The Instigator
GOP
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
BrandonButterworth
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Is Roman Catholicism biblical?

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...
GOP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,700 times Debate No: 34801
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

GOP

Con

I am Con, meaning that I say no to the question. The Pro will be arguing that Roman Catholicism is biblical.

Rules:

1. First round is for acceptance. If you provide an argument on the first round, then you may lose points.
2. Be respectful. No profanity or trolling.
3. You must be a Catholic. I am not looking for people wanting to play the devil's advocate.
4. I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you find a way to accept this debate, then you forfeit all seven points. If you are interested, then let me know by adding a comment.
BrandonButterworth

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
GOP

Con

I thank Pro for accepting this debate.

(In our private conversation, Pro told me that he believes in the official doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Brandon gave me the permission to refer to our conversation. However, he stresses that he follows what the Catholic Church actually teaches, not things that it is rumored to teach.)

To begin with, I will address some Catholic traditions and doctrines that I believe are unscriptural.

Salvation is not by Faith Alone

The official Catholic belief is that faith alone is not sufficient (1). This is not in harmony with Scripture. In fact, Romans 3:27-28 says, "27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Moreover, Romans 11:6 says, "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Now, Galatians 2:16 confirms, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Lastly, Isaiah 64:6 declares, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

Catholicism's Position on Mary

Moving on, the Roman Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception, which is that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was conceived without the original sin (2). This is contradicted by Romans 3:10, saying, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Additionally, Catholicism asserts that Mary is a mediator between Christ and people. To corroborate this, the Vatican website stresses, "Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother (3)." This unscriptural teaching is refuted by 1 Timothy, 2:5, which says, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Purgatory

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030, "All who die in Gods grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (4)." The aforementioned paragraph is problematic because it implies that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient. In fact, 1 John 1:7 says, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
Now, where is purgatory mentioned? Yes, my opponent would have to find scriptural references to justify the belief regarding purgatory.

Venial Sins and Mortal Sins

In the Catholic religion, a venial sin is a "moral disorder that is reparable by charity..." (5). Venial sin "does not break the covenant with God...Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness," (6). On the other hand, a mortal sin is a sin that can damn someone to eternal hell "if left unrepented and not dealt with through penance" (7). Although it is true that some sins are greater than others in an earthly sense, the biblical fact is that all sins lead to eternal damnation. "The reason sin does this is not because of the severity of the sin, but because who the sin is committed against. Since it is God who gives the law, when we sin we break his law. Therefore, we are offending God and our sin is against him. Since God is infinite, our sins take on an infinite quality" (8). This contradicts the Catholic view of committing a venial sin, which is said to not "break the covenant with God." To summarize this, "No sin is greater than another sin in the eternal sense" (9).

Is the Apocrypha Scripture?

In actuality, there are 66 canonized books in the Bible.
However, in the year of 1546, "the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch . . . Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books" (10). Moving on, there are doctrinal errors in some of those books. For example, Tobit 4:11 says, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness." Similarly, Tobit 12:9 confirms, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting." This denies the scriptural doctrine that one is justified by faith alone. On the contrary, Tobit says that "alms deliver from all sin", which is not faith. Lastly, the books of Judith and Baruch contain historical errors. Back then, Judith 1:5 incorrectly claimed, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him," This is interesting, considering that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians (11). Baruch 6:2 says, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace." This is wrong, because (as written on Jeremiah 25:11) the Jews served the Babylonian king for 70 years (12). The verse states, "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

To sum up this round, Roman Catholicism is not biblical because its beliefs are flatly contradicted by various Bible verses from both the Old and New Testaments. I have mentioned that some of the official Catholic beliefs revolve around salvation that is not based on faith alone, unscriptural exaltation of Mary, the doctrine of purgatory, the flawed view of venial and mortal sins, and the teachings that some of the Apocryphal books are Scripture. Would it be right to say that Mary is sinless, when God is the only one that is sinless? After all, every human being has sinned according to Romans 3:10. Additionally, could you become saved by adding on to faith, when "all our righteousnesses" are like dirty rags? Could you rationally put your faith in those Apocryphal books, which not only contain historical errors, but were also never quoted in the New Testament?

Over to you, Brandon.

Sources:

1. http://carm.org...
2. http://www.catholic.com...
3. http://www.vatican.va...
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030: http://www.vatican.va...
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1875: http://www.vatican.va...
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1863: http://www.vatican.va...
7. http://carm.org...
8. http://carm.org...
9. http://www.gotquestions.org...
10. http://www.gotquestions.org...
11. http://www.britishmuseum.org...
12. http://www.bibleworldhistory.com...

(All Bible verses are from the KJV, except the ones from the Apocryphal books. The Apocryphal Books are from the DRA.)


BrandonButterworth

Pro

Salvation-
The official stance of salvation in the Catholic Church is salvation by grace through faith and works. And it's completely biblical. To start with, lets take a look at the verses you referenced:
Romans 3:27-28
"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." also in Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Now lets compare these verses with the one in James 2:14-17
"What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother of sister be naked and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled: yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself."
James 2:20
"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
James 2:24-26
"Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead."
The bible can't be anymore clear here. But pertaining to the verses that you misinterpreted:

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Christ came to give us a new covenant. One that fulfills the old. This new covenant makes the old one null and void. Therefore, following the old covenant, or the old law, would be fruitless. So when Romans or Galatians says "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (note:deeds of the law, not deeds in general) they are saying that the deeds of the old law doesn't help obtain salvation. Not that faith alone is the way to salvation.

