Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Guide To The Bible]

Incorrect, that is not what the keys to the kingdom of God are. They are similar to keys of a steward given to him from the master of the house.

These are not given to anyone, just the steward.

These keys give Peter the power to determine internal affairs, and describe doctrine, in his masters house, who is Jesus.

None of us have this power, none of us can determine doctrine, nor bind or loose, nor forgive sins. That power was given to Peter (the keys) and the Apostles (bind and loose, forgive sins) and has been handed down from bishop to bishop for over 2000 years.

Really, well Peter messed up there then too when Paul out smarted him over interpretation.

Galatians 2:11
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

 

[Light of the East]

Sorry if I touched a nerve, not my intention honest. I'm just pointing out the biggest mistake the Church ever made. They were instructed to wait not to introduce a man made voting systems to determine who leads, that decision is always God's. As proven by the fact that Jesus chose Paul just a few weeks later.

This was NOT the biggest mistake the Church ever made. This is just my opinion, but the biggest mistake was listening to Augustine's ranting about the punitive nature of God and how He elects only some for salvation, an idea that centuries later John Calvin picked up and ran with.

Anselm of Canterbury refined this angry God into his CUR DEUS HOMO (Which David Bentley Hart refers to as " Catholics in the hands of a psychotic God," a rather clever take on Jonathan Edwards and his angry God) and Western soteriology, eschatology, and the image of God as love took a nosedive. Western theology became obsessed with the angry God, the God of wrath whose anger can, according to some Catholic seers, barely be contained by the restraining hands of Jesus and Mary.

I have read several Orthodox theologians who have stated that this picture of the angry God is the cause of Western atheism not found in the East. I would tend to think they have a point. Who can really fall in love with a God who is pictured as being constantly angry? I tend to think that given Augustine's wretched lifestyle prior to his conversion, residual guilt played a large part in developing certain of his thoughts, just as it did with Luther's inability to trust God. (Luther is quoted as saying "Love God? There are times I hate Him.")

Just my opinion, for which, with a dollar, you can obtain coffee at Mickey Dee's.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Really, well Peter messed up there then too when Paul out smarted him over interpretation.

Galatians 2:11
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Nobody here said Peter was perfect though....as it is clearly shown in the Bible.

Paul was a very smart man, however that does not change Peter's role in the Church, as it's earthly head.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Long way to go. Those Protestants who cling most tightly to hatred of the Catholic Church will have a tough time regaining elements of the religion of Israel as actually practiced at the time of Christ and written about in the OT. But it is good to see steps in that direction. There need to be many more steps. There need to be steps to end the schism of the Reformation as well. Long overdue. Five hundred years is way way too long. Those years have damaged us all.

Sure but when I say Protestantism is now leaning toward Judaism I'm thinking of many churches and Christians who have embraced Judaism so much that they are now trying to celebrate the Jewish feasts and Sabbaths like Jesus did. I see it often and while it is kind of good it also show a lack of understanding of what is really going on.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I do! Where have I misquoted scripture?

Once against I never said that Jesus was not the cornerstone. I said that Peter is the rock that Jesus is referring too in Matthew 16:18. Rock, not cornerstone.

Jesus, as the Cornerstone, came and fulfilled the OT and started His Church, He then selected Peter as the rock that Jesus would build His Church on, and thus made him the head of the Apostles.

Where did I once state that Jesus was NOT the cornerstone? Please, where did I state that? Seeing how you keep insisting that I did.

No no no! The Church is built on Jesus not Peter.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

That's an interpretation not in the text of Acts 1. Acts 1 presumes that the method of replacing Judas was correct. Your mileage may vary of course. But you and Luke then have different ways of seeing it.

Yes Luke seems to think it was okay and as a consequence the reader does too but it was not the right thing to do by God or Jesus.

 

[Albion]

Sure but when I say Protestantism is now leaning toward Judaism I'm thinking of many churches and Christians who have embraced Judaism so much that they are now trying to celebrate the Jewish feasts and Sabbaths like Jesus did.

Who'd you have in mind? I can think of only a very few groups who fit that bill, and they're usually considered to be cults, certainly not Protestants.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Nobody here said Peter was perfect though....as it is clearly shown in the Bible.

Paul was a very smart man, however that does not change Peter's role in the Church, as it's earthly head.

He is not the Earthly head. The Holy Spirit and Jesus is.

