One of the stranger arguments Catholics make against Sola Scriptura is that no one in the modern day will find anything no one has ever found before them. It always says the same thing, it will always mean the same thing, so why would one study it alone, much less use it to refute a Church they believe has been the same for 2,000 years?
The first peculiarity of this argument is that it proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Catholic making it does not understand the concept of Sola Scriptura. Our premise is the same: you won't find anything no one's ever found before. In fact, Christians aren't expecting to. Rather, what we're interested in is the stuff that has been there for nearly 2,000 years.
This, of course, does mean we will find things we have never found before. For example, when I first picked up a Bible, I didn't know it said "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). In fact, it took atheists to show me that my Holy book condemned my homosexual lifestyle. The moral of that story is basically the point of this article: Study your Bible, or Satan will study it for you.
Let's use that example. There are plenty of churches in this world that would firmly deny that homosexuality is a sin. They would willingly affirm my gay identity, tolerating, in some cases, even the deepest levels of that particular sin. Now, suppose I walked up to such a church, told them what the Bible really says about homosexuality, and their response was to reject the Bible, fall back on their tradition, and tell me I won't find anything in scripture they don't already know about. Is that a logical, God-honoring way to approach the scriptures?
Sadly, there are plenty of gay-affirming Catholics out there who would say yes. Contrary to the assertions of other apologists, becoming a Catholic does not solve the issue of division. But the Catholic Church itself, at least for now, affirms the sanctity of marriage, which is a purely heterosexual institution. Thus, more consistent Catholics would be quite content with my Biblical approach to Liberal Churches. But in doing so, they simultaneously admit that using the same approach against their Church is entirely legitimate.
See, the Catholic Church has added a number of things over the centuries. As an example, First Vatican Council (1869-1870) made the following pronouncement about Peter: "At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema."
First Vatican Council concluded a mere 152 years ago, claiming that the primacy of Peter is a "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture", and that this is how it has "ever been understood by the Catholic Church". The problem? Even then, this was so devoid of historical foundation that many scholars left the Catholic Church. While Matthew 16:18 is a battle cry for Papists today, this is a new interpretation for the Catholic Church. Historically, not even Augustine believed Peter was the rock by the end of his life. Here's what he wrote on the subject in "The Retractions":
"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."
Now, even that last sentence is a major blow to the Catholic argument here. "...let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." So Augustine not only believed the rock was Christ is a more probable interpretation than First Vatican Council's "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture", but leaves it up to the reader to decide which is more probable. "Oh, but Saint Augustine, Sir, the reader won't find anything no one has found before them". But wait... Augustine won't find anything no one had found before him either, surely? And how is it First Vatican Council found this thing no one found before them? If Peter truly did receive primacy of jurisdiction, not even he seems to have known it. Neither did any of the Apostles, or even Jesus.
In fact, never mind not finding anything no one has found before me, I've searched the scriptures faithfully and diligently, so much so that I crucified what I had previously considered a critical part of my own identity, and I can't find a single one of Catholicism's unique doctrines. I don't see a Pope in there. I see no Apostolic Succession. I see no special class of priests. No Purgatory, no Transubstantiation, definitely no Marian dogmas.
What I do see, however, is Jude, the brother of Jesus (so RIP Mary's perpetual virginity), telling us the Christian faith is finished. "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:3-4, emphasis added).
This tells us two important things. First, it tells us that the Christian faith isn't supposed to keep adding new dogmas over time, even if a certain Church holds councils every century or so to establish them. Second, it tells us that not even historicity is a solid defence of those dogmas. Why? Simply because even while the Apostles were still breathing, so were Satan and his angels. And they masqueraded as ministers of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). In other words, even if Catholics could prove their Church was alive and well in the second century, it wouldn't matter. I can prove there were Gnostics, Judaisers, even Liberals, infiltrating the Church in the first century.
In fact, the New Testament was often written specifically to churches that had been infiltrated, correcting the false teachings of these heretics. Which actually leads me to the most telling aspect of this particular Catholic argument. See, the Catholic Church claims the absolute authority to interpret scripture for us. We can't go to the Bible directly, we have to go to their Church. But when they say you can't learn from the Bible, so you have to learn from the Catholic Church, what they're actually admitting is that the authors of the Bible are not a part of the Catholic Church.
Let's suppose I could open some kind of communication with the Pope. Presumably, any letter, email, maybe voice message he sent to me, I would be expected to take as it is written. If I need a Bishop, or, dare I say it, some angry internet troll, to explain what the Pope really meant, that would mean the Pope is a bad communicator, and would also run the risk of the interpreter taking over the authority of the Pope!
Picture the scenario. I write a letter to the Pope asking if he prefers Coke or Pepsi, and he replies telling me he actually doesn't drink either; Fanta is his go to soda. So I take this letter to a bishop and ask why the Pope doesn't like Coke or Pepsi, and the bishop says "well actually, the Pope prefers Coke, because Pepsi just doesn't have the brand recognition". So I point out that the Pope himself wrote "Dear child, neither Coke nor Pepsi cross my lips, but I have a special place in my heart for Fanta." "Don't question me!" the bishop shouts. "You have no authority to interpret the Pope!"
This is obviously a silly scenario. But this is exactly what happens with Peter and the Apostles. Peter, supposedly the first Pope, wrote two whole epistles in the Bible (and tradition holds he may have had a hand in Mark's gospel, too, but let's not go off topic). I have easy access to th Bible. I have 4 physical copies within reach right now. I also have a Bible app, and if all else fails, I can switch tab, go to Bible Gateway, it's right there too. I have such easy access to the Bible that I have no excuse not to study it. Yet, when I do so, the Catholic Church would have to contend I am actually sinning. "How dare you? You have no authority to interpret the Bible! Scripture isn't up for private interpretation! Only Holy Mother Church has the authority to tell you what the Bible means!"
How is this any different from our hypothetical Bishop telling me to basically ignore the Pope's letter and trust his view that the Pope prefers Coke? You see, then, that if we cannot test the interpreter against the source he is interpreting, the authority shifts from the source to the interpreter. But scripture, as the Catholic Church itself admits, is from God! Thus, when the Catholic Church claims you cannot test their Church against scripture, but rather, must interpret scripture according to the teachings of their Church (teachings which, like it or not, you must interpret), what they are actually saying is God has less authority than they do.
Now, I don't think I need to be the one to tell you this: no one, not a Church, not a leader, not a man on this Earth, has, nor will ever have, authority greater than God's. All authority comes from God (Romans 13:1), and the moment an authority figure oversteps their authority, telling you to disobey God, you must disobey that authority figure (Acts 5:29). In other words, even if the Catholic Church was a legitimately authoritative body, Christians would still be obligated to search the scriptures daily to find out if their messages are true (Acts 17:11), testing all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and casting aside every lofty opinion that sets itself against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5).
If I became a Catholic today, I would not be a Catholic tomorrow. This is not because I believe I have found something in scripture no one has ever found before. Rather, it is because the claim that the Catholic Church has been consistent in its "official" interpretations of scripture since Christ established His Church upon Peter is a complete and utter lie. Rather, what the Bible says, what it has said for the past 2,000 years, finds itself so consistently and reliably in conflict with Catholicism's unique doctrines that when it is read without Catholic-tinted glasses, it is so obviously not a Catholic book that many Catholics apostatise when they, in direct disobedience to the Catholic Church, study the word of God with an honest heart. It's beyond obvious, therefore, that the real reason Catholics have a problem with Sola Scriptura is not that people might assume they will find something no one has ever seen before, but that they are seeking to learn from God, while the Catholic Church would rather we learn from man. It seems obvious to me which authority is more worthy of my attention and loyalty.