Martin Luther (1483-1546) is to be
given the credit for inventing the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible
Only or Bible Sufficiency). He had separated himself from the authority
of the Papacy and the Magisterium, and thereby so doing lost all authority
regarding Church matters. He then turned to the Bible, a book, as the sole
source of authority. Can a book ever be a sole source of authority? Can
the Constitution of the United States stand alone without an authoritive
body to interpret it? What authoritive body is there to resolve disputes
between opposing interpretations of the laws written within it? How long
would this country have lasted if the founding fathers had not had the
foresight to establish a Supreme Court, which has the final word in the
interpretation of the Law of the Land? This country would have been split
into factions right from the very beginning.
Isn't this exactly what happened to Protestantism?
Luther separated from the Catholic Church in 1521 and immediately there
were squabbles between him, Zwingli, his fellow reformer from Switzerland,
and Thomas Munzer. In that same year, Munzer broke away and formed the
Anabaptists. John Calvin separated in 1536 and formed Calvinism. John Knox
parted company and formed the Presbyterians in 1560. John Smith started
the Baptists in 1609, and John and Charles Wesley started Methodism in
1739. From the moment they separated themselves from the Catholic Church,
Protestantism lost the 'Supreme Court' of Bible interpretation, the Papacy
and the Magisterium, and they lost all of the authority given to those
two offices by GOD Himself. See the files regarding 'Authority',
and 'Magisterium', elsewhere on this website. The
splits continue on to this very day, as there are now over 33,800* differing
non-Catholic denominations, none of which can claim authority in the interpretation
of the Law of GOD, Holy Scripture. It has become so bad that the sects
are feuding amongst themselves and are further splitting internally. There
are scores of splinters in the Baptists alone, and several splinters in
all of the other major Protestant sects. It is every man for himself in
Bible interpretation for Protestantism. If it feels good for you, it must
be OK....but be prepared to suffer the consequences. There is no unity
in what Martin Luther started. If anything, he made a large part of the
Body of Christ impotent. It is easy to see the work of satan here, as it
is HIS plan to divide and conquer. See Matt 12:25 for Satan's plan, and
John 10:16 for the plan of Jesus Christ.
*World Christianity Enclopedia, April 2001, a Protestant publication.
Now what do you suppose is the root cause of all
of this chaos? It was the implementation of the false doctrine of Sola
Scriptura, and with it, the private interpretation of Holy Scripture (forbidden
in 2Pet 1:20 and 2Pet 3:16). Now, all of Protestantism can interpret the
"Constitution of GOD's Law", the Holy Bible, as they see fit,
bringing upon themselves splits, disunity, infighting, and chaos. Yes indeed,
it would be a strange thing if GOD had given us an infallible Book, and
had failed to give us an authoritive, infallible interpreter for it. Now
you and I both know that GOD would never do this.
Martin Luther was a prolific writer and held many views
in opposition to the Catholic Church. On Nov 1, 1517, Luther took 95 theses,
which he authored, and nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in
Wittenburg Germany. The Catholic Church responded by demanding that Luther
retract the statements of his which were in conflict with Church teaching.
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
his interpretation of it, above the Pope.
Even so he admitted the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were equivalent,
only in the hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision. In
the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther went a step further and declared
that Scripture ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils
had already erred in matters of faith. As a result he was branded a heretic.
There seems to be a contradiction here, as Luther was a Catholic Augustinian
Monk, and therefore was well aware that it was Catholic Church Councils*
which finalized the canons of both the Old and
the New Testaments. Now at Leipzig, he declared that the product of the
Councils ranked above the Councils themselves.
Luther was warned by the Church in June 1520, in the Papal Bull "Exsurge
Domine". The Church did everything it could to reconcile with him
but he refused, thus setting the stage for his self ex-communication. He
was formally ex-communicated on January 3, 1521 through the Papal Bull
'Decet Romanum Pontificem'.
A secular Council called the "Diet of Worms" was convened by
the Catholic Emperor Charles V in April 1521, and Luther was again asked
if he was going to retract, or maintain, the ideology of his many books.
Luther stood firm. An Edict issued by this Council in May 1521, branded
Luther as a heretic and an outlaw.
Sources for this section are:
'Martin Luther, His Life, and His Work', by Hartmann Grisar,
a German Jesuit, 6 volumes, 1930 Vol 4: pgs 388-389.
'Church History', by Fr. John Laux, M.A., 1930, Pgs 420-434
*Council of Rome, 382
*Council of Hippo, 393
*Council of Carthage III, 397
*Council of Carthage IV, 419
Since Luther had separated himself
from the authority of the Catholic Church, he could no longer claim all
of the beauty of Church Tradition. Tradition is also contrary to 'his'
idea of Sola Scriptura, and so he had to condemn tradition as 'unbiblical',
despite the many verses in support of holding traditions such as, "So
then, brethren, stand firm and hold the traditions that you have learned,
whether by WORD or by letter of ours." 2Thess 2:15
Martin Luther was a Catholic priest who started Protestantism,
thus making himself the first Protestant. It is interesting that he wrote
in his Commentary on St. John, "We are compelled to concede to the
Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them,
and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
Now for someone who humbled himself by admitting that he took the 'Word
of GOD' from the Catholic Church, he still proceeded to 'modify' it without
having any authority to do so.
Luther is the one who, on his own 'authority', removed 7 books from their
rightful place in the Old Testament, and placed them in an appendix. They
had references in them which did not agree with 'his'
teaching, mainly 2 Maccabees and Purgatory. He also
wanted to remove the last four books of the New Testament, Hebrews, James,
Jude, and Revelations, and he succeeded in removing them from their rightful
place and put them into an additional unnumbered appendix.
Here is a quote from a Lutheran scholar:
Heinrich Bornkamm's LUTHER AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, Trans. by Eric W. and
Ruth C. Gritsch. Edited by Victor I Gruhn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1969. page 189:
"He did not make his distaste evident through his arrangement for
printing, although he characterized the last four writings of the New Testament
(Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation) as inferior by not numbering them in
the Table of Contents, just as the Old Testament Apocrypha, and by separating
them from the main writings of the New Testament by a clear space.(394)"
The footnote, number 394, reads as follows: "394 From the New Testament
of September, 1522, to the last edition of the Bible in 1546..."
So what do we know? Luther included the four books, Hebrews, James, Jude,
and Revelations, in his NT, but only in an unpaginated appendix, clearly
separated from the rest of the NT. We know that this continued from the
first printing of Luther's NT until he died in 1546, and then his Bible
was reconfigured by his followers.
James 2:24 must have proved an embarassment to him in his teaching of 'Sola
Fides', as it says, "You see that by works a man is justified, and
NOT by faith ONLY." Also, James 2:26 says, "Faith without works
Luther added the word 'alone' to his translation
of Romans 3:28 because that verse also contradicted his teaching of 'Sola
Fides', "For we reckon that a man is justified by faith alone
independently of the works of the law."
See Proverbs 30:6
Throughout all of Scripture we are admonished, not to
add to, or to take away from Holy Scripture. Here are some of the verses
which warn against doing this, Deut 4:2, 11:32, 12:32(13:1),
Psa 12:6-7,33:4, Psa 50:16-17, 107:10-11, 119:57,139-140, Prov 5:7, *30:5-6,
Jer 23:36, Gal 1:8-9, 1Pet 1:24-25, 2Pet 3:15-16, and of course the verses
we are all familiar with from the last paragraph of the Bible, Rev 22:18-19...
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
book. If anyone shall add to them, GOD will add unto him the plagues that
are written in this book. And if anyone shall take away from the words
of the book of this prophecy, GOD will take away his portion from the tree
of life, and from the holy city, and from the things that are written in
Martin Luther removed seven books from the Old
Testament. He did take away from the Words of GOD.
The entire books which he alone removed from their rightful place in Holy
Scripture and placed in an appendix are, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom,
Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Later, these books were removed entirely
from Protestant bibles. As recounted above, he did the same with four books
of the New Testament. These books had been in all Bibles for over 1100
years. Who had the authority to remove them? Did Martin Luther? Did any
other single person?
Martin Luther rejected all authority of the Church and declared that the
Bible was the sole authority. Nowhere in Scripture is it written that Scripture
itself is the 'Sole Authority', nor does it say it is 'Self Sufficient',
(see 'For Whom the Bell Tolls', elsewhere on this
website). He did take away from the Words of GOD. Isa 22:20-22, Prov 11:14,
24:6, *Matt 18:17, Luke 10:16, 2Cor 10:8, *1Tim 3:15, Heb 13:17
Martin Luther added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. He did add to the
Words of GOD.
