The Instigator
hutch976
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
WFTL
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

"Proving Catholicism to be teaching false doctrine, and thus a manmade church"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
hutch976
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 366 times Debate No: 96705
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

hutch976

Con

My opponent is welcome to debate me here on a topic he has been trying to get going for some time.

My opponent can take Round 1 to accept this challenge, but he also MUST define the following:

1. False Doctrine - And against what source is the Catholic Church's specific teachings going against to make them false

2. Man Made Church - and then clarify how his church is not man made

3. Catholicism

4. Any other theological terms he will use such as "sola scriptura"

Pro can also take R1 to make an optional opening statement.
WFTL

Pro

I appreciate the opportunity to debate my opponent on this subject of grave importance, as it has caused and still causes people to be lost by being in a man made church teaching false doctrine which I will easily prove.
DEFINITIONS:

1. False doctrine, meaning not scriptural or found in the KJV as those listed below.
2. Original sin.
3. Praying to the dead.
4. Pope.
5. Catholicism.
6. Oral traditions being inspired.

Just the few of hundreds more which I could've listed, but unnecessary, as these alone will prove my proposition that the

Catholic church to be nothing more than a man made religious entity.

The churches of Christ is the one and only true church spoken of in the bible , which I will prove beyond any doubt.

===================================================================================================
Debate Round No. 1
hutch976

Con

So my opponent has only done SOME of what was asked of him in Round 1. Let's recap:

A: What my opponent actually defined

1. He defines false doctrine as "not scriptural or found in the KJV as those listed above". He has not told us WHY it has to be found in scripture or WHY we have to use the KJV of the Bible as opposed to another translation. Would my opponent agree that since the Holy Trinity is not found in scripture, nor the "Sinner's Prayer", nor the term "Sola Scriptura", nor the Hypostatic Union (Christ having two natures), nor the names of the Gospel authors....and so many other things I am sure my opponent takes for granted...that since those items are not found in the KJV explicitly, that they are therefore not taught or valid in the Christian faith?

This is why defining your terms and providing justifications are so very important. I come from a faith that can trace its lineage from Pope Francis to Peter, and therefore Jesus himself. When was my opponent's church founded by some guy? My church was instituted in Matthew 16, and described in Acts, and Jesus gave them special authorities (Matthew 10, Luke 9:1).

B: My opponent going off of the rails

The rest of my opponent's list of items simply seem to be a list of items found in Catholic teaching, that he (being a great theologian apparently) disagrees with. He does not define the following:

1. What he means by "man-made" and how HIS church is not man-made but the Catholic church is.
2. Why KJV is apparently the ultimate source for Biblical scholarship
3. What he means by Sola Scriptura
4. Defining Catholicism

He either did this because he CANNOT provide such definitions, or he hoped that the audience would forget that he was supposed to do this upon accepting this debate. Maybe he just forgot.

I will ask my opponent once more to define the aforementioned terms, and to feel free to make an opening statement beyond a superficial list. Feel free to work with the list you already provided IN SUPPORT OF your reasons showing that the CC is man-made and teaching false doctrines.

Please remember, we are probably not going to evangelize each other, but rather people who will one day read this conversation. Your conduct will be judged by others, and so far, it is playing against you.
WFTL

Pro

I never said you had to use the KJV, It's simply what I'm using. The bible is the inerrant, innate, inspired word of God, why else would one need to go to any other source other than the bible for answers of faith, after all it's God's words to us, and for us.

I gave you the definition of a man made church, as my opponent wishes to say I didn't. So again, if it's not spoken of in the bible, then it's man made.

My opponent must prove his claim that his church was instituted in Matthew 16, and described in Acts, and Jesus gave them special authorities (Matthew 10, Luke 9:1), which I know he can't.

I ask my opponent this question, why would he need any other book other than the bible, which is the only book inspired and written by God through about 40 different men divinely guided?
===================================================================================================
Sola scripture is all that's needed, as the bible alone is complete.

Colossians 2;10,King James Bible
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

2 Timothy 3;16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I ask my opponent to notice the word

" perfect " in verse 17.

Jude 3 speaks of contending, "earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." The expression "once for all" could properly be written, "one time for all time". In other words, the text indicates that there will be nothing else.

