The Instigator
michaellofton
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
MattStPaul
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
MattStPaul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 67616
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

michaellofton

Con

The Bible does not teach that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the Christian and is thus self-referentially absurd.
MattStPaul

Pro

The Bible DOES teach that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christian.

Con, sorry, but please define what you mean by "self-referentially absurd." And for readers unfamiliar with the self-puffing "scholarly" Latin phrase "Sola Scriptura," it refers to the idea that the Scriptures are all a man needs to help him learn Christian beliefs and practices.

I will argue:
1. that the Scriptures (meaning the 39 Old Testament and the 27 New Testament writings) DO TEACH Believers to rely upon them as the highest teaching authority and
2. that the Scriptures are irrefutable for Christian teaching and doctrine.

All other writings (meaning extra-biblical writings, exposes, musings from "Saints," etc.) are commentary ONLY. As commentaries, they are helps, not authority.

Disclaimer: The Scriptures teach that a man can lean about G-d w/o ever reading a Bible or Scriptures. He is everywhere and in all. Ephesians 4.6. If that is true, then a man can study/contemplate/ponder anything and everything he sees and parse-out truths about G-d: a Christmas tree, a war, a football game, a factory, a running river, clouds, airplanes, etc.

The idea is that because "He is everywhere and in all," all MUST reveal G-d. Id. The handiwork of G-d, according to King David, reveals his existence. (Psalm 19.1-4 shows that Creation (NOT Scripture) declares G-d.). From the outset, I am persuaded that this, in the most basic sense, is more accurate than the idea of "Sola Scriptura," nevertheless, I accept this debate: the Bible DOES teach Sola Scriptura.

-MSP
Debate Round No. 1
michaellofton

Con

Response to Round One

This is a false starter because you claimed you are going to be arguing for something that isn't relevant to our debate. You defined sola scritpura as "the idea that the Scriptures are all a man needs to help him learn Christian beliefs and practices." Though this isn't a great definition, it is fairly accurate. Here is what Oxford Reference (a compilation of Oxford’s Dictionaries, Companions and Encyclopedias) defines as sola scriptura: "the belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone, without additions from, e.g., tradition or development." http://www.oxfordreference.com...

I think this is a better definition, but my main point is, you argued you will prove that "Scripture is the highest teaching authority". This is not what we are debating. We are debating if Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the beliefs of the Christian faith, not whether it is the highest rule of faith, which implies there may be lesser rules of faith that are authoritative, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture. The claim that "the Scriptures...DO TEACH Believers to rely upon them as the highest teaching authority" is known as Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. I wouldn't mind debating you on Prima Scriptura, but that is not relevant to our debate here. You also claimed you will argue "that the Scriptures are irrefutable for Christian teaching and doctrine." This is also irrelevant, and something I would not dispute, as I believe the Scriptures are infallible and that Sacred Tradition does not refute or contradict Scripture (the two come from the same source, i.e. God, so how could they?) By the way, I don't accept your canon of Scripture, but for the purpose of this debate, I will use the Protestant canon alone.

"Self-referentially absurd" means self contradictory. Basically, Protestants claim that if the doctrine is not found in the Bible then it cannot be a belief of the Christian faith (as the definition above indicates). Scripture never teaches that it ALONE is the rule of faith for the Christian, and thus, it is self contradictory.

My Argument

I will demonstrate that Scripture teaches that God spoke through Jesus, and this Divine Revelation was passed down in two forms, oral and written, to the Apostles and to their successors, and thus demonstrate that sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible.

In order to understand why sola scriptura, as defined above, is not what Scripture itself teaches, we must first look at what Scripture says about Divine Revelation.