Martin Luther condemned Church tradition as unbiblical (since he could
no longer claim it) thereby negating scores of verses. He did take away
from the Words of GOD. 2Thess 2:15
Martin Luther declared good works were useless for salvation. He did take
away from the Words of GOD. James 2:24-26
Martin Luther wrote a series of pamphlets in which he declared that the
Priesthood and the Episcopal Office must be done away with. He did take
away from the Word of GOD, which clearly established the Episcopal Office
and the Priesthood. Acts 6:5,14:22,20:28, Tit 1:5, James 5:14.
So there we have it. Martin Luther is guilty as charged of all of the violations
listed above. He is the first Protestant, and the founder of Protestantism.
He is the same person who declared the Bible is the GOD given 'Sole Rule
of Authority', and is therefore to be believed. He has violated his own
teaching by both 'Adding To', and 'Taking Away' from the Word of GOD. No
one can deny that he did these things, as they are recorded in history
books, and in Church records. His actions reek of Heresy and Hypocrisy,
and all of Protestantism owes its heritage to the deeds of this one man.
Martin Luther had many ideas contrary to Catholic and Biblical teaching.
Among them are...
Rejection of all authority of the Papacy and of the Magisterium.
Sola Scriptura, scripture alone as the only authority on religious matters.
Sola Fides, faith without works. Good works are useless for salvation.
Justification by faith alone.
Man has no free will.
Protestants have tried to show that
Sola Scriptura did exist from the time of the Church Fathers. I have been
given five references by Protestants, all of which I will discuss next.
But before doing so, I will have to say that the false doctrine of Sola
Scriptura binds its believers to the Bible and to the Bible only. I have
been told repeatedly that if it is not in the Bible, it simply did not
happen or it is not to be believed. I am forced to remark then, that according
to their own rules, the writings of Church Fathers presented to me by them
are not to be believed, as I cannot find them in the Bible. If that is
the case, then why did they present them to me in the first place? Aren't
they breaking their own rules by doing so? Isn't there a double standard
Some Protestants of today would rather use the words 'Bible
Sufficiency', rather than the more familiar 'Sola Scriptura'. The reason
for this is that 'Sola Scriptura' is never mentioned in the writings of
the Church Fathers, but 'Bible Sufficiency' is. This is nothing but a ploy
to try and show the legitimacy of 'Sola Scriptura' from early Church writings.
Let us first examine the word 'sufficient' with a dictionary...
'Being as much as needed. An adequate amount or quantity'.
Does that mean Bible alone? No! Let us see what the Bible itself says,
"Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of His disciples,
WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. But these are written that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD, and that believing you
may have life in His Name." John 20:30-31
"There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every
one of these should be written, NOT EVEN THE WORLD ITSELF, I THINK, COULD
HOLD THE BOOKS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN." John 21:25
Obviously Holy Scripture has said very clearly, that everything is NOT
in Holy Scripture.
Here are the 5 examples as presented to me. My replies are in blue...
Augustine ("De bono viduitatis", [The Advantage
"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For
holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser
than we ought . . . Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except
to expound to you the words of the Teacher."
This example does not refer to the "Sufficiency
of Scripture" at all, but to the "Authority of Scripture".
Where are the words which say "Bible Only"? The Apostles taught
to hold the traditions too, as I have already pointed out. Also the "Words
of the Teacher" say to keep the traditions. See John 15:20, "Remember
the Word that I have spoken to you".
Where is the reference to Sola Scriptura?
Augustine ("De unitate ecclesiae",
[on the Unity of the Church]3):
"Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord.
Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and
which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss
our case." He goes on: "Neither dare one agree with catholic
bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion
is against the canonical Scriptures of God."
I do not see anything in this segment that even remotely
refers to "Bible Only". Again it references the 'Authority of
Scripture'. Hmmm, the third sentence says to take your case (differences
of opinion) to the Church. This sentence does indicate that the Church
has the final authority, does it not? See Matt 18:15-18. All that the last
sentence says is, "do not agree with a Bishop who is in error".
Where is the reference to Sola Scriptura?
Augustine "Contra litteras Petiliana",
(Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6:
"If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church
or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I
will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should
preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures
of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema."
This is only a repeat of Gal 1:8-9 which warns against
preaching another Gospel. Mormons should heed this one as it does not apply
to Catholics. However, it would apply to Protestants who deny keeping the
traditions. That is preaching another Gospel.
Where is the reference to Sola Scriptura?
Protestant references to writings of St. Augustine, for
support of Sola Scriptura, fall so short that they are simply non-exixtent.
