Proof Paul was a Protestant

[Angainor]

Catholics say the council in Jerusalem made a decree in the form of a letter to the Gentile Christians. Included in that decree was a dietary restriction:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…
Acts 15:29
Paul disagreed:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
1 Corinthians 10:25-26
Paul goes on to explain why he does not consider himself bound by a decree from Jerusalem:

Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
1 Corinthians 10:29
Who is the “another” that Paul is talking about? Catholics say it was Peter that decreed the dietary restriction.

Paul does not consider himself bound by Peter’s conscience.

Therefore Paul is a Protestant.

 

[Atreyu]

There’s a fair difference between another’s conscience and an authoritative decree…

 

[Emly]

Besides the ppoint that there were no Protestants in that time (as far as I am aware) Paul was under Peter, who was pope.

Paul talks plenty about authority and tredtion…cehck out htis…

2 Th 3:6 (NRSV) Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

2 Th 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you,
2 Th 3:8 and we did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it; but with toil and labor we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you.
2 Th 3:9 This was not because we do not have that right, but in order to give you an example to imitate.

2 Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.
2 Th 3:11 For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.
2 Th 3:12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
2 Th 3:13 Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right.

2 Th 3:14 Take note of those who do not obey what we say in this letter; have nothing to do with them, so that they may be ashamed.
2 Th 3:15 Do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as believers.

2 Th 3:6 Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

Tjese passages caem from biblelight.net/idleness.htm

In the passages you simplied, Paul said nothing about taking food from idolists. He said you can take meat, he never said in there that you can aeat it when ti is offered up as a idoled.

When Paul says
Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
1 Corinthians 10:29
11 [25-30] A summary of specific situations in which the eating of meat sacrificed to idols could present problems of conscience. Three cases are considered. In the first (the marketplace, ⇒ 1 Cor 10:25-26) and the second (at table, ⇒ 1 Cor 10:27), there is no need to be concerned with whether food has passed through a pagan sacrifice or not, for the principle of ⇒ 1 Cor 8:4-6 still stands, and the whole creation belongs to the one God. But in the third case (⇒ 1 Cor 10:28), the situation changes if someone present explicitly raises the question of the sacrificial origin of the food; eating in such circumstances may be subject to various interpretations, some of which could be harmful to individuals. Paul is at pains to insist that the enlightened Christian conscience need not change its judgment about the neutrality, even the goodness, of the food in itself (⇒ 1 Cor 10:29-30); yet the total situation is altered to the extent that others are potentially endangered, and this calls for a different response, for the sake of others.
As we see, Paul was not refering to being hsi own man. I found this qoute on the vatiacan webstie…
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZF.HTM

 

[Steven_Merten]

Well the Protestants keep telling me that St. Paul opposes Jesus teaching to obey the commandments if we wish to go to heaven, like they do. Lots of laughs!

St. Paul says:
Galatians 2:16
…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

**Jesus says: **
NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

 

[Mystophilus]

Angainor:

Catholics say the council in Jerusalem made a decree in the form of a letter to the Gentile Christians. Included in that decree was a dietary restriction:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…
Acts 15:29
Paul disagreed:

That happens; it’s called dialogue, and it’s a good thing. Catholics do it all the time, especially at higher levels within the Church. Consider, for example, the recent public debate on evolution between the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christof Schonborn, and the Vatican Astronomer, Father George Coyne, SJ. Disagreement does not equate to Protestantism.

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
1 Corinthians 10:25-26
Paul goes on to explain why he does not consider himself bound by a decree from Jerusalem:

Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
1 Corinthians 10:29
Who is the “another” that Paul is talking about? Catholics say it was Peter that decreed the dietary restriction.

Paul does not consider himself bound by Peter’s conscience.

Therefore Paul is a Protestant.

I think that you might want to look at the whole passage, because taking verses out of the middle can sometimes break references:
If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake— the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.  **Do not cause anyone to stumble**, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. (1 Corinthians 10:27-33)

The “other” man is the one who was concerned about the fact that the food had come from a temple. Paul is advising believers not to cause problems for the faith of other believers (something of which I should take more heed). Peter is nowhere in view.

