Body: | Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can't answer
Click to View
Click to View "Roman Catholic Examined" Home Page
Click to View "Orthodox Church Examined" Home Page
Click to View Return to "Canon of the Bible" Home Page
Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being
infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James
and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture
books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is
illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's
organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not
the "Holy See" have known?
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible,
then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of
Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as
scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is
illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's
organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD,
then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long
afterwards?
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two
synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not
initiatives of Rome?
Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond
sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove
that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were
under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can
the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a
claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and
authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first
time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council
of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the
identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman
Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the
Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose
"church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should
follow?
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral
Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this
doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral
revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the
Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the
Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three
teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the
exclusion of individual?
Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old
Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only
after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were
Scripture?
If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the
scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the
church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so
different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do
you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by
the pope and the church in general?
If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral
tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are
not even in communion with each other?
Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were
not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4),
(Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these
practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground
of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times,
giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the
person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was
forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead.
Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches,
which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written
law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling?
Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these
traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do
Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If
the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the
forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the
current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral
tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox
churches practice all of these things?
Practice from Tradition
Orthodox
Catholic
disown the devil before baptism
Click to View
Click to View
thrice immersed
Click to View
Click to View
Drink milk and honey after baptism
Click to View
Click to View
don't bath for a week after baptism
Click to View
Click to View
kneeling in worship is forbidden
Click to View
Click to View
Sign of cross on forehead
Click to View
Click to View
SCORE
What percentage of the oral tradition in 200 AD do Orthodox and Catholic keep today? Worse still, the traditions of Orthodox and Catholic today contradict each other!
50%
0%
Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4
Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8
· As you can see from the chart above, neither Orthodox or
Catholic keep the oral tradition of the 2nd century AD. Catholics keep none
of it and Orthodox keep 50% of it! Worse still, both these church fight
with protestants that you must use their oral tradition but the Orthodox
and Catholic oral traditions DIFFER WITH EACH OTHER!!!
· IF ORAL TRADITION IS AUTHORTATIVE, HOW ARE OUTSIDERS
SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH OF THESE TWO ORAL TRADITIONS IS CORRECT? The
solution is that oral tradition is worthless and what we are left with is
the BIBLE ALONE.
Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof
that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic
succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians,
which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed
out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this
prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?
When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be
oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls
scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture
tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter,
'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then
quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter
60, 6)?
The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the
scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the
scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the
heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew
dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman
Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers
expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills?
(Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation
of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary
of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)
If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an
essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic
and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If
illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them,
then why not the scripture?
If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential
pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox
pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant
live communication?
If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola
Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know
the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to
illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and
Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them,
then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?
If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola
Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know
for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and
edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?
How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for
certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts
of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?
If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul
wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this
tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting
this tradition, not that they are correct.)
Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know
that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure
this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)
Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know
that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make
sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)
If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer
to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because
of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow
that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid
because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that
use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both
methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church
practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth
because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola
Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and
Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against
themselves?
Click to View
Visit one of our churches in your own home town.
Click to View
Email your comments to the author Steve Rudd
By Steve Rudd
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|