Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[1voice]

Yet, during the Last Supper, when Jesus stated “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” He did so in front of His twelve Apostles - not in front of Cornelius and his entire household,

So what does that prove? Passover was a family celebration … for two thousand years.
Every devout Jew was at home, with family celebrating Jesus death and resurrection. … that was the purpose of the tradition … Everyone participated … throughout Israel. … Jesus was no different … In that same family setting Jesus revealed, for the first time, what the tradition really meant. He simply, clearly “explained the parable” … He revealed the secret that … Every Jew was celebrating the communion table. They just didnt know it. but… “To as many as accepted him … he gave the right to become children of God” and to really understand what the celebration of Passover meant. He never said to stop doing it this way because … now, all of a sudden, it was way too holy to touch … He said “do this” but from now on do it in memory of me… and realize … what the bread and wine is really all about.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Peter was still stuck in that mindset when Paul firmly challenged Peter. Peter after finally gaving in to allowing Gentiles into the church … then he made the new Christians submit to the old Jewish traditions. He didnt understand that the traditions were designed to point to Jesus … and that they were no longer required … Because the fulfillment of the traditions had already come in the person of Jesus

There are so many errors in your account that I cannot respond except by showing the Bible so your errors can be plainly seen.

Peter allows Gentiles into the Church not because Paul challenges him but because God reveals it to him:
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 10:15-47[/BIBLEDRB]

Peter then convinces the rest of the Church to not hold the Gentiles to Jewish tradition:
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:1-29[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Cat_Herder]

So what does that prove? Passover was a family celebration … for two thousand years.
Every devout Jew was at home, with family celebrating Jesus death and resurrection. … that was the purpose of the tradition … Everyone participated … throughout Israel. … Jesus was no different … In that same family setting Jesus revealed, for the first time, what the tradition really meant. He simply, clearly “explained the parable” … He revealed the secret that … Every Jew was celebrating the communion table. They just didnt know it. but… “To as many as accepted him … he gave the right to become children of God” and to really understand what the celebration of Passover meant. He never said to stop doing it this way because … now, all of a sudden, it was way too holy to touch … He said “do this” but from now on do it in memory of me… and realize … what the bread and wine is really all about.

Again, let’s look at the Bible:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:20-29[/BIBLEDRB]
So, you are ignoring the text of the Bible and going with your own tradition while you accuse us of of doing that. Put your stones down.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Peter was still stuck in that mindset when Paul firmly challenged Peter. Peter after finally gaving in to allowing Gentiles into the church … then he made the new Christians submit to the old Jewish traditions. He didnt understand that the traditions were designed to point to Jesus … and that they were no longer required … Because the fulfillment of the traditions had already come in the person of Jesus

There are so many errors in your account that I cannot respond except by showing the Bible so your errors can be plainly seen.

Peter allows Gentiles into the Church not because Paul challenges him but because God reveals it to him:

 

[Cat_Herder]

I agree, Peter eventually saw the error of his ways and repented … But Peter was indeed challenged by Paul.

Ga. 2:11-16 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

All that this talks about is Peter’s personal behavior. If you keep reading you would see that Paul submitted his judgment to the Apostles because they were the pillars of the Church:

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 2:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[1voice]

All that this talks about is Peter’s personal behavior. If you keep reading you would see that Paul submitted his judgment to the Apostles because they were the pillars of the Church:

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 2:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]

I dont disagree that they came to an agreement.

It says Cephas(Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

---

The circumcised were the Jews … They agreed that Peter and John would minister among the Jews (the circumcised) … and Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles…

 

[1voice]

I never said that tradition, in itself, was wrong. I quoted Jesus…" the tradition of men makes void the wisdom and power of God."

 

[Cat_Herder]

It says Cephas(Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

What is a “pillar of the Church”?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I never said that tradition, in itself, was wrong. I quoted Jesus…" the tradition of men makes void the wisdom and power of God."

The word of God is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and would never allow His Church to apostasize. Your tradition is that He is not and did

 

[1voice]

What is a “pillar of the Church”?

I was making a point about tradition of men vs the power of God and ministry of the HS.
Clearly … the Bible proves that even a pillar of the church is vulnerable to that mind set.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I was making a point about tradition of men vs the power of God and ministry of the HS.
Clearly … the Bible proves that even a pillar of the church is vulnerable to that mind set.