2 Peter 1:3 tells us, "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue...". According to this verse, we now have all things we need for (eternal) life and (how to live in) godliness.

Galatians 1:6-9.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks of all inspired scripture being profitable and able to make the man of God "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.". For this to be true, we must have the completed word of God. And we do!

Matthew 15:3-9. When Jesus was confronted by the Jews about refusing to follow their traditions, He rebuked them saying, "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition.?" (Matthew 15:3) After giving an example of their hypocrisy, He then states, "...Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

Thus we can see that the Bible IS complete, and the only source we need for our salvation.

What about creed books? Many religions have creeds that they tell you are as necessary as the Bible to be a part of their church. If a church has a creed book other than the Bible, it is not the true church. ===================================================================================================
The bible mentions nothing of a Catholic church or a need for a Pope, nor does it mention that Peter was ever in Rome, which my opponent will have to prove in order to win, which he cannot.

THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APOSTLE

When one assembles all the relevant New Testament data, at least three qualifications emerge as prerequisite to one becoming an apostle in the official sense (Hayden, 1894, p. 33, expands these credentials to seven in number). First, an apostle had to have seen the Lord and been an eyewitness of Christ"s resurrection (Acts 1:22; 22:14; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Second, an apostle had to be specifically selected by the Lord or the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:5; Mark 3:13-14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:26; 9:15; 22:14-15,21; 26:16). Third, an apostle was invested with miraculous power to the extent that he could perform miracles. The power to perform miracles included the capability to confer the ability to work miracles to other individuals through the laying on of his hands (Mark 3:15; 16:17-20; Luke 9:1-2; John 14:12,26; 15:24-27; 16:13; Acts 2:43; 4:29-31,33; 5:12,15-16; 6:6; 8:14-18; 19:6; 2 Timothy 1:6; Romans 1:11; Hebrews 2:3-4). Jesus referred to His bestowal of miraculous capability upon the apostles when He promised they would be "endued with power from on high" (Luke 24:49).

This alone debunks the thought that God ever needed a Pope by the qualifications alone, which is clear that no one could ever achieve that goal, unless the Pope can raise the dead, which I'd love to see him do.

There are, however, other inconsistencies with the claim that Peter was the first pope. Peter, unlike the popes of our day, had a mother-in-law according to Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38. This meant that Peter (Cephas) was married. In 1 Corinthians 9:5,

Another inconsistency is that Peter didn"t allow anyone to bow down before him and worship him as those who fawn over the pope do today. In Acts 10:25,26 we have these words regarding Cornelius, "And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

The Catholic Church admits that Popes do not have these qualifications.

Though the Catholic church claims that Popes are successors of Peter and the apostles, yet they openly admit the following:

"Peter, it is true, ... possessed also the gift of inspiration and the power of working miracles. These two latter gifts are not claimed by the Pope ... The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration ... No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired or endowed with Divine revelation properly so called" (Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 89,99).

(Matthew 16:16), Jesus gave him the privilege of being the first man to tell lost souls how to become Christians and thus become part of the Lord"s church.

When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world"the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles (2005a, p. 171, italics in orig.).

There is no doubt that the "keys" represent the opportunities Peter would have to welcome the world, for the very first
time, to the Christian age and to the kingdom of heaven"the church.
==================================================================================================

Roman Catholicism is pure man made as shown by the proof below.

Biblical Teaching

Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).

God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).

God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).

Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21; Mark 7:1-13).

Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13,14; 1 Peter 5:7).

My opponent has no way to prove his premise with the info. I have provided.
Debate Round No. 2
hutch976

Con

So my opponent actually did NOT, in any rounds previous to his last reply, provide a definition of "mad made", though he claims he did. This is an inaccuracy at least, and at worst, a deception. He clearly did not previously define what makes something "mad-made" before the previous round, nor did he explain how his church is not. You will see, in this rebuttal, how my opponent's position is quite hypocritical, unscriptural, unhistoric, and untenable.

