North Forest - Protestant Errors

There are passages in the New Testament which indicate that verbal instruction and teaching are valid. This contradicts Sola Scriptura which teaches that only the scripture is authoritative. Certainly the writers of the New Testament didn't believe that.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. (2 John 1:12)

This verse should shock those who follow Sola Scriptura. Here we have a case where John prefers to share information verbally rather than write it down. Presumably whatever these "many things" are, they are not in the Bible. How can we learn about them except by tradition?

It is the apostles who are the head of the institutional church. They have the authority to (1) teach correct doctrine, and (2) interpret scripture.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (2 Pet 1:19)

In this passage, it is the apostles who possess the reliable prophetic message, not the scripture. The message is what is important whether communicated via scripture or tradition.

Who is qualified to interpret? The word we refers to the apostles and those who teach the same orthodox gospel message.

I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. (1 John 2:14)

Fundamentalists often equate the phrase "word of God" with the Bible. But it is the gospel message and the holy living of Christians which is the "word of God," not the Bible.

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24)

Notice that they "heard from the beginning" before there was a Bible. This demonstrates that the oral message is valid. Notice that John doesn't repeat what they heard, he merely assumes they know it or that they will continue to hear it from orthodox church leaders.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. (2 John 1:12) I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee. (3 John 1:13)

His communication was verbal, not written. If Sola Scriptura were correct there would be nothing more to say: the written word would be sufficient.

In defending Sola Scriptura certain biblical passages are presented as having a meaning which they simply do not have.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16)

This passage is typically used to "prove" the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but it doesn't say anything about "only scripture."

I should mention that all these things are true about scripture (both Old and New Testaments)

There are biblical passages indicating that there is other authority besides the scripture.

Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? (James 4:5)

He quotes something that is not in the New Testament and calls it scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is without foundation.

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God... (1 Pet 4:11)

We should preach the words (plural) of God. This is not necessarily the Bible. God has other words besides the Bible. His words are not limited to the words in the Bible.

In the New Testament the word "scripture" refers to the Old Testament, not to the New Testament; in fact, there is no New Testament passage which uses the term scripture to refer to the New Testament (this is not surprising since there was no New Testament yet).

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Rom 15:4)

Scripture = Old Testament.

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Cor 4:6)

This passage is specifically referring to the Old Testament.

Sola Scriptura is typically supported by citing evidence from the Bible itself. But this is a circular argument and is therefore invalid. (The book of Mormon and the Koran make similar claims).

Sola Scriptura itself of necessity requires authority outside the Bible. A few obvious examples:

The list of books in the Bible (the canon) is not contained in the Bible (the Early Church Fathers and the church determined the Canon).
The rules for determining the Canon of Scripture are not contained in the Bible.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself is not in the Bible (except by way of interpretation).
The essential doctrines of Christianity (such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ) are not stated in the Bible (they are stated in other documents).
The rules for how to interpret scripture are not contained in the Bible (that is why there are so many contradictory interpretations).
The creeds are not contained in the Bible.
Many Protestant beliefs and practices are not taught in the Bible (read more here).
The bylaws of any denomination are not contained in the Bible.

I've noticed that Protestants don't completely rely on the Bible as they claim. The following are additional things which even they must consider:

To determine which books and letters are inspired and authoritative (the Canon) required assistance from the Early Church Fathers. The Canon cannot be derived from the Bible itself. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura must assume that we first have an authoritative set of books to work with.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself originated from the Protestant reformers and is therefore merely an interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations require assumptions and information which originate from outside the Bible. These include: (1) Rules of interpretation and hermeneutical principles, (2) knowledge about Biblical times and history, (3) archaeological evidence, (4) an accurate translation of the Bible, (5) philosophical and theological biases which inevitably guide the interpretation (Martin Luther certainly had a bias which he could not disguise). Those who hold to Sola Scriptura pretend that the Bible is easy to accurately interpret but the fact of so many contradictory interpretations proves that this is not the case.
Many key doctrines, such as the Trinity, which are accepted as foundational by Protestants are not specifically formulated in the Bible but centuries later by the Church — usually in response to heresy. All doctrines are based on biblical interpretations and these interpretations are outside of the Bible. As a result the doctrines themselves are also outside of the Bible. To be true to Sola Scriptura we would not need any additional books of doctrinal formulations, Catechisms, or commentaries; yet Protestants have a high regard for these. Even sermons are extra-Biblical — it should be sufficient to merely read the Bible during church because expounding on the scripture violates Sola Scriptura.

