Ever notice how selective 'solo scriptura' is?

Trying to think of all the things Protestants believe that aren't actually in the Bible.

One that comes to mind is the Trinity. Not the word itself, which of course isn't there, but the concept is actually not *explicit* and requires an authoritative interpreter (like the early Church Fathers who declared the Trinity dogma)

Just list them/rattle them off!

The 'rapture'.
Sola Scriptural itself.
Worship bands.

They would say the rapture *is* in there, Thessalonians, 'taken up' etc.

Good thread Iuvenalis.

How bout "Justification by faith alone"?

We all know they love to parrot that line and use bible quotes referencing this doctrine, but does the bible explicitly state this anywhere? If it does, I could never find it.

This was the major sticking point for the Prot seperation from Rome since the Reformation.

The words "faith alone" occur precisely once in Protestant translations of the Bible, and there it is condemned! "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24. Of course, the heretic Luther arrogantly added the word alone in his devious translation of Rom 3:28.

Sola Scriptura maintains that a doctrine cannot be true if it is not found in Scripture. But Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture. Therefore it cannot be true, and is literally self-refuting.

The canon of Scripture cannot be found in Scripture. Indeed, without being circular, one must know the canon of Scripture even before Sola Scriptura can be applied. How do Protestants know for certain there are 27 books in the New Testament, no more and no less? They cannot, and indeed their early leaders often added or removed one book or the other from the NT before finally settling on the Catholic canon determined more than a 1000 years prior to the day.