Definition of man-made according to my opponent:

He claims that if it is not found in the Bible then it is man-made, and a false doctrine. I would appreciate it, if my opponent would show me in the Bible where it says, that I one must find something in the Bible, or else it is a "man made" tradition. What verse is that exactly? Is the Sinner's prayer therefore man made? Is the Trinity? Is "Sola Scriptura"? Is the term "personal Lord and Savior" therefore a man made concept? Because you cannot find any of those terms in the Bible explicitly, rather they came from the teachings of men.

Dismantling my opponent:

Of course I would subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures, it is taught through the scriptures and was a belief held by the early Catholic church (pre-Bible). It was through BOTH tradition and scripture (oral teachings and practices combined with the writings and teachings of the early Church) that this teaching is maintained. Surely my opponent would not disagree. This argument will be sustained for virtually all Catholic teachings my opponent dismisses as man-made.

Every single catholic teaching has a scriptural basis. My opponent simply does not subscribe to these scriptural interpretations. But he would also not subscribe to any other protestant denomination to which he does not belong. And this is the exact problem with Sola Scriptura.

Using Scripture, as the sole rule of doctrine, leads to 40,000 plus denominations ALL claiming to practice sola scriptura. Yet they cannot all agree. If Sola Scriptura was what Christ intended...why did He not preach it? Why did He not write anything down? Why did he not promise a book that would come later? Why did He not commission anyone to write it down? Of course He cites scripture, but that does not show how Scripture is the sole rule of faith, nor would it negate the Catholic position that it is BOTH Scripture and Tradition.

Here is a short list of New Testament verses that go against Sola Scriptura:

Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.

What Christ did give us...is a Church. A Church which would be built upon Peter (rock) (see Matthew 16), and against which the gates of Hell would not prevail. He gave us priests with special authority and that would act AS THE FINAL AUTHORITY (see Matthew 18: 17-18).

Matthew 18:17-18King James Version (KJV)

"17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Here we see that the church is the FINAL appeal, not scripture. He then gives special authority to His chosen few, who will be ministers onto the people in a special way. This comes from the lips of the Messiah.

Here are some more verses on the authority of the Church (please note this authority all comes before the creation of the Bible):

Acts 2:42 ... doctrine, community, sacred rite (bread).
Eph 5:25-26 ... Christ loved the Church.
1 Tim 3:15 ... church is pillar/foundation of truth.
Mt 16:18; 20:20 ... Christ protects Church.
Heb 13:17 ... obey.
Mt 18:17-18 ... church as final authority.
Mt 23:2 ... Pharisees succeeded Moses (seat of Moses).
1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20 ... excommunication.

What were Christians doing for nearly 400 years without a Bible?

Protestants Took Books out of the Bible:

Why did the advocates of Sola Scriptura (The Protestant Reformers) get the audacity to take out multiple books from the Bible, and then profess "Scripture Alone"? What gave them the right to pervert what the Holy Spirit gave us? Why could they get rid of a 1000 year old canon?

So it's "Scripture alone", but only when you remove books that show how your theology is demonstrably false. For example, the book of Maccabees (found in the original Bibles, before the Reformers butchered it) shows prayers for the dead. Luther and his kind took it out, and even added words....like "faith alone" in Romans.

^ http://www.catholicbible101.com...

2 Timothy 3:16 Does not teach Sola Scriptura:

The closest he comes to this is talking about Sola Scriptura (which he still fails to fully define) and providing us with 2 Timothy 3:16.

Notice that nowhere in 2 Timothy 3:16 say that ALL YOU NEED IS SCRIPTURE. He merely says it is "useful" or "profitable" (depending on your translation). That would be like me saying that playing and processing your scales on the piano is useful and profitable for becoming a great pianist, but it is NOT all that is required and certainly not sufficient.

Furthermore, 2 Timothy was written BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE. In the proceeding verse, Paul refers to SCRIPTURES YOU HAVE KNOWN SINCE YOU WERE A CHILD...meaning the Old Testament.

To further add to my own thoughts on this issue, I will cite Jimmy Akin, a former Evangelical Minister who came back to the Catholic Faith after researching the Early Church Fathers.

