The Decision of the Holy Spirit & Us – The Council of Jerusalem & the Catholicity of Early Church

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 05-07-15 | Msgr. Charlels Pope

[Steelfish]

Protestantism is a heresy.

From Dr. A. David Anders, who was born, raised and educated, as an Evangelical Protestant and studied Wheaton College. He set out deliberately to show why Catholicism was wrong. He ended up a Catholic convert.

PROTESTANTISM: A CONFUSED MASS OF INCONSISTENCIES
AND TORTURED LOGIC

“By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles.

I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.

The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“What’s not helping Protestants are when prominent Protestant theologians have decamped, converted to Catholicism, and call Protestant beliefs an embarrassment. This to the point that its only remaining adherents from the congregants of Joel Osteen to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and everything in-between are part of the shoals of fish that can swim only in the shallowest of theological waters.”

Your posts have devolved into a blurting out of ad hominem slanders and other straw men logical fallacies.

Other than pointing out the reality of the situation, there is really no logical response possible to a post based on logical fallacies.

Having said that, I welcome any post you can put together that is based on facts, evidence and logic and I wish you the best. I’ll be here.

[Salvation]

Are you sure you have read Acts of the Apostles? Check this out, for it disproves your statement in my opinion.

Reading 1 Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him
and, falling at his feet, paid him homage.
Peter, however, raised him up, saying,
“Get up. I myself am also a human being.”

Then Peter proceeded to speak and said,
“In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.
Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly
is acceptable to him.”

While Peter was still speaking these things,
the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.
The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter
were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit
should have been poured out on the Gentiles also,
for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God.
Then Peter responded,
“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,
who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?”
He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Salvation]

You may not be aware that there was no other religion than the one Christ founded on the Apostles, the first Bishops who then led the Catholic faith onward when Christ ascended into heaven.

There were no arguments even about the Eucharist, because everyone believed.

Not until Luther showed up in the 1500s was there anything to even compare Catholicism to.

[RnMomof7]

Are you sure you have read Acts of the Apostles? Check this out, for it disproves your statement in my opinion.

Have you read Galatians ?

From the series: Galatians: The Gospel and God's Grace PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

6. Peter’s Capitulation and Paul’s Correction (Galatians 2:11-21)

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter’s visit to the church at Antioch probably occurred before the Jerusalem Council. He had apparently been there for some time,⁴⁴ long enough for it to be observed that his custom (at least while he was with these Gentile Christians) was to live like them, rather than to live as a Jew. Such customs were not new to Peter, for that was the way he had been instructed to associate with Cornelius and the other Gentiles who had gathered at his house (cf. ).

In time, a party of Jews from Jerusalem arrived. Paul referred to these men as having come “from James,” rather than “from Jerusalem.” Perhaps we should not make too much of Paul’s choice of words here. He may have only meant to refer to the fact that James was recognized as the dominant leader in Jerusalem and that to come from Jerusalem was, in effect, to come from James. On the other hand, James must at least have been informed of this visit and might even have been the initiator of it.⁴⁵

A sequence of events was set in motion by the arrival of the party “from James” which culminated in Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Peter gradually⁴⁶ began to withdraw from the Gentiles and to avoid them. This behavior was most evident at meal time. The subtlety of the change in Peter’s conduct is similar to the change in one’s behavior in response to learning that a loved one is terminally ill. Joseph Bayly describes some of the changes which occur in the behavior of the loved ones of those who are dying:

Nurses have mentioned a pattern of behavior to me: first a wife will kiss her husband on the mouth, then on the cheek, then the forehead, and finally she will blow him a kiss from the door. The change is not lost on him.⁴⁷

A similar change occurred at the dinner table at Antioch. Apparently the party “from James” ate at first by themselves, while the rest, both Jews and Gentiles, ate together. Then these Jewish guests were joined by Peter and eventually by all the other Jewish Christians (except Paul). Finally, there were two groups at meal time, the Jewish party and the Gentile party. If the church at Antioch observed communion with a common meal as we would expect (cf. ), the problem then was intensified for their worship had become divided.

When Paul recognized the seriousness of the situation⁴⁸ he confronted Peter personally and publicly (vv. 11, 14). Peter was corrected before all because the Jews had been wrong to follow him, and the Gentiles had been injured by their actions. Peter was singled out because even in his wrong-doing he was a leader. To correct Peter’s conduct was to correct the problem.

The actions of Peter and those who followed him were clearly identified as sin. Peter was rebuked because he “stood condemned” (v. 11). Paul’s boldness in rebuking Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch was due to the seriousness of this sin. There were several reasons why their relationship to the Gentiles in Antioch (or should I say their response to the Jews from Jerusalem) could not be taken lightly.

(1) The actions of Peter and the others were wrongly motivated. Peter, we are told, acted out of a fear for the “party of the circumcision” (v. 12). It is safe to say that the others were also motivated out of a desire not to offend, either the Judaizers or Peter. Peter, as well as those who followed him in his capitulation to the circumcisers, was guilty of acting as “men-pleasers.”

(2) The actions of Peter and the others caused some to stumble. Verse 13 informs us that Peter’s actions set an example which was followed by the “rest of the Jews,” and that their hypocrisy caused “even Barnabas” to follow. What Peter did, others did after him, following his lead.

(3) The actions of Peter and the others were hypocritical. In verse 13 Paul wrote that the rest of the Jews, including Barnabas,⁴⁹ “joined him [Peter] in hypocrisy.” The hypocrisy of their actions was based on the fact that what they still believed, they had ceased to practice. They had not deliberately departed from right doctrine: they had simply deviated from it in practice.

(4) The actions of Peter and the rest were a practical denial of the gospel. Paul acted decisively when it became apparent to him that “they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). What Peter did compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews (v. 14), which was, in Paul’s words, “another gospel” (cf. 1:6-7). The major argument of this section is concerned with this deviation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, that illustrates the difficulty of definition, especially when an institution is passing through various stages of development. As an illustration, notice the continuity we see here:

Oddly, some people seemingly expect the progression to go like this

...

But of course that's mistaken. That's because the acorn doesn't just grow. It develops into a sprout, a sprig, a sapling, a tree. After it's been growing hundreds of years, it develops hugely, not just in size and also in complexity.

Maybe you think this is childish ---maybe too rustic. But it's the best way I know to explain this. My impression is that some people look at the Church at the dawn of the Church Age (before 100 AD) and expect to see the exact same thing 1,000 years later, but bigger; and 1,000 years forward from that, but bigger yet. They seem perturbed to see development. They certainly don't expect development. They just expect re-sizing.

See what I mean?

Their implicit expectation that the Church as an earthly society ought not to look different whether it's 50 AD, 500 AD or 1000 AD is baffling to me.

I love the Church. I expect it to be fruitful (I'm switching the metaphor here from an oak tree to a grape vine.) I expect the Lord has always protected, and always will protect, this Vine which His right hand has planted.

[Steelfish]

You mean every logical conclusion that follows from the heresy of a Protestantism is a “strawman’s argument”?

I didn’t know that the term strawman had so many meanings!

[Salvation]

Luke was written after Galatians and probably has a more accurate picture of Peter’s faith.

[sasportas]

The problem with your illustration, is you are not the original seed sown, you are the tares. See the parable of the wheat and the tares, Matt. 13.

And this video, “Tares among the Wheat”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aiHcghIdjM

Your sycretist church-state, paganized form of Christianity “tree,” bears no resemblance to the church in the original church in the book of Acts.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I didn’t know that the term strawman had so many meanings!”

What you said.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Luke was written after Galatians and probably has a more accurate picture of Peter’s faith.”

For someone to believe what you wrote, they would have to believe the Holy Spirit that inspired the exact words of was caught off-guard, was temporarily without the His divine attribute of omniscience and had to correct Himself later.

Probably not.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

sentence correction...

For someone to believe what you wrote, they would have to believe the Holy Spirit that inspired the exact words of Galatians was caught off-guard, was temporarily without the His divine attribute of omniscience and had to correct Himself later.

[RnMomof7]

LOL

[Salvation]

7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.

[Salvation]

Galatians 2:

7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"You are not the original seed sown, you are the tares."

The presumptuous falsity of this statement closes off the possibility of fraternal dialogue.

[RnMomof7]

Can you see that the reason that Peters error was so great was that he was to be the apostle for the JEWS .. ???? His actions would SPLIT the new church ..and so Paul had to confront him..

Also note that Peter had no greater standing than James and John in the New church ...

Peter was a good and holy man..but not infallible ...

[rbmillerjr]

“What’s not helping Protestants are when prominent Protestant theologians have decamped, converted to Catholicism, and call Protestant beliefs an embarrassment. This to the point that its only remaining adherents from the congregants of Joel Osteen to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and everything in-between are part of the shoals of fish that can swim only in the shallowest of theological waters.”

Needs repeat’n for those not so sharp on read’n.