Since Protestants like to reference St. Augustine, then I have a few references
from him for them:
"I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY
of the CATHOLIC CHURCH."
Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and
which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM
TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained
to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE
AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH."
Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just
as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS
nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept
by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and
handed down by the Apostles themselves."
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.
"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they
taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons."
St. Augustine, Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.
"Since by Christ's favor we are CATHOLIC Christians:"
St. Augustine, Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.
"By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will
not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to
the CATHOLIC CHURCH."
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.
"This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic
Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she
cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless
loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine,
in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her."
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.
From the samplings of St. Augustine (354-430),
which I have shown here, if I were a Protestant, and was determined to
remain one, I would make sure I would not ever quote from him again. There
are references to many more quotes from many Church Fathers, following
Athanasius ("Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione",
[Against Peoples Opinion About the Incarnation] Oxford, p. 2):
"For indeed the holy and God breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient
for the preaching of the truth."
If the Protestants read this as 'Sola Scriptura',
then I will have to remark that they should change the title to 'Sola Some
of Scriptura', as they rejected 7 books of the Old Testament, and the verses
which pertain to keeping of the traditions. Again, this section refers
to the Authority of Scripture and not Scripture only. Catholics have never
disputed the authority of Scripture, only the Protestant claim that it
is the 'sole' authority.
Athanasius ("Ad Episcopos AEgyptiae"
[To the Bishops of Egypt] in NPNF, Series II, IV:225):
" . . . holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us."
This is the only line that was given to me from a
very lengthy writing. Following is all of part 4 of this writing, and the
line quoted to me is in red at the end.
Athanasius... AD EPISCOPOS AEGYPTIAE...TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT
4. IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE,
AND REJECT PART.
For whence do Marcion and Manichaeus receive the Gospel while they reject
the Law? For the New Testament arose out of the Old, and bears witness
to the Old; if then they reject this, how can they receive what proceeds
from it? Thus Paul was an Apostle of the Gospel, 'which God promised afore
by His prophets in the holy Scriptures:' and our Lord Himself said,
'ye search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.' How
then shall they confess the Lord unless they first search the Scriptures
which are written concerning Him? And the disciples say that they have
found Him, 'of whom Moses and the Prophets did write.' And what is the
Law to the Sadducees if they receive not the Prophets? For God who gave
the Law, Himself promised in the Law that He would raise up Prophets also,
so that the same is Lord both of the Law and of the Prophets, and he that
denies the one must of necessity deny the other also. And again, what is
the Old Testament to the Jews, unless they acknowledge the Lord whose coming
was expected according to it? For had they believed the writings of Moses,
they would have believed the words of the Lord; for He said, 'He wrote
of Me.' Moreover, what are the Scriptures to him of Samosata, who denies
the Word of God and His Incarnate Presence, which is signified and declared
both in the Old and New Testament? And of what use are the Scriptures to
the Arians also, and why do they bring them forward, men who say that the
Word of God is a creature, and like the Gentiles 'serve the creature more
than' God 'the Creator?' Thus each of these heresies, in respect of
the peculiar impiety of its invention, has nothing in common with the Scriptures.
And their advocates are aware of this, that the Scriptures are very much,
or rather altogether, opposed to the doctrines of every one of them; but
for the sake of deceiving the more simple sort (such as are those of whom
it is written in the Proverbs, 'The simple believeth every word),' they
pretend like their 'father the devil' to study and to quote the language
of Scripture, in order that they may appear by their words to have a right
belief, and so may persuade their wretched followers to believe what is
contrary to the Scriptures. Assuredly in every one of these heresies the
devil has thus disguised himself, and has suggested to them words full
of craftiness. The Lord spake concerning them, that 'there shall arise
false Christs and false prophets, so that they shall deceive many.'
Accordingly the devil has come, speaking by each and saying, 'I am Christ,
and the truth is with me;' and he has made them, one and all, to be liars
like himself. And strange it is, that while all heresies are at variance
with one another concerning the mischievous inventions which each has framed,
they are united together only by the common purpose of lying. For they
have one and the same father that has sown in them all the seeds, of falsehood.
Wherefore the faithful Christian and true disciple of the Gospel, having
grace to discern spiritual things, and having built the house of his faith
upon a rock, stands continually firm and secure from their deceits. But
the simple person, as I said before, that is not thoroughly grounded in
knowledge, such an one, considering only the words that are spoken and
not perceiving their meaning, is immediately drawn away by their wiles.
