Example of Doctrinal Conflict Resolution - Acts 15
by Dave Brown
Return to the Bible Authority landing page
Introduction
There are two types of conflicts that occur among Christians: personal and doctrinal. This article deals with doctrinal conflicts, or in other words, issues regarding what should be taught, practiced and thus bound within the local church. The subject of personal conflicts and their resolution is given in Matthew 18:15-17. If this procedure would be applied to the maximum extent possible to resolve personal conflicts that would all be resolved one way or the other. Unresolved personal conflicts can tear up a local church and thus it is a grave sin not to practice the remedy of Mt. 18:15-17. If one decides for whatever reason not to do what it says there, then that person should resolve to never bring up the perceived wrong again, for any other action will have far more grave consequences than just taking wrong (reference 1 Cor. 6:7).
We feel it is no coincidence that Acts 15 contains both an example of a doctrinal issue (circumcision and keeping the Old Testament law), and a person issue that arose between Paul and Barnabas over whether they should take John Mark on the second missionary journey. The contrast between how these two types of issues are handled is a very interesting study that will not be covered here, but we encourage the reader to study Acts 15 from this perspective. See the discussion in Acts 11-15.
In this article we wish to enlarge upon our study of authority by considering how it applies to doctrinal conflict resolution. The two are not mutually exclusive since quite often personality issues will surface under the guise of doctrinal issues. In fact, rarely is a point of doctrine really the issue. In Acts 15, for example, circumcision was the doctrinal issue that was masking an attempt to grab power in the church on the part of the Judaizing Christians (those who felt that they would have much more power in the church if they could bind the Old Testament law). We see jealousy motivating very similar actions from opponents outside of the early church (Acts 5:17). And we see the persistence of those who taught this error referenced in Acts 21.
Conflict Resolution — Doctrinal Matters
Doctrinal conflict is not a subject foreign to the New Testament. The first question that should be asked is: should we even be concerned about doctrinal matters? Why not just live and let live? Let us take a lesson from Paul as recorded in Acts 15:1-2: “And some men came down from Judea and (began) teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, (the brethren) determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.”
Paul and Barnabas could have said, “Well, this is just your opinion and we agree to disagree. So you go your way and we will go ours, and we will act like there are no differences among us.” But that is not what they did. They immediately went about resolving the issue so that they could preserve the unity for which our Savior prayed (Jn. 17:23). (It is interesting that "agreeing to disagree" was exactly what they did when it came to their personal disagreement, which had nothing to do with doctrine, and it did not affect the church in either Jerusalem or Antioch.)
It is often stated that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to find out the truth on this matter. This is clearly not so. This issue had previously been raised in Jerusalem and it had been resolved there as recorded in Acts 11 based upon Peter's experiences as well as the witnesses who went with him described in Acts 10. So the apostles as well as Paul and Barnabas already knew the truth on this issue, and they taught that truth during the first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14) and on their way to Jerusalem (Acts 15:3). Thus, their goal was mainly to inform the apostles in Jerusalem of what these false teachers were saying. It would also tend to validate their teaching so there would be no doubt in anyone's mind.
When Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem, they found that the source of the problem were some Pharisaic Christians who were teaching the keeping of Moses’ law (Acts 15:4).
The Issue Resolved - An Approved Apostolic Example
Acts 15 serves not only as a history of the early church, but also as an example to us so that we can follow the pattern established by the apostles who were being guided by the Holy Spirit. We might ask, “Why did the Holy Spirit not just give them the answer miraculously and let it go at that?” Answer: He did — read Acts 10 and 11. So, there was no reason to reveal it over and over again. This in itself is a principle of revelation -- once something is revealed God expects us to draw from what is established, not to seek for additional revelation, which at this point would not be necessary. We see this principle illustrated throughout the bible.
The elders and apostles of the church who gathered together were facing the exact same problem that we face today: how to resolve doctrinal conflict over things already revealed. So we can see even clearer how this example would apply to us. Authority for any doctrine can be established from scripture in only three ways that this was accomplished:
1. Recognition of direct command (Acts 15:7-11). Peter told them about the direct command that he had received (again, review Acts 10-11).
2. Approved apostolic example (Acts 15:12). Paul and Barnabas related what God had done through them, in accepting Gentiles without circumcision. This was confirmed by miracles. This was verified truth when they accomplished these things (Acts 13-14), so it further verified God’s will on this matter.
3. Necessary implication. James then gave a quotation from the Old Testament (Amos 9:11-12): “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, ...” Is there anything in this passage about circumcision? Yet, James is applying it to that. Why? Because the necessary implication of the passage is that the Gentiles would be acceptable to God directly and not through becoming proselyted into the Jewish nation. Thus, circumcision was absolutely not to be a requirement of their salvation. To impose it was to bind where God had not bound and to impose an unnecessary and terrible barrier to the Gentiles becoming Christians.
So we have examples of the three methods that we are to apply today in resolving doctrinal matters: direct command, approved apostolic example and necessary implication/inference. When these were applied in the first century, the doctrinal issue was resolved! Does that mean that everyone went along with it? No. For we see this to be a continuing problem that many of the early Jewish Christians just would not let go of. But just because some would not accept apostolic authority does not mean that the truth was not established on this issue. Just as those who do not accept biblical authority today will never be in accord with those who do.
We can apply the very same principles today to resolve doctrinal issues. Those who were faithful abided by the resolution that was made based on a total review of the truth. The scriptures can be understood. We should search out all possible references to an issue when it arises, and abide by the preponderance of scriptural evidence to establish the truth on the matter. When we do this there will no longer be divisions over doctrinal issues.
Please see the articles on Examples and Biblical Implications, where we discuss these two methods of establishing biblical authority in more detail.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
There are two types of conflicts that occur among Christians: personal and doctrinal. This article deals with doctrinal conflicts, or in other words, issues regarding what should be taught, practiced and thus bound within the local church. The subject of personal conflicts and their resolution is given in Matthew 18:15-17. If this procedure would be applied to the maximum extent possible to resolve personal conflicts that would all be resolved one way or the other. Unresolved personal conflicts can tear up a local church and thus it is a grave sin not to practice the remedy of Mt. 18:15-17. If one decides for whatever reason not to do what it says there, then that person should resolve to never bring up the perceived wrong again, for any other action will have far more grave consequences than just taking wrong (reference 1 Cor. 6:7).
We feel it is no coincidence that Acts 15 contains both an example of a doctrinal issue (circumcision and keeping the Old Testament law), and a person issue that arose between Paul and Barnabas over whether they should take John Mark on the second missionary journey. The contrast between how these two types of issues are handled is a very interesting study that will not be covered here, but we encourage the reader to study Acts 15 from this perspective. See the discussion in Acts 11-15.
In this article we wish to enlarge upon our study of authority by considering how it applies to doctrinal conflict resolution. The two are not mutually exclusive since quite often personality issues will surface under the guise of doctrinal issues. In fact, rarely is a point of doctrine really the issue. In Acts 15, for example, circumcision was the doctrinal issue that was masking an attempt to grab power in the church on the part of the Judaizing Christians (those who felt that they would have much more power in the church if they could bind the Old Testament law). We see jealousy motivating very similar actions from opponents outside of the early church (Acts 5:17). And we see the persistence of those who taught this error referenced in Acts 21.
Conflict Resolution — Doctrinal Matters
Doctrinal conflict is not a subject foreign to the New Testament. The first question that should be asked is: should we even be concerned about doctrinal matters? Why not just live and let live? Let us take a lesson from Paul as recorded in Acts 15:1-2: “And some men came down from Judea and (began) teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, (the brethren) determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.”
Paul and Barnabas could have said, “Well, this is just your opinion and we agree to disagree. So you go your way and we will go ours, and we will act like there are no differences among us.” But that is not what they did. They immediately went about resolving the issue so that they could preserve the unity for which our Savior prayed (Jn. 17:23). (It is interesting that "agreeing to disagree" was exactly what they did when it came to their personal disagreement, which had nothing to do with doctrine, and it did not affect the church in either Jerusalem or Antioch.)
It is often stated that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to find out the truth on this matter. This is clearly not so. This issue had previously been raised in Jerusalem and it had been resolved there as recorded in Acts 11 based upon Peter's experiences as well as the witnesses who went with him described in Acts 10. So the apostles as well as Paul and Barnabas already knew the truth on this issue, and they taught that truth during the first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14) and on their way to Jerusalem (Acts 15:3). Thus, their goal was mainly to inform the apostles in Jerusalem of what these false teachers were saying. It would also tend to validate their teaching so there would be no doubt in anyone's mind.
When Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem, they found that the source of the problem were some Pharisaic Christians who were teaching the keeping of Moses’ law (Acts 15:4).
The Issue Resolved - An Approved Apostolic Example
Acts 15 serves not only as a history of the early church, but also as an example to us so that we can follow the pattern established by the apostles who were being guided by the Holy Spirit. We might ask, “Why did the Holy Spirit not just give them the answer miraculously and let it go at that?” Answer: He did — read Acts 10 and 11. So, there was no reason to reveal it over and over again. This in itself is a principle of revelation -- once something is revealed God expects us to draw from what is established, not to seek for additional revelation, which at this point would not be necessary. We see this principle illustrated throughout the bible.
The elders and apostles of the church who gathered together were facing the exact same problem that we face today: how to resolve doctrinal conflict over things already revealed. So we can see even clearer how this example would apply to us. Authority for any doctrine can be established from scripture in only three ways that this was accomplished:
1. Recognition of direct command (Acts 15:7-11). Peter told them about the direct command that he had received (again, review Acts 10-11).
2. Approved apostolic example (Acts 15:12). Paul and Barnabas related what God had done through them, in accepting Gentiles without circumcision. This was confirmed by miracles. This was verified truth when they accomplished these things (Acts 13-14), so it further verified God’s will on this matter.
3. Necessary implication. James then gave a quotation from the Old Testament (Amos 9:11-12): “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, ...” Is there anything in this passage about circumcision? Yet, James is applying it to that. Why? Because the necessary implication of the passage is that the Gentiles would be acceptable to God directly and not through becoming proselyted into the Jewish nation. Thus, circumcision was absolutely not to be a requirement of their salvation. To impose it was to bind where God had not bound and to impose an unnecessary and terrible barrier to the Gentiles becoming Christians.
So we have examples of the three methods that we are to apply today in resolving doctrinal matters: direct command, approved apostolic example and necessary implication/inference. When these were applied in the first century, the doctrinal issue was resolved! Does that mean that everyone went along with it? No. For we see this to be a continuing problem that many of the early Jewish Christians just would not let go of. But just because some would not accept apostolic authority does not mean that the truth was not established on this issue. Just as those who do not accept biblical authority today will never be in accord with those who do.
We can apply the very same principles today to resolve doctrinal issues. Those who were faithful abided by the resolution that was made based on a total review of the truth. The scriptures can be understood. We should search out all possible references to an issue when it arises, and abide by the preponderance of scriptural evidence to establish the truth on the matter. When we do this there will no longer be divisions over doctrinal issues.
Please see the articles on Examples and Biblical Implications, where we discuss these two methods of establishing biblical authority in more detail.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?