Mary- Immaculate Conception
In your verse in Romans Paul was referring to the old testament. He's is quoting psalm 53:2-5
"Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt, not one does what is right. God looks down from heaven upon the human race. To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one."
Who is God speaking of here? Atheists. Moving on.
"Will these evildoers never learn? They devour my people as they devour bread; they do not call upon God."
We see here that there are people who do good, who are righteous. As this verse states that the evildoers are separate from God's people.
In fact your interpretation of that verse is not only contradicted when we cross reference it to the old testament, but it's also contradicted in the new.
1 Peter 3:12
"For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears turned to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against evildoers." Well based on your interpretation, there is no one who is righteous. So who's prayers could God possibly be listening to, if there is no one righteous to send them?

Back to Mary...
Romans 6:14
"For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace."
Luke 1:28
"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women."
Compare the two verses. If grace is what enables us to live a life without sin, then Mary, being full of grace, is sinless.

Mary- as an intercessor
To put it simply, if I asked you to pray for me, would you do it? Because if the answer is yes then you are interceding for me. Just as I ask you to intercede for me, so I can ask Mary to intercede for me. The proof that we can communicate to the "dead" is in Matthew 17:2-3
"And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him."
Here Jesus is speaking to Moses, a man who died. And now that you see that we can communicate to the "dead" members of the body of Christ (as Christ himself did), don't you agree that's it's a good idea for us to do so? They are closer to God then we'll ever be on Earth.

Purgatory-
"Yes, my opponent would have to find scriptural references to justify the belief regarding purgatory."
Before I go into scripture, Catholicism does not imply that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough. No where in the that quote does it imply that Jesus' sacrifice was insignificant. In fact the Catechism states just the opposite. Catechism 613
"Christ's death is both the pascal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world," and the sacrifice of the new covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant", which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Scriptural verses pertaining to purgatory:
To start off Revelation 21:27 states that nothing unclean can enter Heaven.
"but nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
Here we can see the logical need for purgatory. If you die a sinner, but still righteous enough to make it into Heaven, how can you enter into Heaven if nothing unclean shall enter it? Your soul is still tainted with sin. It must be purged.
Purgatory is even better described in 1 Corinthians 3:15
"But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire."
A clear reference to purgatory.

2 Samuel 12:12-14
"You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down." Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven you sin, you shall not die." But since you have utterly spurred the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
We see here that, despite the fact that the Lord forgave Samuel for his sin, there is still a punishment for it. Purgatory. This also illustrates what Catholics call penance, but that's a discussion for another time.

Venial and Mortal sins-
Protestants have always amazed me with their theology on sin. Only in an earthly view? Lets think about this logically. To believe that calling someone a mean name and becoming a serial killer are viewed the same by God when He is judging you, sounds ridiculous. Not a very just God if that's the case.
1 John 5:16-17
"If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one- to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal: I do not say that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal."
The difference between sins is blatantly obvious in this verse. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal. Scripture sides with Catholicism.

The Apocrypha-
We'll just take out that thing out about Tobit; as I already discussed how the "doctrine that one is justified by faith alone" isn't based on scripture. Since I'm literally out of room to write, I'll sum this up quickly.
Your entire rant about the Apocrypha can be easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The first Bible ever printed was the Gutenberg bible in 1456. And get this, it was a Catholic bible, with all the books.
http://www.ctlibrary.com...

To sum up-
The beliefs of Catholicism are, as I have shown them to be, completely biblical. Wish I could say more.
Debate Round No. 2
GOP

Con

I thank Pro for his reply.

Salvation is not by Faith Alone


On James 2:14-17, one must notice that James firstly used an example of someone who says that he has faith. He gives an example of what true and false faiths are. The false faith is demonstrated by verses 15-17, whereas true faith is shown by verses 24-26 with the example of Rahab. In fact, the point here is that one is saved by faith alone, but that person would do works as a result of his faith. Someone who truly believes in Jesus would do works in order to indicate that he has faith. Once again, "James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead . . . "James is simply saying that if you say you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:14 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar" (1).

Moving on, Pro says that the verses are about deeds of the Law and not deeds in general. Paul does not only condemn works of the Old Covenant, but also condemns general works. Brandon, when you examine the parallel of Romans 3:28, (which is Romans 4:5), it is clear that "the works of the Law" are general works and not mere covenantal works. Romans 3:28 says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Similarly, Romans 4:6 confirms, "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," Additionally, the point that works and "works of the law" aren't merely covenantal laws is proven valid by Romans 9:11-13, which says, "11 (For the children [Jacob and Esau] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Finally, Ephesians 2:8-10 explains, "8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." So, can we understand Paul to be saying that covenantal laws do not justify but other works do?

