I was asked to comment on a Roman Catholic’s case against Sola Scriptura.

The issue that is found in attempting to use (2 Timothy 3:16-17), as a defense for Sola Scriptura
is that Paul when was speaking of “All scripture, inspired of God,” he referred to the Old
Testament. For the New Testament had yet to be collected and would not be till 367 AD. This
would mean that the only scripture we should hold to as “supreme authority” is the Old
Testament.

Why suppose that Paul isn’t making a categorical point about the written divine revelation in general, rather than merely the OT? Do they think Paul would only state that Divine revelation up to this point is inerrant and not after? Furthermore, we have debated this passage in the past:

http://spirited-tech.com/2020/08/13/2-timothy-316-17-and-sola-scriptura/

http://spirited-tech.com/2020/01/21/is-sola-scriptura-self-refuting/

The rest of his retorts have been discussed elsewhere in the passage.

The discussion has moved to the Church Fathers on the issue of Sola Scriptura. He starts off with Irenaeus:

St. Irenaeus
“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these
same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are
ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of
tradition…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture
or tradition” (Against Heresies 3,2:1).
“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we
not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant
intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present
question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would
it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed
down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” (Against Heresies 3,4:1)

We should first notice that the Catholic assumes that these traditions refer to that of the Catholic Church. There is no presumption of that understanding. It assumes also that the ECF’s thought that tradition contained content that wasn’t found in scripture. The Catholic Church wasn’t settled on that view until Cardinal John Henry Newman. The Church allowed for Totum in tradition (material sufficiency) view of tradition. Even though it seems to be a rough time for those that affirm material sufficiency:

While still a Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger (now the Pope) stated, “…no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine” [See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195]. Ratzinger made this comment with the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum) in mind.

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/material-sufficiency-and-joseph-ratzinger/

Furthermore, ECF was not a fan of secretly passed oral traditions that only a special class of individuals possess.

Although the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied of the coming of Christ and the new revelation to the church explained that coming after the fact, this difference in perspectives did not destroy the unity of the truth. Irenaeus noted: “I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the church, which the prophets proclaimed but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down. From which the church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons.”10 The old and new revelations composed a unity. Thus, Tertullian accused Marcion, a leading heretic, of being the “author of the breach of peace between the gospel and the law,” whereas the church found no distinction between the predictions of the prophets and the declarations of the Lord. …
Moreover, this rule of faith was public knowledge, accessible to everyone. Thus, it stood in contrast to certain heresies that claimed a “secret knowledge” of the truths of the Christian faith. This hidden wisdom was reserved for the elite of these erring movements and often went against biblical teaching. Not so for apostolic tradition: It was public knowledge in conformity with Scripture. The recipients and transmitters of this tradition were, in particular, the successors of the apostles, the bishops who led the churches. They were the guarantee that what was believed and practiced by the churches was in accord with this apostolic rule of faith. These bishops were not a source of new revelation that stood alongside of written Scripture. They were, instead, faithful transmitters of the truth received from the apostles— and ultimately from God himself. Tertullian held that “all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith—must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.”17 Eventually, some of this apostolic tradition was written down. In this way “the gospel has come down to us, which [the apostles] did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”18 As noted earlier, the apostolic tradition and the written apostolic records were a unified whole in the early church; the tension between these two that we will witness later was not present. This was due to the harmony that existed between them: Tradition was a summary of biblical truth, and when heretics twisted Scripture, the apologists would turn to the tradition to underscore how Scripture was and should be understood in the church. This unity of unwritten and written truth — together with the harmony between Hebrew Scripture and apostolic revelation—was keenly expressed by Irenaeus in his appeal to “the preaching of the apostles, the authoritative teaching of the Lord, the announcements of the prophets, the dictated utterances [i.e., written records] of the apostles, and the administration of the law.”19 Together, Scripture and tradition provided the foundation of truth for the early church. Heretics, those outside of the church, were criticized because they “consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.”20 To the collection of authoritative Hebrew Scripture were eventually added some additional writings in the form of gospels, a historical account, letters, and an apocalypse (a revelation of future events). Some of these writings themselves pointed to an expansion of the canon of Scripture. For example, Peter spoke of the letters of the apostle Paul in the context of “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:14–16), and Paul himself connected a saying of Jesus (“The laborer is worthy of his wages”) with Deuteronomy 25:4, referring to both as “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18).21 The earliest Christian writings outside of our New Testament continued this practice of elevating the words of Jesus and the writings of the apostles, recognizing in them the authority of divine revelation. One example was a reference by Polycarp to a portion of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (4:26) as “Scripture.”22 Another came from an anonymous work that noted the complementary authority of “the Books” (the Old Testament) and “the Apostles.”23 Moreover, the Letter of Barnabas quoted Jesus’ words (“Many are invited, but few are chosen”; Matt. 22:14) with the introductory formula “it is written,” an expression that was reserved for citations from Old Testament Scripture.24

Allison, Gregg.Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine; Zondervan Academic (Kindle Locations 660-709). Kindle Edition.

We see this issue arising in Irenaeus when discussing Marcion:

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”(1) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,(2) who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. (Against Heresies 3,2:1)

This also raises an obvious issue with Apostolic Tradition type epistemology. How do we know these are traditions that originate with the Apostles? The Catholics can never go back and verify these things. They simply rely on the claims of the Catholic church and their secret traditions. Furthermore, interpreters of Irenaeus maintain that the traditions in these passages are revealed to us. 

Here is Irenaeus’ “tradition,” and we note immediately that it doesn’t look anything like Rome’s version. The important thing to see, aside from the fact that such items as papal infallibility and the Bodily Assumption of Mary are missing from Irenaeus’ definition (items that Rome has defined on the basis of tradition), is that these truths are derived from the Scriptures themselves. Not a single item is listed by Irenaeus that cannot be demonstrated directly from the pages of Holy Writ. Hence, obviously, his idea of tradition provides Trent with no support at all, for Trent’s definition does not assert a subscriptural, derivative summary of gospel truth, but an inspired revelation passed down orally through the episcopate. Irenaeus’ view is not a Roman Catholic one. Lest someone think that this is the only place where Irenaeus defined his concept of tradition, it is necessary to ready only these words, which follow immediately upon the heels of the citation provided above: “To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God.”

John MacArthur; R. C. Sproul; Joel R. Beeke; Sinclair B. Ferguson; W. Robert Godfrey; Ray Lanning; Derek W. H. Thomas; James White; Don Kistler. Sola Scriptura (Kindle Locations 582-591). Reformation Trust Publishing. Kindle Edition.

This hardly undermines what most Protestants affirm. It also hardly validates every Catholic claim to tradition, nor their theory of tradition. The other issue is that even in these Church fathers are claims to Apostolic Tradition that neither Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants accept. In Irenaeus, we find the teaching that he believed was Apostolic tradition was that Christ had to experience every age to redeem man from every age. So, Christ lived every stage of life. Most maintain that Christ was in his 30s when he was crucified. Irenaeus appears to teach that it was passed down from the Apostles:

For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God(8) — infants,(9) and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,”(10) the Prince of life,(11) existing before all, and going before all.(12) …

They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,”(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle? (Against Heresies 2,22:1-6)

This isn’t to say that Irenaeus isn’t reliable for anything. This is just to say that we may wish to be tentative in accepting every claim of Apostolic tradition is passed down.

The next thing he cites is Cyprian of Carthage letter regarding some of the Novatian issue:

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is
with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who
succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the
priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can
he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and
apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church
can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

I think this is the classic Word/Concept fallacy. Catholics use the same words with entirely different concepts. Why suppose that he is referring to an oral tradition kept amongst the Bishops of the Church? This seems like a stretch from the mere phrase. We also recognize that maybe he just is referring to the Apostolic witness that they had ” For the faith of the sacred Scripture sets forth that the Church is not without…” (Letters 75:4 [A.D. 253]). Furthermore, if he wishes to cite him in areas where he agrees with him, then he’ll have to accept where he departs from him. Cyprian maintained that only baptisms done by Church officials were valid. This meant for anyone that baptized in a Novatian church needed to be baptized again. This was the common tradition of the North African churches. The Pope disagreed with this position and thought the baptism merely had to be administered in water and in the name of the Trinity. The bishop of Rome treated to excommunicate the North-Western Churches over the issue and Cyprian still refused to obey the Pope arguing that each Bishop has the right over their folk (because he thought there was no universal bishop, a.k.a. he didn’t believe in the Papal infallibility).

Let each bishop give his opinion in this matter without judging another, and without separating from the fellowship of those who are not of his opinion. None of us must set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor force his brother-bishops to obey him by tyrannical terror. Every bishop has full liberty and complete power in his own church. No other bishop can judge him, and he cannot judge any other bishop. Let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us as governors in His Church, and who alone can judge our conduct. (The Seventh Council of Carthage)

Cyprian often ends up a double-edged sword for Roman Catholic appeals.

The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it
was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be
“God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

The author never demonstrates where this oral teaching was or when it arose. There are also alternative interpretations of this. Carson has written the standard commentary on Matthew. Fulfillment in Matthew’s gospel doesn’t have to be prophetic in the sense of fulfilling a prophecy for the future, but rather fulfilling a historical theme found in the OT (Matt. 2:15). Carson interprets this as Jesus is fulfilling the theme of a suffering messiah.

“But the formula [citing scripture in Matthew 2:23] is unique in two respects: only here does Matthew use the plural ‘prophets,’ and only here does he omit the Greek equivalent of ‘saying’ and replace it with the conjunction hoti, which can introduce a direct quotation (NIV) but more probably should be rendered ‘that,’ making the quotation indirect: ‘in order to fulfill what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene’ (cf. W. Barnes Tatum Jr., ‘Matthew 2:23,’ BT 27 [1976]: 135-37). This suggests that Matthew had no specific OT quotation in mind; indeed, these words are found nowhere in the OT….We may exclude those [interpretations of Matthew 2:23] that see some wordplay connection with an OT Hebrew word but have no obvious connection with Nazareth….Nazareth was a despised place (Jn 7:42, 52), even to other Galileans (cf. Jn 1:46). Here Jesus grew up, not as ‘Jesus the Bethlehemite,’ with its Davidic overtones, but as ‘Jesus the Nazarene,’ with all the opprobrium of the sneer. When Christians were referred to in Acts as the ‘Nazarene sect’ (24:5), the expression was meant to hurt. First-century Christian readers of Matthew, who had tasted their share of scorn, would have quickly caught Matthew’s point. He is not saying that a particular OT prophet foretold that the Messiah would live in Nazareth; he is saying that the OT prophets foretold that the Messiah would be despised (cf. Pss. 22:6-8, 13; 69:8, 20-21; Isa 11:1; 49:7; 53:2-3, 8; Da 9:26). The theme is repeatedly picked up by Matthew (e.g., 8:20; 11:16-19; 15:7-8; see Turner). In other words Matthew gives us the substance of several OT passages, not a direct quotation (so also Ezr 9:10-12; cf. Str-B, 1:92-93).” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, Vol. 9: Matthew & Mark [Gran Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010], 124-25)

He states:

In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding
authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old
Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching
succession” from Moses on down.

I don’t think that this passage was ever meant to imply that the Jews had a tradition orally kept from Moses. I interpret it that people were dependent upon the Pharisees to hear God’s word and they spoke it from Moses’ seat. Furthermore, Jesus compares the Pharisees to blind guides and that those that follow them will fall into a ditch. This interpretation ignores most of what Jesus says about the Pharisees.

http://spirited-tech.com/2020/06/16/what-does-it-mean-to-sit-on-moses-seat/

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai
wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic
tradition does.

This one is a bit complicated. The argument for a Roman Catholic view of tradition here are pretty weak. This is like arguing 1 Enoch belongs in the canon because of Jude 14-15. That 1 Enoch was secretly preserved since the time of Enoch. It hardly is proof of extra-biblical sources of divine revelation. Secondly, it isn’t very clear whether there was this tradition of a moving rock in the first century and there are doubts whether Paul was even referring to this. Some think that Paul is giving an exegesis of Exodus 14-17 in the light of Psalm 78:14-20.

https://www.michaeljkruger.com/does-the-bible-ever-get-it-wrong-facing-scriptures-difficult-passages-1-greg-beale/

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-rock-that-followed-them.html

“As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the
related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

This one is actually correct. They don’t appear in the OT and end up being found in various traditions.

An example of these teachers is found in Jannes and Jambres, who were, according to a work which probably circulated under their names and is referred to by Origen, two of Pharaoh’s magicians who withstood Moses. While no mention of these names is found in the Bible, they are referred to in the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 7:11 and in various early Christian literary works. The Zadokite Document of the Qumran sect contains a reference (5:17–19) to the legend, in which Belial is said to set up Johana (Jannes) and his brother to challenge Moses. One view is that there is some link between this legend and Wisdom 15:18–16:1 (Hanson). Timothy would no doubt have been well acquainted with the legend and would draw his own conclusions from the allusion. The comparison with these legendary figures is based on the similar resistance to the truth on the part of both groups. There has always been a close connection between heresy and superstition. It is no less evident in modern times. It is noteworthy that both truth and faith have the definite article, and are therefore used in an objective sense. Guthrie, D. (1990). Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 14, p. 176). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

My view is not the notion that all traditions are false. I’m arguing against a particular conception of tradition. Furthermore, this was a widely held tradition. It wasn’t an oral tradition that was kept among the theological elites.

The author goes and cites passages regarding Pauline’s literature usage of the word tradition. I have not much to say about it and think I’ve covered that ground as well:

http://spirited-tech.com/2018/07/20/hold-to-the-traditions/

http://spirited-tech.com/2018/12/30/private-interpretation/