When do you think the Church got corrupted?

Landon Caeli said:

Christianity became ruined when Protestants came to exist.

Click to expand...

Meaning Protestants are simply second-class Christians, and or their churches are false churches, or they are not Christians at all, in your opinion, or that of your church?

Or, since you list yourself as "Catholic not christian," do you mean Protestants are second-class children of God, or not at all as a group overall?

Dave L said:

You imply Adam's sin is not sufficient to damn everyone. Yet babies die in the womb and the wages of sin is death. Is God unjust?

Click to expand...

Adam's sin is sufficient to damn everyone who sins because of it, but to send souls to the lake of fire = spiritual death - as punishment for what they are in no way culpable for would be unjust, as God repeatedly sets down.

Suffering the effects of sin, such as pain and death, which all creation realizes, is not the same as punishing them for what they did, which is the basis for eternal damnation:

The fathers shall not be put to death [judicially, as a punishment, not merely an effect] for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Kings 14:6)

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Revelation 20:13-14)

And there is a time before children are morally cognizant and can choose btwn the two.

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:15-16)

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deuteronomy 1:39)

Children have a sinful nature, and do objectively sinful things from the womb (they would do violence to get that toy), but they are not accountable for such, though they suffer effects of their actions and that of others in this life, including death, the effect of sin, while the second death is punishment for sins one is culpable for.

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:13-14)

David Cabrera said:

I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

Click to expand...

I believe the world is filled with people professing Christ without the Holy Ghost and I believe it's been like this for Generations. I believe the falling away spoken of in 2nd Thessalonians has happened already long ago.

PeaceByJesus said:

Adam's sin is sufficient to damn everyone who sins because of it, but to send souls to the lake of fire = spiritual death - as punishment for what they are in no way culpable for would be unjust, as God repeatedly sets down.

Suffering the effects of sin, such as pain and death, which all creation realizes, is not the same as punishing them for what they did, which is the basis for eternal damnation:

The fathers shall not be put to death [judicially, as a punishment, not merely an effect] for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Kings 14:6)

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Revelation 20:13-14)

And there is a time before children are morally cognizant and can choose btwn the two.

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:15-16)

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deuteronomy 1:39)

Children have a sinful nature, and do objectively sinful things from the womb (they would do violence to get that toy), but they are not accountable for such, though they suffer the effects of their actions and that of others.

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:13-14)

Click to expand...

Most of you father/children verses relate to civil law and not Adam's relationship to his race. God clearly says"

“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” (Exodus 20:5)

PeaceByJesus said:

Meaning Protestants are simply second-class Christians, and or their churches are false churches, or they are not Christians at all, in your opinion, or that of your church?

Or, since you list yourself as "Catholic not christian," do you mean Protestants are second-class children of God, or not at all as a group overall?

Click to expand...

I don't know.

David Cabrera said:

1. Here is something interesting I found about Tertullian in Wikipedia "On the other hand, Tertullian acknowledges that infant baptism was a common practice in his day. He opposes it not on doctrinal grounds but practical ones, suggesting that baptism be postponed until after marriage so that one can be cleansed of the fornication one commits before marriage in baptism." So even if Tertullian didn't prefer Infant Baptism, I'm sure you wouldn't agree with him about baptizing after marriage.

Click to expand...

You mean here [citation needed]? What i actually quoted shows the opposition by Tertullian to not being based on this specific reason (he also , but a general one of not being prepared and thus backsliding, such as the ignorant being "disappointed by the development of an evil disposition,' and thus his exhortation, "let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ."

And in trying to explain away Tertullian again and again, You are missing the point behind the posting, which is that rather than "The rejection of infant baptism in Christianity did not begin until the 16th century" as truefiction1 asserted (after quoting Origen), we see opposition to it in the 2nd.

2. Do you know that babies got circumcised? Adults could get circumcised too but only the ones who wanted to convert.

Click to expand...

In contrast to baptism, the circumcision of infants was specifically commanded, with no preconditions. (Genesis 17:9-14) Likewise, adults could be circumcised without any profession of faith themselves. (Genesis 34) And it was only commanded for males. And just as the Holy Spirit is faithful to show the distinction as regards the latter (But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women, (Acts 8:12)" (Acts 8:12) likewise the distinction as regards the former is also manifest. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." (Acts 2:28; 8:37)

3. No, it's an argument of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Presbyterians or Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists vs Evangelicals.

Click to expand...

Where are these posters of Lutheranism, Presbyterians or Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists?

Landon Caeli said:

I don't know.

Click to expand...

That is not sufficient.

Landon Caeli said: ↑
Christianity became ruined when Protestants came to exist.

Now tell us what this means as asked

Dave L said:

Most of you father/children verses relate to civil law and not Adam's relationship to his race. God clearly says"

“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” (Exodus 20:5)

Click to expand...

Which he does, that of suffering due to the effects of sin, with its curses incurred, "unto the third and fourth generation,"like as children are blessed by the Godliness of forefathers, entering into their labors. (John 4:38) Children are even sanctified by the faith of parents, (1 Corinthians 7:14) but in both cases this is not the same thing as being recompensed for their own actions, and realizing the eternal consequences.

PeaceByJesus said:

Which he does, that of suffering due to the effects of sin, with its curses incurred, "unto the third and fourth generation,"like as children are blessed by the Godliness of forefathers, entering into their labors. (John 4:38) Children are even sanctified by the faith of parents, (1 Corinthians 7:14) but in both cases this is not the same thing as being recompensed for their own actions, and realizing the eternal consequences.

Click to expand...

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19)

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1 Corinthians 15:22–23)

PeaceByJesus said:

Which is absurd! Tell that to them. And you expect me to take your replies seriously?!

Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't expect anything of you. IT's not absurd. There are Catholics who see the opinions of the world as more important than the faith. Pope Francis is one of them, I think. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are others.

Which is simply an opinion, and contrary to such weighty Catholics as Augustine of Hippo.

Click to expand...

From the article you cited, which I doubt you read: While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which magisterium is free to accept or reject. Limbo is one such theory."

Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

Click to expand...

Right, because there is no doctrine on the matter of unbaptized children.

Your view would also mean that innocence will get you in, while others must
attain to the "level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God," (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants), and thus have "every imperfection of the soul corrected." - John Paul II, Audiences, 1999. become "good as to be entitled to immediate happiness," (City of God XXI.24) and so "go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." (Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224)

Click to expand...

You're conflating two different things. Children who cannot knowingly sin, based on the definition of sin, are innocent, to a certain age. There are no innocent adults, and so any human eligible for heaven will go through a purificatory process.

Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

Click to expand...

Because it is not a doctrine.

[*]Whether Trent closed the canon or not

Not so. Trent defined what the books had to be accepted , but did not say no more could be added. Thus whether Trent closed the canon or not is indeed a matter discussed among RCs.
Is the Canon of Scripture closed?

And thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I misread your statement, rather your chop and paste. But no, Trent defined the books of Sacred Scripture, therefore no further books can be added.

[*]Whether canonizations are or always infallible.

Which is simply an opinion. Other Catholics say, "The short answer is no, or at least not yet. The reason is that the decisions emanating from the consistory are juridical and not theological in nature." http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur373.htm

Others debate it. Are Canonizations Infallible? Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

Click to expand...

Well, the consistatory is not the canonization, so my point stands. Once the Pope accepts the canonization, it is infallible.

[*]Who all the [so-called] “church fathers” are.
This is not a matter of faith. The world wants to bicker, but the Church doesn't.
Doctrine is about faith, and if “church fathers” are invoked in that interest, then whether one is or not is important, as is the what books are in the canon of Scripture.

Click to expand...

This doesn't change the statement. Who the Church Fathers are is pretty well defined. There may be some who are disputed, but these are not: Church Fathers - Wikipedia

[*]What the church Fathers meant in many cases.

Not in all cases, at least she has not officially explained with all they said, nor without excluding any interpretation. Which Catholics engage in, even in debate with EOs.
Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

Click to expand...

The fact is that the Church Fathers were not popes, and didn't always write infallibly. There are even disagreements on some things among them. Where they're right, they're quoted and cited. Where they're not, they're...not.

[*]How many Scripture verses have been infallibly or officially interpreted.

Obedience is a matter of faith, and knowing what the word of God says and means is required, and is not a "worldly concern," which is absurd.

Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

Click to expand...

As if Protestants agree on everything? Besides which, Scripture speaks to us where we are at the moment we read it. Thus, in the three year cycle of Church readings, I can hear one reading three years ago and think one thing, and hear it this Sunday and hear something else. Obedience to Scripture, as the Church interprets it, is important. But not everything in Scripture is interpreted by the Church. If there isn't a doctrinal meaning of a particular passage, it's not doctrine.

[*]The meaning and scope of the inerrancy of Scripture (“for our salvation” or more).

Wrong again. The much debated issue is whether inerrancy was limited to
"that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation," as seen in distinction to every detail. As one of your apologists admits, "Basically, there was a huge, behind-the-scenes fight at Vatican II about inerrancy...While the final formula didn’t exclude the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture, it didn’t mandate it, either." - Compendium On Inerrancy

Subsequent teaching by Rome has basically affirmed the conservative position, but then we have the issue of what magisterial level such belongs to.

Click to expand...

First, yes, there were lots of behind-the-scenes fights at Vatican II. But we believe the Bible is inerrant. Vatican II and the Inerrancy of the Bible

[*]The official immutable position on many theological issues.

Have you been reading? Read the next one.

[*]The reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom.

Which is ignoring the debate which was linked to.

[*]The relationship between Scripture and Tradition: partim-partim or not.

Huh? This again is ignoring the debate which was linked to.

[*]How many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are

The world does not, but your church does, thus it says it provides such and distinguishes btwn this magisterial class and others.

[*]What magisterial level multitudes of teachings belong to, and thus the manner of assent required.

Again the world does not, but your church does, as should you, unless you think everything that was said in every bull, etc. is binding.

[*]What required assent to non-infallible official teachings all entails.

Whether your response is feigned ignorance or real, the fact is that this is debated. At one time the likes of your were forbidden to engage in public debate

“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium

[*]The meaning of official Catholic teaching to varying degrees.

I find it hard to believe you can be this ignorant. Here is an example of one that is not: Can a Pope Commit Heresy? (“Heresy” Defined)

Click to expand...

There is no issue here. Of course a pope can commit heresy. He cannot teach heresy ex cathedra. There's a big difference.

[*]How to reconcile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium,and if former Catholics who die as faithful evangelical-type Protestants are lost.

"We" is not all, past or present. After years of papal and conciliar teaching such as states, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing," "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church," "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful," "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church;”
Sources .

Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing. Whether or not you are Catholic, the Pope is not the head of the Catholic Church, he's the head of the Christian Church, whether or not you believe that or adhere to it. Here's why:
Jesus desired visible unity in His Church
Visible unity requires one senior pastor = Peter and his successors
The job of the senior pastor is to maintain unity
He can only maintain unity by stopping fights
He cannot stop fights unless his word is final
His word isn't final unless he's infallible.

Is the Pope that person?
Matthew 16:18–19 establishes Peter as the “royal steward” of Jesus’ kingdom-Church, and promises him the infallible backing of heaven for his decisions about the interpretation of divine law. A succession in office is implied by the fact that the royal steward of the Davidic kingdom was an office-holder with successors.
John 21:15–19 gives Peter an unparalleled and incomparable triple commissioning as the unique shepherd or “pastor” of all Christ’s sheep.
Acts 1:15–26 establishes the principle that the apostles occupied an “office” (episkopen) that could be filled by another after their death, thus establishing the principle of “succession.”
Acts 5:1–11, the account of Ananias and Sapphira, demonstrates that lying to and “testing” Peter is tantamount to lying to and testing the Holy Spirit.
5. Acts 15:1–31 shows Peter exercising his role as chief shepherd or “senior pastor” by putting an end to debate that threatened to break apart the unity of the early Church by rendering an authoritative judgment about the issue under question.
Bergsma, John. Stunned by Scripture: How the Bible Made Me Catholic (pp. 34-35). Our Sunday Visitor. Kindle Edition.

You can buzz all you want about disunity in the Catholic Church. And I won't deny that there are lots of Catholics who disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter or that one. But the teaching of the Catholic Church is what matters. Not what some Catholics say or say about that teaching.

David Cabrera said:

I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

Click to expand...

I believe it happened when it came obvious that Christians can’t be destroyed, but by infiltrating in to it, the leaders can become filthy rich. Probably somewhere near 300 AD. And the more bad leaders there came, the more they rejected the Biblical message and replaced it with human doctrines and denied for many common people the opportunity to understand it in their own language.

Paul was writing about heresies infiltrating the church in his day and Christianity as a whole was still just getting started. Once he was gone along with the original apostles, and Christianity became more structured and formal and political, it got even worse as scripture interpretation was distorted more and more to match up with the views of Greco-Roman pagan philosophers in hopes of attracting and converting them. Once Christianity actually became legal in the empire, corruption began to know no bounds.

Honestly, it doesn't take human beings long at all to corrupt anything.

(Christ of course is as pure as he's always been, which is why it is important to put our faith and trust in him rather than in any human-created organization, denomination, or institution.)