Catholicism's Position on Mary

Indeed, Paul was quoting Psalm 53:2-5. You are correct that God talked about Atheists there. However, Paul was not just talking about atheists on Romans 3:10. In fact, he quoted that one part from Psalm 53 just to tell us that everyone sinned. Romans 3:9 tells us, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;" Moreover, Romans 3:23 adds, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Also, you say that righteous people are God's people and the evildoers are separate, and I agree with that. However, that does not change the fact that both Christians and non-Christians are still sinners. Now, Christians are considered "righteous" because they fully believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, meaning that they won't be judged. Simply put, Pro fails to see that Romans 3:10 applies to God's people in the sense that they were formerly unbelievers who eventually put their faith in Christ.

Next, Romans 6:14 refers to "how sin is not going to have any power over us" after we become Christian. Romans 6:6-7 says, "6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin." This means that Mary was a sinner who needed Jesus' righteousness to be saved. Moreover, "It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says 'ave gratia plena 'Hail full of grace.' Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation" (2). Moving on, I do believe that one can "intercede" in the sense that he can pray for someone else. As I said before, the problem is that there is NO mediator between Christ and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 simply says that there is only one mediator between God and men, not that Mary mediates between Christ and people. While other people pray for you (or intercede" as you put it), you must keep in mind that those people are meant to direct their prayers Jesus Christ, as he is the mediator. True, Jesus did talk to Moses, but how does it prove that we can communicate with the dead? Jesus raised people from the dead. Does that mean we can raise people from the dead, too?

Purgatory

If Catholic teachings do tell us that Jesus sacrifice is sufficient, then saying that we need to go through purgatory would be contradictory. I repeat, 1 John 1:7 says, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." We don't need to be "purged" because, well, we are cleansed from ALL sin. So, Revelation 21:27 only makes sense when you say that unbelievers (because they are unclean) cannot enter heaven. Once again, if you die as a believer who still has sinned, you will directly go to heaven because you are cleansed from ALL sin. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is only referring to someone's work. "The passage (1 Corinthians 3:12-15) is using an illustration of things going through fire as a description of believers’ works being judged. If our works are of good quality “gold, sliver, costly stones,” they will pass through the fire unharmed, and we will be rewarded for them. If our works are of poor quality “wood, hay, and straw,” they will be consumed by the fire, and there will be no reward. The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a believer’s works pass through the fire" (3). Moreover, David was forgiven, but there still was a "punishment" in an earthly sense. As Pro said, that is a discussion for another time.

Venial and Mortal Sins

As I told you before, "The reason sin does this is not because of the severity of the sin, but because who the sin is committed against. Since it is God who gives the law, when we sin we break his law" (4). This does not make God unjust in any manner. If He were, then He would have considered petty theft and murder the same even in an earthly sense. 1 John 5:16-17 refers to "mortal sin" in an earthly view also, as Romans 3:23 explains, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Paul makes no mention of any degree of sin either venial or mortal. So, "generally speaking, we conclude that there [are] sins that people can commit which God takes seriously enough so as to end their lives. An example of this is of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10 who lied to the Holy Spirit. God judged them for this and both were killed" (5).

Is the Apocrypha Scripture?

My argument about Tobit still stands, as I have refuted Brandon's claim that one is saved by faith and works. Also, notice that Pro did not explain about the historical error in Baruch. Yes, Pro did run out of space, but that is not an excuse. The Gutenberg Bible was indeed the first printed Bible, but the Catholic Church added the Apocryphal books in 1546. Sadly, Pro has yet to justify the Church's position on these books.



Sources:

1. http://carm.org...
2. http://carm.org...
3. http://www.gotquestions.org...
4. http://carm.org...
5. http://carm.org...
BrandonButterworth

Pro

Salvation-
I love the way you try to twist scripture to fit your doctrine. Especially when you notice that no where in James does it state that he is referring to 2 different types of faith. You're putting words in his mouth. The funny thing is, at the end of BOTH of the metaphors (one in 14-17 other in 24-26) he comes to the same conclusion that "faith without works is dead." But you're trying to tell me to come to a different conclusion. What should I believe? The bible, or your interpretation of the bible?
I'd like you to notice that the only place where you can find the words "faith" and "alone" together in the ENTIRE bible is in James 2:24
"See how a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone?" Yet you wonder why Catholics have a hard time accepting faith alone. It's because it's not biblical.

"Someone who truly believes in Jesus would do works in order to indicate that he has faith."
This isn't faith alone. Faith alone is saying, "all I have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus". Yet here you're stating that works are necessary in order to show you have faith. I completely agree, because faith without works is dead.

Referring to the verse in Ephesians-
Straw man. That verse condemns salvation through works alone. I'm defending salvation through faith and works.

Referring to the verses in Romans-
You're taking that verse out of context.
Romans 4:9
"Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham"s faith was credited to him as righteousness."Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."

"It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith." so yeah, we are still talking about works of the law here.

I've noticed you like to reference Romans a lot, perhaps you missed chapter 2?
Romans 2:5-8
"By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness."
Romans 2:10
"But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek."
Romans 2:16
"on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works, through Christ Jesus."
You can't cherry pick the bible. With faith and works, it's not either or, it's both and.

Mary-
"For all have sinned" Is this to be taken as an absolute? For example, what about babies? Certainty you don't believe they have sinned. And what about the people with mental disorders? They don't have the capability of deciding what is right and what is wrong. And Christ never sinned. So we can see that there are exceptions to this statement.

