Joshua Charles, a recent convert to Roman Catholicism, has been vocal about his newfound faith. Recently, he shared a post on Twitter, prompting me to take some time to review it.

Unanswerable Papal Questionnaire:

In his post, Charles poses several questions that he previously struggled to answer as a Protestant, implying that he believes these questions still challenge Protestant beliefs. To quote him:

(1)   If the faith was “one for all delivered to the saints,” [Jude 3] how is it possible that even the Apostles had a theological issue that needed to be resolved?

https://www.joshuatcharles.com/blog/2019/5/26/becoming-catholic-12-why-acts-15-led-me-to-the-catholic-church

The post-Christ theological disputes among the Apostles pose no greater challenge for Protestants than for any other Christian tradition. Disputes in the Apostolic age aren’t unique to Protestantism but are inherent to Christianity itself.

For example, if Roman Catholicism was true, then Peter indeed held the role of the vicar or if secret oral traditions were passed down to resolve such disputes, one might reasonably expect their utilization during these moments of doctrinal disagreement. The absence of such recourse raises questions about the practicality and efficacy of these purported mechanisms.

Accusing Protestants of novelty or deviation from Apostolic methodology doesn’t absolve Roman Catholics of similar charges. Josh, like many Catholics, risks falling into a tu quoque fallacy by attempting to deflect criticism in this manner.

(2)   Why was the Council’s [Acts 15] decision not directly based on Scripture, but the authority of the Apostles, those they appointed, and the Holy Spirit?

Joshua Charles’ allusion to the Acts 15 Council overlooks the significant role of Scripture in guiding their decision. James’ citation of prophetic passages during the Council underscores the centrality of Scripture in shaping their deliberations (Acts 15:15-18).

¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
¹⁶ “‘After this I will return
    and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
 and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
¹⁸     things known from long ago.
¹⁹ “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

In fact, the only time Scripture is directly cited is by James during the Council (not in its letter) after he affirms Peter’s decision.  He cites the prophet Amos (Acts 15:16-18): …

Indeed, the verses of Amos cited by James said nothing about circumcision, and nothing about the specific contents of the Council’s ruling on which parts of the Mosaic law would continue to be obligatory for Gentiles. …

But that is precisely what was impossible to do here: there was no part of Scripture which specifically required, or, without already knowing the Council’s decision, would have necessitated the specifics of that decision.  … Yes, Amos was cited by James at the end of the Council, and Amos describes the coming in of the Gentiles. 

Joshua Charles further elucidates his viewpoint, contending that exegetical analysis alone would not suffice to settle the debate. He argues that the biblical data available lacks clarity on the necessity of circumcision and suggests that only through extra-biblical traditions can we ascertain its dispensability. Joshua states that we lack an explicit statement in the Old Testament to settle the issue of the necessity of circumcision.

The crux of the matter lies in the presumption that just because Acts doesn’t explicitly list more scripture references, it doesn’t imply that many scriptures weren’t discussed. Consider this: beyond scripture, what else could Peter have referenced to discern the insufficiency of the Judaizers’ claims? Why assume it must be some obscure oral tradition rather than the wealth of insights available in the Old Testament?

The truth is Paul’s arguments in Romans 4 and Galatians 2-3 demonstrate a profound understanding beyond mere reliance on oral tradition. Was he simply guessing? Why would he engage in intricate theological discourse, drawing upon the Old Testament, if he could easily defer to the traditions outlined at the Jerusalem council? This raises significant doubts about the exclusive reliance on oral tradition as the source of doctrinal authority.

It’s rather perplexing that Joshua seems to insist on the need for an explicit statement in the Old Testament to support the council’s decision regarding circumcision. He appears to overlook the fact that the Old Testament often communicates teachings through unstated logical implications. It’s quite surprising that he seems unaware of this fundamental aspect of exegesis.

If the churches during the time lacked sufficient scriptural data to determine circumcision’s necessity for salvation, why assume they knew how to avoid idolatry and immorality? Despite having access to numerous books, Catholics still struggle with these issues today. Their sources would have been primarily the Old Testament and any available New Testament books.

Paul’s epistles in Galatians and Romans countered Judaizing tendencies with Old Testament scriptures, affirming the churches’ reliance on Scriptural authority. Similarly, John the Baptist’s teachings, which preceded the Acts 15 council, opposed Judaizer thought, stressing repentance and the coming of the Messiah. This suggests that John the Baptist, without the guidance of the Acts 15 council, already understood the importance of faith in Christ over Jewish customs for salvation (Matthew 3:1-12).

James’s citation of Amos during the Council of Jerusalem wasn’t just an arbitrary reference; it had a specific purpose behind it.