"To begin with, in the opening clause of the passage, the phrase "All Scripture" is normally taken by Evangelicals to mean "All of Scripture" " in other words, a reference to the whole of the canon of Scripture, which coextensive with what a Protestant wishes to make normative for theology. This is natural for a Protestant since he things of the term "scripture" in the singular as a reference to the entire Bible and nothing but the Bible. But that is not the way the term is used in the Bible itself.

The ability to refer to the Bible as a unified work is an invention of the age of moveable type. Prior to the existence of the printing press, Scripture was at best a set of individual, bound volumes. In the first century, when Paul was writing, it was a collection of several dozen scrolls. There was no way it was conceived of as a unified literary work, as it is today.

As a result, a study of the way the New Testament uses the term "scripture" reveals that whenever the term is used in the singular " "scripture" " it always refers to either a specific book of Scripture or a specific passage within a book. It never refers to the whole of the corpus of works we today refer to under the unified title of "Scripture." When the Bible wants to refer to the whole of the corpus, it always uses the term in the plural " "the Scriptures," never "Scripture."

Knowing this, we should be clued in to the presence of a mistranslation in the opening clause of 2 Timothy 3:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). Since the singular term "Scripture" is always used for an individual book of passage of the Bible, the phrase "All Scripture" would mean either "All individual book of the Bible" or "All individual passage of the Bible" " neither of which makes grammatical sense.

And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), we find that there is, indeed, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered "All Scripture" is pasa graphe, which means "Every Scripture" " they key word being "every," not "all." This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term "scripture" means (for "every individual book of Scripture" and "every individual passage of Scripture" certainly make grammatical sense).

Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase " something like hai pasai graphai ("the whole of the scriptures"), not pasa graphe, which means simply "every scripture" (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), such as anti-Catholic James White, have admitted).

This is important because it makes it totally impossible to use the passage to prove sola scriptura, because if one tries to use it in that way it will prove way too much.

Since the passage says "Every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc.," if this proved the sufficiency of Scripture, it would actually prove the sufficiency of each passage of Scripture for theology or at least the sufficiency of each book of Scripture for theology. This would mean that not only would the Bible as a whole be enough to prove every point of theology, but each individual passage or book would be sufficient. So you could do theology not only by Scripture alone but by Matthew alone or by Mark alone or Luke alone or what have you. You could do theology sola Matthew, sola Mark, sola Luke, or, to go to the shortest books of the Bible, even sola Jude or sola 3 John if you wanted.

But that is clearly absurd. No single passage, and no single book, of Scripture contains all that we needs to know to do theology. As a result, 2 Timothy 3:16-17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) cannot be used to prove sola scriptura. If it could, it would prove way more than sola scriptura."

Source:http://jimmyakin.com...
WFTL

Pro

The bible is the only book inspired by God, and was divinely guided by God to say only what he wanted us to know, thus to use anything else would be man made, meaning uninspired. Noticed the noun "book" is singular, but references all that's in the book, called the bible, which happens to be a collection of 66 books contained in one book, called the bible. I hope this helps my opponent in understanding basic grammar.

The word scripture or scriptures can be used in more than one way, such as referring to "this particular scripture" or "some scriptures need interpretation", again, a basic misunderstanding of proper use of grammar on my opponents part.

My opponent compares his word " great " with God's word " perfect " in 2 Timothy 316-17King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be "perfect", thoroughly furnished unto all good works,
which one cannot improve on, although you can on great, by being perfect, I urge my opponent to look up the definitions of the two for future references as the proper definition of these two words.

Again, my opponents interpretation of basic words such as "all" and "every" pertaining to the words in the scripture speaks for itself.

2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Whether the word all or every is used in this verse means exactly the same.

All scripture, or every scripture means the same, if not, it would contradict the other words in this verse, such as, [inspiration of God], [ profitable for doctrine ], [for reproof], [for correction], and [ for instruction in righteousness]

1.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2.Every scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If you notice in # 1 and # 2 there are no grammatical error, and no contradiction of scripture,

My opponent contradicts himself by using 2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation, as the bible only has one interpretation, so why would anyone need a personal interpreter, such as a priest to tell them what the bible says, I submit, they wouldn't.