After this, you seemed to dodge my argument. Romans 6:14 in its entirety:
"For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace."
Then I compared it to Luke 1:28 which states that Mary is full of grace. And if grace allows us to live a life without sin, then Mary, being full of grace, is sinless. You tried to say that we have a bad translation, yet didn't give your "correct" translation. Please do so in the next round.

"This means that Mary was a sinner who needed Jesus' righteousness to be saved." As Catholics, we believe this. But since God is outside of time, he saved her preemptively. Think of it this way, thanks to original sin, we are stuck in a big pit. When we are baptized, Christ comes and helps us out of the pit. With Mary, Christ stopped her from falling into the pit to begin with.

The word "interceder" and the word "mediator" are synonyms. http://thesaurus.com...
So when I ask you to pray for me, you are being my mediator. But anyway in 1 Timothy 2:5 he's absolutely correct. Because without Christ, the gates of Heaven would be closed; therefore, the only way to get to God, would be through Christ and his sacrifice. Salvation is found only through Jesus. It doesn't mean that members of the Body of Christ can't pray for each other.

"True, Jesus did talk to Moses, but how does it prove that we can communicate with the dead?"
"Jesus raised people from the dead. Does that mean we can raise people from the dead, too?"
Acts 9:40-41
"Peter put all of them outside, and then he knelt down and prayed. He turned to the body and said, "Tabitha, get up." Then she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up. He gave her his hand and helped her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he showed her to be alive."
Welp, Peter just raised someone from the dead and communicated to the saints. I feel like this proves my point very well.

Purgatory-
"We don't need to be "purged" because, well, we are cleansed from ALL sin."
Christ can cleanse us from sin yes, but that doesn't mean that because of him we are without sin. 1 John 1:8 (Literally the next verse lol)
"If we say, "We are without sin", we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
So you still need to be purged, because you are still a sinner, and therefore, still unclean.

Referring to you referring to Corinthians-
It's pretty funny that you would quote this, as it has God judging peoples works. If we are saved by faith alone, why does he bother with what their works are? "The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a believer"s works pass through the fire" Actually it states that they will be saved only as through fire. Completely contrary to what you claim.

"if you die as a believer who still has sinned, you will directly go to heaven because you are cleansed from ALL sin." Says who? Not the bible.
Ezekiel 33:13
"Though I say to the virtuous man that he shall surely live, if he then presumes on his virtue and does wrong, none of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered; because of the wrong he has done, he shall die."
So if you are a believer and commit adultery, and then die, will you make it into heaven? Because the bible says that adulterers wont make it into heaven.
Your theology here doesn't hold up to Ezekiel, it doesn't hold up to 1 John, not 1 Corinthians, and I'm sure that it doesn't hold up to any sort of common sense that you may hold.

Mortal and Venial Sins-
If you can't recognize mortal and venial sins after reading 1 John, then I really don't know how else to help you. It is literally spelled out for you: "faith without works is d..." oh I'm sorry "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal." Heh heh heh heh.

The Apocrypha-Tobit argument is tossed out.
So please tell me, if the Catholic Church supposedly added books to the bible in 1546, how is it then that they were in the Gutenberg bible of 1456? Perhaps you're not giving me accurate information? Perhaps the event your telling me about, never really happened? Perhaps it wasn't the Catholics who added books to the bible, but the protestants who tossed them out? I mean, do you see the difficulty I'm having here?
Debate Round No. 3
GOP

Con

I thank Pro for his reply.

Salvation

It is implied that James refers to two different types of faith. One person says that he has faith, but does nothing (indicating false faith). However, people like Rahab show their faith with works. This is different from doing works to be saved. James 2:23 says, "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." "If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example" (1). Moving on, Pro tells me, "Faith alone is saying, "all I have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus". Yet here you're stating that works are necessary in order to show you have faith." Well, again, works show your faith, but they do not do anything for your salvation. Also, my opponent ignores Isaiah 64:6 (from Round 1) which says, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." From this, we can say that if we do good works to be saved, then that won't make a bit of a difference, as filthy rags cannot clean. Moreover, verse 8 in Ephesians says that "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" Notice that it says we are saved through faith (not faith and works), and verse 9 simply emphasizes, "Not of works, lest any man should boast." Therefore, it is illogical to add your own efforts especially when it is "the gift of God." If you add your efforts, then it is a reward and not a gift, as you do something to "earn" it (2).

Moving on, Pro fails to see where I said that "works of the Law" refer to general deeds and not just covenantal deeds. I repeat, Romans 4:6 refers to "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." Romans 3:28 (the parallel verse) says that "man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law." What's surprising is that Pro brought up Romans 4:9-13 to say that "works of the Law" refer to mere covenantal works. In turn, he ignores Romans 4:6, which has already established the "righteousness without works" term. Romans 2:5-8, and Romans 2:10 refer to believers doing good acts as a result of their faith in Jesus. In fact, John 15:5 says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." The branches produce fruits because of the vine, in which one of them is faithfulness (3). Hence, they show perseverance in good works. Also, notice that Romans 2:16 says that God will judge their hidden works. This is similar to the 1 Corinthians 3:15 argument, so it will be indirectly answered when I get there.

