how can the RCC Claim to be THE teacher On Christianity and Doctrines?

[Michael Wrenn]

We all read scripture through a cultural lens. In other words, Baptists read it as if the churches in the N.T. were Baptist churches; Lutherans read it as if the churches were Lutheran; Catholics read it as if the churches were Catholic. How so? Practices that are spoken of with a measure of ambiguity are seen in the light of the reader's experience. For instance, when the N.T. speaks of baptising households, Lutherans and Catholics just assume it means infants because they are not explicitly excluded in any of the four accounts of household baptisms. The Bible doesn't say either way. Same thing with the Lord's Supper. When Paul speaks of it, Lutherans and Catholics will visualize the presiding individual holding up the host and consecrating it. Baptists will visualize praying over the bread and wine (or grape juice) and then passing it around. Again the Bible is silent.

The fact is that there are very few N.T. practices that are totally free from ambiguity. Consequently we get a lot of denominational gloss when we read about the early church in the New Testament.

The fact is that all of the distinctive Catholic doctrines do have a basis in scripture. Some of them rely heavily on Tradition but none of them are excluded by scripture. I have shown that many times on this forum but the responses are always something like, "That can't be what it means." Then they go on to explain that, "We know this is so; therefore that can't be so."

Your saying there are no monarchial bishops in the N.T. is once again your seeing scripture through your baptist lenses. The idea of having a presiding bishop is seen very clearly in Titus 1. Very clearly Titus had authority over the churches of Crete and exercised it by appointing elders in each city.

As for the beliefs about Peter being fables, I know you are wrong. A fable is a story that usually portrays a truth through the speech and interactions of animals, and inanimate objects. It is a genre of literature and I am not aware of any fable in which Peter is the object of discussion.

As for what I think you intended to convey, I did read the article you provided in the link and it appears to be that the author is really straining to show that Peter was not in Rome. One thing he mistakes, that Cathoiics belive Peter established the church at Rome. Not so. He got there about the same time as Paul, which explains why he is not mentioned in the epistle to the Romans. Did you consider the source of the article? I looked around the site and it appears to have come from the Church of God in Pasadena. Unless I am mistaken, this is the cultic group that was led by Herbert W. Armstrong and later by his son, Garner Ted Armstrong. Back then they referred to themselves as the Worldwide Church of God.

The first two paragraphs of your post are well-reasoned and sensible; I congratulate you for that.

Now for the other parts: The RCC is the least scriptural denomination that can still be considered orthodox. They have added much to the scripture over the centuries. The doctrines about Mary not only do not have a basis in scripture but are contradictory to scripture. The RCC added the filioque phrase to the Nicene Creed; the EOC wasn't too happy about that one. Papal infallibility is blasphemy. These are just a few examples.

All Protestants know and affirm, and some Catholics admit, that there were only two orders of ministry in the NT -- that the words elder/pastor/presbyter/bishop are synonymous terms for one and the same office; it is not just a Baptist belief. By the way, I am officially "Celtic Anabaptist". That these terms are synonymous is fact established by Biblical scholarship; it is a fact that cannot be denied.

Now I know you are intelligent, and so I shouldn't really have to post this, but just to put the definition in front of you, I shall: "fable: a fictitious narrative or statement. falsehood, lie." You gave only one definition of "fable". So, nice try, but you should have tried it on someone without a background in English and literature -- or, more simply, without access to a dictionary.

I know the source of the article. That has nothing to do with it. Objective facts can be found in many places, even by some who are in error themselves.

In other places I have shown where Catholic sources provide a refutation of certain Catholic teachings.

If you really want a church which has remained the same throughout its history, you should join the EOC. I believe they are in error on some things, but not nearly to the extent that the RCC is.

The only clear and indisputable record we have of the apostles' teaching is in the New Testament; it therefore stands to reason that we should get our doctrine mostly from the New Testament, and tradition, reason, and experience which agrees with the New Testament. Tradition should not be primary or equal to the NT, as tradition often contradicts the NT; the same can be said for reason and experience. Unless the NT is the final authority, we have no assurance that a doctrine or practice is apostolic in origin. That's why I affirm Article VI of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which says:

"VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

When you make reason primary, you run into Socinian errors. When you make experience primary, you run into things like Pentecostal errors. That's why the early Quakers who made the leading of the Spirit primary soon saw the danger and excess this could lead to and finally said that any supposed leading of the Spirit must agree in fact or principle with scripture, or it should be discarded and disregarded as coming from the Spirit. When "Tradition" is made primary or equal to scripture, you get the errors of the RCC.