Root of Jesse said:

Frankly, I don't expect anything of you. IT's not absurd. There are Catholics who see the opinions of the world as more important than the faith. Pope Francis is one of them, I think. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are others.From the article you cited, which I doubt you read: While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which magisterium is free to accept or reject. Limbo is one such theory."Right, because there is no doctrine on the matter of unbaptized children.You're conflating two different things. Children who cannot knowingly sin, based on the definition of sin, are innocent, to a certain age. There are no innocent adults, and so any human eligible for heaven will go through a purificatory process.Because it is not a doctrine.Well, to be fair, I misread your statement, rather your chop and paste. But no, Trent defined the books of Sacred Scripture, therefore no further books can be added.Well, the consistatory is not the canonization, so my point stands. Once the Pope accepts the canonization, it is infallible.This doesn't change the statement. Who the Church Fathers are is pretty well defined. There may be some who are disputed, but these are not: Church Fathers - Wikipedia The fact is that the Church Fathers were not popes, and didn't always write infallibly. There are even disagreements on some things among them. Where they're right, they're quoted and cited. Where they're not, they're...not.As if Protestants agree on everything? Besides which, Scripture speaks to us where we are at the moment we read it. Thus, in the three year cycle of Church readings, I can hear one reading three years ago and think one thing, and hear it this Sunday and hear something else. Obedience to Scripture, as the Church interprets it, is important. But not everything in Scripture is interpreted by the Church. If there isn't a doctrinal meaning of a particular passage, it's not doctrine.First, yes, there were lots of behind-the-scenes fights at Vatican II. But we believe the Bible is inerrant. Vatican II and the Inerrancy of the BibleThere is no issue here. Of course a pope can commit heresy. He cannot teach heresy ex cathedra. There's a big difference.Well, here's the thing. Whether or not you are Catholic, the Pope is not the head of the Catholic Church, he's the head of the Christian Church, whether or not you believe that or adhere to it. Here's why:
Jesus desired visible unity in His Church
Visible unity requires one senior pastor = Peter and his successors
The job of the senior pastor is to maintain unity
He can only maintain unity by stopping fights
He cannot stop fights unless his word is final
His word isn't final unless he's infallible.

Is the Pope that person?
Matthew 16:18–19 establishes Peter as the “royal steward” of Jesus’ kingdom-Church, and promises him the infallible backing of heaven for his decisions about the interpretation of divine law. A succession in office is implied by the fact that the royal steward of the Davidic kingdom was an office-holder with successors.
John 21:15–19 gives Peter an unparalleled and incomparable triple commissioning as the unique shepherd or “pastor” of all Christ’s sheep.
Acts 1:15–26 establishes the principle that the apostles occupied an “office” (episkopen) that could be filled by another after their death, thus establishing the principle of “succession.”
Acts 5:1–11, the account of Ananias and Sapphira, demonstrates that lying to and “testing” Peter is tantamount to lying to and testing the Holy Spirit.
5. Acts 15:1–31 shows Peter exercising his role as chief shepherd or “senior pastor” by putting an end to debate that threatened to break apart the unity of the early Church by rendering an authoritative judgment about the issue under question.
Bergsma, John. Stunned by Scripture: How the Bible Made Me Catholic (pp. 34-35). Our Sunday Visitor. Kindle Edition.

You can buzz all you want about disunity in the Catholic Church. And I won't deny that there are lots of Catholics who disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter or that one. But the teaching of the Catholic Church is what matters. Not what some Catholics say or say about that teaching.

Click to expand...

I am simply too fatigued by a cold to respond to all this, or anything else here, with a long task awaiting.

PeaceByJesus said:

And in trying to explain away Tertullian again and again, You are missing the point behind the posting, which is that rather than "The rejection of infant baptism in Christianity did not begin until the 16th century" as truefiction1 asserted (after quoting Origen), we see opposition to it in the 2nd.

Click to expand...

That is not "opposition" to the sacrament or what it represents/accomplishes. The idea of postponing baptism as a tactic (which was popular among ordinary people during the late Roman Empire) is an entirely different thing.

That policy or approach actually verifies the traditional (i.e. not Anabaptistic, symbolic, "believers baptism," etc.) understanding of the nature of the sacrament.

If a teaching was once unnadulterated truth and then became errant there is no way to distinguish the work of God from the work of man because a work of God became a work of man. If that is true then thrre hasn't been a true disciple of Christ since. Why would God bother to suffer and die to establish His Truth on earth if it were destined to be lost? If it is adulterated no man can re-establish it but Christ. That isn't what Jesus said would happen.

To take one example, the Reformation was an effort to reject the corrupt practices and beliefs that had crept into the church over time. IMHO, it certainly did have the ability to say "This is not right because it is not in accord with the historic faith, so let us return to doing/believing it the correct way" -- and then to make that correction.

What would be the symptoms and signs of corruption, schism and fragmentation, on the grounds that at least some people must be putting human interests above the unity of God and Christ's church?