Wherefore it is good and needful for us to pray that we may receive the
gift of discerning spirits, so that every one may know, according to the
precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom to receive as friends
and of the same faith. Now one might write at great length concerning these
things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety
and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and
the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy
Scripture is of all things most sufficient for
us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these
matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which
most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written
This quote given to me when taken in context is funny,
as what does the first sentence say, which is the theme of the whole part?
IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE AND REJECT PART. I have already
discussed the parts rejected by Protestants, so to whom does this paragraph
fit? Where does it say 'Holy Scripture ONLY is of all things sufficient
for us? Again it addresses Authority of Scripture, not Sola Scriptura.
Repeatedly, the Protestants like to quote Athanasius to once again 'prove'
Sola Scriptura existed in his time, and once again, they have 'proven'
that this Church Father never did write anything promoting Sola Scriptura.
But he did write some very interesting words against it.
"But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION,
teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE
LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers.
On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither
is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian."
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D.
My point being made, need I say more?
As I have previously said about another Church Father, if I were a Protestant,
I would be careful about quoting from Saint Athanasius (296-373) also.
Here are a few quotes from other Church Fathers since
Protestants like to quote them...
Saint Ignatius of Antioch (d 110) is an Apostolic Church Father, meaning
he knew at least some of the Apostles.
"Wherever the Bishop appears, let the
people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic
Church." Letter to the Smyrneans 8:1
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect
Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the Bishop as a type of the Father,
and the presbyters as the Council of GOD and college of Apostles. Without
these, it cannot be called a Church." Letter to the Trallians 3:1
Saint Clement of Rome, is another Apostolic
Church Father, and he had this to say...
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities
and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have
been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute
among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition,
alien and foreign to the elect of GOD, which a few rash
persons have inflamed
to such madness that your venerable and illustrious
name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been
Letter to the Corinthians, Address, 80 A.D..
"Accept our councel and you will have nothing to regret." Letter
to the Corinthians 58:2, 80 A.D.
Saint John Chrysostom (354-407)...
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and
hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our
letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by
letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was
written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition
of the Church as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further."
Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2, 398-404 A.D..
The following references
to the writings of the Church Fathers, refute every one of Martin Luther's
heresies as I have recounted in this document.
*Ignatius, Letter Ephesians 5:3. J38a,b,43,44,47,48,49,58a
*Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:1. J65
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5:1. J341
**Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Against Faustus 33:6+. J1607, *J1631
Canon of the NT........
*Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter J791
Eusebius, History of the Church 3:25:1. J656
Canon of the OT........
*Damasus, Decree of Damasus 2. J910t 382AD
Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter J791
Jerome, Galeatic or Helmeted Prolog Pro Gal. J1397 391AD
Canon of the OT and the NT...
*Damasus, Decree of Damasus 2. J910t 382AD
Rufinus, The Apostles Creed 35:al:37 J1344
Augustine, Christian Instruction 2:8:13. J1585
*Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius 6:7:13. J2015b 405AD
*Justin Martyr, First Apology 43. J123.
Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2:27. J184
Athanasius, Discourse Against Arians 3:6. J775
Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism 31. J1034
Chrysostom, On Hebrews 12:3:5. J1219
Ambrose, Commentary on Luke 10:60. J1309
Jerome, Against Jovinian 2:3+. J1380, J1404, J1405
Pelagius, Free Will, Grace of Christ 4:5. J1413
Julian of Eclanum, Eight Books to Florus 5:41. J1416
Augustine, Letter to Valentine 215:4. J1455, J1495, J1560
Augustine, Questions to Simplician 1:2:12. J1572-1573
Augustine, Spirit and the Letter 3:5+. J1729 J1735 J1742
Augustine, Homilies on John 26:2+. J1821, J1926, J1942
Augustine, Grace and Original Sin 1:25:26. J1854
Augustine, Admonition and Grace 11:32. J1955, J1972
Prosper of Aquitaine, Grace of GOD 18:3. J2038
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John 13:18. J2113
Damascene, Source of Knowledge 3:3:20. J2367
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:4:1. *J213
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 28:1. J295
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 23:10. J294,
Cyprian, Letter to Cornelius 59:55:14. J580, 252AD
*Augustin, Sermons 131:10+. *J1507, *J1892
*Peter Chrysologus, Letter to Eutyches 25:2. J2178
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
Ambrose, Letter to Constantus 2:16. J1247
Augustine, Questions to Simplician 1:2:2,6. J1569-1570
Some final notes on Sola Scriptura from its inventor and
the founder of Protestantism...
