A.  Distinctive Protestant, Mormon and JW beliefs do not predate the renaissance era.  (1450-1600 A.D.)
B.  The teachings of the Apostles predate the renaissance era by 1000+ years.
C   Therefore logic and historical timelines tell us, that no distinctive Protestant, Mormon or JW belief was taught by the Apostles.
(And subsequently written into the NT Bible).

The fact of the matter, is that in the case of modern Protestantism or its offshoots, their distinctive ideas were not even embraced by their own first Protestants, much less the Apostles. On a linear and sequential timeline, this makes it impossible for these modern ideas to be written into the Holy Bible 2000 years earlier. They didn't exist in that era and would not exist for a 1400+ years to come.
(Click here: Three questions your pastor will not answer concerning his theology. https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/formypastor.html)
Again, please "test" premise A. Reject what logic tells you is impossible for the Apostles to have taught. It is of utmost importance to reconcile this logic truth.  If we ignore this argument or rationalize it without disproving premise A, we are free to believe anything and everything under the Sun, and it really doesn't matter if the Apostles taught it or not.  We are free to call "anything" Biblical, just as the Mormons and the JW's do.

Logic tells us that this faith, the faith of the Catholic/Universal Church was the faith of the Apostles for there was no other faith. And the same logic tells us that no distinctive Protestant idea was taught by the Apostles for not one predates the renaissance era.

Again
If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
and
It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises are true.

A.  In the first millennium, there was only one Christian Faith.
B.  The apostles lived in the first millennium.
C.  Therefore the only Christian Faith of the first millennium, was the Faith of the Apostles
(and therefore that of the Holy Bible).  

The Faith of the 1st millennium was the Catholic or Universal Faith for there was no other Christian faith.
(Catholic is Katholikos in Greek which means "universal").
All Bible Believing Christians should "Test” premise A as the Holy Bible commands:

“Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

But what of the Protestant idea of
SOLA SCRIPTURA (SS) OR THE BIBLE ONLY IDEA?

Do not many Protestants claim that SS was taught by the early Church Fathers such as St. Augustine (5th century) or other Catholic Saints? This line of reasoning is logically impossible for the modern Christian as illustrated below.

So which is it? 
Either the Church Fathers (such as St Augustine) embraced SS,
or they didn't.

1.  Is Catholic Theology, which St Augustine embraced without exception, a produce of Sola Scriptura? If so why do Protestants reject it? 
2.  Or,  can we presume that Augustine embraced SS, but his product of SS was apostate (i.e., Catholic theology).  This in turn renders SS an invalid tool for Bible study for its product is apostasy, and a corruption of the Gospel of Christ.  Therefore SS must be rejected because it is flawed, subjective and inaccurate. It doesn't work every time, if anytime.
3. Or, can we conclude that St Augustine, (nor any other Christian in the first millennium) embraced SS, even though many modern Protestants illogically claim he did?

So which is the case? 1,2, or 3?  How does a modern Christian answer this for one cannot have it both ways. Either (name your early Church Father here) embraced SS or he didn't. If he did, answer question 1 or 2. If he didn't answer question 3..

But this is all predicated on one wanting to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, no matter where it leads him and no matter what it costs him. If this is not your desire, all bets are off and you are free to believe anything and everything whether the Apostles taught it or not.