{"id":10287,"date":"2017-03-02T16:14:11","date_gmt":"2017-03-02T20:14:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=10287"},"modified":"2017-03-02T16:14:11","modified_gmt":"2017-03-02T20:14:11","slug":"armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html","title":{"rendered":"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\n
\n
\n

\"BibleCatholicism2\"<\/p>\n

Photograph by \u201cjclk8888\u201d (7-7-13)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/ CC0 public domain<\/a>]<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
[This is an\u00a0installment of an extensive series of mine<\/a>, in which I interact with\u00a0the book that I believe is the best Protestant critique of Catholicism in our times: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/a><\/em>, by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. Mackenzie (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995).]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
*****<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council in the context of his response to Catholic claims that \u201cthere is a God-ordained unity to the church. This unity is manifested in two ways: a unity of faith and a unity of communion\u201d (p. 279). I shall be citing his two-paragraph treatment of it in its entirety and examining each piece of it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
[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).\u00a0(p. 284)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
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\u2019s gospel \u201cis not man\u2019s gospel\u201d and \u201ccame through a revelation of Jesus Christ\u201d (RSV). Yes, of course. No one (Catholic or Protestant) disagrees with that. \u00a0It may<\/em> be (despite the non sequitur<\/em> prooftext given) that Geisler is contending that Paul already received the \u201cnew\u201d knowledge from God about circumcision. That would at least be relevant to the discussion.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Assuming that is the case, the Jerusalem Council is generally dated to 50 AD. The Pauline epistles were all almost certainly written after<\/em> that date<\/a>. 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\u2019t 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 \u201crevelation\u201d from God. All we know is:<\/div>\n
\n
Acts 15:1-2<\/strong> But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, \u201cUnless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.\u201d [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.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
The text doesn\u2019t say that St. Paul already knew the definitive answer to the question, by direct revelation. Rather, it was to be decided by \u201capostles and elders\u201d in Jerusalem: at that time still the administrative center of the new Christian movement.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Geisler never mentions the revelation that St. Peter indeed had already received, related to the council. He\u2019s perceived as \u201cthe Catholic guy\u201d (being the leader of the twelve disciples and the first pope), so it\u2019s not in Geisler\u2019s interest to highlight him<\/em>. 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\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 with regard to food \u2013, to prohibit only that which\u00a0\u201chas been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled\u201d (15:29). Thus, we have no data to suggest that St. Paul had already received from God the notion that Gentiles didn\u2019t have to be circumcised, while St. Peter did<\/em> receive a revelation about the cleanness of virtually all foods. So why is Geisler only talking about Paul<\/em> above? All the biblical account says about St. Paul is: \u201cthey listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (Acts 15:12). That\u2019s it: merely part of one verse . . .<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
There was no new infallible declaration from God. (p. 284)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
This is untrue. There certainly was<\/em>. \u00a0A letter was prepared that \u201cseemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us\u201d (15:28). Paul and others (15:22, 27) were then sent to Antioch, where they \u201cdelivered the letter\u201d (15:30). Then Paul went with Silas to\u00a0\u00a0Syria and Cili\u2019cia, Derbe, Lystra,\u00a0and Ico\u2019nium (15:40-41; 16:1-2). Then we are told:<\/div>\n
\n
Acts 16:4<\/strong> 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.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
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<\/em> 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: \u201cI don\u2019t care<\/em> what they decided there. It\u2019s not infallible; therefore, I can dissent in good faith and believe something differently, based on my interpretation of Scripture passages a, b, c, d . . .\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
[T]he inquiry into the issue was a voluntary one, coming from the church in Antioch (Acts 15:2-3). (p. 284)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
Granted, but the decision rendered was not \u201cvoluntary\u201d or optional. It was intended for strict \u201cobservance\u201d.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
[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 \u201cbrethren\u201d who made the decision (Acts 15:22-23). (pp. 284-285)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
It is universally referred to as a \u201ccouncil\u201d. Geisler foolishly refers to it as a \u201cconference\u201d to try to make it seem less authoritative and church-wide than it was. I could cite a hundred examples, but I\u2019ll provide just one: \u201cThe first council of the Church was that described in Acts 15\u201d (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church<\/em>, \u201cCouncil\u201d: p. 351).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
He tries to contend that plain old \u201cbrethren\u201d as well as \u201capostles and elders\u201d made the decision, but this isn\u2019t true. Acts 15: 23 in the RSV states: \u201c\u201dThe brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren . . .\u201d This might sound like \u201cbrethren\u201d who were not apostles or elders, helped write the letter, but it is saying that apostles and elders are \u201cbrethren\u201d as well. Hence, NIV translates: \u201cThe apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers . . .\u201d New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads: \u201c\u201dThe apostles and the brethren who are elders, . . .\u201d Etc. That<\/em>\u2018s what the text means. The \u201cwhole church\u201d was involved only in deciding who to send with Paul and Barnabas (15:22).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
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<\/a>:<\/div>\n
\n

