Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z
  6. / Christian Religions
  7. / Christian Denominations
  8. / Comparisons Between Christian Denominations

by budwizer on January 18th, 2007

budwizer

Question

Help answer this question below.

Protestants based their faith on the bible alone(sola scriptura);cathlics on the bible and tradition. which is correct?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 16 helpful answers below.

  • by singwell-is off researching a lot on February 13th, 2007

    singwell-is off researching a lot

    Throughout the Gospels Jesus fights the Pharisees over their pushing of traditions almost to more importance than SCripture itself. I think this is what the Reformers were concerned about when they declared sola scriptura. It's not that traditions ought to be all done away with, but they should be kept in perspective. If they aid in the spreading of the gospel, then keep them, if they get in the way, or contradict the gospel, then, though they might be loved, they have to go. The Word of God is the final rule for all beliefs and rituals.

    • Like
    • Report

    5 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by DavidHume on February 13th, 2007

    DavidHume

    "Correct" is a meaningless concept in a context like religion. All religions consider themselves to be "correct"; to me they all seem equally delusional, but, so long as they do no harm and do not try to convert me, I can tolerate their existence.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by ImaCatholic2 on June 11th, 2008

    ImaCatholic2

    The Bible says Scripture and Tradition.

    I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:12-13)

    Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

    We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

    I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

    The Catholic Church does not use Holy Scripture as the only basis of doctrine. It could not. The early Catholic church existed before and during the time that the New Testament was written (by Catholics).

    There were hundreds of Christian writings during the first and second centuries. Which New Testament writings would become official was not fully decided until about 400 C.E.

    Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early church (and is guiding the church today) to make the correct choices about things like:
    • The Holy Trinity (which is also only hinted at in the Bible)
    • Going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday (which is actually directly against one of the Ten Commandments)
    • The Communion of Saints
    • Which writings include in the New Testament?

    Things that are even more modern like
    • Slavery is bad. Slavery is never declared evil in the Bible. This was one of the justifications for slavery in the Confederate States.
    • Democracy is good. The Bible states that either God should be the leader of the nation like Israel before the kings or kings should be the leader, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." This was talked about a lot during the American Revolution.

    This second source of doctrine is called Apostolic Tradition.

    Do Christians who do not allow the continuing guiding force of the Holy Spirit to make their beliefs more and more perfect, still endorse slavery as Colossians 3:22 commands, "Slaves, obey your human masters in everything"?

    For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 80 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.htm#80

    With love in Christ.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by bootlace on February 13th, 2007

    bootlace

    Too much blood and ink has been spilt over this question in the last five hundred years, and I am afraid it is still a matter of opinion.

    My opinion? Neither.

    However, from an atheistic British point of view the Church of England, who are willing to debate the meaning of the bible, are a lot easier to stomach than a Catholic church that clings on to some rather offensive traditional beliefs.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by AntigoneRising on January 18th, 2007

    AntigoneRising

    Which is correct would be impossible to prove. If it were provable, only one Christian denomination would exist. Tradition has its place, as the traditions started somewhere; however, the argument that most of the traditions were absorbed from pagan practices or done for political reasons is also compelling.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Aldebaran on August 9th, 2008

    Aldebaran

    If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is correct, then why is it not found in the Bible?

    Also, what has been the effects of Sola Scriptura on the Body of Christ? Sola Scriptura believers have splintered into 30,000+ denominations since the 16th century teaching all kinds of contradictory doctrine (baptism symbolic vs. sacramental, baptism of infants invalid vs. valid, intrinsic evil of artificial contraception (Whoops, every non-Catholic Christian Church after the Anglican 1930 Lambeth conference has since reversed their teaching on this one)

    The Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches the same doctrine that it taught in the 16th century, and the 15th, and the 10th, and the 5th, and the 1st.

    Christ wills that all men be saved AND come to a knowledge of the Truth. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the life". His followers must be given a infallible guide in order to know what is true and what is error, so they can believe the truth (faith). His followers must be given an infallible guide to show them the way to live (morality).

