In the past, I attempted to dismantle Roman Catholic claims by using the arguments I found on Bible.ca made by the author Steven Rudd, you can find his website here. When trying to defend my baptist beliefs against Catholicism I found him and his website to be a clear resource for surface-level debates. However, I now think these arguments are weak and want to demonstrate the answers to each one of his questions. I will respond to every question here, my comments are in red and the authors will be in bolded black. You can find these questions on his site website. Enjoy!
- 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?
The Catholic Church did not establish an infallible canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent in 1546, a decision shaped significantly by the Protestant Reformation. Importantly, this infallible canon aligns precisely with the earlier determinations made by the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. Prior to Trent, councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) had largely settled the canon, though these were regional councils and not universally binding across the entire Church. The development of the Church’s canon was a gradual process, guided by the Holy Spirit, and it’s worth noting that some books were subject to scrutiny for centuries. This is because the rule of faith has always encompassed more than just Scripture.
This careful deliberation reflects the Church’s discernment and commitment to upholding the integrity of the faith, rather than indicating any error in the process, books were questioned for centuries because the rule of faith was NEVER scripture alone. This deliberation reflects the Church’s careful discernment rather than any error. The absence of a formal canon until the Council of Trent illustrates that an infallible list of books was never the sole priority or guiding principle of the faith. Instead, the Church relied on a broader framework of tradition and community to navigate the complexities of faith.
In contrast, Protestant reformers like Martin Luther removed books from the canon that had been accepted as guidance, for over a thousand years. The Catholic Church’s final canon, affirmed at Trent, demonstrates continuity with early Tradition. Protestants face a much more significant challenge explaining why God would wait 1,500 years to establish the “correct” canon if it were the only rule of faith. Christians for the first millennium were focused on the sacraments and Church Tradition, trusting the Church’s authority rather than debating the exact canon of books.
While Protestants only evidence points to Luther’s reforms and the reinterpretation of historical events to align with their narrative, The Catholics can point to centuries of Church Tradition shaping Christian practice. In short, Scripture and Tradition were always interwoven, and the faithful trusted the Church to safeguard both. Only later councils, like Trent, addressed the canon more formally in response to specific challenges.
- 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?
The Catholic Church did not infallibly declare the canon was correct in the 4th century. Again these councils were local and non binding, which is why we see the vast majority of different canonical texts used for centuries. However ,the foundation of the canon affirmed at the council of Carthage and Hippo were mainly agreed upon and the standard of scripture. The concern of the church is not and has never been before Luther, what correct collection of books we have.
- 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?
The catholic church did not give the world an infallible list of books in 397 AD. The Catholic Church officially affirmed the canon of Scripture in 397 AD, but this didn’t eliminate the existence of various versions of the Bible circulating in different communities. Again the council was centralized and the point of the councils in the 4th century were to determine a baseline to simply note what is scripture rather than declaring scripture some rule of faith. Many early church’s recognized importance of non-canonical writings as well. Also many early Christian groups used differing texts that they considered sacred, and it wasn’t until the Reformation that the issue of a definitive canon gained significant attention. Prior to Martin Luther, Christians did not prioritize an infallible list of books, as Scripture itself was not viewed as the sole rule of faith. Instead, the faith was deeply rooted in tradition, community, and the teachings of the Church. Its also important to note that in response to Luther’s objection of scripture the catholic church reaffirmed its initially ruling of scripture, this time infallibly.
- 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?
The African Synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) were significant in the process of determining the canon of Scripture, but their existence does not diminish the Roman Catholic Church’s role. These councils involved bishops from the African Church who sought confirmation from Rome, highlighting its authority in theological matters.
In the proceedings of the council of hippo were documented, and while it primarily sought to affirm a canon of Scripture, it did so within the context of the broader Church, indicating a desire for consensus. The council’s decisions were intended to align with the practices of the Church in Rome.
Council of Carthage (397 AD): This council explicitly reaffirmed the canon of Scripture and sent its findings to the Church in Rome. The letters and acts from the council indicate that they were aware of the need for Rome’s recognition.
