In response to my article, “Why Acts 15 Doesn’t Lead to the Catholic Church,” Reformed to Rome, a recent convert to Roman Catholicism, raised several critiques through his Twitter handle. His detailed response can be found here: ReformedToRome’s Response.

His critique covers various aspects, including assumptions about Scriptural citations, the nature of magisterial authority, and the role of Scripture in the early church’s doctrinal decisions. In the following sections, I will address each of his points comprehensively, clarifying my original arguments and providing detailed responses grounded in Scriptural and historical context.

Summary of the Catholic Critique by “Reformed To Rome”:

1. Assumptions about Scriptural Citations:
   • Argument: The critique claims that the argument is built on the presumption that other scriptures were discussed during the council without explicit evidence.
2. Magisterial Authority vs. Scripture:
   • Argument: The critique suggests that the council’s decisions were based on magisterial authority rather than Scripture alone.
3. Circumcision and the Debate on Becoming Jews:
   • Argument: The critique argues that the debate was broader than just circumcision and involved whether Gentiles needed to become Jews to be saved.
4. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture:
   • Argument: The critique states that formal sufficiency of Scripture is not explicitly taught in Scripture.
5. Longenecker on Amos:
   • Argument: The critique mentions that Longenecker’s interpretation of Amos is irrelevant to the argument.
6. Magisterial Authority and Apostolic Authority:
   • Argument: The critique claims that the council’s authority included more than just apostles and that this supports a hierarchical structure similar to that of the Catholic Church.
7. Hierarchy and Structure:
   • Argument: The critique argues that the procedural structure of Acts 15 differs from that of modern Catholic councils but still supports a hierarchical model.
8. Council Leadership:
   • Argument: The critique suggests that the council was led by a collaborative effort rather than a singular authority, challenging the Protestant view of church authority.
9. Sola Scriptura and Enscripturation:
   • Argument: The critique questions the binding nature of the council’s decision before it was written in Scripture, challenging the principle of Sola Scriptura.

---

1. Assumptions about Scriptural Citations:

Argument: The critique claims that the argument is built on the presumption that other scriptures were discussed during the council without explicit evidence.

Response: My primary argument isn’t built on the assumption that more Scriptures were cited than recorded. Instead, it focuses on what was explicitly stated. Acts 15 shows that the decision was based on Scriptural revelation, notably through James’ use of Amos (Acts 15:15-18). This implies that Scripture was sufficiently authoritative for the council’s decision-making process. James cites Amos to confirm that the inclusion of Gentiles without requiring them to adopt Jewish customs was in line with God’s revealed plan.

My argument addresses Joshua Charles’ claim that Scripture was insufficient to discern between the positions at the Council of Jerusalem. Charles assumes that no other Scriptural passages were discussed, which is an unsupported presumption. Given the broader biblical context, other Scriptures, such as Isaiah 42:6 and Zechariah 8:23, could indeed be brought forth to argue against the necessity of circumcision for salvation. Thus, it is Charles who operates on an assumption, not I. The recorded Scriptural reference by James in Acts 15 demonstrates the sufficiency of Scripture in guiding the council’s decision.

2. Magisterial Authority vs. Scripture:

Argument: The critique suggests that the council’s decisions were based on magisterial authority rather than Scripture alone.

Response: I acknowledge the distinction between magisterial authority and Scripture. However, the recorded proceedings of Acts 15 illustrate that even within the framework of magisterial authority, Scriptural validation was sought. This underscores the primacy of Scripture in guiding doctrinal decisions, even if other forms of authority were also respected. James explicitly refers to the words of the prophets to support the decision (Acts 15:15-18).

Furthermore, this is a case of ongoing revelation being given. We grant magisterial authority to those who are divinely ordained. This observation isn’t necessarily where our disagreement lies, except when it is inferred into perpetuity and connected with Roman Catholic assumptions. The magisterial authority at the Jerusalem Council operated within the bounds of Scriptural confirmation, illustrating a model where Scripture and authority work hand in hand.

3. Circumcision and the Debate on Becoming Jews:

Argument: The critique argues that the debate was broader than just circumcision and involved whether Gentiles needed to become Jews to be saved.

