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

[Yeshua1]

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

We can be wrong on the doctrines that do NOT impact our justification status before the Lord, as we can freely disagree on the timing/events of the Second Coming, which bible version to use, but RCC theology screws up the cardinal truth of the Cross and salvation, so "not all right!"

 

[Yeshua1]

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.




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.



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.

This is the point where the cathic realises that in order for the RCC position on tradition being equal to scripture to be valid, they MUST resort to Apostolic sucession, in order to have the authority to have traditions by the Popes cardinals to be equal to those of Paul!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is the point where the cathic realises that in order for the RCC position on tradition being equal to scripture to be valid, they MUST resort to Apostolic sucession, in order to have the authority to have traditions by the Popes cardinals to be equal to those of Paul!

The Anglicans hold to apostolic succession and yet still believe that scripture is the primary and final authority.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Anglicans hold to apostolic succession and yet still believe that scripture is the primary and final authority.

As interpreted by who? The individual preisthood of the believer or those supposedly in the line of apostolic succession?

 

[Moriah]

The Anglicans hold to apostolic succession and yet still believe that scripture is the primary and final authority.

There is no such thing as "Apostolic Succession" in the Bible. Looks like they do not believe scripture is the primary and final authority if they add manufactured beliefs like Apostolic Succession.

 

[Zenas]

There is no such thing as "Apostolic Succession" in the Bible. Looks like they do not believe scripture is the primary and final authority if they add manufactured beliefs like Apostolic Succession.

"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2. It sure looks like apostolic succession to me.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

As interpreted by who? The individual preisthood of the believer or those supposedly in the line of apostolic succession?

The Anglicans may not hold to the priesthood of the believer as defined by Baptists, but in reality and practice they allow for much more diversity of individual belief. The Anglican churches do not hold that doctrine is formulated by clergy and then spoon-fed to the laity.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is no such thing as "Apostolic Succession" in the Bible. Looks like they do not believe scripture is the primary and final authority if they add manufactured beliefs like Apostolic Succession.

As I posted elsewhere, from the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion:

"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."


For Anglicans, scripture is the primary and final authority, with tradition and reason -- and many would add experience -- as secondary authorities.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2. It sure looks like apostolic succession to me.

Not the kind you are talking about.

 

[Moriah]

"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2. It sure looks like apostolic succession to me.

No, that scripture does not support the Catholic’s Apostolic Succession. There is no absolute surety in the Bible that no one will not fall into falseness and thus teach error. Even Paul had to rebuke Peter. The Catholics claim their popes have succeeded from Peter, but there is not such teaching in the Bible. That is a manufactured belief by the Catholics. In fact, that teaching of the Catholics shows favoritism and the Bible forbids favoritism.

1 Corinthians 1:11-12 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness“; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Paul even warns that when he leaves savage wolves will come in among them.

Acts 20:29 Iknow that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

 

[Zenas]

Not the kind you are talking about.

All right, then what kind of apostolic succession does 2 Timothy 2:2 portray?

 

[Zenas]

No, that scripture does not support the Catholic’s Apostolic Succession. There is no absolute surety in the Bible that no one will not fall into falseness and thus teach error. Even Paul had to rebuke Peter. The Catholics claim their popes have succeeded from Peter, but there is not such teaching in the Bible. That is a manufactured belief by the Catholics. In fact, that teaching of the Catholics shows favoritism and the Bible forbids favoritism.



Paul even warns that when he leaves savage wolves will come in among them.

Acts 20:29 Iknow that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

Scripture presents plenty of proof that individuals, and even whole congregations, will fall into apostasy. But Jesus promised that His Church would endure. "Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Why is there no teaching in the Bible that the popes are successors of Peter? Think about this, Moriah. Peter was still alive during the writing of all the Bible but Revelation. It would not be necessary or appropriate for Peter to have a successor until after his death and the canon would have then been closed.

Moriah, I believe you are confusing the papal lineage with apostolic succession. They are not the same doctrine at all.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

All right, then what kind of apostolic succession does 2 Timothy 2:2 portray?

It doesn't portray monarchical bishops as a third order of ministry because those were a late second century development. There were only two orders of ministry in the NT and NT times -- deacon, and elder/presbyter/pastor/bishop, as the latter were synonymous terms for one and the same office.

The only true apostolic succession anyway is an adherence to the teachings of the apostles. I was ordained into the "historic episcopate", but do I think that all in my lines were true to apostolic teachings? Absolutely not! Especially if they consented to and/or participated in the Catholic persecution and murder of dissenters that took place down through the centuries. In that case, they were apostate and the church was apostate.

 

[Moriah]

Scripture presents plenty of proof that individuals, and even whole congregations, will fall into apostasy. But Jesus promised that His Church would endure. "Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

The church is true believers.

Why is there no teaching in the Bible that the popes are successors of Peter? Think about this, Moriah. Peter was still alive during the writing of all the Bible but Revelation. It would not be necessary or appropriate for Peter to have a successor until after his death and the canon would have then been closed.

The apostles from the New Testament received all the truth we need to guide us to eternal life, and they wrote this down in the Scriptures: John 16:13; 2 Peter 1:3; Acts 20:20, 27; Matthew 28:20; I Corinthians 14:37; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
There is no such mention of Apostolic Succession because it is a manmade doctrine.

Moriah, I believe you are confusing the papal lineage with apostolic succession. They are not the same doctrine at all.

