason for what is said in v20.

The reason for these necessary things is the fact that the law had been read every sabbath from ancient times. The reason is not the fact that the law said these things were sinful, but because that law had been read or heard by everyone who went to the synagogues. The law is full of references to idolatry, immorality and blood. For people who had been hearing for most of their life that these things were wrong to see their brothers doing exactly those things would not be a pleasant experience.

[BDW]

Quote

The word "eat" does not occur in "abstain from blood". I referred to several passages (and there are plenty more) where the significance of blood is not about whether to eat it or not, but about the taking of human life.

The word "kill" or "shed" doesn't occur in abstain from blood either. The passages you provided don't really support your point. They talk about bloodshed but that doesn't prove your point. One could also put forward many passages from the OT against eating animals with the blood so your point doesn't really stand as far as I can see.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on Nov 1 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 31 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

It was necessary to make the rules, for the sake of those with a weak conscience. That's the sense in which Paul uses the word "necessary." But it is not necessary for all Christians to abstain from blood, from things strangled or from things offered to idols. Obviously it is necessary for all Christians to abstain from fornication; that's the only necessary rule. The other three are not necessary.

I believe it is also entirely necessary for us to abstain from blood! The sense of that I understand to be about the taking of human life (as in Gen 4:10-11, 9:5-6, 2 Chr 22:8, Prov 1:11, Mt 23:30,35, etc), not about eating black pudding or similar, or about transfusions.

Mark, that is a frankly bizarre interpretation. "Abstain from blood" means "don't eat stuff with blood in it." It doesn't mean "don't kill people."

The word "eat" does not occur in "abstain from blood". I referred to several passages (see above, and there are plenty more) where the significance of blood is not about whether to eat it or not, but about the taking of human life. (Note the "do well" in Acts 15:29, alluding to Gen 4:7 as a warning by contrast - Cain did not "do well": he spilled the blood of his righteous brother.)

Quote

Quote

Quote

Paul said it was "necessary to lay upon you these things." He did not say that all of those things were necessary.

No. The necessity was in the things themselves - "these necessary things". The Greek does not support the way you render that: I can only assume you've misremembered what it actually says.

I refer you to my previous argument.

What is necessary about refusing food offered to idols, and things strangled? Are these necessary for today's Christians?

The letters were written to Gentile brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, and have been preserved in scripture. They were certainly necessary for their recipients. Indeed, Paul repeats one of the instructions specifically to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 10:28. (From the context there, if the brethren did not know that the food had been offered to idols, it was to be eaten without raising the question. If they did know, it was not to be eaten - the instruction is clear. The instruction in Act 15:28 is clearly pertinent to the latter case, since the definition of what was to be abstained from was "food offered to idols", i.e. something definitely in that category.)

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three of those rules were completely non-doctrinal, with reference to non-essential issues. Acts 15 is extremely relevant to the making of any rules by ecclesias today. It constitutes both a precedent and a guide.

No. You haven't dealt with the several points I made, which show that not to be true.

None of your points have shown anything of the sort, and I have dealt with them.

Not so. You have done little more than make assertions partly contrary to my points A and B, while at the same time accepting part of point A, against your own earlier position that it was all non-doctrinal, non-essential. You haven't even mentioned the rest of my points, far less disproved them.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 01 November 2009 - 08:42 AM.

[Flappie]

That's like saying "Abstain from wine" means "Don't work in a vineyard" rather than "Don't drink wine".

Seriously, I'm not sure how you can even quote Genesis 9:5-6 without v4, which is what the verse in Acts is about.

Edited by Flappie, 02 November 2009 - 10:52 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 04:30 PM, said:

The word "eat" does not occur in "abstain from blood".

So what? Neither does the word 'kill', or 'take life', as BDW pointed out. What's important is the meaning of the phrase 'abstain from blood'.

Quote

I referred to several passages (see above, and there are plenty more) where the significance of blood is not about whether to eat it or not, but about the taking of human life.

