You recommended the following for good reading:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
I cannot agree. It has 3 sections. The first is “Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”.
The first sentences in that section are below, with my comments in [].
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.
[I don’t think the writer knows what sola scriptura says. However, the infallible authority I can find in scripture would be scripture itself, the words of Jesus (found in scripture) and the teachings of the Apostles. If the teachings of the Apostles differed orally from what they wrote, show it. I’ll accept the authority of what the Apostles said - but then, we don’t have any reliable quotes from them outside of scripture. But if the Catholic Church has secret teachings, handed down from the Apostles, Bishop to Bishop whispered mouth to ear at ordination, feel free to reveal it.]
Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.
[Of course not. So what teachings of the apostles differed or supplemented what they wrote? Has there been a 3 Peter laying hidden in the Vatican?]
Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.
[John 20:30. “30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book” Copy. Not every miracle (sign) done by Jesus was recorded.]
[John 21:25 “25Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Jesus did - not teachings of Jesus not covered. So what teachings did Jesus teach without record in scripture? And what is the evidence they were taught by Jesus?]
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.
[There is no indication that Jesus expected everyone to write scripture. Not all of us are pastors, either, but that doesn’t mean we’ve disobeyed God. But neither does that have anything to do with sola scriptura. And Jesus taught with authority (we know because scripture tells us so) and cited scripture as authoritative. So...where does he cite tradition as authoritative?]
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
[Most believe Luke was supplementing Mark’s Gospel, and Matthew’s. However, sola scriptura does NOT deny the oral authority of the Apostles...it says, “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”. The foundation doesn’t get built forever. If you have a genuine Apostle or Prophet, let him prove himself, then preach. But ‘Doctors of the Church” aren’t mentioned, are they?]
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
[Jesus did, not Jesus taught. However, if you have evidence that Jesus taught his disciples something, and it has been passed down from 30 AD on, then share it. Remember, Paul taught the “whole counsel of God”, and Jude said the faith “was once for all delivered to the saints”. New stuff doesn’t count.]
Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
[These verses teach the value of a teacher or preacher...which are gifts still being exercised. It does NOT show we need infallible interpretation.]
While we’re on infallible interpretation, who infallibly interprets the church’s supposed infallible interpretation? And where is the infallible interpretation of scripture kept? Where is the Vatican Infallible Commentary on the Bible?
Because when I post comments found in the NAB posted on the Vatican website, annalex says the translation and comments are both worthless. How can the Infallible Church publish bad translations and bad commentary on its website?
You recommend a long list of authors as "good reading" and among them were Sproul and MacArthur (as I recall).
I cannot agree.
Do you want to re-think that? Just asking...
Let's just stop here. That sola scriptura is false and counterbiblical would not necessitate that there is any secret teaching contradicting the scripture. Of course, everything that the Church teaches or ever has taught agrees with the Scripture. Sola scriptura is unbiblical because it is not in the Bible. Many passages praise the scripture and proclaim it inspired word of God, but there is no passage that says that the Church cannot teach in addition to what is in the Scripture.
For example, the Church is often criticized for allowing and even promoting veneration of saints. Obviously, to canonize, say, Sts. Felicitas and Perpetua (martyred in 203) saints the Church cannot raly on the scripture because the scripture does not cover any event past the first century. So here is a perfect example of a teaching that the Church developed outside of the scripture. Another such example would be development of the sacramental life of the Church: the Church had to decide if baptizing children was OK, if confessions had to be done privately, etc. So these are teachings of the Church that by definition are outside the scripture. It is not in the Bible.
So here is the pivotal question for you. If Sola Scriptura is true, would that allow or prohibit teaching such as veneration of saints or precise definition of the sacraments?
From what we have seen so far, it would prohibit it. Otherwise I would not be getting those demands to show where veneration of saints is in the scripture, when quite obviously there is no scripture that says "venerate martyrs such as Felicitas and Perpetua, make statues and pray to these saints in front of statues".
But then, why is it not a logical question to ask: Where is the sola scriptura thus understood in the Bible?
If sola scriptura teaches against veneration of saints and baptism of babies, then the principle that things such as veneration of saints and baptism of babies, and also sola scriptura itself should be not merely compatible with the Bible, they should be spelled out with the Bible.
And if sola scriptura does not teach against things that are not spelled in the Bible, then when can we expect you guys to stop attacking our practice of venerating saints and baptizing babies?