For Those Who Teach Sola Scriptura…

bible bane.jpg

Using the Bible Alone, can you determine which books belong in the Bible? Where is the Bible’s canon explained?

Using the Bible Alone, can you tell who wrote each book of the Bible?

How did the Early Church manage to evangelize the pagan Roman Empire without a set Bible Canon?

Who has the authority to arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

If all the authority a Christian needs is in the Bible, why are there thousands of denominations, with their own pastors or elders leading them?

Using the Bible Alone, can you show where the Bible teaches that it itself is sufficient?

Using the Bible Alone, can you explain the concept of the Trinity, and how the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son?



Scripture Alone?…from the beginning, it was not so! – Part 1

The Pint, The Pipe and The Cross

Some protestants try to prove that the practice of Scripture Alone was taught and practiced by the early church. What is interesting is that I have read some arguments that try to say “Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.” There is a big problem with this argument. The bible was NOT codified by the end of the apostolic era. In fact, it would not be codified for approximately 300 years after the death of the last apostle John.

The First Thing that is Needed to Know Truth… HUMILITY!

During my conversion in 2002, when I first received the grace of…

View original post 1,641 more words

Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 5

Bread From Heaven

Peter & the KeysCharles Allen: All things must be tested to God’s word which is truth then we must ask if these oral teachings were tested to God’s word. So does the catechism of the CC church test these oral traditions to scripture ? If they were not tested by scripture then how are we to be sure of their validity ie that they were not merely man’s invention.
Sola scripture just means that things must be tested to scripture as the only reliable source of truth – it was not an invention of Luther’s but always existed.

BFHU:  Where has Sola Scriptura always existed? It did not exist until Martin Luther invented it. Did you know that because of his adherence to Sola Scriptura Luther had the audacity  to delete 7 books from the NT that conflicted with his doctrines.

For instance, he taught that we are saved by faith…

View original post 416 more words

Luther’s Obituary for Lutheranism

(This is an article written by William G. Most that I found on Catholic Answers, and wished to share with everyone. Check out the original link: )

In his Exposition of Psalm 130.4, Martin Luther wrote, “If this article stands, the church stands; if it collapses, the church collapses.” He was talking about justification by faith.

He thought he made a great discovery, justification by faith, in Paul’s epistles to the Galatians and Romans. To Luther this discovery meant everything personally–it was more than just the article on which his church would stand or fall. It had this personal importance because of his fears.

An important statement, made in 1985 by a joint commission of Lutheran and Catholic theologians, admitted that “[i]n their situation [that of Luther and his associates] the major function of justification by faith was rather to console anxious consciences, terrified by the inability to do enough to earn or merit salvation. . . . The starting point for Luther was his inability to find peace with God. . . . [He was] terrified in his own conscience.”

Any experienced confessor will recognize what the poor man suffered from: He was scrupulous. A scrupulous man has a generalized anxiety which expresses itself by latching first onto one thing, then onto another. The person fears he is constantly in mortal sin.

Luther solved this problem for himself by his “discovery” of justification by faith, which for him meant that it made no difference if he did sin mortally all the time. If he would just take Christ as his personal Savior, and then the merits of Christ would be thrown over him like a white cloak.

He could not be lost–he was saved no matter how much he might sin (short of apostasy). So he wrote to his great associate, Melanchthon (Epistle 501): “Pecca fortiter, sed crede fortius,” which means: “Sin greatly, but believe still more greatly” or, better (since Luther is not to be understood as advocating sinning as such), “Even if you sin greatly, believe still more greatly.”

As a popular bumper sticker puts it: “Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.” In other words, Christians can sin as much as they want and get away with it. Others, for the same sins, go to hell.

Within his own framework, Luther was surely right in saying that his church would stand or fall with his idea of justification by faith. So we ask: Is it standing or falling? The answer: It has fallen–and for a double reason, according to his own calculations.

There are two key words, not just one, in the expression “justification by faith.”

First, “justification”: Luther thought that a sinner who is forgiven is still totally corrupt, unable to get away from sinning constantly.

Did Paul mean that? Not really.

He spoke of Christians as a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). They are made over from scratch– they are not at all merely the same old total corruption! And he says more than once that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in us as in a temple (1 Cor. 3:17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). Can we imagine the Holy Spirit living in a temple that is total corruption?

Even more telling, if possible, is the idea Paul has of faith. Luther did not even make a good try at finding out what Paul meant by the word. He assumed what appealed to his scrupulous fears and said faith means confidence the merits of Christ apply to me. But there is an obvious way to find out what Paul really meant by faith: Read every place where Paul uses the word and related words. We can use a concordance to locate them, to keep notes, and to add them up.

