"irrefutable" Questions For Catholics

[Ziggamafu]

[b]Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can’t answer
-from [url="http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm"]http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm[/url]

1. 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?[/b]

The Magisterium is the normative guide, when not speaking infallibly. She is endowed with certain spiritual gifts that aide in the discernment of controversial matters. She does not pronounce dogma willy-nilly, but treats everything with the time and solemnity due to God's revelation.

[b]
2. 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?[/b]

N/A

[b]3. 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?[/b]

See answer to question 1; also, heresies and dissenters from Church authority will persist until the Last Day.

[b] 4. 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?[/b]


Because local councils exist too, and for the same reasons locally that the universal councils exist for the global Church. Take away government and you have anarchy. Take away organization and you have chaos.


[b]5. 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.[/b]

Perhaps. It also proves that Rome was known to be endowed by God to have final say.

[b] 6. 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?
[/b]


Because there was no "Orthodox Church" yet.


[b]7. 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?[/b]


We did not add the deuterocanonicals. We merely reaffirmed and ratified what the sense of the faithful had proclaimed in reading these books for more than a thousand years.

[b] 8. 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?[/b]

Because one of them has divine protection and the other does not. We follow the Tradition we see testified to in Scripture, especially as interpreted by the Fathers.

[b]
9. 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.[/b]

The canon of Scripture itself.

[b]
10. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?[/b]

There is none. They compliment each other; they do not contradict each other.

[b]11. 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?[/b]


We are permitted to engage in private interpretation, we simply bow to the authority of Christ's voice in the Church when we arrive at different conclusions.

[b]12. 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?[/b]

Maybe because he wanted to reaffirm his Church as that which fulfilled the shadowy OT type?

[b]13. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?[/b]

Sacred Tradition prior to Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

[b]
14. 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?[/b]

We are all fallible - popes included; infallibility applies to the [i]office [/i]of the pope, not to the man by himself, just as infallibility is only exercised by the bishops in an ecumenical council ratified by the pope.

[b]15. 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?[/b]

They / We do not; where we differ, the Catholics are correct. ;-)


[b] 16. 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?[/b]

Some things of tradition are not part of Sacred Tradition; we discern the difference by the guidance of the Magisterium.

[b]
17. 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?[/b]

Just because the Orthodox have a valid succession (and thus valid sacraments) does not mean that they have infallible teachings - they have cut themselves off from this gift by leaving the authority of the pope.

[b]
18. 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)?[/b]


We do not always assume this. That is an odd claim.

[b]
19. 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)[/b]

Some things in the Bible are clear, other things are not - as is evidenced by the THOUSANDS OF DENOMINATIONS ADHERING TO THE FAILED EXPERIMENT OF SOLA SCRIPTURA.

[b]
20. 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?[/b]

I never said it was a condition. But for S.S. to be reasonable / practical, it would make more sense that God inspired the printing press and mass-literacy during the life of Christ.


[b] 21. 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?[/b]

See previous question. We do not believe as you believe.

[b]

22. 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?[/b]

See previous question.

[b]23. 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?[/b]

This is getting old.

[b]24. 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?[/b]



They submit to the authority by faith in the HISTORICAL TRANSPIRATIONS between Christ and his Apostles (e.g., giving the Church authority).


[b] 25. 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.)[/b]

Because it is not dogma.


[b] 26. 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.)[/b]

N/A

[b]27. 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.)[/b]

By examining, using the hermeneutic of continuity between Covenants, the HISTORICAL context, culture, and expectations of the Jewish people regarding the Messiah, and how Christ reaffirmed his role over the Davidic Kingdom, giving Peter the keys to maintain order while Christ was [i]visibly / directly[/i] "absent".

[b]
28. 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?[/b]

One maintains the Davidic Kingdom continued in Christ, vested with his authority, and the other does not. Guess which is which?

[b] 29. 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?[/b]

No, for reasons listed above.


Nice try, Protestants. Now come home. Your mother is calling.

(POST ERROR; HAD TO REMOVE QUOTE WRAPPING, HOPE ITS NOT CONFUSING)

[jeffpugh]

Funny stuff. We're SOOO stumped

Thanks for this resource

[Ziggamafu]

Just to clarify, that website is not Catholic; only the questions came from the site, the answers were from the (very fallible) yours truly.

[Selah]

haha! You are WIN!

I find it so funny how Protestants think we have a shaky faith.

Ziggy, you should emails those answers to the guy

Edited October 20, 2008 by Selah

[johnnydigit]

lol YOU AR TEH WIN!

[b]
72. What keeps me from coming home to the fullness of the faith?

..

112. I still don't believe it. Prove history.[/b]

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

what is so interesting is that they make these historical claims, without verifying them.

I guess they will never understand the complex process our Church took into declaring which NT books were apostolic and authentic, but also LITURGICAL, because for us, The Holy Scriptures are not just some private personal lord and savior thing, but also, and always a sacred activity united to our Sacramental Eucharistic devotion.

shalom
bro mark

[Quietfire]

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' post='1690662' date='Nov 1 2008, 10:49 AM']what is so interesting is that they make these historical claims, without verifying them.

I guess they will never understand the complex process our Church took into declaring which NT books were apostolic and authentic, but also LITURGICAL, because for us, The Holy Scriptures are not just some private personal lord and savior thing, but also, and always a sacred activity united to our Sacramental Eucharistic devotion.

shalom
bro mark[/quote]
So true!!
That's cause our Church has been at it since the beginning.
They've been at it what? 5 minutes?

