u/Over_Leader8550

As a Catholic, there’s several problems I’ve read about sola sceiptura.

1. The Bible itself doesn’t directly state that every doctrine should come from the Bible

2. Historically, the first Christians didn’t have a Bible to rely on and had to take the apostles word for what they said.

3. Scripture states that the Corinthians had done a good job by keeping the traditions Paul had passed on to them. Additionally, Thessalonians also says something about oral and written traditions basically validating that oral tradition was also accepted back then. I might have the passages reversed but you all get what I mean. Paul is basically praising tradition not just scripture.

4. In the Old Testament, the Jews would take the word of prophets, they wouldn’t be checking the scriptures to see if what the prophets were saying was true.

5. How do you all reconcile the fact that if sola scriptura were true, why is there so much difference between each Protestant denomination? To me, this shows why there needs to be an authoratative figure such as the Catholic Church to guide its followers and interpret scripture correctly.

Hello Fathers, I was curious about this and was hoping you all could give an answer.

If the priest decides to not ask the penitent to repeat themselves even though he didn’t hear a mortal sin clearly, does that invalidate the confession?

The reason I ask is because I went to confession several days ago but wasn’t sure if the priest heard all my sins and out of fear I didn’t ask if he did. I know I shouldn’t fear though.

Hello everyone. Firstly, I want to start off by saying that the reason I’m going to share what I am is because I believe I know the truth and want to correct my fellow Protestants. Secondly, if you’re a non-believer I’d prefer you stay out of this debate since you probably won’t understand this conflict between Catholic and Protestants. Thirdly, the reason I’m also posting is because I want to learn more about what Protestants believe and whether or not it’s true.

1st argument: Sola scriptura is false because nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the Bible alone is the sole authority over what Christians should believe. If you have a passage that you think contradicts this, show me, although you’re probably wrong.

2nd argument. The Bible leaves open the possibility for tradition to be authoritative as well. 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 show Paul telling the Corinthians and Thessalonians that they’re doing a good job for keeping the traditions he passed down to them.

3rd argument: This relates to my 2nd argument. When the apostles and early Christians were evangelizing, they didn’t have a Bible with them to teach what Jesus taught. This means that they had to teach non-believers about Jesus through word of mouth and the non-believers had to believe them without referring to scripture.

4th argument: If the prophet’s teachings in the old testament were seen as authoritative by the Jewish believers, this means that teachings can also come from outside scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that outside sources can’t be used or trusted.

5th argument: this argument kind of uses reasoning. For 1500 years, believers in Christ had to rely on the church leaders to tell them about scripture and trust what they were saying was true. It wasn’t until the 1500s that the printing press was created that ordinary people could possess a Bible themselves to see whether the church leaders were right. This means that the church leaders could’ve lied to the people but why would God allow that for 1500 years? Why would Jesus come down to teach something knowing that men would mess it up the second he left? It seems inconceivable that he would allow that.

Overall, I think these are some pretty good arguments against sola scriptura and think you all should become Catholic based on what the early Christians believed and taught. I’m still learning more about my Catholic faith so there are some areas I won’t be able to debate in. But these arguments are something I learned.