If we do so this is what we get:”If God speaks a truth, faith requires that we believe it in our minds (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Cor. 5:7). If God makes a promise, faith requires that we be confident he will keep it (cf. Gal. 5:5; Rom .5:1). If God tells us to do something, we must obey (cf. Rom .1:5; 6:16). All this is to be done in love (Gal. 5:6).

How does this compare with just being confident that the merits of Christ apply to you? Quite a difference. So, by his own standard, Luther’s church has fallen. What he thought was a great discovery was just a great mistake, and his whole system stands or falls on his error, as he himself admitted.

There is a large standard Protestant reference work, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. It first appeared in four fat volumes, with articles on everything pertaining to the Bible. In 1976 appeared a supplemental volume, which contained some new articles and revisions of some older articles. This latest volume has a new article on faith. We look for the subsection on Paul, since James uses the word faith very differently.

What do we find? Precisely the same as what we explained above. Faith is a complex of belief, confidence, obedience, love. The article even explains Paul’s words in Romans 1:5: “The obedience of faith” means “the obedience which faith is.” Luther thought we do not have to obey any commandment at all if we have faith. He did not see that faith itself includes obedience to God’s commands (and obedience is a work).

Another pillar of Luther’s church was “Scripture alone.” It left him with a problem he could not solve: Which books are inspired and so are part of Scripture? In the first centuries, for instance, there were in circulation many books that were called Gospels, with the names of apostles on them. How could Luther know which ones were inspired? His answer: If a book preaches justification by faith strongly, it is inspired–otherwise not. But Luther never proved this was the right test. And it could not be: He or I could write a book preaching justification by faith, yet the book would not be inspired.

At a national Baptist convention in 1910, Gerald Birney Smith, a prominent professor, gave a paper on this very problem. He reviewed every way he could think of to determine which books are part of the Bible. He found all attempts insufficient. He said there was only one way that could work–the existence of a divinely-protected teaching authority to assure us. Smith believed we had no such thing. Therefore, he was, sadly, left with no way to know which books are part of the Bible. To be logical, he should have stopped quoting the Bible, since he could not know what works properly comprise it.

What a tragic fall the two columns Luther depended on have taken, “justification by faith” and “Scripture alone”! His whole supporting structure collapsed under him (though he may not have realized it). In a real sense, Luther had no right to quote Scripture at all. Even if he had had such a right, Scripture shows he was seriously wrong as to what Paul means by faith.

A Look at the 5 “Solae”

Sola Scriptura — (Latin) By Scripture Alone

Sola Fide — (Latin) By Faith Alone

Sola Gratia — (Latin) By Grace Alone

Sola Christus — (Latin) By Christ Alone

Sola Deo Gloria — (Latin) Glory to God Alone

Many Protestants today believe that the Five Solae are a great representation of the principles of the Christian Faith. Unlike the supposed “man-made” traditions of papist Rome, these doctrines are said to truly summarize the teachings of the Gospel. They originate from the time of the Protestant Revolt of the 1500s; the warring battle cries of the so-called “Reformers”.

In reality, these Five Solae lure Christians away from the necessary requirements of salvation. The Solae focus only on the subjects that they represent, putting other important doctrines in the dark.

Sola Scriptura is merely the instrument of the “Reformers” to cry out against Roman Catholic authority. This Sola ignores the importance of Apostolic Tradition, and by denying the authority of Rome, it grants anyone the power of private interpretation of the Bible. Sola Scriptura puts a Christian in a position that ignores Tradition, recognizing only the written Word of God as infallibly binding. This is an amusing slogan, as it ignores passages of Scripture that this Sola supposedly solely relies on.

While Protestants insist that the Bible states that Scripture alone is authoritative, they seemingly ignore Bible passages concerning the importance of Tradition (Acts 2:42, 1 Cor. 11:2, Thes. 2:14, 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2 Tim. 2:2). If Protestants recognize the importance of Tradition, then that would deem Sola Scriptura unworkable.

If Christians are to rely solely on Scripture alone as their teacher, then how can they possibly pick and choose what passages are relevant to them? For anyone unaware of it, this action is called “cherry-picking”.

Through the use of Sola Scriptura, Protestants eliminate the need for an authority figure to interpret the Bible — anyone can do this themselves now! With Roman Catholic authority gone, any Christian is free to believe whatever he or she thinks that the Bible teaches, with no one to correct their error!

Again, Protestants have adopted a way of thinking that is contrary to their own doctrine. Christians who believe Sola Scriptura ignore biblical texts that deal with private interpretation (2 Peter 3:16), the need for an authoritative teacher (Acts 8:28-31), and the authority given by God to the Apostles (Matthew 18:17-18), which they past down to their successors, the Catholic bishops. They ignore the fact that the Church is the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and the authority that it has. For people who rely on Scripture alone, they sure do ignore large portions of it.