I value some of the early fathers, insofar as they are a witness to apostolic, NT, early church teaching and practice and confirm same. However, if what they say runs counter to the teachings of the apostles in the NT, I give that no credence.

If I was seeking what to believe about the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, I would go to the only source of their words -- the NT. Secondarily, I would consider tradition, reason, and experience, but only if these sources affirm scripture and are confirmed by scripture.

Sure, this leaves the door open for differences in interpretation and denominations. But that is much more desirable than the example of what became the RCC.

Also, I hope you know that I do not consider the RC a cult or near-cult as some on here do. And I have repeatedly pointed out how the Magisterial Protestants also murdered and persecuted in the name of Jesus. Astonishingly to me, some Baptists on this forum have denied and did not want to believe that Calvin was a persecutor and murderer, even after I provided undeniable evidence of same. I think it is shameful and disgraceful for anyone claiming the free church tradition to defend Calvin and deny the truth of what he did.

Well I didn't mean to make this a mini-thesis, but I got wound up!

I had better stop -- for now, at least.

 

[targus]

targus said, "So when two or more Christians that are indwelt with the Holy Sprit read the same Scriptures and come to different and conflicting interpretations...?"

To which you replied. "In that case, those born again Christians aren't being led or controlled by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can be quenched or grieved."

You are saying that if two Christians come to differing conclusions about a scripture passage, then one of them is not being led by the Holy Spirit. You cannot make that blanket statement. Why? Because it is possible that both Christians are partly right and partly wrong. None of us has the entire truth, nor are we capable of obtaining it. That is what Paul says. That is true.

So then baptism is both necessary and not necessary for salvation?

Is that an example of both being partly right and partly wrong?

Even when both beliefs are mutually exclusive?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So then baptism is both necessary and not necessary for salvation?

Is that an example of both being partly right and partly wrong?

Even when both beliefs are mutually exclusive?

No.

Now let me ask you a question: Is it always possible to know who is right and who is wrong?

 

[targus]

No.

Now let me ask you a question: Is it always possible to know who is right and who is wrong?

In my personal experience "no".

Now back to my example:

When two people read Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and one concludes that baptism is necessary for salvation and one concludes that baptism is not necessary for salvation...

How do you determine who is right and who is wrong?

And if you can't know who is right and who is wrong what is the basis for saying that Catholics are wrong in their beliefs?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The bible tells us we will know them, by the fruit they bear.

And what if both bare the same fruit? And its good? What then? Because that is also the case.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then Catholics should have the soul liberty to believe what they believe.

No one is forced to be Catholic then it follows that the Catholic Church isn't really telling anyone what to believe - since anyone is free to not believe and leave.

So what's the big deal?

catholics CANNOT come to different understandings of biblical doctrines that disagree with their Church though!

And there is NO reputable reason to see the RCC as being the "infallible interpepretator' of sacred texts it claims to be!

 

[targus]

And what if both bare the same fruit? And its good? What then? Because that is also the case.

I suspect that plain_n_simple has a unique definition of "fruit" which he will not share with us directly...

But instead will provide seemingly unrelated Scripture verses...

That wil leave everyone even more confused about what he is not saying.

 

[Yeshua1]

"love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance, faith."

Any person can claim and demonstrate these things. They are fruit of a Christian yes, yet a Buddist, Atheiest,,Muslim and Irishman can all do the same. How can you know them by their fruit using this definition? You cannot. Any person can do these. There must be another or deeper meaning in addition to this one, that cannot be copied.

Nope! the Apostle paul stated that THOSE ARE the fruit from/of the Holy Spirit in our lives once saved!

How can the unsave d"duplicate" that which can ONLY be produced by the Holy Spirit Himself?

Do you have a revelation paul never got from God in this than?

 

[Yeshua1]

Surely you jest! Have you ever heard of hyperbole? If you equate Peter with Satan, you're saying Jesus asked Satan to tend His sheep. Would Jesus turn His sheep over to Satan? Really? And does that mean Satan wrote two books of the New Testament? Have you removed 1 and 2 Peter from your Bible?

Can you give to me a single verse that shows after the ascension of jesus, the early church held peter as being the primary Apostle, first pope?

jerusalem saw james as their head leader, Paul was head over /to the gentiles, while peter was chief to the jews!

And the THREE pillars in jerusalem were seen as James/peter/John, where was His primacy?

peter himself said he was a "fellow Elder" that jesus was the chief conerstone that the church was built on, and the bile also states foundations built over/on jesus was Apostles/prophets, again no hint peter was primary!

