The Death Knell Of
Please remain in silent reverence as we
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
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
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
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 to show the verse(s) in
which it is authorized and can be found in Holy Scripture. Verse(s)
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".
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 context 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.
remember this, "a text without a context is a pretext and nothing
Now let us examine these two verses in detail, and in proper
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
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.
up to verses 2Timothy 3:1-6. They are about what is happening today in our
Verse 7 is a favorite, as it fits right in with SS believers,
"EVER LEARNING YET NEVER ATTAINING KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH."
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.
11-12, Paul is persecuted for teaching the truth, and the same will happen to
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
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 later.
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 come.
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
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
If you still insist that ALL Scripture is inspired,
then please tell me why the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, James, Matthias,
Barnabas, Bartholomew, and Andrew, or the Acts of Peter, Paul, and
Philip are not in your Bible?
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, does it?
*People of our time, not ever knowing the truth will lead
many astray, vs 1-9.
*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
*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).
I will ask of SS believers:
"Please show me the verse(s) in Holy Scripture
which authorize the false man-made doctrine
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 of SS.
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
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 do however.
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
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 book?
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 monk's 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
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 workable.
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 37,000 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
37,000 Holy Spirits telling each one a truth? Or is there one Holy Spirit
telling each a different truth? Truth is one and not 37,000. There can be
only one truth.
only one Holy
Jesus Christ said, "There will be ONE fold with ONE shepherd." John 10:16.
He did not say
there will be 37,000 folds with one shepherd.
How do you explain the
underlying reason for 37,000 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
* World Christian Encyclopedia, April 2004, a Protestant
Here are just a few of the many genuine historical writings
by early Church authors and Fathers in support of keeping the Traditions.
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.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2, 2:9:1. J192,198,209
Against Heresies 3:3:2, J210-213,226,242,257
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 19:3. J291-296,*298
Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 2:1. J328a,329
Marcion 4:5:1+. J341,371
Hippolytus, Against Heresy of Noetus 17. J394
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1:preface:2,4. J443,445,785
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.
Chrysostom, On Romans 1:3. J1181
Chrysostom, On Second
Thessalonians 4:2. J1213
Jerome, Dialogue between Luciferian & Christian
Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Baptism 2:7:12, 4:24:31.
Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis 10:23:39. J1705
Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Augustin, Against Julian 1:7:30,
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,
Gregory I, Homilies on Ezechiel 2:4:12. J2329
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390
The Jxxxx references are paragraph
"The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A.
These documents of the Fathers may be downloaded from Here... or 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 adherents. 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 Sola Scriptura.
Cases in point:
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
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.
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.
claim that the Bible is self authenticating, when in fact it is not.
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 stated.
this false claim they must realize that by doing so, they have insulted the Holy Family and the Holy
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
Where in Scripture did Jesus give instructions to His Apostles to write a
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
"6. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation:
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
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 37,000 non-Catholic sects, and millions of individual
non-Catholics, all interpreting the Bible differently?
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
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 of
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
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 copy?
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
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
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 do not?
Episcopalians say The Trinity
is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate
Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not
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 37,000 people all of which practiced SS, and
asked each of them to interpret the Bible, you would get 37,000 different
opinions, exactly what we see today.
"The Bible is a
supernatural book and can be understood only by supernatural
Personal opinions have
no bearing whatsoever on doctrinal truth.
Do you see now why there are tens
of thousands of non-Catholic denominations?
So which of these 37,000
non-Catholic sects has the authority to say, "This is the way it is,
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
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".
Sorry, but the patient just
It bled to death...
Did anyone send for the undertaker?
All silent for
Written by Bob Stanley, October
Updated September 2, 2004
Back to Home Page: