Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Jerusalem Council & Ecclesial Infallibility: 50 Proofs

Jerusalem Council & Ecclesial Infallibility: 50 Proofs

Last updated on: June 13, 2026 at 1:08 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Jerusalem Council & Ecclesial Infallibility: 50 Proofs 2026-06-13T13:08:36-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

: image from the article, “How is disagreement resolved in the Council of Acts 15?” (Ian Paul, 10-9-19, Psephizo).

All Bible passages from RSV.

1) As for relevant background regarding St. Peter as the leader of the disciples and of the early Church (i.e., the first pope), that is established on many different grounds. See my articles, St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs [10-22-25], and St. Peter & the Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs [10-31-25].

2) St. Peter received an inspired vision from God regarding the Gentiles, where he “saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. [12] In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. . . . [15] And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” (Acts 10:11-12-15; cf. 11:4-10). Scripture records four expressions of Peter regarding the intent of the vision:

3)”God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28).

4) “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, [35] but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

5) “And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction” (Acts 11:12).

6) “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” (Acts 11:17).

7) In his speech at the council, St. Peter refers back to the vision and its aftermath, in saying, “God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; [9] and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith” (15:8-9), which appears to be a direct allusion to Acts 10:44-45 (“the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. . . . the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles”), which occurred in the immediate context of his vision, on “the next day” (Acts 10:23). It all goes together: God showed Pope Peter with the vision that Gentiles were to be brought into the Church as equals; then the next day he met Cornelius, whom an angel had directed to him (Acts 10:1-6, 22, 30-33; 11:-14); and Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (11:15-16); thus verifying the vision.

8) St. Paul previously “had no small dissension and debate” with the circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his own profound apostolic authority. Instead, apostles and elders in council decided the question. All he is recorded as doing there is reporting about “signs and wonders” in his ministry (15:12): giving testimony, in other words. He’s not the leader and seemingly not even a key figure.

9) As for it being called “the Jerusalem council”, the Bible states that “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter” (Acts 15:6; cf. “councils and elders” in 15:2, 4, 22-23; 16:4), in “assembly” (15:12), in Jerusalem (15:4). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (edited by F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, 2nd edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 1974; p. 351: “Council”), states that “The first council of the Church was that described in Acts 15.” Likewise, New Bible Dictionary (edited by J. D. Douglas, Eerdmans, 1962; p. 263: “Council, Jerusalem”): “The Council of Jerusalem is the name commonly given to the meeting . . .”

10) As for the council making binding “decrees”: it arrived at “decisions” (16:4) that included a “judgment” by St. James (15:19), and sent a “letter” (15:23, 30) that communicated them to Christians far and wide (16:6, etc.). St. Paul (with Timothy: 16:3) “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4). The word for “decisions” in Acts 16:4 is the Greek word dogma (Strong’s word #1378).

11) The Church, at that time centered in Jerusalem – before the city was destroyed about twenty years later by the Romans — had binding authority far and wide. If someone argues that it’s merely a local council of Jerusalem (as F. F. Bruce does), then how is it that Paul acts as he does above, in Asia Minor (Turkey)? How can the Jerusalem Church have jurisdiction and binding authority over Christians and congregations far away, unless episcopalian and hierarchical Church government is in place?

12) “After there had been much debate” (15:7), Pope Peter declared (15:7-11) what God had communicated to him in a vision (Acts chapters 10-11):”Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. [8] And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; [9] and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? [11] But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (15:7-11).

13) After St. Peter spoke, “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12), implying reverence, and a deference to his sublime authority and leadership.

14) St. 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).

15) Bishop of Jerusalem St. James, after hearing St. Paul and Barnabas speak (15:12-13), referred right back to St. Peter’s words and deferred to his authority in saying, “Simeon has related . . .” (15:13-14). Why did James skip right over Paul’s comments and go back to what Peter said? We think that suggests that Peter was more important in terms of authority, as pope. To me, this suggests that St. 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.”

16) St. James concurred with Peter’s view, concluding, “And with this the words of the prophets agree” (15:15); then he cites prophets in agreement with St. Peter’s point (15:15-18).

17) St. James’ “judgment” agrees with what St. Peter has already expressed: “we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (15:19). 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.

