For Whom The Bell Tolls... It Tolls For Thee...

It Is The Death Knell Of Sola Scriptura!

 BONG.G..G...G....G..... 
BONG.G..G...G....G.....  BONG.G..G...G....G..... 
Please remain in silent reverence as we play Taps...

For anyone who still believes in the false, man made, doctrine of Sola Scriptura, after reading the other files* I have on this website, I have a few questions that no one has been able to answer. If you have not read those files, please do so now, and then return here. They are..
*Sola Scriptura.. Our Side, The Other Side, The Pendant, and the two
Fr. Damen files. All are on the first page.

Since you are still here, I will assume you are set in concrete on your belief in Sola Scriptura. O.K. let us see if you can answer these very serious questions about it.

* By its very title, in order to believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you must show me the verse(s) which authorize it in Scripture...Verse(s) please?
* In 2Timothy 3:16, Paul said, 'ALL Scripture is inspired by GOD'. Just what Scripture did Paul have at the time? Paul died about 67 A.D., so 2Tim had to have been written before that. Was there a New Testament at the time of writing of 2Tim? No, there was not. There was no New Testament as we know it now, for hundreds of years after the writing of 2Tim. The only Scripture available to Paul was the Old Testament. So you cannot use that verse to justify Sola Scriptura without having to throw out the entire New Testament.
* 'ALL Scripture is inspired by GOD'. That is what Paul said. Now what 'Scripture' was he talking about? The only scripture available at the time, was the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek translation of it, called the Septuagint. This then puts you in the difficult position of having to accept the 'Deuterocanonicals', which were in the Greek Septuagint which Greek speaking Jews including Paul used. Read the files 'Deuters', or '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 Luther almost 1500 years later, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, etc. 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 were inspired by GOD also, were they not? If so, then how could anyone remove them? Do you remember what the Bible said about adding or removing from the Word of GOD, and what will happen to those who do it? So you cannot use 2Tim 3:16-17 without throwing out ALL of the New Testament, AND you have to accept those seven books as inspired.

* Once again, since Paul said ALL Scripture was inspired, do you feel this remark was meant for ALL future Scripture also? It obviously could not, as Paul would not make such a blanket statement about future writings, not knowing their content. If you insist on believing it does cover future writings, then you would have to admit that the hundreds (250-300) of books, that were rejected as not inspired, are in fact inspired because Paul said so. By the way, WHO rejected these many uninspired books, and retained the books you now have in your Bible?

* Why do you quote 2Tim 3:16-17 out of context? Every SS believer with whom I have talked, quotes vs 16-17, and that is all. This is a major reason why some have the wrong understanding of Scripture. Please backup to verses 2Tim 3:1-6. It is about what is happening today to people. Verse 7 is a favorite, as it fits right in with SS believers, "EVER LEARNING YET NEVER ATTAINING KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH." Verses 8-9 reinforce verse 7. Verse 10, Paul lauds them for following his doctrine. What is his doctrine? Is it a book that he wrote? No, Paul spoke orally. His doctrine was ORAL TRADITION which he passed on to others. Verses 11-12, Paul is persecuted for teaching the truth, and the same will happen to us. Verse 13, another favorite, some will lead others to error and it will get worse. The false doctrine of SS is part of the 'worse', Paul spoke of. 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 taught. Verse 15, "from your 'infancy', you have known the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you unto salvation..." Since 2Tim was written before 67 A.D., then the 'infancy' of the people Paul addressed here, had to have been many years earlier, before ANY New Testament book was written. There again, you have to accept the Old Testament to which Paul referred in this verse, and reject the New Testament altogether. Verse 16 only says that all Scripture is inspired and is useful for teaching, reproving, and instructing in justice...fine. 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 Scripture only will make a man perfect and equipped? 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 2Tim 3:17, perfect, entire, lacking nothing.