For Sola Scriptura to be true, the doctrine would have to be found in Scripture itself, or else it would be self contradictory. This supposed “Christian” doctrine is found nowhere in the Bible, rendering it obsolete. In short, Sola Scriptura is a doctrine allowing any Christian to believe whatever he thinks the Bible teaches, and no one else can tell him otherwise.

Sola Fide, Latin for “By Faith Alone”, means that Christians are saved through faith alone by grace alone. No works are required for salvation, just recognize Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, recite the Sinner’s Prayer, asking Christ to save you from your sin, and BAM! You are saved from eternal Hellfire, guaranteed access to Heaven.

Well thank God for such a simple way of salvation! At one moment of our lives we are able to secure our eternal welfare, without even lifting a finger! Where does God reveal this teaching to us in Scripture?



The only place in the Bible that the phrase “faith alone” appears is James 2:24:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Very interesting that the one Sola that is mentioned in the Bible is mentioned in a negative way. This doctrine of instant salvation (patent pending), is nowhere taught in the Bible, explicitly or implicitly.

Scripture constantly speaks of the importance of good works in salvation (Matthew 19:16-23, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 25:31-46), but again, these passages are ignored. Typical.

Salvation is a lifelong experience, not a one time deal. It begins at a certain time in a person’s life, and does not end until death, when that person is allowed into God’s kingdom. It is utterly foolish for a Protestant to believe that they can secure their salvation at one moment in their life, solely through one act of faith, when the Bible teaches that faith can be departed from (1 Timothy 4:1).

If faith can be departed from, then how can a “saved” Christian be sure of his salvation?

What really makes a difference is a Christian’s faith at the time of death, not the state of his faith 30 or 40 years before then. Sola Fide is just a safety net of supposed salvation, offering a Christian a false eternal security. It completely ignores the importance of good works in salvation. Can a Christian have faith without works? Are works not really required for salvation?

“But whilt thou know, O vain man that faith without works is dead?…For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:20, 26)

If faith is all that is needed for salvation, then why does the Bible place equal importance on good works? If anything other than faith is needed for salvation, then Sola Fide is rendered useless. See how small the margin for error is among the Solae?

Sola Gratia, “By Grace Alone”, means that people are saved by grace alone through the merits of Jesus Christ. Catholics agree that we are saved by grace, a gift from the Lord (Eph. 2:8-10). The point that Protestants err is the method that grace is applied to the Christian, the way that God makes this gift of grace available to men. The Roman Catholic Church has always taught the biblical fact that grace is communicated to a Christian through the sacraments (Baptism: Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:27-29, Titus 3:3-7; Eucharist: John 6:54, Last Rites: James 5:14-16; Confession: 1 John 1:9, John 20:23; Confirmation: Acts 8:16-17; Holy Orders: Acts 6:6, 1 Timothy 4:14; Matrimony: Genesis 2:22-24, Ephesians 5:31-33, Matthew 19:4-6, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Romans 7:2-3). Protestants believe that God just pours out his grace upon a Christian when he accepts Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, without the use of the sacraments. But the problem is that if grace is lost through sin, how is grace to be regained? Does a Christian just continually accept Jesus as their Savior and in turn is gifted grace? Does a Christian just continually ask God for saving grace, and is continually gifted it? How is a Christian to know that they are in the state of grace with certainty?

 The doctrine of Sola Gratia is just a teaching linked to Sola Fide. Salvation is to received solely through blind faith, with no good works or obedience needed. The problem with the Protestant understanding of salvation is that they do not recognize that grace can be communicated to a person through matter; the sacraments. The statement of Sola Gratia itself is not incorrect, but the principle linked to it is heretical.

Sola Deo Gloria is a doctrine that sounds like it carries a great message, but it tries to undermine the importance of the saints in salvation history. “Glory to God Alone” emphasizes that everything is to be done for God’s glory and excludes the fact that some figures of mankind (the saints) are to be honored and venerated. It means that Christians should be both inspired and motivated solely by God’s glory, and not the example of the Christians who have lived before us.

Like many other Protestant beliefs, Sola Deo Gloria ignores certain biblical facts. For instance, in John 17:22, Jesus says that He has given His own glory to the Apostles. Is this of no importance? This is not to say that the Apostles and other saints are to be worshipped like God, but the fact remains that glory, or honor belongs to them.

In Acts 28:10, St. Luke records an instance when he and Paul were about to go out on a sailing trip, the Christians “honoured us with many honours”. These Christians honored Luke And Paul for the evangelizing work they had performed in the area, giving honor where honor was due (Romans 13:7). The Christians honored the example of Paul and Luke, seemingly defying Sola Deo Gloria.