18) St. James states, “Therefore my judgment . . .” but this does not prove that he presided, as anyone could say that (similar to saying, “my opinion is …”). The judgment was reached by consensus (“it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole Church” in 15:22; “it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord” in 15:25; “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” in 15:28; cf. 16:4). This, too, is exactly like Catholic councils throughout history: they decide matters as a group, yet popes preside. Nothing in this text suggests anything other than St. Peter being the leader.

19) 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).

20) St. James was also the leader of the Church’s Jewish wing at that time. He is particular speaking to that faction. Who was giving “trouble” to the Gentiles? It wasn’t Peter or Paul, who had both accepted them by the time of the council. James was the local bishop presiding over his own jurisdiction. If James presided as the local bishop, this 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, that James simply agreed with (and said that the “prophets” did also).

21) Even if a Protestant wants to argue (as they usually do) that St. James was the “top dog” at the council, above Peter, he’s still being a bishop (of Jerusalem), presiding over a council that makes binding legal decisions, obligatory on all Christians everywhere. That’s clearly episcopal / Catholic ecclesiology.

22) The decisions were affirmed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit (which is inspired knowledge; even beyond infallible): “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” (15:28-29).

23) The Presbyterian scholar, Albert Barnes, in his famous Barnes’ Notes commentary at 15:28, wrote::

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.

This is the Catholic model: ecumenical councils make decisions (led and guided by the Holy Spirit), in tandem with the popes who preside and have “veto power.” It’s both/and.

24) As a result of the council, “the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily” (16:5). When some of these messengers “delivered the letter” to the Christians at Antioch (15:30), “they rejoiced at the exhortation” (15:31).

25) Luke, the author of Acts, noted five times that “apostles” and “elders” worked together in the council to make a decree (15:2, 4, 6, 22-23, 16:4). “Elders” is the Greek presbuteros, meaning 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.” What’s striking is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, in terms of their practical authority. The elders seem to have possessed the power of “one man one vote.” If such a momentous, binding decision for all Christians henceforth was arrived at by apostles and elders working “together” (15:6), it appears that elders and also bishops are the successors of the apostles (i.e., apostolic succession), and would be the leaders of future councils, once the apostles died off.

26) The Jerusalem Council doesn’t even seem (from what we know) to have been primarily concerned with biblical arguments and justifications. Some Scripture is cited by St. James in agreement with what St. Peter spoke about, but nothing is recorded by Luke in connection with the many Old Testament command for males to be circumcised (which must have been brought up). Church authority is placed first and foremost in the account. That’s the overwhelming biblical emphasis.

27) 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.

28) St. Paul himself was commissioned by the council (15:22, 25, 30) to proclaim the council’s decrees (16:4), which were partly decided by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it. Paul was no “lone ranger.” He was under authority.

29) St. Paul told us to imitate him (see, e.g., 2 Thess. 3:9). And he went around proclaiming decrees of the Church (Acts 16:4). 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).

30) The letter sent by the council didn’t just go out to “the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia” (Acts 15:23, 30), but also “through Syria and Cili’cia” (15:41), and “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. The rest of chapter 16 details the many places Paul, Silas, and Timothy visited, where (presumably), they “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached . . . at Jerusalem” (16:4). 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). Protestant commentaries (for Acts 16:4-5) back me up:

*Benson Commentary:*these decrees . . . belonged equally to all the Gentile converts everywhere.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible The same principles, also, would be applicable everywhere, and the decision, therefore, at Jerusalem became conclusive.

31) Damascus, Syria was 155 miles from Jerusalem. That was a very long distance in those days. Antioch was a city in the middle (from an east-west perspective) of present-day Turkey, on its southern border (right next to present-day Syria). Antakya is the current Turkish city in the region. It’s 453 miles from Jerusalem. Yet here was the church in Jerusalem sending it binding instructions, claimed to be agreed with by the Holy Spirit. Cilicia was the region of southern Turkey extending quite a ways west from Antioch. So it was at least 453 miles from Jerusalem, and most of it many more miles away.

32) The apostle Paul and Timothy “went on their way through the cities” (16:4). What cities or areas were these? Well, in the immediate context, Phrygia, Galatia, Bithynia, Troas, and Macedonia are mentioned as places that were visited by Paul and Timothy. Now let’s do some more ancient geography, to see how far these places were from Jerusalem: Phrygia was in west and central Turkey (then known as Anatolia or Asia Minor). At the western end of Phrygia was the town of Aizanoi (modern Çavdarhisar). That’s 991 miles away. But it wasn’t too far for the church in Jerusalem to send it binding decrees (what Tom ignorantly describes as a “dictatorial teaching office”). Galatia was just northeast of Phrygia, and thus almost as far as that location. Bithynia was north and a little west of Phrygia, and so even further from Jerusalem (more than a thousand miles away). Troas (also known as “The Troad”) was in the western part of Anatolia, and so further than any area mentioned yet. Lastly, Macedonia shortly after apostolic times was north of current-day Greece in the area of the former Yugoslavia (now again called the Republic of Macedonia). But it was larger than that and extended quite a bit into what is now Greece. It included the city of Thessaloniki (Paul wrote two letters to the Christians there), which still exists, and is, by land, no less than 1501 miles from Jerusalem. If that is not very much like the Vatican and Catholicism issuing doctrines that are binding in very large geographical areas, I don’t know what is. And it’s right in inspired Scripture.

33) The Protestant rule of faith or standard of authority is called Sola Scriptura or “Bible Alone”: the belief that the Bible is the only infallible and final authority in matters of the faith. This being the case, if we observe an ongoing infallible authority in the inspired Bible other than the Bible itself (the Jerusalem Council was magisterial authority in action), then sola Scriptura collapses in a heap, or would at the very least have to be drastically modified. The Holy Spirit confirmed the decree (Acts 15:28). Therefore, what they decided was necessarily infallible and indeed also inspired, since the Holy Spirit is God and utters divine words and messages.

34) The council’s decree was inspired and infallible even before it wound up being recorded in the book of Acts. If an infallible decree was made (and it was), this state of affairs utterly contradicts sola Scriptura, since it claims that there is not and can never be an infallible Church or a council called by it, or any infallible authority besides the Bible.

35) The binding authority of the Church was present here, and there is no indication whatever that anyone was ever allowed to dissent from it. Presbyterian Albert Barnes, in his famous Barnes’ Notes commentary, for 16:4, observed: “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.”

36) In fact, the Jerusalem Council was so infallible and authoritative, that virtually all Christians have followed its ruling ever since: we don’t require circumcision (we have baptism instead) and we don’t follow Jewish dietary laws. That all came about through that council

37) C. S. Lewis (in a 1944 essay, “Christian Reunion: An Anglican Speaks to Roman Catholics,” published in Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces: edited by Lesley Walmsley, London: HarperCollins, 2000, 395-397), refused “to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces.” By this reasoning, Paul should have refused the binding decrees of the Jerusalem council. But he did not. Therefore, Lewis is directly at odds with St. Paul in that regard. He could never have become a Christian in Paul’s time, not knowing what would later be in store for him. Or he would have had to leave the Church, following his [false] principle, when the Jerusalem council made its decision. St. Paul had joined this new Church without knowing what it would decree as non-optional teaching in the future. But when this sort of authoritative teaching was handed down, he accepted it (Acts 16:4). There is simply no way to avoid the authoritative Church in Holy Scripture (see, e.g., 1 Tim 3:15). If a Church (ordained by God) has true authority, it has the power to decree things, and to do so into the future. By joining such a Church, we recognize our own inherent limitations.

38) 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 (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.

39) 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. What sense does it make to say that this council was strictly a temporary (and henceforth merely optional) expedient, and that St. Paul preached its results as binding (Acts 16:4), but then as history goes on all that is kaput and we go to a strictly congregational model?

40) Reformed Baptist and anti-Catholic apologist Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White remarked in his Dividing Line episode, “Happenings in Rome, Acts 15, and Provisionist Rhetoric” (1-19-24):

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 absolutely irrelevant how the council was made known. It was what it was, by its own nature, whether Scripture ever recorded it 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). 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 . . .” (15:28). 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. 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. 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).

41) White continued in his webcast:

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 . . . or are there going to be lots of infallible rules of faith? That is the question.

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. This is all just circular reasoning from White. There are going to be as many infallible sources of the rule of faith as the Bible states that there are, three: Scripture / Church / sacred apostolic tradition.

42) And White makes another point:

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.

Good; then the decree of Acts 15:28 was revelation before the canon of the New Testament 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. Also, prophets were a recognized office of Paul’s and the NT describes them and in some cases, their prophecies, too.

43) Then White states:

The important question is: was the decree infallible before Luke recorded [it] 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 and millions of Protestants who would agree with him are in a real pickle here, with no way out of it, except Catholicism / Orthodoxy or else biblical skepticism. Those are the 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. But in this instance, it also is Scriture, making the Catholic argument even stronger and unanswerable.

44) James White’s argument regarding what is known as “inscripturation” is literally a meaningless, viciously circular, 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 New Testament). 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.

45) White keeps digging himself in, deeper and deeper:

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? It’s the only Church council recorded in Scripture and is an example of how the Church would be governed. This, along with everything else 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 at all (let alone a scriptural one) for denying that this demonstrates infallible Church authority.

46) White’s arbitrary anti-biblical reasoning becomes even more absurd:

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 he 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. 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.

47) White continues:

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. He “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 14:23 . . . they [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders for them in every church, . . .

48) 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: . . . [5] . . . 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.

49) Timothy — clearly also a person whom Paul saw as a successor (see 1 and 2 Timothy) also appointed elders:

1 Timothy 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, . . .

This was in the context of Paul’s writing about elders (5:17-19), and is standard language for ordination or commissioning for a very important evangelistic task (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:1-4; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). Classic Protestant commentaries (explaining 1 Tim 5:22) agree:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: This command refers primarily to the solemn laying on of hands at the ordination of presbyters . . .

Benson Commentary: That is, appoint no man to church offices without full trial and examination . . .

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: the obvious meaning is to refer it to ordination. It was usual to lay the hands on the heads of those who were ordained to a sacred office, or appointed to perform an important duty; . . . The idea here is, that Timothy should not be hasty in an act so important as that of introducing people to the ministry. He should take time to give them a fair trial of their piety; he should have satisfactory evidence of their qualifications.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: Lay hands—that is, ordain . . . The way to guard against scandals occurring in the case of presbyters is, be cautious as to the character of the candidate before ordaining him; this will apply to other Church officers so ordained, as well as to presbyters.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: the admission of persons into the work of the ministry, and the installing of them into the office of an or pastor; upon whom, in these early times, hands were laid by the apostles, whereby gifts were conveyed, as on Timothy; . . . 1 Timothy 4:14.

Bengel’s Gnomen: It was the duty of Timothy to lay his hands on the presbyters.

Pulpit Commentary: we must abide by the ancient interpretation of these words, that they mean the laying on of hands in ordination.

John Calvin, Commentaries: the “laying on of hands” means Ordination.

50) The entire process of the Jerusalem Council and what occurred that brought it about, and its influence, was directly guided by and confirmed by God all the way through, starting with the message of God to Peter about the Gentiles being included in the new kingdom. What we have is profound magisterial, conciliar, and even papal authority: strikingly foreign to the Protestant outlook. Therefore, this council alone, and how the biblical text regards it, in and of itself, annihilates the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola Scriptura, and I believe it to be the single best opposing argument in the Bible: compelling and, I submit, unanswerable.

Sources

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

Christian Ecclesiology: Dialogue with a Mennonite: Especially that of the Early Church, and the Jerusalem Council [5-30-12]

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

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]

Conciliar Infallibility / Council of Constance & John Hus’ Execution [5-25-17]

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

Which Has More Authority: A Pope or an Ecumenical Council? [National Catholic Register, 5-19-21]

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]

“Catholic Verses” #2: Jerusalem Council (Also: the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant; Church Fathers On the Binding Nature of the Council of Nicaea) [10-25-23]

“Catholic Verses” #6: Interpreting Scripture (Including: How Far Away Were the Cities that the Jerusalem Council Bound to its Decrees?) [10-30-23]

Jerusalem Council Disproves Sola Scriptura (vs. James White) [2-28-24]

VIDEO: Sola Scriptura Annihilated by the Book of Acts Alone [with Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, 12-10-25]

A Protestant asked, “What book chapter and verse says ‘decree of Jerusalem Council’?” [Facebook, 12-11-25]

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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 and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis, in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: image from the article, “How is disagreement resolved in the Council of Acts 15?” (Ian Paul, 10-9-19, Psephizo).

Summary: I collect various arguments from thirteen articles of mine about the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and one video: proving that it proclaimed infallible and even inspired teaching.

Baptism and Sacramentalism

Bible and Tradition

Church (Ecclesiology)

Papacy & Infallibility

Acts 15

ecclesial infallibility

Previous Post

December 11, 2025

Sola Scriptura Annihilated by the Book of Acts Alone