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<\/em>. . . .\u00a0They seem\u00a0<\/em>to be presented as having in effect, \u201cone man one vote.\u201d They \u201cconsider\u201d the issue \u201ctogether\u201d (15:6). It\u2019s the same for the \u201cdecisions which had been reached\u201d (16:4).<\/p>\n

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<\/em> in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It\u2019s a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein.<\/p>\n

[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)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
From Acts 15, we learn that \u201cafter there was much debate, Peter rose\u201d to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that \u201call the assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter\u2019s exposition, speaking about \u201csigns and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what \u201cSimeon [Peter] has related\u201d (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter\u2019s 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 \u201chost.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
[T]he language of the statement is moderate, using phrases like \u201cit seemed good to us.\u201d (p. 285)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
This is untrue as well. When it had to do with selection of men to send<\/em>, the text reads, \u201cit seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church\u201d (15:22) and \u201cit has seemed good to us\u201d (15:25). \u00a0But when we get to the actual official letter<\/em>, the language is: \u201cit has seemed good to the Holy Spirit<\/em> and to us\u201d (15:28). That\u2019s a huge difference, isn\u2019t it? But Geisler manages not to mention it, which is beyond silly.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Moreover, St. Luke uses this language at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (\u201cit 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\u2019ilus\u201d: Lk 1:3). I guess, according to Geisler, that this is a \u201cmoderate\u201d espousal of that inspired Gospel, too.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Indeed, the result of the conference was only a \u201cletter\u201d (15:30), not a papal encyclical with the typical language of anathema. (p. 285)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

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 \u201cobservance.\u201d That is sublime authority, and is not<\/em> what\u00a0Protestants would expect to find in the Bible, given their ecclesiological views.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Finally, the conference recognized the supernatural confirmation of God \u00a0on 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)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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 \u201ctheir guy\u201d: as if he teaches their doctrines), so Geisler threw it in for good effect (I guess).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

For related reading, see:<\/p>\n

Jerusalem Council vs. Sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a> [9-2-04]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Protestant Historian Philip Schaff: The Church Fathers Believed in Conciliar Infallibility Based on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)<\/a> [10-8-07]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Christian Ecclesiology: Dialogue with a Mennonite: Especially that of the Early Church, and the Jerusalem Council<\/a> [5-30-12]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Acts 16:4 vs. Sola Scriptura<\/em> & John Calvin?: Is Conciliar Authority Binding on Protestants (Especially When it is Guided by St. Paul and St. Peter?) <\/a>[11-2-15]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council<\/a> [National Catholic Register<\/em>, 1-15-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
C. S. Lewis vs. St. Paul on Future Binding Church Authority<\/a> [National Catholic Register<\/em>, 1-22-17]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*****<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Photograph by \u201cjclk8888\u201d (7-7-13) [Pixabay \/ CC0 public domain] ***** [This is an\u00a0installment of an extensive series of mine, in which I interact with\u00a0the 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, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":10219,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131],"tags":[598,3735,3723,3725,3724,3733,2332,3349,304,3720,3715,3716,3717,3714,1528,1029,3736,22,2537,1529,623,3722,3718,3719,3221,3721,625],"class_list":["post-10287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-ecclesiology","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-authoritative-church","tag-biblical-catholicism","tag-biblical-evidence-for-catholicism","tag-biblical-proofs-for-catholicism","tag-bowing-before-religious-objects","tag-catholic-apologetics","tag-catholic-exegesis","tag-catholic-theology","tag-catholic-vs-protestant-exegesis","tag-catholic-protestant-debates","tag-catholic-protestant-dialogue","tag-catholic-protestant-differences","tag-catholicism-protestantism","tag-catholicism-the-bible","tag-church-authority","tag-church-unity","tag-dave-armstrong","tag-defense-of-the-catholic-faith","tag-infallible-church","tag-institutional-church","tag-norm-geisler","tag-protestant-apologetics","tag-protestant-exegesis","tag-protestant-theology","tag-reformation-theology","tag-visible-church"],"yoast_head":"\n\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council with regard to Catholic claims of a God-ordained unity in the Church. Armstrong vigorously replies.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council with regard to Catholic claims of a God-ordained unity in the Church. Armstrong vigorously replies.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-03-02T20:14:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/02\/BibleCatholicism2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"450\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html\",\"name\":\"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-03-02T20:14:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T20:14:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council with regard to Catholic claims of a God-ordained unity in the Church. Armstrong vigorously replies.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)","description":"Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council with regard to Catholic claims of a God-ordained unity in the Church. Armstrong vigorously replies.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)","og_description":"Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council with regard to Catholic claims of a God-ordained unity in the Church. Armstrong vigorously replies.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2017-03-02T20:14:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":450,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/02\/BibleCatholicism2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html","name":"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-03-02T20:14:11+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T20:14:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Dr. Geisler analyzes the Jerusalem Council with regard to Catholic claims of a God-ordained unity in the Church. Armstrong vigorously replies.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/03\/armstrong-vs-geisler-10-ecclesiology-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10287\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10219"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}