in silent reverence as we play Taps...
I have several documents posted on the subject of
Sola Scriptura. You might wish to read these first.
Sola Scriptura, Our Side, The
Other Side, The Pendant, and Fr. Damen's excellent
homilies titled The One True Church, and The
Church or the Bible.
For anyone who still believes in the false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura,
after reading the files listed above, I have a few observations of interest
for you that no one has been able to counter with authentic historical
Since you are still here, I will assume
you are set in concrete for your belief of Sola Scriptura (SS).
Okay, let us see if you can answer these very serious conclusions of what
Holy Scripture really says about your belief.
Sola Scriptura means "Scripture
Alone", or "Scripture Only".
In other words, say the SS believers,"Everything I need to know, is
in Holy Scripture, and everything outside of Holy Scripture, is not to
be believed...unless of course it supports my SS beliefs".
By its very title, in order to believe in Sola Scriptura, you must be able
show the verse(s) in which it is authorized and can be found in Holy Scripture.
2Timothy 3:16-17 are the only verses which I always receive when I ask
that question. First of all, please tell me why I am given only
these two verses and not the whole chapter of 2Timothy 3?
One of the very basic rules of Bible interpretation
is, "to never take verses out of context".
Those who violate this basic rule, will invariably attempt to show that
the Bible will "prove" what they teach is true. It is a well
known fact, that verses taken out of contest can be made to "appear"
to support practically any heretical teaching. Instead of conforming their
teaching to Scripture, the people who do this attempt to twist Scripture
to conform to their teaching.
Always remember this, "a text without a context is a pretext and
Now let us examine these two verses in detail, and in proper context.
Why do non-Catholics quote 2Timothy 3:16-17 out of
context? I believe it is because when taken in context, the verses
clearly show the fallacy of SS and offer no support for it whatsoever.
Biblical exegesis taken out of context is a major reason why many
simply have the wrong understanding of Scripture.
You should always start with the first verse of a chapter in order to put
later verses in the proper context. In some cases you might even have to
go back to a previous chapter, in order to be safe.
Please back up to verses 2Timothy 3:1-6. They are about what is happening
today in our society.
Verse 7 is a favorite, as it fits right in with SS believers, "EVER
LEARNING YET NEVER ATTAINING KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH."
Verses 8-9 reinforce verse 7.
Verse 10, Paul lauds them for following his doctrine. What is his doctrine?
Is it a book that he wrote? No, Paul spoke orally. His doctrine was oral
Tradition which he passed on to others.
Verses 11-12, Paul is persecuted for teaching the truth, and the same will
happen to us.
Verse 13, another favorite, some will lead others to error and it will
get worse. The false doctrine of SS is part of the "worse" of
which Paul spoke.
Now it becomes most interesting in verse 14, "continue in the things
you have LEARNED and that have been ENTRUSTED to you". What can this
verse possibly mean, except to KEEP THE TRADITIONS of which you have been
Verse 15, "from your infancy, you have known the Sacred Writings
which are able to instruct you unto salvation..." Since 2Timothy was
written probably between 63 and 66 and before 67 A.D., when St. Paul was
martyred, then the infancy of Timothy, to whom Paul addressed this
epistle, had to have been many years earlier, before any New Testament
(N.T.) book was written. Timothy was regarded as the Bishop of Ephesus
(1Timothy 1:3) and had to have been at least 25-30 years of age at the
time the epistle 2Timothy was written. If we subtract an age of just 25
from a possible 66 A.D., Timothy would have been an infant in 41 A.D.,
and even earlier if he was older than 25 and/or the Epistle was written
before 66. Paul had to have been talking about the Old Testament (O.T.)only.
The SS believer is then forced to accept only the O.T. to which Paul referred
in this verse. The same is also obligated to reject the entire New Testament
altogether, since none of it was even written by 41, and it was not even
canonically decided until the end of the fourth century, over 300 years
Verse 16 says that all Scripture is inspired by GOD and is useful
for teaching, reproving, and instructing in justice. That is fine. But,
please note that all this verse says is that Scripture is useful,
and in no way does it say, or even insinuate, that it is the only useful
tool for teaching. This one observation of this one verse is sufficient
to destroy the false doctrine of SS by itself, but there is much more to
Paul said, "ALL Scripture is inspired by GOD...".