Some Protestants may argue that honor is to be rightly given to the saints, and that Catholics view the Protestant position incorrectly. But this simply is not true, as the saints, in many Protestant denominations are neglected and often ignored. Most Protestants say that Catholics take honor and veneration so far as to  “worship” the saints, but this is not true. The Roman Catholic Church has shown honor to God’s saints, by imitating their holy virtues and asking them for their intercession. Catholics do not worship any of the saints as if they are God.

Giving glory to only God in the aspect of worship is certainly correct, but it must not be forgotten that we, as Christians, are to honor the saints due to the glory they share with Christ, as they are unquestionably partakers of Christ’s divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

The final Sola is Solo Christo, “Christ Alone”. This Sola teaches that we are saved solely by Christ’s atonement by death on the cross. Like Sola Gratia, this teaching itself is not opposed to Catholic teaching, but several ideas that branch from it are heretical. It is linked to Sola Fide, teaching that works are not necessary for salvation; only faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross is sufficient.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, says:

“Christ stepped in, took the punishment upon himself and bore the judgment due to sinners. With his own blood he expiated the sins which made them enemies of God and thereby satisfied him…we look to Christ alone for divine favour and fatherly love!”

If Christians are to look to Christ alone for divine favor and fatherly love, then where does this leave the remaining two Persons of the Trinity; the Father and Holy Spirit? Calvin’s statement places emphasis on ignoring the Father and Holy Spirit — in order to further promote Solo Christo.

The problem with Solo Christo is that it wishes to place Christians in a “me and Jesus” scenario, ignoring the importance of the Church, sacraments, etc. It ignores the importance of God the Father, whom we were taught to pray to (Matthew 6:9-13), and also the Holy Spirit, the protector of Truth (John 16:13). While we are saved by the atoning work of Christ, we cannot discount the significance of the Trinity, the Church, or good works.

Solo Christo places emphasis on Christ as the sole Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:15), denying anyone else any part of the role of mediator. If Christ is the only Mediator between God and man, then why do Catholics pray to the saints, asking for their intercession?

Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid, in his article, “Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine” writes:

“It must be made clear that the Catholic Church in no way teaches that the saints are mediators in the special sense used in 1 Timothy 2:5. Because of the Incarnation, Jesus has a unique role as mediator. Since he is the only one who is God and man, the only contact point between us and the Father, only he is capable of bridging the chasm of sin that separates us from God. No saint can take Christ’s place as mediator. The Catholic Church does not teach that any Christian is a mediator in the sense used in 1Timothy 2:5. It teaches instead that all Christians are intercessors who, because of Christ’s mediatorship, are able to pray for each other.(The official Catholic position on this issue appears in Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: TAN, 1978), Session V (“Decree on Original Sin”), 25-28, Session XXV (“Decree on the Invocation of Saints”), 214-217.) If asking Christians in heaven to pray for us conflicts with Christ’s mediatorship, asking Christians on earth to pray for us conflicts for the same reason. If 1 Timothy 2:5 eliminates intercession by the Christians in heaven, it eliminates intercession by Christians on earth. But this would be a serious misreading. Far from excluding Christians from a share in Christ’s mediatorship, Paul is actually emphasizing that we share in it through intercessory prayers. Our intercessions are effectual precisely and only because Christ is the one mediator.”

Again, like many of the other Solae, Solo Christo seeks to place Christian doctrine in the dark, teaching that Christians cannot ask the saints in Heaven for their intercession, when this practice is perfectly acceptable, as explained above.

In closing, the Five Solae are just summarizations of only parts of the Christian Faith, and other Solas are man-made traditions (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide), that lead Christians away from the full message of God’s Word. The Solae isolate certain teachings of the Faith, like saving grace and Christ’s atonement, in order to keep Christians from recognizing the importance of the Church, sacraments, good works, etc. It creates a “me and Jesus” teaching, ignoring many other aspects of Christianity. Christianity does not rest on “this alone” or “that alone”, but it must be believed in its entirety, not bits and pieces.

God bless,

Patrick Devens


Where in the Bible…?

One of the phrases that I hear the most when having religious discussions with Protestants is “Well, where is that in the Bible?” I think that they should ask themselves, (and Catholics should ask them this too) “Where does the Bible say that everything Christian must be found in the Bible?”

After all, where does the Bible claim to be the pillar of truth? Of course, the Bible is an infallible source of God’s Word, but is it the foundation of all truth? Answer: No.

The Bible itself says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.  (1 Timothy 3:15)

The Bible itself says to “…hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thes. 2:14)

No where does the Bible claim to be the only teacher of the Christian faith. It explicitly states otherwise.