Where is that scriptual evidence?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I suspect that plain_n_simple has a unique definition of "fruit" which he will not share with us directly...

But instead will provide seemingly unrelated Scripture verses...

That wil leave everyone even more confused about what he is not saying.

You are probably correct.

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you give to me a single verse that shows after the ascension of jesus, the early church held peter as being the primary Apostle, first pope?

jerusalem saw james as their head leader, Paul was head over /to the gentiles, while peter was chief to the jews!

peter himself said he was a "fellow Elder" that jesus was the chief conerstone that the church was built on, and the bile also states foundations built over/on jesus was Apostles/prophets, again no hint peter was primary!

Where is that scriptual evidence?

Discussing anything with Catholics is an exercise of futility for this reason. They cannot establish their teaching on scriptures as any careful exegesis will expose what they are teaching as false doctrine. When you bring them to that point they ALWAYS make the leap to their uninspired false traditions in order to support their failed eisgesis.

What Biblie believers must do is refuse to make that leap with them. If they cannot make that leap their eisgetical nonsense simply collapes.

 

[Yeshua1]

targus said, "So when two or more Christians that are indwelt with the Holy Sprit read the same Scriptures and come to different and conflicting interpretations...?"

To which you replied. "In that case, those born again Christians aren't being led or controlled by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can be quenched or grieved."

You are saying that if two Christians come to differing conclusions about a scripture passage, then one of them is not being led by the Holy Spirit. You cannot make that blanket statement. Why? Because it is possible that both Christians are partly right and partly wrong. None of us has the entire truth, nor are we capable of obtaining it. That is what Paul says. That is true.

think that there are core/essential doctrines of the faith where a genuine Christian MUST adhere and hold to, what is being discussed here would be those areas where can freely agree to disagree!

essential would be seeing the Second coming of jesus, while disagreeeable would be as to the timing of it!

 

[Zenas]

Can you give to me a single verse that shows after the ascension of jesus, the early church held peter as being the primary Apostle, first pope?

jerusalem saw james as their head leader, Paul was head over /to the gentiles, while peter was chief to the jews!

And the THREE pillars in jerusalem were seen as James/peter/John, where was His primacy?

peter himself said he was a "fellow Elder" that jesus was the chief conerstone that the church was built on, and the bile also states foundations built over/on jesus was Apostles/prophets, again no hint peter was primary!

Where is that scriptual evidence?

You can't be serious. Well, maybe you are, so I will give you the first one: Acts 1:15-22, where Peter stood up and said they needed to select a replacement for Judas. You can't read Acts 1-15 without knowing Peter was in charge of the church--absolutely. As far as "fellow elder" is concerned, that is how the pope regards himself today. He is the bishop of Rome, which is first among equals.

 

[Zenas]

Discussing anything with Catholics is an exercise of futility for this reason. They cannot establish their teaching on scriptures as any careful exegesis will expose what they are teaching as false doctrine. When you bring them to that point they ALWAYS make the leap to their uninspired false traditions in order to support their failed eisgesis.

What Biblie believers must do is refuse to make that leap with them. If they cannot make that leap their eisgetical nonsense simply collapes.

I agree that debate is difficult when each side sees something different as the ultimate source of truth. You can't compare apples and oranges. Catholics regard Scripture and Sacred Tradition as having equal authority, and both are to be viewed as taught by the Magisterium of the Church. Protestants reject that approach and rely exclusively on the Bible, despite the fact that this practice of sola scriptura did not exist before the time of Luther. They also tend to gloss over the fact that each person interpreting the Bible for himself results in many conflicting conclusions as to what it means. Somehow they don't regard this as significant, as we have witnessed on this very thread.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I agree that debate is difficult when each side sees something different as the ultimate source of truth. You can't compare apples and oranges. Catholics regard Scripture and Sacred Tradition as having equal authority, and both are to be viewed as taught by the Magisterium of the Church. Protestants reject that approach and rely exclusively on the Bible, despite the fact that this practice of sola scriptura did not exist before the time of Luther. They also tend to gloss over the fact that each person interpreting the Bible for himself results in many conflicting conclusions as to what it means. Somehow they don't regard this as significant, as we have witnessed on this very thread.

I think the Anglicans and Methodists have it right: scripture as primary and final authority, and then tradition, reason, and experiences as secondary authorities which must adhere to scripture.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

In my personal experience "no".

Now back to my example:

When two people read Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and one concludes that baptism is necessary for salvation and one concludes that baptism is not necessary for salvation...