Just what Scripture did Paul have at the time? The only Scripture available
to Paul was the Old Testament in either of two forms, the Hebrew, or the
Greek Septuagint. Scholars agree that the Septuagint was the most
quoted in the N.T., and it had all of the books including those which
Protestants rejected during the reformation. This then puts SS believers
in the difficult position of having to accept the "Deuterocanonicals"
(called "Apocrypha by them"), which were in the Septuagint which
Greek speaking Jews, including Saint Paul used. Read the files "Deuters",
and "Is the Catholic Church the Mother or the
Daughter of the Bible", found elsewhere on this website for the
details. Remember, these were the seven books rejected by Martin Luther
almost 1500 years later, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and 1 and
2 Maccabees. Since those two translations were the only ones available
to Paul, and he did say all Scripture was inspired by GOD,
then those seven books had to have been inspired by GOD
also, were they not? If so, then who would have the authority to remove
them? Do you remember what the Bible said about adding to, or removing
from the Word of GOD, and what would happen
to those who did it?
Obviously, Sola Scriptura believers cannot use 2Timothy 3:16-17 without
throwing out all of the New Testament,
and they would have to accept all seven Deuterocanonical
books as being inspired.
Once again, since Paul said all Scripture was inspired, do you feel
this remark was meant for all future Scripture from his time also?
It obviously could not, as Paul would not make such a blanket statement
about future writings, with his not knowing their content. If you insist
on believing it does cover future writings, then you would have to admit
that the hundreds (250-300) of books, that were rejected as not inspired,
are in fact inspired, simply because Paul said so. By the way, who
do you think rejected these many uninspired books, and retained the books
you now have in your Bible?
Now we come to verse 17, that the man of GOD may be perfect, equipped for
every good work. Does that verse say fully equipped? Does that verse
mean that Scripture alone will make a man perfect and fully equipped
and lacking nothing? If that is your trend of thought then I will have
to remind you of James 1:4, which says, "And let patience have its
perfect work, THAT YOU MAY BE PERFECT AND ENTIRE, LACKING NOTHING."
Now that verse is more definitive than 2Timothy 3:17, perfect, entire,
and...lacking nothing. James 1:1-4 does not even mention Scripture,
*People of our time, not ever knowing the truth will lead many astray,
*Keep the TRADITIONS you have been taught and be prepared to receive persecution
for doing it,
vs 10-13. I would say we Catholics are persecuted for keeping the 'T'raditions,
wouldn't you agree?
*Continue in the truth you have learned from the oral teaching, vs 14-15.
*You cannot use the N.T. at all, and you must accept the 7 disputed books
as canonical, vs 15-16.
*Use Scripture, as it is useful for teaching, but by no means the
only means, vs 16-17.
*We Catholics abide by all of 2Timothy 3. Do you?
*When you quote Scripture, please do not take it out of context, as it
is so obvious that you can easily fall into error.
The very earliest mention of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was by
Martin Luther as he was questioned in the Synod
of Augsburg (Germany) in October 1518. In his appeal to the Council, Luther
placed the Bible and its decision (his interpretation of it) above the
Pope. Even so he admitted that the authority of the Synod and of the Bible
were on a par, only in hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision.
In the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther declared that Scripture
ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already
erred in matters of faith.*
I presume Martin Luther had "forgotten" that by an infallible
decision, it was the Pope and the Magisterium, who decided the canons
of both the Old and New Testaments in earlier Church Councils.
*Reference: "Martin Luther, His Life, and His
Work", 6 volumes, 1930 Volume 4: page 388-389,
by Hartmann Grisar, a German Jesuit.
Sola Scriptura, as I have shown, is non-Scriptural. It cannot be shown
that it is historical before the reformation either. That classifies it
as a false man-made tradition (small 't') and is therefore condemned
by Jesus Christ Himself, as He said in Matthew 15:1-9, and in Mark 7:3-13,
and by Saint Paul in 1Corinthians 2:13, Colossians 2:8, and Titus 1:14.
This means that non-Catholics who take the Bible literally by lumping Apostolic
'T'raditions and man-made 't'raditions together, must condemn Sola Scriptura
as well. Holy Scripture tells us very clearly that man-made 't'raditions
are to be condemned as shown above, while Apostolic 'T'raditions are to
be preserved (Philippians 2:16, 2Thessalonians 2:14-15, 2Timothy 1:13-14,
2:2, 3:14, Hebrews 2:1).
