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