Summary: Trying to answer the question, “Does a person have to accept the whole law before he can be saved?
JUL 21 2013 PM Working through Conflict
Last Sunday we found ourselves in the middle of the Great Jerusalem Council. We saw that part one of the meetings was Paul and Barnabas reporting all the good things God had done on the first mission trip. The second meeting involved trying to answer the question, “Does a person have to accept the whole law before he can be saved? V. 6 says the apostles and elders met to consider this question. We will be using Acts 15: 6-22 for our text tonight.
The Christian movement had been advancing rapidly up until this point, but then some Jewish believers came into the picture and told the new believers that they needed to follow the laws of Moses in order to be saved. While our first instinct would be to write these people off as troublemakers, I really have trouble believing that their intentions were all bad.
After all, as verse 1 tells us, their concern was that the new believers would be saved – doesn’t sound to me as though they were trying to make trouble for them. Also, verse 5 recognizes these people as “believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees.” So they weren’t necessarily trying to destroy the new movement, but I believe that they were trying to make it work the only way they knew how – by following the laws of Moses. Still, this brought them into sharp dispute with Paul and Barnabas, and so a council was convened at Jerusalem to settle this matter. From this text, we get a few of ideas of what to do whenever disputes arise in the church.
The first thing we need to do is distinguish between what is and is not worth disputing over. READ (vv. 5-6). We see from these two verses that the apostles felt this statement was worth discussing. These converted Pharisees preferred a legalistic religion to one based on faith alone. Had they been allowed to continue teaching this without any discussion, the Gentiles would have been circumcised and essentially converted to Judaism. This would have confined Christianity to simply being another sect within Judaism. So, this was a very crucial discussion.
Too often in the church, we have ignored discussing crucial matters. Sometimes we prefer to avoid talking about our disagreements because it is easier than working through them. The problem with avoiding these areas of disagreement is that they don’t go away – they only fester and grow until it reaches a boiling point, and then our disagreements come out in an unhealthy way. So, we need to know when to talk about different issues we may have.
On the other hand, we also need to realize that some things simply are not worth fighting over. Chuck Swindoll, in his book The Grace Awakening, writes of a church that had a vibrant ministry and was having a powerful impact on their community. But then, a disagreement began to form. While it seemed small and insignificant at first, it grew and grew until the church was sharply divided. When it was apparent that this issue couldn’t be solved in a manner that would be suitable to everyone, half of the congregation left to form their own church. Today, while both churches still exist, neither has the outreach ministry that they did before.