1.Yes Christ and Paul did command every Christian to drink of the communion cup in Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 11:23-28. And Yes I know that two early popes condemned withholding the cup, (Pope Leo I [died 461 AD] and Pope Gelasius [died 496 Ad]; but in the 12th century the practice was begun, and formally approved by the Catholic Council of Constance in 1415 AD. Yes I know that in 1970 the pope restored the cup to the laity. More false doctrine of the Catholic church.

2.Was every living Christian in the church in Corinth called a saint? Yes.

3.Yes I know that in the Bible (1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Romans 1:7) every Christian was a saint and every saint was a Christian. Yes I agree, the Bible uses the word saint as interchangeably synonymous with being a Christian, but the Roman Catholic church has the power to change the Bible, that's what they think, but they cannot change anything..

4.Yes I know that in the apostolic church (1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10), every Christian was a priest and the two terms are used interchangeably synonymous with being a Christian, but the Roman Catholic church decided that only leaders should be called priests, again they add or subtract from the bible as they feel like it.

5.Yes I know that the Bible appears to teach that 1 Timothy 3:2-5 bishops must be married with believing children, but you can't even understand the Bible anyway, why do you ask? Just trust me because only Catholic priests can understand the Bible, that's what the Catholic church wants you to believe.

6.Yes I have read 1 Timothy 4:1-3, and is seems to condemn forbidding the marriage of Catholic priests, but the Pope decided that unmarried men are more holy than married men, and you wonder why there's so many child predators in the Catholic church.

7.Yes I know that Mark 1:30; 1 Corinthians 9:5 say that Peter had a wife 23 years after Christ died on the cross (53 AD), but Pope Gregory VII decided in 1079 AD from that time onward, that church leaders cannot marry, false doctrine at it's best.

8.Yes I know that sitting through a Latin Mass service can be very boring for many Catholics in the pews. And yes I know that 1 Corinthians 14:19 condemns conducting a church service in a language the average member does not understand, but the Pope decided that Latin sounds real holy and has both historical and mystical qualities, that's what makes the Catholic church a man made church..

9.Yes I know the early church did not begin to celebrate Christmas until the 4th century. And yes I know that Galatians 4:10-11 condemns the keeping of such holy days not found in the Bible, but the church at Rome needed a way to convert the pagan worshippers of Mithra, the god of light... and it worked! His birth is what's important, and there's no date in the bible of his date of birth, again, false doctrine.

10.Yes I know that Acts 20:7 commands Christians to have weekly communion services and that the early church did not celebrate Easter as is done today, but having a yearly communion service was something later church leaders wanted to add to worship. Departing from the New Testament pattern shows why the Catholic church is nothing more than an evil against the truth.

11.Yes I know that the Roman Catholic church deleted the 2nd commandment (Exodus 20:4) in order to hid from the masses God's condemnation of bowing down and kissing images of Mary and Peter, but Mary revealed herself to us in a vision. Another disgrace towards God shown by the Catholics.

12.Yes I know that Jesus was baptized by full immersion in the Jordan River (Matthew 3:16), and that sprinkling was not officially approved until 1311 AD, but it sure is more convenient. Leaving the New Testament pattern again is seen here, as one has to be immersed to be saved, Acts 2;38, Mark 16;16

13.Yes I know that babies have no faith and cannot repent, and are therefor not really valid candidates for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; Acts 2:38). But the Pope invented the idea of where the faith and repentance that the infant lacks, is exchanged for the faith and repentance of a "God Parent". Yes I know none of this is in the Bible, but the Pope is the "holy see" and he must know what he is doing! That's right, it's not in the bible, and neither is original sin.

14.Yes I know Ezekiel 18:20 proves the doctrine of total hereditary depravity (inherited original sin) contradicts the Bible, but you cannot understand the Bible anyway, only the priest can correctly interpret it. That's what the Catholics want you to believe, but it's another false doctrine.

15.Yes I know that Matthew 18:2-3 teaches that children are better models of purity and conduct than adults, but the Pope teaches that infants are wicked defiled sinners condemned to hell until a Catholic priest baptizes them and removes the curse of original sin. Catholics need to put their faith in God, not in the pope

16.Yes I know Ephesians 3:4 plainly seems to say that when you read the Bible by yourself, you can have the same insight that the apostle Paul had into spiritual things, but we Catholic priests cannot teach all our false doctrines that contradict the Bible unless we convince you that you can't understand the Bible unless the priest helps you. How true, they don't want you to know the lies, so they can keep you enslaved by there false doctrine.