Edited November 7, 2008 by Quietfire

[Ziggamafu]

Honestly, I think that for Protestantism to survive as a heresy (like, say, the continued success of Islam) is for the Protestants to ultimately disregard the Bible as "divinely inspired" and "infallible" and merely treat it as a collection of the "most important" historical documents. I think that Protestantism does not merely lead to one man sitting alone with his Bible, but rather to one man, sitting alone with himself - that is, sitting in the presence of his own subjective discernment of the Holy Spirit.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1697052' date='Nov 7 2008, 05:04 PM']Honestly, I think that for Protestantism to survive as a heresy (like, say, the continued success of Islam) is for the Protestants to ultimately disregard the Bible as "divinely inspired" and "infallible" and merely treat it as a collection of the "most important" historical documents. I think that Protestantism does not merely lead to one man sitting alone with his Bible, but rather to one man, sitting alone with himself - that is, sitting in the presence of his own subjective discernment of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]


, amazing musing.

[Tinkerlina]

Awesome answers! I love that people actually spend time making up "irrefutable" questions like this.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1679772' date='Oct 17 2008, 11:36 AM'][b]Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can’t answer
-from [url="http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm"]http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm[/url]

1. 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?[/b]

The Magisterium is the normative guide, when not speaking infallibly. She is endowed with certain spiritual gifts that aide in the discernment of controversial matters. She does not pronounce dogma willy-nilly, but treats everything with the time and solemnity due to God's revelation.

[b]
2. 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?[/b]

N/A

[b]3. 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?[/b]

See answer to question 1; also, heresies and dissenters from Church authority will persist until the Last Day.

[b] 4. 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?[/b]


Because local councils exist too, and for the same reasons locally that the universal councils exist for the global Church. Take away government and you have anarchy. Take away organization and you have chaos.


[b]5. 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.[/b]

Perhaps. It also proves that Rome was known to be endowed by God to have final say.

[b] 6. 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?
[/b]


Because there was no "Orthodox Church" yet.


[b]7. 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?[/b]


We did not add the deuterocanonicals. We merely reaffirmed and ratified what the sense of the faithful had proclaimed in reading these books for more than a thousand years.

[b] 8. 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?[/b]

Because one of them has divine protection and the other does not. We follow the Tradition we see testified to in Scripture, especially as interpreted by the Fathers.

[b]
9. 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.[/b]

The canon of Scripture itself.

[b]
10. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?[/b]

There is none. They compliment each other; they do not contradict each other.

[b]11. 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?[/b]


We are permitted to engage in private interpretation, we simply bow to the authority of Christ's voice in the Church when we arrive at different conclusions.

[b]12. 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?[/b]

Maybe because he wanted to reaffirm his Church as that which fulfilled the shadowy OT type?

[b]13. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?[/b]

Sacred Tradition prior to Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

[b]
14. 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?[/b]

We are all fallible - popes included; infallibility applies to the [i]office [/i]of the pope, not to the man by himself, just as infallibility is only exercised by the bishops in an ecumenical council ratified by the pope.

[b]15. 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?[/b]

They / We do not; where we differ, the Catholics are correct. ;-)


[b] 16. 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?[/b]

Some things of tradition are not part of Sacred Tradition; we discern the difference by the guidance of the Magisterium.

[b]
17. 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?[/b]

Just because the Orthodox have a valid succession (and thus valid sacraments) does not mean that they have infallible teachings - they have cut themselves off from this gift by leaving the authority of the pope.

[b]
18. 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)?[/b]


We do not always assume this. That is an odd claim.

[b]
19. 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)[/b]

Some things in the Bible are clear, other things are not - as is evidenced by the THOUSANDS OF DENOMINATIONS ADHERING TO THE FAILED EXPERIMENT OF SOLA SCRIPTURA.

[b]
20. 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?[/b]

I never said it was a condition. But for S.S. to be reasonable / practical, it would make more sense that God inspired the printing press and mass-literacy during the life of Christ.


[b] 21. 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?[/b]

See previous question. We do not believe as you believe.

[b]

22. 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?[/b]

See previous question.

[b]23. 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?[/b]

This is getting old.

[b]24. 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?[/b]



They submit to the authority by faith in the HISTORICAL TRANSPIRATIONS between Christ and his Apostles (e.g., giving the Church authority).


[b] 25. 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.)[/b]

Because it is not dogma.


[b] 26. 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.)[/b]

N/A

[b]27. 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.)[/b]

By examining, using the hermeneutic of continuity between Covenants, the HISTORICAL context, culture, and expectations of the Jewish people regarding the Messiah, and how Christ reaffirmed his role over the Davidic Kingdom, giving Peter the keys to maintain order while Christ was [i]visibly / directly[/i] "absent".

[b]
28. 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?[/b]

One maintains the Davidic Kingdom continued in Christ, vested with his authority, and the other does not. Guess which is which?

[b] 29. 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?[/b]

No, for reasons listed above.


Nice try, Protestants. Now come home. Your mother is calling.

(POST ERROR; HAD TO REMOVE QUOTE WRAPPING, HOPE ITS NOT CONFUSING)[/quote]

[eagle_eye222001]

It really is something when you see someone from another faith think they have your religion refuted when in fact they have misunderstood and misstated virtually everything.

WOW!

[Selah]

[quote]It really is something when you see someone from another faith think they have your religion refuted when in fact they have misunderstood and misstated virtually everything[/quote]