Source and Transmission of Divine Revelation

Hebrews 1:1-2 says: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

So, God use to speak to us through the prophets, that is Divine Revelation came to us through the prophets, but in these "last days", that is, since the coming of Jesus, God has spoken to us through His son Jesus. Scripture itself does not state that Jesus passed on His Divine Revelation through the written word alone. In fact, Jesus did not write any book in the Bible. Instead, Jesus set up a teaching body (i.e. a magisterium) to teach the world what He revealed from the Father, as He said: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20) It was the Apostles, and their successors, to whom God's Divine Revelation was entrusted, not to written documents.

Scripture teaches that Divine Revelation was passed down to the successors of the Apostles: "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others." (2 Timothy 2:2)

Pope Clement I, while the Apostle John was still alive (!), wrote the following in the first century, confirming what I have stated immediately above:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Modes of Transmitting Divine Revelation

Though, the Apostles, and their successors, did put some of this Divine Revelation into writing, and this is what we call "The New Testament Bible" or "Scripture", it nowhere states that everything Jesus taught the Apostles was written down in Scripture (see John 21:25). In fact, Paul said there were authoritative traditions which were both written and oral:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

Thus, there are things the Apostles taught, which were not written down, and the Church Fathers testify that this is the case, that is, that some things the Apostles taught in matters of belief were passed down, not through the written word alone, but through Sacred Tradition, which carries the same force as Scripture.

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force." (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 27, 66)

Problematic Scriptures for the Sola Scriptura Position

Additionally, Scripture itself identifies the Church, not the Bible, as the "pillar of truth", which is highly problematic for the view that Scripture alone, and not the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is the sole rule of faith for matters of faith and morals.

"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

Furthermore, Scripture also says that there are some things in Scripture, which are hard to understand, thus we need other sources to help us understand what Scripture teaches about matters of faith and morals, as Peter says of Paul's writings:

"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

Conclusion

In conclusion, Scripture teaches that God spoke through Jesus, and this Divine Revelation was passed down in two forms, oral and written, to the Apostles and to their successors. Thus, sola scriptura is not Biblical.
MattStPaul

Pro

Sola Scriptura IS taught in the Scriptures.
Again, to define this term, Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible (Scriptura) is the sole (Sola) authority for Christian teaching.

The following is an outline for this round:
I. Paul proves Sola Scriptura
II. Jewish Converts prove Sola Scriptura
III. Jewish Dissenters " " "
IV. Jesus Christ " " "
V. Moses and the People of Israel " " "
VI. Ezra the Priest " " "
VII. Disclaimer

I. Paul proves Sola Scriptura
We know that Paul went into Jewish synagogues and spent several days "reason[ing] with them out of the Scriptures." Acts 17.2 "Reasoning out of the Scriptures" could be effective ONLY if Paul AND his audience believed in Sola Scriptura. To effectively reason and persuade each other, they must have had a common supreme authority to which they could appeal. Persuasion would be impossible otherwise. We are also told this was "his manner." He did this in Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Antioch, Salamis, and elsewhere. Acts 17.2; Acts 17.13; Acts 17.15.; Acts 13.14-15; Acts 15.35; Acts 13.5. From this, we can conclude that Paul AND his audiences "Reasoned out of the Scriptures" continually. This was their manner. We, then, have our first proof of a sole scriptural authority, aka Sola Scriptura.

II. Jewish Converts prove Sola Scriptura
Akin to Paul's reasoning with his audiences out of the Scriptures, we also know that Paul's Jewish hearers "searched the Scriptures daily" to see if Paul's claims were true. Acts 17.11. The ONLY way to VERIFY Paul's arguments was for his hearers to search the highest authorities: their Scriptures. Why did they search the Scriptures? Again, because they were the highest authority a believer could appeal to in the hopes of verifying Paul's assertions. This fact that the Jewish converts searched the Scriptures daily emphasized that they trusted and relied upon the Scriptures as the primary authority to resolve debates. Thus we have a second instance of Sola Scriptura.

III. Jewish Dissenters prove Sola Scriptura
It logically follows that if these men searched the Scriptures to discover truth about Paul's sayings they also searched them to discover Paul's error. If they were convinced that Paul spoke contrary to the Scriptures they felt justified (and authorized) to persecute him. Acts 17.2-5; Acts 13.14-52; Acts 14.1-7. Thus, the Jewish people listened AND searched the Scriptures to determine if Paul erred; if they determined he was did, they felt authorized to harm him because he violated their Scriptures. In other words, he violated the sole authority for their faith and practice. This is Sola Scriptura.

IV. Jesus Christ proves Sola Scriptura
Christ's quoted the Scriptures and we understand He did this to appeal to a common highest authority. Here are numerous examples:
1. Matthew 4.4 (also Luke 4.4) quoting Deuteronomy 8.3
2. Matthew 4.7 (also Luke 4.8) quoting Deuteronomy 6.13
3. Luke 4.17-19 quoting Isaiah 61.1-2
4. Matthew 5.21 quoting Exodus 20.13
5. Matthew 5.27 quoting Exodus 20.14 (also Deuteronomy 5.18)
6. Matthew 5.31 quoting Deuteronomy 24.1-4
7. Matthew 5.33 quoting Leviticus 19.12 with Numbers 30.2 and Deut. 23.21
8. Matthew 5.38 quoting Exodus 21.23-25, Leviticus 24.19-20, and Deut 19.21
9. Matthew 9.13; 12.7 quoting Hosea 6.6
10. Matthew 10.35, 36 and Luke 12.52,53 quoting Micah 7.6
11. Matthew 11.10 and Luke 7.27 quoting Malachi 3.1
12. Matthew 13.14, 15; Mark 4.11-13 and LK 8.10 quoting Isaiah 6.9-10
13. Matthew 15.3,4 and Mark 7.10 quoting Exodus 20.12 and Exodus 21.17
14. Mathew 15.7-9, Mark 7.6,7 quoting Isaiah 29.13
15. Matthew 19.4-6, Mark 10.6-8 quoting Genesis 1.27; 2.24
16. John 15.25 quoting Psalm 35.19
17. John 13.18 quoting Psalm 41.9
18. John 10.34 quoting Psalm 82.6
That is half the list; another 20 or so can be found here:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org...

Christ would quote and preach from the Scriptures only if they had authority. When we see Christ quoting numerously like this it is BECAUSE He adheres to AND believes in the Scriptures' sole authority to teach about Christianity and G-d. This is another proof of Sola Scriptura.

V. Moses and the People of Israel prove Sola Scriptura
Very early on the People of Israel devoted themselves to one text: the book of the covenant. We read: "Moses took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people...they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24.7

This quote proves 1) that there existed a "book of the covenant," i.e. a Scripture and 2) that the People of Israel endeavored to do "ALL" that was written therein. The book of the covenant is comprised of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 19) plus various laws found in Exodus 21, 22, and 23. In Exodus 1.1, G-d spoke of "judgments" which Moses was to "set before" the people. Moses then "wrote all the words of the LORD" in his book and then read that book to the people. Exodus 24.1-7. The reaction of the people of Israel exemplified the principle of Sola Scriptura: one single book was lauded by the people; they endeavored to obey ALL laws found therein. This is more proof of the idea of Sola Scriptura.

VI. Ezra proves Sola Scriptura
Ezra the priest "brought the law before the congregation" and "he read therein...from the morning until midday." Nehemiah 8.2,3. "[T]he ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law...and when [Ezra] opened [the law], all the people stood up." Nehemiah 8.3-6.

Why did the people stand? Why were they attentive to the reading of the law? Why did they bow their heads? The answer: Sola Scriptura. They honored this book and when Ezra the Priest read it they revered it. This reverential reaction and attitude towards the reading of the law is further proof that Sola Scriptura is taught over and over again in the Scriptures.

VII. Disclaimer
Opponents of Sola Scriptura rely heavily upon a few verses: II Thessalonians 2.15 being one. They make a big deal about the mentioning of "traditions" in that verse. To burst their bubble, these are not "traditions" as we typically think of them. Paul expounds on these in II Thessalonians 3.6-15. He alludes several times to various Christian behaviors that he taught them: circumspection (3.6), diligence (3.8), sobermindedness (3.12), etc. These are his "traditions." Paul further expounds "traditions" in I & II Timothy where he teaches throughout about proper Christian responses and behaviors: "rebuke not an elder"; "honor widows"; "count elders worthy of double honor," etc. These "traditions" are but allusions towards proper Christian behaviors.

On an aside, an absurdity remains: this debate is almost over and we STILL do not agree upon a definition for Sola Scriptura. This is called the ERROR of "elevated scholarship." Both sides will hem and haw about this woebegon Latin term just as "This-And-That Scholar" have been doing long before us. We will not agree. Who here is a fluent in Latin? (And fluent is NOT a mere 4 years of classics studies at university.) None of us are. Why are we then stumbling over this anachronistic phrase? Answer: because this bantering is of sinful man, not of G-d; "God is not the author of confusion." I Corinthians 14.33. Debating this term is like speaking into the air. I Corinthians 14.9. It is unbiblical and fruitless. I Timothy 1.4-7. We should speak to men's hearts rather than flatter their heads with elevated scholarship, and we should do so with "words easy to be understood," otherwise "how shall it be known what is spoken?" I Corinthians 14.9. This debate will prove that if nothing else.

If you believe G-d spoke the world into existence (Genesis) then it will not tax you to believe that he preserved His word. Either G-d preserved it or He needed help. And we all know that He bore that responsibility Himself. Psalm 12.6, 7. The Bible is His preserved "Scriptura" and is therefore your "Sola" source for living a Christian life.

-MSP
Debate Round No. 2
michaellofton

Con

As far as the claim that Paul proves sola scriptura, the fact that Paul appeals to Scripture does not mean that he believed it was the only authority to which one could appeal. In fact, Paul appealed to lesser authorities, such as pagan poets and philosophers (see Acts 17), so Paul can't be said to believe the Bible is the only authority to which one can appeal concerning matters of faith and morals. As a side note, Scripture itself elsewhere quotes from non canonicals books such as Jude, who quotes from the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Notice in Jude that he appeals to these as authorities to prove his point, a fact not consistent with "sola Scriptura".

Acts 17:11, where the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily, again, does not prove Scripture is the ONLY authority. Just because someone appeals to Scripture, doesn't mean that is the only source they believe is authoritative.

You argue "Thus, the Jewish people listened AND searched the Scriptures to determine if Paul erred; if they determined he was did, they felt authorized to harm him because he violated their Scriptures. In other words, he violated the sole authority for their faith and practice. This is Sola Scriptura."

This does not logically follow. Just because someone searches the Scriptures to see if what someone teaches is true doesn't mean that is the sole rule of authority, as it is possible they believe other sources in addition to Scripture or at least lesser authorities than Scripture.

You claim "Christ's quoted the Scriptures and we understand He did this to appeal to a common highest authority. Here are numerous examples".

Notice you are arguing that he appealed to Scripture as the "highest authority". This is not what we are debating. This view is known as Prima Scriptura, as I tried to explain to you in the previous round. What we are debating is if Scripture is the sole rule of authority. You have recognized that sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the sole authority for determining matters of faith and morals in your first sentence of the second round, yet, you seem to have failed to grasp the distinction between an appeal to Scripture as a "sole" rule of faith and an appeal to Scripture as the "highest" rule of faith. Your assertion that Jesus appealed to Scripture as the "highest authority" is debatable, and I would like to debate it, but it is not relevant to our debate here.

I believe here you have conceded the debate, because you claimed Jesus taught Scripture is the "highest" authority. Implied in the word "highest" is the notion that there are "lesser" authorities. Thus, you have conceded there are other lesser authorities other than Scripture, which is a concession that sola Scriptura is false. Perhaps you failed to grasp this distinction and thus did not intend to disprove sola Scriptura, but the fact is, your failure to grasp this distinction has, in essence, conceded the debate.