I am talking about Apostolic Succession. I am not confusing anything. You need to prove that papal lineage has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.
Here is clear evidence that the Catholic Church is teaching falseness, just the fact that they call their popes, bishops, cardinals, and priests ‘father.’ Jesus forbids the brothers calling each other ‘father.’ The only thing that matters is obeying Jesus’ words they are life. When you believe false doctrines, you believe things taught by demons.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, that scripture does not support the Catholic’s Apostolic Succession.

Well, Let me quote Cyprian who will argue better than I on the Papacy.

His source quote is Matthew 16:18

On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

and

"Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel, by way of assigning the episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His Church " And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of times and successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this has indeed been established by divine law, I marvel at the rash boldness of certain persons who have desired to write to me as if they were writing their letters in the name of the Church, 'since the Church is established upon the bishop and upon the clergy and upon all who stand firm in the faith.'" (Cyprian, Letter 33 (27), 1 to the Lapsed, c. AD 250)

Also note in John 21:15-17 we see Jesus singling out Peter as the primary shephard of his flock. Jesus alone is mentioned when Jesus prays that his faith may not fail Luke 22:32. Also note that the Jews considered Peter the spokesman and leader of Christianity in Acts 4:1-13. Look how the angel singles out Peter thus making him a leader and representative of Christians in Mark 16:7 other wise he would have just said "go tell his disciples" rather than "go tell his disciples and Peter". Note Eph 2:20

built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

shows the church built upon the apostolic foundation and in acts we see the apostolic authority being passed on by prayer, fasting, and laying on of hands. And we note that Judas having left, Peter shows that once an office had been vacated that it was filled Acts 1:20-26

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, Let me quote Cyprian who will argue better than I on the Papacy.

His source quote is Matthew 16:18 and
Also note in John 21:15-17 we see Jesus singling out Peter as the primary shephard of his flock. Jesus alone is mentioned when Jesus prays that his faith may not fail Luke 22:32. Also note that the Jews considered Peter the spokesman and leader of Christianity in Acts 4:1-13. Look how the angel singles out Peter thus making him a leader and representative of Christians in Mark 16:7 other wise he would have just said "go tell his disciples" rather than "go tell his disciples and Peter". Note Eph 2:20 shows the church built upon the apostolic foundation and in acts we see the apostolic authority being passed on by prayer, fasting, and laying on of hands. And we note that Judas having left, Peter shows that once an office had been vacated that it was filled Acts 1:20-26

When did peter assert that he was the primary Apostle?

At BEST, he was the chief Apostle to the Jews, just as paul was to the gentiles...

james was pastor/Apostle heading up jerusalem Church..

Where is this "Biblical proofs?"

 

[Yeshua1]

All right, then what kind of apostolic succession does 2 Timothy 2:2 portray?

It Doesn't, at least not the RCC view of it!

the traditions discussed there were a combo OT scriptures and Apostolic truth, not "traditions of men!"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When did peter assert that he was the primary Apostle?

Take a breath and read what I said. I didn't say anywhere Peter asserted he was the primary apostle that was done for him and read the scripture text I've pointed out.

At BEST, he was the chief Apostle to the Jews, just as paul was to the gentiles...

No because Paul is never mentioned first among the apostles. And where in scripture does it say Peter was the cheif apostle to the Jews?
j

ames was pastor/Apostle heading up jerusalem Church..

And your point is? Ignatius was the Pastor/Bishop of the Antioch church 50 years later.

Where is this "Biblical proofs?"

Read the verses quoted.

 

[Yeshua1]

Take a breath and read what I said. I didn't say anywhere Peter asserted he was the primary apostle that was done for him and read the scripture text I've pointed out.

No because Paul is never mentioned first among the apostles. And where in scripture does it say Peter was the cheif apostle to the Jews?
j
And your point is? Ignatius was the Pastor/Bishop of the Antioch church 50 years later.


Read the verses quoted.

peter admitted that paul had SAME Apostolic authority from God that he did, just his to the jews, paul to Gentiles!

Were there 2 popes than?

 

[Moriah]

Also note in John 21:15-17 we see Jesus singling out Peter as the primary shephard of his flock. Jesus alone is mentioned when Jesus prays that his faith may not fail Luke 22:32. Also note that the Jews considered Peter the spokesman and leader of Christianity in Acts 4:1-13. Look how the angel singles out Peter thus making him a leader and representative of Christians in Mark 16:7 other wise he would have just said "go tell his disciples" rather than "go tell his disciples and Peter". Note Eph 2:20

It is not that Peter was singled out, it is about truth revealed, and it is about God revealing truth, not man.

Jesus is the Rock. Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus spoke only what the Father said.

When Peter spoke something that was not known yet, a truth revealed from God, Jesus said he was a little rock. Peter was like Jesus when he spoke something from God. Jesus says he will build his church on the fact that the Holy Spirit would reveal God’s Truth to the Apostles. That is what happened after Jesus ascended to heaven, that he gave the Apostles power by the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel from God. New revelations from God through the Holy Spirit were given to the Apostles, and that is what we read in the New Testament.

Popes cannot give new teachings, for the foundation is laid. Popes cannot teach new things, for the Bible is the perfect law already given. Popes cannot teach new things, for God does not testify to what they say as truth, as God did when the Apostles gave the gospel.

I can give you scripture for everything I say.