Mary

Pro, if you use logical deduction, then of course you would see that verse refers to people besides the mentally disabled, babies and Jesus Christ. These exceptions are very minor, as most people in this world are mentally sound. Plus, the other half of the verse goes, "and come short of the glory of God;" Well, Jesus is God, so it would not make sense for Him to come short of the God's glory. Moreover, I repeat that Romans 6:14 refers to sin not having any power over us after salvation. One of the correct translations of Luke 1:28 is from the KJV, which says, "And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you! Now, Pro, you must justify the Catholic Church's usage of the Latin translations. Why would it use the Latin translations even though the New Testament is written in Greek? Also, where in the Bible does it say that Mary was stopped from falling into the pit to begin with? I have already refuted Luke 1:28 with the correct version, which does not have the messy error of "Hail full of grace." Once again, cross-referencing Romans 6:14 also does not help your point, because that refers to Christians not being enslaved to sin anymore. In turn, that helps my point by proving that she (like all others) needed Jesus to stop being enslaved by it. So, I thank you for that, Pro.

Yes, the words "interceder" and "mediator" are synonyms. However, Pro misses that I am talking about interceders/mediators in heaven. I already said that people on Earth can pray for you, who then pray to the one mediator in heaven. Since it is said that Christ is the only mediator, then it can be safely concluded that you cannot ask anyone else in heaven to pray for you. In Acts 9:40-41, Peter does raise someone from the dead, but that was the power that Jesus directly and specifically gave to His disciples in Matthew 10:8, which says, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Although it is possible to raise people from the dead today, one must realize that it is unlikely (4). Unlike the disciples, believers today were not directly given this power. After all, the completion of the Bible proves that we do not need further miracles to validate it (5). Finally, the verses say that Peter communicated to the saints/believers. Nowhere does it say that he communicated to the believers in heaven.

Purgatory

Like you said, believers are still sinners. 1 John 1:8 talks about sins we committed on Earth, thus meaning that we are with sin in an earthly sense. However, you continue to ignore the fact that we are cleansed from ALL sins in a spiritual sense. ALL sins include sins we committed after becoming believers, too. If Jesus paid the full price here, then why would we need to be purged? Again, if the Bible said that Jesus paid for some sins, then your theology would make sense, but sadly, nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that. Also, God bothers with what our works are, since Jesus told us to lay up treasures in heaven on Matthew 6:20. We get rewarded when we do quality works, and vice-versa (6). 1 Corinthians 3:15 "refers to the believer escaping through the flames, not being cleansed by the flames" (7). Now, notice how Ezekiel 33:13 says, "if he then presumes on his virtue and does wrong," or "if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity" in the KJV. It has already been established that salvation is not by works itself, or faith with works, so this argument is tossed out.

Mortal and Venial Sins

Again, this talks about greater sins and lesser sins in an earthly sense. Clearly, Pro disregards Romans 3:23. I will say the verse one more time: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Now, where does Paul make any mention of sin either venial or mortal in an eternal sense? Considering that sin (no varying degrees) leads to hell, then it is logical to say that the verses in 1 John refer to levels of sin in an earthly view.

The Apocrypha

The Tobit argument still stands. Pro assumes that just because the said books were in the Gutenberg Bible means that the Catholic Church added them in an official sense. Although the Gutenberg Bible was Catholic (with all the books), it was never legitimate, because the Apocryphal books were officially declared to belong in the canon of Scripture in 1546 by the Church (8). Simply put, it makes sense to say that the Catholic Church added them, as the Gutenberg Bible's inclusion of those books did not count as it was prior to the actual canonization. Finally, Pro still has yet to explain the Catholicism's position on these books, as well as the historical errors from Baruch and Judith.

Sources:

1. http://carm.org...
2. http://www.gotquestions.org...
3. http://www.gotquestions.org...
4. http://www.gotquestions.org...
5. http://www.gotquestions.org...
6. http://www.gotquestions.org...
7. http://www.gotquestions.org...
8. http://carm.org...




BrandonButterworth

Pro

Salvation, Mary, Sin, Purgatory-
I can't force you to accept Catholicisms beliefs; and I could sit here and play bible ping pong with you all day. It all comes down to authority. What gives you the authority to determine what the bible may imply or not? After all, Christians like yourself have tried to interpret the bible for themselves for about 500 years now. And all it's gotten you guys is over 33,000 separate denominations of non-Catholic Christians. When Genesis says "Be fertile and multiply" I hardly think he was speaking of your churches.

You say the bible implies one thing, and I say it implies another. What does the bible say? Go to the church.
Matthew 18:15-17 "
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. "

What church is the bible speaking of here? That church would have to be 2000 years old. And that church would have to still be here today, and teach the same gospel it preached 2000 years ago.
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" Matt 16:18
Is your church 2000 years old? Was your church founded by Christ, or a man? Do you even belong to a church?
The ONLY church that can accurately make this claim, would be the Catholic Church.
"wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Saint Ignatius (death between 98 A.D. - 117 A.D.)

Luke 1:28-

"Now, Pro, you must justify the Catholic Church's usage of the Latin translations."
I'm guessing you're getting this argument from your CARM website. I've read a good deal on what CARM has to say about Catholicism, and it's extremely anti-Catholic.
I won't be trying to justify this, because it simply isn't true. The Catholic Church's translation of Luke 1:28 is from the Greek language. And unlike the cite you didn't seem to give, mine actually gives the Greek word and its translation into English.

"St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced" in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, "graced," is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Mary"s name."~http://www.catholic.com...

The Apocrypha-
Why don't you just show me the document within the Catholic Church that says that we added the books to the bible "officially" in 1546? Because if you can't do that (and you can't) then your argument here doesn't really hold any weight what so ever.

You reject the Apocrypha. But where did you get the other 66 books of the bible from? When Christ was ascending, he didn't chuck down a bible and say, "Oh by the way, you'll need this!" No, the church had to put together a cannon of the bible AFTER Christ ascended and the authors wrote the book. So let me ask again, where did you get your bible from?

To sum up-
I have proved that all of Catholicisms beliefs presented here are based on scripture. This was the purpose of the debate, I essentially proved it in the second round. Whether or not it fits with Con's interpretation of the bible is another matter entirely. In fact, I'd say NOBODY'S beliefs fit with Con's interpretation of the bible, but Con himself.
Debate Round No. 4
GOP

Con

Thank you for your response, Brandon. I appreciate your participation.

The Authority

As emphasized by CARM.org, the point here is that God authoritatively has the right interpretation of the Bible, and He reveals His interpretations to Christians. On John 10:27, Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" So, I'd like to ask you, Brandon, the Bible is the Word of God, no? Christians will follow Jesus Christ, no? Jesus said that His sheep would follow him and listen to His voice (none other). So, one must study the Scriptures to find His voice, correct? After all, it is His word. Although there are many denominations of non-Catholics Christians, one must realize that there can be differences regarding non-essential areas, as pointed out by Romans 14:1-12 (1). There can be minor differences in the non-essential areas like believing that one's salvation can be lost (2), the validity of speaking in tongues (3), and so on. As long as those separate denominations hold on to the essential doctrines listed on link #4, the adherents (of the denominations) are one in Christ.

The Bible does tell us to "tell it to the church" in case of a brother refusing to listen about his faults. However, a church is not a building or a denomination, but is simply the body of Christ (5). That church (body of Christ) could be a local assembly held at a local "church" building. However, that definitely would not include the Catholic Church, as it teaches heretic doctrines like salvation by faith and works, Purgatory, venial and mortal sins (in an eternal sense), and so on. Once again, when we talk about the church as the Bible puts it, we are talking about the body of Christ in general (regardless of each Christian being a Baptist, Presbyterian, Non-denominational, etc. Now, you ask me, "Is your church 2000 years old? Was your church founded by Christ, or a man?" Well, I am a Non-denominational Christian, and it is hard to tell how old my "church" is, as the term "Non-denominational" can be a bit too general. However, that is not relevant, since all that matters is doctrinal accuracy (especially regarding the essential beliefs). I do belong to a church, or the body of Christ, as I am a Christian. My church, or the assembly that I belong to, was indeed founded by Jesus, as He is the one who started having people believe upon Him, forming the body of Christ.

Mary

Moving on, my opponent uses the Greek translation incorrectly. The problem here is that if Pro asserts that the Catholic Church got its translation from the Greek language, then he is no longer in agreement with Mary's sinless state. Firstly, "full of grace" means "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = grace) in Greek. However, nowhere does it say "plaras karitos" in the translation. However, the Greek translation does in fact say "kecharitomene", which means highly favored, make acceptable, make graceful, etc (6). This is not meant to be equivalent with the "plaras karitos" term. If anything, the word "kecharitomene" is in harmony with the KJV version of Luke 1:28 (instead of the version that my opponent used), which says, "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Simply put, Mary was indeed a blessed woman for giving birth to the Son of God, hence the usage of the Greek word to emphasize on her privilege. If Pro stuck to defending the Latin translation, then his argument about Mary would have made some sense. Then again, the Latin translation was never meant to be used, as it is not in harmony with the Greek writings of the New Testament.

The Apocrypha

According to the Council of Trent, Session IV, "They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue [Joshua], Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon [Chronicles], the first book of Esdras [not considered as canon eventually (7)], and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias [Tobit], Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee [Hosea], Joel, Amos, Abdias [Obadiah], Jonas, Micheas [Micah], Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias [Zephaniah], Aggaeus [Haggai], Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second" (8). Once again, these books had existed on previous copies of the Bible years before the Council of Trent. However, as CARM.org said, they were only declared to belong to the canon of Scripture in the year of 1546 (9), hence officially added (again, this means that the inclusion of the Apocryphal books during the earlier years did not count in an legitimate sense). Moving on, Pro still has yet to explain the validity of these books. As I said on Round 1, neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was also rejected by the Jews (9), as they were entrusted with the oracles of God according to Romans 3:2. This justifies the fact that books like Daniel are considered as canon, despite the fact that they were not quoted by Jesus or the apostles. Indeed, Jesus did not chuck down a Bible and say such a thing. We got the Old Testament from the Jews (remember that they were entrusted with the oracles of God), and we got the New Testament from the apostles (10). There were several manuscripts for both the Old and New Testaments that agreed with each other (11), which gave the pioneer Christian church leaders the convenience of putting the Bible together.

