I found this website and heard that it was not truthful or at least was very opinionated that it would allow their opinions to influence their answers.   Tell me what you think while you read the following.  While you read you will also learn what the Catholic Church teachings are concerning Sola Scriptura.  Enjoy

From the website: http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Question: “What is sola scriptura?”

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

 

www.gotquestions.org:

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

 

How Catholics Live:

There is no problem with the definition, the problem is with using 2 Timothy 3:16 to support the dogma of Sola scripture. The only Scripture reading Timothy has been reading is the Old Testament, he was fairly you and would not have had the New Testament at this time. If 2 Tim 3:16 is supporting Sola Scriptura, then what it is saying is that only part of the Bible is necessary, since most of the New Testament had not yet been written when Timothy was a child.

 

www.gotquestions.org:

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

 

How Catholics Live:

Catholic Church teaching is the Sacred Tradition is considered to be on the same level with the Bible, not above it or superior to it. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are both the Word of God. The Word of God in one form is not “superior” to the Word of God in another form. The person who wrote this obviously does not have an understanding of Catholic Church teachings.

“This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible.” This is not true. Sounds to me what they are actually saying is that they believe many Catholic practices are ” in fact contradictory to [their private, fallible interpretations of] the Bible.” What’s really ironic in this paragraph is that they cite Martin Luther as the hero of the Reformation, yet one of the “unbiblical” traditions they specifically mention – infant baptism – was believed in and practiced by Martin Luther. So, how do they reconcile the fact that Martin Luther, their hero, the man who first shouted most loudly “Sola Scriptura,” the “rallying cry of the Reformation,” believed in a tradition (infant baptism) that these folks say is outside of scripture?

In this paragraph they also call Martin Luther the “father” of the Protestant Reformation. What about the passage in Scripture that says, “Call no man your father?” (Matt 23:9). Irony, isn’t it?

Finally, Martin Luther’s words strike at the heart of the problem with Sola Scriptura. Luther is essentially declaring himself to be his own Pope, Pastor, and Theologian. Unless “I” am convinced; unless “I” am persuaded. In other words, Luther is saying that he answers to no authority other than himself when it comes to matters of faith. And, every believer in Sola Scriptura does basically the same thing. Everyone is Pope, Pastor, and Theologian for their own private denomination, answering to no authority in matters of faith and morals other than themselves and their private, fallible interpretation of the Bible.

www.gotquestions.org:

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

 

How Catholics Live:

This is my favorite, follow me thru this one. In the article they agree with what they call the “primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura” – that nowhere does the Bible teach sola scriptura – but then go on to argue but not from Scripture, that Sola Scriptura is true nonetheless. And their defense is with the words, “We know the Bible is the Word of God.” My question would be, how do you know the Bible is the Word of God? “The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative.” Do they rely on the Bible to tell them that the Bible is “God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative?” “We believe the Bible to be inerrant because the inerrant Bible tells us so.”

Furthermore, where does the Bible say that every book in the Bible is “God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative?” It doesn’t. And, again, even if it did, so what? Someone had to be a witness, a reliable, authoritative witness to testify to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, or we could not know that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

Did you notice in about the middle of the paragraph how they switched the argument, allowing them to avoid a direct answer to the “primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura?” At least they were honest enough to agree that nowhere does Scripture directly teach Sola Scriptura. So, they move the argument away from Scripture and now make it an argument about tradition: “Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines.”

They agree that Sola Scriptura is not directly taught in the Bible, but it is rather, an “argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines.” So this is what they are saying, “an extra-biblical doctrine, Sola Scriptura, is an argument against extra-biblical doctrines.” I have a hard time understanding this one.

“The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible.” Again, that begs the question. How do you know God has revealed the Bible? Who told you that? Where did you get the confidence to believe that?

“We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable.” How do they know this? Who told them that? Where in the Bible did they read this? The same cannot be said of tradition.” Why can the same not be said of tradition? Scripture is nothing but tradition. Tradition that was written down, but tradition nonetheless. Tradition that was passed on generation to generation. So, if the early Christians can faithfully pass on the tradition that we call Scripture from one generation to the next, why can’t they faithfully pass on other traditions from one generation to the next? And, what about the traditions of the Old Testament? The first several chapters of Genesis were passed on as “tradition” for hundreds and even thousands of years before they were ever written down. If we follow the logic used by these people, we would have to throw out all tradition that was passed on then written down. The Old Testament would just simply be called tradition and therefore not allowed in the Bible. This makes no sense to me at all.

 

www.gotquestions.org:

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

 

How Catholics Live:

“The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith.” This statement is not even true in their own faith. The Word of God is the ULTIMATE authority for the Christian faith, but not the ONLY authority. For Catholics, we also have the Church as an authority. An authority to help guide us in our understanding of God’s Word. These people, the Sola Scriptura Christians, also have another authority – their own authority that is private to each one of them individually. The authority they use to “infallibly” interpret the Scriptures. Each of their own personal beliefs. So, the Catholics have Scripture and the Church. Sola Scriptura Christians have Scripture and themselves personally. We have TWO authorities, not one. The above statement is not true.

“Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture.” I agree with this statement completely if that is where it stopped. But…it doesn’t stop there, let me explain. When a Catholic like myself says “(whatever) is based on Scripture and is in full agreement with Scripture.” Many times Protestants disagree with me and tell me that my teachings are not in agreement with the Scripture. Perhaps we should change the above statement to read “Traditions are valid only when they are based on [our private, fallible interpretations of] Scripture and are in full agreement with [our private, fallible interpretations of] Scripture.” This is what is so difficult to get Sola Scriptura Christians to recognize, that every time they say something must “agree with Scripture,” what they are really saying is it must agree with their private, fallible interpretations of Scripture. It must be based on Scripture as they interpret it, as they see it. If you don’t agree with their private, fallible interpretations, then you are wrong, period. Many times I’ve had people tell me that they don’t want me to accept their word for something, that they just want me to read Scripture and see for myself. But…when I read Scripture and tell them what I saw for myself in Scripture, they then proceed to tell me I’m wrong. So, it’s not Scripture itself they want me to agree with, it’s their private, fallible interpretation of Scripture that they want me to agree with.

“Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible.” Walk with me thru this one. The only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinions out of all of this, is for each and every person to read the Bible for themselves to arrive at their own conclusions of what it actually says, based solely on their own authority? Instead of having one opinion – that of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded – we need to have an opinion from everyone who picks up the Bible and reads it. And that will keep personal opinion and subjectivity out of all of this? I think this has happened about 36,000 times since Martin Luther started this whole idea. There is no authority to guide you thru the interpretation of the Bible so whatever you go with it is alright. Can’t buy into the Sola Scriptura idea.

www.gotquestions.org:

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

 

How Catholics Live:

All information on this site will always be true and factual about the Catholic Church teachings. I will not misguide anyone from the absolute truth. The above statement about Catholic Church is NOT true. “based on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions?” NOT TRUE. The person that wrote this has no idea what they are talking about. Period.

Here is the problem: Who decides which traditions are biblically-based and which are not? For example, the tradition of altar calls? Is that a tradition that is Bible based? Does it say anywhere in the Bible about alter calls? My guess is the person that wrote the statement above would indeed say that altar calls are Scriptural. Another example, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Tradition or Bible based? Nowhere in the Bible does it mention Mary being assumed into Heaven. There are however, instances of other people in the Bible being assumed body and soul into Heaven, so Mary being assumed into Heaven would not be against any scriptural principles. What’s the difference between these two? Neither is mentioned directly in the Bible. In fact, there is indirect evidence in the Bible for Mary’s Assumption, whereas there is no indirect evidence for altar calls in the Bible. My guess again, this writer and many Protestants would say that altar calls are an allowable tradition and Mary’s Assumption is not. Does personal opinion and belief influence his writing?

www.gotquestions.org:

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

How Catholics Live:

They do not disagree with the arguments themselves, but watch what they do, read on to see how sola scriptura handles these issues.

www.gotquestions.org:

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

How Catholics Live:

Did you see what they did? They twisted the very valid “practical” arguments against Sola Scriptura and made them into a straw man argument about Scripture’s authority being based on its availability. Thus, they don’t have to address the points in the arguments as they were actually made. The arguments about the availability of Scripture have nothing at all to do with the authority of Scripture, rather they are about the workability and the logic of a doctrine that depends on reading the Bible for yourself in order to know what is true or not true, when most people either did not have a Bible and/or could not read, for hundreds of years after the Bible was written?

And, how can you have sola scriptura when you don’t have a set scriptura for a few hundred years after Jesus, or when you don’t even have a single book of the New Testament for at least 10 years or more after the death of Christ and a complete New Testament for at least 40 years after the death of Christ and possibly as many as 65 years after the death of Christ? How does sola scriptura work without a scriptura? Was sola scriptura a doctrine believed in by the first Christians? If so, then they were believing in sola Old Testament scriptura, because that was all the scriptura they had at the time.

And can you believe how they try to turn the arguments around by saying that they are actually arguments for “what the church should have done?” “While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it.” What do these folks think was being read at every Mass in the early Christian communities?

“Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it.” What??? This person does not understand. Has he not read any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers? The writings are all about Scripture. They are overflowing with Scripture. One of the main reasons universities were started by the Catholic Church, was to promote the deeper study, and better understanding, of Scripture. To train men to go out and teach others about God.

“Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures.” This guy should not be writing. He is nowhere close to being truthful or is blinded by his own thoughts that have mislead him to lies. He is trying to make the One True Apostolic Catholic Church look stupid. Let me tell you how this looks for him and his church. He is admitting that the Catholic Church was indeed the early Church, the Church that gave us the Scriptures in the first place. Also, when they say the church “should have copied the Scriptures,” they seem to think that it is some sort of easy and inexpensive task to copy a Bible by hand. The question also comes to mind, as to why they believe the Church should be churning out copies of the Bible when it has already been admitted that most people could not read? The Catholic Church is the one that spent all that time printing out Bibles by hand. No other church. Oh yeah, that was long before men invented the other 36,000 Christian religions.

www.gotquestions.org:

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

How Catholics Live:

Again, and always, the problem of…whose interpretation of Scripture is the standard by which we determine what is and is not in accord with Scripture? Sola Scriptura does not ultimately point us back to the God who always speaks the truth, if that were true then there would not be thousands of different denominations, all operating on the principle of Sola Scriptura, yet with thousands of different and contradictory teachings. No, Sola Scriptura ultimately points us back to us. It tells each of us that we can be the Pope for our own little denomination. It tells us that we have no authority outside of ourselves to which we have to answer in determining what is true and what is false doctrine. Sola Scriptura is a disaster and has led many men astray. Don’t let it happen to you.

This was a review of a website called www.gotquestions.org. Based on the untruthful and inaccurate information they spewed about the Catholic Church teachings had led me to the conclusion that they have no idea what they are doing. For whatever reason they are not expressing the truth and I cannot trust someone that lies about someone else.

So this website cannot tell the truth about one issue, they probably won’t tell the truth about other issues. Don’t trust them with anything.

This is also a great post about the issue of Sola Scriptura. It is a disaster and does not hold water. Like all the other attempts to explain this issue this one falls short as well.

Final conclusion, this website is not trusted to have real facts and will spit out lies and they don’t know anything about Sola Scriptura. This rally cry of Luther doesn’t work. It fails.

Avoid the website and stay away from Sola Scriptura.

 

What are your thoughts on this idea of Sola Scriptura?

4 thoughts on “Website review on Sola Scriptura

  1. I am not Catholic but I see your point on this issue. It makes completed sense what you said, I always thought just the opposite but now I have to rethink what this issue is really like. Thanks for the nice information.
    Did Martin Luther invent or come up with this issue? I don’t think it existed prior to the reformation right? What was he thinking? He was the first Protestant, right?
    Thanks.

    1. Thanks for the great comments Joyce.
      You bring up some really good questions and I think I can help.
      Martin Luther did in fact come up with this idea of Scripture Alone. The Catholic Church believes that we need to take both the Bible and tradition into effect when it comes to our faith. Luther changes many things about the Catholic Church, left the Church and started his own religion, and many others have followed this process. It is wrong but it has happened almost 40,000 times. A distaster. I don’t know what he was thinking . The Church he was with was founded by Christ himself and he went and founded his own church based on what he thought was best instead of what Christ said was best. Does not make sense to me either.
      God Bless
      Bob

  2. I have always had a strong desire to understand the catholic faith even though I am Protestant because I study in a catholic based university.

    As you say, I also feel like they have upheld their traditions and personal beliefs more than they follow the Bible. Although, I might be speaking out of ignorance because I don’t know why they do the things they do.

    What is your own stand on the praying to the saints and Mary?

    1. Thanks Dave for the comment. Thanks for stopping by my site.

      Here at How Catholics Live, we produce content that is 100% truthful about the Catholic Church teachings.  As you said in your comment about how Catholics uphold their traditions and personal beliefs more than the Bible, couldn’t be farther from the truth.  Many Protestants fail to understand the real truth and teachings of the Catholic Church.  I know many Protestants that run to their preacher when they have questions about the Catholic Church, wrong place to go in my opinion.  Why not go to a Catholic that knows the absolute truth about the Church teachings?

      Back to my point.  Catholics use the Bible as it’s main authority along with tradition to follow.  Before the Bible was written, they nothing except tradition.  Stories of Christ that was told to each other and past on from family to family and generation to generation, then it was written into books, we now call the Bible.  

      Conclusion is this:  

      Catholics follow the Word of God that is obtained from the Bible and sacred tradition.  That’s it.

      Protestants follow the Word of God that is obtained from their Bible and their own interpretation of the Bible.  Reread this article, I speak about it many times.

      So, now let me ask you.  Who follows their own tradition and personal beliefs, Catholics or Protestants?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *