Read Bible

Sola sceiptura is a man made term that I no where to be found in the Bible.
Jesus didn't say: "look it up, it's in the Bible.

Not a contradiction with Sola scriptura
The doctrine doesn't say to never observe tradition

Read what I wrote more carefully, there's a bit of nuance to sola scriptura that a lot of people miss. Sola scriptura is the belief that the Bible holds what is necessary for salvation (the gospel). Whether that knowledge comes from reading the Bible or from being taught by someone else (a priest, a pastor, an apostle, Jesus Christ himself) doesn't matter, what matters to protestants is that you understand the gospel and are saved by it. I'm not sure if that's correct or not, the Catholic Church would have me believe otherwise, but there's compelling arguments from both sides. While I'm not op, I'm in the same boat with him that it's a tough decision to make.

That's also a good point. Sola scriptura says nothing about avoiding tradition, and many protestant churches have their own traditions. They just believe that those traditions are not necessary for salvation because they're not found in the gospel. I'm Catholic and I like the traditions of the Church, but I'm not entirely sure if they're necessary or not. God only knows, so for the meantime I'll keep following them as I've been taught.

...

Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.
St. Vincent

Tradition with a capital T can be said to be a formalization of what's in Scripture. At every Mass we take Communion because Christ told us that it was His body and to eat it in remembrance of Him, and also that there would not be salvation for any that did not eat of His flesh. This is a good example of Scripture and Tradition being equally important. You need to believe what Christ said in Scripture, and you also need to partake in the Tradition of Communion in order for your belief to have any meaning.

Good answer and some nice trips to go with it, thanks. I don't actually believe in sola scriptura, I'm just trying to get some conversation flowing and gather some arguments I can use later. I hope I'm not alone in believing this has been a good thread, I like seeing respectful conversations like this with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Bless you all.

Attached: epic.jpg (889x1126, 284.56K)

And then he told us in the Bible
Any trust in works for salvation is a false gospel

Ah, yes, the old "my opponent is a pelagian" meme.

Not what I'm alleging
I openly embrace semipelagianism