 

[Albion]

Nobody here said Peter was perfect though....as it is clearly shown in the Bible.

Paul was a very smart man, however that does not change Peter's role in the Church, as it's earthly head.

There isn't any indication from scripture that Peter was the "earthly head" of the church, though. That was a POV that didn't develop until several centuries later.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Who'd you have in mind? I can think of only a very few groups who fit that bill, and they're usually considered to be cults, certainly not Protestants.

Just watch Christian tv, they're all over the Jews like bee's to honey. And you can find an increasing amount in this country too as well as the US which is like Jewish church central.

 

[Thursday]

Actually - the early Christians were ALL Jews and still worshipped in the Temple and synagogues. James the Just who was the senior congregational leader in Jerusalem from Acts 15 on to his martyrdom in the mid 60s ad was ALSO Rosh Yeshiva (head of the school) to one of the schools of Pharisees in Jerusalem -probably Beit Shammai.

Cornelius was the first gentile Christian, as far as we know, but there are many other non Jews in the early Church. That was why we needed the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. You are mistaken.

 

[Thursday]

There isn't any indication from scripture that Peter was the "earthly head" of the church, though. That was a POV that didn't develop until several centuries later.

Absolutely false. Here is the truth:

Although Matthew 16 is a central and key passage attesting to Peter’s unique position, the rest of the New Testament provides ample evidence for it. For example:

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), except Galatians 2. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).

2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).

3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2).

4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

9. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.

—Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

 

[Ron Gurley]

Q: Where did the "Church" first go wrong?

A: The "CHURCH" NEVER goes wrong!

The "CHURCH" has never gone wrong and it never will!! The Church is led and protected by its Head: Jesus the Divine Christ. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it. God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, guides all believers toward the will of the TRI-UNE GOD until the end of the world, when the Church, the Bride of Christ, will be eternally united with Him.

The "CHURCH" ("The Living Church?") is the collective "Body" of BELIEVERS, the members of the "Body of Christ" who are permanently indwelt by God the Holy Spirit at the time of their Salvation. The "Head" and the "Corner Stone" of the CHURCH is God the Son, the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, The Divine Messiah, The God-Man.

He is the "Bridegroom".

Revelations 22: 17 The (God the Holy) Spirit and the "bride" (CHURCH) say, "Come "

Its "building blocks" are the "Grace through Faith" good news which guides the estranged to become a saved BODY + SOUL + SPIRIT. Gospel of the CHURCH: Jesus the Divine Messaiah has COME to save Man from the prison of his sins.

Ephesians 4: 2-6; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 22:16; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 21: 42-45

 

[Albion]

That sounds like you mean these Christians are sympathetic to Israel or believe that God still has a special regard for the Jewish people. I wouldn't deny that; however, it isn't what I was referring to. You said that

Protestantism is now leaning toward Judaism I'm thinking of many churches and Christians who have embraced Judaism

The TV Christian types you refer to are not typical of "Protestantism," nor does it appear that "Protestantism" or "many churches" have embraced the Jewish religion or its practices. That judgment would seem appropriate for the JWs and Armstrongites and a few more, but they're not at all new movements or standard Protestants.

 

[Light of the East]

Matthew 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon
son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in Heaven. 18 And I tell you that
you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you
the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on
earth will be loosed in Heaven.”

What Jesus meant was how the Church would be built up and that Peter’s profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah made Peter a rock just as Jesus had prophesied when He met Peter:

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, “Thou art Simon the son of Jonah: thou shalt be
called Cephas;” which is by interpretation, a stone.

Peter’s belief in Jesus as the Messiah made him like a stone, just as Jesus had also described Himself:

Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
the LORD has done this, and it is marvellous in our eyes’?”

Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church along with the Apostles and Prophets who are the foundation stones placed next to Him, upon which all Christians are placed, just as this verse also explains:

Ephesians 2:20
Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself.

After Peter died his successor was chosen by the other disciples as the new leader of the Church but this was not God’s plan as it is God alone who selects His chosen people and leaders.

Shows a complete lack of understanding of covenant groups and how they function, as well as their operating principles. No covenant group can be without the covenant head over that group. This is the principle of hierarchy, that there is leadership. Ray Sutton, a bishop in the Reformed Episcopal church, has written a very concise book about the five principles of covenant, and while his applications are warped because of his Calvinist views on the covenant, the principles are rock-solid and biblical.

