SCRIPTURE + TRADITION + MAGISTERIUM
1) How can the word of an infinite God be restricted to scripture.
2) No passage in scripture says that the word of God is/will be restricted to scripture.
3) It was humanly impossible for human hands to commit all of God’s revelation to scripture (e.g. John 21:25).
4) No scriptural passage says that scripture is our only or final authority. 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that “only scripture is inspired by God” or that scripture is sufficient. It merely says that “All scripture is inspired by God” and that scripture is useful or profitable. Also, when 2 Tim 3:16-17 was written scripture included only the Old Testament and, at the most, perhaps a part of the New Testament.
Thus, if 2 Tim 3:16-17 taught sola scriptura , which it does not, it would be teaching that those New Testament sections written later do not have to be followed.
5) Scripture itself upholds extra-scriptural traditions; 3 New Testament passages (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15 & 2Thess 3:6) command the Christian to keep correct traditions (check out the awesome website http ://www.scripturecatholic.com and, in this regard, study the sections Oral Traditions and Scripture Alone.
6) No early Church Father (i.e those Fathers from the Apostles’ direct disciples - the Apostolic Fathers - down to the 8th century Fathers) held to the doctrine of sola scriptura.
7) Without Tradition and a Magisterium that is protected/prevented by God from teaching error (i.e Church infallibility) we have no way of knowing which books constitute scripture. No Biblical passage gives a list of scripture books and even if such a passage did exist, without Tradition and an infallible Magisterium how could we know that that particular book belonged in scripture.
8) Sola Scriptura has been an incredibly divisive doctrine. According to The Christian Sourcebook there were 21 000 Christian denominations in 1986, well over 99% of whom follow sola scriptura. There are 270 new denominations formed each year. These Sola Scriptura denominations, each with the Bible as their sole guide and/or final authority and each claiming that the Holy Spirit guides them in their interpretation of scripture, disagree amongst themselves on every possible point of doctrine - e.g. whether or not Christ was divine, are Christians required to keep the Saturday sabbath?, does baptism play a part in justification? and so on.
9)Sola Scriptura pre-supposes the individual’s ready access to the Bible and sufficient leisure time to study the Bible and form his/her own private judgements. On pages (vii) and (viii) of “Catholic Answers To Bible Christians” volume 1, Father Paul Stenhouse estimates the cost of producing a single Bible during the middle ages at 3 years average wages. God would not require his people to follow a doctrine that, because of time and financial constraints, could not be followed in all periods of history.
10)An argument often given for sola scriptura is that anything not written down would have been lost or corrupted. Firstly, this implies that our omnipotent God is incapable of preserving anything unless his human servants have committed it to scripture - a clearly illogical implication.
Secondly, as Father Paul Stenhouse writes “In the early church, on the contrary, with its’ Jewish background, respect for the spoken word and memory was paramount, and accuracy on the part disciples in repeating the teachings of their masters was axiomatic” (Catholic Answers To ‘Bible’ Christians, Volume 1, p. 31)
11) The canon (list of books declared to be scripture) of the New Testament was only finalised at the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage in 382 AD, 393 AD, 397 AD and 419 AD. The decision on the canon was made by the Catholic Church (and if the Catholic Church is wrong on other doctrines it may have got it wrong on the canon; we need an infallible Church in order to be certain that the canon is infallible - i.e that all the New Testament books, and only these particular books of the Christian era, are Scripture).
12)An argument often given for sola scriptura is that Catholic Tradition contradicts scripture. Since Catholic Tradition does not contradict Catholic interpretation of scripture the sola scriptura proponent is saying, in effect, that Catholic interpretation of scripture is wrong. It is incumbent upon the sola scriptura proponent to prove that Catholic interpretation of scripture is wrong and that the Catholic interpretation/s of the particular verses that he/she uses to oppose Catholicism is/are the wrong interpretation/s.
Look at how the Christians of the early centuries interpreted particular passages of scripture and their overall approaches to the interpretation of scripture. These people had, in the case of the Apostolic Fathers, first hand instructions from the Apostles on how particular passages were to be interpreted and the correct approaches to the interpretation of scripture which they passed on to the next generation who in turn passed it to succeeding generations. See the 3 volume set “ The Faith Of The Early Fathers” by W.R. Jurgens which includes an index of scriptural references and citations at the back of each volume.
See also the on-line tracts containing quotes from the early Church Fathers, on various doctrinal subjects, on the Catholic Answers website at http://www.catholic.com/.
Indeed the fact that Catholicism definitely existed prior to the establishment of the Protestant churches in the 16th century places the Catholic Church in the position of being the defendant. As with all other cases the onus is on the prosecutors - in this case the sola scriptura proponents (and other non-Catholics such as Mormons) to prove their claim that Catholicism is a corruption of true Christianity. It is up to them to prove their claim of a “hidden, true church” existing prior to the 16th century - one which held to his/her set of beliefs.
[n.b. This fact that the onus of proof lies on the accusers applies to any accusation brought against the Catholic Church by anyone. When confronted by such an accusation the Catholic is completely entitled to say “Prove it! You prove it by reading or listening to the best Catholic defences on that issue and show me, point by point, why they are wrong!”.
13) Finally, some attempt to prove sola scriptura by claiming, clearly wrongly, that we only have a choice between sola scriptura and Church infallibility and think that if they can disprove Church infallibility then sola scriptura wins by default. In reality the number of possible alternatives to sola scriptura is limited only by your imagination. No, sola scriptura proponents must be able to refute all the arguments against it in order for it to be a divinely given doctrine.
Sola Scriptura is not a divinely given doctrine but is instead a human tradition only.