Your appeal to Moses and Ezra doesn't logically follow for the reasons I've mentioned several times above. Additionally, Jews would argue that Moses also passed on an oral tradition which was also authoritative.

You said "On an aside, an absurdity remains: this debate is almost over and we STILL do not agree upon a definition for Sola Scriptura." and then you went on a long diatribe pontificating as to why I am confusing things by simply quoting a definition from Oxford. To refute this, I simply say that I agree with your definition you provided here, when you said: "Again, to define this term, Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible (Scriptura) is the sole (Sola) authority for Christian teaching."

Your claim that "this bantering is of sinful man" is an ad hominem and a cheap debate tactic.

You say "If you believe G-d spoke the world into existence (Genesis) then it will not tax you to believe that he preserved His word."

Where have I argued that God has not preserved His word? In fact, I have argued for this in another debate.

Your claim "The Bible is His preserved "Scriptura" and is therefore your "Sola" source for living a Christian life." does not logically follow for the reasons I mentioned above.

I must say, I'm pretty disappointed with this debate as I was looking for more cogent arguments.
MattStPaul

Pro

Round III for Sola Scriptura IS taught in the Scriptures.

To (again) define this oft debated term, Sola Scriptura means the simple fact that the Bible (the Scriptura) is the sole authority for Christian teaching.

The following is an outline for Round 3:
I. The Book of Hebrews proves Sola Scriptura
II. James proves " "
III. The Absence of an Express Prohibition proves " "
IV. Denominations prove " "
V. Sermon Topics prove " "
VI. Conclusion

I. The Book of Hebrews proves Sola Scriptura
Even a casual read through the Book of Hebrews proves its complete dependence upon ONE scripture (The Old Testament) as its sources and thereby gives evidence for Sola Scriptura.

Hebrews begins by reminding readers of "the fathers" of the faith who were spoken "unto ... by the prophets." Hebrews 1.1. We know "the fathers" and "the prophets" mean the OT writers and founders of the true faith in G-d. Hebrews chapter 2 verse 6 quotes Psalm 8.4 of the OT saying, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?"
Jesus Christ is compared to Moses in Hebrews chapter 3. King David is invoked in Hebrews 4. Both (Moses and King David) are OT figures. The OT sacrificial systems, found originally in the OT in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, are invoked in Hebrews 5. Abraham and Melchisedec, OT figures, are referenced in Hebrews 6. In chapter 7, "the sons of Levi" and "the office of the priesthood" are referenced, as well the phrase, "according to the law." We know and understand that these were OT tribes, offices, and understand "according to the law" to be a mode of the OT Jewish judiciary.

I could easily continue through the remaining 6 chapters of Hebrews pointing out its elucidation and invocation of the Old Testament. The point is this: The Book of Hebrews does not concern itself with church commentators, or any old writer or apologists of the day; rather, it lifts up, explains, and compares the OT Scriptures and the OT Scriptures alone. From this we should understand that The Book of Hebrews steadfastly relied upon certain sacred texts and in doing so trusts those texts ALONE for its understanding of the modern Christian faith. This is another example where the writers here adhered to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

II. James proves Sola Scriptura
James makes reference to two ideas indicative of Sola Scriptura: 1) "the perfect law of liberty" and 2) "the royal law according to the scripture," James 1.25 and 2.8, respectively.

First, within the quote "the perfect law of liberty" there are the ideas of 1) "a law" and 2) the perfection of this law. James equates this perfect law to "the word" several times. James 1.22, 23. It should be clear he is talking about the Scriptures. The idea when taken together is that there exists ONE perfect Word which James understands to be "a law." The singularity and completeness of this law is akin to the principle of Sola Scriptura where a sole or singular text is the guide for one's practice.

