Sola Scriptura from the Protestant - not Catholic - View

[john_aurelius]

Hello John,

Thank you for posting.

I started the thread taken it back even further than interpretation of scripture.

I wanted to know, using SS as a doctrine, WHAT is scripture?

In other words, for any given book, who authored it, when was it authored, who determined it was God’s word, when was that determination made, and by whose authority was that determination made?

My premise was basically that all Catholics believe God, through the Holy Spirit, was the author of all Sacred Scripture.

With that as a given, I then asked (using my own “invented” phrase) by what “delivery mechanism” were the books of the OT and NT canon given to man. In other words, other than the Ten Commandments (if one believes in the literal interpretation of the bible that God personally wrote the commandments onto two tablets and gave them to Moses), how were the books of the bible given to man by God?

Most SS arguments start with what I, personally, thought were too many assumptions by both sides that only led to disagreement before one even got into how the bible came into being. That occurred LONG before discussing if the bible was sufficient for man’s salvatation and was anything else needed.

I, pretty much, wanted protestants to tell me how their bible came to be . . . literally.

I think it has made for some interesting discussion because as the primary (initially) defender of SS said in one of his latest posts (he seems to be seeing the flaws in SS), protestants consider X number of books to be in the bible simply because “a man in church told them so”.

Well, that was not sufficient for my purpose, and thus - this thread.

Chapter 1 of the WCF is Of the Holy Scripture,

for your interest I’m quoting chapter 5 concerning the authorship of Scripture being the H.S.

"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, thescope of the whole (which is to give glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only was of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet notwithstanding our full persuasion and assurance of the infalliable truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.

To which it gives the proof texts: 1 John 2:20, 27; John 16:13,14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; Isa. 59:21

 

[john_aurelius]

Most recent scholars would probably go with “organic Inspiration” so that there is a human author and also the H.S.

 

[Salvatore123]

John,

I hear and understand what you are saying.

As I alluded to above, this SS path of “it feels like scripture and something inside of me - the Holy Spirit - is telling me it is scripture, so it must be scripture”, is so illogical that I find myself laughing at the illogic of it.

Don’t people - who follow this path - realize that all it leads to are individuals telling others that they “felt” something special, and that the listeners simply have to take that individual’s recollection/recounting of his story/feeling as true?

That is why I always cite the Philemon/Imitation of Christ comparison. Again - with no denigration meant to God or Holy Scripture - I simply cannot find ANYTHING in Philemon that comes close to the “preaches Christ” or “self authenticating” or any other SS path, for that matter.

And of course, as tqualey pointed out, if scripture was so obvious to the reader, why were there such divergent views even amongst protestants during the Protestant Revolt as to what was or was not inspired canon?

I have concluded that pride MUST be the “plank in their eye” that blocks them from seeing SS for the horrible “doctrine” that it purports to be.

 

[Crumpy]

Here I am, the sheep in wolf’s clothing again. OK, here I am with a statement
from another protestant book that I have.

This time it’s from** The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge**,** An easy-to-use one-volume library for Bible study and lesson preparation**, 1992, Jerome H. Smith, Thomas A. Nelson, Nashville.

I purely stumbled on Smith’s essay in a comment he has interjected about Isaiah 8:19-20, which reads (RSV-2CE)“And when they say to you, 'consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn."

Alternately, from the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (1985) “[Is 8:19b-20] Inquire of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan; for a people may inquire of its divine beings – of the dead on behalf of the living – for instruction and message,” surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn."

