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

[AresMan]

And everyone of those denominations and every member of those churches claim to have taken their beliefs from Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit...

And so many of those beliefs conflict.

I get where Catholics are coming from on this.

What is the answer?

Their answer is "We are right, and everyone else is wrong" (just like what all the denominations say). I don't see where this argument holds any water.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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

No. (have to add this so it will post)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Their answer is "We are right, and everyone else is wrong" (just like what all the denominations say). I don't see where this argument holds any water.

Yes, that's correct. If every denomination didn't believe that they were more right than anyone else, there would be no reason for their existence.

But unlike many, I don't see denominationalism as a bad thing. The worse danger is a "superchurch".

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

key thing is that the Bible NEVER stated peter was the Chief Apostle, much less first Pope!

At best, ALL RCC could prove by scriptures was that the church held to FOUR "popes" Peter/paul?john?James, don't think even the RCC would claim that!

 

[targus]

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

No. (have to add this so it will post)

Even in regards to an essential doctrine?

If there is a mutually exclusive conflict of belief concerning an essential doctrine between two Spirit led assumed Chrisitians - how can both be saved?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Even in regards to an essential doctrine?

If there is a mutually exclusive conflict of belief concerning an essential doctrine between two Spirit led assumed Chrisitians - how can both be saved?

100% right belief is not a requirement for salvation -- thank God.

 

[Moriah]

Even in regards to an essential doctrine?

If there is a mutually exclusive conflict of belief concerning an essential doctrine between two Spirit led assumed Chrisitians - how can both be saved?

Baptists need to stop blaspheming against other saved people who do speak the Truth.

Catholics need to stop doing things God commands us not to.

 

[targus]

100% right belief is not a requirement for salvation -- thank God.

And if the mutually exclusive conflict is concerning a requirement for salvation?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And if the mutually exclusive conflict is concerning a requirement for salvation?

What are the essential doctrines and requirements for salvation? Think you can get a consensus on that?

 

[targus]

What are the essential doctrines and requirements for salvation? Think you can get a consensus on that?

No. But that's kind of the point - isn't it?

However baptism comes to mind as something that some Spirit led Christians think is essential to salvation and others would say is not.

So if baptism is essential then those who are not baptized would have a problem because then they aren't really saved even if they think they are.

And and on the other side of the coin if those same Spirit led Christians who believe that baptism is essential to salvation are wrong and baptism is not essential - then they are preaching a false gospel.

So then where are we?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Jesus said to do it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No. But that's kind of the point - isn't it?

However baptism comes to mind as something that some Spirit led Christians think is essential to salvation and others would say is not.

So if baptism is essential then those who are not baptized would have a problem because then they aren't really saved even if they think they are.

And and on the other side of the coin if those same Spirit led Christians who believe that baptism is essential to salvation are wrong and baptism is not essential - then they are preaching a false gospel.

So then where are we?

This is only a problem for those who think God will send someone to hell for being wrong.

 

[targus]

This is only a problem for those who think God will send someone to hell for being wrong.

Then the Catholics should be all right wouldn't you agree?

 

[Zenas]

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.

Christ did refer to oral tradition. “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds.” Matthew 23:2-3. The “chair of Moses” is a tradition nowhere found in the O.T. but of which Christ spoke with approval.

As for tradition being the basis for the teachings of Jesus, that is a red herring. The teachings of Jesus are not based on tradition, they ARE the tradition.

Would you say Paul was an apostle? He reminded both the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:2) and the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:15) to abide by his traditions. To the Thessalonians he made it clear that the traditions included both letter and word of mouth.

 

[DHK]

Christ did refer to oral tradition. “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds.” Matthew 23:2-3. The “chair of Moses” is a tradition nowhere found in the O.T. but of which Christ spoke with approval.

That is a twisting of Scripture. Whenever Christ referred to the tradition of the scribes and Pharisees it was always with condemnation. He did not approve of it.

As for tradition being the basis for the teachings of Jesus, that is a red herring. The teachings of Jesus are not based on tradition, they ARE the tradition.

The teachings of Jesus are based on the teachings of Jesus. Duh!
He is God. He is the sole authority of teaching in and of Himself. Over and over again soldiers and others remarked: "He speaks with authority." It was that authority that gave him the right to cleanse the Temple (twice) without any opposition. Christ (God) spoke, and when He did it was God's Word. He speaks on His own authority.

Would you say Paul was an apostle? He reminded both the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:2) and the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:15) to abide by his traditions. To the Thessalonians he made it clear that the traditions included both letter and word of mouth.

Not so. The word "traditions" in those verses refer to the Word of God that was taught them. According to the definition of "tradition" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the traditional Catholic meaning of tradition would never fit the context of the verse. Christ died in 29 A.D. Those epistles were written ca. 55 A.D. In 25 years what kind of tradition was there? There was not enough of a time span for any tradition to be formed in any of the churches. The word "tradition" in those verses simply means "truths gained from the Word of God."

 

[Moriah]

Then the Catholics should be all right wouldn't you agree?

If you do what God says and do not do what He says not to do, then why worry?
If you do what Jesus says to do, Jesus will reveal himself to you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Christ did refer to oral tradition. “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds.” Matthew 23:2-3. The “chair of Moses” is a tradition nowhere found in the O.T. but of which Christ spoke with approval.

He is not quoting oral tradition, he is simply using a metaphor for authority. Just as he uses the metaphor of the "keys of the kingdom" for authority.

As for tradition being the basis for the teachings of Jesus, that is a red herring. The teachings of Jesus are not based on tradition, they ARE the tradition.

Jesus made his mission well known - Mt 5:18 that he came to FULFILL the law and the prophets and when defending his doctrine as a Prophet he always quoted scripture to support it but NEVER ONCE tradition.

Would you say Paul was an apostle? He reminded both the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:2) and the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:15) to abide by his traditions. To the Thessalonians he made it clear that the traditions included both letter and word of mouth.

You ignore that Christ, Paul and the rest of the apostles were PROPHETS and what they orally communicated was by inspiration. You also ignore they constantly quoted the Old Testament Scriptures to VERIFY what they prophesied in keeping with the tests of a prophet.

You ignore that the Bereans were congratulated by Paul for not receiving his ORAL TEACHINGS without first verifying them by written scripture (Acts 17). This approved practice along with the command of Isaiah 8:20 and Peters admonition about oral tradition in 2 Peter 1:15-21 eliminates the necessity for perpetating ORAL traditions altogether as it proves it to be redundant.

The fact that all ORAL teaching must pass the test of scripture demonstrates which has more authority.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Then the Catholics should be all right wouldn't you agree?

If you are asking me if I think God will send Catholics to hell for being wrong on baptism or other issues, my answer is no. Unlike some here, I think Catholics and anyone else who affirms the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are of orthodox faith, regardless of whatever errors they also hold. And I hope they would say the same thing about me. Look, I myself have been called a heretic, apostate, cult-inventor, compared to Satan, and other vile things on here, and not by Catholics, either.

 

[targus]

If you are asking me if I think God will send Catholics to hell for being wrong on baptism or other issues, my answer is no. Unlike some here, I think Catholics and anyone else who affirms the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are of orthodox faith, regardless of whatever errors they also hold. And I hope they would say the same thing about me. Look, I myself have been called a heretic, apostate, cult-inventor, compared to Satan, and other vile things on here, and not by Catholics, either.

I was not aware of your personal beliefs. Thank you for sharing.

I am now left wondering why no one else has chimed in with an answer to my basic question.

Asking the question has certainly set me to pondering.

Perhaps I will start a new thread...

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I was not aware of your personal beliefs. Thank you for sharing.

I am now left wondering why no one else has chimed in with an answer to my basic question.

Asking the question has certainly set me to pondering.

Perhaps I will start a new thread...

Perhaps you should! I always enjoy new interesting threads.