2nd Challenge for Protestant Theology: Where do the Holy Scriptures teach the SOLA in Sola Scriptura?


SOBERING QUESTIONS:
1. Biblically, did the teachings of the Catholic Church become corrupt? What do the Holy Scriptures say? 2. Click here if you have been taught that the Bereans followed the Bible Only Theory? Do the Holy Scriptures support this? Read the story again, but read the whole chapter not just the one verse.
3. Click here for the "7 Stages of Christian Spiritual Development", where are you?
4. Click here to read about the Flat Earth Society and common Protestant logic.
5. Click here for the very words of our Apostolic Christian Fathers on Catholic doctrines you've been taught are unbiblical.
6. Faith Alone (Sola Fide): It is a Catholic position. Have you been taught that Catholics must work their way to Heaven?

"THE CHALLENGES"
The 1st Unanswered Challenge for Protestant Theology: Is Protestantism Apostolic? Name just one distinctly Protestant doctrine that is.
The 2nd Unanswered Challenge for Protestant Theology: Where do the Scriptures teach the "SOLA" in Sola Scriptura i.e. the Bible Only theory?
The 3rd Unanswered Challenge for Protestant Theology: Is Catholic theology Apostolic? Name just one doctrine that isn't.

Return to homepage: 3 Unanswered Questions for Protestant Theology



Second Challenge: Is Sola Scriptura or the "Bible Only" theory even Biblical?
Have you ever actually checked? Find just one verse that says or even *implies* that Scripture is the

“SOLE infallible rule of faith”

as Protestants allege. My Friends, where do the Holy Scriptures teach the "SOLA" in Sola Scriptura? Before you quote 2 Tim 3:16, read 2 Tim 3:15 and the implications of this verse below.

Fellow Christians, Philosophy 101 tells us that if the premise is faulty, the conclusion invalid. With that in mind, Sola Scriptura is the crux of Protestantism. It is the Trunk of the Protestant doctrinal tree from which every Protestant doctrine originates, and from which every objection to Catholicism starts. If the Trunk is false, so must be its branches. If Sola Scriptura is found to be Unbiblical and Unhistorical and hence not Apostolic, i.e., what the Apostles taught the early Church: then Protestant theology must be rejected. For all Protestant theology is based on this single Renaissance doctrine. One must admit, if the doctrine is false, then so must be the theology derived from it. This is only logical.
(Note: this second challenge will address the Protestant assertion that the "Bible Only" theory is Biblical. Protestants have already conceded that there is absolutely no historical record of anyone teaching or believing Sola Scriptura before the Renaissance). See:
The 1st Unanswered Challenge to the Validity of Protestant Theology


Have you been taught that Sola Scriptura or the Bible Only theory is Biblical? Have you ever checked to make sure it is? Does it matter to you that not one Christian soul before the Renaissance taught such an idea? How could have it been taught by the Apostles to the early Church then? Protestant theology lives or dies on the validity of this doctrine.

Protestants often ask: Do Catholics follow the Bible?
Yes, but unlike Protestants we don't believe Scripture is God's ONLY vehicle to deliver God's message.
Because that belief is in itself: UNbiblical.
Catholics believe what Scripture tells us, that the Tradition of the Apostles and the Holy Scriptures are the word of God. (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2)

What is Apostolic Tradition?
In part it is the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

Proper interpretation of the Bible is crucial to understanding what the apostolic author meant. And ONLY by review and research on how that message was interpreted to the early Christian Church can we know this. Otherwise anyone can "Spin the Scriptures" and say the Apostles taught anything! (and many do as evidenced by 1000s and 1000s of Protestant denominations all teachings a different Gospel, contrary to Gal 1:8-9).
It has to be corroborated by the early Christian Church for it to be Apostolic.
Hence Apostolic Tradition.

Otherwise it is but an unsubstantiated notion, a mere unsubstantiated "opinion" on what the Bible says. So not only is Sola Scriptura UNbiblical, but because it is a Renaissance invention it is therefore UNapostolic/Unhistorical; it is unworkable in the search for the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is truly a modern idea, and therefore a Tradition of the Renaissance man.

Every objection to the Catholic Faith stems from the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura or "Bible Alone." That the Bible somehow teaches that the Holy Scriptures are the:

*SOLE* infallible rule of Faith,

and the Word of God as orally taught to the Apostles and the early Church must take a backseat to one's personal modern "interpretation" of the Bible.
Contrast this doctrine with the Apostolic/Biblical belief that the Holy Scriptures *and* how the Apostles/early Church interpreted them are the Rule of Faith for Christ's Church.

My friends I will accept this doctrine of Sola Scriptura if it is what the Apostles taught the Early Church. I.e., if it is truly Apostolic. If I wanted to be true to our Lord Jesus Christ I would have no choice. I will even convert to Protestantism if this Doctrine is Biblical. Again, I would have no choice. Because I just want to believe as the Apostles taught the early Church and I would assume all Christians do.

But the "Bible Only" theory is not part of Christian history and we know the early Church did not teach this doctrine in any shape or form. They would have to wait 1000+ years until the Renaissance to find the first person to teach Scripture as the *SOLE* infallible rule of faith. Since we know it does not predate the Renaissance, the most important question is now:

Is it even BIBLICAL?

Do the Holy Scriptures even teach that:

SCRIPTURE IS THE *SOLE* INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH?

Not according to the Bible. (2 Tim 3:16 maybe? Read on my friend, read it in context). Sola Scriptura is UNbiblical. Not just because there is no Biblical support, but also because it *contradicts* the Bible,,, blatantly and explicitly. Why would a Christian believe the Bible is the *SOLE* infallible rule of faith when the Bible never says or even implies this, and it even tells us explicitly the opposite? It tells us that Holy Writ AND Apostolic Tradition are the vehicles of God's Word?