Now, Smith says "Here we learn the absolute importance of basing every doctrine every belief, on the written word of God. No error is more fundamental, nor more disasterous, than depending on some external source of authority, whether extra-Biblical writings, or an organization claiming to dispense God’s truth. The only source of authority is the written word of God. This word is declared in many ways to be perspicuous – that is – understandable (Dt 30:11, Ps 102:18, Pr 8:9) to the ordinary person, who, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, together with careful study, may be trusted to come to just and sound conclusions as to the meaning of Scripture. Otherwise, how could spiritual truth be made known to “babes and sucklings” (Ps 8:2, Mt 11:25), and how could ordinary listeners be commended for checking the accuracy and truthfulness of an apostle (Acts 17:11), and be charged with the responsibility of judging the message of an apostle, to determine that it was the true gospel (Ga1:8)? Note that the great doctrinal epistles are addressed to the “saints,” that is, the ordinary believers, not to the pastors, bishops, theologians, or authorities of a church (Ro 1:6,8; 1Co 1:2; Eph 1:1, Ph 1:1, Col 1:2). We shall be judged on the basis of our belief or disbelief in the written word of God (jn 5:24-47, 12:48); in that day we will not be able to excuse our wrong belief by appeal claiming “But I believed what my church, pastor, organization, etc. taught me.” "

Immediately, I recoil, from this. I know that at Pentecost, Peter preached and converted 3,000 - without a Bible from which they could “check” his accuracy and truthfulness.

They were converted on HIS preaching and teaching. So, if SS is valid, it is not a doctrine of the apostolic era, but something contrived later, as I see it.

SS is called a circular argument by some, and I seem to sense that in Smith’s comment.

As I said to my Evangelical cousin a month ago, SS seems to imply that we should just pass out Bibles to everybody and leave it at that. That was a serious comment I made, and Smith seems to be saying just that. Either before or after the fact (of listening to a Bible teacher) you should read the Bible and verify their accuracy and truthfullness. The teachers become, for all intents and purposes, secondary and unnecessary, if they’ve done their job. So, by the age of no later than 25, you’ve read and studied the Bible and you don’t need any more teachers or teachings on the Bible. you know? Trust no one except just read your Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Here I am, the sheep in wolf’s clothing again. OK, here I am with a statement
from another protestant book that I have.

This time it’s from** The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge**,** An easy-to-use one-volume library for Bible study and lesson preparation**, 1992, Jerome H. Smith, Thomas A. Nelson, Nashville.

I purely stumbled on Smith’s essay in a comment he has interjected about Isaiah 8:19-20, which reads (RSV-2CE)“And when they say to you, 'consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn."

Alternately, from the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (1985) “[Is 8:19b-20] Inquire of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan; for a people may inquire of its divine beings – of the dead on behalf of the living – for instruction and message,” surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn."

Now, Smith says "Here we learn the absolute importance of basing every doctrine every belief, on the written word of God. No error is more fundamental, nor more disasterous, than depending on some external source of authority, whether extra-Biblical writings, or an organization claiming to dispense God’s truth. The only source of authority is the written word of God. This word is declared in many ways to be perspicuous – that is – understandable (Dt 30:11, Ps 102:18, Pr 8:9) to the ordinary person, who, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, together with careful study, may be trusted to come to just and sound conclusions as to the meaning of Scripture. Otherwise, how could spiritual truth be made known to “babes and sucklings” (Ps 8:2, Mt 11:25), and how could ordinary listeners be commended for checking the accuracy and truthfulness of an apostle (Acts 17:11), and be charged with the responsibility of judging the message of an apostle, to determine that it was the true gospel (Ga1:8)? Note that the great doctrinal epistles are addressed to the “saints,” that is, the ordinary believers, not to the pastors, bishops, theologians, or authorities of a church (Ro 1:6,8; 1Co 1:2; Eph 1:1, Ph 1:1, Col 1:2). We shall be judged on the basis of our belief or disbelief in the written word of God (jn 5:24-47, 12:48); in that day we will not be able to excuse our wrong belief by appeal claiming “But I believed what my church, pastor, organization, etc. taught me.” "

Immediately, I recoil, from this. I know that at Pentecost, Peter preached and converted 3,000 - without a Bible from which they could “check” his accuracy and truthfulness.

They were converted on HIS preaching and teaching. So, if SS is valid, it is not a doctrine of the apostolic era, but something contrived later, as I see it.

SS is called a circular argument by some, and I seem to sense that in Smith’s comment.