Secondly, taking this point further, when James wrote "the royal law according to the scripture," he quickly explained what that meant and references two OT passages, Deuteronomy 6.5 and Leviticus 19.18. (On a side note, notice he mentions a law again in this quote and say it is "according to THE SCRIPTURE" -- Singular.) The reason this is significant is it shows that James amalgamated two OT principles to form a guiding principle for his faith; this is him adhering to ONE text and is proof that he practices Sola Scriptura.

Thirdly, within these two quotes there is a reference to the idea of a singular "law." Law, in general, attempts to be predictable, unvarying, and steadfast. James" twice emphasizes "law" and thus we understand that he recognized a singular law, one that was comprised of OT ideas. By doing this, James showed us that he practiced Sola Scriptura.

Lastly, James mentioned "the law," "the prophets," "the patience of Job," and prayerful "Elias," suggesting the thoroughness by which he recognized OT sources for understanding, relating and practicing his faith. James 4.11, 12; 5.10, 11; 5.17, 18. This is more evidence that James held the OT scriptures ONLY as authoritative for his faith and practice; he believed in and practiced Sola Scriptura.

III. The Absence of an Express Prohibition suggests Sola Scriptura
Opponents of Sola Scriptura frequently use this argument: nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded to use One text and One text only. For Point III's sake, I will concede that argument and counter with this: nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded NOT TO USE ONE TEXT. Just because G-d never comes out and expressly commands us to "use one Text ONLY" does NOT mean we are forbidden from doing that.

To bolster Point III, we ARE repeatedly warned against adding to or taking from Scripture. Deuteronomy 4.2, 12.32; Proverbs 30.5, 6. We are also warned to be wary of deceit, false doctrines, and false teachers. 1 Timothy 4.6; Matthew 24.11; 2 Corinthians 11:13-14; II Peter 2.1.

Obviously, G-d wants His word and doctrines protected.

Sola Scriptura is the best way to ensure we are protecting G-d's word and obeying His command NOT to add to His word and also heeding His warnings to be wary of deceitful teachers and doctrines.

While G-d never comes right out and says USE ONE TEXT, He never comes right out and refuses it. By adhering to Sola Scriptura, we greatly increase our chances of obeying the prohibitions that G-d DID comes right out and say. Sola Scriptura is, therefore, a biblical practice.

IV. Denominations prove Sola Scriptura
The sheer number of denominations give evidence of Sola Scriptura. There are large numbers of Christian Denominations, from Baptists, to Protestants, to Catholics and more. Yet, a curious fact remains: all of these denominations GENERALLY adhere to certain fundamentals from ONE SINGLE book: the Holy Bible. The fact that several denominations exist and ALL have their fundamental principles "anchored" to the Holy Bible is additional proof of Sola Scriptura.

V. Sermon Topics Prove Sola Scriptura
Do preachers preach out of commentaries or the Bible? When your bishop ascends his pulpit, what book does he take his text from? Is it a commentary, a curious writing by some long ago Christian? While those may color his sermon, I bet they are not his source. His source is "The Scriptures." Therefore, the example of your preacher's sermons prove his reliance upon the cannon as his sole authority; that is Sola Scriptura.

VI. Conclusion
My colleague has had a fit about distinguishing Prima vs Sola Scriptura. That is the vagaries of elevated scholarship I mentioned earlier, something hardly worth the breath, and something that leads to endless squabbling. Going down that trail we could have and would have had to continue on to distinguish Supra Prima, Sectional Prima, Prima Sola, Supra Prima Sola, and on and on and on. As you can see, readers, the endless parsing is what I stayed away from: we would never get to the point of the debate.

Regarding the arguments, my esteemed colleague has offered you conjecture and has failed to buttress it with anything substantive. His favorite mode of debate -- selecting verses or bits of my arguments and taking them out of context -- is a far cry from elucidation and honest inquiry. Rather, those modes of debate lead to gross oversight and error. That is also how false doctrines are introduced.