Sutton states: "If there is not visible authority, then God does not rule on earth." In other words, to be authority, it must be seen. Peter was the visible authority, which means that he acted in the authority granted to him by Christ/God. In like manner, the other Apostles were given a second-level of authority, Peter's office being that of covenant head over the earthly Church, and they exercised their authority by electing other bishops in each town where they had converts. There was no mystical "waiting on God" as you suggest. When you are given authority, you have the right to use it, and when you are promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you move forward in trust that He is guiding your choices.

I have no doubt in my mind that you believe you are "guided by the Holy Spirit," as would profess hundreds of other Protestants who would vehemently disagree with you on doctrine. This is what you get when you go outside the authority which God established as visible and hierarchical on earth - chaos!

 

[Caminator]

I think it was very gradual, and I see three phases of this. In my opinion, it started with Jacob Spener. He saw a lack godly affection, or of godly passion for the practical application of doctrine, in the church. I won't argue that he was mistaken in this observation. He was probably right.

Where Spener went wrong was in his remedy for this lack. I believe the remedy was in the theological past. All that was needed was to revive old teachings, to remind the church of what she once knew and practiced.

Instead, Spener promoted - unintentionally, I suppose - a turning away from doctrine to practical Christianity, like loving people, feeding the poor, etc.. This is not bad, but when doctrine takes a second place to anything else, we go astray. Putting doctrine first is the best way to put Christ first. He is His doctrine. He said so Himself.

Second, Spener's ideas influenced John and Charles Wesley. They had an adversarial relationship with George Whitefield. They often refused to listen to him, and often preached against his preaching. Whitefield once left John in charge of his flock, and while he was gone, John countered his ministry from the pulpit. Dallimore recounts this in his book on Charles Wesley, which I've read.

And third, the Wesley's Methodism led straight into the Pentecostal revivals of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. This is where Spener's slight errors of trajectory led to the church being miles off course.

I have been in a Pentecostal/full gospel church for 30 years, so I have experienced this first hand. My conclusion of those 30 years is that I resolutely deny that we are tripartite - spirit, soul and body, and I deny that we have two parts, and mind and a heart, and I deny that the intellect is the natural mind, as opposed to the spiritual mind, whatever that is. The heart is the intellect. It is the heart that thinks. They are the same thing. And we are two parts - soul and body. Or spirit and body, if you prefer. Soul and spirit are synonyms.

Take away those errors, and what is left of Pentecostalism?

So, where did the church first go wrong? With Jacob Spener. Or maybe it was James Arminius. But I don't want to get into that.

 

[Albion]

Absolutely false. Here is the truth:

Although Matthew 16 is a central and key passage attesting to Peter’s unique position, the rest of the New Testament provides ample evidence for it. For example:

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), except Galatians 2. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).

2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).

3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2).

4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

9. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.

—Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

Thanks for your post. However, Peter was not considered to be any "earthly head" during the first several centuries of Christian history. No bishop of Rome even claimed such a thing until about four centuries later. That Peter was influential...or a leader...or the spokesman...or highly regarded by Christ is true. But this does not constitute being the "earthly leader" of the church, and that is the claim that I specifically responded to in my post.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes Luke seems to think it was okay and as a consequence the reader does too ....

Yup.

but it was not the right thing to do by God or Jesus.

That's your novel interpretation. You may find your novel interpretation compelling, but I see it as without any warrant. Peter called for a successor to Judas and his place was filled. They waited in Jerusalem and while waiting brought the number of apostles back up to twelve. There is not even a hint in the text about this action being disobedient. But it does fulfill a narrative for you if you need to find a way to justify rejecting the Church in favor of some splinter.

 

[Dave-W]

After the protestant reformation, many who split lost all connection with the Traditions of the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Which is exactly what happened by the ECFs breaking the Orthodox church off of Judaism. It happened again to a lesser degree when the Catholics broke off from the Orthodox. The Protestant reformation was just another step in that process.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think it was very gradual, and I see three phases of this. In my opinion, it started with Jacob Spener.

So, where did the church first go wrong? With Jacob Spener. Or maybe it was James Arminius. But I don't want to get into that.

Wow. One person says the Church went off the rails in Acts Chapter 1 and you think it was a guy I've never heard of in the 1700's.