As I said to my Evangelical cousin a month ago, SS seems to imply that we should just pass out Bibles to everybody and leave it at that. That was a serious comment I made, and Smith seems to be saying just that. Either before or after the fact (of listening to a Bible teacher) you should read the Bible and verify their accuracy and truthfullness. The teachers become, for all intents and purposes, secondary and unnecessary, if they’ve done their job. So, by the age of no later than 25, you’ve read and studied the Bible and you don’t need any more teachers or teachings on the Bible. you know? Trust no one except just read your Bible.

It seems like a Hegelian swing. The population was so long without the Scriptures, then when they finally got them, they overcompensated in the other direction.

These things the SS scholars say about scripture are not contained in the Scripture, but are their own opinions. Pious opinions, certainly (they meant well) but opinions nonetheless, and they diverge from the Apostolic Teaching.

 

[tqualey]

Excellent post, Crumpy!

God bless

Here I am, the sheep in wolf’s clothing again. OK, here I am with a statement
from another protestant book that I have.

This time it’s from** The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge**,** An easy-to-use one-volume library for Bible study and lesson preparation**, 1992, Jerome H. Smith, Thomas A. Nelson, Nashville.

I purely stumbled on Smith’s essay in a comment he has interjected about Isaiah 8:19-20, which reads (RSV-2CE)“And when they say to you, 'consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn."

Alternately, from the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (1985) “[Is 8:19b-20] Inquire of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan; for a people may inquire of its divine beings – of the dead on behalf of the living – for instruction and message,” surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn."

Now, Smith says "Here we learn the absolute importance of basing every doctrine every belief, on the written word of God. No error is more fundamental, nor more disasterous, than depending on some external source of authority, whether extra-Biblical writings, or an organization claiming to dispense God’s truth. The only source of authority is the written word of God. This word is declared in many ways to be perspicuous – that is – understandable (Dt 30:11, Ps 102:18, Pr 8:9) to the ordinary person, who, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, together with careful study, may be trusted to come to just and sound conclusions as to the meaning of Scripture. Otherwise, how could spiritual truth be made known to “babes and sucklings” (Ps 8:2, Mt 11:25), and how could ordinary listeners be commended for checking the accuracy and truthfulness of an apostle (Acts 17:11), and be charged with the responsibility of judging the message of an apostle, to determine that it was the true gospel (Ga1:8)? Note that the great doctrinal epistles are addressed to the “saints,” that is, the ordinary believers, not to the pastors, bishops, theologians, or authorities of a church (Ro 1:6,8; 1Co 1:2; Eph 1:1, Ph 1:1, Col 1:2). We shall be judged on the basis of our belief or disbelief in the written word of God (jn 5:24-47, 12:48); in that day we will not be able to excuse our wrong belief by appeal claiming “But I believed what my church, pastor, organization, etc. taught me.” "

Immediately, I recoil, from this. I know that at Pentecost, Peter preached and converted 3,000 - without a Bible from which they could “check” his accuracy and truthfulness.

They were converted on HIS preaching and teaching. So, if SS is valid, it is not a doctrine of the apostolic era, but something contrived later, as I see it.

SS is called a circular argument by some, and I seem to sense that in Smith’s comment.

As I said to my Evangelical cousin a month ago, SS seems to imply that we should just pass out Bibles to everybody and leave it at that. That was a serious comment I made, and Smith seems to be saying just that. Either before or after the fact (of listening to a Bible teacher) you should read the Bible and verify their accuracy and truthfullness. The teachers become, for all intents and purposes, secondary and unnecessary, if they’ve done their job. So, by the age of no later than 25, you’ve read and studied the Bible and you don’t need any more teachers or teachings on the Bible. you know? Trust no one except just read your Bible.

 

[johnbres2]

• just a note -
  When I was at seminary (a Lutheran Seminary), after the daily chapel it was a fairly standard practice over coffee to criticize the sermon of whomever preached that day, because all thought they had better understanding of the Scripture readings for the day. It always bothered me - how could we be hearing Christ if we were critical of the interpretation being presented to us - meaning we were not regarding the day’s preacher as representing Jesus. We all had the Scriptures on our side. So the person preaching to us was not our authority, but was simply a speaker of opinions.

