If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

Matt Black,

No they are not.

Whatever groups you are speaking of...arminians vs calvinists, pentecostals vs evangelicals, fundamentalists vs charismatics, etc...they are all proclaiming...

the same God the Father

the same Holy Spirit

the same Jesus Christ

the same triune nature of God

the same gospel

the same heaven

the same sinfulness of mankind

the same salvation through Christ alone

the same justification through faith alone

the same scriptures as our only authoritative truth source

the same importance on church fellowship

the same basic teachings on morality

etc etc etc.

Let me share this from persoanl experience. There was about a 3 year period of time for me back over 20 years ago that started when God 1st caused conviction to take place in my heart...regarding my lost condition...and continued through my "just happening" to bump into born again people who witnessed to me concerning Jesus Christ.

During all of this time I was a lost person who had no christian connections at all...save for having been raised Catholic.

I knew absolutly NOTHING of protestantism. Nothing. I grew up with all the kids in my neighborhood, and we all went to Catholic school growing up. I did not have one single protestant fried.

In spite of the fact that these people who were witnessing to me were of all kinds...Evangelical, Independant Baptist, Southern Baptist, Charismatic, Church of Christ, Word of Faith, Assembly of God, Alliance, etc etc etc...in spite of that I was hearing the same thing from all of them.

Let me repeat that.

I WAS HEARING THE SAME THING FROM ALL OF THEM.

They might have said things differently, used different terminology, emphasised some things that others might not, but I never...in even the tiniest degree...ever thought anything like...

"What a mess! What am I gonna do?? How will I ever find the truth since everyone is telling me all of these mutually contrdictory things???

We disagree on how some things work themselves out, how end time events will transpire, etc.

But not on foundational things.

God bless,

Mike

 

I hope the moderators will allow just a few more responses before closing this thread.

 

This is not a fair nor even a true comparison. If anything it is slanderous.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, not really. For that to be the case, my remark would have to be inaccurate. And yet I have seen time and again individuals raise themselves up and say "Scripture says this..." and attract a following. Without a proper teaching authority - the Tradition of the Church (and for the record I don't just mean the Roman Catholics here) - that is inevitable, human nature being what it is.

 

No they are not.

Whatever groups you are speaking of...arminians vs calvinists, pentecostals vs evangelicals, fundamentalists vs charismatics, etc...they are all proclaiming... </font>[/QUOTE] Ok, fine, let's break this down, then, following your paragraphs.

Er...no. In fact, completely inaccurate when you scratch the surface. The Calvinist's God the Father loves some people and hates others, for His own rather bizarre reasons, no doubt. The Arminian's God the Father, however, loves everyone. We're talking two different gods, here.

Bzzt! Wrong again! The cessationists' and dispies' HS no longer dispenses charismata; the charismatics' one does. Which is it? I've even heard cessationists claim that charismatics are possessed by the Devil! So by whom are they possessed - the HS or the Devil?

Nope. The Arminians' Jesus died for everyone, the Calvinists' is a bit pickier about who He died for, apparently.

This one I'll give you, although recent posts on this thread by certain individuals have caused me to doubt that, and I'm not sure about the plymouth Brethren on this one.

Nope. Calvinists say that salvation is entirely God's work; Arminians throw in a bit of human effort ie: faith

Yes, in so far as we can understand that

Calvinists go for total depravity, many Arminians aren't quite to pessimistic.

See my comments on the 'same gospel'

Not really. You try claiming in a Baptist church that, using sola Scriptura principles, you have concluded that infant baptismal regeneration is correct, and you'll find pretty quickly that they do indeed have a form of tradition! See my thread on the Baptist distinctives in this forum.

Please unpack this a bit more so I can understand what you mean by this comment.

Depends whether you talk to someone who has a liberal or conservative interpretation of Scripture. Both are selective when it comes to morality: liberals tend to go for social morality at the expense of sexual, and conservatives tend to be the other way round.

I hope you can see from the above that certain of these things - the nature of God and how we are saved - are foundational, and boy is there disagreement there!