Even Protestants must admit that there are several sources of valid extra-biblical information:

We must trust the determination of the Canon by the Early Church Fathers and the church.
We should consider the writings of the Church Fathers and the Synods (the Creeds) to assist us in properly interpreting the Bible and avoiding heresy.

Side-effects of Sola Scriptura.

Protestant teachers contradict each other.
Protestant teaching contradicts the Bible.
Protestants don't agree how to interpret the Bible.
Sola Scriptura provides a justification for claiming that Christ's Church failed.
Protestant doctrines are not stated in the Bible.
Denominational bylaws and distinctives are not in the Bible.
Protestant doctrines have developed over time.
There is disunity among those who accept Sola Scriptura.
Not all topics are in the Bible.

One problem with Sola Scriptura (and the problem that resulted in my conversion to Catholicism) is that no one can seem to agree on what the Bible even says. Each denomination and each system of Protestant Theology contradicts each other on important points. If all we needed was the Bible then we would be able to agree on what it says.

Those who follow Sola Scriptura may respond by noting that they all agree on the fundamental, foundational, and essential doctrines of the faith as expressed in the creeds. But they should consider that the creeds are merely interpretations of the Bible which were formulated by the Early Church Fathers in ecumenical councils. In addition, the creeds and other doctrinal statements are expressed in other documents besides the Bible.

The creeds are a part of the many traditions of the church herself. Thus, it is tradition that provides the foundational unity of the Protestant denominations rather than Sola Scriptura. Church organizations which don't adhere to these traditions, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons are rightly not even considered as truly Christian because it is tradition which defines Christianity, not the Bible. (Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses claim to base their faith on the Bible.)

What is conspicuously missing in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the need for a single unified interpretation authority. Without a Holy Spirit-inspired interpretation people can come up all kinds of conflicting interpretations, which is exactly what we observe in the various Protestant denominations and Protestant systems of theology.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself is a doctrine which developed over time. The notion of Sola Scriptura as a foundation for the faith simply did not exist prior to the Protestant Reformation because it was promoted by Martin Luther in the early 1500's. This is significant because the notion that doctrines can develop over time is typically rejected by those who base their faith on Sola Scriptura. But Sola Scriptura is itself a developed doctrine.

The Christian Church is fragmented with disunity as is witnessed by the multiplicity of denominations. If the Bible were the only thing necessary why is there not a single, unified church?

There has been doctrinal development over time. For example:

The Trinity took hundreds of years to formulate. This was done in response to heretical claims.
The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture took time to develop. This doctrine did not exist until after the New Testament was written and until the Canon of Scripture was determined.
All the foundational doctrines that appear in the table of contents of any book of Systematic Theology developed over time.
Even the Protestant Reformers developed doctrines 1,500 years after Christ. Examples are Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) and Sola Fide (faith alone).

Protestants claim that the Bible is the sole authority in all that it asserts. The difficulty of this view is that so many well-meaning theologians have come up with so many different interpretations from the same Bible. Who are we to believe?