John Mark

well, this is true in the Catholic Church. Too many sermons are most certainly not coming from a representative of Christ. The Church does not have a definitive interpretation of every line of scripture, and there is plenty of leeway for priests to out into left field in their sermons. Some parishes are really a mess with their presentation and interpretation of the scriptures. At my church, the liturgical director (a lay person) changes the language of the readings as he sees fit and offers ridiculous interpretations of the readings in the weekly bulletins. As one example, I recall the instance where Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law and then she then ministers to them. Our ultra-liberal liturgical director wrote in the bulletin that this didn’t mean she made a meal for them or anything like that, but that she became one with them, preaching the good news along with them. His point seemed to be that it was demeaning to women to portray them as waiting on the men. This is the kind of nonsense we see all the time in many parishes.

 

[Tiberius1701]

well, this is true in the Catholic Church. Too many sermons are most certainly not coming from a representative of Christ. The Church does not have a definitive interpretation of every line of scripture, and there is plenty of leeway for priests to out into left field in their sermons. Some parishes are really a mess with their presentation and interpretation of the scriptures. At my church, the liturgical director (a lay person) changes the language of the readings as he sees fit and offers ridiculous interpretations of the readings in the weekly bulletins. As one example, I recall the instance where Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law and then she then ministers to them. Our ultra-liberal liturgical director wrote in the bulletin that this didn’t mean she made a meal for them or anything like that, but that she became one with them, preaching the good news along with them. His point seemed to be that it was demeaning to women to portray them as waiting on the men. This is the kind of nonsense we see all the time in many parishes.

Not in all, though. At my parish and in most parishes in my diocese, the homilies are very orthodox and the priests are deeply in love with Jesus in the Eucharist. There have always been parishes in the Church that needed reform - if there hadn’t been some even in the Apostolic Age, the pastoral epistles that became the New Testament would not have been written - but no matter how many fall into heterodoxy, there is one Church which shall never lose faith, one parish which shall always hear the Truth: “these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252). “There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 66 (69), 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254).

 

[mackbrislawn]

The sola scriptura type of debate is interesting to follow. And some principles about classical debate are also good to know in following such debates.

For example, in the sola scriptura debate, those who affirm sola scriptura, are called the “affirmative” side, and those who do not affirm it, the “negative.”

The affirmative make an assertion, a statement that they affirm to be true, and which they want others to accept and believe, hence their job is to argue for and provide evidence for that belief, that affirmation. Note that the burden of proof is all upon them. They have the burden of proving what they affirm and assert.

The negative, on the other hand, have no such burden. That is the advantage of the negative, they do not have to prove nor disprove anything. They do not have to disprove the affirmative’s case. I’ll say that again, the negative side has no obligation to disprove the affirmative.

The negative’s job is simply to show how the affirmative’s arguments and evidence do not in fact prove their case. Of course this is not as hard as actually disproving it. In practice, of course, the negative probably will advance arguments to disprove the affirmative, but this is not strictly necessary.

You can see how this makes the job of the negative easier than the affirmative’s. Therefore, a clever affirmative debater will invent some way to subtley introduce something into the debate that the negative will want to defend. In other words, shift some of the burden of proof from the affirmative to the negative! The affirmative (Protestant) by doing this is laying a trap for the negative (Catholic). That is what is happening when the subject of “sola ecclesia” comes up. Now the subject of the debate has moved from sola scriptura to sola ecclesia, and if the Catholic is unprepared to defend sola ecclesia, it then appears as if the Protestant has won the debate.

James White is good at this. He is very slick, and words and phrases roll easily off his tongue. He reminds me of a used car salesman.

 

[inkaneer]

Getting back to the original post, the problem, as I see it is thus:

The original poster stated:

"Sola scriptura” is discussed quite a bit on the CAF. I find the Catholic perspective, however, left wanting. It is wanting because most Catholics define it by merely translating two Latin words and then concluding that those two Latin words are the extent of “sola scriptura”.

