February 28, 2024

February 28, 2024 By
0 Comments

I’ve written about this some twenty times. I love this topic! Reformed Baptist and anti-Catholic apologist James White’s recent remarks in his Dividing Line episode, “Happenings in Rome, Acts 15, and Provisionist Rhetoric” (1-19-24) show that it’s necessary to go through the reasoning again, since he just doesn’t get it (and certainly many more Protestants don’t, either). But it ain’t rocket science, folks! It’s rather straightforward, as I will demonstrate. White’s words will be in blue.

30:25 the question is the church after the apostles: “what is the sole infallible rule of faith?”

Of course, sola Scriptura holds that only Scripture is that infallible rule of faith; not the only teaching authority of the Protestant, period (Catholics too often get this wrong), but the only infallible one. It’s this key component of sola Scriptura that leads to self-refutation, when we examine the Jerusalem Council. This is the standard definition of sola Scriptura used by Protestant apologists today, and arguably, all the way back to the 16th century when they revolted against the received Christian teachings and the established Church. I examined this issue in my article, Definition of Sola Scriptura (Get it Right!) [2-15-13]. Here are three definitions of sola Scriptura from Protestants (including White) that I documented there:

What Protestants mean by sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals (Evangelical Protestant apologist Norman Geisler. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie; my bolding)

It is important to notice that sola scriptura, properly understood, is not a claim that Scripture is the only authority altogether. . . . There are other real authorities which are subordinate and derivative in nature. Scripture, however, is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm. (Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260; my bolding)

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. — Reformed Baptist apologist James R. White (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59; his complete italics removed; my italics and bolding added)

With this understood, let’s get back to what White argued concerning the Jerusalem Council.

30:36 Acts 15 is a recording of the work of the Spirit . . . 

Yes it is, and that’s why the declaration it made is not only infallible, but even quite arguably inspired as well (an even higher degree of certainty). This expressly contradicts sola Scriptura, since it is a Church council that is infallible (and maybe inspired), which can’t be, according to sola Scriptura.

31:03 the idea that a council that we only know about, and we only know about what the conclusion of the apostolic conversation was, because it’s found in Scripture, that that somehow demonstrates that sola Scriptura isn’t true, makes all of us go “that’s just silly . . .”

It’s not silly in the slightest. It’s explicitly biblical, is what it is!; but White is blind to it, because he just sees what he wants to see. That’s what false presuppositions and traditions and biases do to an otherwise cogent and educated mind.

First of all, it’s absolutely irrelevant how the council was made known. It was what it was, by its own nature, whether Scripture ever recorded it or not. It could have been recorded only in, say, the Jewish historian Josephus. If that were the case, we would still know that it made a decree, with the words (if Josephus recorded them, too), “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15:28, RSV, as throughout).

If the Holy Spirit is agreeing with it (as He did), it’s infallible, and, I contend, also inspired. And it is that whether it eventually wound up in Scripture or not (just as Jesus’ or [no doubt many of] Paul’s words that didn’t make it to the Bible also were, in and of themselves). When the decree was made, the ones who made it (including at least three Bible writers: Paul, Peter, and James) didn’t know that it was to become part of Scripture. It doesn’t follow that it wasn’t what it was, or that it didn’t have the authority that it did. What White is referring to is the foolish and unbiblical notion of “inscripturation”: that I have written about.

The fact that the dealings and decree of the council are in the Bible actually makes my argument stronger, and White’s weaker, because now we have the assurance that the recorded words can be absolutely trusted as accurate, since it’s in the inspired revelation of Scripture. And — again — the relevant words are, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (15:28).

Therefore, an infallible decree was made (it couldn’t be otherwise, with the Holy Spirit involved, and Luke couldn’t have falsely recorded this, in his inspired words), and was promulgated throughout Asia Minor (Turkey) by the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:4). This state of affairs utterly contradicts sola Scriptura, since that false doctrine claims that there can be no such thing as an infallible Church council and that only the Bible is an infallible authority. So all of this means that Protestants have a rather stark choice and decision to make:

1) Follow the inspired Bible, which states that an infallible decision was made by a council (i.e., the Church), led by the Holy Spirit was made, and was binding on Christians far and wide.

or,

2) Follow a fallible and unbiblical tradition of men (sola Scriptura) and in so doing deny part of the Scripture that supposedly is the only infallible authority according to the same arbitrary tradition, and act as if Acts 15:28 and 16:4 aren’t in this inspired Bible.

That is a very troubling choice indeed. What I have argued decisively, undeniably defeats sola Scriptura: one of the two Reformation “pillars” and the Protestant rule of faith (at least as it is commonly defined) in and of itself (and I have 99 additional contrary biblical arguments in my book on sola Scriptura). This leaves Protestants in a real dilemma. White is arguing against Holy Scripture itself: a frightening thing to contemplate.

31:33 we’re talking about after the events of redemption and the establishment of the church; what is the church to look to as its sole infallible rule of Faith

The Jerusalem Council did take place after “the events of redemption and the establishment of the church.” It was after Jesus’ redemptive death on the cross and after Jesus established His Church with Peter as its earthly leader. And why is it that White simply assumes that there can be only one infallible source of faith or rule of faith? The Bible never states that. It never states anything remotely like what sola Scriptura claims. I know because I’ve debated and written about the topic times without number. This is all just circular reasoning from White. He assumes the truth of sola Scriptura and then unsuccessfully tries to fit the square peg of Scripture into the round hole of sola Scriptura.

31:48 or are there going to be lots of infallible rules of faith that is the question

There are going to be as many as the Bible states that there are, which is three: Scripture / Church / sacred apostolic tradition. There is no “law” written in stone or in the Bible that states that there can be only one infallible source for the rule of faith. That’s simply Protestant unquestioned arbitrary sub-biblical tradition.

31:54 and it is not a definitional part of the claim of sola Scriptura to say that during periods of time when God is revealing Scripture, that it exists somehow to the exclusion of revelation; no revelation is taking place right now

Good; then the decree of Acts 15:28 was revelation before the canon of the NT was determined, and it is also an infallible and inspired decree, seeing that the Holy Spirit confirmed it. So much for sola Scriptura as a result. The Bible never states, either, that all other sources of infallible or even inspired utterance were to cease after the canon of the Bible was determined: which it never was (for the NT) until 367, in a letter of Athanasius. In fact, prophets were a recognized office of Paul’s and the NT describes them and in some cases, their prophecies, too.

32:18 the issue is, after the apostles are gone, what does the church look to, and Acts 15 does not answer that question

It certainly does answer it. Acts 15 and 16 state six times that the council was comprised of “elders and [the] apostles” (15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4). Non-apostle elders were already working with apostles to govern the Church. They obviously would after the apostles died out, just as Judas was replaced with Matthias (apostolic succession: Acts 1:20-26).  Acts 1:20 quotes the Psalms: “His office let another take.” The word for “office” there is episkopé (Strong’s word #1984): literally, “bishop”. King James even translates it as “bishoprick.”

Bishops, in other words, are the successors of the apostles.  Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines its meaning in Acts 1:20 as “specifically, the office of a bishop (the overseer or presiding officer of a Christian church): 1 Timothy 3:1, and in ecclesiastical writings.” The council shows us that the Church would continue to make infallible declarations, binding upon Christians; not that the Bible alone would be the sole infallible rule of faith.

32:43 so it says the decree of the Jerusalem Council is the decree infallible. We can only know the decree as it exists in Scripture now before we can answer the question of there being an infallible source outside of Scripture.

That’s fine. It’s in Scripture now; so then the question becomes: how does one interpret it. Is it infallible? Clearly yes, because the Holy Spirit affirmed it, according to inspired Scripture.

33:02 the important question is was the decree infallible before Luke recorded in Acts 15

Yes, of course it was, having been verified by the Holy Spirit Himself (according to inspired and infallible Scripture). How could it not be? How could God agree with any error? So it’s not only infallible, but I say, inspired, too. But for my argument to succeed in demolishing sola Scriptura it need only be infallible, which it clearly is (unless White wants to argue that God can make mistakes). He’s in a real pickle here, with no way out of it, except Catholicism / Orthodoxy or else biblical skepticism. Those are his choices. What the Holy Spirit communicates to apostles (with elders) is infallible and inspired whenever it occurs. It’s irrelevant whether it is also Scripture or not.

White’s query is literally a meaningless and absurd one. It amounts to an assertion that God’s words or affirmations aren’t infallible or inspired unless and until the Bible records them. That’s sheer nonsense, and the Bible nowhere states such a thing. This odd, unscriptural opinion would lead to a ludicrous scenario where any of Jesus’ parables not recorded in the Bible (implied by Mark 4:33) or the “many things” that He taught His disciples that were not recorded (Mk 6:34), or the “many things” that He wanted to tell His disciples (Jn 16:12), perhaps later spoken to them, but unrecorded (Acts 1:2-3; cf. Lk 24:15-16, 25-27), were not inspired when He spoke them (and in this case, never were, because they didn’t make it into the NT). This is not only absurd, but blasphemous as well. It’s an idolatry of the Bible: making it higher than God Himself. It makes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John decide what is inspired utterance, rather than God.

33:14 this is a part of redemption history that is recorded for for us and for our edification and for the guidance of the church.

We agree! Hallelujah!

33:30 It’s not the setting up of some external paradigm, where the church can call councils and create infallible [decrees].

Who says it isn’t? Well, White does, in his arbitrary acceptance or rejection, as if that has any authority or force at all. He’s just one Baptist elder. He doesn’t even have authority in Baptist denominations that are not his own (nor a true doctorate from an accredited theological institution). It’s the only Church council recorded in Scripture and is an example of how the Church would be governed, just as everything in the Bible is there for a reason, according to the omniscient and all-wise God Who ultimately determined what was to be in Scripture.

White derives his ecclesiology from what Paul stated about Church offices, so why wouldn’t he also get it from what Luke recorded as an exercise of those very offices? That’s ultra-relevant to the question of how the Church was to be governed. White has no good reason (let alone a scriptural one) for denying that this shows infallible Church authority and also shows the falsehood of sola Scriptura at the same time. The fact remains that if he accepts what I am saying (which seems to me utterly obvious from Scripture), sola Scriptura must collapse, by simple logic, enlightened by revelation. No doubt he knows this, and so he has to mock and minimize and dismiss it. But — here’s the rub — he’s not giving us any reason why anyone should do so, other than his own authority-challenged, bald proclamation.

33:48 once there aren’t any Apostles there’s no revelation

That’s irrelevant to this particular dispute. What is relevant is if there is non-biblical infallible authority, and Acts 15 teaches us that there is: the Church in council, led by the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura is about ruling out any infallible authority besides the Bible, functioning as the rule of faith. So White’s constant recourse to revelation and inspiration is literally what’s called a non sequitur in logic (an irrelevancy in terms of a discussion).

34:00 some Roman Catholics have argued that if you can have this council in Acts 15 that therefore, whenever the church calls a council in the future it has the same level of infallible authority. 

That’s a separate question of what constitutes a legitimate authoritative council, and which of its decrees (if any) are infallible. For the moment, it’s just a smokescreen for White to avoid grappling with the meaning of Acts 15 in a rational and coherent manner. He wants to evade it with his usual sophistry and rabbit trails. Maybe he can do that in his own little world of hourlong spontaneous observations; preaching to his choir. But he can’t under scrutiny such as this.
*
What the Jerusalem Council shows is that it itself had infallible, if not also inspired authority. And since it’s not the Bible, that demolishes sola Scriptura as it has always been defined. All one needs is one infallible council to refute the notion that nothing can ever be infallible (post-Bible) except for the Bible. And this provides it. It’s airtight reasoning (as is much of Catholic criticism of sola Scriptura).
*
34:46 [those who hold to] the Presbyterian ecclesiology look to Acts 15 as foundation for sessions and presbyteries for ecclesiastical organization above the local church
*
As they well should. That’s actually a good and biblical argument (unlike white’s here). The only catch is that this council had Peter being the central figure, who delivered the principles accepted, which were based on a private vision that God had given him, and were reiterated and reformulated by the bishop of Jerusalem, James. That’s episcopal and Catholic ecclesiology, not Presbyterian.

35:52 there is nothing in the council in Acts chapter 15 that indicates that this is something that’s going to be repeated in the future. It doesn’t establish some kind of conciliar paradigm.

I don’t see how White or anyone else (who claims to be Bible-based) can say this. It’s astounding to me. Here we have a gathering of the early Church in Jerusalem (its very center at this early stage), recorded in the Bible, led by two apostles, Peter and James, and attended by another, Paul, as well as various elders, who reached a joint decision. But we are to believe that it has no teaching value or significance for how the Church is later governed?

That simply makes no sense, and there is no coherent, plausible reason White could give for believing this is so (other than he doesn’t like its implications: if that is even a “reason”), which is, I reckon, why he gave none; he merely asserted his good ol’ opinion from “on high” without supporting evidence or reason. The fact remains that at this time in Church history, there was a council, and it made an infallible decree that was promulgated by the Apostle Paul far and wide. That’s not Baptist congregational government, which would apply only to the local church and would involve no bishops, let alone infallibility. It just isn’t. And it is utterly contrary to sola Scriptura.

36:23 Only a few chapters after Acts 15 in Acts 20, Paul’s with the Ephesian elders [and] he doesn’t say to them just just call councils when you have any questions. He commends them to the the grace of God and the message of the Gospel. That’s what he commits them to: [the] same thing he does for Timothy in second Timothy chapter 3.

This is a weak argument from silence. White “argues” that councils weren’t mentioned in Acts 20; therefore there were to be none (all the while ignoring where Scripture actually records and obviously agrees with, a high-level, literally Spirit-led council!). White goes with the argument from silence rather than the actual historical example led by the Holy Spirit, in deciding his ecclesiology, simply because he doesn’t like councils and wants to pretend that they don’t exist and aren’t biblically sanctioned.
*
If that’s not a biblically skeptical — or actually anti-biblical — mentality, I don’t know what is. Meanwhile, Catholics accept all that the Bible teaches, rather than cynically toying with Holy Scripture and picking-and-choosing and essentially making oneself epistemologically superior to God’s inspired revelation.

Since White wants so argue context, let’s also look at Acts 14:

Acts 14:21-23 When they [Paul and Barnabas] had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Ico’nium and to Antioch, [22] strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, . . . [23] And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

If White’s congregationalism were true or biblically sanctioned, then each of these local congregations would have appointed their own elders. Instead, Paul and Barnabas are acting like “super-bishops” or even like popes do, in appointing leaders of churches. That is episcopal and Catholic-like  hierarchical government; even beyond presbyterian government. White might — probably would, I think — respond that this was an apostle doing this; so it was historically unique and not relevant for subsequent Church governance. That might work, except that we see Titus doing the same, by Paul’s express wishes:

Titus 1:4-5 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. [5] This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,

So here we have non-apostle Titus functioning precisely as Paul had in Acts 14: appointing elders all over the place (“in every town”), just as Paul had “in every church”. Again, this is hierarchical, episcopal government (authorities higher than in individual congregations). Eusebius (Church History, III, 4, 6) states that Titus was the bishop of Crete in his old age. White wants us to think that an always-weak argument from silence made from the data in Acts 20 somehow is compelling evidence for congregationalism. It’s amazing. But he wants to ignore the Jerusalem Council.
*
Who knows what he would do with these two arguments of mine and my many others in this reply if he ever came out from his hideout up in the mountains around Phoenix and interacted with them.

*

Interestingly, Facebook friend Justin Michael noted that the word for “decisions” in Acts 16:4 is the Greek word dogma (Strong’s word #1378): “As they [Paul and Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions [“dogmas”] which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.” So a council of the early Church, led by St. Peter, who proclaimed a teaching that God had recently revealed to him in a private vision, in consultation with elders and apostles (including James, the bishop of Jerusalem, the “host” so to speak), issued infallible “dogmas” that the Holy Spirit agreed with (Acts 15:28), which St. Paul proclaimed all around Turkey “for observance” of Christians many hundreds of miles from Jerusalem. Sound familiar?

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Photo by Lawrence OP (1-6-15) of a stained glass window from Cologne Cathedral, of the Council of Jerusalem [Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED license]

Summary: Baptist anti-Catholic apologist James White makes some amazingly anti-biblical arguments against the clear implications of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).

January 30, 2024

January 30, 2024 By
0 Comments

The Ambivalence and Inconsistencies of Protestant Thought on the Earliest “Monarchical” Bishops

Protestants, especially Presbyterians and Baptists, who hold to a “low church” ecclesiology without bishops, habitually argue that monepiscopacy, or the notion and state of affairs of single “monarchical” bishops holding the leadership of local churches, was a phenomenon that only started to significantly — and to them, unfortunately — occur in the mid-second century or even later than that. This is demonstrably untrue, based on the best historical sources we have for the early Church, as I documented in my recent articles about St. Ignatius of Antioch and Church historian Eusebius and other early Church fathers (before 200 AD).

Nevertheless, despite all of this rather compelling evidence, and granting a certain fluidity and development of Church offices in the New Testament and early Church, as I do, and as Cardinal Newman did in writing about development of doctrine, Protestants argue that the norm in the earliest decades of the Church, and the teaching of the Bible, was government by a group of presbyters or elders in each church or congregation.

On the other hand, there is a certain self-contradiction or tension in this view insofar as the same people concede that St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem at the time of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15; thought to have occurred around 48-51 AD). Despite generally arguing against monepiscopacy in the first two centuries, they somehow manage to make an exception for James in Jerusalem. Why? Well, I submit and speculate that they tend to do that in order to avoid the implication that St. Peter presided over this council, in a position that would correspond to a “bishop of bishops” or the papacy. They don’t like that idea, and so they argue that James presided and was thus “over” Peter. And he did so because he was the bishop of Jerusalem. According to this thinking, there was no higher office in the Church than that.

Renowned 19th century Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff is an interesting case in this regard. He repeatedly asserts in his notes for McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (the first and most important history of the Christian Church), that monepiscopacy was “projected” back from the second or third centuries or beyond, to the Church of the first century. And so, in his Popular Commentary on the NT, in his Introduction to the book of James, he refers to James as “the so-called bishop of Jerusalem.” But then he also virtually contradicts himself, in writing:

James . . . was a prominent person in the early church. . . . he occupied a distinguished position in the early church. To him Peter sent a message, on his release from imprisonment: ‘Go show these things unto James and the brethren’ (Acts 12:7) [should be 12:17]. He presided at the Council of Jerusalem, and pronounced the decree of the assembled church (Acts 15:19). To him, as the head of the church of Jerusalem, Paul repaired on his last visit to that city (Acts 21:18). . . . and along with Peter and John, he mentions him as one of the three pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). In the same Epistle we are also informed, that it was the presence of ‘certain who came from James’ which was the cause of Peter’s withdrawing himself from converse with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:21). . . .

If not actually bishop of Jerusalem, it would appear from these scriptural notices that James at least exercised a very important influence in the mother church. He was the recognised head of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. When Christianity was chiefly confined to Jewish converts, his influence must have been almost paramount And after its extension to the Gentiles, the Jewish Christians would esteem him to be peculiarly their apostle, as Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; his influence would not be confined to Jerusalem, but would extend to all believers among the twelve tribes, wherever scattered.

I don’t see how being the “recognised head” of Christians in Jerusalem and indeed “the head of the church of Jerusalem” and a man who “presided at the Council of Jerusalem” is distinguishable from being a bishop. It’s a distinction without a difference, especially since St. Paul in the Bible wrote about bishops five times (Acts 20:28 [“overseers”]; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7). So Schaff wants to have his cake and eat it, too, or in other words, he is equivocating. James isn’t the bishop of Jerusalem, but he is, but he isn’t, etc.

This is the sort of cognitive dissonance among Protestants, in grappling with “Catholic” elements of Scripture and early Church history, that was the theme of an entire book of mine:  The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Sophia Institute Press, Aug. 2004). I do love Schaff as a scholar, however, and I’ve cited him hundreds of times because — ultimately — he always tries to be honest, sometimes even despite his strong denominational inclinations. The above is a prime example of this. He doesn’t agree with the idea that James was or could be the bishop of Jerusalem. But the facts are too great to deny it. And so he tries to deny it but in the end, simply can’t.

The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce shows a similar ambivalence. He describes James very much as a bishop would be described, yet doesn’t want to use the word. Writing specifically about him and the early church in Jerusalem, he refers to “the increasingly dominant role which James would fill in Jerusalem” which was “documented by Paul and Luke independently” and his “leading role” and the fact that he was “evidently acknowledged as a leader of that church as a whole.” In the Jerusalem Council, “According to Luke, . . . it was James who summed up the sense of the meeting and expressed his judgment . . . the terms of the so-called Jerusalem decree.” In fact, according to Bruce, that “the Jerusalem church could not have promulgated” this decree “without James’s approval. See: Peter, Stephen. James & John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979, 90-91, 93).

The Eerdmans Bible Commentary, at Acts 15:13, states that “James appears by this time to be the acknowledged leader of the Jerusalem church, . . . (p. 992).

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (“James”) opined:

It was this James who assumed leadership of the church in Jerusalem . . . James dominates the accounts of official actions of the council at Jerusalem; he cast the deciding vote . . . According to Church tradition, James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. (p. 549)

The New Bible Dictionary (“James”) concurs:

Tradition stated that he was appointed first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself and the apostles (Eus., EH, vii. 19). He presided at the first Council of Jerusalem . . . (p. 597 in the first edition, 1962)

Note how the last two reference sources note that Church “tradition” held that James was the bishop of Jerusalem, without indicating whether they agreed with it or not.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“James”; 1939) exhibits the usual Protestant reluctance to use the word “bishop”:

By the time of the Jerusalem convention, i.e. about 51 AD (compare Ga 2:1), James had reached the position of first overseer in the church (compare Ac 15:13,19). . . . Once more (58 AD), James was head of the council at Jerusalem when Paul made report of his labors, this time of his 3rd missionary Journey (Ac 21:17 ff).

Acts 21:17 refers to a meeting of the Jerusalem church including Paul. James is clearly the leader, as indicated by the wording: “On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present” (RSV). This is similar to the language Peter used in Acts 12:17, after he was delivered from a Jerusalem prison: “Tell this to James and to the brethren.”

McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia (“James”; 1880) is more directly skeptical:

Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 2, 1) says that James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, . . . was surnamed the Just by the ancients on account of his eminent virtue. . . . Eusebius . . . says elsewhere that he was appointed by the apostles (V. Eccl. 2, 23). Clement of Alexandria is the first author who speaks of his episcopate (Hypotyposeis, bk. 6, apud Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. 2, 1), and he alludes to it as a thing of which the chief apostles, Peter, James, and John, might well have been ambitious. . . . According to Hegesippus (a converted Jew of the 2nd century) James, the brother of the Lord, undertook the government of the Church along with the apostles (μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων). . . . (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 2, 23).

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150- c. 215), according to Eusebius, wrote: “Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”” (EH, Bk II, 1, 3). The above source focuses on Peter, James, and John. Nevertheless, it is stated that the three “chose James” as “bishop of Jerusalem.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that. But the Protestant bias shines through again. The obvious facts of the matter as reported have to be undermined somehow, so that episcopal government is not seen to be the norm in the first century Church.

Hegesippus [fl. c. 180] was also cited by Eusebius — writing at a time close to that of Clement of Alexandria — as having stated the following: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, . . . Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop [of Jerusalem]. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. (EH, IV, 22, 4; my italics). In the same context (IV, 22, 2-3) Hegesippus refers to “Primus . . . bishop in Corinth” and also a succession of bishops in Rome: “Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.” Plainly, he believe in monepiscopacy, including in Jerusalem. Eusebius also cites Hegesippus as stating:

They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, . . . (EH, BK III, 33, 6; my italics)

Again, clear as day. James was bishop of Jerusalem, and then Symeon succeeded him. In his Bk IV, 5, 2-3, Eusebius names fifteen bishops of Jerusalem, from James to Judas (up to 135 AD). We see not a word there about government by a board of presbyters (not even conjointly with Peter and John). All we see are single bishops, one after another in succession.

McClintock and Strong then try to make an issue of how Hegesippus described James’ appointment as bishop of Jerusalem in another passage. Here are the actual words, as translated by Schaff and Wace: “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles” (EH, II, 23, 4; my italics). They construe the word “with” as signifying government by a group rather than by one man. Eusebius had just written in section 1 of the same passage, about “James, . . . to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles.”

The Greek word for “with” Hegesippus used, provided by McClintock and Strong themselves, is μετὰ (meta): Strong’s word #3326 (see also a second Strong’s page for it). As a proposition, it can mean several things. It certainly often — even usually — means “with” but it can also mean “after.” The NASB translation renders meta as “after” 82 times (KJV: 95 times). So it comes down to context. I have already provided two cross-reference from Hegesippus himself that contradict the “Protestant” interpretation in this instance (that James was not sole bishop of Jerusalem). As with the Bible, we interpret less clear utterances of the fathers by clearer ones, and we seek to harmonize them. Schaff draws the same “cynical-of-episcopacy” conclusion in his notes (footnote 491) for Eusebius, EH, II, 23, 4:

μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, “with the apostles”; as Rufinus rightly translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post apostolos, “after the apostles,” as if the Greek were μετὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a leader of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we see from Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as Eusebius does just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 1, §3) does, that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles.

Galatians 2:9 (RSV) reads: “James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This happened in Jerusalem, but technically, it’s not about leadership in the church of Jerusalem in particular. It’s about, I submit, leadership in the universal Church, by apostles who were still then living. If this supposedly means that the three conjointly led the Jerusalem congregation, then Schaff and those who think like him have to explain the contextual remark from Paul fourteen and fifteen verses earlier (Gal 1:18-19): “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Very few argue that Peter — or John — was the leader of the Jerusalem congregation, over against James. Whenever anyone states that there is a bishop or “leader” etc., it’s always James. But if this passage were only about the local Jerusalem church, we would have to conclude from how Paul worded it, then Peter was over James. But if Peter is viewed as the leader of the entire Church, and James of the local Jerusalem church, it makes perfect sense. The three “pillars” of Galatians 2:9 are pillars of the universal Church, not just the church in Jerusalem.

We see similar opinions about James as the leader in Jerusalem (bishop or no) in classic Protestant Bible commentaries (at Acts 15:13):

Ellicott’s Commentary:  James answered.—The position which James the brother of the Lord . . . occupies in the Council is clearly that of pre-eminence, justifying the title of Bishop of Jerusalem, which later writers give him. No one speaks after him; he sum up the whole debate; he proposes the decree which is to be submitted to the Council for approval.
*
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: Hearken unto me – This whole transaction shows that Peter had no such authority in the church as the papists pretend, for otherwise his opinion would have been followed without debate. James had an authority not less than that of Peter.
This is sheer nonsense. Peter’s statement was indeed “followed without debate.” The actual text states that “after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, . . .” (Acts 15:7), and that after he spoke (his words recorded in 15:7-11), “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). James — as the local bishop and “master of ceremonies” so to speak — then completely agreed with what Peter had said (“Simeon has related . . .”: 15:14) and simply reiterated his reasoning, which was the essence and ground of the council’s decree, supporting it from the Bible. It was Peter who was given a vision by God about the inclusion of the gentiles, recorded a bit earlier in Acts.  He took the lead in promulgating this “new” teaching, as is appropriate for a pope. Contrary to Barnes’ inane anti-Catholic view, Peter is presented as the leader of the Church in the first half of the book of Acts (before it moves on to describing St. Paul’s life and activities), as He was before Jesus’ death, too:
Peter’s name occurs first in a list of the apostles (Acts 1:13; cf. Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14).
*
Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).

The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8).

Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (1 Cor 9:5; cf. Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29).

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to! He’s even mentioned more than St. Paul, whose name appears 184 times in the NT (23 of those as Saul).

Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”

Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18).

All of this (most of it in the first half of the book of Acts) is in the New Testament, yet Barnes claims that “James had an authority not less than that of Peter?”! It’s utterly ludicrous. But that is what bias does to a mind. And Barnes is very often and excellent, insightful commentator.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:  James . . .  was the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem, and . . . president of the assembly, . . .
*
Matthew Poole’s Commentary: . . . president of this council.
Meyer’s NT Commentary: . . . highly esteemed in Jerusalem as chief leader of the church, . . .
*
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: James sums up the discussion, and pronounces the decision of the Church on this controversy . . . bishop of Jerusalem, . . . The president’s summary takes no note of the “much disputing” (Acts 15:7) but points out that a divine revelation had been made to Peter, and that it was accordant with the words of Old Testament prophecy. On these warrants he based his decision.
Pulpit Commentary: James’s place as presiding bishop is here distinctly marked by his summing up the debate. . . . A remarkable testimony against papal supremacy.
*
John Calvin in his Commentaries helpfully illustrates — with remarkable transparency if not cogency — how bias inclines Protestants (like Barnes and the Pulpit Commentary above) to think that James led the church in Jerusalem, so as to supposedly slight Peter (although it does no such thing), even though otherwise the same people might inconsistently opine that monepiscopacy wasn’t present in the first century:
*
[W]e shall see afterwards how great his authority was at Jerusalem. The old writers think that this was because he was bishop of the place; but it is not to be thought that the faithful did at their pleasure change the order which Christ had appointed. Wherefore, I do not doubt but that he was son to Alpheus, and Christ’s cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother. Whether he were bishop of Jerusalem or no, I leave it indifferent; neither doth it greatly make for the matter, save only because the impudency of the Pope is hereby refuted, because the decree of the Council is set down rather at the appointment, and according to the authority of James than of Peter. And assuredly Eusebius, in the beginning of his Second Book, is not afraid to call James, whosoever he were, the Bishop of the Apostles. Let the men of Rome go now and boast that their Pope is head of the Universal Church, because he is Peter’s successor, who suffered another to rule him, if we believe Eusebius.
*
Note, by the way, that Calvin believed that James — someone called “the Lord’s brother” — was literally His “cousin,” and that this is the scriptural “sense” in which “brother” is often used in the NT, thus disagreeing with the vast majority of Protestants today who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity. I have myself documented this several times (Luther and virtually all of the early Protestant leaders believed the same).
*
I have no idea what Calvin is referring to in claiming that Eusebius wrote that James was “the Bishop of the Apostles.” In Bk II, ch. 1, the word “bishop” occurs twice (in sections 2 and 3): both times referring to James as the bishop of Jerusalem. I searched in vain for the word “bishop” in the next fifteen chapters of Eusebius; so Calvin appears to have been using an edition of Eusebius that is now antiquated and inaccurate. Nice try, though. Calvin also futilely tried to argue — probably because of the same bias — that the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch were not authentic.
*
It’s appropriate and fitting to end with Calvin’s words — so quintessentially and “textbook” low church Protestant — and my reply.
*
Related Reading

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: The original Peter, Paul, & Mary: Madonna and Child with Sts. Peter and Paul (1608-1609), by Giuseppe Cesari (1568-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: The “anti-Petrine” bias of Protestants leads them to posit that James was bishop of Jerusalem in the 1st century: when single bishops supposedly didn’t exist.

October 25, 2023

October 25, 2023 By
0 Comments

Also: the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant; Church Fathers On the Binding Nature of the Council of Nicaea

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will now systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, The Binding Authority of Church Councils? (8-20-18).

Acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

Armstrong writes, “These passages offer proof that the early church held to a notion of the infallibility of church councils, and to a belief that they were especially guided by the Holy Spirit (precisely as in Catholic Church doctrine concerning ecumenical councils). Accordingly, Paul takes the message of the conciliar decree with him on his evangelistic journeys and preaches it to the people. The Church had real authority; it was binding and infallible.” – p. 7.

The council of Jerusalem upheld the Gospel of grace and ruled against the Judaizers who were attempting to add obedience to the Law as a requirement for justification.

Yep. Isn’t it great? Bravo!

It was the Catholic church that eventually did formulate a false gospel that required obedience to the Ten Commandments (impossible!) as a requirement for justification.

It can hardly be false, since our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ taught the same thing:

Matthew 19:16-19 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” [18] He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Obtaining eternal life (i.e., being eschatologically saved) is even more of a gift and blessing than being justified. This man asked Jesus how he could do that. Jesus didn’t say, “have faith in Me alone!” He told him that he had to “keep the commandments” if he wished to “enter life” (in context, clearly eternal life, because that was the man’s question). Then Jesus actually cites five of the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. It’s all quite clear enough.

But then ol’ Tom comes along and thinks he knows better than Jesus does about how one is saved. He objects to Jesus’ teaching as a “false gospel” (and further lies about Catholicism supposedly inventing Jesus’ teaching above). Moreover, he deems it to be “impossible!” to observe the Ten Commandments, whereas Jesus obviously thought it was quite possible, since He commanded it as required for eternal life. Someone’s gotta be right and someone wrong, since these two positions are absolutely contradictory. If the choice is Tom or Jesus, I choose — as I always have done and will do — my Lord Jesus. Jesus also stated the following related thought in His sermon on the mount:

Matthew 5:19-20 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Again Tom oddly holds that it is “impossible!” to be obedient to the Ten Commandments. Really?! That would come as a big surprise to the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. Inspired, inerrant Holy Scripture describes them as “righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Lk 1:6; cf. other “blameless” men: Noah [Gen 6:9]; King David [2 Sam 22:24]; King Asa [2 Chr 15:17]; Job [Job 1:1, 8; 2:3], and Daniel [Dan 6:22]). And all of this was even before Jesus died on the cross for our salvation and before the Holy Spirit came to dwell inside of all believers! St. Paul also states in agreement with Jesus:

1 Corinthians 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

St. John also concurs:

1 John 5:2-3 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. [3] For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

St. John informs us that not only is it not “impossible!” to follow God’s commandments, but that — to the contrary —  they “are not” even “burdensome.”  So now it’s Jesus, Paul, and John against Tom. St. John states again that persons exist who can indeed “keep the commandments of God” (Rev 12:17; repeated word for word in 14:12). Oh the agony as we squirm and writhe and decide whose teaching we will follow: that of Tom, or the truths taught by Jesus, St. Paul, and St. John: all arrayed and in agreement against him. Tom’s serious error is called antinomianism.

Like the Pharisees before them, the 1st century Judaizers were the forerunners of Catholic legalism.

Nonsense. The Judaizers were teaching, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The Catholic Church has never taught that. Tom has no idea what he is talking about.

Armstrong misses the great irony in these passages. The council of Jerusalem ruled against the very kind of salvation legalism that he and his church propagate!