Pope Innocent I’s Letter (405 AD): In this letter, Pope Innocent I endorsed the canon established at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage, affirming the same list of books that these councils had recognized. This letter serves as evidence that the North African councils sought Rome’s endorsement and that their decisions were ultimately aligned with Roman authority.
Early Church historians and theologians, such as St. Augustine, who participated in the councils, often referenced the need for unity with Rome, indicating an awareness of its importance in theological decisions.
The request for Rome’s endorsement underscores the understanding that the Roman Church served as a final arbiter in these decisions. This reliance on Rome reflects the emerging recognition of its central role in safeguarding the faith and establishing a unified canon accepted throughout the Christian world.
- 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.
Yes, this question actually underscores Rome’s importance rather than diminishing it. The Synod of Carthage in 393 AD did seek confirmation from the Church in Rome regarding the canon of Scripture, which indicates that Rome held a significant position in early Church decision-making. Far from suggesting that Rome had no input, this request for confirmation demonstrates the Church’s recognition of Rome’s authority and role in safeguarding doctrinal matters. In early Christianity, Rome, as the see of Peter, was often looked to for guidance on theological issues, showing its central importance in confirming decisions related to the canon and other key aspects of the faith.
- 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?
The Roman Catholic Church does not claim it did this alone, it asserts its role in determining the biblical canon based on the synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), because these councils were significant in the early church consensus in the West. Although these councils were regional, they reflect a broader Christian tradition, which encompassed both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. The Catholic Church argues that its authority and the decisions made by these councils were ultimately ratified by the papacy, giving them universal significance. In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasizes the collective recognition of the canon by the early Church rather than exclusive Roman authority. Both traditions trace their canonical roots to these early councils, highlighting the shared history of Christianity before the Great Schism.
- 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?
What a claim… The Catholic Church did not find it necessary to infallibly declare the canon of Scripture prior to the Reformation, as there were no significant challenges to its authority like those posed by Martin Luther. Furthermore, the Catholic Church did not “add” the deuterocanonical books (often referred to as the Apocrypha) at a later date; rather, Catholics can provide tangible evidence that these books were part of the Christian canon long before any proposed removal.
In contrast, Protestants must contend with the fact that their canon was not recognized or utilized by any Christian communities prior to Luther’s reforms. That’s an odd conundrum considering his 66 book canon is claimed to be all Christians need for faith in Christ.
- 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?
Both the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches assert that they played crucial roles in the formation of the Bible. So firstly, neither church claims the Bible to be it’s sole infallible rule of faith, so the difference in bibles doesn’t mean much. Second orthodox don’t have the same Bible as other orthodox. You have a huge variety within orthodoxy. The Orthodox tradition approaches the concept of inspiration and canonical status with greater fluidity compared to the Catholic Church. For the Orthodox, “canonical” signifies that a text is deemed acceptable for liturgical reading, rather than establishing a rigid legalistic framework. Even today, variations exist among Orthodox Churches regarding what is considered canonical. For example, some Orthodox Churches do not include the Book of Revelation in their liturgies, regarding it as non-canonical while still affirming its divine inspiration and moral authority. This more flexible approach mirrors the ancient Jewish understanding of scriptural texts.
In contrast, the Catholic Church maintains a clear distinction between canonical and inspired texts, having precisely defined which books and portions are accepted as part of the canon. The Catholic tradition is marked by its exactitude in this regard. In Eastern Christianity, however, Orthodox Churches have not established such strict definitions and often perceive their differences as minor enough not to warrant any formal resolution. This dynamic illustrates the rich tapestry of belief in both Catholic traditions.
- 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.
Sure. I can name two…
Firstly, the doctrine of the Trinity serves as a key example of a teaching that originates from oral Apostolic Tradition rather than being explicitly outlined in the Bible.