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), &
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). &
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Is Sola Scriptura or "Bible only" biblical? It isn't, for no where in the Holy Scriptures does Scripture say (or even imply, allude to, hint at or make reference to) the idea that the Bible is the:

*SOLE* infallible rule of faith.

The argument is therefore self-refuting. It makes a claim the Bible can't support. Since the Holy Scriptures say that not everything has to *be* in the Bible, that has been the Christian position for 2000 years.
(John 20:30): "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book".
This message is Biblical and Scripture is explicit about it. Not everything is in the Bible. The Christian Church believes this because it has been the teachings of the Apostles and the Early Church on Scripture for 2000 years.

But please don't take my word for it. Read for yourself our Apostolic Fathers in their own words:

Click here: Our Apostolic Fathers on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition

On the other hand, Protestants HAVE to follow Sola Scriptura, (if they want to be Protestant), for every single Protestant doctrine is derived VIA Sola Scriptura. It is the root of all Protestant doctrines,,, personal interpretation of Scripture.
Catholics don't embrace this idea because it is not Apostolic or even Biblical. It doesn't even predate the renaissance, so how could have it been taught by the Apostles to the early Church?

The ONLY Scriptural Protestant argument for Sola Scriptura might be the passage: 2 Tim 3:16

Here is the passage "in context"
(2 Tim 3:15-17 KJV) "15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Many Protestants think that verse 16 validates Sola Scriptura, that "Scripture is the SOLE infallible rule of faith". But read it carefully:
1. It never even implies or even alludes to (much less says) that Scripture is the *SOLE* infallible rule of faith.
2. And secondly have you ever looked at verse 15? The verse preceding the claim to validate Sola Scriptura?

Verse 15 says: "and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings "......"from a child??"
What scriptures were those?? What Scriptures did the Apostle Paul know from childhood?
The "OLD Testament" my friend.

So how can Protestants claim that 2 Tim 3:16 implies that Scripture is *ALL* that we need, or, "That the man of God may be perfect" implies Scripture is *ALL* that we need?? Is the OLD Testament ALL we need "That the man of God may be perfect?" IF so then lets just shelf the NEW testament! Should we just shelf the New Testament and TOTALLY ignore what ELSE the Apostle Paul says about Gods revelation:

Protestants often use Flat Earth Logic and totally ignore what has been believed about the Christian faith for 2000 years; that the Holy Scriptures *and* Apostolic Tradition form the Word of God? They do if they embrace Sola Scriptura for it has *zero* support before the Renaissance, and it is UNbiblical. The Holy Scriptures *and* Apostolic Tradition form the Word of God. That is what the Holy Scriptures tell us my friend. Unfortunately some Protestants ignore the verses they don't like or the one's that contradict the theology of the Renaissance.

Paul tells the Corinthians: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2),
and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
He even goes so far as to order: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic Tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession--his own generation, Timothy's generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. See what the Early Church believed about Apostolic Tradition. I would hope that all Christians would want to believe as the Apostles taught the Christ's early Church.

Click here: Our Apostolic Fathers on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition

What Biblical evidence do Protestants have for this Renaissance doctrine?
None. What historical evidence? None.
Is it Biblical? No.
Does it contradict the Holy Scriptures?
(2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2)
Yes.
Remember, if a doctrine does not even predate the Renaissance,,, how on earth could have it been taught by the Apostles to the early Church?

But what about the Bereans?
Didn't they practice the "Bible Alone" theory?


Not if you read the Holy Scriptures, the whole chapter that is.

Click here: Who practiced Sola Scriptura? The Bereans or the Thessalonians? You might be surprised.




On another note, Protestants often ask about Catholic doctrines:

"Where's that in the Bible?"

The answer is, not everything needs to be in the Bible. The Bible tells us this.


"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" (John 20:30)

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
Not everything need be in the Bible for it to be good. I.e. Protestants bowing their heads and praying with their eyes closed,,, alter calls,,,the sinners prayer,,,even praying to Jesus himself-Jesus instructs us to pray to his Father...etc. All of these are UNbiblical or Extra-bible. But at the same time, all good. This is another example of the failure of Sola Scriptura. Read the verses above again about Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
Not everything need be in the Bible my friend, for that is what the Bible tells us:

(John 20:30)
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book"

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
Please don't try and make the Bible say something it doesn't, like the Bible is the *Sole* infallible rule of faith, i.e. the "Bible Only" theory. It doesn't claim to be the SOLE infallible rule of Faith, and it never says or implies "Bible Only," please don't pretend it does.
That is not being honest with yourself or with God. Just because you have believed something for years on end, doesn't mean it's true.

Luther finally realized his error. And he is the one who coined the doctrine.


Martin Luther on the failure of his invention; Sola Scriptura:

"This one, will not hear of Baptism, 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 about 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)

Return to homepage: 3 Unanswered Questions to the Validity of Protestant Theology

SOBERING QUESTIONS:
Have you have been taught the Catholic Church became corrupt or has ever taught a false doctrine? What does Scripture say?
Have you been taught that Sola Scriptura or the Bible Only Theory is Biblical?
Did the Bereans follow the Bible Only Theory? Have you been taught that? See what Scripture says.
The 7 Stages of Spiritual Development, where are you?
The Flat Earth Society and common Protestant logic.
Click here for the words of our Apostolic Christian Fathers on Catholic doctrines

The Challenges
The 1st Unanswered Challenge for Protestant Theology
The 2nd Unanswered Challenge for Protestant Theology
The 3rd Unanswered Challenge for Protestant Theology
"Return to homepage: 3 Unanswered Challenges for Protestant Theology"

.

Email: INRI33AD@aol.com