THE PIVOT POINT

Acts 15

Remember that time you were introduced to someone, and that someone changed your life? Or that time you chose a job in this state rather than a very different one? Pivot points crop up in life. The decision made then determines a huge amount of your future. The early church had come to that point.

Remember two weeks ago I wrote an introduction to the Book o f Acts. I told of the Faith beginning with 120 people filled with the Holy Spirit, who hit the streets and changed the world by thousands at a time. By the end of the book, the Gospel is being preached in the capital of the Roman Empire unhindered. Along the way, we discover how God led His people away from being a privileged few to an open altar call of “Whosoever will may come and take of the water of life freely and without cost.” Today's lesson hits at a critical point, and a decision shared by a group that seemed to be the pillars at the center of the young church.

The early church began in many people's minds as an off-shoot of Judaism. They considered it branch of Judaism. After all, they had Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (of the Dead Sea Scrolls). And they were all Jews. They differed on some things, but had a core set of beliefs for all of them: circumcision, sacrifices, and certain dietary laws, for example.

But a problem emerged as the Gospel began to spread. Some of the Christians came from Gentiles. They were not circumcised and they did not follow the Jewish dietary laws. In addition they came from a background with a very different morality. So some of those who objected and believed one had to become a Jew first and then a Christian, began to stir up dissent. They would follow Paul and Barnabas into various towns and begin to teach the new Christians they

needed to be circumcised.

Paul makes very clear in his writings that salvation comes by grace through faith without works. The changed life produces works, but a very different kind of works. The Judaisers are talking about keeping the Law, including circumcision and dietary laws. But Paul means works such as service to people stemming from God's transformation. See Ephesians 2:8-10.

Sometimes the Jewish opponents became violent, even to the point of stoning Paul and running him and his crew out of town. When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from where they had started, they were well received. As they related their successes, Then the Christians in their home base rejoiced. But word reached the church at Jerusalem that They were preaching and baptizing Gentiles without requiring circumcision or other observances.

Meantime a group of these Judaizers (as they were called) had come to Antioch to teach circumcision. That got Paul and Barnabas bent all out of shape and they contradicted these men, and a “church fight” ensued. To solve the squabble, the Antioch Church sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem along with some others to ask some of Jesus's original Twelve how they understood the Gospel.

Along the way, they told their stories of God's great salvation transforming many Jews and Gentiles in different cities in “Asia” (mostly part of what we call Turkey today). In 15:4 Luke tells us they were well received by the “apostles and elders.” They told their story.

Thena group, who were Pharisees and Christians combined insisted that the new Christians must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. Apparently they discussed the issue back and forth for a good while. Finally, Peter stood up and reminded them of his experience with the Roman Centurion. On that occasion he witnessed an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that took him back to the Spirit's coming on the day of Pentecost. He said that God knows our hearts, and if He confirmed their conversion without requiring more, that what right do we have to “place that burden on them?”

Paul and Barnabas continued to add the signs and wonders they had witnessed as God moved among the Gentiles. Jesus's brother James then stood and pointed out that it had always been God's intention to offer salvation to all. He quoted scripture to prove it. (Note the early church valued what we call the Old Testament.) James then proposed a sort of compromise. He stated four things he – and presumably the others – considered important and suggested writing a letter to the churches asking four things of them:

1 – Abstain from food offered to idols.

2 – Abstain from sexual immorality

3 - From eating meat from animals killed by strangling (probably because of the importance of blood being spilled).

4 – And from blood, which was offered to the Lord. There goes my rare steaks!

The group agreed and further decided to send some men back to Antioch with the missionaries to confirm what they had said. They carried with them the letter you can read in verses 23-29.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COUNCIL...

1 – It settled that only acceptance of the gospel was necessary to become a Christian. Neither circumcision, nor observance of the Jewish law was required.

2 – The Judaizing issue was settle.

3 – The argument from experience was laid alongside Scripture that explained it.

4 – At least two of the Twelve who had been with Jesus, probably more, agreed Paul and Barnabas had it right. Scholars consider James the leader at Jerusalem.

5 – The possible establishment of the Council idea and principle. The history of the church, especially the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, established a great deal of official doctrine through Councils, such as Nicaea. But was this idea correct?

Suppose for example that Peter and James had ruled that Gentiles must be circumcised also, do you think Paul would have accepted this. Or would he have said, as Luther did 1500 years later, “Here I stand. I can do not other?” I for one believe that had Paul not got their approval, he would have told that Council at Jerusalem, That they were wrong, and he would continue to baptize the uncircumcised.

Baptists, by the way, have been strong supporters of the “Priesthood of the Believers.” Until around 1970 that doctrine meant that we did not have to go through any priest, church, or creed to get to God. Rather we could go directly to Him . Our beliefs come from the Bible as interpreted by the individual believer, and there is no creed but the Bible.

A “conservative resurgence in the SBC from about 1970 til now has moved away from that idea and given more authority to The Baptist Faith and Message than any previous confession of faith. From Baptist origins in the 17^th century until the late 20^th, our theology was in reaction to the Catholic church. But the Second Vatican Counsel made significant churches to the Catholic approach to laity and the world. Taking their place as the foil for SBC doctrine was modernism: Evolution, the “Big Bang,” and certain forms of Biblical criticism. Thus the shift from a loose interpretation of the individual's priesthood to a more authoritative creed-like structure in an effort to clarify and assure our conservative stance.

It is instructive to read and compare the 1963 and 2000 versions of that document, voted on by the SBC in session. I consider the intrduction to 1963 among the greatest doctrinal statements in Baptist History.