While the term “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture, early Church Fathers such as St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr articulated this understanding based on the teachings passed down from the Apostles. The formal definition of the Trinity was established during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which affirmed the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit alongside the Father. Although scriptural references like Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 support this doctrine, they reflect the early Christians’ profound understanding of God’s nature as revealed through Jesus. Both Orthodox and Catholic believers recognize the truth of the books within the Catholic canon, viewing other texts as beneficial for spiritual edification. The Catholic Church does not condemn these texts; rather, it chooses not to use them in the same liturgical context. Roman Catholics are clear in defining their theological terms.
The second doctrine would be the Immaculate Conception, which highlights marys purity and unique role in salvation history. Although this doctrine is not explicitly stated in the Bible, its roots can be traced to early Christian writings and oral traditions, with references from Church Fathers like St. Augustine and St. Ambrose. Both orthodox and Catholic believe in this… The Eastern tradition acknowledges that while Mary was conceived in a body affected by original sin, she received divine grace from the moment of her conception, distinguishing her from other humans who lack grace at birth. Despite theological differences, both Eastern and Western traditions connect original sin to Christ’s redemptive work, emphasizing their shared beliefs rather than divisive doctrines. Thus, we can see the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception exemplifies how oral Apostolic Tradition has played a vital role in shaping essential Christian doctrines.
- Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?
Oral tradition does not differ from written scripture rather it accompanies it in unison. Take for example the passages on the eucharist. The definition of it comes from apostolic oral revelation, which complements written Scripture. While the institution of the Eucharist is described in the Gospels, the detailed understanding of its significance and the manner of its celebration have been developed through oral tradition, handed down from the Apostles. This oral tradition emphasizes the Eucharist as a sacramental mystery, which is not fully captured in the written accounts alone. Thus, oral tradition and Scripture work together to provide a comprehensive understanding of this central aspect of Christian faith and practice.
- 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?
I’m not entirely sure where the claim that “you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible” originates. It seems to stem from a Catholic interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20, which some argue suggests that scripture should be understood within the context of a community of believers rather than through individual interpretation.
Certain Protestants might contend that this specifically pertains to prophetic scripture… Moreover, to answer the question “how do you know which apostolic tradition is correct?” my answer is the historical claims of both the Catholic Church and other early Christian communities are supported by substantial historical evidence. No early church operated in the way that contemporary Protestant churches do. For instance, texts like the Didache outline the Catholic Mass with remarkable clarity. Archaeological findings further reinforce this, revealing baptismal fonts, Eucharistic chalices, and iconography of Mary and the saints. Essentially, Christian tradition has consistently been rooted in Catholicism until its foundational ideas were challenged.
- 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?
God didn’t provide an immediate list of inspired Old Testament books because there was no explicit promise to do so. Instead, His promise was to guard the deposit of faith through the Holy Spirit, not to provide a fixed canon right away. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, was entrusted with the task of discerning which writings were divinely inspired over time. Furthermore, the Bible itself never claims to be the ultimate or sole rule of faith. Instead, it emphasizes the role of the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), which is why God guided the Church to recognize the canon. This was not something that suddenly happened after 70 AD, but rather a gradual process. The Bible was never meant to be a self-sufficient guide, as Scripture and Tradition together make up the full deposit of faith (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
- How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
Some of them believed some of them didn’t. History shows that again see my post: The Canon Question: Jews During the Time of Christ and Their Diverse Views on Scripture having the correct scriptures wasn’t a concern many Jews had different scriptures and oral traditions.
- 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?
A. doctrines they teach are not that much different from each other. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are more similar than many realize because they share a common Apostolic origin, early ecumenical councils, and many core beliefs. Both uphold the same seven sacraments, venerate saints and Mary, and emphasize the importance of both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Their liturgical practices and moral teachings also align closely, reflecting their shared roots in early Christianity. Despite some differences that arose after the Great Schism, much of their theology and worship remains fundamentally similar.
B. Catholics believe that while Popes, like all humans, can make personal or administrative mistakes, the doctrine of papal infallibility only applies when a Pope formally defines a teaching on faith or morals ex cathedra (in a definitive, binding way). This has occurred rarely, such as in the cases of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Historical errors made by individual Popes, like Pope Honorius I’s failure to combat heresy, reflect personal failings rather than official Church doctrine, which remains protected from error under specific conditions.
- 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?
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches share a common foundation in apostolic Tradition and core beliefs, especially regarding the sacraments. However, their primary division is over church leadership, particularly the role of the Pope. Historical, cultural, and theological differences, such as the filioque, have also contributed to their separation. Despite these differences, they are much closer in doctrine than other Christian groups, with their divide mainly centered on governance and authority rather than fundamental theology.
- 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?
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.
It’s intriguing that you conclude we are left with the “Bible alone,” yet the Bible itself never claims to be the sole authority for faith, nor does it provide a definitive table of contents outlining what should be in it. The assertion that we are left only with scripture overlooks the significant role that tradition plays, even within Protestant denominations. For instance, kneeling in worship is a practice deeply rooted in scripture, symbolizing reverence before God. The variations in the sign of the cross further illustrate how tradition can adapt while preserving its essential meaning. The Catholic Church maintains that apostolic tradition is vital for doctrinal unity and continuity, enabling it to navigate differences while safeguarding the integrity of the faith.
In contrast, I think its fair to ask why many traditional Protestant groups do not adhere more closely to certain biblical commands, such as the Anabaptists who practice foot washing or the Seventh-day Adventists who observe the Sabbath on Saturday and abstain from eating pork, following Old Testament commandments. Afterall, if scripture is the infallible authority one could argue not adhrering to these biblical commands are evidence of not following what cripture commands. These practices are supported by scripture and are deeply rooted in the biblical text, and even one of them is a command from Jesus himself (John 13:14-15). So, the question isn’t what tradition is right, rather this raises important questions about how various traditions interpret and live out their understanding of faith, highlighting that the relationship between scripture and tradition is complex and multifaceted, transcending a simplistic reliance on 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?
Catholics use 2 Timothy 2:2 to support the idea of Apostolic Succession, which they believe is preserved in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. During Timothy’s time, the Church was united, and the current division between Rome and Constantinople only came much later, after the Great Schism in 1054. To argue that 2 Timothy disproves Catholic succession overlooks this important period in Church history when Catholic and Orthodox Churches were one and shared the same Apostolic foundations. While the Orthodox Church in Ephesus maintains Apostolic Succession, Catholics view unity with the Pope as key to the fullness of that succession, but they do not deny the legitimacy of Orthodox 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)?
Catholics do not view tradition as limited to oral teachings; rather, they believe that tradition encompasses both oral and written forms of instruction. Furthermore, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not equate tradition with Scripture. Instead, Paul instructs believers to “hold fast to the teachings” he conveyed, whether through spoken words (unwritten teachings) or letters (written teachings). The wisdom and teachings of the apostles extend beyond the Bible itself. The Scriptures do not claim to contain all teachings, and in fact, it is explicitly stated that the teachings of Christ were extensive and cannot be confined to written texts alone.(John 21:25)
This is true, the Church Fathers, such as Tertullian, Athanasius, and Hilary of Poitiers, believed that Scripture was clear and could be understood by reading, as Paul suggests in Ephesians 3:3-5. One thing ill point out though is that no single church father when referring to scripture, were referring to the 66 book bible. They all had more books in their scriptures. Also they never crtizie their counterparts for not reading scripture… many scriptures were available to their enemies,
And they criticized heretics for misinterpreting the scriptures by reading it outside the context of apostolic tradition, showing that correct interpretation requires more than human skill alone. While they recognized the clarity of Scripture, they emphasized that it must be understood within the faith handed down by the apostles. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches similarly teach that while Scripture contains clear teachings, full and authoritative interpretation belongs to the Church, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, ensures that the true meaning is preserved, protecting it from distortion by personal interpretations.
- 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?
I don’t think any catholic is arguing for Christians to not have the bible… and id argue some catholics know their bibles better than catechisms.
- 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?
The” message of the Pope “ was spread by councils and synods, liturgical practice and tradition. Reading the scriptures was not essential to guide the faith rather the partaking of communion in accordance with gods will is. For centuries Jews who did not have access to the scriptures slaughtered the lab to atone for sins, now we eat the flesh of christ to remember him as our final offering.
- 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?
This is actually probably the most essential question in this because the answer to it refutes sola scriptura. Illiterate catholics and orthodox pew-dwellers knew the rules of faith and followed leadership through the organization and ruling of the church. The very fact some people are illiterate demonstrates the issue with sola scriptura.
- 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?
Id argue through faith and if they didn’t they could compare it to ancient christiantiy… take a pilgramige to the most ancient Christian churchs and see how they do not reflect modern protestant gatherings. The very fact that literacy rates were very low in the early days of Christianity proves that the bible was never the standard of faith which proves sola scriptura to be false.
- 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?
Due to the protection of the holy spirit that is promised to protect the leaders of the faith. Scriptures are necessary but id argue that commoners who read the bible would not be able to encompass the full truth of the faith, dogma and doctrines. One does not simply read the bible and walk away with the perfect idea of the trinity, the hypostatic union, and the doctrines of the faith. Rather the protections in the bible to
- 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.)
Oral tradition is not binding… just because an oral tradition makes a claim, doesn’t mean it’s true, nor does it mean Catholics follow it. Catholics are free to believe Paul authored or did not author the book of Hebrews… they do so because modern scholars often debate the original writer… what interesting to not though, is that bible doesn’t answer this question, so how would a Protest know who authored the scriptures when the Bible is silent?
- 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.)
One way a new believer can know that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church is by examining its claim to papal primacy, the unique role of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. Unlike the Orthodox Church, which recognizes the role of bishops but rejects papal supremacy, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ specifically gave Peter, and his successors, the authority to lead the entire Church (Matthew 16:18-19). This role of the Pope as the visible source of unity and authority, upheld through centuries of unbroken succession, is a distinct mark of the Catholic Church and cannot be claimed in the same way by 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?
Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition are divinely instituted to preserve the truth of the Gospel, unlike personal interpretation, which leads to divisions. While the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have some differences, they share core beliefs rooted in Apostolic Tradition, such as the sacraments and the Trinity. Their division is primarily about governance, not fundamental doctrine, whereas personal interpretation has resulted in countless Protestant denominations with major theological differences. Both Churches reject personal illumination as sufficient for interpreting Scripture, relying instead on the authority of the Church, which provides greater consistency. Thus, Apostolic Succession and Tradition remain valid methods for preserving truth.
- 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?
Orthodox and Catholic Christians are not as divided as often perceived, and I plan to address this in a future post. However, the concept of sola scriptura…Scripture itself does not claim to be the sole infallible measure of truth and faith, which is a fundamental requirement of the sola scriptura principle. This absence of clear scriptural support undermines the validity of sola scriptura.Moreover, if sola scriptura were indeed the guiding principle for faith, we would expect a greater consensus among its adherents. Yet, different denominations that subscribe to sola scriptura, often arrive at varying conclusions on essential theological issues.
This raises important questions: What are the core requirements of faith under sola scriptura? Why do so many denominations disagree on what is essential, while Orthodox and Catholic traditions maintain a more unified understanding?
The principles of division inherent in sola scriptura fundamentally undermine its credibility, as it claims to guide every Christian in understanding the essential components of the faith. This claim is called into question by the multitude of interpretations and disagreements that arise among its proponents.
Furthermore, the fact that many denominations manipulate and twist Scripture to fit their narratives highlights a significant issue with the sola scriptura framework.
To defend the notion of sola scriptura against its critics, adherents often resort to declaring that others are misinterpreting verses or engage in debates that devolve into a back-and-forth exchange of Scripture, each side claiming to be right.
This dynamic leads to an impasse, where both parties assert their correctness without arriving at a shared understanding or confirmation of the Scriptures themselves. Ultimately, this lack of consensus illustrates a profound weakness in the argument for sola scriptura as a reliable foundation for faith.
These questions were very nuanced and fun to answer… I don’t think many well versed Catholic’s would have a hard time answering them…and I think the author of them tried hard to pin the orthodox and catholic positions against each other but ultimately failed to do so due to his misunderstanding of the positions of both Catholics and Orthodox.