Again, I will ask of SS believers:
"Please show me the verse(s) in Holy Scripture which authorize the
false man-made doctrine
of Sola Scriptura?"
Why do Sola Scriptura believers ignore
so many verses in the Bible which have instructed us to do the exact opposite
of what SS proponents would have us do? The Bible is full of them and some
are so clear and to the point, that I do not see how they can be misinterpreted.
SS in effect, is the false belief that Scripture has all of truth inclusive
and that tradition has no place whatsoever in salvation. For a start, "So
then, brethren, stand firm and hold the TRADITIONS that you have LEARNED,
WHETHER BY WORD OR BY LETTER OF OURS." That comes from 2Thess
2:15. By word or
by letter, how
plain could Paul have made it? But that falls on deaf ears by believers
Back up one verse to 14, "For this purpose He also called you
by our preaching to gain the glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
What is preaching other
than by word of mouth or 'T'radition. Both verses, 14 and 15, are
ignored by proponents of SS.
How about, "Now I praise you brethren, because in all things you are
mindful of me and hold fast my 'T'raditions as I gave them to you",
1Corinthians 11:2, ignored by SS proponents.
Matthew 28:20, "Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded
you." This verse also ignored by SS proponents. I could list many
more but I feel I have made my point. Did Jesus Christ command anyone to
write a Gospel, or did he say to go out and teach?
None of the Bible can be deliberately ignored, as SS proponents would have
us believe. We cannot be pickers and choosers and accept this verse, and
reject that one, as in a smorgasbord, just because it flows with or runs
against the grain of our beliefs. This is exactly what proponents of SS
Remember all those verses regarding not adding or taking away from the
Word of GOD? Scripture is full of references to it. Here are a few: Deut
4:2, Prov 30:5-6, Gal 1:8, 2Pet 3:15-16, and of course Rev 22:18-20.
Since Paul did say all Scripture is inspired, then that would have
to include all verses that even mention tradition, or word of mouth.
Is that not true? Since the Old Testament is the only one they can use,
if they insist on accepting 2Timothy 3:16-17 as the "authority"
for SS, then look at these examples of keeping the traditions from the
O.T.: Psa 44:1, Psa 78:5,10-11, Psa 105:5, Psa 143:5, Prov 2:18, Isa 40:8,
*Isa 59:21, Jer 6:16-17, Jer 31:36, Dan 7:28, and Zech 1:6.
Did Paul, or any other writer of New Testament books,
know they were writing inspired books at the time of writing? If not, then
how do you know the books from which you quote, such as 2Timothy, are inspired
at all? Is there a list of inspired books somewhere in the Bible? If so,
then please show me the verse(s).
If you cannot find such a list, then please tell me, by what authority
do you take these books to be inspired? Did the New Testament just fall
out of Heaven into the arms of Luther? Believe it or not, that is what
some have been taught.
When was the earliest possible time that the New Testament,
as we know it now, came into being? For Sola Scriptura to work at all,
it had to be available to the people so they could practice it, is that
not true? What New Testament Bible did someone living in 333 use? 222?
111? After all, there were Christians around in those times in order to
keep the lions fed, if you will recall. That reminds me, what was it that
motivated these early Christians to such a fervor that they sacrificed
their lives by the thousands, and in horrible ways of martyrdom, in staunch
refusal to give up their Christian faith? Was it the book? If so, what
How were Bibles reproduced before the invention of the printing press in
1450? Did Heaven once again drop them out of the skies by the millions
for all the people who had lived since the time of Christ? Where did the
masses of Christians get their Bibles so they could practice SS?
The answer is, the masses did not have Bibles, as each and every Bible
was hand copied by monks. Do you know how long it took one monk to copy
one Bible? It took 10 to 20 years. Now after putting that many years into
copying one Bible, how much do you suppose each Bible cost? The average
person could not afford to pay for 10-20 years of a persons labor for one
book. So there were very few copies available, and they were in the Churches.
How then could anyone before 1450 practice Sola Scriptura even if the idea
had existed then?
Do you believe George Washington was the first president?