Why do Protestant teachers disagree about so many teachings? Why would God give us His inerrant word and we would not be able to properly interpret it? Examples of disagreements:

Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Easy-believism vs. Lordship salvation
Young-earth creationism vs. old-earth progressive creationism
Baptism as a symbol vs. Baptism actually removing original sin
Communion as a symbol vs. the Real Presence
End-time viewpoints
Charismatic vs. non-charismatic
Miraculous healing is the norm for today vs. the miraculous gifts ended with the apostles
The various forms of church government
Trinity vs. Modalism

Commonly it is claimed that these topics are not essentials to the faith, but some of them are rather important. But even the disagreements about the non-essential points are troubling. The fact that we can't properly interpret God's revealed revelation implies that God was not particularly concerned with clearly communicating the truth. But of course this simply can't be.

There is a side effect of Sola Scriptura which Protestants ignore. Since Sola Scriptura assumes that anyone can properly interpret the Bible and arrive at the correct interpretation, Protestants should be willing to embrace a variety of interpretations including non-standard ones as long as the proponents have provided adequate Biblical support. Of course, few Protestants are willing to do this because they each consider themselves as the only valid authoritative interpretation authority. For example, Martin Luther considered his interpretation of the scripture to be the correct one. Examples of views with adequate biblical support that should also be acceptable to those believing Sola Scriptura: (1) non-Trinitarian views of Christ, (2) amillennialism, and (3) the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses. The only way to be certain of the truth of a particular interpretation which has adequate biblical support is with the genuine Holy Spirit-inspired interpretative authority.

The following two Biblical passages effectively refute the notion of Sola Scriptura:

And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)

In order to understand the scriptures someone must instruct. But the question is, who is qualified to do so? If the scripture is all that is needed then why do we need people to interpret it and to instruct others? And why do the various Protestant interpretations contradict? If there is to be an authoritative interpretation it must be from a single Spirit-inspired source.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Pet 1:19,20)

Who is qualified to interpret? The word we of verse 19 refers to the apostles and those they pass the message of the gospel on to. 2 Peter 2:1-2 introduces the topic of false teaching and heresy which the early church fought. It was the orthodox church leaders who were leading the fight against heresy.

The biblical passages which refute Sola Scriptura can be divided into several categories:

The passage refers to the Old Testament and not the New Testament.
The passage stresses the spoken message and not the written Bible.
The passage refers to the "Word of God" meaning the gospel, and not to the Bible.
The passage affirms that scripture is useful or beneficial in some way which, of course, it is. But this does not mean that it is the only thing which is useful or beneficial.

Sola Scriptura appears in earnest with Wycliffe and Hus in the 1300's. It was mentioned occasionally in the very early centuries of the church and was refuted by the early church fathers, but note: in those early days those who were opposed to Sola Scriptura were orthodox in their faith and those who used Sola Scriptura as a basis for their views were clearly heretics (such as Arians) — even Protestants admit this.

The Canon was determined by the Early Church Fathers and, in fact, cannot be derived from the pages of the Bible itself — we must trust their conclusions. They decided which books to include in the Canon (because they were apostolic and accurately taught the faith) and which books to reject.

The criteria used in determining which books and letters should be included in the Canon:

Discover which were written by the Apostles and their assistants.
Ensure that the orthodox faith was taught.
Ensure that forgeries were not included.
Ensure that heretical writings were not included.
Ensure that mistranslations were not included.

The original Christian Greek Old Testament canon included some books and writings (called Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical) which the Protestant Reformers later rejected. These writings were included in the Septuagint (written in Greek) and in the 1611 King James Bible. Around 90 A.D. a group of Jewish Rabbis decided to discard these writings from the Hebrew Old Testament because they were originally written in Greek instead of Hebrew (read more here).

The Protestant Reformers discarded the Apocrypha because these writings contain doctrines which they consider false (such as purgatory, the role of works in salvation, and the immaculate conception of Mary). (I should note that I consider these doctrines to be true.)