Protestantism was a separatist movement not invented until one and a half thousand years later.

 

[Angainor]

Atreyu:

There’s a fair difference between another’s conscience and an authoritative decree…

Not in this instance.

James’ conscience (Acts 15:20) told him that eating food sacrificed to idols is sinful. Peter added this to the decree (v. 29) “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…”

Paul does not consider himself bound by anyone else’s conscience, even if it is spelled out in a decree from Peter himself.

 

[Mystophilus]

My apologies; when I started writing, your post was not yet up.

 

[Angainor]

Mystophilus:

me:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…
Acts 15:29

Paul disagreed

That happens; it’s called dialogue,

What dialogue? He had a chance to object to that phrase in Jerusalem. Instead Paul unilaterally ignores it:
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
1 Corinthians 10:25-26

Why didn’t he object in Jerusalem?
…But not everyone knows this. Some people (begin my comment) like those who insisted this phrase be added to the decree (end my comment)] are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block for the weak.
1 Corinthians 8:7-9
I think Paul didn’t want to do anything that might cause his brothers to stumble.

Mystophilus:

I think that you might want to look at the whole passage, because taking verses out of the middle can sometimes break references:
…

The “other” man is the one who was concerned about the fact that the food had come from a temple. Paul is advising believers not to cause problems for the faith of other believers (something of which I should take more heed). Peter is nowhere in view.

You are right that there is more to it. I didn’t want to reproduce the whole passage in a post, I counted on you to look it up.

You are also right that Paul is immediatly speaking about a fellow Christian the Corinthian may meet. I did extrapolate. Paul is telling the Corintians they should not limit their freedom according to another’s conscience about the dietary restriction. However, this is exactly what Paul did on the bigger picture. He did not limit his freedom according to another’s conscience as outlined in the decree.

Mystophilus:

Protestantism was a separatist movement not invented until one and a half thousand years later.

I consider Protestantism a philosophy.

 

[Angainor]

Mystophilus:

Paul is advising believers not to cause problems for the faith of other believers (something of which I should take more heed).

I have wrestled with this myself. Should I be posting things like this on a Catholic forum?
Acts 15:1: Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
Ordinarily Paul would not cause problems for these men from Judea. If their conscience tells them they should be circumcised that is their affair. It does not harm anything.

The problem was that the men were telling all men they need to be circumcised. Those men from Judea were interfering. Something had to be done even if it risked problems for the faith of those men from Judea.

I feel the same way. If Catholic conscience tells them they need to get Eucharist from a priest, that is their affair. The problem is that Catholics insist that me and mine need to get the Eucharist from a priest, among other stuff. I can’t keep quiet.

 

[VociMike]

Do you really think that Catholics are bound by the conscience of another, even the Pope?

 

[Angainor]

VociMike:

Do you really think that Catholics are bound by the conscience of another, even the Pope?

Yes, when he voices that conscience in the form of a Papal decree. What is a conscience? The voice inside your head telling you you are doing something wrong, like eating food sacrificed to an idol.

Paul was not bound to such things. He was bound by the truth of the Gospel.

 

[Angainor]

Emly:

Besides the ppoint that there were no Protestants in that time

I want to clear something up before anyone misunderstands me.

Paul was no rebel. I agree with you Emly, there were no Protestants at the time. But I only agree with you because I believe Catholicism didn’t exist at the time, either.

If Catholicism did exist at the time, then Paul was a Protestant. He ignored a Papal Decree and delcared himself not answerable to anyone else’s conscience, including the Pope.

I don’t see the letter in Acts 15 as a Papal Decree either. It was a statement of agreement between two groups of Christians.

 

[silvano]

to ainganor,what branch of protestanism,was he affiliated; was it the methodist,lutheran,baptist,prysbeterian,episcopalian or what?did any of them exist already,by that time,i know RCC did! Gosh
this claim is new to me.Next time another poster will claim that Mary was a Protestant and Jesus was a Muslim!