Response: The council addressed whether Gentiles needed to adopt Jewish customs to be saved, a broader issue than circumcision alone. James’ use of Amos provided Scriptural confirmation that God’s plan included Gentiles as they were, without requiring them to become Jews (Acts 15:15-18). This supports the view that Scripture was formally sufficient for doctrinal decisions, providing a basis for the council’s conclusion.

The Jews already had a concept of non-Jewish people becoming Jews. Scripture is sufficient to settle these issues. If baptism simply replaced circumcision, then we would expect this council to have simply stated such. The decision not to impose circumcision reflects the understanding that salvation is through faith in Christ alone, as Paul elaborates in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. The council’s ruling, confirmed by Scripture, effectively resolved the broader debate about the necessity of adopting Jewish customs for salvation.

4. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture:

Argument: The critique states that formal sufficiency of Scripture is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

Response: While formal sufficiency may not be explicitly stated, Acts 15 demonstrates its practical application. The council’s reliance on Scripture to confirm its decision reflects an implicit understanding that Scripture was the ultimate guide, aligning with the principle of formal sufficiency. James’ use of Amos to support the decision underscores this reliance on Scripture (Acts 15:15-18).

Furthermore, it was not my goal to prove Formal Sufficiency from Acts 15! It was to show there is no conflict between the Acts council and Sola Scriptura. The practice of referring to Scripture to validate decisions exemplifies the early church’s recognition of its authoritative role, even if the terminology of “formal sufficiency” was not used.

5. Longenecker on Amos:

Argument: The critique mentions that Longenecker’s interpretation of Amos is irrelevant to the argument.

Response: Longenecker’s interpretation does not undermine Christian unity. The council’s decision to include Gentiles without requiring them to become Jews reflects the fulfillment of God’s covenant through Christ, removing the distinction between Jew and Greek (Galatians 3:28). This reinforces the equal status of all believers in Christ. The Old Testament teaches a time when Gentiles will be included as Gentiles (Isaiah 56:3-8; Zechariah 2:11).

Longenecker’s analysis highlights how the prophetic vision included Gentiles in the covenant community without them needing to become Jews. This interpretation supports the council’s decision and shows how the early church understood and applied Scripture to contemporary issues. The unity of the church was maintained through a decision that aligned with the broader Scriptural narrative of inclusion and fulfillment in Christ.

6. Magisterial Authority and Apostolic Authority:

Argument: The critique claims that the council’s authority included more than just apostles and that this supports a hierarchical structure similar to that of the Catholic Church.

Response: The council’s authority involved more than just the Apostles, incorporating elders and the church community. This broad participation does not diminish the role of apostolic teaching but rather illustrates a collective discernment process, consistent with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scriptural principles. This inclusive participation challenges traditional interpretations of hierarchical authority within the Church, especially compared to modern Catholic councils.

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). This indicates that while apostolic authority was significant, the decision-making process was collaborative and involved multiple levels of leadership within the church. This structure contrasts with the later development of a more centralized hierarchy in the Catholic Church.

7. Hierarchy and Structure:

Argument: The critique argues that the procedural structure of Acts 15 differs from that of modern Catholic councils but still supports a hierarchical model.

Response: The interchangeable roles of presbyters and bishops in the early Church reflect a flexible hierarchy. While the council was centered in Jerusalem, it included representatives from beyond the Jerusalem church, such as Paul and Barnabas, demonstrating a broader and more inclusive decision-making process, aligning with the early Christian community’s cooperative nature (Acts 15:2, 22-23).

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 led by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, with participation from key figures like Paul and Barnabas. This indicates a collaborative approach within the early Church, where decisions were made collectively and guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).

Additionally, the decision-making process in Acts 15 emphasized communal discernment and the direct involvement of the Holy Spirit, as stated in Acts 15:28: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” This underscores the spiritual guidance that was integral to the council’s decisions, contrasting with the more hierarchical and bureaucratic processes of later councils like Trent. The flexibility and inclusiveness of the early church’s structure challenge the notion that a rigid hierarchy was in place from the beginning.

8. Council Leadership:

Argument: The critique suggests that the council was led by a collaborative effort rather than a singular authority, challenging the Protestant view of church authority.

Response: The structure of the council, whether led by Peter or James, reflects a collaborative approach under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. This collective discernment process underscores the importance of unified leadership in doctrinal decisions, consistent with Scriptural teaching. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James all played significant roles, showing that leadership was shared among several key figures.

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. This distinction highlights the difference between the early church’s collaborative leadership and the later centralized authority seen in the Catholic Church.

9. Sola Scriptura and Enscripturation:

Argument: The critique questions the binding nature of the council’s decision before it was written in Scripture, challenging the principle of Sola Scriptura.

Response: Sola Scriptura emphasizes that Scripture, as God’s revealed word, becomes uniquely normative and the ultimate guide for faith and practice, especially in the absence of an infallible prophet or apostle. The early Church operated with ongoing revelation, but the principle of Scripture’s ultimate authority became evident as the canon was recognized and apostolic revelation ceased.

The council’s decision in Acts 15 was binding because it was guided by the Holy Spirit and confirmed by Scripture. The subsequent inclusion of the decision in the Scriptural canon (Acts 15:28-29) does not retroactively grant it authority but rather recognizes the decision’s already established authority. This understanding aligns with the principle that Scripture, once given, is the final authority for the church.

10. Historical Context and Development:

Argument: The hierarchical structures seen in later councils, such as Trent, evolved over time and were not present in the early church. This evolution supports the argument that the early church functioned differently from modern Catholicism. The early church’s practices were more flexible and less centralized, reflecting a different organizational approach.

Response: The hierarchical structures seen in later councils, such as Trent, evolved over time and were not present in the early church. This evolution supports the argument that the early church functioned differently from modern Catholicism. The early church’s practices were more flexible and less centralized, reflecting a different organizational approach. Early councils like that of Jerusalem were marked by communal discernment and the direct involvement of the Holy Spirit, contrasting with the later more formalized and hierarchical structures.

11. Role of Tradition:

Argument: While tradition played a role in the early church, the council’s reliance on Scripture as the ultimate authority shows a balance that aligns more closely with the principle of Sola Scriptura. Scripture was not isolated but worked in conjunction with the early church’s traditions to guide doctrinal decisions.

Response: While tradition played a role in the early church, the council’s reliance on Scripture as the ultimate authority shows a balance that aligns more closely with the principle of Sola Scriptura. Scripture was not isolated but worked in conjunction with the early church’s traditions to guide doctrinal decisions. This balance is evident in how the council sought Scriptural confirmation for its decisions while considering the lived experiences and testimonies of the apostles and elders (Acts 15:12-15).

12. Unity and Diversity:

Argument: Acts 15 demonstrates how the early church worked through theological issues collectively, respecting diverse views within the framework of Scriptural authority. This unity and diversity within the early church contrasts with the later more centralized decision-making processes.

Response: Acts 15 demonstrates how the early church worked through theological issues collectively, respecting diverse views within the framework of Scriptural authority. This unity and diversity within the early church contrasts with the later more centralized decision-making processes. The council’s decision-making process included input from various church leaders and was guided by the Holy Spirit, reflecting a model of cooperative leadership that respected differing perspectives while ultimately being grounded in Scripture.

13. Practical Implications:

Argument: The council’s ruling on circumcision had immediate and practical implications for the early Christian communities, demonstrating the effectiveness and sufficiency of Scripture in guiding the church’s decisions.

Response: The council’s ruling on circumcision had immediate and practical implications for the early Christian communities, demonstrating the effectiveness and sufficiency of Scripture in guiding the church’s decisions. The decision relieved Gentile converts from the burden of adopting Jewish customs, allowing for greater inclusion and unity within the early church. This practical application underscores the Scriptural basis for the council’s decisions and highlights how Scripture was effectively used to address and resolve doctrinal issues.

14. Scriptural Basis for Sola Scriptura:

Argument: Reinforcing the scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura, passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11 illustrate the early church’s reliance on Scripture. These references support the principle of Scripture’s authority in guiding faith and practice.

Response: Reinforcing the scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura, passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11 illustrate the early church’s reliance on Scripture. These references support the principle of Scripture’s authority in guiding faith and practice. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 affirms that all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, indicating its comprehensive role in guiding believers. Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures daily to see if Paul’s teachings were true, demonstrating the practice of verifying doctrinal claims against Scriptural authority.

By addressing each point with clarity and grounding my responses in Scriptural and historical context, I can effectively counter the critique and reinforce the original argument.