For some Protestants, that might be sufficient. But for a learned Protestant apologist, he will expound on the definition of “sola scriptura”, and if the Catholic apologist is not careful, he can find himself backed into a corner from which he often cannot get out…"

This is false on several points. First of all sola scriptura was protestantism’s response to the historical christian belief of a church empowered with authority. Historically the source of authority ran from Jesus to the apostles and then down through the succession of bishops validly ordained. This was called Apostolic Tradition where the word Tradition meant “teaching”. Apostolic Tradition was composed of two elements. They were the Written Tradition and the Oral Tradition. Both of these were based on the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth. Protestantism rejected this idea of an Oral Tradition as being authoritative and accepted only scripture as authoritative. Thus the term sola scriptura.

The doctrine fails on several points. First it fails according to the Oral Tradition of the early church. Nowhere does sola scriptura appear any of the teachings either oral or written of the early church. Sola scriptura appears in the 15 century.

Second, sola scriptura fails scripturally.This rejection of the church as authoritative was not based on scripture for indeed it is most definitely unscriptural. Paul’s word in 2 Thess 2:15 is exactly on point in this matter. Here Paul urges the Thessalonians to hold onto both the written as well as the oral traditions they received. I have never seen or heard any protestant give an explanation for this. Most completely ignore it. Some will say that the oral tradition was eventually reduced to writing. Yet when asked for a scriptural reference to document that position none is given. In addition, at the council of Jerusalem as depicted in the book of Acts the sola scripturists were the judiacizers whose position was rejected by the church. The apostles themselves claimed a special revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Third, sola scriptua fails from a practical stand point. Protestant understanding of the Trinity is not based on scripture. Instead it is based on the decisions of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries that used Greek philosophical terms that are completely non existant in scripture. Such terms as essence and nature are not scriptural. Yet protestants have fully accepted the authority of the church in defining this doctrine. Then there is also scripture itself. The protestant New Testament is the same one that the early church accepted in the late fourth century. As pointed out before there is no inspoired Table of Contents in the Bible. Basically protestants believe these 27 books are inspired because the Catholic Church said they were inspired. In doing so the protestants are accepting the Catholic Church’s authority in this just as they do with the Trinity doctrine.

Fourth, even today, 500 years after the so called “reformation” but better labelled as a rebellion, protestants look to Rome for guidance. The issues of contraception, abortion and euthanasia are prime examples. Initially protestants rejected these as outright sinful but in the post WWII era many protestant denominations softened their positions and some even condone them in certain circumstances. But read some of the protestant literature that has come out after the papal encyclical Humane Vitae was published and you will see a return to the pre WWII positions by many. *Humanae Vitae *restated and clarified for the modern world the traditional Catholic teaching that all life is sacred and any attempts by man that is designed to either end or prevent life is inherently sinful.

Finally, there is the reason based on reason itself. How can sola scriptura, which with its accompanying doctrine of private interpretation encourage unity in the church? Jesus prayed that His followers be one as He and the Father were one. How can these protestant doctrines promote unity when any disagreement on scripture interpretation can and has resulted, in a splintering of the church. That splintering goes on today and will continue to go on until protestants wake up and take off their blinders and actually see what is happening to them.

Sola scriptura is the greatest and most successful weapon ever wielded by Satan against the church.

 

[Salvatore123]

macbrickslawn,

I promised to finish my (name removed by moderator)ut on this post, and I will do so this weekend - the last point about the scriptural passage saying, essentially, that scripture equips man with what he needs for salvation.

What you said about James White is the same thing I said many, many posts ago, and was immediately set upon by some saying that White was “all talk” and “no substance”. Well, when one really analyzes what White says, that is true. But, as you, and as I said, White is very adept at responding in “debates” (most I have seen on Youtube are atrocious), and the Catholic “side” often resorts to the ad hominem attacks and almost ALWAYS resorts to talking louder and often interrupting White. I find that such tactics immediately diminish the Catholic position and makes the Catholic look like a bully.

Logic is the biggest weapon we Catholics have with respect to SS. I was so pleased to see bogeydogg respond and actually acknowledge that much of what we Catholics said on this post were valid. And if one reads this relatively long post, anyone - Catholic and non-Catholic - will soon see that we made our points without denigrating other PEOPLE. I have no problem with shooting down an argument. I DO have a problem with shooting down the messenger.