However, the arguments I presented considered the sacred cannon AS A WHOLE. I have shown that certain texts WERE and ARE solely adhered to. I highlighted how people throughout Scripture honored a single sacred text. I showed you how people continue to honor what are called "the Scriptures," something singular and complete. These arguments combine to show that Sola Scriptura can be found in the Bible AND are found in practice today.

- MSP
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by hapax 1 year ago
hapax
I think the fundamental problem with protestants attempting to prove that sola scriptura is taught in the bible is the fact that the message of the apostles was delivered orally before it was written down. This is problematic because it means the apostles could not have been teaching or practicing sola scriptura while practicing and teaching the exact opposite. This means the protestant would have to concede that any verse he uses to support sola scriptura would just prove that scripture held the authority that it did while functioning along side other infallible authorities.
Posted by hapax 1 year ago
hapax
1. that the Scriptures (meaning the 39 Old Testament and the 27 New Testament writings) DO TEACH Believers to rely upon them as the highest teaching authority and

======
I am glad that Michael called this point out. You are supposed to be arguing for Sola Scriptura. There is a difference between scripture is the SOLE infallible authority and that it is the highest INFALLIBLE authority. So is that what you are attempting to argue for Matt? That is at least what your statement can be taken to mean. This debate is really a non-starter.

Matt you didn't actually debate the topic you just kept re-posting. A more useful debate would have been if you interacted with Michael's rebuttals. Instead, you overloaded the debate with a wall of data which is pretty much meaningless since it is actually your interpretation of that data that matters for the purpose of a debate.
Posted by MattStPaul 1 year ago
MattStPaul
Brother,
You must not have read any of the debates then; in my humble (and correct) opinion, MSP provided several proofs, none of which were debated successfully or with persuasion.
And I would ultimately have to agree (and disagree) with Miss_Persistent: only one side (MSP) provided strong points :P
Good luck!
-MSP
Posted by michaellofton 1 year ago
michaellofton
Thank you for the debate.

Here is a link to some of my concluding thoughts on the debate:

http://consolamini.org...
Posted by MattStPaul 1 year ago
MattStPaul
I want to publicly thank michaellofton for posting this debate. It was a good Bible study for me and that is ALWAYS valuable. As the Scriptures are so rich, it may have been many years before I came across this topic to study. michaellofton"s post sped that up. So, I offer my thanks to michaellofton for posting it, for challenging me to search the Scriptures, and allowing me the privilege of bantering back and forth with him about it.
-MSP
Posted by michaellofton 1 year ago
michaellofton
Not sure how con has provided strong points when so far what he has said was irrelevant to our debate.
Posted by Miss_Persistent 1 year ago
Miss_Persistent
I find this interesting. Both sides provide strong view points!
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I was about to gladly accept, but realized that you are Con. Good luck!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Kylar 1 year ago
Kylar
michaelloftonMattStPaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The Bible is the sole word of God. I give this one to MSP completley
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
michaelloftonMattStPaulTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded the resolution when he said, " The Scriptures teach that a man can lean about G-d w/o ever reading a Bible or Scriptures. " Since the word "sola" means "sole or alone", him saying that we can learn about God without reading the Bible is a de facto concession. So arguments to Con. Pro also abbreviated "without" (w/o), so s and g to Con as well
Vote Placed by Hanspete 1 year ago
Hanspete
michaelloftonMattStPaulTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's Arguments better proved that Sola Scriptura is taught in the bible, Con did refute these points, but he didn't give too many examples of how it wasn't taught in the bible unless I missed something, this however was a very good debate, fun to read and watch develop.
Vote Placed by tonyrobinson 1 year ago
tonyrobinson
michaelloftonMattStPaulTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The Bible says in Revelation 22 8 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. I am not against any Christian books yet, the Bible is the one word of God and how is it that he could not give us all we need in his word? Anything else is nice but supplemental to the Bible and must not add to or take away from the scriptures as mentioned in the verses I quoted. By supplemental I mean books to explain and help others understand the Bible. The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun, there is no topic today that the Bible does not cover, you just have to know how and what to look for and how to understand it.