I don’t see how. Tom doesn’t document any such alleged state of affairs. Like the typical anti-Catholic polemicist, he simply makes bald accusations, knowing that most of his readers will gobble them up unquestioningly. The Jerusalem Council ruled (Acts 15: 28-29) that Gentiles were no longer required to abide by the Jewish ceremonial law (circumcision, ritual washings, dietary laws, etc.). Jesus, Paul, and John were all referring to keeping the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments. The Catholic Church has never required its followers to be bound by Old Testament Jewish ceremonial and procedural laws. Paul, accordingly, made it very clear that circumcision was no longer required. And he argued that baptism in effect replaced it (Col 2:11-13). Tom’s charge is ludicrous and lacking in any substance.

The Catholic church argues that Peter was the pope of the early church, yet it was James, the half-brother of Jesus (Catholics claim he was Jesus’ cousin in order to preserve the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity), who issued the final ruling at the Jerusalem council.

The council at Jerusalem was dominated by and influenced the most by the leader of the early Church, St. Peter, who put an end to “much debate”(15:7), by authoritatively rebuking the Judaizers (“God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe . . . why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples . . .?”: 15:7, 10). This produced the dramatic effect of “silence” in the assembly after he spoke (15:7-12). Peter (having been informed already of the issue by God in a vision: Acts ch. 10-11) provided the principles by which the council made its decision. If Peter dominated the council and influenced it the most, in effect this was the developmental kernel of papal supremacy.
*
The local bishop, St. James, also played a prominent but secondary role. When he spoke, he deferentially referred back to Peter’s key and decisive address (“Simeon has related . . .”: 15:14), which is how one defers to superiors and authority figures; then he noted that the “prophets” agree with what Peter said (15:15) and cited them (15:16-18). When he proclaimed, “Therefore my judgment . . .” (15:19), he was simply agreeing with what Peter had already made clear, which he noted was in harmony with the prophets (i.e., the Bible).
*
Hence, the great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce described James’ address at the Jerusalem council as “expressing approval of Peter’s exhortation . . . James went on to say that the language of prophecy spoke to the same effect” (Peter, Stephen, James & John, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. co., 1979, p. 93). Peter spoke with authority and singlehandedly resolved the issue. James was in the final analysis merely like a commentator: repeating Peter’s authoritative and definitive advice and agreeing with it.
*
Both Catholics and Bible Christians agree that the council of Jerusalem was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, just as Scripture states.
*
Good statement! And in stating this, he virtually concedes the argument.
*
Which of the early church councils that followed were guided by the Holy Spirit? 
*
St. Athanasius wrote the following regarding the Council of Nicaea:
*
But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa 2; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

I thought that all vain talk of all heretics, many as they may be, had been stopped by the Synod which was held at Nicæa. For the Faith there confessed by the Fathers according to the divine Scriptures is enough by itself at once to overthrow all impiety, and to establish the religious belief in Christ. . . . How then, after all this, are some attempting to raise doubts or questions? (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 1; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

Whence did it occur to you, sirs, to say that the Body is of one Essence with the Godhead of the Word? For it is well to begin at this point, in order that by shewing this opinion to be unsound, all the others too may be proved to be the same. Now from the divine Scriptures we discover nothing of the kind. For they say that God came in a human body. But the fathers who also assembled at Nicæa say that, not the body, but the Son Himself is coessential with the Father, and that while He is of the Essence of the Father, the body, as they admitted according to the Scriptures, is of Mary. Either then deny the Synod of Nicæa, and as heretics bring in your doctrine from the side; or, if you wish to be children of the fathers, do not hold the contrary of what they wrote. (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 4; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

St. Basil the Great likewise thought the following about the Council of Nicaea:
*
My own opinion is that the following conditions are such as will not run counter to your own feeling and will be quite sufficient to satisfy the above mentioned brethren; namely, that you should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, . . .  (Letter CXIV, To Cyriacus, at Tarsus; NPNF 2, Vol. VIII)
St. Gregory of Nyssa agreed too:
*

[T]hey say that the charges which are being circulated against us are such as these; that we entertain opinions opposed to those who at Nicaea set forth the right and sound faith, . . . (Letter 2: To the City of Sebasteia; NPNF 2, Vol. V)

Anglican patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly described Epiphanius’s view of Nicaea:

Epiphanius, it is noteworthy, evidently regarded the Roman church (his attitude was not singular) as having preserved the apostolic rule of faith uniquely intact; but the supreme expression of it, he thought, was the creed sealed by the fathers gathered in session at Nicaea. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1978 edition, 45-46)

Theodoret referred to “enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its [Nicaea’s] decrees” (To Florentius, Epistle 89; NPNF 2, Vol. III: 283). He also wrote:

[F]ollow the footsteps of the holy Fathers and preserve undefiled the faith laid down at Nicaea in Bithynia by the holy and blessed Fathers, as summing up the teaching of Evangelists and Apostles. (To the Bishops of Cilicia, Epistle 84; NPNF 2, Vol. III: 280-281)

I follow the laws and rules of the apostles. I test my teaching by applying to it, like a rule and a measure, the faith laid down by the holy and blessed Fathers at Nicaea. (To Lupicinus, Epistle 90; NPNF 2, Vol. III: 283)

Tom then made a bunch of standard anti-Catholic playbook claims about the history of councils and popes. Since he documents absolutely nothing, it’s not serious enough to warrant any response, and even if I did reply, I have no idea what particulars he has in mind. That is no debate. It’s merely silly and arbitrary preaching and polemics.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: Anti-Catholic Tom draws all the wrong conclusions about the Jerusalem Council & its implications for later Catholic ecclesiology, & about legitimate good works.

September 27, 2023

September 27, 2023 By
0 Comments

[see book and purchase information]

The late Steve Hays made a response to me on 14 January 2010 entitled “Up from the acorn.” It mostly had to do with the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and early ecclesiology, and was a reply to some of my arguments in my article, “Catholic Development of Doctrine: A Defense: Part I (vs. Jason Engwer; Emphasis on the Canon of the Bible & Church Infallibility)” [1-13-10].

This is a mere fifteen days before he described me as possessing an “evil character”: which he added to his colorful repertoire of personal insults sent my way; for example, “narcissistic little jerk” and “actually evil” (4-13-09), “hypersensitive, paranoid, an ego-maniac, with a martyr and persecution complex” (7-16-09), “a stalwart enemy of the faith” whose goal is “to destroy faith in God’s word” (1-28-10), “schizophrenic . . . . self-important. . . . emotionally unhinged” (4-18-10), and “a bad man” (12-7-11). Thankfully, however, in this instance, he decided to actually discuss theology, minus the childish and asinine foolishness. Good for him. Please pray for his soul.

His words will be in blue. Words of mine that he cited from that article will be in green.

*****

Dave Armstrong is attempting to critique a post by Jason Engwer. . . . I’ll just comment on what I think is most germane.

[T]he concept is already (I would contend) explicitly present in Scripture, in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which not only claimed profoundly binding authority, but even the express sanction of the Holy Spirit, making it close to the concept of biblical inspiration: a thing that goes beyond all Catholic claims for infallibility: an essentially lesser gift than inspiration.

Is the council of Jerusalem really the archetype and prototype for the ecumenical councils of Rome?

Yes.

Does the council of Jerusalem point to an “authoritative church,” as the church of Rome defines herself?

Yes. It had all the hallmarks of an ecumenical council:

1) It was called to consider and resolve a pressing issue troubling the Church (15:1-6).

2) It was attended by bishops (“apostles”: from whom bishops are successors: Acts 15:6, 22-23) from the Church at large.

3) It was attended and influenced by those with less authority than bishops also (“elders”: 15:6, 22-23).

4) It was dominated by and influenced the most by the leader of the early Church, Peter, who put an end to “much debate”(15:7), by authoritatively rebuking the Judaizers (“God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe . . . why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples . . .?”: 15:7, 10). This produced the dramatic effect of “silence” in the assembly after he spoke (15:7-12). Peter (having been informed already of the issue by God in a vision: Acts ch. 10-11) provided the principles by which the council made its decision. If Peter dominated the council and influenced it the most, in effect this was the developmental kernel of papal supremacy.

5) The local bishop, James, also played a prominent but secondary role. When he spoke, he deferentially referred back to Peter’s key and decisive address (“Simeon has related . . .”: 15:14), which is how one defers to superiors and authority figures; then he noted that the “prophets” agree with what Peter said (15:15) and cited them (15:16-18). When he proclaimed, “Therefore my judgment . . .” (15:19), he was simply agreeing with what Peter had already made clear, which he noted was in harmony with the prophets (i.e., the Bible).

6) It reached a profound unity of mind and came “to one accord” (15:25).

7) It made an authoritative decree for the larger Church (15:19-21, 28-29).

8) It invoked the guidance of the Holy Spirit in so doing (15:28); i.e., infallibility.

9) It authoritatively and infallibly interpreted Scripture (matters concerning the application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians: 15:1-6, 19-21, 28-29).

10) Its decree was proclaimed “for observance” across Asia Minor, by no less than St. Paul himself (16:4). He had played a far lesser role than Peter and James in the council, since he and Barnabas simply “related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Likewise, great bishops through history like St. Augustine and St. Athanasius advised councils and appealed to them as profound authorities but didn’t lead them.

So although it came at a very early time in the development of ecclesiology, all of the essential elements of what would become ecumenical councils are remarkably present, according to the record of inspired revelation. It’s a devastating argument against sola Scriptura, which denies the infallibility or final authority of anything besides Holy Scripture.

Hays cites the Catholic Encyclopedia article, “General Councils”:

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.
*
The bishops in council…hold no power, no commission, or delegation, from the people. All their powers, orders, jurisdiction, and membership in the council, come to them from above — directly from the pope, ultimately from God.
*
The council is, then, the assessor of the supreme teacher and judge sitting on the Chair of Peter by Divine appointment; its operation is essentially co-operation — the common action of the members with their head — and therefore necessarily rises or falls in value, according to the measure of its connection with the pope. A council in opposition to the pope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the pope who opposes it, nor the absent bishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of their dioceses except through the pope. A council not only acting independently of the Vicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church.

On this model, you have one authoritative, hierarchical institution.

That’s right. John Calvin agreed. He wrote:

To those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother . . . (Gal. 4:26). (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, 1:1)

[A]ll who reject the spiritual food of the soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of hunger and famine. (Inst., IV, 1:5)

[T]he Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And what else do these words mean, than just that the truth of God is preserved in the Church, and preserved by the instrumentality of preaching; . . . The reason, therefore, why the truth, instead of being extinguished in the world, remains unimpaired, is, because he has the Church as a faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained. (Inst., IV, 8:12)

[T]here is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Mt. 22:30). For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32). . . . the abandonment of the Church is always fatal. (Inst., IV, 1:4)

We may add, that so long as we continue in the bosom of the Church, we are sure that the truth will remain with us. (Inst., IV, 1:3)

So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired. For there is no small weight in the designation given to her, “the house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). By these words Paul intimates, that to prevent the truth from perishing in the world, the Church is its faithful guardian, because God has been pleased to preserve the pure preaching of his word by her instrumentality, and to exhibit himself to us as a parent while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and provides whatever is conducive to our salvation. (Inst., IV, 1:10)

The bishops are papal appointees. They derive all their authority from the pope.

Methods of appointment are non-essential elements and developed through time. The important thing to note is that there were bishops, and a leader of the disciples who then became a leader of the bishops. This is all quite biblical. See my well-known (or in some circles, “notorious”), article, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994].

The church of Rome is the central institution which empowered them in the first place.

Yes; following the model of the early Church, which appointed Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:20-26), and commissioned St. Paul (Gal 2:9), etc. Peter had been established in the office of the papacy by Jesus Himself (Mt 16, etc.). And the disciples, the first apostles had been called and commissioned by Him as well.

ii) Compare that to Acts 15.

a) ”Pope” Peter doesn’t even preside at the council. James does. What is more, “Pope” Peter doesn’t even confirm the proceedings of the council.

See my summary of the council in #4-5 above. James gave his opinion, in agreement with what Peter had already made clear. The text doesn’t say he was presiding over the council. When the decree was made, it was made in the name of the entire council (15:22-29). The text doesn’t say that either Peter or James ratified or confirmed the letter. That being the case, and all things considered, I think the data we do have from Acts 15 — per my reasoning above — suggests that Peter was the leader and most influential figure in the council: especially in light of the fact that he had been presented in the Gospels as the leader of the disciples and in early Acts as the leader of the young Church. Thus, being leader of the first council of the Church would be entirely consistent with that picture.

b) The council of Jerusalem exists to pass judgment on Peter’s actions–as well as Paul’s. Peter is not above the council.

Again, if Peter dominated it, he could be described as being “supreme” in it (the beginnings of papal supremacy). The council, in its decree, directly reflected what both Peter and Paul had already come to understand about the Gentiles (and Peter by virtue of a vision from God).

Mind you, this is collegial. No individual mission leader outranks any other individual mission leader in these proceedings. No one is above another.

That’s what we would expect in an early Church where the first believers “were together and had all things in common” (Acts 2:44). Jesus had taught that the disciples were not to “lord it over” anyone:

Mark 10:42-44 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. [43] But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [44] and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.

But this is not inconsistent with leadership, since Jesus Himself washed feet and acted as a servant to His own disciples, while still being their Lord. Likewise, with Peter and the apostles. Acts 15 shows Peter acting as the leader.

Indeed, as Paul makes emphatically clear in Gal 1-2, his authority did not derive from the “authoritative church” of Jerusalem.

His calling came from God, as all callings ultimately do. It doesn’t follow that he was not under any authority in the Church. It’s no mere coincidence that when Paul first interacted with the Church in Jerusalem, he first talked to “Cephas” [Peter, from the Aramaic kepha], and he “remained with him fifteen days” (Gal 1:18). The only other apostle he saw was James the bishop of Jerusalem (Gal 1:19). So the scenario is just as it was in the council: Peter was the leader and James a secondary leader. Note that I am using the same text that Hays claims proves that Paul was supposedly not under authority. Paul basically contends that he was commissioned (or “given the okay”) by Peter, James, and John:

Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers stated that the word “pillars” was “in common use among the Jews as a designation for the great Rabbinical teachers.”

c) Each speaker in this debate (Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James) is the coequal leader of different mission churches or missionary fields. There is no hierarchy in which one individual (the “supreme leader”) appointed the others to subordinate positions in the power structure. No chain-of-command at this level. There may be people under Peter, Paul, James, &c. But no one is over them.

Again, I say that Peter is presented as the leader, but he’s not “lording it over” them, since he is following his master, Jesus’ lead. Paul and Barnabas were, in fact, “sent off” by the assembly to proclaim its message (15:25, 30; 16:4), along with Judas and Silas (15:27), so there is some sense of “chain of command” there (however “gentle”), I submit.

What we have, rather, are representatives of different, semiautonomous mission churches who come together to hammer out a common policy for the good of the church at large. On the one hand they aren’t entirely independent of each another. On the other hand, no one church can unilaterally impose its will on other mission churches and mission leaders.

This is simply a “low church” bias. Hays’ first sentence is essentially describing episcopal, hierarchical church government. But then he contradicts himself in his final sentence. The decree of the council is precisely the church in Jerusalem “imposing its will” on other local churches (in Asia Minor, as we learn from Acts 16:4), regarding the question of how responsible Gentiles were to keep the Law. In fact, its decision held subsequently throughout all Church history.

That’s a completely different polity than Roman Catholicism. Yet this was Armstrong’s paradigmatic example of the “authoritative church” in action.

Sorry, I don’t see any big (let alone essential) difference here, per my arguments above, which are far more detailed, in-depth, and Bible-based than Steve’s arbitrary “bald” pronouncements.

Now, Dave may claim that things change when we transition from the apostles to their “successors,” but he can’t logically evolve the Catholic ear from the kernel of Acts 15.

Things develop, as always. Development is a consistent progression in complexity and understanding, while maintaining the essence all along, not an evolutionary doctrinal change: a thing which the Church has condemned. When Pope St. Pius X condemned evolution of dogma, at the same time he enthusiastically advocated and praised Newmanian development of doctrine. Steve Hays never understood these sorts of things about Catholicism, and he displayed his uncomprehending ignorance again here.

d) Although Paul complies with the policy which he and his fellow mission leaders agreed to at the time (15:30), he does so at his own discretion–for he also feels at liberty to demur from the conciliar prohibitions regarding sacrificial food when he must later deal with the Corinthian situation (1 Cor 10:27-28).

Therefore, he doesn’t regard the “canons and decrees” of the Jerusalem council as binding on him or his congregants. Rather, it’s a pragmatic compromise which can be selectively set aside depending on the demands of the situation at hand.

Those are all secondary considerations and not of the essence, and as such, no disproof of my claims. All Paul did was what the Church at large at length decided, as to matters of food. Applications of Church decrees develop, too, as new situations arise.

And this is a textbook example of Catholic spooftexting, whereby Armstrong begins with Catholic ecclesiology as his frame of reference, then anachronistically superimposes that grid onto Acts 15, conveniently overlooking or disregarding the fundamental differences.

I did no such thing. We all do have our natural biases, though, depending on our Christian affiliation. I will tend to see — going in — primitive Catholicism here, just as Hays saw primitive Calvinism and low church ecclesiology. That said, and freely admitted, I have argued from the Newmanian perspective of development of doctrine. Nothing I see in Acts 15 contradicts that understanding in the least. And I have laid out my view far more comprehensively than Hays has done with his. I think it’s most consistent — indeed, strikingly so — with a “primitive Catholicism” perspective.

