False arguments that Catholics and Orthodox use to prove oral extra-scriptural church tradition are refuted.

"Widespread malnutrition of the first three centuries crippled the thinking ability of the average Christian to engage in Bible study."

"If a Christian studied the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn't have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly." (The actual words of an anti-sola Scriptura, oral tradition defender.)

"Everything else was just something you ate with bread" (James Burke, British historian, quoted by traditionalists)

1. We are shocked that Catholic and Orthodox are so against the average Christian reading the Bible, that they argue the common "pew-dwelling laity" was mentally crippled in his thinking ability.
2. Such a suggest is as insulting as it is unhistorical.
3. No proof is offered to prove either malnutrition or that the minds of the majority of early Christians were crippled by malnutrition.
4. The argument is as wrong as it is unsubstantiated. Orthodox and Catholic defenders quote James Burke, a British historian as proof of both malnutrition and crippled thinking ability: "Everything else was just something you ate with bread." Notice that Burke never says anything about malnutrition and certainly nothing about the mind of the early Christian being crippled.
5. We can easily falsify the argument based upon the words of John Cassian in 425 AD. Cassian dreamed up from his fleshly mind an entire dietary code for monks. Notice that he actually says that the monk should be content with the diet of the common Christian!
   "For the nature of gluttony is threefold: first, there is that which forces us to anticipate the proper hour for a meal, next that which delights in stuffing the stomach, and gorging all kinds of food; thirdly, that which takes pleasure in more refined and delicate feasting. And so against it a monk should observe a threefold watch: first, he should wait till the proper time for breaking the fast; secondly, he should not give way to gorging; thirdly, he should be contented with any of the commoner sorts of food. For anything that is taken over and above what is customary and the common use of all, is branded by the ancient tradition of the fathers as defiled with the sin of vanity and glorying and ostentation." (John Cassian, Book V, Of the Spirit of Gluttony, Ch 23)
6. Here we have dietary rules for monks called, "the ancient tradition of the fathers". This is a perfect example of how post apostolic man-made rules directly contradict the teaching of the New testament that says the Christian can eat anything he likes, common food or the food of kings, as long as it is accepted with prayer and thanksgiving. 1 Tim 4:1-4 actually calls John Cassian's diet rules, "doctrines of demons ... who advocate abstaining from foods".
7. If we applied the modern argument by oral tradition advocates to themselves, perhaps we are starting to understand why the Orthodox and Catholic leadership gets so many things wrong in the Bible... They were once monks, ate the commoners food and crippled their brains to understand the Bible. Perhaps this explains why Orthodox and Catholics teach so many things that are contradictory to scripture!
8. Of course, the truth is, there was plenty of food, more than enough for basic nutrition. Sure we have incredible access to foods today, but notice the problem of obesity!
9. Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders should be embarrassed to even put forth such a ridiculous argument.

More Pro-Oral Church tradition arguments refuted!

More Anti-Sola Scriptura arguments refuted!

by Steve Rudd

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA