From one-fold.com

What entices some Evangelicals to pursue Catholicism? And just as important, who’s enticing them? This article will examine these questions and expose some of the tactics used to not only attract non-Catholics, but also to retain Catholics who are beginning to read the Bible and rightfully questioning the traditions of their faith.

What are Catholic authors and apologists saying that tickles the ears of so many that are weak in the faith. And by faith I mean both Catholics and Evangelicals. Who do these potential devout Catholic candidates turn to for justification of Catholic tradition? Would you believe Evangelicals, former Evangelical Christians turned Catholic to be exact. Why, because they see these converts as people who have found truth in Catholicism through the word of God. If anyone can explain Catholic tradition in harmony with the Bible, they believe these guys can. So just exactly what are they saying that has them convinced that Catholic tradition is truth and equal to the word of God?

It starts with the foundation, and the foundation for Catholic tradition lies entirely in the interpretation of a particular event that took place in the apostolic church and was recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15. The event became known as the Council of Jerusalem. The church in Jerusalem met because of a dispute over whether or not Gentile believers needed to be circumcised. Catholic apologists claim that the Council of Jerusalem was the paradigm of “Divine Revelation” and proves that the Holy Spirit reveals previously hidden truths through Christian councils. In essence they are saying that truth is revealed through time and only through official church councils, and Scripture supports these revealed truths, though too obscurely for anyone to have noticed before.

In his article, “What is Sacred Tradition,” popular Catholic author and speaker Mark Shea, a former Evangelical, segues his evaluation of the Council of Jerusalem with an interesting interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed. Shea claims that truth grows and develops like the small mustard seed that grows into a large shrub. This is his interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed: a mustard seed planted in Jerusalem (meaning the Council of Jerusalem) grows and grows, becoming more and more “mustardy” (meaning truth upon truth is revealed through church councils). Now if Shea can do a good job of convincing his readers that at the Council of Jerusalem truth was revealed to the apostles by the Holy Spirit, thus settling a church dispute, then this truth by council theory will sound pretty reasonable to them.

Once a person believes that truth is revealed this way, they can no longer see the word of God as written for them. The Bible and all its contents becomes the property of the church, and only they [the church] have the authority to interpret it. So lets take a look at the Council of Jerusalem and see what these apologists are saying that seems to be so convincing. And we will do it in context to the word of God.

The Council of Jerusalem

I want to use Mark Shea’s article as an example of Catholic techniques used for preying on Christians whose roots are a bit shallow. Right after his mustard seed analogy, Shea reminds his readers that the church started out totally Jewish and all its members were circumcised. No big newsflash so far; but wait! He then gives a quote from our Lord that just might cause the reader to question whether or not circumcision should have been taught to the Gentiles. “And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18).” (In case you didn’t notice, this is a partial verse quote that is taken completely out of context.) Then Shea goes on to say that Jesus was totally silent concerning circumcision for the Gentiles. The point he wants to make is that by the church not placing the burden of circumcision on the Gentile believers, a revelation came out of the Council of Jerusalem. This is typical Catholic apologetics and it’s very deceitful. Although he gives the reference to Matthew’s gospel, Shea knows most people will never look it up, and those who do may already be conditioned to see it his way. Now lets see what an honest reference to this portion of the text looks like.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (Mat. 5:17-18)

If he had referenced it this way (the proper way), the reader could easily see that Christ came to fulfill the Law. The Law did not pass away as if some new law replaced it. Rather, the Law that came from God will never pass away but is fulfilled in Christ. The commandments of God are not made void. The ceremonial Law pointed to Christ; circumcision of the flesh pointed to circumcision of the heart; the burning of incense pointed to the gift of the Holy Spirit; and the temple sacrifices pointed to the ultimate Sacrifice of Christ at the cross. The apostles surely knew this and taught justification by faith well before the council was called. So why was the council called? Did the apostles and elders disagree on the issue of circumcision?

Please reference the following to Acts chapter 15.

We first see that certain men came down from Judea to the church in Antioch, Jewish believers who kept the Law and insisted that the Gentile believers do the same in order to be saved. Now Paul and Barnabas were there with the church for a while when these men showed up. Paul and Barnabas were sharing their experiences with the church in Antioch concerning the Gentile’s warm reception to the Gospel of Christ. Paul and Barnabas did not teach circumcision to the Gentiles because they knew the Law of circumcision had been fulfilled in Christ. So Paul and Barnabas had “no small dissension and disputation with them.”

The fact that Luke tells us that these men came down from Judea tells us that they probably were coming falsely in the name of the apostles and the church in Jerusalem. They would have claimed this as their authority for teaching this doctrine. So the church in Antioch needed to know what, if anything, the apostles in Jerusalem were saying. So the church sent Paul, Barnabas, and others to Jerusalem to resolve this conflict.

Upon their arrival in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were met by the apostles and were warmly greeted. They told the church in Jerusalem about all God had done through them. Then certain believers who were of the Pharisees stood up and demanded that circumcision was necessary for the Gentile believers. It is very likely that it was these Pharisees that sent those men to teach circumcision and the Law to the Gentiles on behalf of the church in Jerusalem.

The apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter. This does not mean that they went into closed session to debate the issue, as Catholic apologists would have us believe; it simply means that all the apostles and elders should come together to discuss it in the church. It is not at all likely that they were all there when Paul and Barnabas arrived. The apostles certainly knew that they were commissioned to preach the Gospel of Christ, not the Law, and they were in total agreement to that end.

“When there had been much disputing…” The disputing wasn’t among the apostles and elders, it was between them and the Pharisees. This becomes even more evident as the text reveals the highlights of the dispute. After the dispute had gone on for a time, Peter rose up and declared that the Gentiles would hear the word of God and believe, and God gave them the Holy Spirit just as He did to the Jewish believers. Now listen to this part carefully, Peter said to them, “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” Peter was clearly speaking on behalf of all the apostles and elders as he declared “we believe,” and clearly they were in opposition to the belief of the Pharisees concerning the Law as he also said, “why do you test God.” This apparently silenced the Pharisees who were probably by this time beginning to understand more clearly the Gospel of Christ.

Now they are giving their attention to Paul and Barnabas who give an account of what God has done among the Gentiles through them. By now the Pharisees have seen the light. James now speaks giving them one more bit of information to seal the dispute. James is about to quote an apparently obscure prophecy from the prophet Amos. This is where the Catholic apologists say God revealed to James a prophecy that was previously hidden. Their claim is simply not true. Take a look in Luke’s Gospel, chapter 24. Here Luke gives us an account of the Risen Christ appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Once Jesus reveals himself to them, He expounded to them all the prophecies concerning Himself: “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” (Luk. 24:27) James was no stranger to this prophecy or any other, and he quotes the prophecy because of something Peter said earlier.

“Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.” Peter reminded the Jewish believers how God had chosen them from among the Gentiles to be His people when He chose Abraham their father. So James points out prophecy from the prophet Amos showing that God would do this again after the tabernacle of David had fallen and was raised again. The prophecy, of course, was speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Pharisees would not have seen this before because they were blinded by their view of the Gentiles. But the apostles already knew the liberty that is in Christ and preached that liberty to Jews and Gentiles alike. The prophesy of Amos was a direct correlation to the issue at hand and that is why James brought it up. It showed the Pharisees, who believed in Jesus, that they were not special because they were Jews and that Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to be saved.

The meeting closes with the decision to send chosen men to Antioch with a written statement to put an end to the dispute that had reached the church in Antioch and perhaps beyond. A written statement showed the church in Antioch that the whole church was united in what they had previously learned from Paul and Barnabas and that the command to keep the Law did not come from them.

The Catholic apologists want us to believe that the Council of Jerusalem was called to settle a dispute within the church on whether or not Gentile believers need circumcision. They want us to believe that the apostles debated the issue and with the help of the Holy Spirit decided against circumcision for the Gentile believers. This distorted view is the basis for all the “revelations” that came out of their councils in which they proclaim newly revealed doctrines from God.

It is only fitting that Mark Shea mention the parable of the mustard seed because in it Jesus mentions the birds that make their nests in the mustard plant; these birds are the same birds from the parable of the sower wherein they represented Satan who takes away the word of God from some of those who received it. Then they take the word of God back to their nests in the mustard plant and devour it.

The word of God was meant for us to receive, not for councils of men who do nothing but steal it away. Only God can give the increase to each of us. Seek God through His word; His word is truth! Amen!