Of Sola Scriptura...
of Sola Scriptura.
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 authoritative body to interpret it? What authoritative
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
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 inerrant Book, and had failed to give us an authoritative,
infallible interpreter for it. Now you and I both know that GOD would never do
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
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
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
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:
Luther, His Life, and His Work', by Hartmann Grisar,
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,
*Council of Carthage III, 397
*Council of Carthage IV,
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
Revelation, 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
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
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 Revelation, 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 is dead."
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."
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 this book."
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.
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.
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
Martin Luther had many ideas contrary to Catholic and Biblical teaching.
Among them are...
Rejection of all authority of the Papacy and of the
Sola Scriptura, scripture alone as the only authority on
Sola Fides, faith without works. Good works are useless
Justification by faith alone.
Man has no free
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
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
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 of Widowhood]2):
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
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
Where is the reference to Sola Scriptura?
Augustine ("De unitate ecclesiae", [on the Unity of the
"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".
the reference to Sola Scriptura?
Augustine "Contra litteras Petiliana", (Against the Letters of Petiliana)
"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
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-existent.
like to reference St. Augustine, then I have a few references from him for
"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.
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
"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
"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."
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
"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
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
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395
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 this section.
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'
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
Athanasius... AD EPISCOPOS AEGYPTIAE...TO THE BISHOPS OF
4. IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE, AND
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 these things.
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
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359
My point being made, need I say
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)
Here are a few quotes from other Church Fathers since Protestants like to quote
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
"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
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 and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy
to be loved by all men, has been greatly
Letter to the Corinthians, Address, 80
"Accept our councel and you will have nothing to regret." Letter to
the Corinthians 58:2, 80 A.D.
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.
*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
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.
Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2:27. J184
Discourse Against Arians 3:6. J775
Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism 31.
Chrysostom, On Hebrews 12:3:5. J1219
Ambrose, Commentary on Luke
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,
Augustine, Questions to Simplician 1:2:12. J1572-1573
Augustine, Spirit and the Letter 3:5+. J1729 J1735 J1742
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
Demurrer Against Heretics 28:1. J295
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6.
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 23:10. J294, 200AD
Cyprian, Letter to Cornelius 59:55:14. J580, 252AD
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
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 8. J1358
*Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
*Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
2:7:12, 4:24:31. J1623,1631
*Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis
*Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Julian 1:7:30, 2:10:33. J1898-1900
Innocent I, Letter to Council of Carthage
Theodoret of Cyr, Letter to Florentius 89. J2142
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.
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390
Ambrose, Letter to Constantus 2:16. J1247
Questions to Simplician 1:2:2,6. J1569-1570
Some final notes on Sola Scriptura from its inventor and the founder of
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.
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, Ibid, 209.
"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
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 children?
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
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
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 every one 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
"And we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit,
whom GOD has given to
all who obey Him." Acts
Okay, GOD Himself has thrown down the gauntlet...TO ALL WHO OBEY HIM.
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
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
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,
Updated on June 17, 2004
Invaluable assistance has been given to me
by Tim Brennan in the historical research for this file. Thank you.
Back to Home Page...