Why? Do you believe the civil war really happened? Why? Do you believe
King John signed the Magna Carta? Why? None of these facts are in the Bible,
yet you believe them, because you have been taught to believe them, and
they are recorded elsewhere in history books.
Why then do you not believe anything about the Catholic Church, such as
the fact that Peter was indeed in Rome, or that
Peter was the first Pope, unless you can find it
in the Bible?
Do SS proponents believe in the Trinity? If so, then please show me the
word Trinity in the Bible? The Catholic Church has thousands of documents
which show exactly how the Church came to be, and how it grew to become
the Church that it is today. All of these questions and thousands more
are answered in authentic historical documents from the very beginning
of the Church.
Eusebius wrote a book of the history of the Church from before it even
began, and for the first 200 years or so after it was started by Jesus
Christ. Would any SS proponent believe the history book written by Eusebius?
No, because they cannot find it in the Bible. Why then would they believe
anything written in any history book? Aren't they setting a double standard
in not believing Church history as it is recorded, and in believing only
non-church history as it is recorded?
Sola Scriptura enthusiasts will never get it right, and will never find
the truth. They have built their beliefs on the foundation of the sand
of SS, and not on the rock of the Church. Foundations
of sand are shifty and unstable. No matter how much patching they do, their
house of faith will not be solid, but will shift continually as the wind
and water erode the sandy foundation they have built upon. They will spend
all of their days trying in vain to prove this, or to prove that, from
One denomination has "proven" from Scripture that Jesus Christ
was divine and not human, while yet another has "proven" from
the very same Scripture, that He was human and not divine.
The man-made false doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply does not work,
and never will work.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura appeared on the scene at
the time of the reformation as I have previously stated. It did not, and
could not exist before the invention of the printing press, when Bibles
were finally made available at low cost and in abundance, for the masses.
The doctrine of SS, is not Scriptural, as I have shown. It is not
historical before the reformation, as I have shown also, and it is not
This false doctrine of SS, and "individual interpretation" of
Scripture (forbidden by Scripture itself in Acts 8:26-35, and 2Peter 1:20),
are the root causes of the splits in the Body of Christ in Protestantism.
There are now over 33,820 non-Catholic denominations* in existence in the
world today. How else would you explain these divisions? Each one claims
the truth, "as the Holy Spirit has told them",
they claim. Are there 33,820 Holy Spirits telling each one a truth? Or
is there one Holy Spirit telling each a different truth? Truth is one
and not 33,820. There can be only one truth.
There is only one Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ said, "There will be ONE fold
with ONE shepherd." John 10:16.
He did not say there will be 33,820 folds with one shepherd.
How do you explain the underlying reason for 33,820 splits in protestantism
other than by the adoption of Sola Scriptura and its accompanying individual
interpretation of Holy Scripture? Catholics are chastised by some for having
a Pope, who is a Father Figure,
the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Catholic
Church on earth, to guide the Church which Jesus Christ founded, in all
truth. Aren't all of those non-Catholics who run around practicing individual
interpretation of Scripture, in reality, calling each of themselves his
or her own pope?
* World Christian Encyclopedia, April 2001, a Protestant publication.
Here are just a few of the many genuine
historical writings by early Church authors and Fathers in support of keeping
Someone please show me similar authentic historical writings before the
reformation which say,
"Do not keep the Traditions"?
Show me a genuine historical document defining the Protestant invented
false doctrine of Sola Scriptura before the reformation?
Keeping the Tradition...
Polycrates, Letter to Victor of Rome 5:24:1. J190a
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2, 2:9:1. J192,198,209
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2, J210-213,226,242,257
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus 5:20:4. J264
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 19:3. J291-296,*298
Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 2:1. J328a,329
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5:1+. J341,371
Hippolytus, Against Heresy of Noetus 17. J394
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1:preface:2,4. J443,445,785
Athanasius, Letters to Serapion 1:28. J782
Foebad of Agen, Against Arians 22. J898
Basil The Great, Transcript of Faith 125:3. J917
Basil The Great, The Holy Spirit 27:66. J954
Basil The Great, Faith 1. J972
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius J1043
Epiphanius, Against All Heresies 61:6,73:34. J1098,1107
Chrysostom, On Romans 1:3. J1181
Chrysostom, On Second Thessalonians 4:2. J1213
Jerome, Dialogue between Luciferian & Christian 8. J1358
Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Baptism 2:7:12, 4:24:31. J1623,1631
Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis 10:23:39. J1705
Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Augustin, Against Julian 1:7:30, 2:10:33. J1898-1900
Innocent I, Letter to Council of Carthage 29:1. J2015f
Theodoret of Cyr, Letter to Florentius 89. J2142
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 2:1, 9:14. J2168,2169,
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 20:25, 22:27. J2172-2175
Gregory I, Homilies on Ezechiel 2:4:12. J2329
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390
The Jxxxx references are paragraph numbers for
"The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A. Jurgens.