How do you determine who is right and who is wrong?

And if you can't know who is right and who is wrong what is the basis for saying that Catholics are wrong in their beliefs?

You determine it by comparing scripture with scripture. And this is where soul liberty comes into play. Baptists have it and can believe as they are led; Catholics don't and must believe as they are fed!! Hey, I just came up with that -- think I'll use it as a slogan.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that debate is difficult when each side sees something different as the ultimate source of truth.

Exactly!

You can't compare apples and oranges. Catholics regard Scripture and Sacred Tradition as having equal authority, and both are to be viewed as taught by the Magisterium of the Church. Protestants reject that approach and rely exclusively on the Bible,

I would say that is precisely apples versus oranges would not you???

despite the fact that this practice of sola scriptura did not exist before the time of Luther.

That is simply historically inaccurate!

1. Prior to Christ Scriptures demanded it - Isa. 8:20

2. Point one above is confirmed by the practice of Christ as he NEVER ONCE quoted or referred to ORAL TRADITIONS as EQUAL in authority or as the basis of ANY HIS DOCTRINES or TEACHINGS. Zilch, nada, none!

3. The Apostles themselve followed the precise view of Christ in point two above.

4. The Apostles regarded themselves as PROPHETS who spoke and wrote by inspiration and therefore regarded what their ORAL teachings and written teaches as equally inspired. However, they never ONCE taught or prophesied that their oral teachings would be perpetuated as an equal source of authority after their death. Instead, they taught that after their death that their followers should regard the scriptures "MORE SURE" than their own personal teachings conveyed to them orally - 2 Pet. 1:15-21. (this statement infers that the gospel account of his experience was already available to read).

5. Not once does Scripture say that ORAL TRADITIONS are given by God to be profitable for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof for the man of God but rather that scripture alone is sufficient for the man of God to be complete.

 

[targus]

You determine it by comparing scripture with scripture. And this is where soul liberty comes into play. Baptists have it and can believe as they are led; Catholics don't and must believe as they are fed!! Hey, I just came up with that -- think I'll use it as a slogan.

And if some Baptists get it completely wrong - hello Lake of Fire?

 

[DHK]

You can't be serious. Well, maybe you are, so I will give you the first one: Acts 1:15-22, where Peter stood up and said they needed to select a replacement for Judas. You can't read Acts 1-15 without knowing Peter was in charge of the church--absolutely. As far as "fellow elder" is concerned, that is how the pope regards himself today. He is the bishop of Rome, which is first among equals.

You can't be serious can you??
In Acts 1:15-22 there was no "church."
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
The apostles were gathered together, along with some others that met a total number of 120, to select another to take Judas's position. They did not constitute a church. Peter took leadership of those that were there. There was no "church." These were the close disciples to Jesus, and Jesus had commanded them to wait at Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit had come. From among them Matthias was chosen as the twelfth disciple. There was no church.

I can read verse 15 very clearly and see there was no church.
We all know that the church started at Pentecost, as it says in chapter two, "when the day of Pentecost was fully come." And that was just the "church" at Jerusalem which James became the pastor. Peter didn't even become the pastor of that church, as large as it grew. He wasn't the permanent leader of that church. His role was very temporary.

In Acts 1, there were 120. They all prayed for guidance. God directed which man to choose. If they had voted Peter's vote would have been worth one vote out of 120. They all prayed. Peter's prayer had the power of one prayer out of 120 others, one might say. He was one person out of 120. He was no greater than any others. God chose him to preach on the Day of Pentecost. He could have chosen John, or another apostle. He chose Peter, not because he was any better or special, but because he had to use someone--the same reason he chose Mary to bear Christ: He had to use someone.

 

[The Biblicist]

You can't be serious. Well, maybe you are, so I will give you the first one: Acts 1:15-22, where Peter stood up and said they needed to select a replacement for Judas. You can't read Acts 1-15 without knowing Peter was in charge of the church--absolutely. As far as "fellow elder" is concerned, that is how the pope regards himself today. He is the bishop of Rome, which is first among equals.

Your argument makes no sense especially when Peter is in submission to James in Acts 15.

Furthermore, in Acts 1 merely pointed to the command of scriptures which he merely quoted. Other than that it is the congregation that selected the replacements not Peter.

The church was in existence in Acts 1 and Acts 1:21-22 specifically demands it is existed continually "from the baptism of John" until that present time. The description of a metaphorical house is given as a traveling assembly.

The church did not originate on Pentecost but was only authenticated on Pentecost by the baptism in the Spirit.