Hi.
I was raised with the same view you now hold.
It is very helpful to read what Jesus Himself says about the Word, the Scripture.
On top of that, much of what Rome teaches contradicts God’s Word, which all by itself indicated to me that Rome is not the leader, that they are a distraction.
That teaching is a lot more clear than any Roma. doctrines.
“since the Bible doesn’t teach “sola Scriptura”, anywhere. Not even close.”
John 20:30-31
Acts 17:11
Galatians 1:6-9
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Revelation 22:18
I see: so you believe (like most strawman Caths) that SS must mean that this was a historical constant?
And that it means that nothing else is to be used in determining Truth on faith and morals?
And that it negates the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority?
And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?
And that if souls are to ascertain the veracity of teaching by searching the Scriptures then it turns every man into being a pope?
And do you deny as that as progressively written (God giving more grace), Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced?
And that Scripture provided for additional writings being added to its body?
And that common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation? And which thus provides for a progressively established canon?
And that the Cath alternative to SS is what the Bible manifestly teaches, in which the church and what it says is the supreme law (sola ecclesia), under the premise of (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility?
And that (as RCS state and argue) this is necessary for souls to correctly know what Scripture consists of and means?
And under that premise it is impossible for Scripture to contradict what (at least) the supreme magisterium promulgates as Truth?
And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching on faith and morals by examination of warrant for such (for that reason) - at the least for "infallible teaching." For to do so would be to doubt the infallible claims of Rome for herself, and thus "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS)
And that RCs are to render religious assent (excluding public dissent) even to papal social teaching, such as Laudato si', or that they are to do what evangelicals do in examining the warrant for such obedience?
These are questions you need to answer for your "not even close" denial.
So you hold that SS must exclude such helps as the light of nature as well as the leading of the Spirit and charismatic gifts, as long as all such are subject to testing by the Scriptures?
And that SS also excludes any allowance of tradition, or that allowance of all such is subject to Scripture as supreme, which provides for tradition?
And that when Rome speaks infallibly, she is speaking as the wholly God-inspired apostles did, and thus what she says tradition says is equally authoritative and binding?
Note the clear, unqualified assurance given in Ephesians 2:8-9. This, alone, is all I need to know regarding Salvation. Can anyone improve on it?
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast”.
Tell me why I need a pope, and all that fine embroidery and gold. Why should a presumptive human head of the church of Christ on earth undertake to emulate the materialistic trappings of earthly princes of the middle ages?