Martin Luther looked around and saw the damage that Sola Scriptura and
'private interpretation' of Holy Scripture was doing to his 'reformation',
and made the following remarks...
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that
one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last
day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there
are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but
when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy
Ghost and must be a prophet" De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE
FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium
better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more
learned than all the ministers." Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O'Hare,
"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic
Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the
apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament,
and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for
them?" Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in
vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
All of this and much more was said by the founder of Sola Scriptura, just
a short time later, as he surveyed the damage it had caused, and was continuing
to cause. By this time, Zwingli, had run in this direction, Munzer in that
direction, Calvin in yet another direction, all of them scattering the
sheep and taking their flocks with them. Luther had let the cat out of
the bag and he was helpless to put it back in. He had started something
that he was powerless to stop.
"Once you open the door to error, you cannot close it." How true.
Luther had set a prime example.
Some other interesting remarks made
by Martin Luther...
The Blessed Virgin Mary...
"The great thing is none other than that she became the Mother of
God; in which process so many and such great gifts were bestowed upon her
that no one is able to comprehend them. Thereupon follows all honor, all
blessedness, and the fact that in the whole race of men only one person
is above all the rest, one to whom no one else is equal. For that reason
her dignity is crowded into a single phrase when we call her the Mother
of God; no one can say greater things of her or to her, even if he had
as many tongues as leaves and blades of grass, as the stars in heaven and
sands on the seashore. It must also be meditated in the heart what it means
to be the Mother of God."
- Die Erklarung des Magnificat - 1521.
The first Protestant loved and honored the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother
of GOD. Why haven't all of the rest of Protestantism followed his example
in honoring her?
The fruits of Sola Scriptura...
"But when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come,
He will teach you all the truth. For He will not speak on His own authority,
but whatever He will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come
He will declare to you." John 16:13
Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit
is 'teaching' them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since
the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture,
how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching
all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following
denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?
1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true
presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female
ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday
is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship
is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary
was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, 'once saved always saved',
and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then
tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three
separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons
in one GOD?
I could go on and on with the differences between non-Catholic sects, but
I think you get the point. It takes only a minimum of common sense to realize
that the Holy Spirit could not be speaking to each and everyone of those
thousands of non-Catholic sects in the opposing ways of which I have sampled
here. However, I was recently reminded that common sense is not so common
anymore. It is easy to see that the 'fruits of Sola Scriptura' are not
from GOD. There is no 'one fold and one shepherd' in Protestantism. Opposing
teachings in these denominations is rampant, all caused by the false doctrine
of Sola Scriptura and its accompanying 'individual interpretation' of Holy
Scripture. Which, if any, of these sects is being taught all
of the truth, as promised by Jesus Christ
in John 16:13?
"And we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit,
whom GOD has
given to all who obey Him."
Okay, GOD Himself
has thrown down the gauntlet...TO ALL WHO
So who obeys the will of GOD?
Is it the Lutherans who say the Holy Eucharist is the 'True Presence' of
Jesus Christ incarnate, or is it the Baptists who say, 'It is only a symbol'?
Is it those who say we have to worship on Saturday or is it those who say
worship on Sunday?
Is it those who say baptize infants or those who say not to?
I challenge anyone to show me legitimate proof in writing,
a genuine historical document, which describes the false doctrine of Sola
Scriptura and which predates that which I have shown in this writing.
I Further challenge anyone to explain
to me how Sola Scriptura could have possibly existed before the printing
press. Before that time (1450) it took one monk up to 20 years of his labor
to hand copy one Bible. The cost of each was prohibitive and when 95% of
the populace was illiterate and could not even read a Bible, then please
tell me how it could possibly work? The answer is of course, it did not,
and it could not possibly work, and thereby did not exist. Sola Scriptura
is not Scriptural, is not historical, and is not workable. Since I have
shown its very beginning during the reformation, then that classifies it
as a man made tradition, and subject to condemnation by Jesus Christ Himself
as shown in Mark 7:8.
Written by Bob Stanley, May 1, 1999
Updated on June 24, 2001
Invaluable assistance has been given to me by Tim Brennan in the historical
research of this file. Thank you.
to Home Page...