The question is not whether one of them might need correction but whether the whole Church would go apostate. That is what you believe.

 

[1voice]

The word of God is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and would never allow His Church to apostasize. Your tradition is that He is not and did

… Your assumptions are interesting … but thats all.

 

[1voice]

The question is not whether one of them might need correction but whether the whole Church would go apostate. That is what you believe.

You are making no sense.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by 1voice

1Voice:
I agree, Peter eventually saw the error of his ways and repented … But Peter was indeed challenged by Paul.

Gal. 2:11-16 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It was Peter’s behaviour that was challenged by Paul. But have you asked why?

Well, the passage offers insights. Peter ate with the Gentiles, but if there were Jews, he separated himself. Also, consider that at this time, there were tensions between the Gentiles and the Jews. And Paul wanted to unify both Jews and Gentiles…but he did not have the standing to bring this about. He realized that person who could bring about this, and lead by example, and had the pedigree…was Peter, being the recognized leader of The Way. By calling Peter for his moral fault, he was calling on Peter to correct himself and realize his own behavioural shortcomings…and lead by example.

blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/

1. But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter:

But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them…So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

 

[pablope]

I was making a point about tradition of men vs the power of God and ministry of the HS.
Clearly … the Bible proves that even a pillar of the church is vulnerable to that mind set.

Behaviour and personal faults…but nothing doctrinal. Can you cite an example where a pillar of the church has erred on teaching doctrine and morals?

 

[Cat_Herder]

… Your assumptions are interesting … but thats all.

You are making no sense.

They aren’t assumptions. I gave you Scripture and explanations and all you had in return is the cold shoulder.

You don’t like our responses simply because they are Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

And while not speaking specifically about Matt or 1voice (since I don’t know their views on baptism), I have heard some say this about open communion, but will then deny baptism to infants, and the irony perplexes me.

Jon

FWIW which apparently is nothing at least according to Jharek Carnelian who said my “belief is ultimately of no importance in this matter”, there’s not much need to be too perplexed about Matt, Jon, with regard to Baptism as I can understand both sides. In a verse such as Acts 8:12 for instance, people were baptized after they were able to believe the Good News about Jesus Christ. Something obviously an infant does not have the capability to do yet. On the otherhand in verses such as Acts 16:33 and 1Cor 1:16 entire families of households were baptized. Given I was baptized in infancy, I usually am willing to believe at least some of those other households besides mine included infants too. So I’m fine with Catholics, Protestants and Anglicans who accept infant Baptism. I know even the Disciples of Christ who practice immersion, nevertheless welcome those to their membership who were baptized as infants without re-Baptism. I’m fine with that too. Either way I’m not sure it’s really a make or break major doctrinal issue for me in who should be allowed to come to Jesus and commune with Him. The thief on the cross as an example. Peace.

 

[Cat_Herder]

In a verse such as Acts 8:12 for instance, people were baptized after they were able to believe the Good News about Jesus Christ. Something obviously an infant does not have the capability to do yet. On the otherhand in verses such as Acts 16:33 and 1Cor 1:16 entire families of households were baptized. Given I was baptized in infancy, I usually am willing to believe at least some of those other households besides mine included infants too.

Since all Protestants are against earning salvation by doing things, I don’t see how anyone can hold that position and credo-baptism at the same time.

 

[CMatt25]

Since all Protestants are against earning salvation by doing things, I don’t see how anyone can hold that position and credo-baptism at the same time.

I know many Protestants don’t. And I really don’t know enough about the ones who do to speculate as to the reason. Other than they see the same verses we all do in Scripture speaking about repenting and believing before being baptized. Maybe someone else from one of those traditions will come along and be able to explain it better to you.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I know many Protestants don’t. And I really don’t know enough about the ones who do to speculate as to the reason. Other than they see the same verses we all do in Scripture speaking about repenting and believing before being baptized. Maybe someone else from one of those traditions will come along and be able to explain it better to you.

Repenting is something that a person does. Confessing with his mouth that Jesus is Lord is something a person does.

On the other hand, baptism is something that is done to you. It is not something that you yourself do; somebody has to baptize you.

Taking NT accounts of adult converts and using that to say that infants should not be baptized because you yourself have to do something to be saved is irreconcilable with sola gratia.