In my opinion, it is not really that big of an issue whether or not we accept the Apocrypha. These writings don't effect any significant doctrine. People commonly assume that the doctrine of Purgatory can only be determined from the Apocrypha, but this is not the case. Here is the passage in question:

Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. (2 Macc 12:46)

This historical passage speaks about the Jewish practice and belief at the time. But the New Testament also includes a passage with this same doctrine in the context of Christian practice and belief:

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? (1 Cor 15:29)

How can we be sure that our interpretations of the Bible are correct? Why are there so many different interpretations of key passages? Is the Catholic Church's claim to being the only true authority in biblical interpretation correct?

There are hermeneutical principles we can use to interpret the Bible. But if we look at the writings of the various Bible scholars over the centuries, we find a variety of differing viewpoints. The creeds formulate doctrines on certain matters, such as the Trinity, but these creedal statements have developed over time and even contradict one another. The Catholic Church claims to be the only authority to properly interpret the Bible and sort out these difficult issues. Who can we trust?

The problem is that without accepting a single interpretive authority, we will be forever coming up with our own particular interpretations which will contradict the interpretations of others. We could attempt to find the common set of interpretations that everybody can agree on, but there is practically nothing of significance in this category.

There is another approach to resolve the problem, which I discuss merely to highlight the issues involved. I don't seriously present this option as a viable alternative. This approach is to not use any doctrinal formulations at all but to merely repeat what the Bible says about a topic. An example of this approach follows:

The Trinity is a key doctrine of the Bible. It has developed over the centuries as people struggled with heretical teachings. Each new formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity came closer to expressing the modern doctrine until there was stability with Augustine's statement and the modern view of the Trinity was established.

But did Paul understand the Trinity in the modern form? I suspect not. What seems clear in the New Testament is that Paul (and others) understood the following key points:

There is one God
Jesus, the Son, is God
The Father is God
Jesus had a relationship with the Father
The Holy Spirit is God
There is no contradiction between the "oneness" and the "manyness" of God

The modern doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond these simple understandings as it attempts to define, explain, and defend the doctrine against attacks from various heretical views.

Two important questions for Protestants to consider are, (1) "If we are committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why should we accept the doctrine of the Trinity at all since it clearly goes beyond the statements of the Biblical text and even adds to Paul's concept?" and (2) "What justification is there for believing in doctrinal formulations that took centuries to develop?"

A Possible Solution to the Dilemma

One possible solution to this dilemma is to adopt a simpler view of Christian doctrine. (As I mentioned previously, I don't consider this a viable alternative). In this solution we would not formulate doctrines at all and would merely:

Understand the New Testament statements as they are without "translating" them into doctrinal formulations, and
Use the creedal formulations only to guard against heresy (since that is what motivated the creeds in the first place).

The significance of this alternative is that rather than attempting to understand difficult doctrinal statements (creeds), we would instead limit our understanding to the words and ideas of the Bible. For example, we would prefer to understand the words of the apostle Paul under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than the words of Augustine. The readers and hearers could then judge for themselves how to understand these inspired words without formulating doctrinal statements.

Thus, when we considered the Trinity, for example, we would content ourselves with understanding what the New Testament asserts about the Trinity and de-emphasize the creedal statements about the Trinity. By insisting that the creedal statement is the correct understanding instead of viewing the New Testament statements as sufficient, we are in danger of making the Church Fathers our authority for understanding the Bible rather than using the Bible itself as the final word on the matter. Doing so contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

We would then have the freedom to understand the words of the Bible in whatever manner we chose, using the creeds as our guide to keep from misunderstanding God's intent and drifting off into heretical views. But the side effect of this procedure is that there would not be a unity of belief and the church would be fragmented. This alternative is very unsatisfying as I have previously indicated. Yet to be true to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura this is really the only viable alternative, otherwise we are inadvertently making the church fathers or the Protestant reformers our authority in violation of Sola Scriptura. There really is no satisfying solution to this problem other than to accept an interpretive authority.

To illustrate the difficulties I have highlighted let us consider various viewpoints that are not accepted by mainstream Protestant doctrinal understanding but which result from this process of doctrinal definition. For example, the doctrine of "modality" (that there is one person of God who operates in three modes) was developed by focusing on trying to explain what the Bible leaves unsaid and to understand its meaning beyond what is explicitly stated. The Bible doesn't consider how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the oneness of God and the manyness of the three persons of the Godhead. By going beyond what the Bible explicitly asserts the modalists have developed a doctrine that is troublesome and problematic. They should have contented themselves with either (1) understanding the simple statements of the Bible on the topic, or (2) accepting the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the early church.

Summary of this Alternative

Without the obvious solution of accepting an interpretative authority, there is only one other possible solution (but it is not very satisfying and does not provide a unified church). To reiterate the point, the two aspects of this solution are:

Rather than dwell on creedal statements and formulated doctrines, we would instead focus on the statements of the Bible. Doctrines and topics that fall into this category are Calvinism, Trinity, Eschatology, Genesis, Faith, Sin and many others.
We would use the creeds and the writings of the Early Church Fathers as a guide to assist us in avoiding heretical viewpoints — but not in place of the statements of the Bible.

Protestants consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God — and rightly so. Yet as the previous section demonstrates, many rely on the creedal statements and the writings of the Church Fathers over the clear statements of the Bible. They do this because they believe that these extra-biblical writings are more authoritative than the words of the Bible itself (but they are not aware that they are doing this).

How do we know that the Bible is inerrant? And how do we know that the Bible is uniquely inspired by God in a manner unique to any other body of writings? The answer is surprising.

We believe that the Bible is inerrant because the Early Church Fathers and the early church leaders have said so. The issue is one of trust. Who do we trust in formulating our basic ideas about God and Truth? The Catholics have thought this issue through and have some interesting perspectives which Protestants should consider.

The steps we must follow are:

The Early Church Fathers affirm that the books of the canon (the New Testament) are authoritative and were commonly in use by the early church.
In reading the New Testament we learn many amazing things about God, Jesus and humankind. We also learn that the Apostles of Jesus are the authoritative messengers of Truth — that their writings are to be trusted (this hints at the doctrine of inerrancy).
The Early Church Fathers affirm that, yes, the New Testament is inerrant and that we can and should trust it.
Throughout church history, as the Church Fathers battled against heretical teachings, they defined and clarified important doctrines. One of these was the doctrine of inerrancy and the related doctrine of the inspiration of scripture.
But this is not enough. We must also have a way to determine which of the writings and doctrines of the Church Fathers are correct and which are in error. Up until the time of the Protestant Reformation only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches determined this (but they did not always agree).

Thus, we depend on both the Church Fathers and the early church in understanding the inerrancy of the Bible. We believe their testimony just as we believe the testimony of the Apostles who wrote the New Testament. In short:

The Church Fathers and the early church testify to (1) the Canon, (2) the inerrancy of the Canon, and (3) they formulate creeds and doctrines in the fight against heresy.
The writers of the New Testament — (1) wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, (2) the New Testament is inerrant.

Conclusions Regarding Inerrancy

We should refer to the writings of the Church Fathers but recognize that their writings are not inerrant.
The Bible (both New Testament and Old Testament) are inerrant.
We depend on the writings of the Church Fathers to understand that the Bible is inerrant.
We must rely on the testimony of orthodox Christians over the centuries to tell us (1) which particular writings of the Church Fathers are correct and which are merely man's opinions, (2) that the Bible is inerrant, and (3) the proper way to interpret the Bible.

The previous sections suggest that the Church Fathers have an important role in our understanding of the Bible and its doctrines. Specifically, we depend on the Church Fathers in three ways:

The Early Church Fathers confirmed which books properly belong in the Canon.
The Church Fathers confirmed that the Bible is inerrant.
The Church Fathers formulated doctrinal and creedal statements as they fought against heresy. We should refer to these statements so that we can learn from their experience.

The Catholic Church claims that the Church Fathers played a key role in determining correct doctrine because the Church inaugurated by Christ is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, doctrine, practice and morals, and this Church includes people. The writings of the Church Fathers are to be used as a guide to assist us in avoiding the errors that others have made.

When we read and study the writings of the Church Fathers as they fought against heresy we have to consider the key issues just as they did. Doing this keeps us from falling into the same errors that others did. And thinking about things from the point of view of the Church Fathers helps us avoid heretical views on modern issues as they come up.

This is, of course, the role that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have provided for nearly 2,000 years. Only a divinely-inspired interpretation authority can possibly correctly determine which writings of the Church Fathers are true and which are merely man's opinions.

The writings of the Church Fathers are not inerrant. Because of this we must judge what they say by comparing it (1) with the Bible, (2) with reality, and (3) with the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Just because the writings of the Church Fathers are not inerrant is not to say that their writings are not valuable — to the contrary, they are very valuable and useful for the reasons already stated.

In studying the topic of End Time Prophecy I discovered a striking proof that some of the Church Fathers made an error. This concerns their view of the millennium. Six of the Church Fathers wrote things concerning a 1,000 year millennium which from our vantage point are clearly wrong. They are:

Barnabas 130 A.D.
Irenaeus 150 A.D.
Aviricius Marcellus 163 A.D.
Cyprian 258 A.D.
Commodianus 305 A.D.
Lactantius 325 A.D.

These six all affirmed that human history would last exactly 6,000 years. But this is incorrect for two reasons:

Starting at 4,004 B.C. (Bishop Ussher's date and the earliest date anyone has ever proposed for the creation of Adam) and adding 6,000 years results in the date 1997 A.D (using the solar year) or the early 1900's (using the lunar year of 360 days, which is the year usually used for prophetic analysis). Most young-earth proponents usually allow for a date of 10,000 to 15,000 B.C. for the creation of Adam which makes the problem even worse.
The scientific evidence testifies that the earth and the universe are very old. In this case Adam was created somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 B.C.

If they got this wrong then their entire end-time viewpoint collapses since the idea of 6,000 years of human history is foundational to their viewpoint. This idea originated with the Jews who interpreted the six days of creation as 1,000 year periods of time. The seventh "day of rest" therefore is the millennium.

The alternative to Sola Scriptura. The question is, "What is the final authority for Christian truth, doctrine, faith, and moral teaching?" The answer: A Holy Spirit-inspired teaching authority is required, which teaches:

The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. It contains truth and is free from error, but must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit-inspired teaching authority to guarantee correct interpretation. Not all truths are in the Bible.
The only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. There is no salvation outside of His sacrifice on the cross.
We are saved by faith which works, because faith without works is dead faith. (James 2:17)

There are many important issues in church life about which the Bible is silent. There is no good reason to assume that this means that we can invent whatever information we wish to fill these gaps. Rather, it is more reasonable to assume that the validly-ordained church leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit to provide this information. There is also the precedent from the Old Testament. It would be more reasonable to model church life and practice based on Old Testament Israel in the absence of clear biblical instruction to the contrary.

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (1 Cor 15:2)

Not everything that Paul preached to them was written down yet he considers this information to be essential to salvation. How are we to hear about all of this just from the Bible?

Many important topics are simply missing in the New Testament (for example, the specifications for how to conduct church community worship services). Do we really have complete freedom to do whatever we choose in these areas? And shouldn't we consult early church teaching and practice?

The writers of the New Testament didn't feel they needed to address every topic in writing because the church leaders were addressing them in person. These biblical writers didn't know yet about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and they did not do a very good job of providing support for Sola Scriptura in their writings.

An example of the problems with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible nowhere teaches what a worship service should be like. But rather than conclude from this fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, Protestants instead assume that they have complete freedom to do whatever they want concerning topics which are not mentioned in the Bible (But the Bible doesn't teach this). This is madness!