Closing Paragraph

Once again, I would like to thank Brandon for engaging in this debate. I would also like to point out that he made an unnecessary exaggeration when he said that "NOBODY'S beliefs" fit with my interpretation of the Bible. My opponent has also omitted a lot of details, such as the historical errors in Baruch and Judith, the Catholic position of having the additional seven books (Pro did attempt to argue against my claim that the Catholic Church officially added the books in 1546, but he never argued about why the Apocrypha belongs to the Bible. On the other hand, I have argued that the Apocrypha is not scriptural because not only was it rejected by the Jews, but it was neither quoted by Jesus nor the apostles at any point). My opponent also stopped arguing thoroughly on the fourth round, seeing that he countered more than half of my response with the "church authority" point (as opposed to countering each argument exhaustively like he did in the previous rounds). Regardless, I ask my opponent to feel relieved and be merry, as this debate is about to be over.

Sources:

1. http://carm.org...
2. http://carm.org...
3. http://carm.org...
4. http://carm.org...
5. http://www.gotquestions.org...
6. http://carm.org...
7. http://pleaseconvinceme.com...
8. http://history.hanover.edu...
9. http://carm.org...
10. http://carm.org...
11. http://carm.org...

BrandonButterworth

Pro

Authority-
"the Bible is the Word of God, no?"
Correct
"Christians will follow Jesus Christ, no?"
They try to.
"one must study the Scriptures to find His voice, correct?"
Yep. But one is not suppose to interpret the bible by themselves.
2 Peter 1:20
"But know this first of all, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."
This is why Christ set up the church, (Matthew 16:18) to help us interpret the bible, for if we interpret the bible for ourselves, we scatter. This is what we've seen with Protestantism.

"one must realize that there can be differences regarding non-essential areas"
Who gets to determine what the essential areas are?

"However, that definitely would not include the Catholic Church, as it teaches heretic doctrines like salvation by faith and works, Purgatory, venial and mortal sins (in an eternal sense), and so on."
All of which, Con failed to prove were heretic doctrines. All of his so called proofs consisted of his own interpretation of the bible. In example, he said James was implying two different types of faith, despite the fact that it doesn't say he was implying two different types of faith. And then venial and mortal sins, he tried to claim it was talking about it in an earthly sense, despite the fact that it doesn't say its talking about an earthly sense. He were simply trying to twist scripture to fit his doctrines. Once again, what am I to believe? The bible, or his fallible interpretation of the bible?

But lets view his argument about what the bible means when it says to tell it to the church.
Point One- It doesn't make sense
So I'm a guy who thinks we need the Eucharist to obtain salvation. You tell me I'm wrong, but I refuse to listen. So you grab a couple friends, and try to convince me otherwise, I still refuse to listen. So now you must take me to the church (or rather, the Body of Christ as you put it). You bring me before the "leaders" of the Body of Christ. All made up of Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. And explain the situation. I'm a man who believes in the Eucharist, and I need to be shown the errors of my ways. But there's a problem: the Baptists and the Presbyterians both agree with you and your friends, but the Lutherans agree with me, and claim that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. By the end of the meeting, the conflict is never resolved. And I go home thinking the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, and you go home thinking it isn't. Nothing changed.

Point two- History
The church the bible is talking about couldn't have possibly been anything other than Catholic. The ONLY church that appears after Christ's death is the Catholic Church.
"wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Saint Ignatius (death between 98 A.D. - 117 A.D.)
Protestants, such as the Baptists and Presbyterians, (the ones Con provided) aren't mentioned in history until they show up in the protestant reformation in the 1500s. So how can he claim they made up the church that the bible speaks of?

Mary-
Here, Con tries to claim that "Kecharitomene" means highly favored. He then proceeds to cite "CARM". A simple Google search shows you that "Kecharitomene" literally means, "she who has been graced" and not what Con tries to assert here. However, he is getting his info from CARM. As I have shown earlier, CARM is full of fake facts, such as the adding of the books in 1546 by the Catholic Church, and the existence of protestant churches before the time of the protestant reformation. Since the word literally means, "she who has been graced" , having an interpretation that says "highly favored" (which states nothing of grace) would actually be the LEAST accurate interpretation.
http://www.philvaz.com...
http://www.catholic.com...
http://www.catholicfidelity.com...

The Apocrypha-
"Why don't you just show me the document within the Catholic Church that says that we added the books to the bible "officially" in 1546?" Con quotes the council of Trent as his "proof" that the Catholic Church added books to the bible in 1546. Notice that the council of Trent listed off ALL the books of the old testament. Did the Catholic Church add those in 1546 as well? Con took something from the council of Trent, a list of the books in the old testament, and tries to claim that it's proof that we added books in 1546. I'm not seeing the proof here.
But I am seeing proof in this.
The Council of Rome 382 A.D.
"The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books."

As you can see, in 382 A.D. when the Catholic Church came out with its cannon of scripture, it has first and second Machabees, Judith, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Solomon, Baruch, and Wisdom. All the ones that Con tried to claim the Catholic Church added in 1546. I think we can now say definitively, that it was not the Catholic Church who added the books to the bible, but the Protestants who took them out. I apologize for not bringing up the Council of Rome earlier, for it would have made this debate a little shorter.

"Pro still has yet to explain the validity of these books."
I put faith in the Catholic Church who originally gave me the books of the bible, just as Con does.