In summation:
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 traditions, wouldn't you?
Continue in the truth you have learned from the oral teaching, vs 14-15.
Use Scripture, as it is useful for teaching, vs 16-17.
We Catholics abide by all of 2Tim 3. Do you?
When you quote Scripture, please do not take it out of context, as it is easy to fall into error by doing so.

Since Sola Scriptura is found not to be Scriptural, and cannot be shown that it is historical before the reformation, then that makes it a tradition, a MAN MADE tRADITION, spelled with a small 't'. It was first put into effect by Martin Luther at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.That classifies Sola Scriptura as a false man made tradition and is therefore condemned by Jesus Christ Himself, as in Mark 7:8. This means that true protestants who take the Bible literally, must condemn Sola Scriptura as well.
Again, I will ask, 'which verse(s) explain the doctrine of Sola Scriptura'?


* Why do Sola Scriptura believers ignore so many verses in the Bible which have instructed us to do the exact opposite of what SS diehards 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 and that tradition has no place in salvation. For a start, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold the TEACHINGS 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 tradition. Both verses 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 TRADITIONS as I gave them to you." 1Cor 11:2 ignored by SS proponents. Matt 28:20, "TEACHING them to observe all that I have COMMANDED you." Ignored by SS proponents. I could list many more but I feel I made my point. Did Jesus Christ command anyone to write the Bible, or did he say to go out and teach?
None of the Bible can be ignored. We cannot be pickers and choosers and accept this verse, and reject that one, as in a smorgasbord, just because it runs against the grain with our beliefs. This is exactly what proponents of SS do however. Remember all those verses about not adding or taking away from the Word of GOD? Scripture is full of references to it. Here are a few: Deut 4:2, Prov 30:5-6, Gal 1:8, 2Pet 3:15-16, and of course Rev 22:18-20.
Since Paul did say ALL Scripture is inspired, then that would have to include ALL verses that even mention tradition, or word of mouth. Is that not true? Since the Old Testament is the only one we can use, if we insist on accepting 2Tim 3 as the 'authority' for SS, then look at these examples of keeping the traditions from the OT: 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, Zech 1:6. There are many more in the OT and lots of them in the NT. Now, if you still insist on using 2Tim 3:16-17, not only do you have only the OT to work with, AND you have to acknowledge the 'Deuters' as being inspired, AND now you have to accept tradition as being Biblical and inspired.
Holding to SS is a rejection of the Word of GOD, and therefore anyone who believes in it is guilty of taking away from the Word of GOD...


* 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 2Tim, 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 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 did Bibles get 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 Sola Scriptura? The answer is, the masses did not have Bibles, as each and every one 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 one sold for? The average person could not afford to pay for 10-20 years of a persons labor for one book. So there were very few copies available. How then could anyone before 1450 practice Sola Scriptura?

* Do you believe George Washington was the first president? Why? Do you believe the civil war 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 primacy of Peter, that Peter was ever in Rome, that Peter was the first Pope, unless you can find it in the Bible? The 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 documents from the very beginning of the Church. Eusebius wrote a book of the history of the Church from before it even began, and for the first 200 years or so after it was started by Jesus Christ. Will any SS diehard believe the history book written by Eusebius? No, because they cannot find it in the Bible. Why then do you believe anything written in any history book? Aren't you setting a double standard in not believing Church history as it is recorded, and in believing only non-church recorded history?

Sola Scriptura diehards 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 rock. 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 Scripture. 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. 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, and it is NOT workable.
This false doctrine of SS, and 'individual interpretation' of Scripture (forbidden by Scripture, 2Pet 1:20), are the root cause of the splits in the Body of Christ in protestantism. There are now over 28,000 protestant 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'. Are there 28,000 Holy Spirits telling each one a truth? Or is there one Holy Spirit telling each a different truth? Jesus Christ said, "There will be ONE fold with ONE shepherd." John 10:16.
He did not say there will be 28,000 folds with one shepherd.
How do you explain the underlying reason for 28,000 splits in protestantism?

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 the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were side by side, 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 Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in matters of faith.