    In Luke 22, Christ says that Satan will sift all like wheat, but Peter's faith will not fail. Christians need to be united to Peter (the Pope) in faith.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by bowlermommy07 on June 23rd, 2008

    bowlermommy07

    The Bible alone is correct.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by gmeades on June 23rd, 2008

    gmeades

    Traditions spoken of in the bible are not the traditions we speak of today. They didn't have Thanksgiving, Easter, and Christmas, or many other traditional rituals that we practice today. To understand the difference, one need to understand the origin of our modern holidays and traditions. Also, Catholics believe in the pope, tradition, and then the bible, and according to their doctrine, in that order.

    In general, people who are catholic love God just as much as Christians do, and no one is saying anything against them. However, to understand the answer to your question, one needs to understand the origin of the Catholic religion as we know it today.

    In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

    For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

    Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

    (1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

    (2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.

    (3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

    (4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

    Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

    The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

    2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

    http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Dmitri on June 11th, 2008

    Dmitri

    I believe tradition is Biblical, as ImaCatholic2 already stated. However, it is dangerous to add superfluous things just to make a denomination more distinct from others. Lost people get led astray with the culture and the details, and kids get molested by mormons and catholics alike. I would tend to believe that any tradition that is not explicitly Biblical verges on cultish philosophy, for the only works that matters are His on the cross and not ours, lest any man boast.

    • Like
    • Report

    20 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by thatsJustme on June 23rd, 2008

    thatsJustme

    solely Bible based can be correct....God does reject false worship....he rejected Cain's sacrifice...HE showed HE wanted BLOOD sacrifice...not veggies.....
    HE does REJECT all worship that adds to and takes away from his WORD...
    I am sure the early churches HE spoke to in Revelations was plain and simple...
    I believe the Apostles and Jesus HIMSELF did a thourough job in telling us how it is to be......

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by jeanie16 on June 11th, 2008

    jeanie16

    in reality, not necessarily either.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by thatsJustme on June 24th, 2008

    thatsJustme

    i agree with singwell, again, but i wanted to say that Christ quoted Scripture and read Scripture ....

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by bingobongo - is really losing interes... on June 24th, 2008

    bingobongo - is really losing interes...

    NEITHER IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER!

    If either is used to guide you to do good it is correct when used correctly.

    If, as is so often the case, it is an excuse to criticise, mock, be "holier than thou", openly show prejudice (and think that it is okay!)...

    ...or of course all the other sides, hurting, beating or killing other human beings...

    ...then again neither is better!

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by rojoloco on August 9th, 2008

    rojoloco

    Scripture tells us to avoid the teaching of man. There is some tradition from which we can learn. If it is in accordance with the Bible, it can help support it. If it goes against the Bible, we are to do away with the tradition. If it is not mentioned in the Bible at all, we are to be wary of it (not saying discard it) but certainly never place it on the same level as the Word of God.

    Peter began teaching to the Jews only and was leaving the Gentiles out of it. Paul came and rebuked him for it. Imagine if Paul had never come to rebuke Peter. Catholics claim Peter started it all. If Paul had never stopped Peter, the Catholic Church would be filled with nothing but Jews that ignored Gentiles. At least, this would be the case according to Catholics who believe Sacred Tradition is on par with Scripture.

    Scripture is the final source of authority. The Holy Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. He lives in us. Allow Him to relay His Truth to us through His Word.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Tamilze on June 24th, 2008

    Tamilze

    Whichever works better for you.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by sopapilla on June 11th, 2008

    sopapilla

    the Orthodox.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Protestants based their faith on the bible alone(sola scriptura);cathlics on the bible and tradition. which is correct?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Protestants based their faith on the bible alone sola scriptura catholics on the bible and tradition which is correct
2 protestants based their faith on the bible alone sola scriptura catholics on the bible and tradition which is correct
Protestants based their faith on the bible alone sola scriptura catholics on the bible and tradition which is correct
Protestants based their faith on the bible alone sola scriptura catholics on the bible and tradition
Protestants based their faith on the bible alone catholics on the bible and tradition which is correct

Answerbag

a Demand Media company