These documents of the Fathers may be downloaded from Here...
The words "Sola Scriptura"
are a misnomer for those who practice it, and who believe that everything
necessary for salvation is in Holy Scripture. The reason for this, is that
much of what is in Scripture is not even believed by SS adherants. Consequently
SS believers will believe only what they want to believe in Holy Scripture,
and will discard the rest. Sola Scriptura is then twisted to become Not
Cases in point:
They believe in the Holy Trinity which is defined
in Scripture but is not named as such, but will reject Purgatory
which is equally defined in Scripture, and again is not named as such.
They reject the True Presence of
Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist even though it is clearly defined by
Jesus Christ Himself in John chapter 6, and in all
three of the other Gospels, and by Saint Paul in 1Corinthians 11:23-30.
They will claim that it is the Bible which is the "Pillar and the
Foundation of Truth", and will reject the fact that it is not the
Bible, but the Church, as stated in 1Timothy 3:15.
They will claim that everything is in the Bible despite the fact that the
Bible says everything is not within its pages in John 20:30-31,
and John 21:25.
Sola Scriptura believers will attempt to inject their
own beliefs into Scripture in a pretense that they are Biblical, when in
fact they are not.
Cases in point:
They will claim that it is the Bible which is the final authority, despite
the fact that the Bible clearly states that it is the Church which is the
final authority in Matthew 18:15-18.
Nowhere in Scripture can it be found where the Bible claims that it is
the final authority.
They will claim that the Bible is self authenticating, when in fact it
Nowhere in the Bible does it say this.
They will claim that Scripture is easily interpreted by anyone, when in
fact Scripture says just the opposite of what they claim. See Acts 8:30-35
and 2Peter 3:15-16.
The Bible does not define what it means.
They will claim that Mary had other children
despite the fact that nowhere in Scripture is this
By making this false claim they must realize that by doing so, they have
insulted the Holy Family and the Holy Trinity.
They will say that the Bible describes something called "The Rapture",
when in fact it does not. That term is a 19th century Protestant invention
of John Nelson Darby in 1827, and popularized by Cyrus Scofield in 1909
by a footnote in his Scofield Reference Bible.
Here is some food for thought for Sola Scriptura believers.
It is the last nail in the coffin for this false doctrine if you cannot
answer these simple questions...
Where in Scripture did Jesus give instructions to His
Apostles to write a Gospel?
If the Gospel writers believed in SS, why did they recall oral Tradition,
such as Matthew 2:23, "...that there might be fulfilled what was spoken
through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."? That statement
made by the prophets is nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture.
Of the 39 Articles of Religion Established by the Bishops, the Clergy,
and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of
America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of
our Lord, 1801, article # 6 states:
"6. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation:
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Consequently
whatever is not read in Scripture nor can be proved from Scripture cannot
be demanded from any person to believe it as an article of faith. Nor is
any such thing to be thought necessary or required for salvation. By holy
Scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments
whose authority has never been doubted within the church."
Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted
solely to what is written within Scripture? Where in the Bible is the above
paragraph #6 written? Where in the Bible is the authority given for anyone
to make such a statement?
Where in the Bible is authority given to anyone to form yet another Church
other than the one which Jesus Christ founded? Psalms 127:1
How do we know that the books within the Bible are the Bible?
Does the Bible itself provide us with a list of inspired books?
Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters
of faith and morals?
If "all scripture is inspired", as stated in 2Timothy 3:16, then
why aren't the Gospels of Andrew, Bartholomew, Peter, Marcion, Thomas,
Nicodemus, and many others in the Bible?
Who had the authority to decide not to include them?
If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, and so easily interpreted, as
many non-Catholics say, and if the Holy Spirit leads every denomination
to interpret it in truth, then why are there over 33,820 non-Catholic sects,
and millions of individual non-Catholics, all interpreting the Bible differently?
Since non-Catholics claim "the Holy Spirit is guiding them",
how can the Holy Spirit be 'telling' each of them a different 'truth'?
It would seem to me that if all taught the same 'truth', then there would
be only one Church, not tens of thousands as we now have.
Non-Catholics usually claim that they all agree "on the important
things". If so, then who of the thousands of sects, is able or has
the authority to adjudicate doctrinal disputes between themselves?
Did the reformers follow SS in the teaching of Holy Scripture? I refer
to Hebrews 13:17, for one.
Where in the Bible does it say, "If you do not agree with the Church
which Jesus Christ founded, you should form your own church"?
Can anyone start his or her own church simply by holding up a Bible and
claim it alone to be his or her authority? Where does it say that in Scripture?
How did the early Church evangelize and survive and prosper for over 350
years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon
Who had the authority to infallibly decide which books belonged in the
N.T. canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?
Why do non-Catholic scholars recognize the Catholic Church councils of
Hippo and Carthage as having made infallible decisions in deciding the
canon of the N.T., while at the same time denying the O.T. canon decided
by the same Bishops in the same councils?
Why do non-Catholics accept Jewish Council of Jamnia,
decisions regarding the O.T. canon while at the same time denying the Christian
canon decided in the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage?
After all, the Council of Jamnia was specifically called by the Jews to
counter Christian usage of the Old Testament.
How can non-Catholics accept the infallible decisions of the Bishops of
Hippo and Carthage regarding the canon of the N.T., and at the same time
reject other teachings of those same Bishops such as the True Presence
of Christ in the Eucharist, and the honoring of Mary? It is to be noted
that many of the original reformers such as Martin Luther, taught these
How could SS possibly work for over 1400 years after Jesus Christ founded
His Church when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
How could SS possibly work for all the years before the invention of the
printing press in 1450, when Bibles were prohibitively expensive because
they had to be hand copied by Monks over a period of many years for each
Why are there no genuine historical documents in support of Sola Scriptura
before the Reformation?
When the reformers separated themselves from the authority
of the Catholic Church, they lost all authority
for themselves, so they turned to the Bible and declared it to be their
sole source of authority (SS). By doing this they ignored the very words
of Jesus Christ, as He told us very clearly wherein lies the highest visible
authority on earth. Review Matthew 18:15-18 again. Pay especial attention
to verse 17, as He tells us what happens to those who will not listen to
the authority He had designated.
Since there is only one truth in Holy Scripture, and only one Holy Spirit
to prompt us,
how then can:
Baptists believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says
this is not scriptural?
Seventh Day Adventists say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians
say on Sunday?
Lutherans believe in the 'true presence' in the Holy Eucharist, yet Baptists
Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say
it is 3 separate GOD's?
Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not Biblical?
The Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says
it is not Biblical?
All of the above denominations use the same Bible, so
why do they not all teach the same doctrine?
The answer is simple. They all practice the false man-made tradition of
Sola Scriptura and its accompanying individual interpretation of it. If
you would put in one place 33,820 people all of which practiced SS, and
asked each of them to interpret the Bible, you would get 33,820 different
opinions, exactly what we see today.
"The Bible is a supernatural book and can be
understood only by supernatural aid."
Personal opinions have no bearing whatsoever on doctrinal
Do you see now why there are tens of thousands of non-Catholic denominations?
So which of these 33,820 non-Catholic sects has the authority to say, "This
is the way it is,
or this is the truth of what Holy Scripture tells us"?
The answer to that question is that none of them do.
Consequently, it is the obligation of everyone to find the only Church
which does have that authority. To have only one truth, you must have only
one authority, and that one authority was given by
Jesus Christ Himself to the one Church which He founded in Matthew 16:18.
Read Matthew 18:18 and Luke 10:16.
This document is part one of a two part series. If you have not read it
previously, please continue with part 2, "The
Origin of Sola Scriptura".
but the patient just died...
It bled to death...
Did anyone send for the undertaker?
All silent for Taps Please...
Written by Bob Stanley, October 14, 1997
Updated October 7, 2002
to Home Page: