Papal Infallibility In The Early Church

[NotWorthy]

If Roman Catholics can find Peter’s “papal infallibility” in Acts 15, there is no hope for rational discourse. They have to ignore all statements about going to the Apostles and elders. They have to ignore that Simon Peter says nothing new. They have to ignore that three men spoke after him. They have to ignore James deciding what Gentiles DO HAVE to follow, which is the crux of the question being decided.

If Non Roman-Catholics can not see Peter’s Primacy and Infallibility, then they are not looking at the matter as described by others and most recently JCMcrae.

They also ignore Peter when he opens up Christianity to the Gentiles - no consultation there. Or when he punishes the couple earlier in Acts for lying to the Holy Spirit. Or when he gives the first edicts of the Church - “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins”.

Evidently, Rightlydivide, others are more open to rational discourse than you are, my friend, for this is not the first time this has been covered. I don’t think I’ve been called irrational by too many others when discussing this subject, though.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who responded.
This thread is now closed.