The Protestant Doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable

The Protestant Doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is one that is ironically unbiblical, unhistorical, and therefore untenable. I would also like to make it clear that I am Catholic and a former Protestant, and therefore my arguments will lead to the fact that The Bible (Holy Scripture) is in fact God breathed and divine and held on the highest level of esteem, but on that same level equally held are the Church's Authority on Earth and Christian Tradition. Let us first define what "Sola Scriptura" is, as well as what I am referring to by the term "Protestant". DEFINITIONS Sola Scriptura: The belief that Scripture (here meaning the Christian Bible) alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). The Bible is therefore "sufficient": it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. It is the final authority for the Christian faith. Protestant: I am referring to first, the historical movement began by Martin Luther, and subsequently Calvin, Zwingli, and others, and second by the Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and "Bible Believing" Christians who trace their roots back to, and still hold to, the foundational principals of the protestant reformation, being of course "Sola Scriptura" (and others but we are focused today on Sola Scriptura). (Citation: http://www.equip.org...) ARGUMENTS UNBIBLICAL Perhaps the most ironic aspect of Protestant theology is the fact that "Sola Scriptura" is not Biblical. There is no definitive part of the Bible that clearly states that scripture alone is the final authority on Christian teaching, nor is there a place where Scripture states that Scripture is "sufficient". Now, Protestants are ready with their favorite, and I do stress the word favorite, Biblical verses to counter this. The most obvious verse would be 2 Timothy 3:16; please note that I am using ESV translation of the Bible: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" Notice the word "profitable" and that the word "sufficient" is no where to be found. Also in verse 15, there is a reference to the scriptures that Timothy has known since infancy. He is of course referring to Old Testament scriptures, and not to the New Testament ones, and therefore not the Bible, which did not exist until almost four centuries later. The Bible is of course the Word of God, but without the authority of the Church (which Jesus himself established first, He NEVER promised nor commissioned the writing of His teachings or works, but He DID give us a Church) it is anyone's guess as to what the Scripture of the Lord God truly means. This is why the estimates of different Protestant denominations range from 21,000 (World Christian Encyclopedia by David A. Barret; Oxford University Press, 1982) to a liberal estimate of over 40,000 according to a cursory Google Q&A. This of course will inevitably lead to a debate about what is meant by "denomination" and what is meant by "Church" as Christ meant it. So let's get into that, because frankly all of these denominations happened as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Even www.gotquestions.org will affirm that: http://www.gotquestions.org... So what does the Bible say about divisions? Let us turn to the New Testament to 1 Cor 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers,[a] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" Well, Protestant denominations cannot agree on the following: the nature of the Trinity, Communion, Sacraments (how many are there, are they symbolic, and are we obligated to do them), Baptism by water, Baptism for infants, Women in the Priesthood, gay marriage, birth control, abortion, fighting in wars....just to name a few. It seems that the only thing uniting Protestants is their dislike for Roman Catholicism and their "both/and" mentality for Tradition and Scripture. Meanwhile, the "Sinners Prayer" and "being saved by simply accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" are no where to be found in Scripture, but rather a tradition of a particular brand of Protestantism. The irony is totally lost on most modern Protestants. But let us now turn to 2 TH 2:15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" Wait...what? "TRADITIONS that you were taught by us; either by our SPOKEN WORD...OR...by our letter"? There was NO Bible at this time. How did the early church convert the pagan Empire of Rome with NO BIBLE? In fact, it was not until the Church was legalized that a CANON of Scripture was authorized by the Church! More on that later. Last verse for this argument (though there are plenty more): Acts 8:30-31 "So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him." Yes, how can you know the scriptures unless someone teaches it to you? I.E. the magisterium of Christ's Church. Here are some follow on questions to ponder: 1. How did the Apostles "preach the Gospel" with no Bible, furthermore, to a largely illiterate people? Well the answer is the Holy Spirit and the Authority given to them by Christ to "bind and loose" on Earth (MT 16:18-19). So we have an infant church, which was illegal and persecuted and had the street's running with the blood of martyrs, converting the entire Roman Empire and pockets of the world, with NO Bible. How is it Sola Scriptura again? 2. Where is it written that God's Holy Word must be written, and that spoken word is not on equal terms? Jesus wrote nothing down and spent three intimate years with the Apostles. Do we have Gospels from all of the Apostles? No, but we have the fruits of their labors as Evangelists. Do we have everything he said and taught to them? No, we have only a fragment of that, but we have the product of their oral and traditional teachings, which to a largely illiterate society was essential. No where in the Bible does it say that the Lord has given us "the Bible" as we know it. 3. Why did the Holy Spirit wait for almost four centuries before finally collecting and forming the apostolic writings into a collection called the New Testament? Why didn't the apostles collect all the inspired writings and authoritatively announce to Christians suffering and dying all over the world that these texts are inspired and true and worth your blood but these others are not? The early church seemed to be in no hurry to have the "deposit of faith" as solely the Bible, or to even have a Bible, as Protestants would have you believed, but rather in the teachings and authority of the Apostles. UNHISTORICAL Briefly, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not exist until the 16th Century. Before that, we had Holy Scripture working with the Magisterium of Holy Church. So for 16 centuries, no one propagated the doctrine of Sola Scriptura until a disgruntled and excommunicated monk proposed this particular Theology. What on Earth was going on for 16 centuries? Was the Holy Spirit asleep? Martin Luther wanted to remove books from the Bible, and indeed moved seven other books to an appendix. He did this in response to his own theology not being Biblical. E.g. prayers for the dead is obviously a part of 1 MAC and 2 MAC (not found in most Protestant Bibles in America, though they WERE a part of the original Bible of which Sola Scriptura said was the final authority), but Luther nonetheless said prayers for the dead were not to be a Christian practice. This came out in the Leipzig Debate. Source: Kolb, Robert (2009). Martin Luther. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN 0199208948. After losing that debate, Luther moved the books he did not agree with (Deuterocanonical books) to an appendix, and most Protestant Bibles today do not even have them period. So, how is the Bible that the Holy Spirit infallibly chose in the 4th century not good enough for Protestants? The Old Testament that Jesus knew was the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. Furthermore, those books in question were not even considered "uncanonical" by Jews until decades AFTER Christianity was started! So why even consider what Jews are doing after Christianity when discussing CHRISTIAN theology? Here is a list of New Testament references to the Septuagint in SCIRPTURE http://www.cin.org... UNTENABLE If it is not obvious now, let me make it clear: You cannot just ignore 16 centuries of Church Tradition and Authority and then say it can ONLY be the Bible upon which you base your teachings. All of these difference denominations claim to use Sola Scriptura, but they can hardly agree upon anything while drawing from the same "Sufficient" authority. It is unhistorical, and only Biblical when you only pay attention to the Bible verses you like and disregard the one's your Protestant Pastor does not preach on.