Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 10
The speaker calls out two “misuses” among Anabaptists: dismissing Acts 15 as temporary (like claims about head covering/holy kiss), and using Acts 15 to justify churches “making laws” beyond Scripture; where do you see either misuse in your own tradition, and what guardrails would keep a church serious about obedience from either ignoring apostolic commands or inventing new burdens?
Another way to ask: Where do you see either problem today: treating Acts 15 as only temporary, or using it to add extra church-made rules? What boundaries would help a church obey the apostles without ignoring commands or piling on new burdens?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
From the speaker’s perspective, the guardrail is letting Scripture itself set both the limits and the obligations: don’t dismiss clear apostolic commands as “temporary,” and don’t use Acts 15 as a blank check for churches to create new laws. A serious church should obey what is written while refusing to add burdens God didn’t command.
- He’s “surprised” Anabaptists dismiss Acts 15 because they are usually “sticklers” who say, “if it’s a commandment… we follow it.”
- He warns that calling Acts 15 “temporary” mirrors how people dismiss other commands: “head covering… Holy Kiss… almost everything.”
- Misuse #2: some claim Acts 15 proves churches can “just make laws and hand them down,” which he rejects.
- He clarifies Acts 15 did the opposite of inventing rules: “They took away… 300… 400… commandments” and “didn’t give them anything new.”
- He insists the council returned to what was binding “way back to the time of Noah,” and concludes churches “don’t… have the authority” to invent laws.