Referring to your closing paragraph-
Con claims I exaggerated when I said nobody's beliefs fit his own. Perhaps I was, but consider this.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
As you can see, by putting emphasis on any of the words in the sentence, you get a completely different meaning out of it.
Now multiply this by the amount of verses in the bible (31,173) and consider the possibility of your personal interpretation of the bible matching up with some else's.

The historical errors in Baruch and Judith-
What about the one in Genesis? It has two creation stories that contradict each other. Guess Con better throw out Genesis too.
The bible isn't a history book, and to treat it like one, is to misunderstand the bible. (by the way, 7 generations, IS seventy years lol. I'm referring to his attack on Baruch)

"My opponent also stopped arguing thoroughly on the fourth round,"
I figured when writing my fourth round argument that Con would try to claim something like this. I attacked his argument directly, which was his interpretation of the bible he had no authority to give. Continuing with the current format would have been fruitless; my opponent took the words "faith without works is dead" and still claimed that faith without works can get you to heaven. It was time to take a different approach.

Closing-
I'd like to thank GOP for setting up this debate. Hopefully the next time he and I debate it will be about something more specific. As it took me several hours to write these arguments, and I kept running out of room. God bless GOP.



Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ExsurgeDomine 3 years ago
ExsurgeDomine
I really missed a golden opportunity here.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
RFD:

Both parties did a pretty good job with this debate. It was obvious that each spent a lot of time researching and crafting their arguments, so I appluad each for their effort.

Pro has a habit of immature reactions; conduct goes to Con for a more professional demeanor, although I almost revoked this point because I thought Con's charges of Catholic heresy were a bit over the top and made just as a jab, rather than a line of attack with any substance. But overall I thought Con did behave better.

Pro defended fairly well against all of Con's attacks, and I felt that he even took the fight to Con by demonstrating how Con's own interperetations could be thought of as unscriptural. Doctrine for any Christian denomination seems to rest, at least in part, on some logical inferences for matters where the Bible itself is silent or ambiguous. This led to a weak, but still standing defense for both purgatory and Mary.

There are many intereperetations of scripture possible, and there is even legitimate debate over which books should constitute the cannon. Pro has shown how Catholicism can hold as being scripturally sound under at least one of those interperetations, which is all he needed to do.
Posted by annanicole 3 years ago
annanicole
Philochristos was right.
Posted by BrandonButterworth 3 years ago
BrandonButterworth
I'm the guy you messaged about the debate. This seems a bit broad, but I'd like to accept the debate anyway.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Well, I am technically not anyone to say that Catholicism is biblical. The thing is that I believe God condemns Catholic doctrines through His Word (The Bible).
In the rules, it says that the contender has to be Catholic, because I don't want anyone playing the devil's advocate.
Posted by CentristX 3 years ago
CentristX
In the rules it says that you have to be Catholic.... but who are you to say that Catholicism is not biblical, if you are a Catholic??
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
And obviously no, they don't have to prove every doctrine. lol
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Well, philochristos, I avoided narrowing the scope of this debate for a reason.
If I restrict it to a certain concept, then some Catholics could have a hard time countering it. However, since this is broad, I give my opponents more freedom to choose what they want to argue, and so on. They can be more general, which makes it more easy.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
I think you should try to narrow the scope of this debate. What would it take to prove Roman Catholicism? Must they prove every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church? And if so, how could that possibly be done in 8000 characters?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
GOPBrandonButterworthTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: While this may seem like a landslide/votebomb, this was a very hard decision to make. Here's the quick breakdown. Conduct- Pro, Ad Hominem is not cool. I flinched a couple times, and Pro kept his calm well. Kudos. S & G - Minor mistakes that piled up. Lack of capitalization drove me crazy. Args - In the end, Con had used scripture more efficiently, and had better sources. Pro almost appeared to concede completely in round 4. (I think it was 4...) Also, the final bringing up of the Roman Council was lacking. Con had no way to refute, and it was essentially a new argument. I disregarded it for the round, but will do personal research on it. Sources- CARM was heavily relied on, but Pro only attacked its validity once Con couldn't respond. Also, the sources which claimed it was biased were all Catholic... Haha. Also, a quote from a "Saint" isn't scriptural proof for your argument. Well done both sides. This was a tough RFD. I hope to see both of your work in the future.
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 3 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
GOPBrandonButterworthTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did farely well with this debate. They both had solid points. But Pro seemed to say that Com was twisting scripture. Con seemed to have the better argument, both sides did their homework on this subject. Because of the conduct I gave it to Con because Pro got nasty. According to the KJV Roman Catholicism IS NOT biblical and Con proved that.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
GOPBrandonButterworthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
GOPBrandonButterworthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con to con, pro at times launched ad hominems (who are you to question God?) and accuses Con of twisting scriptures, its one thing to say it may be misrepresented, a whole other to accuse someone of bending quotes. I'm also giving arguments to con, pro at times was cryptic or didn't explain the significance of the quotes he was using to refute con. For instance, the purgatory argument killed pro, seeing as the BOP was to show that it eas mentioned in the bible, claiming a 'logical need' only illustrates Cons point that not all of it is indeed biblical. And his opponent dropped Tolbit passages. Therefore I rule in favor of Con. Good debate though, very intriguing read.