'Martin Luther, His Life, and His Work', by Hartmann Grisar, a German Jesuit,
6 volumes, 1930 V4: pg 388-389

I presume Martin Luther had 'forgotten' that it was the Pope and the Magisterium, by an infallible decision, who decided the canons of both the old and new testaments in earlier Church Councils.

Here are just a few of the many writings by Early Church Fathers
in support of keeping the traditions. Show me similar writings which say,
'Do not keep the traditions'. Show me a mention of the protestant false
doctrine of Sola Scriptura...
Keeping the Tradition...

Polycrates, Letter to Victor of Rome 5:24:1. J190a
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2, 2:9:1. J192,198,209
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2, J210-213,226,242,257
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus 5:20:4. J264
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 19:3. J291-296,*298
Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 2:1. J328a,329
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5:1+. J341,371
Hippolytus, Against Heresy of Noetus 17. J394
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1:preface:2,4. J443,445,785
Athanasius, Letters to Serapion 1:28. J782
Foebad of Agen, Against Arians 22. J898
Basil The Great, Transcript of Faith 125:3. J917
Basil The Great, The Holy Spirit 27:66. J954
Basil The Great, Faith 1. J972
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius J1043
Epiphanius, Against All Heresies 61:6,73:34. J1098,1107
Chrysostom, On Romans 1:3. J1181
Chrysostom, On Second Thessalonians 4:2. J1213
Jerome, Dialogue between Luciferian & Christian 8. J1358
Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Baptism 2:7:12, 4:24:31. J1623,1631
Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis 10:23:39. J1705
Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Augustin, Against Julian 1:7:30, 2:10:33. J1898-1900
Innocent I, Letter to Council of Carthage 29:1. J2015f
Theodoret of Cyr, Letter to Florentius 89. J2142
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 2:1, 9:14. J2168,2169,
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 20:25, 22:27. J2172-2175
Gregory I, Homilies on Ezechiel 2:4:12. J2329
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390

The Jxxxx references are paragraph numbers for
"The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A. Jurgens.

These documents of the Fathers may be downloaded Here...

Written by Bob Stanley, October 14, 1997...


Here is some food for thought for Sola Scriptura believers. It is the last nail in the coffin for this false doctrine if you cannot answer these simple questions..
Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?

Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (Matt 15:3,6; Mark 7:8­13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they (are) "sit(ting) on the seat of Moses" (Matt 23:2)?

Protestants claim that St. Paul categorically condemned all oral Tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15), and praises the Corinthians because they "hold firmly to the traditions" (1 Cor 11:2)?

If the authors of the New Testament believed in Sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14, 15)?

Where in the Bible is it said that God's Word is restricted only to what is written down?

How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?
How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first­century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us 2000 years later as Scripture?

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

If the books of the New Testament are "self­authenticating" through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

Why isn't the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible?

If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there about 28,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

Did the reformers follow 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, you should form your own church"?

Where in the Bible does it say that any one human person is above the Church on the question of authority to break out and form another church?

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 Scripture?

Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?

If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?

Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?

Why do Protestants follow post­apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?

If Christianity is a "book religion," how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?

If Sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?

If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a "religion of the book," why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?

If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say "we believe in the Holy Catholic Church," and not "we believe in Holy Scripture"?

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. Since there is only one truth in Holy Scripture, how then can...

Baptists believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says this is not scriptural?

Seventh Day Adventists say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians say on Sunday?

Lutherans believe in the 'true presence' in the Holy Eucharist, yet Baptists do not?

Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate GOD's?

Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not Biblical?

The Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says it is not Biblical?


So which of these Protestant sects has the authority to say, "This is the way it is. This is the truth of what Holy Scripture tells us."? The answer to that one is NONE OF THEM.



BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....

Sorry, but the patient just died...
It bled to death...

Did anyone send for the undertaker?
All silent for Taps Please...

©
Written by Bob Stanley, August 1998

Back to Home Page: