The Instigator
MrDebitCredit0995
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Catholicism vs Biblical Christianity: "Sola Scriptura" is right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,623 times Debate No: 27735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

To start, this is not all about "bashing" other's religious beliefs, but to open myself about this issue. Thank you for whoever would come here to start this argument with me.

Well, just an overview for the debate, this is all about "Sola Scriptura", or Scripture Alone.

Catholics deny that the Bible is the only authority, but at a Biblical sense, it is indeed our authority.

My points are:
- Why do Catholics hate "Sola Scriptura"?

1) Believes that tradition can save too
2) Believes that Jesus established a church, not a book
3) "No proof" that the Bible claims to have authority

Now, let me address those points.
1) Tradition = salvation
Tradition NEVER becomes a way to salvation, but by death, by shedding of the blood. When God will strike Egypt with fury because of the Egyptian's fault, God says to the Israelites to paint a blood of an unblemished lamb, that He may pass over them. This blood will mark that they indeed, they believe in Him.

Catholics focus more on tradition, rather than, why do this tradition has to come.

Traditions never merit salvation, but only by faith in Jesus can do.

2) Jesus established a church, not a book
Catholics do believe that the Bible is like a "history book" of what God did in the past, but self proclaims that they are the authority of the Christian faith. From my encounter, personal encounter with a Catholic, I am shocked when he said to me that the Bible has no authority if the Catholic Church do not give authority to it. They believe that their church is more superior than the Bible.

To address the issue, the Bible is our guide. We are lucky to have a Bible, to understand who God is, not just a "history book". Indeed, it has authority over us, and going out of the Bible can put you to be misled.

3) "No proof"
I can't understand this. Too clear that the Bible has the authority, and God gave us the Bible for our basis of our faith.

Now, where do I get these information? Actually, I had learned this from my personal encounter with Catholics on Youtube, not from an Anti Catholic site.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate, as this is one of the topics which I greatly enjoy debating. Since my opponent has started out with some points, I suppose I will negate them.

1) Tradition = Salvation

Unfortunately, it appears that my opponent has been learning from likely well-intentioned yet woefully ignorant Catholics. Tradition cannot save any more than Scripture can, and to believe otherwise is a grave theological error. On salvation:

'How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? (335) Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:' - Catechism of the Catholic Church §846

It is true that Sacred Tradition is an important component of the Catholic faith, however one cannot be 'saved' without God, and to believe otherwise is to be as a Pelagian. Some more on Sacred Tradition:

'This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." (37) "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer." (38)' - Catechism of the Catholic Church §78

2) Jesus established a Church, not a book

Indeed I agree with this statement, and I doubt that my opponent will be able to argue against it, as it is certainly true (cf. Matthew 16:18). Again, sadly, it appears that my opponent has been conversing with people who do not actually understand Church teaching, however, as any one who would say 'the Bible has no authority if the Catholic Church do not give authority to it' is wrong. On Sacred Scripture:

'"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." (42)' - Catechism of the Catholic Church §81

I do disagree with my opponent that the Bible is our guide. Rather, the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, are our guides (cf. Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 4:13) by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is clear that remaining in the Bible is equally inclined towards causing people to be misled, as evidenced by the sheer volume of heresies that resulted from Protestantism. So many denominations claim to use the 'Bible alone', yet many of them disagree and contradict each other outright.

'As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.' - 2 Peter 3:16

3) 'No Proof'

This is, I feel, more likely the misjudgement of my opponent than that of his source. While it is true that the Bible claims to have authority (and does), sola scriptura holds that the Bible contains 'all knowledge necessary for salvation' [2]. That has not been proven. In addition, it has not been proven that the Bible was given to be the 'basis of our faith'. Those are the matters of sola scriptura with which Catholics rightfully disagree. Among other reasons, Catholics accept Sacred Tradition. Additionally, there is the practical reason that sola scriptura often turns into solo scriptura when applied.

Sources:
1.http://www.vatican.va...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

1)
"'How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? (335) Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:' - Catechism of the Catholic Church "846"

Ok, then, understood. But still, it is wrong, from a Biblical perspective, it is more likely to be "faith alone in Christ", not in the church. As how Catholics explain to me, "to come to Christ, is to come to the Catholic church." In a simplified content, its like, go first to the church before going to Christ. The Bible indeed affirms us to seek God, and not the church. God does not only stay in churches.

2)
"I do disagree with my opponent that the Bible is our guide. Rather, the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, are our guides (cf. Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 4:13) by the power of the Holy Ghost."

I do agree that church leaders guide us, too. But they need the Bible for them to teach us. One thing about being "non Bible alone", is that, they are prone to make their own doctrines.
The Bible is "God breathed" and useful for teaching, and we do not have the right to make our own doctrines.

3)
" 'all knowledge necessary for salvation'"
If you say that the Bible does not contain all knowledge for salvation...

"and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." - 2 Tim. 3:15

One thing I point out is that, why do the Catholic church likes to center the salvation to them? Through faith in Christ, not in the church. It is invalid to say that "To have faith in Christ is to believe in the Catholic church".
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

1)

My opponent's arguments on this contention are fully unsupported, and pretty much nontopical, given that this debate is supposed to be on sola scriptura. All my opponent does is state that it's wrong from a Biblical perspective, without providing a single verse, so I suppose I'll just say it's right without providing a verse, and we should be even.

Still, I'll chuck a few verses out there, just for the heck of it.

'Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' - Acts 20:28

'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:' - Ephesians 5:25

'That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,' - Ephesians 3:10

'And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:' - Colossians 1:18

2)

It appears that my opponent has more or less ignored my argument. Although he claims that being 'non Bible alone' means 'they are prone to make their own doctrines', he's completely disregarded that being 'Bible alone' hasn't stopped people from making their own doctrines ever. In fact, it's lead to anarchy among Christians, which is the exact opposite of what we're supposed to be, united as one. Again, I put forth:

'As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.' - 2 Peter 3:16

This is the exact situation we have today; people think that they can make themselves the final arbiter and judge of what any old passage means, so they make up some wild gibberish, somehow manage to reconcile it by twisting Bible verses horribly, then claim they're using the 'Bible alone' to come up with the bizarre belief they actually made up themselves. The fruit of sola scriptura is division.

3)

As far as I can see, my opponent now fields the first verse of his argument so far. 2 Timothy 3:15.

What is important to note is that Paul wasn't writing this letter to any old dunce and telling them 'All you need is the scriptures'. Paul was writing to Timothy, whom he had taught the Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Timothy 3:14). Timothy knew the Sacred Tradition from Paul, and was himself a Bishop and member of the Church, so of course the scriptures would have been a great asset for him.

It is also not ignorable that Paul is telling Timothy about the Holy Scriptures he had known from infancy, that is, the Old Testament. Since very few if any Christians believe the Old Testament contains all knowledge sufficient for salvation, one must realize that Timothy necessarily had additional information, in the form of the Sacred Tradition taught to him by Paul.

Salvation comes through the Church from Christ. My opponent repeatedly asserts that is not the case, but has failed to provide any convincing reason for thinking so.
Debate Round No. 2
MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

"...without providing a single verse,"

Oops, before I proceed, better careful. I had posted a verse, and wait

"'That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,' - Ephesians 3:10"

"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms," - Ephesians 3:10 (NIV)
What version of the Bible did you use? (Note: This is out of the argument, just want to know where you base your source)

Point 1
", he's completely disregarded that being 'Bible alone' hasn't stopped people from making their own doctrines ever."
Hmm... Isn't it that the Catholic church made up the "Assumption of Mary"? They do know that it is not from the Bible, yet, they officially declared it as the doctrine off their church.

Point 2
"The fruit of sola scriptura is division."
No. It is the people who divided themselves, not the "Sola Scriptura". By the way, reports said that the Catholic Church is divided "secretly". Some Catholics hate the Pope secretly, some does not follow Catholicism, but claims to be Catholic. Catholics are not "sola scriptura", yet, they are divided, too. So, my challenger, your "The fruit of sola scriptura is division." is debunked.

Point 3
"Salvation comes through the Church from Christ."
No. John 3:16 says to believe in Him, not in the church. Believe and faith in Christ. By the way, a Catholic told me that you don't need to know Jesus for you to gain salvation. She said that, even when the Catholic church prays for you, you can be saved. I don't know, that is according to her. But my response to that: Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16, John 14:6

Jesus is the Way, NO ONE COMES to the Father except THROUGH HIM (Not a church)

Jesus did not make a church a way to Him, for He Himself is open. He established a church to worship Him, to talk about Him, but a church NEVER becomes a mean to salvation.

Last point
This is all about Sola Scriptura, from another perspective.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I use the glorious master race 1899 American Edition of the Douay-Rheims translation, which is glorious and master race (he said redundently).

1)

Firstly, the Catholic Church did not 'make up' the Assumption of Mary [1]. Secondly, my opponent presupposes the Bible as the only source of authority for this to even be a problem, yet he has egregiously failed to prove that. Thirdly, my opponent has not treated with my arguments.

2)

While my opponent claims 'It is the people who divided themselves', the exact reason they divided themselves is because of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura lends itself to scriptural anarchy, allowing any old person to take their prejudices, preconceptions, and pre-formed conclusions, read the scriptures, then twist the scriptures to prove what they already had decided upon going in. Very importantly, sola scriptura lets anyone become the final judge of what a scripture means. By it's very nature, that makes it impossible to ever reach decisive conclusions, because one moron can always stand up and declare the scripture is saying something different, even if it very clearly is not.

That new argument my opponent threw out, in addition to being quite unsupported, proves nothing. In fact, as he himself wrote, 'some does not follow Catholicism, but claims to be Catholic.'. It is certainly impossible to be Catholic while refusing to adhere to Catholicism. While Protestant A can deem Protestant B a heretic and Protestant B can decide the same about Protestant A, Catholics C and D can never do the same, because to be a Catholic one must adhere to Catholicism, and an adherent of Catholicism can never be a heretic to another Catholic.

3)

I can state with confidence that my opponent spends a lot of time talking to Catholics who have no idea what they're talking about at best, and are not Catholics at worst, which is rather unfortunate. While this contention has nothing to do with sola scriptura, I will deal with it anyway.

Very truly I tell you, the grace of God is dispensed by means of the Sacraments, which are themselves provided by the holy Church. Read the following verses:

Baptism:

'He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.' - Mark 16:16

Confession/Reconciliation/Penance:

'No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish.' - Luke 13:13

'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' - John 20:23

Communion:

'He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.' - John 6:55

Confirmation:

'Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.' - Acts 8:17

Holy Orders:

'Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.' - 1 Timothy 4:14

Extreme Unction/Anointing of the Sick:

'(14) Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (15) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.' - James 5:14-15

You can see from all these verses that the Sacraments have actual and real effects unto salvation, and the Sacraments are to be administered by the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops. Since the Church provides these, it follows that one cannot be saved without the Church.

In conclusion, sola scriptura was never proved.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kilometers 4 years ago
kilometers
This debate is unnecessary and misguided because plenty of Protestants reject Sola Scriptura.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I love how this is Catholicism VERSUS Biblical Christianity, as if Catholicism somehow isn't Biblically valid.
Posted by daley 4 years ago
daley
Pro, you have tailored this debate to Catholics. I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, but I'm not a Catholic; just a Christian. I don't agree with all the Catholics arguments, but I don't believe Sola Scriptura either. Can I accept this debate? If so, would you like to change it so I won't have to defend the Catholic position?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
MrDebitCredit0995AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter annanicole- Unexplained sources or S and G points. It still stands, you must tell us why you gave Con source and Spelling/Grammar points.
Vote Placed by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
MrDebitCredit0995AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Ridiculously poor arguments in favor of the scriptures alone. Pro, Timothy was never a bishop in the first place. Or, better stated, if he was a bishop, no one can take the Bible and prove it. It's merely an assumpton which becomes an assertion: you need to point things like that out. Anyway, all votes to con. And I do not have to provide "S and G sources", retard. The purpose of the "comments" section is not to provide examples of every reason for every facet of every vote, and it's not your job to judge voters, either.
Vote Placed by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
MrDebitCredit0995AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Mr.Debt seems to bashing even thoughly he says that he is not. Overly hostile to stereotypical beliefs. I also think AMTY had control the whole debate.