Likewise, James cites Amos, who spoke of “the remnant of men” (LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls) in the last days when “David’s fallen tent” would be rebuilt as being “all the Gentiles who bear my name” and whose continuance as Gentiles was understood (cf. Am 9: 11– 12). In the end-times, James seems to be saying, God’s people will consist of two concentric groups: (1) at the core will be a restored Israel (i.e., “David’s rebuilt tent”); and (2) gathered around them will be a group of Gentiles (i.e., “the remnant of men”) who will share in the messianic blessings but who will continue as Gentiles without necessarily becoming Jewish proselytes. It is this understanding of Amos’s message, James insisted, that Peter’s testimony has affirmed. Therefore, the conversion of Gentiles in these last days should be seen not on a proselyte model of bringing Gentiles into the institutions, temple, and laws of Judaism (a centripetal emphasis) but on an eschatological missionary model that reaches out to the Gentile world without necessarily relating Gentile believers to the forms and practices of Judaism (a centrifugal emphasis).

Longenecker, Richard N.. Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 9362-9370). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

(3)   Why was the Council’s decision binding on all local churches?  What if they interpreted Scripture differently?  I thought the local church was the primary locus of church authority?

The binding authority of the Acts 15 Council stems from divine authority rather than mere apostolic tradition. This universal divine authority underscores the significance of the Council’s decision for all believers, irrespective of their local church affiliations.


(4)   Why did the Apostles involve the leaders they had appointed in the decision?  Wasn’t their own authority sufficient?

The inclusion of non-apostolic leaders in the Jerusalem Council facilitated clarity in discussions, particularly regarding Gentile believers, promoting collective discernment and guarding against doctrinal error (Acts 15:6-21). However, their participation challenges traditional interpretations of hierarchical authority within the Church, especially when compared to modern Catholic councils.

The procedural disparities between Acts 15 and contemporary Catholic gatherings, such as Trent, are striking. Unlike the structured and centralized approach seen in modern Catholic councils, Acts 15 lacked formalities like voting by cardinals or bishops from other churches. Instead, it was centered around the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, with participation from key figures such as Paul and Barnabas, indicating the collaborative nature and pivotal role of the Jerusalem church in early Christian decision-making (Acts 15:2, 6, 22-23).

The absence of an emperor’s role in calling and presiding over the council contrasts with the contemporary practice of papal authority within the Roman Catholic Church. In many modern Catholic councils, the pope typically leads and presides, exerting significant influence over proceedings, unlike the more collegial and decentralized decision-making apparent in Acts 15.

If these differences pose a challenge for Protestants, they present an even greater dilemma for Catholics, who claim a similar structure.

(5)   What about what I would later call “the Logistical Issue,” meaning—was the Council’s decision binding when it written, or only after Luke included it in the Bible when he wrote the book of Acts?  If it was binding before it was included in the Bible, that would seem to have implications for the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. But if it was binding only afterward, then that made the Apostles and the other leaders of the Church involved in the decision stunningly presumptuous.

The binding nature of the Acts 15 Council’s decision predates its enscripturation, reflecting its divine authority rather than dependence on subsequent scriptural validation. This understanding aligns with the principle of Sola Scriptura, which emphasizes Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, particularly during periods without ongoing divine revelation.

Joshua Charles’ Breakdown of Acts 15:

There was a theological question/issue on the table, and while Paul and Barnabas believed the Judaizers were in error, it seemed that a definitive resolution was required.  As far as Scripture is concerned, Jesus never said anything definitive about this issue, nor had the Apostles prior to the Council.  And—very oddly for someone like myself who was taught sola scriptura—it seemed that everyone was assuming that a definitive decision could only be rendered by a living authority.  They didn’t say “let’s attempt to interpret Scripture for ourselves on this point.”  They didn’t even appeal to the apostolic authority of Paul himself, but rather to a decision by a seemingly higher authority—the living authority of the Church as a whole.

This reasoning implies that the Apostles were indifferent to circumcision, contradicting Paul’s explicit arguments in other epistles. If Acts 15 was the sole source of knowledge on circumcision’s insignificance for salvation, why did Paul oppose it in his letters? How could Paul have anticipated this debate in Acts 15 without prior indication that Jewish customs were unnecessary for salvation? Charles seems to acknowledge this understanding predated the council when he remarks:

To be clear: I’m not saying this necessarily means there was ubiquitous confusion on this point of doctrine.  Paul and Barnabas, after all, seemed to be quite aware that the Judaizers were in error.  But, as Luke makes clear, their error was shared by other believers as well. 

Charles attempts to shoehorn his perspective on the development of doctrine into this discussion:

So this is not a case of coming up with new doctrine out of whole cloth.  Rather, as has happened often in Church history, what had been understood implicitly required an explicit formulation in response to challenges, in this case, from the Judaizers.  In other words, doctrine develops and becomes clearer (and deeper) in response to challenges.  A single seed contains all the material of the mighty tree that comes from it—and yet they are still the same thing.  The tree is just an unpacking and growth of everything that was in the seed.

Joshua Charles tries to bait and switch Protestants with the misconception that doctrinal development is solely about making implicit beliefs explicit. In reality, it encompasses a much broader process, akin to the growth of a seed into a flourishing tree. Doctrinal development not only brings forth what was implicit but also involves expansive growth, much like how a seed transforms into a tree with roots, branches, and leaves. This growth involves the synthesis and integration of diverse theological insights, drawing from various sources such as Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
Moreover, doctrinal development entails adaptation to changing contexts and challenges, akin to a tree adjusting to its environment. Just as a tree undergoes pruning and correction to maintain vitality, doctrinal development may also involve reformulation or correction of previous understandings to ensure fidelity to core truths. Thus, it’s evident that doctrinal development transcends mere deduction and instead encompasses a rich process of expansion, synthesis, adaptation, and correction.

Joshua Charles cites Pope Gregory the Great and Augustine as if they support developmental hypothesis coined by Newman. For those interested, they should notice that Augustine held to a view very similar to Sola Scriptura. Dr. Gavin Ortlund covers such:

As a protestant, I had no framework to grapple with this fundamental biblical reality: the early Church had a catholic authority.  It wasn’t a series of autonomous local churches arriving at their own decisions on doctrine.  Nor was it a set of various denominational alliances arriving at their own decisions on doctrine.  No—the early Church, while obviously consisting (as the Church does today) of local bodies, was nonetheless one, universal body, and thus had a universal, or catholic means of governing itself.  There was simply no way I could square this with any form of protestant church government—congregationalist, presbyterian, independent, denominational, etc.  None of them fit.

While it’s true that the Apostles wielded universal authority in the early Church, we can’t simply transpose that model onto today’s ecclesiastical landscape. The past is replete with diverse forms of universal authority – from prophets to the Temple – but each was suited to its particular time and purpose. Just because the Apostles had authority doesn’t mean we’re meant to replicate their exact structure indefinitely.

Charles seems to be stretching the concept of the “early church” quite thin. While it’s feasible that the Apostles wielded such authority in their time, it’s a leap to assume that this authority remained intact even a century later, let alone in the contemporary ecclesiastical scene. How is that no different than him assuming his view?

It also seems that it is precisely different picture of evidence. For example, Rome of the 1st Century seems to exhibit what Joshua Charles decries, churches that look similar to the different denominations.

There was no single church of Rome in the 1C. Rather, the 1C church of Rome was a loose association of independent house-churches. As Barnett summarizes the data in Rom 16:

There are at least three house church groups:

Verse 5: “the church in the house [of Prisca and Aquila]”
Verse 14: “the brothers with [Asyncritus et al]”
Verse 15: “the saints with [Philologus and Julia et al]”

It is possible, however, that a dozen other “clusters” are implied by individuals, couples or groups named by Paul. Beyond that there may have been synagogue-linked groups to which Paul’s main opponent’s belonged.

As many as six Jewish-led house-groups are implied. These Jewish names [Rom 16:3,6-7,10-11,13] confirm that some Jews reentered Rome after the death of Claudius in AD 54 when his decree of AD 49 expelling Jews from Rome would have lapsed.

P. Barnett, Romans (Christian Focus 2003), 366-67.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-church-of-rome.html

Essentially it amounts to this: clearly Luke is writing the book of Acts about events that have already taken place.  Acts 15 contains the text of a letter written by the Council.  But this raised a very disconcerting question for me.  In that letter, the basis for the decision was the authority of both the Apostles/elders, and the Holy Spirit.  This made the contents of the letter binding on all Christians as if delivered by God Himself.  And yet, this letter was not Scripture.  It would one day be included in Scripture, but it was not Scripture yet.  And yet no one seemed to object to its authority being considered divine.  Even more concerning for me was the fact that the Council considered its decision binding whether it was written down or not!

Indeed, while it’s accurate that these traditions were initially unwritten, their preservation and dissemination relied heavily on Luke’s meticulous recording of these events. It’s noteworthy that when the Early Church deliberated on the Jerusalem council, they didn’t invoke some cryptic set of traditions exclusive to a clerical class; rather, they turned to the concrete documentation provided by Luke. This underscores the primacy of written records, lending them considerable weight and authority within the early Christian community. This critique highlights a specific error in failing to recognize the significance of Luke’s documentation as a primary source for understanding early Christian traditions, contrasting it with the absence of nebulous oral traditions. Moreover, it challenges the assumption that it’s problematic for Scripture to refer to extrabiblical divine revelation through humans, questioning why such a notion should be considered problematic.

But, not all the men taking part in the Council that was claiming apostolic authority were Apostles.  The Council of Jerusalem exhibited the reality of non-Apostles (those not among the twelve, or the few others that came afterward, such as Matthias and Paul) exercising divine authority.  I realized it was logically impossible to avoid this conclusion.  The syllogism goes something like this:

Major Premise: The Council claimed divine authority

Minor Premise: The Apostles and the elders were those who exercised the Council’s authority

Conclusion: The Apostles and the elders were exercising divine authority

This argument appears to conflate individual participation with the collective authority of the Council. While it’s true that the Council of Jerusalem’s decision is regarded as infallible, it doesn’t necessarily mean that every member present possessed inherent infallibility.

Attributing the infallibility of the Council to the personal qualities of its individual members seems to misconstrue the nature of collective decision-making. The infallibility of the Council pertains to the authoritative pronouncement made by the assembled body as a whole, rather than the infallibility of each participant.

To illustrate, consider the analogy of a jury in a court trial: the jury’s verdict may be deemed infallible insofar as it represents the unanimous decision of the jury panel, which is guided by legal principles and evidence. However, this doesn’t imply that every juror possesses infallible judgment individually.

Therefore, while the Council of Jerusalem’s decision is upheld as infallible within Christian tradition, this doesn’t necessitate that every member of the Council inherently possessed infallibility. Rather, it underscores the collective authority and guidance of the Council as a whole in discerning the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, Joshua’s argument appears to imply a shared authority among the members of the Council due to the hierarchical structure mentioned. However, it’s important to clarify that the mere presence of hierarchy within the Council doesn’t automatically confer universal apostolic authority or infallibility upon all participants.

This absolutely puzzled me as a protestant.  Where was that Church today?  I asked.  Are we just out of luck that we didn’t solve all the theological issues in the first century?  How could mere men have divine authority?

It appears that even in a scenario where the Apostles were still present, Joshua would likely continue to find explanations for the ongoing existence of theological disputes.

First, Peter claims that it was by “my mouth” that God decided to proclaim the Gospel to the nations, or “Gentiles” [Acts 15:7].  By so claiming, especially at a Council that was seeking to determine which parts of the Mosaic law would apply to Gentiles, Peter is claiming to have the ultimate say in the matter.

The phrase “by my mouth” in Acts 15:7, uttered by Peter, does not inherently confer ultimate authority or universal jurisdiction. Instead, it signifies Peter’s role as the spokesperson or representative of the apostles in conveying a decision or proclamation. This phrase reflects his leadership and responsibility within the early Christian community.

Drawing an analogy to Matthew 21:16, where praise is spoken “out of the mouths of babes and infants,” we understand that attributing an action or speech to a specific individual does not necessarily imply unique or universal authority. In both cases, the phrases simply denote the source or agent of the action without implying broader implications about authority.

Therefore, using the phrase “by my mouth” to assert Peter’s supremacy as the single universal bishop may oversimplify or misinterpret its intended meaning within the broader context of the passage and the biblical narrative. Biblical exegesis requires careful attention to context, language, and theological implications to avoid misinterpretations or misunderstandings.

Secondly, the argument assumes a direct equivalence between David’s role as the leader of Israel and Peter’s role as the head of the Church. However, the biblical narrative portrays David primarily as a king and military leader, not as a religious authority akin to Peter in the early Christian community.

Moreover, the concept of Peter as the “head” of the Church is a theological interpretation, particularly within Catholicism, rather than a universally accepted biblical doctrine. Different Christian traditions may interpret Peter’s role differently or emphasize collective apostolic leadership.

Additionally, while David’s role in the Old Testament Council is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 28, the text does not explicitly designate him as the presiding figure or the one issuing binding decrees. Instead, David’s speech emphasizes obedience to God’s commandments and commissioning his son Solomon to build the Temple.

In contrast, the New Testament account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 portrays Peter as one of several key figures involved in decision-making, alongside James and others. The decision reached is presented as a collective effort rather than the unilateral action of a single individual.

Firstly, typological interpretation relies heavily on symbolism and parallels between Old and New Testament events, which may vary depending on individual interpretation. For example, if David is interpreted as a type of Jesus, it could lead to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus must have numerous wives and children, as David did. Additionally, if typology is not carefully applied, it can result in misinterpretations or unwarranted conclusions, as seen in the flawed analogy between Peter’s authority and the statement “by my mouth” in Acts 15:7.

Secondly, the argument assumes a direct equivalence between David’s role as the leader of Israel and Peter’s role as the head of the Church. However, the biblical narrative portrays David primarily as a king and military leader, not as a religious authority akin to Peter in the early Christian community.

Moreover, the concept of Peter as the “head” of the Church is a theological interpretation, particularly within Catholicism, rather than a universally accepted biblical doctrine. Different Christian traditions may interpret Peter’s role differently or emphasize collective apostolic leadership.

Additionally, while David’s role in the Old Testament Council is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 28, the text does not explicitly designate him as the presiding figure or the one issuing binding decrees. Instead, David’s speech emphasizes obedience to God’s commandments and commissioning his son Solomon to build the Temple.

In contrast, the New Testament account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 portrays Peter as one of several key figures involved in decision-making, alongside James and others. The decision reached is presented as a collective effort rather than the unilateral action of a single individual.

Upon closer scrutiny, it’s apparent that while there are resemblances between David’s speech in 1 Chronicles 28 and Peter’s address in Acts 15, these parallels might just scratch the surface and fail to indicate a direct typological connection or equal footing of authority.

When we dissect the two passages, we notice that both David and Peter start by addressing their audience as “brethren” and affirm their divine calling or appointment. However, beyond these apparent similarities, the contexts and substance of their speeches diverge significantly.

In 1 Chronicles 28, David’s speech mainly revolves around his role as the king over Israel and his plea to the people to heed and follow the commandments of the Lord. He stresses the significance of obedience to God’s laws for inheriting the promised land, echoing his position as a political and military leader.

On the other hand, Peter’s speech in Acts 15 tackles a specific issue confronting the early Christian community regarding the imposition of Jewish customs, particularly circumcision, on Gentile converts. Peter argues against burdening the Gentiles with unnecessary requirements and underscores salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ, underscoring his role as a mouthpiece for the Gospel message.

While both speeches share certain common elements, such as addressing the audience and invoking divine authority, the contexts, purposes, and emphases of David and Peter’s speeches diverge markedly. Therefore, any attempt to draw a direct parallel between the two based solely on linguistic similarities may overlook the broader theological and historical contexts in which these speeches occur.

Third, and finally, Peter issued the permanently binding part of the decision of the Council, namely, that the Gentiles would not be bound to be circumcised to become part of the Church. One became a Christian through baptism, not circumcision. Christians who had been baptized were not, as some had told them, required to be circumcised to be saved, for circumcision was merely an outward physical sign, whereas baptism wrought a spiritual reality in the soul, a true cleansing from sin, just as was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah (see Jer. 31:31-34). After Peter made this clear, “all the assembly kept silence” [Acts 15:12], and there was not a single word that contradicted him afterward. Indeed, only support is offered for what Peter said, first by Barnabas, then Paul, and finally by James, who uses Peter’s words on the permanent teaching of the Church to arrive at a judgment on the non-permanent, or disciplinary measures of the Council (namely, the part about abstaining from food offered to idols, etc.). This is important to recognize, as some argue that James’ declaration of “my judgment is” [Acts 15:19] meant he was the head of the Council. But how could that be so? James himself refers back to Peter’s words when he declares, prior to reaching his conclusion, “Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree…” [Acts 15:14-15]. He then cites Amos, and follows it with a “Therefore…” Thus, James not only begins his own argument with Peter’s words, but never challenges them, nor presumes to arrive at the same judgment, but rather comes to a judgment about the non-permanent rulings of the Council based on the “ground truth” of Peter’s doctrinal declaration. James is also not found in the Old Testament type of the same Council as clearly and strikingly as is Peter. Finally, James only speaks to the disciplinary measures of that time—most of which have been irrelevant to Christianity for the last 2,000 years. When was the last time Christians were told to abstain from certain foods because they were offered to idols, or because the animals had been strangled (which James recommends)? On the other hand, Peter’s articulation of the faith—that Christians need not be circumcised to be Christians—has remained a permanent feature of the Christian faith for 2,000 years, and was in fact the primary issue at the Council of Jerusalem.

While it’s widely acknowledged that Peter played a significant role in the Council, it’s crucial to recognize that he didn’t issue a ruling single-handedly; that authority rested with James. Additionally, the disciplinary measures enacted at the Council were driven more by the pragmatic concerns of the early Christian community rather than solely as a demonstration of Peter’s supremacy.