“You quote Paul. He was chosen as an Apostle by God - but cleared his teaching with Peter and the other Apostles.”
Paul also rebuked Peter on a matter of critical importance in doctrine -
“11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
If ‘The First Pope’ could be wrong on such a matter (salvation does not come by following Jewish dietary laws), why would we consider those who follow to be infallible in their teachings?
“The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not sectarians in their heresies and schisms. “
Umm...”Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” and “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.”
If you claim the Holy Spirit is not in all believers, then you ignore the clear teaching of scripture.
You wrote:
“Paul also rebuked Peter on a matter of critical importance in doctrine”
Nope. Not once. Paul rebuked Peter for what he did, not for what he taught. We know what Peter taught from Acts. What he later did - against his own teaching - Paul had every reason to rebuke him for. I too can rebuke a pope or bishop or priest for what they do.
“If ‘The First Pope’ could be wrong on such a matter (salvation does not come by following Jewish dietary laws), why would we consider those who follow to be infallible in their teachings?’
Peter was not teaching salvation through kosher eating. He was eating with the Judaizers “because he was afraid of” them. The thing he did that was wrong was that he joined them in their “their hypocrisy”. It was his actions and not his teaching that was at issue here. This is proven by the very next verse that you posted:
“When I saw that they were NOT ACTING in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet YOU LIVE LIKE A GENTILE and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
See that? He was teaching one thing and doing another. It was hypocrisy that was at issue and not his actual teaching.
“If you claim the Holy Spirit is not in all believers, then you ignore the clear teaching of scripture.”
No. When scripture was written there was only the Catholic Church and those who fell away. Are those who fell away described as having the Holy Spirit? Simon Magus was a baptized believer. How was he described after he fell away? Remember he was already desscribed by Luke in Acts as a baptized believer when this happened:
18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
20Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
And Simon went on to form a sect. Today Protestants like to look at scripture and say, “See all believers were in the Church,” or “All believers had the Holy Spirit,” while pretending that their way of believing TODAY is equal to that of the early Christians. Ain’t so.
Get a Baptist, Methodist and Lutheran pastor in one room and ask them about baptism. When one disagrees with the other than ask yourself which one doesn’t have the Holy Spirit. The simple fact is the Holy Spirit doesn’t sow discord in doctrine. So, according to your logic, something would seriously be wrong for them to disagree since they all have the Holy Spirit according to you but would all disagree even if you had them all using the same Bible.
EPIC PROTESTANT FAIL.