But this doesn't prove that the phrase 'abstain from blood' in Acts 15 is not about whether or not to eat it. Did any of the passages you cited contain the Greek phrase here translated 'abstain from blood'?

Quote

(Note the "do well" in Acts 15:29, alluding to Gen 4:7 as a warning by contrast - Cain did not "do well": he spilled the blood of his righteous brother.)

The allusion is of your own making.

[Mark Taunton]

Flappie, on Nov 1 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

That's like saying "Abstain from wine" means "Don't work in a vineyard" rather than "Don't drink wine".

I fail to see that. See below.

Quote

Seriously, I'm not sure how you can even quote Genesis 9:5-6, but pretend v4 of that same chapter has nothing to do with it.

Yes I should have included v4, but it doesn't change anything about the argument. You can't eat the meat of a living thing, with the blood still in it, unless it has been killed. Eating a man's blood requires first taking away his life, which is vv5-6 warn against. The eating part is a consequence of the killing - it's not a separate issue at all.

But this is getting well off the primary point. The instructions in Acts 15 are still as valid and correct today as they were in the 1st century, regardless of how often they may actually need to be applied. That is because they come not from just men, but by the holy spirit. We in western culture are unlikely to encounter food that has been offered to false gods, but if we did, and that was a fact of the matter, known to us and those around us, we should not eat it.

The point remains: it is wrong and unjustified to to assert the validity of ecclesias making up their own rules, from Acts 15.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Nov 1 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 31 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

It was necessary to make the rules, for the sake of those with a weak conscience. That's the sense in which Paul uses the word "necessary." But it is not necessary for all Christians to abstain from blood, from things strangled or from things offered to idols. Obviously it is necessary for all Christians to abstain from fornication; that's the only necessary rule. The other three are not necessary.

I believe it is also entirely necessary for us to abstain from blood! The sense of that I understand to be about the taking of human life (as in Gen 4:10-11, 9:5-6, 2 Chr 22:8, Prov 1:11, Mt 23:30,35, etc), not about eating black pudding or similar, or about transfusions.

Mark, that is a frankly bizarre interpretation. "Abstain from blood" means "don't eat stuff with blood in it." It doesn't mean "don't kill people."

The word "eat" does not occur in "abstain from blood". I referred to several passages (see above, and there are plenty more) where the significance of blood is not about whether to eat it or not, but about the taking of human life. (Note the "do well" in Acts 15:29, alluding to Gen 4:7 as a warning by contrast - Cain did not "do well": he spilled the blood of his righteous brother.)

Quote

Quote

Quote

Paul said it was "necessary to lay upon you these things." He did not say that all of those things were necessary.

No. The necessity was in the things themselves - "these necessary things". The Greek does not support the way you render that: I can only assume you've misremembered what it actually says.

I refer you to my previous argument.

What is necessary about refusing food offered to idols, and things strangled? Are these necessary for today's Christians?

The letters were written to Gentile brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, and have been preserved in scripture. They were certainly necessary for their recipients. Indeed, Paul repeats one of the instructions specifically to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 10:28. (From the context there, if the brethren did not know that the food had been offered to idols, it was to be eaten without raising the question. If they did know, it was not to be eaten - the instruction is clear. The instruction in Act 15:28 is clearly pertinent to the latter case, since the definition of what was to be abstained from was "food offered to idols", i.e. something definitely in that category.)

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three of those rules were completely non-doctrinal, with reference to non-essential issues. Acts 15 is extremely relevant to the making of any rules by ecclesias today. It constitutes both a precedent and a guide.

No. You haven't dealt with the several points I made, which show that not to be true.

None of your points have shown anything of the sort, and I have dealt with them.

Not so. You have done little more than make assertions partly contrary to my points A and B, while at the same time accepting part of point A, against your own earlier position that it was all non-doctrinal, non-essential. You haven't even mentioned the rest of my points, far less disproved them.

Mark, I am flabbergasted to say the least.

If you think "abstain from blood" means "don't commit murder", what on earth do you think "abstain from things strangled" means?

[Flappie]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 1 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

But this is getting well off the primary point. The instructions in Acts 15 are still as valid and correct today as they were in the 1st century, regardless of how often they may actually need to be applied. That is because they come not from just men, but by the holy spirit. We in western culture are unlikely to encounter food that has been offered to false gods, but if we did, and that was a fact of the matter, known to us and those around us, we should not eat it.

The point remains: it is wrong and unjustified to to assert the validity of ecclesias making up their own rules, from Acts 15.

See my post near the bottom of the previous page. 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14, both most likely written AFTER the events of Acts 15, say that eating meat offered to idols was perfectly fine if your conscience, and that of those around you, allowed it. Now, unlike you apparently, I don't believe Paul is in conflict with the decision made by James.

Edited by Flappie, 01 November 2009 - 10:47 AM.

[Dawn]

Mark - I do think Acts 15 is a piece of "Community Cohesion" ecclesial legislation for that particular era to help Jewish believers and gentile believers get along with each other. Most Christians and Christadelphians today will balk at the idea that it applies to them now in the 21st century the same way as it did then in the early church.

Same as in Paul's letters - Paul would make a great community cohesion officer: for example his advice about eating of meats, and on male and female head coverings etc: all to do with helping brethren and sisters from different cultures adapt to each other in non-essential items 1900 years ago. Same with trousers. In some countries it is immodest for a woman to wear a dress or skirt.

It is all about being culturally adaptable where different cultures are thrown together in an ecclesia - something a lot of Christadelphians never have to experience.

[daysha]

Evangelion, on Nov 1 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

If you think "abstain from blood" means "don't commit murder", what on earth do you think "abstain from things strangled" means?

It doesn't say that the 'things' (whatever/whoever) were strangled to the point of death. The 'things' (whatever/whoever) might have just gone unconscious & gotten a very sore neck.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on Nov 1 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

Mark, I am flabbergasted to say the least.

If you think "abstain from blood" means "don't commit murder", what on earth do you think "abstain from things strangled" means?

Ev, please will you first address the much more basic issues that I identified? The precise meaning of the Greek word 'pniktos' (translated as "things strangled") is hardly the critical issue here!

You are capable of good work on scriptural questions - there are plenty of fine examples from you on BTDF. But here I believe you are quite wrong, in the use you say Acts 15 can be put to. You need to explain how all of my points A..E (in this post of mine) are incorrect. (And since my argument is directly based on scriptural statements and principles, your counter argument must also be.) Until and unless you do that, I will maintain my position that using Acts 15 in the way you do, to justify the idea that ecclesias are entitled to make up rules for themselves, is wrong.

(Of course some adjustment is needed in your position anyway. You have already accepted that one of the prohibited things - fornication - is indeed serious, not "non-essential" as you earlier implied. That admission invalidates your original statement which I took issue with. So I don't understand what you could consistently claim about all this, while retaining your earlier view in any substantial way.)

[Flappie]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 2 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Nov 1 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

Mark, I am flabbergasted to say the least.

If you think "abstain from blood" means "don't commit murder", what on earth do you think "abstain from things strangled" means?

Ev, please will you first address the much more basic issues that I identified? The precise meaning of the Greek word 'pniktos' (translated as "things strangled") is hardly the critical issue here!

The critical issue here is that you don't understand why that decision was made, work on that first before you start criticising Ev's view on the relevance of the letter to us today.

[Mark Taunton]

Richie, on Nov 1 2009, 02:21 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Oct 31 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

No. The necessity was in the things themselves - "these necessary things". The Greek does not support the way you render that: I can only assume you've misremembered what it actually says.

So we can just apply this legalistically to today? Those things are easy to abstain from.

The word "legalistically" is one you have put in, Richie. It doesn't come in Acts 15, or in what I say. It is a faulty mode of argument to apply it here.

Is heeding the instruction to abstain from fornication merely being "legalistic"? Joseph was not being "legalistic" in resisting the advances of his master's wife! And was that "easy" for him? I hardly think so, especially not in his late teens: I am sure testosterone was as active in him as it is in any other young man. Abstaining from fornication is something we are told very clearly to do, and not just in one place, but many times over. That was not a mere "local ecclesial rule" - not at all.