The authoritative Church also includes apostolic succession. The true apostolic tradition or deposit is authoritatively passed down.

Of course, that simply begs the question.

Not when I can back up my claim with lots of Scripture:

Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church [1996]

Apostles Became Bishops (Apostolic Succession) [1997]

Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession [9-9-09]

Apostolic Succession: More Biblical Arguments [1-6-17]

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]

Answers to Questions About Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 7-25-20]

A New Biblical Argument for Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 4-23-21]

“New” Apostle Matthias: Proof of Church Infallibility [12-31-21]

Apostolic Succession, Judas, & Matthias [5-26-23]

Petrine & Roman Primacy & Papal Succession (vs. Calvin #14) [6-13-09]

The Biblical Argument for Papal Succession [12-12-15]

Papal Succession: A Straightforward Biblical Argument [4-28-17]

All that really needs to be found, then, is a notion of an authoritative Church that can “bind and loose,” over against sola Scriptura, in which Scripture alone is the infallible authority.

i) Dave would need to properly exegete the concept of “binding and loosing” in the Gospels.

I wrote in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (1996, p. 225):

Binding and loosing were technical rabbinical terms meaning, respectively, “to forbid” and “to permit,” with regard to interpretations of Jewish Law. In secondary usage, they could mean “to condemn” and “to acquit.” This power is also given to the Apostles in Matthew 18:17-18, where it apparently refers particularly to discipline and excommunication in local jurisdictions (whereas Peter’s commission seems to apply to the universal Church).

In John 20:23 it is also granted to the Apostles (in a different terminology, which suggests the power to impose penance and grant indulgences and absolution). Generally  speaking, binding and loosing usually meant the prerogative to formulate Christian doctrine and to require allegiance to it, as well as to condemn heresies which were opposed to the true doctrine (Jude 3). [1]

Marvin Vincent writes:

No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his Resurrection, to the Church (John 20:23) . . . [2]

FOOTNOTES

1. See, for example, Protestant works: Allen C. Myers, editor, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987 [English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975], translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink, p. 158; D. Guthrie, and J. A. Motyer, editors, The New Bible Commentary (NBC), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], p. 837; Leon Morris, general editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, R. T. France, p. 256.

2. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946 (originally 1887), 4 volumes, vol. 1, p. 96.

Aspects of particulars such as where this Church resides, exactly how it is governed, etc., are distinct from this basic kernel, and we would fully expect relatively more disagreement in the early centuries, just as we would expect the known fact of disagreement over the NT books (the canon): more so, the further we go back. That should surprise no one or make no one think Catholic doctrine is brought into question on this ground by itself. Men could differ on the exact nature of the infallible Church, while agreeing that there is such a thing, just as men can differ on individual books, while agreeing that there is such a thing as a Bible, that is inspired.

i) If we equate early tradition with apostolic tradition, with a deposit of faith handed down without adulteration from one successor to another, then we wouldn’t expect more disagreement the closer back in time we go to the wellspring. To the contrary, we’d expect more unanimity.

We see that on the basics and fundamentals, but not the fine points and specifics. But even basic things like Christology and the theology of trinitarianism, took (as is well-known) some six centuries to fully develop into their present orthodox form. Ecclesiology was rather slow in development, though we do see its kernel clearly in the Bible, and see it also very plainly in St. Clement. (c. 35 –  c. 101).

ii) Dave can’t legitimately isolate the bare “kernel” of an infallible/authoritative church from the “particulars,” for, on his model, the true church is self-defining and self-identifying. The infallible church is the custodian of the “kernel.” It defines the “kernel.”

Nice try. It’s not circular reasoning. It is what it is, based on the account in the New Testament, and subsequent history. I didn’t make it what it is. Nor did the Catholic Church arbitrarily define itself (no matter how much Hays desperately wished and fantasized that that were true). It did based on the apostolic deposit, passed down from our Lord Jesus Christ.

So you need the true definition to identify the true church, yet you need the true church to identify the true definition. Unless you already know where this church resides, you can’t specify what is meant by an infallible, authoritative church. For the church itself must specify the concept. Otherwise, words like “authoritative” and “infallible” are simply ciphers.

The Jerusalem Council is where we look to see the beginning and the essence.

But unless you already have an accurate definition, you can’t use that to pick out the one true church. So how does Dave ever get started?

I start with the New Testament and words of Jesus, of course. One exercises faith, serous exegesis, and historical analysis, rather than Hays’ trademark hyper-skepticism and cynicism towards anything different from his own beliefs.

iii) He can’t very well invoke the criterion of “binding and loosing” in the canonical gospels, for, according to him, it’s up to the authoritative church to authorize the canon in the first place. Without his infallible church, he has no warrant for the “binding and loosing” criterion.

Nonsense. It had a long Jewish and rabbinical pedigree, from which it developed, as the several Protestant scholars whom I cited in my first book (see above) explain.

iv) And if all we need is the bare concept of an authoritative, infallible church, then the LDS church might as well claim to be the oak which sprang from this indistinct acorn.

Sure, if it hadn’t begun based on alleged visions of Joseph Smith in 1823. It’s a bit of a later arriver, I’m afraid. The true Church has to trace itself to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

Protestantism didn’t exist. When it does come around over a thousand years later, it obviously has to be derived from Catholicism (being a western European phenomenon) in order to claim historical continuity, and then it has to provide a rationale for the “primacy” supposedly being switched over to them over against the existing Catholic Church.

But given the principle of development, Protestantism, in its “particulars,” didn’t have to “exist” back then. All we’d need to unearth is a Protestant acorn from which the Protestant oak tree arose.

Best wishes in that endeavor! Talk about an impossible task!

The existence of apostolic succession as a major part of the rule of faith in the fathers isn’t even arguable. It is simply a fact. It also has a directly biblical basis and a secondary, indirect (deductive) biblical basis, if the thing itself is to be disputed.

It’s gratifying to see Armstrong’s bold confidence in the perspicuity of Scripture. But now that he’s affirmed his faith in the perspicuity of Scripture, the Magisterium is dispensable.

Why would it (logically) be dispensable? It doesn’t follow. Nor will the Bible itself allow that, since it explicitly asserts ecclesial infallibility:

1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20]

In other words, if you accept an infallible Bible, you must necessarily also accept an infallible Church, since the infallible Bible proclaims it.

They could conceivably be so, but the historical pedigree in those cases is far inferior to the pedigree of Rome: largely because of the historical function of the papacy.

Would the pedigree of Rome include the False Decretals, fraudulent papal elections, &c.?

One can always find anomalies, shortcomings, and sins among the human beings, even in the one true Church. These don’t falsify the essential claims made.

Related Reading

Jerusalem Council vs. Sola Scriptura [9-2-04]

Acts 16:4 vs. Sola Scriptura & John Calvin?: Is Conciliar Authority Binding on Protestants (Especially When it is Guided by St. Paul and St. Peter?) [11-2-15]

C. S. Lewis vs. St. Paul on Future Binding Church Authority [National Catholic Register, 1-22-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council) [3-2-17]

Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) Decrees: Universally Binding? [11-21-19]

Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?) [5-21-21]

Jerusalem Council, “Idol” Food, Paul, & Doctrinal Development: Reply to Lydia McGrew [12-9-22]

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: I reply to various objections to the Catholic and “episcopal” interpretation of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) made by the late anti-Catholic Calvinist Steve Hays.

 

December 9, 2022

December 9, 2022 By

Reply to Lydia McGrew

My friend Lydia McGrew is a scholar in the area of English literature, philosophy, and theology, and author of the books, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels From Literary Devices, and The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage. I am responding to a comment she made online (dated 10-30-22) about the Jerusalem Council.

*****

Lydia McGrew stated:

We can even see that varying interpretations of the decrees of the Jerusalem council are going on in the apostolic era. For example, the Jerusalem council definitely says (even citing the Holy Spirit as their source!) that Gentiles may not eat meat offered to idols. This suggests a very rigorist approach to that issue, to put it mildly. But in I Cor[inthians] Paul softens this by saying that they can eat whatever they buy in the market without worrying where it came from. And the same for food set before them at a meal that merely may be offered to idols. He adds that they should not eat meat that they are told has been offered to idols, lest this harm the other person’s conscience. So he basically institutes a don’t ask don’t tell policy on meat offered to idols. Which, to put it mildly, might have bothered people who crafted the council’s decree. Paul could say that he is interpreting the council’s decree, but that just reinforces the somewhat Protestant paradigm. (And he doesn’t cite the council’s decree on this or any other matter in any of his epistles.)

Let’s cite the relevant passages so we can better understand what is being discussed here:

Acts 15:28-30 (RSV) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” [30] So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.

Acts 16:4 As they [Paul and Silas: 15:40] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

1 Corinthians 8:4-13 Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” [5] For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” — [6] yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [7] However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. [8] Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. [9] Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. [10] For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol’s temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? [11] And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. [12] Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. [13] Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.

1 Corinthians 10:19-21, 25-33 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? [20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. [21] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. . . . [25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. [26] For “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” [27] If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. [28] (But if some one says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience’ sake — [29] I mean his conscience, not yours — do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man’s scruples? [30] If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? [31] So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. [32] Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, [33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jez’ebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Let’s examine Lydia’s argument piece-by-piece (her words in green). The context of a remark was an article written by Protestant apologist Jason Engwer the day before, which was a critique of Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, with regard to the Catholic rule of faith and Catholic conceptions of authority, including apostolic authority in the first century.

We can even see that varying interpretations of the decrees of the Jerusalem council are going on in the apostolic era. For example, the Jerusalem council definitely says (even citing the Holy Spirit as their source!) that Gentiles may not eat meat offered to idols. This suggests a very rigorist approach to that issue, to put it mildly.

The object of the post and insinuation of Lydia’s comment on it was to suggest a contradiction between Scripture and the Catholic rule of faith. I see no such contradiction (per my present argument).

I shall contend that St. Paul doesn’t contradict what the council decreed; rather, he developed it and elaborated upon it. All we have from the conciliar decree is what is recorded in the Bible. It may have been longer, or it may not have been. If it was as short as what we know about, then as a legal-type matter, it’s self-evident, I think, that it would necessarily have to be expanded upon, because application is always much trickier than the mere statement of a law or moral precept. That’s clearly true of secular law (e.g., the very spare freedom of speech and religion clauses in the Constitution), and it had the precedent of long Jewish history (the Talmud), of interpreting thousands of specific situations and how Mosaic Law would or could be applied to each.

So I submit that the dynamic in play in this instance is not “rigorist” vs. a “a don’t ask don’t tell policy”. The council’s spirit, I would contend, was the very opposite of “rigorist.” It rescinded, after all, the age-old requirement of circumcision for Gentiles, and it’s overall impact was to abrogate the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law altogether in the case of Gentiles (who would, of course, be almost all of the Christians in short order). I think the more accurate comparison of the two statements and approaches is “baldly stated and less developed” compared to (not “vs.”) “more developed and particularized and nuanced.”

But in I Cor[inthians] Paul softens this by saying that they can eat whatever they buy in the market without worrying where it came from. And the same for food set before them at a meal that merely may be offered to idols. He adds that they should not eat meat that they are told has been offered to idols, lest this harm the other person’s conscience. So he basically institutes a don’t ask don’t tell policy on meat offered to idols. Which, to put it mildly, might have bothered people who crafted the council’s decree.

I have posted what Paul wrote about food and idols above, so folks can read the context. I found a great article regarding this issue, entitled, “The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),” by David E. Garland, of George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. It fits in very nicely with my opinion that Paul’s treatment of food offered to idols is a consistent development of the “kernel” or “essence” of the decree of the Jerusalem Council (and as such, in no way contrary to the council):

The thesis of this paper is that, contrary to a popular reading of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1, Paul forbade Christians from any association with any food overtly connected to idolatry.  He understands the Christian confession of one God and one Lord to require exclusive loyalty so that even a token or make-believe show of fealty to an idol compromises the loyalty owed only to God and Christ.  . . .

His oblique argument has tended to throw off interpreters.  Some have regarded the chapters to be a patchwork of interpolations, while others misread Paul’s unequivocal rejection of anything explicitly connected to idols and assume that he made concessions and permitted supposedly innocuous, social dining in an idol’s shrine.  Neither view is correct. . . .

Christians might avoid overt associations with idolatry by declining to attend meals connected to idols and their shrines, but what were they to do when they were guests at someone’s house and offered food sacrificed to an idol?  They had colleagues, relatives, and patrons who were devotees of other gods and goddesses, and they would be put in socially awkward situations when invited to another’s home and offered food that had been sanctified by an idol by a religiously minded host. . . . The issue Paul addresses in chapters 8-10 involves three different types of situations: (1) eating food sacrificed to an idol at the temple of an idol (8:7-13; 10:1-22); (2) eating food of unknown history that is bought in the market (10:23-27); and (3) eating food in the private homes of unbelievers (10:28-31).

An underestimation of the religious nature of meals at temple shrines has lead to a misunderstanding of the nature of the dispute Paul addresses.  Many recent interpreters imagine that the Corinthians wrote to Paul to arbitrate an internal squabble between the “strong” and the “weak” who were of different minds regarding food offered to idols. . . .

This dominant view assumes that the “weak” Christians felt neither so free nor so bold.  They were converted pagans – Jews could not be described as “until now accustomed to idols” (8:7) – and their past associations of the sacrificed food with pagan rites and shrines were simply too strong for them to eat in good conscience.  They did not have the strong’s liberating knowledge in their emotions and sensibilities but felt pressure from the strong to imitate them and not be so squeamish or sanctimonious.  Some contend that the so-called “strong” castigated their more scrupulous brothers and sisters as the “weak” in their letter to Paul and sought to raise their consciousness by encouraging them to attend meals in pagan temples and to consume the idol food. . . .

The hypothesis that a dispute raged between “strong” and “weak” Corinthians does not bear careful scrutiny.  Paul never identifies any particular group as “the strong.”  He never addresses the weak and only describes them in the third person as reasons for giving up what one considers to be a right.  There is no indication in the text that the “strong” are trying to bend the will of the weak to see things their way. . . .

The traditional view is also fundamentally wrong in assuming that Paul would have jettisoned the basic covenantal demand of exclusive allegiance to the one Lord by permitting Christians to do things that implied that they formed a common front with anything overtly connected to idols (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-7:1).  For Paul, idolatry is the vice that leads to all vices (Rom 1:19-32) and prominent in the catalog of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20).  Idolaters (among others) will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). . . .

A major error of the traditional view is the weight it places on Paul’s warning about the potential harm that eating idol food might cause a Christian with a weak conscience.  It assumes that this was Paul’s only problem with eating idol food. . . . He did not pass off eating of idol food, with full awareness of its idolatrous connections, as a matter of indifference.  It is a dangerous, sinful act since Paul explicitly links idol food to idolatry in 10:19-20 and never says, “Eat idol food as long as the weak are not caused to stumble.”  He allows one to eat any food bought in the market or offered in another’s home without asking its origins or history.  If one somehow were informed that the food was idol food, then Paul insists that one must abstain. . . .

Paul addresses the question of food of questionable origins – food that may have been sacrificed to idols before it comes into the hands of a believer.  To answer the question how a Christian can act with integrity in a world brimming with idols, he moves from an absolute prohibition based on general arguments about the dangers of associating with anything idolatrous to conditional liberty based on the biblical tenet that the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (10:26; Ps 24:1).  He gives the go-ahead on everything that is beyond an idol’s orbit.  It is not permanently poisoned.

Paul clarifies that food is food and permissible to eat unless it is specifically identified as idol food, which puts it in a special category that is always forbidden to Christians.  They need not abstain from all food on the chance that it may have been sacrificed to idols.  He basically says, “Of course, you can buy food in the provision market” (10:25).  “Of course, you can dine with friends” (10:27).  His prohibition of idol food does not mean that they must retreat to the seclusion of a gloomy ghetto. . . .

Paul permits buying food in the market-place that may or may not have been sacrificed in a pagan temple.  But if its history was disclosed and it was announced to be idol food, then he forbids eating it.  He permits dining with friends who may be worshipers of idols, but if the food is announced to be idol food, then he forbids eating it.  Christians may not participate in any function that overtly smacks of idolatry. He basically “defines what is idol food in doubtful cases” – when it is not specified as idol food.  All food outside of the idol’s orbit is permitted, so he gives them leave to eat anything sold in the public market without investigating its history to certify that it is free from any idolatrous contamination.  Christ has not called them to be meat inspectors.  Outside of its idolatrous context, idol food becomes simply food and belongs to the one God (Rom 14:14). . . .

The premise behind this instruction comes from Ps 24:1 (cf. 50:12; 89:11), . . . It affirms that God is sovereign over all things (8:6) and that everything created by God is good (cf. 1 Tim 4:4).  The whole creation belongs to God, not part to God and part to idols.  Idol food therefore loses its character as idol food as soon as it leaves the idol’s arena and the idolater’s purposes.  Paul does not complete the thought with a conclusion from the biblical citation, but it is implicit: “Nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom 14:14; cf. Acts 10:15).  If it can be eaten in honor of the Lord (Rom 14:7), it is permitted.  What Paul finds sinful is eating idol food in any setting that might give others the slightest hint that Christians sanctioned idolatry, no matter how attenuated the religious aspects attached to the meal or the place might be.