White, I find, brings out the worst in Catholic “apologists” because he comes across, as you say, like a “used car salesman”. He is slick - but all talk, and very little substance.

I only wish he or one of his “flock” would venture onto this particular post. I think it would be a revelation

P.S. I hope to cover the last point either later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

Great post!

God bless

Getting back to the original post, the problem, as I see it is thus:

The original poster stated:

"Sola scriptura” is discussed quite a bit on the CAF. I find the Catholic perspective, however, left wanting. It is wanting because most Catholics define it by merely translating two Latin words and then concluding that those two Latin words are the extent of “sola scriptura”.

For some Protestants, that might be sufficient. But for a learned Protestant apologist, he will expound on the definition of “sola scriptura”, and if the Catholic apologist is not careful, he can find himself backed into a corner from which he often cannot get out…"

This is false on several points. First of all sola scriptura was protestantism’s response to the historical christian belief of a church empowered with authority. Historically the source of authority ran from Jesus to the apostles and then down through the succession of bishops validly ordained. This was called Apostolic Tradition where the word Tradition meant “teaching”. Apostolic Tradition was composed of two elements. They were the Written Tradition and the Oral Tradition. Both of these were based on the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth. Protestantism rejected this idea of an Oral Tradition as being authoritative and accepted only scripture as authoritative. Thus the term sola scriptura.

The doctrine fails on several points. First it fails according to the Oral Tradition of the early church. Nowhere does sola scriptura appear any of the teachings either oral or written of the early church. Sola scriptura appears in the 15 century.

Second, sola scriptura fails scripturally.This rejection of the church as authoritative was not based on scripture for indeed it is most definitely unscriptural. Paul’s word in 2 Thess 2:15 is exactly on point in this matter. Here Paul urges the Thessalonians to hold onto both the written as well as the oral traditions they received. I have never seen or heard any protestant give an explanation for this. Most completely ignore it. Some will say that the oral tradition was eventually reduced to writing. Yet when asked for a scriptural reference to document that position none is given. In addition, at the council of Jerusalem as depicted in the book of Acts the sola scripturists were the judiacizers whose position was rejected by the church. The apostles themselves claimed a special revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Third, sola scriptua fails from a practical stand point. Protestant understanding of the Trinity is not based on scripture. Instead it is based on the decisions of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries that used Greek philosophical terms that are completely non existant in scripture. Such terms as essence and nature are not scriptural. Yet protestants have fully accepted the authority of the church in defining this doctrine. Then there is also scripture itself. The protestant New Testament is the same one that the early church accepted in the late fourth century. As pointed out before there is no inspoired Table of Contents in the Bible. Basically protestants believe these 27 books are inspired because the Catholic Church said they were inspired. In doing so the protestants are accepting the Catholic Church’s authority in this just as they do with the Trinity doctrine.

Fourth, even today, 500 years after the so called “reformation” but better labelled as a rebellion, protestants look to Rome for guidance. The issues of contraception, abortion and euthanasia are prime examples. Initially protestants rejected these as outright sinful but in the post WWII era many protestant denominations softened their positions and some even condone them in certain circumstances. But read some of the protestant literature that has come out after the papal encyclical Humane Vitae was published and you will see a return to the pre WWII positions by many. *Humanae Vitae *restated and clarified for the modern world the traditional Catholic teaching that all life is sacred and any attempts by man that is designed to either end or prevent life is inherently sinful.

Finally, there is the reason based on reason itself. How can sola scriptura, which with its accompanying doctrine of private interpretation encourage unity in the church? Jesus prayed that His followers be one as He and the Father were one. How can these protestant doctrines promote unity when any disagreement on scripture interpretation can and has resulted, in a splintering of the church. That splintering goes on today and will continue to go on until protestants wake up and take off their blinders and actually see what is happening to them.

Sola scriptura is the greatest and most successful weapon ever wielded by Satan against the church.