The condemnation of those who paid no regard to two of those Acts 15 prohibitions, both in Pergamos (Rev 2:14-16) and in Thyatira (2:20-24) is explicit and harsh. Repentance and a change of heart was essential, else they would be destroyed. These are absolutely not "non-doctrinal, non-essential issues"! So yes, we can equally apply the teaching of those letters today, if and when the relevant circumstances arise. One of them in particular does comes up frequently, for many brothers and sisters (especially younger ones) in the morally depraved society that surrounds us, even if the others are less obviously an issue for most of us today.

Quote

What's the spirit of it Mark?

The spirit of it quite plain: for Gentile believers, wherever they are, by their actions to give no offence (cause of stumbling) to anyone, Jew or Gentile. Those brethren to whom the letters came could, by the authority of those letters, resist and oppose the false and destructive claims of the Judaizers who sought their circumcision and full compliance with the law of Moses. Yet despite not being under that law, the instructions those Gentile brethren were given are directly in keeping with the spirit and principles of the law (see Rom 2:11-16). They were not lawless, but, like Paul, and like us, under the law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21).

[Mark Taunton]

Flappie, on Nov 1 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

The critical issue here is that you don't understand why that decision was made, work on that first before you start criticising Ev's view on the relevance of the letter to us today.

On the contrary: I understand the decisions and the reason they were made. That is spelled out plainly in Acts 15 - the Pharisaical attempts to impose circumcision and adherence to the law of Moses on Gentile believers. That is a false doctrine, and was specifically opposed by the spirit-directed teaching evident in the mouth of the apostles, and in the words of the letters that were sent out.

What I am criticising is the misapplication of a scriptural context which has very clear and significant detail explaining the seriousness of the issues, to justify something of a very different character, namely the idea that individual ecclesias are entitled to make up their own "rules", and impose them both on their own members and on visiting brethren and sisters. Acts 15 has absolutely no bearing on that, for the multiple scripturally-defined reasons I gave. If you wish to dispute this, please deal with the specific points I made in that earlier post.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 2 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

Ev, please will you first address the much more basic issues that I identified?

I honestly didn't think they needed one. In any case, I am still waiting for you to address the points I have made.

Quote

The precise meaning of the Greek word 'pniktos' (translated as "things strangled") is hardly the critical issue here!

I repeat: you have said that "abstain from blood" means "abstain from murder." I have asked you what you think "abstain from things strangled" means. Please tell me, and please address my other points.

Quote

You are capable of good work on scriptural questions - there are plenty of fine examples from you on BTDF. But here I believe you are quite wrong, in the use you say Acts 15 can be put to. You need to explain how all of my points A..E (in this post of mine) are incorrect. (And since my argument is directly based on scriptural statements and principles, your counter argument must also be.) Until and unless you do that, I will maintain my position that using Acts 15 in the way you do, to justify the idea that ecclesias are entitled to make up rules for themselves, is wrong.

OK, let's do that.

Quote

A. This was not the ecclesia at Jerusalem making rules on a "non-doctrinal" issue. The letters were all about an important issue of doctrine, and were sent to oppose the false teaching that Gentile believers had to keep the law of Moses.

Here you are either missing my point or avoiding it. Yes, they were dealing with the false teaching that the Gentile believers had to keep the Law of Moses. Yes, that's an essential doctrinal issue. But I never denied this. What I said was that they made some non-essential rules for the benefit of those still struggling with the issue. And they very helpfully list those non-essential rules for us. You have claimed that these rules are all essential. I do not claim that they are all non-essential, but I do argue that most of them are and the Scripture bears witness to this fact. You have demonstrated a curious reluctance to discuss the issues, aside from claiming that "abstain from blood" means "do not murder."

Quote

B. This was not a "non-essential" issue: "to lay upon you ... these necessary things". Paul in his letter to the Galatians confirms the seriousness of the wrong view that he is opposing:

Here you do the same thing again: you conflate two separate parts of the argument, as if they are one and the same. In any case, I have already dealt with this particular point of yours, so I will simply repeat what I said in post #323:

It was necessary to make the rules, for the sake of those with a weak conscience. That's the sense in which Paul uses the word "necessary." But it is not necessary for all Christians to abstain from blood, from things strangled or from things offered to idols. Obviously it is necessary for all Christians to abstain from fornication; that's the only necessary rule. The other three are not necessary.

Paul said it was "necessary to lay upon you these things." He did not say that all of those things were necessary. Three of those rules were completely non-doctrinal, with reference to non-essential issues. Acts 15 is extremely relevant to the making of any rules by ecclesias today. It constitutes both a precedent and a guide.

Quote

C. Even if you say the letters came from the Jerusalem ecclesia, this was not an ecclesia making rules for itself. The letter was sent from apostles and elders and brethren from more than one ecclesia, gathered in Jerusalem.

Irrelevant. It provides a precedent for the introduction of non-essential ecclesial rules. Mark, do you believe that it is prohibited for ecclesias to introduce non-essential rules? Do you believe we are not permitted to introduce non-essential rules of any kind? Please tell me your position on this.

Quote

D. It was not a set of rules made by men of themselves, from their own reasoning alone, even men of good faith, having a "spiritual motivation". They say: "... it seemed good to the holy spirit, and to us ...". The holy spirit was instrumental in the process. This does not correspond to the situation of ecclesias today.

It was from their own reasoning. The issue was resolved after considerable disagreement and debate by a large body of stakeholders. There is no record of anyone praying for guidance. They reached a unanimous decision and they were able to discern through the Holy Spirit that this decision was the right one. The Holy Spirit confirmed their decision; it did not appear to guide it. Paul makes the same claim in one of his letters:

[indent]
I Corinthians 7:40
But in my opinion, she will be happier if she remains as she is — and I think that I too have the Spirit of God!
[/indent]

Notice the distinction: "My opinion... I think that I too have the Spirit of God."

We do not have the Holy Spirit today, but this does not preclude or prohibit us from making non-essential rules for everyday ecclesial life.

Quote

E. Arising from D, the power of what was said was from heaven: it was not a merely human ruling.

It was a human ruling endorsed by God after lengthy discussion and debate. Nothing wrong with that. I don't see the relevance of your Revelation 2 quote. It certainly does not prove that the decision made by the apostles was not the result of their own reasoning.

Quote

(Of course some adjustment is needed in your position anyway. You have already accepted that one of the prohibited things - fornication - is indeed serious, not "non-essential" as you earlier implied. That admission invalidates your original statement which I took issue with. So I don't understand what you could consistently claim about all this, while retaining your earlier view in any substantial way.)

It doesn't invalidate anything. I said that they had made rules on non-essential issues, and they did. It is laughable to argue that just because one issue isn't non-essential, I cannot claim that the others are non-essential. Ironically, you have claimed that all the rules were essential. But how do you intend to prove this? We're still waiting to find out.

[Flappie]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 2 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Flappie, on Nov 1 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

The critical issue here is that you don't understand why that decision was made, work on that first before you start criticising Ev's view on the relevance of the letter to us today.

On the contrary: I understand the decisions and the reason they were made. That is spelled out plainly in Acts 15 - the Pharisaical attempts to impose circumcision and adherence to the law of Moses on Gentile believers. That is a false doctrine, and was specifically opposed by the spirit-directed teaching evident in the mouth of the apostles, and in the words of the letters that were sent out.

No you don't. You understand why a decision had to be made, why the conference took place. You do not understand why gentiles were prohibited from doing those four things, as can be seen from your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word blood here.

[Mark Taunton]

This discussion, which is about the subject of rules (e.g. about what can and cannot be worn for ecclesial meetings), and whether ecclesias are scripturally justified in making and imposing them, has been removed from its original thread, despite being entirely relevant to that thread. Instead it has been placed in a quite separate part of the forum, under a different heading which gives no clue as to the primary subject and context in which it was raised.

It was Ev who raised Acts 15 as justification for ecclesias making their own rules on such things. I challenged his view on this, directly in context and appropriate to the thread. Yet his original comment which includes his claims about the applicability of Acts 15 to this issue, has not been moved. Anyone reading that thread now will have no clue that anyone even disagrees with Ev's position as stated there, far less that there is a clear scriptural case against it.

Can I have an explanation for this? Do the rules of this forum require that I be given an answer to this point? Or is there a rule that I can simply be ignored?

Paul talks about man-made rules (as did the Lord Jesus before him). What he says is hardly complimentary:

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

[Dawn]

Mark - don't you think that the early church had to deal with situations which today's ecclesia will never have to deal with again though? The early church was predominantly Jewish. Today it is almost totally Gentile. Acts 15 was dealing with a situation concerning Jewish domination of the worldwide ecclesia which just does not apply today?

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 3 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

This discussion, which is about the subject of rules (e.g. about what can and cannot be worn for ecclesial meetings), and whether ecclesias are scripturally justified in making and imposing them, has been removed from its original thread, despite being entirely relevant to that thread. Instead it has been placed in a quite separate part of the forum, under a different heading which gives no clue as to the primary subject and context in which it was raised.

It was Ev who raised Acts 15 as justification for ecclesias making their own rules on such things. I challenged his view on this, directly in context and appropriate to the thread. Yet his original comment which includes his claims about the applicability of Acts 15 to this issue, has not been moved. Anyone reading that thread now will have no clue that anyone even disagrees with Ev's position as stated there, far less that there is a clear scriptural case against it.

Can I have an explanation for this? Do the rules of this forum require that I be given an answer to this point? Or is there a rule that I can simply be ignored?

A moderator has split this thread in the place that he or she deemed most appropriate. If you want the threads rearranged again, I suggest you take it up with the Moderating Team. It's nothing to do with me.

Quote

Paul talks about man-made rules (as did the Lord Jesus before him). What he says is hardly complimentary:

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

So... are you going to address my responses and answer my questions, or not?

[Mercia2]

I have said nothing about trowsers until now. I speak as a non Christadelphian friend of Christadelphians. This must end. People should just judge themselves and care not what other people want to wear and if they do then the problems with them. Furthermore, the men and women (especially the women), should have zero tolerance against such nonsense. These people are gravely missing the mark and risking alienating people from Christ because they want to be profoundly shallow and bicker about clothes. Also, it is not the same as suffering people not eatng meat sacrificed to other gods, it is NOWHERE near the same, as that is a misguided but honourable matter of spiritual concounce. whether people have trowsers on is not. Unless people are doing it to make some militant feminist point which I am sure they are not then it is just more comfortable and practical. It is unChristlike not to end this now.

Edited by Mercia2, 02 November 2009 - 10:52 PM.

[Mark Taunton]

Dawn, on Nov 2 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

Mark - don't you think that the early church had to deal with situations which today's ecclesia will never have to deal with again though? The early church was predominantly Jewish. Today it is almost totally Gentile.

Not altogether, no. Although not many, there are Jews who believe, today. For example, there's an ecclesia in Israel today, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. We have Jewish brethren and sisters in other places also (I know a few), in ecclesias that are of course mostly non-Jewish. But that's a different point from the main issue here.

With regard to what was taught in the letters described in Acts 15, what I said is that:

Quote

... we can equally apply the teaching of those letters today, if and when the relevant circumstances arise. One of them in particular does comes up frequently, for many brothers and sisters (especially younger ones) in the morally depraved society that surrounds us, even if the others are less obviously an issue for most of us today.

and I stand by that.

Quote

Acts 15 was dealing with a situation concerning Jewish domination of the worldwide ecclesia which just does not apply today?

But the ecclesia in all ages is to be subject, not to people of any particular ethnic group (since that has no bearing on who can believe and be saved, or who can be wise, to teach and guide the ecclesia) but to God, through Christ, by the direction of the holy spirit which spoke in the appointed apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. The fact that the apostles were Jewish is irrelevant in that regard.

Moreover, the early church was not just Jews here, Gentiles there, but in many places a mix of Jews and Gentiles, and in some case that was why problems arose. The Judaizers in NT times attempted to impose "Jewish domination" in the sense of requiring Gentiles effectively to become Jewish proselytes. (They were wrong, of course.) And no, we don't see much of that today, in the direct sense - I've never had a brother tell me to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. But the type of problem such efforts represent has not disappeared, and the spirit and principles of the teaching which opposed it and defends against it, as given in Acts 15, are all just as applicable.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 02 November 2009 - 11:17 PM.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on Nov 2 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

A moderator has split this thread in the place that he or she deemed most appropriate. If you want the threads rearranged again, I suggest you take it up with the Moderating Team. It's nothing to do with me.

I see it was Flappie. With reference to the posts now put separately here he said: "I ... filed them away".

By contrast, when Jeremy recently split up one thread into two, he was explicit that he was keeping it in the same section of the forum as the parent thread, of necessity as he saw it. Perhaps mods need to agree what the rules on this sort of thing actually are?

Quote

So... are you going to address my responses and answer my questions, or not?

When you have dealt with all of what I said in my original post. Although you addressed some aspects from each section A..E, you left several significant parts out, and did not address them. And even in what you have said so far, simply asserting something as "irrelevant" is not an adequate response - that detail alone was entirely relevant to refuting your claim, all by itself. It is far from "irrelevant".

Edited by Mark Taunton, 02 November 2009 - 11:15 PM.

[Dawn]

Good points Mark - I guess I can see your point of view for if we say and believe Acts 15 is all about eclesias making up their own rules then we are hypocrites if we criticise ecclesias like GFC I guess. ......hmmmm....need to think about it a bit more.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Nov 3 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Nov 2 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

A moderator has split this thread in the place that he or she deemed most appropriate. If you want the threads rearranged again, I suggest you take it up with the Moderating Team. It's nothing to do with me.

I see it was Flappie. With reference to the posts now put separately here he said: "I ... filed them away".

By contrast, when Jeremy recently split up one thread into two, he was explicit that he was keeping it in the same section of the forum as the parent thread, of necessity as he saw it. Perhaps mods need to agree what the rules on this sort of thing actually are?

As I said: take it up with the Mods. There are no specific rules about how to split a thread. It's left to their own discretion.

Quote

Quote

So... are you going to address my responses and answer my questions, or not?

When you have dealt with all of what I said in my original post. Although you addressed some aspects from each section A..E, you left several significant parts out, and did not address them. And even in what you have said so far, simply asserting something as "irrelevant" is not an adequate response - that detail alone was entirely relevant to refuting your claim, all by itself. It is far from "irrelevant".

Mark, you are really reaching here. I took great care to highlight (in red bold text) the primary thrust of each point you had made, so you could clearly see that I understood the argument you were presenting and addressed it specifically. I did not bother to copy/paste your entire argument because I do not believe in filling the screen with unnecessary text. But you can see from my responses that your arguments were fully and more than adequately addressed.

If you think you can wave a magic wand and make my arguments go away just because I didn't copy/paste everything you wrote, you are very much mistaken. There was nothing in the text which was left out, which was not encompassed by the responses I gave.

Yes, asserting that something is irrelevant is an adequate response, particularly when I show why it is irrelevant (as I have done). Imagine if I ask you to address Exodus 3:14 and you reply "The temperature in Adelaide right now is 20°C." If I then say "That's irrelevant", will you tell me that's not an adequate response?

Acts 15 provides a precedent for the introduction of non-essential rules. That's why it has direct applicability today. To say "Well, this wasn't a case of an ecclesia making those rules" is to miss the point and take refuge in legalism. It is also irrelevant. What's relevant is the point that non-essential rules were given by men whose decision was divinely sanctioned.