Paul could say that he is interpreting the council’s decree, but that just reinforces the somewhat Protestant paradigm. 

He is interpreting the decree by expanding upon it and applying it to real-life situations, which is what always happens to legal decrees. This is a development and not a contradiction or difference of opinion. Paul goes into great detail about what (in effect) the decree in its elegant simplicity meant. That is not in the slightest degree in opposition to the Catholic rule of faith. It’s an apostle, who also wrote inspired Scripture, developing and authoritatively interpreting the decree of an apostolic council, which he and St. Peter attended, which produced a decree: which also made it into inspired Scripture, by God’s design.

By analogy, the Jerusalem Council is like ecumenical councils in the Catholic Church: arguably even led (in the thrust of its ideas) by Peter, the first pope: who God also chose to reveal His will to include Gentiles and to relax the Law’s requirements (especially regarding food). Paul (who was a very minor figure at the council, at least judging by what we know, is functioning as a bishop or theologian or catechist, or even (dare I say it?) an apologist, in elaborating upon its meaning.

(And he doesn’t cite the council’s decree on this or any other matter in any of his epistles.)

He may be making vague allusions to it in his statements cited above, since it is the same subject matter. Acts 16:4, cited above, shows us that he declared the conciliar decree “for observance.” This more or less proves that he completely agreed with it, and continued to do so when he developed it in his own epistles.

So this proves nothing in terms of it supposedly being some sort of biblical argument against Catholic ecclesiology.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Reconstruction of Herod’s Temple (at the time of Jesus), with Robinson’s Arch in the foreground [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license]

***

Summary: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, develops and consistently expands upon the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) regarding the eating of food offered to idols.

 

 

May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021 By

And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?

This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good friend of mine who is a Byzantine Catholic priest, and my co-author of the book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (3rd revised edition: July 2015, 335 pages). His words will be in blue. He likely has more to say. If so, that will be  added to this dialogue.

*****

[for background, read Acts 15]

Saint Peter did not preside at the council of Jerusalem.

Ah, east and west. Here is the argument for St. Peter presiding, as I understand it, from a 2017 article of mine (some repetition from the above and some new elements, too):
*
From Acts 15, we learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter’s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the “host.”
St. Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).
*
This was the secondary decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided — with regard to food –, to prohibit only that which “has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled” (15:29).
*
Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore expands upon this:
*
Jerusalem Council: Orthodox or Catholic style of council?
So, did the Jerusalem Council operate like the Orthodox model of an Ecumenical council? Or rather like the Catholic model? Here’s how it worked:
*
The bishops met TO EXAMINE the matter. They DEBATED.
*
Then, Peter — after listening to the debate — gave HIS TEACHING (vox Petros).
*
After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).
*
Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter’s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in the Immaculate Conception dogma backed up by the miracles at Lourdes).
*
And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, THIS is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.
*
However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.
*
So, why does James speak?
*
We think there are three reasons:
*
He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.
*
What he says, he …like Paul and Barnabas …ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God…” etc.
*
And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:
*
“Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.’
*
They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says:
*
“It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”
*
Who was “troubling” the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas.  Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to.
*
So again, the Council of Jerusalem was not an Ecumenical Council by Byzantine Orthodox definition. Rather, it was COMPLETELY based on the Petrine teaching office: the magisterium of the Church.
*
Thanks for the reply. Here is what I just posted on my page.
*
DID ST PETER PRESIDE OVER THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM?
*
This to me is an interesting and important question in part because it highlights the importance of Petrine primacy in support of local or regional primacy. Here I defer to Pope St John Paul II:
*
“The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.” – Ut Unum Sint, #97
*
It is simply an anachronistic reading to say that Peter “presided” over the Council, when in fact (as the Pope references) he spoke in the name of the apostolic community and in service to the unity of the brethren, while respecting the authority of James. What authority was that? To preside over the Council as the head of the local Church in Jerusalem.
*
I certainly agree with Petrine primacy and believe that this is a model for how it can and should function – in service to unity and to the strengthening of the local and regional authority of bishops, not in presiding over every activity, including Synodal activities.
*
Fr. Daniel,
*
I think we are basically quibbling over the meaning of “preside.” I used it in a way to mean that Peter had the greater overall authority. But it can also be used to denote administrative or procedural authority or in the sense of the “local bishop presiding over his own jurisdiction.” St. James did the latter (I agree; I don’t think anyone disagrees about that). But Peter had more authority overall. I don’t see that this disagrees at all with what Pope St. John Paul II wrote (Peter represents the apostles while James is Bishop of Jerusalem).
*
Mark Bonocore wrote in another part of his article that I didn’t cite: “It is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place — even over the resident reigning bishop (James).”
I agree.
*
I think another issue is what we view the Jerusalem Council as representing (as a prototype or analogy). There is a sense in which it was a local council and also by analogy, the prototype of what was to become the ecumenical council. It’s the only example of a council (after Pentecost) in the NT that we have. And so if we are to learn about the nature of an ecumenical council in the NT, this is it. I believe that we could find statements from popes and theologians expressing this analogy.
*
Thus, in the “prototype of ecumenical councils” model, Peter would obviously ultimately preside. But in the “local council” perspective it would be James.
*
Is it only a local council, though? I say that it clearly wasn’t, because its decision (about circumcision and clean food requirements) was binding thereafter on the entire Church: not just Jerusalem (which would be the case in a merely local council).
*
Hence, Paul pronounces the decision as binding upon the Christians in all the cities he was visiting in Asia Minor [Turkey] (Acts 16:4). Therefore, the Jerusalem Council is more a model of an ecumenical council, in my opinion: because of who is affected by its decision (the entire Church). If we say that a local bishop presided over a decision that affected the entire universal Church all through history, I think that is a mix-up of categories and makes little sense. But if we view Peter as “presiding” in the sense of ultimate authority and the issuance of the central proclamation, then it makes more sense of a universal decision being presided over by the universal bishop.
*
It might be objected that with regard to the Deuterocanon, local councils were originally the ones that declared it. But those were ratified by the pope. Thus, for the rulings of the Jerusalem Council to be universally binding, would they not have to be “ratified” by the first pope, Peter (whether he technically “presided” in the sense that we agree James did or not)? I think so.
*
Moreover, by further analogy (can you tell that I love that sort of argument?), the book of Acts, prior to this council, had already presented Peter as overwhelmingly preeminent in the early apostolic Church:
*
1) Peter’s name occurs first in a list of the apostles (Acts 1:13; cf. 2:37).
2) Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
3) Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).
4) Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
5) Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
6) Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
7) Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
8 ) Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
9) Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
10) Peter is the first [named] person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
11) Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
12) Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
13) Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
14) Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).
15) The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
16) Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
17) Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”
18 ) Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
19) Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
20) Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
21) Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
22) Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
*
So — again, by analogy — when we get to the Jerusalem Council isn’t it plausible to ALSO think that Peter had the greatest authority? Whether James presided as local bishop doesn’t affect Peter’s overall authority as pope and head of the universal Church. And he exercised that at this council, by delivering the central and definitive message. In the first part of Ut Unum Sint #97, Pope St. John Paul II also wrote:
*
The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith.
*
I will come back to this later, but for now let me only say that I think we need to consider a couple of points.
*
First, to preside at a council even if it is simply a council in seed form is to preside over an act of the magisterium – in this particular case and apostolic magisterium. I don’t think we should reduce the role of James to purely an administrative one when in fact very clearly he speaks for the whole council and renders an authoritative judgment in the name of all present.
*
Second, I think the issue of who has more authority is really an attempt to read into a narrative a concern that is not being answered or addressed by the narrative. It is essentially to ask the question – what if James had disagreed with Peter, could he have rendered a different judgment? Such a notion would have really been foreign to the concerns or spirit of the apostolic age, so again I think what we have here is an anachronistic reading addressing later theological concerns. I’m not saying it is entirely illegitimate, nor am I saying that James would or could have disagreed with Peter at this point. I think he rightfully identifies this act of the council as a work of the Holy Spirit.
*
All that being said, I do not disagree with the importance of Peter’s role and his authority in all of this, although there is a definite shift in focus from Peter to Paul in the book of Acts. But I do not believe that it can be said that he (Peter) is presiding over this council and I think the Pope is pointing this out, Nor do I see the necessity of arguing that he is presiding here in order to support Petrine primacy as I indicated.
*
I don’t think I’m being “anachronistic” at all, though it’s possible: more on that below. I’m simply analyzing a “primitive” instance of ecclesiastical / ecclesiological matters that obviously highly developed through the centuries.
*
We have to actually address the biblical texts involved and exegete them to have this discussion, no? I have presented (rightly or wrongly) many dozens of them.
*
The Bible is not gonna offer a full-fledged, fully developed ecclesiology: however we construe what that is. That’s why I speak of models and prototypes and analogies, because the ecclesiology of Latin Catholicism or Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy (or any form of Protestantism) will not be seen in its fullness in Scripture.
*
I have no problem whatsoever with the jurisdiction of each bishop in his own See. James presided in that sense. That’s Catholic teaching. But it’s a question about who has more authority over a council whose decisions were interpreted by no less than St. Paul as having essentially universal binding application.
*
The Jerusalem Council occurred as the Church was just starting to determine how it would run itself. It had elements of being a local council, and also (I would say, much stronger) elements of being the prototype of an ecumenical council. I think that’s why we can have these two somewhat differing interpretations, that I actually think aren’t far apart at all.
*
We both bring the bias of eastern and western ecclesiology in how we approach and exegete the text (let’s not fool ourselves). If I have a bias leading to “anachronism” so do you, just as much, I respectfully submit. You will tend to sort of regard Peter as relatively less authoritative, just as I will tend to view him as more so. And so we observe that in our respective arguments. All the more necessity to exegete the actual texts more deeply . . .
*
But (it may surprise you to learn, though it shouldn’t), I have argued (in an article for National Catholic Register) that the Jerusalem Council was quite democratic and almost egalitarian (thus more “Eastern” and not at all “ultramontanist”) in the way in which it reached its conclusion:
*
[T]he Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:
*
Acts 15:2 . . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, . . .
Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, . . .
Acts 15:23. . . “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia, . . .
Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
*
“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).
*
What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It’s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope [and non-bishop theological advisers] gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.
*
But we don’t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It’s the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).
*
St. Peter worked within that framework, in a council presided over by James (in the sense I have agreed with), but he still provided the central rationale for the decision and in that sense exercised ultimate and universal (and “theological”) authority. He functioned as the foremost interpreter of past religious practice and beliefs (even more than St. Paul: for whom I also have a very strong bias in the overall scheme of things). He worked together with other apostles and elders, just as popes have habitually done (as I have argued many times).
*
Dom Bernard Orchard (Catholic Commentary, 1953) offers some interesting insights:
*
7. Perhaps 6 describes a private meeting, during which ‘there had been much debate’, and now St Peter announces the result to the multitude. Be that as it may, he speaks with an authority that all accept, and by re-stating his decision in the case of Cornelius, implies that the question should not have been re-opened. . . .
*
19. From St James’ ‘I judge’ it has been argued that he and not St Peter had the first position, but a word cannot prevail against the context, so favourable, here, as in the rest of Ac, to the Petrine primacy. The phrase bears a very different interpretation. ‘For which cause’, in view of Simon’s action in the case of Cornelius, and of the prophecy, ‘I’, without wishing to engage others, ‘judge’, am of opinion, a usual sense of the Gk κρίνω, and one found often in Ac, ‘that the Gentile converts are not to be disquieted’. St James shows why he adheres to the decision which has already been given by Peter on the point at issue. He then puts forward a practical suggestion, which so far from being a decree of his own, is expressly attributed to the Apostles and presbyters who adopted it, 15:28; 16:4.
*
Navarre Commentary adds:
*
6–21. The hierarchical Church, consisting of the Apostles and elders or priests, now meets to study and decide whether baptized Gentiles are obliged or not to be circumcised and to keep the Old Law. This is a question of the utmost importance to the young Christian Church and the answer to it has to be absolutely correct. Under the leadership of St. Peter, the meeting deliberates at length, but it is not going to devise a new truth or new principles: all it does is, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to provide a correct interpretation of God’s promises and commandments regarding the salvation of men and the way in which Gentiles can enter the New Israel.
*
This meeting is seen as the first general council of the Church, that is, the prototype of the series of councils of which the Second Vatican Council is the most recent. Thus, the Council of Jerusalem displays the same features as the later ecumenical councils in the history of the Church: a) it is a meeting of the rulers of the entire Church, not of ministers of one particular place; b) it promulgates rules which have binding force for all Christians; c) the content of its decrees deals with faith and morals; d) its decisions are recorded in a written document — a formal proclamation to the whole Church; e) Peter presides over the assembly.
*
According to the Code of Canon Law (can. 338–341) ecumenical councils are assemblies — summoned and presided over by the Pope — of bishops and some others endowed with jurisdiction; decisions of these councils do not oblige unless they are confirmed and promulgated by the Pope. This assembly at Jerusalem probably took place in the year 49 or 50.
*
7–11. Peter’s brief but decisive contribution follows on a lengthy discussion which would have covered the arguments for and against the need for circumcision to apply to Gentile Christians. St. Luke does not give the arguments used by the Judaizing Christians (these undoubtedly were based on a literal interpretation of the compact God made with Abraham — cf. Gen 17 — and on the notion that the Law was perennial).
*
Once again, Peter is a decisive factor in Church unity. Not only does he draw together all the various legitimate views of those trying to reach the truth on this occasion: he points out where the truth lies. Relying on his personal experience (what God directed him to do in connexion with the baptism of Cornelius: cf. chap. 10), Peter sums up the discussion and offers a solution which coincides with St. Paul’s view of the matter: it is grace and not the Law that saves, and therefore circumcision and the Law itself have been superseded by faith in Jesus Christ. Peter’s argument is not based on the severity of the Old Law or the practical difficulties Jews experience in keeping it; his key point is that the Law of Moses has become irrelevant; now that the Gospel has been proclaimed the Law is not necessary for salvation: he does not accept that it is necessary to obey the Law in order to be saved. Whether one can or should keep the Law for other reasons is a different and secondary matter. . . .
*
[16:4] 4. The text suggests that all Christians accepted the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem in a spirit of obedience and joy. They saw them as being handed down by the Church through the Apostles and as providing a satisfactory solution to a delicate problem. The disciples accept these commandments with internal and external assent: by putting them into practice they showed their docility. Everything which a lawful council lays down merits and demands acceptance by Christians, because it reflects, as the Council of Trent teaches, “the true and saving doctrine which Christ taught, the Apostles then handed on, and the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, ever maintains; therefore, no one should subsequently dare to believe, preach or teach anything different” (De iustificatione, preface).
*
Scott Hahn (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible) observed:
*
15:11 . . . Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church. He formulates a *doctrinal* judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a *pastoral* plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21).
*
*
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion. . . .
*
Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
*
It occurred to me that Pope St. John Paul II didn’t actually state [using the word] that James “presided” at the council of Jerusalem in Ut Unum Sint #97. I grant that it’s possible to interpret it that way, but in the next sentence after what you cite, he wrote:
*
Do not many of those involved in ecumenism today feel a need for such a ministry? A ministry which presides in truth and love so that the ship—that beautiful symbol which the World Council of Churches has chosen as its emblem— will not be buffeted by the storms and will one day reach its haven.
*
Note that when he refers to “presides” he is referring to Peter, not James. This is obvious in the immediate context and in the larger context of the entire encyclical, since the previous section (88-96) is entitled, “The ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome” and even the title of the section cited is called “The communion of all particular Churches with the Church of Rome: a necessary condition for unity.”
*
All that was said about James was that Peter was “respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem.” So the question is: what does this mean? As I said, I think “James presided over the council” is a plausible take, but if so, I think it has to be qualified, per my overall argumentation. And could not one say that you might be reading too much into that, because of your prior bias (as we all have biases)?
*
I will be looking to see if I can find anything in JPII or Benedict XVI elsewhere dealing with this specific question of “who presided?” and/or whether James “presiding” has a particular sense. If I find that JPII said elsewhere that Peter presided, then it seems to me that Ut Unum Sint has to be interpreted in that light.
*
The presiding referenced in the subsequent paragraph pertains to his presidency over the whole Church, not to the council specifically. It is in the context of the council that he makes specific reference to respecting James’ authority.
*
Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out that when he used the word “presides” it referred to Peter, not James; and you agree. I was simply talking about that word. He never wrote, “James presided . . . ” or some such. “Respecting the authority of James” could mean “respected his authority to speak last” or “to ‘run’ a council held in his See” or any number of things. We don’t know for sure. I haven’t been able to find anything else in searches, to make it more clear. I wish I could. “The Holy See” search engine is lousy and frustrating to use.
*
Related Reading
*
*
*
*
Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
Were the Jerusalem Council Decrees Universally Binding? [National Catholic Register, 12-4-19]
*
Which Has More Authority: A Pope or an Ecumenical Council? [National Catholic Register, 5-19-21]
*
Photo credit: Reconstruction of Herod’s Temple (at the time of Jesus), with Robinson’s Arch in the foreground [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license]
*
Summary: Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.
*
November 21, 2019

November 21, 2019 By

Turretinfan: the colorful, vociferous, and ever-anonymous Reformed Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist, wrote an article on Bishop James White’s blog, entitled, “Did the Acts 15 ‘Council’ Rely on the Exegesis of Scripture?” (2-18-12). I’d like to concentrate on one interesting claim that he made. His words will be in blue:

*****

IV. Is the Acts 15 Assembly Normative of Anything?

[ . . . ]
*
B. What issued from the assembly and who was “bound” by it?The assembly issued a letter that was not directed to “the whole church of Jesus Christ” but rather to a specific group of Christians in a specific geographic area, and only to the Gentile Christians of that group.  Recall:Acts 15:23  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:So, what came out was a letter that was written to a particular group of Gentiles living in particular geographic areas.  If this were a papal decree, it wouldn’t meet the criteria for being “ex cathedra” because it not intended to bind the whole church.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to look more closely into this council, which I have written about many times:

*
*
*
Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]
*
*
*
*

But I had never pondered this particular aspect of it, and now I  am very pleased to do so, as this council is of great interest to me (as an evidence of Catholic ecclesiology and disproof of sola Scriptura).