 

This is not a fair nor even a true comparison. If anything it is slanderous.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, not really. For that to be the case, my remark would have to be inaccurate.</font>[/QUOTE]And it is very inaccurate.

Some do; and some of them are cults. But if they do and cannot verify what they say through Scriptures they are false teachers leading people astray. Jesus himself warned us that there would be many false teachers in the last days. However he never said anything about a denomination, and certainly nothing about a magesterium! On the other hand both Christ and the apostles had a lot to say about the local church.

The proper teaching authority is the pastor of the local church. You can't find "The Tradition of the Church" in Scripture. You have just set yourself up as a pope with that statement, in fact you have just practiced a form of soul liberty setting yourself as the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the Bible. Only you claim, like David Koreh, that there is only one Teaching Authority--whoever that may be in your mind. You have just succumbed to the mark of a cult.

So the, what is the proper teaching authority in not the Catholic Church: The Anglican Church? the Magesterium? your particular brand of Seminary? or is just you? What authority do you have in mind? Whatever it is, you have chosen to be god in this matter in telling us that we have to succumb to your standards of going through the "proper teaching authority" before we have "the right interpretation." In other words you are the only one that has the right to "soul liberty."
DHK

 

Here are a couple of sites on the subject of Sola Scriptura:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13|18|259

http://www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm

 

Ah, but they do verify what they say through Scripture. And that's the fundamental problem: the Devil himself can quote Scripture.

What about His charge to the apostles in Matt 18:18 and Matt 18:18-19. Sounds like the setting up of a teaching authority to me.

Only on your individualistic interpretation of ecclesia

I really really hope you don't mean that. Most of the kooky individuals I've referred to have been pastors!

Oh for goodness sake! This is getting plain silly now. So you would compare the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans to the guys at Waco? Puh-leese!

Let me tell you what Tradition is. It is the memory of the Church, not man-made, not the traditions of men, but the Church's practice as guided by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages, the doctrine and practice of the pillar and foundation of the Truth. It is how we interpret Scripture, not making up doctrine with our Bible in front of us, not relying solely on the word of a pastor however good or bad he might be, but listening to the mind of Christ which is in His Body, the Church. To use a literary analogy, I culd learn a lot about Tolkien by reading Humphrey Carpenter's biography about him. Or I could talk to his friends and family, the people who knew him. Better still I could do both. Jesus' friends and family are His Church.

Those who engage with the Apostolic Tradition and in some way with the Apostolic Succession of the Church: Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists to an extent. There is now remarkable theological convergence between these denominations, following Vatican II, the Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith between Catholics and Lutherans, the Porvoo Agreement between Anglicans and Lutherans, and the withdrawal of the excommunications between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1965.

 

The vehement claim that Roman Catholic is founded on the tradition confesses that their religion is not founded on Jesus Christ. How much honest confession it is !
This applies not only to RC, but also to any religion.

 

They would say that their faith is founded on the teaching of the Apostles, whom Jesus Christ appointed. Unless you think Jesus made a mistake of course...

 

Jesus didn't make a mistake at all but human beings are eager to create a clue so that they can build something on human efforts and human traditions all the time.

Catholic strongly deny that their church is founded on Jesus Christ ! which is quite honest in a certain sense!

 

Where do they deny this?

 

Those apostles specifically; it says nothing about a succession of leaders, many of whom changed teachings along the way. The "teaching authority" developed later as a response to persecution and heresy, and often, it opposing one thing, it want to an opposite extreme.

Men, even family members, have selective memories (Victori Gotti is in the papers again this week with her rampant denial. According to her, her son and late husband have never done anything wrong, but are framed by the "rats", press, etc. Is that the most reliable source?)

And if it was passed down perfectly, then what was the Holy Spirit for? Or if the Spirit guided the Church, why the claims of the truth of doctrines and practices on the premise of being passed down? Not relying on a pastor? Isn't that what you're asking us to do, basically? It is these men who pass down to us the "traditions". Only one of your pastors (with whatever their title may be), instead of one of our own.