 

[Angainor]

silvano:

to ainganor,what branch of protestanism,was he affiliated; was it the methodist,lutheran,baptist,prysbeterian,episcopalian or what?did any of them exist already,by that time,i know RCC did!

Please see the [post=955962]previous post[/post].

I do not think Paul was an actual, card-carrying, Protestant. I think he shared Protestant ideas. Ideas like not judging your freedom by another’s conscience.

 

[Atreyu]

Compare 1 Corinthians 10:
27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake — 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
with Acts 15:
23With them [Judas and Silas] they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers… It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 10 has Paul nullified or disagreed with the decree from Acts 15, as can be seen when Paul says: “if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it”. What Paul has done is to clarify the decree, by discussing the case where it is possible (but not known) that the food before you has been offered in sacrifice.

Also, as a Catholic, I do not think that I am bound by anyone’s conscience; not even the Pope’s. I am bound by his teaching, but I do not believe that his conscience defines his teaching (unless he says something like “I think that… should or should not be done” in which case I am not bound by it, but it might be a good idea to follow it).

Now, you said:

I have wrestled with this myself. Should I be posting things like this on a Catholic forum?

Absolutely! The forum is called Catholic Answers after all… I welcome any and every charitable objection to my religion. From what I have seen, you have been more than charitable in all of your posts and personally, I welcome the discussion.

 

[Lillith]

I just have one question…what in the world was Paul protesting?

 

[Lillith]

This is depressing to me. Christ prayed to God the father for unity, one flock, and on this rock I build My Church (not plural)…and you are saying that the Apostles couldn’t keep a church together for even one lifetime?

I am sorry Angainor…but I much prefer the old “the church became corrupted and lost the holy Spirit” argument over this one. If you read the early church father’s you would understand that there was indeed a Papacy

 

[Lazerlike42]

I am not even going to address the flaws in your arguement, because there is something far more important to be said here.

This is the arguement that is used against all of Christianity by Muslims. How are we to withstand the assault from without when we levy the same barrage at one another from within?

Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct and Paul disagrees with Peter. Now we have two of Christ’s Apostles, commisioned by Him and guided by Holy Spirit to teach the truth, disagreeing.

If you are right, then Christianity itself falls apart completely. If you are right, then the entire faith is shown to be the total fraud that our enemies claim it to be. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Christ founded the Church through these men. It was through Peter and Paul and John and the other apostles that Christ started His church and His faith. If these men were disunified, then Christ did not exist. If these men taught different doctrines, then the Holy Spirit did not guide them. If these men were opposed to one another, then our faith and our lives are based off of a group of competing cult leaders whom each wanted to impose his ideas on the world.

Be careful what you claim. Remember that Satan is the author of chaos, and the composer of disunity, and be careful what you claim.

 

[VociMike]

Angainor:

Yes, when he voices that conscience in the form of a Papal decree. What is a conscience? The voice inside your head telling you you are doing something wrong, like eating food sacrificed to an idol.

Paul was not bound to such things. He was bound by the truth of the Gospel.

Your very own qualifier (“when he voices that conscience in the form of a Papal decree”) belies your argument. If Catholics are not bound by every single expression of the Pope’s conscience then it is clearly not conscience that is binding, but the teaching authority granted by Christ. Yes, Catholics are bound by the teaching authority granted by Christ. This is not news.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Atreyu:

Compare 1 Corinthians 10:
…
Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 10 has Paul nullified or disagreed with the decree from Acts 15, as can be seen when Paul says: “if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it”. What Paul has done is to clarify the decree, by discussing the case where it is possible (but not known) that the food before you has been offered in sacrifice.

This is always how I’ve read the passage as well. If you don’t know, don’t worry about it; however, if someone you’re with thinks it is then you shouldn’t eat it for their sake. In this way they are not led astray.

It’s a good thing Paul clarified this. Nowadays there are very few people who get all their food from their own garden/farm. If this wasn’t clarified we would have to make sure all the food we get in was not sacrificed to a satue of Baal at the farm, packing plant, distribution site, grocery store, or anywhere inbetween. That is a lot of investigative work.