First of all, a translation note: King James is cited for 15:23, and it reads, “they wrote letters by them after this manner;”. In other words, it’s implied that there were more than one, and the others were similar in nature or “manner” to what is recorded. Turretinfan appears not to notice this and immediately states: “So, what came out was a letter that was written to a particular group of Gentiles living in particular geographic areas“ (my bolding added).

In any event, this will form no part of my argument, since most translations refer to a single letter. For example, RSV (which is what I always use in my writing: “with the following letter”; similar in NIV and NASB). Logically speaking, simply referring to one letter does not mean that there could not be other letters as well. But this particular one (whether it was the only one, or one of several), was delivered at Antioch (15:30). Then we are informed that Paul and Silas “went through Syria and Cili’cia, strengthening the churches” (15:41). Thus, all three areas mentioned in 15:23 were indeed informed of this one decree, sent via letter with apostles. 

But were those all the areas that Holy Scripture tells us were bound by the decrees of the council? The text that follows shows that this is not the case.  Paul went next to “Derbe and to Lystra” (16:1). Derbe was in Asia Minor (current-day Turkey), and was then considered part of the region of Lycaonia. Granted, it wasn’t far from Cilicia, but it is a different locality. Lystra was a little north and west of Derbe.

Three verses later is a passage crucial to this discussion: one that Turretinfan (for reasons known only to himself) completely ignores in his fairly comprehensive treatment:

Acts 16:4-5 (RSV) As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. [5] So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

Note that this was after St. Paul had visited two cities that were not part of the three regions mentioned with regard to the specific letter mentioned in Acts 15:22-29. And the broad, sweeping language sure implies (at least prima facie) that other local churches would be included also (“As they went on their way through the cities”). Moreover, the phrase, “the churches were strengthened in the faith” echoed the phrase, “strengthening the churches” (15:41), which was written in conjunction with the specific letter that we know about.

It is, therefore, quite reasonable to surmise either that 1) there were more letters of the sort that Acts 15:23 mentions, and/or 2) it was understood by St. Paul that he was to deliver the message of the decisions or decrees of the council, far and wide, in his travels. The rest of chapter 16 details the many places Paul and Silas visited, where (presumably), they “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached . . . at Jerusalem.” 

The places visited included Phrygia, Galatia, Troas (near the west of Turkey), Samothrace (an island in the Aegean Sea), Neapolis (in Greece), and Philippi (northern Greece). That’s a lot of places, across a wide geographical area (Turkey itself is 970 miles east to west, and Paul crossed the Aegean Sea into Greece).

We observe, then, that Paul was (by quite reasonable deduction and the grammar of these biblical texts), delivering binding conciliar decrees (“for observance”) across a very large area: far more than “a particular group of Gentiles living in particular geographic areas” (i.e., Antioch and Syria and Cilicia). No one need merely take my word and accept my argument in this respect. Several Protestant commentaries (for Acts 16:4-5) back me up:

Benson Commentary although these decrees were written in the form of a letter to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, they belonged equally to all the Gentile converts everywhere.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible The decrees – τὰ δόγματα ta dogmata. The decrees in regard to the four things specified in Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29. The word translated “decrees” occurs in Luke 2:1, “A decree from Caesar Augustus”; in Acts 17:7 “The decrees of Caesar”; in Ephesians 2:15; and in Colossians 2:14. It properly means a law or edict of a king or legislature. In this instance it Was the decision of the council in a case submitted to it, and implied an obligation on the Christians to submit to that decision, since they had submitted the matter to them. The same principles, also, would be applicable everywhere, and the decision, therefore, at Jerusalem became conclusive. It is probable that a correct and attested copy of the letter Acts 15:23-29 would be sent to the various churches of the Gentiles.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible And as they went through the cities,…. Of Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, and others in Lycaonia, and in Phrygia and Galatia; the Arabic version reads, “they both”; that is, Paul and Barnabas: they delivered them the decrees for to keep; they gave the churches, in these cities, the sentiments, and determinations to be observed and followed by them: that were ordained of the apostles which were at Jerusalem . . .

Matthew Henry Commentary He went through the cities where he had preached the word of the Lord, as he intended ch. 15:36 ), . . . All the churches were concerned in that decree, and therefore it was requisite they should all have it well attested.

Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament 

They delivered them (παρεδιδοσαν αυτοις — paredidosan autois). Imperfect active, kept on delivering to them in city after city. This is a proof of Paul‘s loyalty to the Jerusalem compact (Knowling). The circumcision of Timothy would indicate also that the points involved were under discussion and that Paul felt no inconsistency in what he did.

The decrees (τα δογματα — ta dogmata). Old word from δοκεω — dokeō to give an opinion. It is used of public decrees of rulers (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7), of the requirements of the Mosaic law (Colossians 2:14), and here of the regulations or conclusions of the Jerusalem Conference. Silas was with Paul and his presence gave added dignity to the passing out of the decrees, a charter of Gentile freedom, since he was one of the committee from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 15:22, Acts 15:27, Acts 15:32).

Which had been ordained (τα κεκριμενα — ta kekrimena). Perfect passive articular participle of κρινω — krinō to judge, emphasizing the permanence of the conclusions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

For to keep (πυλασσειν — phulassein). This present active infinitive likewise accents that it is a charter of liberty for continual living, not a temporary compromise.

Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament To whom these decrees were delivered; namely, to the churches, as they passed along through the several cities; so many cities, so many churches: the whole company of Christians within a city and the adjacent territory, . . . 

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

*

***

*

Photo credit: Caliniuc since Putzger & Westermann atlases (Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Stier, H.E., dir., 1985), 7-27-11. Asia Minor in the Greco-Roman period (332 BC – 395 AD) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

January 3, 2018

January 3, 2018 By

Peter&Paul

This is one of a series of my reviews of the book by prominent Catholic journalist, editor, and author Philip Lawler, entitled Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (due to be released on 26 February 2018). Phil was kind enough to send me a review copy, and he and others have encouraged me to read the book and review it. Their wish is granted!

For background, see my paper, On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes, and three posts concerning a few statements from the book that I found very troubling and questionable, including dialogues with both Karl Keating (who positively reviewed it) and briefly with author Phil himself (one / two / three).

Previous Installments:

#1 Critique of Introduction

#2 Homosexuality & “Judging”

#3 The Pope Annihilated Hell?

#4 Communion / Buenos Aires Letter 

***

Phil Lawler goes after yet another of the pope’s homilies in his Chapter Seven, pp. 154-155:

In a memorable homily delivered in May 2017, Francis argued that an excessive concern with doctrine is a sign of ideology rather than faith. Reflecting on the day’s Scripture reading from the Acts of the Apostles, which recounted the debate over enforcing Mosaic Law on Gentile Christians, the pope said that the “liberty of the Spirit” led the disciples to an accord. The dispute, however, he said was caused by “jealousies, power struggles, a certain deviousness that wanted to profit from and to buy power,” temptations against which the Church must always guard.

The disciples who insisted on the enforcement of Mosaic Law, the pope said, were “fanatics.” They “were not believers; they were ideologized.” Thus he appeared to suggest that the early Church leaders who disagreed with St. Paul on the enforcement of Mosaic Law— including St. James and, before the Council of Jerusalem, which settled the question, even St. Peter himself—“were not believers.” The Scriptural account of that council offers no evidence that those on opposite sides of the question rendered harsh judgments of one other. They met, argued vigorously over a point that was not yet clear, and with the help of the Holy Spirit reached a decision that resolved their differences. Francis acknowledged that it is “a duty of the Church to clarify doctrine,” as the apostles did at the Council of Jerusalem. But he did not acknowledge that his critics within the hierarchy were calling for precisely the same sort of clarification with respect to papal teaching on marriage and the Eucharist.

Alright. Let’s take a closer look at the homily and the scriptural passages the Holy Father was commenting upon. Lawler loves clarity. I’m happy — delighted — to do my part in helping him achieve more of that (where the pope is concerned). Here he has temporarily  gotten away from gossipy discussions of “palace intrigue” and internal Vatican politics that take up much of his book (which, personally, I have less than no interest in) and gotten down to a theological issue that can actually be objectively examined.

And as usual (like so many papal critics) he puts quite the obligatory cynical slant on a homily where I (for what it’s worth) see nothing whatsoever contrary to Scripture or good Catholic piety. But it seems that the critics invariably see what they want to see and it just so happens to so often come out as supposedly scandalous and objectionable.

The homily in question was preached on 5-19-17 and is preserved at the Vatican Radio site. Lawler characterizes the pope’s thoughts as “Francis argued that an excessive concern with doctrine is a sign of ideology rather than faith.” I don’t see this at all in the homily.  Lawler spins it as if the pope is somehow hostile to serious doctrinal discussion or examination: as if that is a bad thing, and hence, he dismisses such as mere “ideology.” These notions are not in the homily, folks (sorry, Phil!). The homily is accurately summarized at the top as: “True doctrine unites; ideology divides.” Perfectly true and uncontroversial . . . Pope Francis states:

It was at the heart of the “first Council” of the Church: the Holy Spirit and they, the Pope with the Bishops, all together,” gathered together in order “to clarify the doctrine;” and later, through the centuries – as at Ephesus or at Vatican II – because “it is a duty of the Church to clarify the doctrine,” so that “what Jesus said in the Gospels, what is the Spirit of the Gospels, would be understood well . . . this is the problem: when the doctrine of the Church, that which comes from the Gospel, that which the Holy Spirit inspires – because Jesus said, ‘He will teach us and remind you of all that I have taught’ – [when] that doctrine becomes an ideology. And this is the great error of those people.”

He’s not saying that “excessive concern with doctrine is ideology.” That’s a wholesale distortion. He’s saying that on the one hand there is true doctrine, determined by the Church, and on the other, the distortion or corruption of the true doctrine, which becomes mere “ideology.” This is essentially the same distinction that Cardinal Newman draws in his famous comparisons of true developments of doctrine vs. heretical corruptions, and how Scripture differentiates between good, apostolic tradition and bad “traditions of men.” Why can’t Lawler grasp these rather elementary distinctions? Well, you tell me (if you can figure it out).

For my part, I think it is likely one of innumerable instances where intelligent, qualified people let their passions of one sort or another, cloud their judgment and logic in ways where it normally would be clear and logical. No one is so blind as one who will not see. It happens all the time. I critique it all the time, in my capacity as an apologist. And that’s what I see here, because this homily is not difficult to understand, and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The pope reiterates his clear comparison between the good thing and the bad thing at the end:

The Church, he concluded, has “its proper Magisterium, the Magisterium of the Pope, of the Bishops, of the Councils,” and we must go along the path “that comes from the preaching of Jesus, and from the teaching and assistance of the Holy Spirit,” which is “always open, always free,” because “doctrine unites, the Councils unite the Christian community, while, on the other hand, “ideology divides.”

See what he’s saying? It’s not (Phil’s take): “too much consideration of doctrine is bad!” It is, rather: “doctrine is good and unitive; mere ideology is bad and divisive.” It’s shameful to distort (unconsciously or not) a pope’s words and alleged thoughts like this.

If Lawler had actually cited the pope’s words at any length, readers could actually see what he meant. But instead, we get the cynical summaries. He tries to “frame” how his readers think, rather than letting them think and discern for themselves. He spoon-feeds them carefully selected aspects and phrases, that end up distorted. This is the “propagandistic” approach. One tires of this!

If someone wants to bring up some homily of the Holy Father, and object to it, let the people read it for themselves! He gives no specific date or link. I provide the date and a link, and very considerable excerpts. My readers can go read the homily (or read most of it here) and make up their own minds about whether my interpretation is accurate (or if Phil’s is). I believe that the truth always wins in the end and that knowledge is power.

In his breathtakingly erroneous analysis, Lawler claims that the pope was preaching (and believes) that “The disciples who insisted on the enforcement of Mosaic Law, . . . were ‘fanatics.’ They ‘were not believers; they were ideologized.’ ” Note the internal logic here: he is literally claiming that the pope thinks some disciples were “fanatics” and not “believers” at all (!!!). And this, in a book, one of the central themes of which is that the pope is consistently unclear and incoherent: a dim guide at best. I always appreciate irony.

Now, let’s see what the biblical passage says in the first place. In the passage about the Jerusalem Council itself, “apostles and elders” are referred to, not “disciples.” The text (RSV) refers to “some men” (not “disciples”) who disputed with Paul and Barnabas before the council:

Acts 15:1-2 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” [2] And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Then during the council we see this one line:

Acts 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.”

The word “disciples” never appears in the homily: at least not in this summary of it that appears to be the one Lawler referenced. Acts 15:1 doesn’t even make clear whether those teaching this legalism are Christians. 15:5 refers to “believers.” We only have these little tidbits, so they could possibly be different groups, teaching (perhaps) somewhat different things. The second group was participating in the council, after all, so it is implied that they were at least elders. It’s irrelevant that they called themselves Pharisees. Paul did that, too, and Jesus followed their ritual customs.

The pope seems to reference not only this group of “Judaizers” but the entire group of those who opposed early Church teaching. He often digresses in his talks, to make a larger “footnoted” point. I’m very familiar with such a technique, because I do it a lot, myself, and sometimes people don’t understand my meaning or reference point. The pope does specifically differentiate the apostles from others who disagree (my italics):

The group of the apostles who want to discuss the problem, and the others who go and create problems. They divide, they divide the Church, they say that what the Apostles preached is not what Jesus said, that it is not the truth. . . .

These individuals, the Pope explained, “were not believers, they were ideologized,” they had an ideology that closed the heart to the work of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, on the other hand, certainly discussed things forcefully, but they were not ideologized: “They had hearts open to what the Holy Spirit said. And after the discussion ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.’”

As for the Judaizers themselves, respectable biblical scholars disagree amongst themselves whether they were Christians or not. Some of the most eminent ones, like F. F. Bruce, don’t even take a stand for one view or the other. If the pope took one view or another on that question it would be inconsequential and well within the thought of existing scholarship. But it’s just as likely that he is referring to the dissenters described in Acts 15:1-2, and/or generally to the much larger group who dissent from Christian teachings. But he never says that “disciples” are “fanatics” and “not believers” and “ideologized.” Lawler, however, then decides to descend into yet more absurd speculations:

[H]e appeared to suggest that the early Church leaders who disagreed with St. Paul on the enforcement of Mosaic Law— including St. James and, before the Council of Jerusalem, which settled the question, even St. Peter himself—“were not believers.”

Huh? WOW!! It’s beyond my comprehension that a learned Catholic man could include (not as some kind of joke) something so utterly ridiculous in a published book, and not only that: attribute the hyper-absurd opinion to the Holy Father, with no basis whatsoever for doing so. This exhibits a level of illogic and sloppiness (not even to mention, lack of rudimentary Christian charity) that I have rarely seen (and I’ve been around the block many times).

How he arrived at this opinion (assuming he actually would claim to have some reason for it) is anyone’s guess. It’s certainly not expressed in the homily. Anyone can go read it at the link I provide above and see that for themselves. The homily never mentions James or Peter. Lawler somehow nevertheless deduces that Pope Francis thinks as follows:

1) There were arguments at the council;

2) St. James was there, so he must have disagreed with St. Paul;

3) Therefore St. James is not a “believer.”

4) St.  Peter isn’t a believer either, because (before the council) he, too, clashed with St. Paul [who accused him of hypocrisy, not doctrinal error, readers may recall].

Oh boy. I have to really restrain myself at this point. This kind of nonsense is truly its own refutation, so I need not refute it, anyway. Suffice it to say that Paul and Peter never disagreed on Gentiles being received into the Church. It was St. Peter, after all, to whom God first revealed his plans for that. As I read the homily, the pope sure seems to be speaking about heretics in general, not just those (believers or no) who held that Gentile Christians had to observe the entire Mosaic Law.

Nor is there any basis in Scripture to conclude that Paul and James had any fundamental disagreement on this score. From what we know (the account of Acts 15): all three were in perfect agreement (see also Galatians 2:1-9). The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Judaizers”) backs up what I’m saying about Paul and Peter:

This incident [of Paul rebuking Peter] has been made much of by Baur and his school as showing the existence of two primitive forms of Christianity, Petrinism and Paulinism, at war with each other. But anyone, who will look at the facts without preconceived theory, must see that between Peter and Paul there was no difference in principles, but merely a difference as to the practical conduct to be followed under the circumstances. . . . That Peter’s principles were the same as those of Paul, is shown by his conduct at the time of Cornelius’s conversion, by the position he took at the council of Jerusalem, and by his manner of living prior to the arrival of the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.).