Yet once again, this "tradition" line is used by the rabbinic Jews to support all of their interpretations of the Law, including that by which they reject Christ. Since they have seniority over even the Church, they would be first in this claim to truth by tradition.

 

I would suggest that they claim that Peter is the Rock and foundation of their church.

 

Those apostles specifically; it says nothing about a succession of leaders, many of whom changed teachings along the way. The "teaching authority" developed later as a response to persecution and heresy, and often, it opposing one thing, it want to an opposite extreme. </font>[/QUOTE]Except it's there is the NT already: the Pastoral Letters are full of Paul's injunctions to Timothy to 'hold fast to' and 'preserve' the teaching.

I have no idea who this woman is but what I do know is that through the agency of the Holy Spirit, this has not been a problem in the Church

You've just answered that in the above paragraph - because men are fallible.

Because it helps if we know that the 'next generation' of bishops were appointed by the previous generation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

No, not any one pastor, but the whole counsel of the Church as collectively invested in its episcopal leadership.

Except that their practices were rejected by Christ whereas the teaching authority of the Church was established by Him

 

I would suggest that they claim that Peter is the Rock and foundation of their church. </font>[/QUOTE] WRONG!

 

Jesus said " Upon this Rock I will build my church " (Mt 16:18)

As Roman Catholic insist that the Rock is Peter, not Jesus Christ in vehemence, in the equal vehemence they are denying that their church is built upon Jesus Christ which has been the Rock of Salvation .

1 Cor 3:11

Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ( Was Paul ignorant without knowing the Peter is that Rock?)

1 Cor 10:4
That Rock was Christ

Deut 32:15
Rock of Salvation
Deut 32:18
Of the Rock that begat thee

 

You obviously didn't read the link to the Catechism in my last post, then

 

Eric, I think I should expand a bit more as to why I - and I think you'll find others too - find Apostolic Succession in the Pastorals.

There is no doubt that the practice of laying on of hands was normal in the NT Church. The gaps in the argument are (1) whether the laying on of hands was developed as a form of ordination in NT times - 1 Tim 5 certainly seems to suggest that it is, but of course episcopacy as a separate order wasn't necessarily developed at that stage, and advocates of ordination in the NT might find that it proves too much, in that it seems to suggest presbyteral, rather than differentiated episcopal ordination; although, having said that, the attestation of the early ECFs such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius would suggest existence of an episcopate and identification of that episcopate with 'successors of the Apostles' (for want of a better term) from very early on in the late- to post-NT period; (2) whether, even if ordination was as developed as its proponents might hope, there was any sense that it was necessarily limited to presbyters/episcopoi - or could anyone do it, as the Baptists might want to argue? (3) whether there was a developed understanding of tactility in the NT - to which the answer is "yes, I and others believe there was - how else to interpret I Tim 5:22 in the Pastoral context of having to 'hold fast to', 'preserve' and 'hand down' sound teaching? - and it becomes clear that the NT knows much more about this sort of succession I was arguing for earlier, as a means to ensuring faithfulness to the doctrine and the deposit (1 Tim. 4:6-16; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2 Tim. 3:10-17) - as the true apostolic succession.

 

You should separate between Apostlic Succession and Founding upon Peter, the corruptible human being.

Peter never endorsed the Roman Catholic, even though Catholic plagiarize the name of Peter without his authorization.
Peter called himself as an Elder which can be found in 1 Pet 5:1.

RC has decorated many paganism with the Christianity and Judean priesthood.

What Paul asked Timothy to hold fast was not the Catholicism but the sound teachings as shown in the Bible, such as 1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 3 where overseers must be husbands of one wife, not the compulsory celibacy, and the teachings to flee from Idol worshipping, ye are all brethren!

1 Cor 10: 14
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Therefore RC must flee from Idol Worship, Papacy, vain theory of Purgatory, goddess worship etc.

 

You are still harping on about this 'founding on Peter' business: why don't you read the link to the Catechism which I put up especially for you and which refutes that?