Not until 8 months ago did I ever hear of this phrase. SOLA SCRIPTURA. I was never a Bible Reader until I turned 40 three years ago. I only listened to the Pastor teach every Sunday morning, night and Wednesday night. Then one day a fellow co-worker were talking about his Catholic Eucharist and he read some scripture to me. Since I started paying attention to what the Pastor said when I was 13, I have never had a Pastor read these verses that this Catholic was presenting to me. I told him about never heard these being read by a Pastor in 27 years of listening. He responded: At this point I interrupted him, and asked him who these Early Church Fathers were. And proceeded to explain. He told me there are a lot of resources on the Internet. He said do a search on Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura. I told him I had heard the Pastor in brief mention Bible Alone. He also told me to sit down on Saturday and read the New Testament from beginning to end and see if I could discover where the Bible says it is the Sole Source of Authority, etc, etc, etc. I had heard the Pastor in brief mention Bible Alone. So I sat down to read the New Testament in order to see what other things I was not being taught and whether this Bible Alone was actually biblical. I could not find any explicit verse that stated that the Bible itself is the Final Authority. Then I read online all the arguments for and against. The against is more plausible and more logical. One passage that is never cited as a proof text for [FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT]is [FONT=Arial,Arial]2 Peter 1:20-2:1[/FONT]. That's hardly surprising. In this passage Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: "[FONT=Arial,Arial]No prophecy [/FONT]of scripture is a matter of [FONT=Arial,Arial]one's own interpretation[/FONT]." Then Peter warns: "But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there [FONT=Arial,Arial]will be [/FONT]false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in [FONT=Arial,Arial]destructive heresies[/FONT], even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet 2:1). Note that under divine inspiration Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies! The Greek word that is translated as "heresies" comes from the verb [FONT=Arial,Arial]haireomai[/FONT], which means " to take or to choose for oneself." In the first century it had the negative meaning of going off on one's own in rebellion to the established teaching. Thus, in Acts 24:14 some translations render it as "sect". This message by Paul would manifest itself with Martin Luther: [FONT=Arial,Italic]Sola scriptura [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic] [/FONT]is clearly unworkable. Individual interpretation of the Bible has lead to the uncontrollable fragmentation within Protestantism. The total number of Protestant denominations is rapidly approaching 30,000. This scandalous disunity embraces both doctrinal and moral issues. Nor is there any possibility within the framework of [FONT=Arial,Italic]sola scriptura [/FONT]to mend this fracturing. Even Luther, who introduced this virus of chaos into Christianity, came to see the excesses to which it was headed. After he broke from Rome Luther wrote that the Bible could be interpreted by anyone "even the humble miller's maid, nay, a child of nine." However, later in his career he called the Bible the "heresy book." In 1525 he wrote: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet." The vital issue with [FONT=Arial,Italic]sola scriptura [/FONT]is, of course, interpretation. [FONT=Arial,Italic]Sola scriptura [/FONT]asserts that the Holy Spirit guides the Bible believing Christian in correctly interpreting the word of God in matters essential to the faith. Since Protestants reject the reality of an infallible interpretative authority within the Church, how does one reconcile differences? Forget for a moment ignore the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants. For illustration purposes let's consider an issue debated within Protestant groups - baptismal regeneration. One group teaches that baptism is essential. A second group teaches that baptism is desirable, but not essential. A third group rejects baptism altogether. Each group cites the Bible as its source. Which is the correct interpretation? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit is responsible for this confusion? Did God give his people an infallible book without giving his children any way of correctly interpreting it? The statement in 2 Peter 1:20 is so strong in its opposition to idea of [FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT]that one Protestant translation attempts to subvert its meaning by inserting words that are not in the original. Thus the NIV intentionally mistranslates "one's own interpretation" with "by the prophet's own interpretation." However, [FONT=Arial,Arial]tou prophetou [/FONT]is not found in the Greek text. This highlights another problem with [FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura[/FONT]. Not only does it impose ones individual interpretations on the text of the Bible, but individual interpretation becomes the basis of replacing the inspired text!