And the pope says nothing different in this homily. He says:

“But there were always people who without any commission go out to disturb the Christian community with speeches that upset souls: ‘Eh, no, someone who says that is a heretic, you can’t say this, or that; this is the doctrine of the Church.’ And they are fanatics of things that are not clear, like those fanatics who go there sowing weeds in order to divide the Christian community. . . .

No one in their wildest dreams, in any imaginable universe, can get out of this homily, that the pope was including St. James and St. Peter in the negative descriptions, let alone pitting Paul against both of them. They absolutely could not be part of those “fanatics”, according to what the pope said shortly after, because they were apostles, and the pope referred to that august group as follows:

The Apostles, on the other hand, certainly discussed things forcefully, but they were not ideologized: “They had hearts open to what the Holy Spirit said. And after the discussion ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.’”

I suppose Lawler could “argue” next that Pope Francis denies that James and Peter were apostles, too. After all, anything goes in his mind, at this point. If he thinks the pope denies that they are Christian believers, then not being apostles would follow as a matter of course. One claim is as ludicrous as the other.

Case closed. I’d like to see someone defend this shoddy pseudo-“research” of Phil’s. It’s truly (no exaggeration at all!) some of the worst I’ve ever seen in 35 years of Christian / Catholic apologetics and intense Bible study. And remember, he’s accusing the pope (the “lost shepherd” who is “misleading his flock”) of having these views, that he — by some utterly inexplicable and mysterious chain of “reasoning” — invented in his own head.

***

Photo credit: Saints Peter and Paul (c. 1608), by El Greco (1541-1614) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017 By

PaulConversion3

The Conversion of St. Paul (1600), by Caravaggio (1571-1610) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Joshua Scott is a Protestant who responded to my challenge to interact point-by-point with one of my articles. He chose to wrangle with the section on the Jerusalem council from my book, The Catholic Verses (2004), and some additional material in an older paper on this topic. His words will be in blue. My words from the book will be in green, and my present counter-replies in regular black.

***

In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians:

Acts 15:28-29: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.  In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that:

. . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)

This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding — with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council.

Well, it’s Apostolic authority certainly, but to conflate Apostolic authority with conciliar/church authority requires more than an ipse dixit.  The Apostles were, by any Biblical standard, prophets, and thus had the same authority prophets always had in the OT, namely, the authority of God Himself, Who spoke by/through them.  But they had to provide evidence of that authority to differentiate themselves from false prophets, since anyone could claim to be a prophet.  So the question is, who is a prophet?  How do we know they have prophetic authority?  This question has to be answered in such a way that we can say church councils are full of prophets for this point, as argued here, to be more than a non sequitur.  Alternatively, you would have to show that what made the Acts 15 decision authoritative was not that it was prophetic/Apostolic, but rather because it was done in council.  Since this is just the broad outline of the argument, I’ll reserve discussion of those questions for later as they arise.

It was a council, not just of apostles, but also “elders.” I made an argument along these lines in an article of mine. Here is a good chunk of it:

The Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:

Acts 15:2 (RSV). . .  Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, . . .

Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,  . . .

*

Acts 15:23. . . “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia, . . .

Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).

What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It’s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.

But we don’t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It’s the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).

Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It’s a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. . . .

The subject at hand is “whether sola Scriptura is the true rule of faith, and what the Bible can inform us about that.” I made a biblical argument that does not support sola Scriptura at all (quite the contrary).

Before going any further, I should describe what I mean by “sola Scriptura,” since my view is probably different than that of the average Protestant.  My approach to the issue starts with the basic position that claims to authority require evidence.  I think everyone would assent to this (if not, I’ll make my claim to authority now and ask you to hand over all your money, thank you very much!).  With that as a given, once I accept Christianity I have to ascertain what sources (be they men or writings or what-have-you) are authoritative based on the best evidence available.  My review of the evidence (and I don’t claim to be an expert by any means, but I’ve studied this more than the average Christian) leads me to conclude that Scripture has met the burden of proof required to be considered authoritative.  Thus far, I have not found any other claims to have met this burden of proof.  Thus, my view of sola Scriptura is not a doctrinal position that Scripture is the only authority so much as an epistemological conclusion (and a tentative one at that) that Scripture has met the requisite burden of proof, while other people/things claiming authority have not met that burden.  If a person came along and started doing things like Jesus and the Apostles did, and did not contradict Scripture or otherwise teach me to abandon God, I would probably consider that person an authority because he would be a prophet.

Everyone agrees that Scripture is an authority, and indeed is inspired. The question is whether it is the only final infallible authority in Christianity. Our argument is that inspired Scripture itself refers to an authoritative Church and tradition (both of which can bind Christians to their teachings); therefore, they are authorities, too, and part of the rule of faith. The Jerusalem council is an example of the biblical teaching on an authoritative Church.

This argument concerning the Jerusalem Council was used in expanded form in my book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants. Here is that portion of the book, in its entirety (indented):

THE BINDING AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS, LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 15:28-29: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Acts 16:4: “As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.”

These passages offer a proof that the early Church held to a notion of the infallibility of Church councils, and to a belief that they were especially guided by the Holy Spirit (precisely as in Catholic Church doctrine concerning ecumenical councils). Accordingly, Paul takes the message of the conciliar decree with him on his evangelistic journeys and preaches it to the people. The Church had real authority; it was binding and infallible.

This is a far cry from the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura — which presumes that councils and popes can err, and thus need to be corrected by Scripture. Popular writer and radio expositor R.C. Sproul expresses the standard evangelical Protestant viewpoint on Christian authority:

For the Reformers no church council, synod, classical theologian, or early church father is regarded as infallible. All are open to correction and critique . . .

(in Boice, 109)

This doesn’t really add anything new to the basic argument above, so my comments there hold.

This is the very topic I understood we were debating: my argument about the Jerusalem council! I proposed just the portion from my book for you to respond to, but you went and replied to the entire paper, and have dismissed this (a key part of the argument) without reply.

One Protestant reply to these biblical passages might be to say that since this Council of Jerusalem referred to in Acts consisted of apostles, and since an apostle proclaimed the decree, both possessed a binding authority which was later lost (as Protestants accept apostolic authority as much as Catholics do). Furthermore, the incidents were recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture. They could argue that none of this is true of later Catholic councils; therefore, the attempted analogy is null and void.

But this is a bit simplistic, since Scripture is our model for everything, including Church government, and all parties appeal to it for their own views. If Scripture teaches that a council of the Church is authoritative and binding, then it is implausible and unreasonable to assert that no future council can be so simply because it is not conducted by apostles.

Here you respond to an argument (similar to mine above) that the council is not binding qua council with an assumption that Scripture teaches that councils are authoritative qua councils.  This begs the question without answering it.

I haven’t begged any question. The council is obviously authoritative (as a council): having been led by apostles (with elders), with the direct assistance of the Holy Spirit, and as indicated in the way that the Apostle Paul proclaimed its binding decision to all and sundry (Acts 16:4 above, that you ignored).

Scripture is our model for doctrine and practice (nearly all Christians agree on this). The Bible doesn’t exist in an historical vacuum, but has import for the day-to-day life of the Church and Christians for all time. St. Paul told us to imitate him (see, e.g., 2 Thess. 3:9). And he went around proclaiming decrees of the Church. No one was at liberty to disobey these decrees on the grounds of “conscience,” or to declare by “private judgment” that they were in error (per Luther).

It would be foolish to argue that how the apostles conducted the governance of the Church has no relation whatsoever to how later Christians engage in the same task. It would seem rather obvious that Holy Scripture assumes that the model of holy people (patriarchs, prophets, and apostles alike) is to be followed by Christians. This is the point behind entire chapters, such as (notably) Hebrews 11.

Besides the fact that you’ve so far not addressed the key distinction of Apostles having authority vs. a council qua council having authority,

Now I have (lengthy citation of my own article above): mere elders seemed  to have equal practical authority in the council. It wasn’t just a matter of apostles, but men just like you and I, who are non-apostles.

I would also point out here that admonitions to imitate holy people (Apostles included) are about private behavior.  We have explicit passages on how to handle church governance, such as Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 18 to take your quarrel to your brother alone, then to 2-3 witnesses, then to the church (congregation is how I would take that), and some material in the pastoral epistles on offices and whatnot, but to say that because Apostles (who no longer walk among us) held a council to address a particular question is hardly an explicit directive that all such disputes would be handled thus by later councils not composed of Apostles/prophets.

See my previous reply. Yours is the usual Protestant response (insofar as the council is dealt with at all). The elders being involved jointly in the decision-making process, overcomes the objection.

When the biblical model agrees with their theology, Protestants are all too enthusiastic to press their case by using Scriptural examples. The binding authority of the Church was present here, and there is no indication whatever that anyone was ever allowed to dissent from it. That is the fundamental question. Catholics wholeheartedly agree that no new Christian doctrines were handed down after the apostles. Christian doctrine was present in full from the beginning; it has only organically developed since.

John Calvin has a field day running down the Catholic Church in his commentary for Acts 15:28. It is clear that he is uncomfortable with this verse and must somehow explain it in Protestant terms. But he is not at all unanswerable. The fact remains that the decree was made, and it was binding. It will not do (in an attempt to undercut ecclesial authority) to proclaim that this particular instance was isolated. For such a judgment rests on Calvin’s own completely arbitrary authority (which he claims but cannot prove). Calvin merely states his position (rather than argue it) in the following passage:

. . . in vain do they go about out of the same to prove that the Church had power given to decree anything contrary to the word of God. The Pope hath made such laws as seemed best to him, contrary to the word of God, whereby he meant to govern the Church;

This strikes me as somewhat desperate argumentation. First of all, Catholics never have argued that the pope has any power to make decrees contrary to the Bible (making Calvin’s slanderous charge a straw man). Calvin goes on to use vivid language, intended to resonate with already strong emotions and ignorance of Catholic theology. It’s an old lawyer’s tactic: when one has no case, attempt to caricature the opponent, obfuscate, and appeal to emotions rather than reason.

I’m not here to defend Calvin, but I will point out that another possible way to read his remark that doesn’t make it a straw man is to read him as saying that Catholics believe the Church has power to decree X, which happens to be contrary to Scripture, and thus Catholics are wrong on that point but don’t realize it because of their mistaken view of Scripture.  Granted, I’m not seeing the full context here, but on its face that seems like a plausible reading.

You’re still not addressing the central issue here: the binding nature of the conciliar decree.

Far more sensible and objective are the comments on Acts 15:28 and 16:4 from the Presbyterian scholar, Albert Barnes, in his famous Barnes’ Notes commentary:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost. This is a strong and undoubted claim to inspiration. It was with special reference to the organization of the church that the Holy Spirit had been promised to them by the Lord Jesus, Matthew 18:18-20; John 14:26.

In this instance it was the decision of the council in a case submitted to it; and implied an obligation on the Christians to submit to that decision.

Fortunately, I don’t have to believe Barnes.  Matthew 18:18-20 deals with 2-3 witnesses, then a full congregation, by my reading, not a hierarchy.  John 14:26 has Jesus speaking to his disciples personally without any reference to those who follow them in some visible institution, so there’s no particular reason to believe what he says has application beyond those he was directly speaking to (the Apostles).

You continue to ignore the issue at hand: the council and its authority. I suppose you can skirt around it and avoid it if you like, but then we’re not discussing it. I lose patience with that very quickly.

Barnes actually acknowledges that the passage has some implication for ecclesiology in general. It is remarkable, on the other hand, that Calvin seems concerned about the possibility of a group of Christians (in this case, a council) being led by the Holy Spirit to achieve a true doctrinal decree, whereas he has no problem with the idea that individuals can achieve such certainty:

. . . of the promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church [cites Mt 28:20, Jn 14:16-17] . . . we are not to give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning. (Institutes, IV, 8, 11)

But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true. (Institutes, IV, 8, 12)

Calvin believes that Scripture is self-authenticating. I appeal, then, to the reader to judge the above passages. Do they seem to support the notion of an infallible Church council (apart from the question of whether the Catholic Church, headed by the pope, is that Church)? Do Calvin’s arguments succeed? For Catholics, the import of Acts 15:28 is clear and undeniable.

For reasons I’ve already adduced, the import of Acts 15 is not so clear.  Whether Calvin’s own view is correct is not really pertinent to my argument, and since the quote seems to be lacking some significant context I’ll forego comment.

See my previous reply.

Are not apostles models for us? Of course, they are. St. Paul tells us repeatedly to imitate him (1 Cor 4:16, Phil 3:17, 2 Thess 3:7-9). [James] White would have us believe that since this is the apostolic period and so forth, it is completely unique, and any application of the known events of that time to our own is “irrelevant.” He acts as if the record of the Book of Acts has no historical, pedagogical import other than as a specimen of early Christian history, as if it is a piece of mere archaeology, rather than the living Word of God, which is (to use one of Protestants’ favorite verses) “profitable for teaching . . . and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16-17). So now the historical passages of the New Testament are “irrelevant”? Only the straight-out doctrinal teaching can be used to ascertain correct doctrine? If so, then where is that taught in Scripture itself, etc.? Passages like Hebrews 11, which recount the deeds of great saints and biblical heroes, imply that they are a model for us.

That depends on what you mean by “models.”  I can’t model Peter and Paul entirely because I don’t have the signs and wonders they had to back me up.  Neither does the Pope, nor the bishops (even in council).  That’s a relevant difference.  To pretend it isn’t is to ignore basically all Biblical teaching about how to handle prophets.  Which, by the way, is why it’s a straw man to say White’s argument makes the Apostolic period unique–it actually makes that period just like every other period during which a prophet lived.  As to the pedagogical import of Acts, you don’t believe the prohibition of blood and strangled things still applies today, I presume, so even you don’t think everything in Acts has direct application for all Christian history.  Any time you want to discuss relevance, you have to determine why something is relevant.  The Mosaic Law isn’t terribly relevant to us today in some ways, but it is in others.  I would say the same as to the Jerusalem council–it doesn’t necessarily tell us how we should handle doctrinal disputes, but it does tell us important things that are useful to know for other reasons (more on that at the end).

Why does Paul consider it binding for all Christians?

White’s viewpoint as to the implications of the Jerusalem Council is theologically and spiritually naive or simplistic because it would force us to accept recorded, inspired apostolic teaching about the Church and ecclesiology (whatever it is), yet overlook and ignore the very application of that doctrine to real life, that the apostles lived out in that real life. We would have to believe that this council in Jerusalem had nothing whatsoever to do with later governance of the Church, even though apostles were involved in it. That, in effect, would be to believe that we are smarter and more knowledgeable about Christian theology than the apostles were. They set out and governed the Church, yet they were dead-wrong, or else what they did has no bearing whatsoever on later Christian ecclesiology. Since this is clearly absurd, White’s view that goes along with it, collapses.

Force us to accept what recorded teaching about ecclesiology?  The application of what doctrine?  Nowhere in the Bible does it record the Apostles or Jesus as saying as a matter of doctrine that disputes should be handled by a council. 

That’s what the Jerusalem council provides: a model for just that. You referred above to: “Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 18 to take your quarrel to your brother alone, then to 2-3 witnesses, then to the church (congregation is how I would take that)”. That’s already some sort of collective. It’s the church; it’s authorities.

Thus, all we are left with, again, is the bare fact that in this case a council convened and a decision was handed down by Apostles who had signs and wonders. 

And by elders, as I have pointed out . . .

Absent a clear teaching that the authority they had would be passed to others, I have no obligation to believe such a thing, and in fact to argue from Acts 15 for such passing on of authority is simple non sequitur. 

Apostolic succession is that argument, which I have made in many articles.

Where much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48), and by implication if little is given, little is required.  If I’m not given reason to believe in the passing down of authority, I’m not required to believe it, and thus I would fall back on the default position that prophets have authority, and non-prophets don’t. 

Okay. You would have to familiarize yourself with the many arguments for apostolic succession. Check out my papers on the topic on my Church web page.

Moreover, this is a foolish approach because it would require us to believe that Paul and other apostles were in error with regard to how Christian or Church authority works. The preached a certain thing in this instance. If they believed in sola Scriptura (as models for us), then they would have taught what they knew to be Scripture (in those days, the Old Testament), and that alone, as binding and authoritative (for this is what sola Scriptura holds). If they didn’t understand authority in the way that God desired, how could they be our models? And if the very apostles who wrote Scripture didn’t understand it, and applied it incorrectly in such an important matter, how can we be expected to, from that same Scripture? A stream can’t rise above its source.

It seems pretty clear that this is a straw man of even White’s view of sola Scriptura.  Neither he nor I argue that sola Scriptura is always the rule.  Clearly, when you have prophets (as the Apostles were) walking in your midst, you heed them.  Thus, when a prophet tells you something, you treat it as God’s word even if it isn’t yet written in Scripture.  Although interestingly, in this particular case, I think it’s fair to say that part of the decree was, in fact, merely application of OT Scriptures, but I’ll explain that at the end.

Once again, you ignore the fact that elders co-presided at the council. We’re just going around in circles. Nothing is being accomplished.

Joshua at this point keeps replying to parts of my paper that I didn’t propose debating in the first place . . .

there’s not much for me to say here except to refer back to my point about prophets.  Either we need reasons to believe current councils are composed of prophets, or we need evidence that councils qua councils are meant to have essentially the same teaching authority as prophets.  So far that’s merely an assumption on your part.

I also wrote in my paper on the Jerusalem council, cited at length above:

The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they “were themselves prophets” (15:32).  Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere “elders” are commissioning them.

You keep referring to the “example” set by the Apostles.  I’ve mentioned before that their example, to the extent we are explicitly told to follow it, seems to be more about personal character than church governance (the contexts of I Corinthians 4:16 and 11:1 seem to pretty clearly indicate this, in my opinion).  But let’s assume for a minute that we can’t really know Paul meant it that narrowly.  What other examples are the Apostles setting?  Assuming the Jerusalem Council is an example, is it an example of a council qua council making infallible decisions, or an example of a council of prophets making infallible decisions?  How could you know which of the two is the case? 

By the fact that elders participate, and instruct those who call themselves “prophets.”

Everyone who speaks at the Council is an acknowledged leader.  Even James, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles, presumably had the gifts of the Spirit to back up his own claims to authority or he wouldn’t have been considered a pillar of the church.  So even if the Council is an example, it’s unclear that any old council, whether it had prophets or not, would be following the “example.” 

Paul said that we ought to imitate him, and he proclaimed the conciliar decisions as binding upon all Christians.

In wrapping up my direct response, I would point out that your argument here seems entirely based on the unwarranted, unsupported assumption that because prophets (the Apostles) met in a council to decide a matter, future councils (without prophets) would have similar authority.  And even that assumption begs several questions about what a proper “church council” is, how to know when you have properly constituted one, what kind of majority or quorum one needs, etc.  Rather than substantively supporting these arguments, you simply try to show that White’s counterargument is not provable from Scripture.  While that might be true, neither is yours, based on my comments above, so you’re both in the same position, best I can tell.  In fairness, maybe this is because the article is in the nature of a response rather than stand-alone argument, but the point remains that this article doesn’t substantiate your view, in light of my responses above regarding verses about oral tradition, unrecorded teachings, etc.

My position is that claims to authority require proof, as stated above.  If you’re going to claim church councils have authority over me, you have to give me evidence of that.

Acts 16:4 is that evidence.

For the reasons stated above, I don’t think you’ve provided such evidence.  You can’t show that the Apostles or Christ intended for all disputes to be handled by councils (indeed, it’s not clear the issue couldn’t have been settled in a private discussion between Paul, Peter, and James, since they’re the only ones we know spoke), and you can’t even prove Christ and the Apostles taught anything that wasn’t at some point recorded in Scripture.

Paul and Barnabas did not settle the question themselves, and so they went to the council to settle it:

Acts 15:2  And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Note how apostles went to a council with apostles and elders, to settle the question. This shows that a council was the way to go about it.

So, in my view, your case remains to be made.  That’s all well and good, but one needs a good explanation as an alternative.  If I have no alternative to your theory, then yours still wins by default as having no competitors.  So now I’m going to set forth my basic theory of what’s going on in Acts 15.

The background, of course, is that Jews were telling Gentile converts they had to be circumcised.  That was the question they were all there to discuss.  The answer, I submit, was already known.  Peter had already told the believers in Jerusalem about Cornelius’ conversion, and how he had received the Holy Spirit without being circumcised, and even before he was baptized.  At that point, the believers rejoiced that the gospel was given to the nations (Acts 11:18).  There was no indication that anyone question whether uncircumcised Gentiles could be saved–indeed that was basically the whole point of the episode in Acts 10-11, starting with Peter’s vision.

So when the “decision” of the council comes down, it’s not new to the extent it says Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised.  The other half of the decree is the four-item list of things Gentiles do need to observe from the Law–No blood, no strangled things, no pollutions of idols, and fornication/unchastity. 

It may not be totally new, but what was new then, and most unProtestant now, is the fact (confirmed by Paul) that it is binding upon all.

The question is, why those four?  My answer would be that those four things are immoral, but not obvious if you weren’t already a Jew who knew the history contained in Genesis and the precepts of the Law.   This is why James says in Acts 15:21, after listing the four things, “for Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him….” So for blood and strangled animals (essentially the same prohibition, since a strangled animal still has the blood in it), the basis for that goes all the way back to Noah, when God first gives humans permission to eat animals but forbids consumption of blood because that is for atonement (see Genesis 9:3-4 and compare Leviticus 17:10-11).

A Gentile wouldn’t understand that consuming blood was problematic because they wouldn’t know that God from the beginning set that aside for atonement purposes.  Similarly, it wouldn’t be obvious to a Gentile that idols were something that represented actual demonic forces or fallen angels, and that being associated with them in certain ways had more import than the merely surface level.  Finally, a Gentile would also not necessarily understand why any given kind of sex would be wrong, since it seems like a natural thing to do even outside the marriage context.

So what the decree is getting at is that Gentiles don’t need to keep the whole Law, but there are aspects of it they do need to keep.  Some of those are obvious (don’t murder), but some aren’t.  The ones that aren’t obvious are the ones listed in the decree.  So when it says “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” I think there’s a two-fold meaning there: 1) We already knew from the Holy Spirit, through Peter, that you Gentiles didn’t have to keep the whole Law; 2) But the Spirit also guided us to know which things you should be made aware of as moral precepts which wouldn’t be clear to you since you don’t have a background in Judaism.

Even though point #2 implies some divine guidance in the council itself, the decision is still based on the OT Scriptures, which if studied carefully enough would have revealed the same thing without divine guidance, though it would have taken much longer and required a fairly astute mind to figure out.

That’s just it: there was no tradition in the old covenant saying that circumcision was not required to enter into the covenant. You have it exactly backwards.

Does this imply that councils after the Apostles would receive the same guidance?

Yes.

I don’t see how it does. 

You have not seen a lot of things, so it doesn’t surprise me at all. What people see is guided by (almost determined by) their prior presuppositions.

Bear in mind the central question already had an answer for anyone paying attention.  Paul and Barnabas went to dispute this with the elders in Jerusalem not so much to get new information, then, but to have Peter and the other elders set the renegade Judaizers straight, which explains Peter’s remarks in Acts 15:7-10, where he refers back to his meeting with Cornelius as something they all know and which showed God counted Gentiles as pure.  He’s literally pointing out that everyone already ought to know this, just not in those words.

Also, these were the Apostles, with signs and wonders to back up their authority.  I’ve harped on this point quite a bit, but it bears repeating: Absent solid evidence that a council is made up of prophets, or that councils were intended to be infallible, we have no reason to believe a given council is infallible just because it’s a council.  We don’t have the former, and for reasons I’ve given above I don’t think we have the latter either.

And I have repeated over and over that elders participated in a seemingly equal status with apostles. These elders even send or appoint apostles, as we see in Acts 15:2-3 and again in 15:25, and they send and appoint prophets as well, as seen in 15:27, 32.

You don’t think it’s just a tad unfair that after I explicitly asked you if you thought I missed something, to let me know so I could clarify, that you then publish it and say that I just ignored a bunch of stuff? Also, your response to my comment about James, the one non-Apostle named as a participant, is utterly non-responsive, and you fail to realize it’s implications for the other parts of my argument (where admittedly I sloppily referred only to Apostles, which I meant to edit but forgot).

And relatedly, your reliance on the presence of “mere” elders is misplaced. Peter was an elder (I Peter 5:1), so there’s no reason to think the elders in the Council were necessarily less weighty than James, at worst. Other than, of course, your own presupposition. And in any event it’s you, not me, who ignored key points of argument–you repeat in your response the same question-begging argument that because the issue was debated in a council, it was the conciliar nature that made the decree binding. It’s like you don’t even grasp the distinction I’m making between Council qua Council and Council as lead by prophets with signs and wonders.

This is untrue. You wrote: “Assuming the Jerusalem Council is an example, is it an example of a council qua council making infallible decisions, or an example of a council of prophets making infallible decisions? How could you know which of the two is the case?”

I replied: “By the fact that elders participate, and instruct those who call themselves ‘prophets.’ . . . These elders even send or appoint apostles, as we see in Acts 15:2-3 and again in 15:25, and they send and appoint prophets as well, as seen in 15:27, 32.”

You never even address the issue of signs and wonders at all. Which means you ignored the crux of my entire response.

I didn’t, because it was completely irrelevant to the discussion (why discuss elementary things that are obvious in Scripture?). There were no signs and wonders at the council. And there weren’t because they weren’t necessary in a Church council of all Christian elders and apostles. Signs and wonders are for nonbelievers, not believers:

Acts 4:29-31, 33 (RSV) And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, [30] while thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.” [31] And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness. . . . [33] And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Acts 5:12 Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles . . .

Acts 14:1-3 Now at Ico’nium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue, and so spoke that a great company believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. [2] But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren. [3] So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Acts 15:12 [during the council] . . . and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Romans 15:18-19 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, [19] by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr’icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ,

2 Corinthians 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

Hebrews 2:3-4 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, [4] while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.

Of what use are signs and wonders, designed to cause people to believe, for those who already believe? Therefore, it’s irrelevant with regard to the council and its import and significance. So why do you seek to make it a factor in this discussion?

*****

I wrote on Facebook about Joshua’s last response above: “I’ll add this snotty, snide “reply” to the dialogue. I wouldn’t want anyone to miss it.”

Snotty and snide, eh? Because you’re just the paragon of fairness. This is rich. I don’t even see how my response is snotty to begin with. Those are substantive (and accurate) points.

And incidentally, in your article you say that I chose this topic, when in fact you chose it and stuck by it when I questioned your choice. You offered to let me skip your back and forth with White “if I liked,” but in the article you say I continue to argue about things you didn’t propose to debate in the first place. You chose the article, so the presumption was that your preference was that I handle the entire thing. If you didn’t, you could have left the additional remarks out of the article. Not to mention you could have been honest about who chose this topic to begin with. Instead, you twist it to make it look like I picked a topic, ignored selective bits of it, and irrationally added comments that were irrelevant.

And on the topic of ignoring parts, if you can explain to me why the additional verses you cited from Acts 15 and 16 are relevant to showing that the Jerusalem Council’s decree was binding because it was a council, please do so, because as far as I can tell they don’t add one iota of evidence that wasn’t already addressed in my first long paragraph on the topic.

Jeremiah 13:23 (KJV): Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?

I think you just proved they can’t. If you can’t even admit you were at best inaccurate about who chose this topic, we have nothing more to say to each other.

I agree:


2 Timothy 2:23 (RSV) Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
*
Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.


*****

March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017 By

BibleCatholicism2

Photograph by “jclk8888” (7-7-13) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

*****

[This is an installment of an extensive series of mine, in which I interact with the book that I believe is the best Protestant critique of Catholicism in our times: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. Mackenzie (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995).]
*****
Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council in the context of his response to Catholic claims that “there is a God-ordained unity to the church. This unity is manifested in two ways: a unity of faith and a unity of communion” (p. 279). I shall be citing his two-paragraph treatment of it in its entirety and examining each piece of it.
[T]he Jerusalem conference was only confirmatory of the revelation Paul had previously received directly from God. . . . it was only confirmatory of the revelation already given by and confirmed by God to an apostle (Gal. 1:11-12). (p. 284)
The problem here is that the passage Geisler cites has nothing directly to do with the subject matter of the council (mainly, circumcision and whether it is required of Gentile converts to Christianity). It simply stated that Paul’s gospel “is not man’s gospel” and “came through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (RSV). Yes, of course. No one (Catholic or Protestant) disagrees with that.  It may be (despite the non sequitur prooftext given) that Geisler is contending that Paul already received the “new” knowledge from God about circumcision. That would at least be relevant to the discussion.
*
Assuming that is the case, the Jerusalem Council is generally dated to 50 AD. The Pauline epistles were all almost certainly written after that date. The earliest: 1 and 2 Thessalonians, written perhaps a year or two after the council, do not mention circumcision, in any event. Therefore, anything that Paul wrote about circumcision (in his biblical epistles) was written after the council, and we can’t say that he had a full view of the scope of circumcision with regard to Gentile converts at the time he went to the council, let alone a “revelation” from God. All we know is:
Acts 15:1-2 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” [2] And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
The text doesn’t say that St. Paul already knew the definitive answer to the question, by direct revelation. Rather, it was to be decided by “apostles and elders” in Jerusalem: at that time still the administrative center of the new Christian movement.

Geisler never mentions the revelation that St. Peter indeed had already received, related to the council. He’s perceived as “the Catholic guy” (being the leader of the twelve disciples and the first pope), so it’s not in Geisler’s interest to highlight him. God gave St. Peter a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). This was in the next chapter after the one which describes Paul’s conversion. St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).

This was the secondary decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided — with regard to food –, to prohibit only that which “has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled” (15:29). Thus, we have no data to suggest that St. Paul had already received from God the notion that Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised, while St. Peter did receive a revelation about the cleanness of virtually all foods. So why is Geisler only talking about Paul above? All the biblical account says about St. Paul is: “they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12). That’s it: merely part of one verse . . .

 

There was no new infallible declaration from God. (p. 284)
This is untrue. There certainly was.  A letter was prepared that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28). Paul and others (15:22, 27) were then sent to Antioch, where they “delivered the letter” (15:30). Then Paul went with Silas to  Syria and Cili’cia, Derbe, Lystra, and Ico’nium (15:40-41; 16:1-2). Then we are told:
Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
The decision was to be observed. It was binding on believers everywhere that Paul went to. Clearly, this was a very authoritative decision (in effect if not also by nature, infallible) that was to be applied church-wide. In practice; historically, it was: henceforth, circumcision would not again be required for Gentile Christians. This is Catholic ecclesiology and Church authority. Protestants, after all (as they endlessly inform us) do not accept anything as of infallible authority, except for Holy Scripture. Any Protestant could, consistently with their rule of faith, declare about the Jerusalem Council: “I don’t care what they decided there. It’s not infallible; therefore, I can dissent in good faith and believe something differently, based on my interpretation of Scripture passages a, b, c, d . . .”
[T]he inquiry into the issue was a voluntary one, coming from the church in Antioch (Acts 15:2-3). (p. 284)
Granted, but the decision rendered was not “voluntary” or optional. It was intended for strict “observance”.
[T]he nature of the event was more of a conference than a church council, since it was not only apostles and elders but also the other “brethren” who made the decision (Acts 15:22-23). (pp. 284-285)
It is universally referred to as a “council”. Geisler foolishly refers to it as a “conference” to try to make it seem less authoritative and church-wide than it was. I could cite a hundred examples, but I’ll provide just one: “The first council of the Church was that described in Acts 15” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, “Council”: p. 351).
*
He tries to contend that plain old “brethren” as well as “apostles and elders” made the decision, but this isn’t true. Acts 15: 23 in the RSV states: “”The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren . . .” This might sound like “brethren” who were not apostles or elders, helped write the letter, but it is saying that apostles and elders are “brethren” as well. Hence, NIV translates: “The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers . . .” New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads: “”The apostles and the brethren who are elders, . . .” Etc. That‘s what the text means. The “whole church” was involved only in deciding who to send with Paul and Barnabas (15:22).
*
Of much more significance is the fact that elders were working alongside apostles. This has direct implications for the Catholic belief in apostolic succession, as I argued recently in an article on the Jerusalem Council:

What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. . . . They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It’s the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).

Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It’s a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein.

[C]ontrary to the Catholic claim, if anyone dominated the conference it was not Peter but James, giving as he did the last word in the discussion (15:13-21). (p. 285)

From Acts 15, we learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter’s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the “host.”
[T]he language of the statement is moderate, using phrases like “it seemed good to us.” (p. 285)
This is untrue as well. When it had to do with selection of men to send, the text reads, “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (15:22) and “it has seemed good to us” (15:25).  But when we get to the actual official letter, the language is: “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28). That’s a huge difference, isn’t it? But Geisler manages not to mention it, which is beyond silly.
Moreover, St. Luke uses this language at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (“it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus”: Lk 1:3). I guess, according to Geisler, that this is a “moderate” espousal of that inspired Gospel, too.

Indeed, the result of the conference was only a “letter” (15:30), not a papal encyclical with the typical language of anathema. (p. 285)

 

Of course it need not have an anathema, nor be as developed as later papal encyclicals. No one is claiming that it should be like that. The important thing is how authoritative and wide-ranging it is. It was decided by apostles (with elders), confirmed by the Holy Spirit, and sent with St. Paul to be proclaimed in many different cities, for “observance.” That is sublime authority, and is not what Protestants would expect to find in the Bible, given their ecclesiological views.

 

Finally, the conference recognized the supernatural confirmation of God  on the message of Paul (Acts 15:12), which was the divinely appointed sign that he spoke by revelation from God (2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4). (p. 285)

This is neither here nor there. No one disagrees with this, and it has no bearing on Catholic-Protestant disagreements on ecclesiology. But it sounds nice, and mentions Paul (whom Protestants always consider to be “their guy”: as if he teaches their doctrines), so Geisler threw it in for good effect (I guess).

For related reading, see:

*
*
*
*
Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]
*
*****
Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Missouri Executioners: A Warning of Justice...
Jeff Hood
2
ACST Catholic Introduces Revolutionary Service
The Pursuit of Holiness
3
Church Joyfully Welcomes U.S. Navy Chaplain...
The Pursuit of Holiness
4
The “Other” Christians: Re-Examining the Reformation
Formation Matters
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
It takes a Human to Live a Christian...
"Twelve Hours in the Day": The Gospels for...
Should Our Faith Leaders Be More Involved In...
3 Ways the Spirit Helps Us in Spiritual...
Humanity Sings A New Song
To Grow Where You're Planted
view all Catholic blogs