17.Yes I know that 1 Peter 3:15 teaches every Christian should be able to defend from the Bible what they believe, but isn't that what us Roman Catholic priests are supposed to do? Do you want to put us out of job and rob us of all our power and control? Yes, the Catholic church needs to be destroyed as a false religious entity.

18.Yes I know that human traditions that contradict the Bible are condemned in Mark 7:7-9, but all the doctrines that contradict the Bible which the Pope through up were revealed to him directly by Christ and therefore, although they contradict the Bible, they are divinely approved by Christ himself, false.

19.You really shouldn't be reading the Bible anyway. And while we are talking about it, what else do you want me to teach you about what the Bible says? Read the bible for yourself and stop believing the false doctrine of the Catholic church, your soul depends on it.

My opponent needs to start answering some of the questions I asked of him in my earlier argument, as this is what a debates all about.
Debate Round No. 3
hutch976

Con

I'd like to take the time to point out something very important about my opponent. He is using what is called a "snow storm" strategy. I've also heard it called "blizzard".

If readers of this debate will carefully notice, he lists a lot of scripture, but it is so very often non-sequitur in terms of this actual debate.

Examples from this last round:

My opponent was given a list of scriptures from the New Testament supporting my cases for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

The only verse he truly comments on is from 2 Peter 1:20-21, which he blatantly misinterprets.

We, in the Catholic church are not opposed to people reading and studying the bible on their own, but we also recognize the teaching authority of Christ's church that he established. So, when Protestants like my opponent, disagree on any segment of scripture and form 40,000 plus denominations, creating divisions in the body of Christ....they have no other authority to go to except their own personal interpretations.

A priest (who speaks on behalf of the larger church) has that ability to be the ruling factor if disputes arise.

Then my opponent dodges questions I have asked him repeatedly about the Trinity and Hypostatic Union...and just rambles off a bunch of off topic scriptures about topics we have not discussed.

This is typical of fundamentalists.

My opponent would have you believe, that his 21st century interpretation of the Bible (which was originally more than 66 books by the way, the Protestants in the 16th century removed books...my opponent failed to talk about that), is superior to an institution that can trace its roots directly back to Christ walking on earth.

When was your church established again friend?

I will answer your questions about "books" when you answer mine about how and why you accept doctrines not found in the Bible, and call your church not mad made. We've already established a pattern of you telling lies in this debate so far, please do not drag the name "Christian" down any further with your nonsense tactics. Don't be an intellectual coward, stop dodging questions I asked you in R1.

BTW, 2 Timothy still says "useful" or "profitable" and not "sufficient for all matters of faith". You're rebuke of my dismantling of 2 Timothy for Sola Scriptura was lacking at best.
WFTL

Pro

My opponent says I was snow storming, I call it being complete and providing as much information possible to make sure he has all the necessary scriptures needed to fully understand his error that he's been taught by the Catholic church without a doubt. Tautology and Red Herring is your obvious ploy in this debate, as I gave you complete detail on everything I answered.

Let me make this clear to my opponent on my belief,

1. We are not a denomination.

2. We are not protestant.

3.We are autonomous

4. We go by the bible only, as my opponent cannot show proof of oral traditions being inspired, because they are all outside of the inspired word, such as original sin, sprinkling infants, praying to the dead, purgatory, and on and on and on which none are in the inspired word of God.

5. The churches of Christ was established in AD33 on the day of Pentecost.

6. You must go according to the Apostles teachings which states one must be immersed to be saved, Acts 2;38, Mark 16;16.

7. Singing only is authorized in the New Testament, Ephesians 5;19, Colossians. I ask my opponent to prove that instruments are allowed by going according to the New Testament pattern as which we are all to be under.

8. We take the Lord's supper every Lord's day, and we do not turn the blood and body into a real body which is cannibalism, we are simply to do this in remembrance of me, which isn't meaning to literally eat and drink his blood.
,Acts 20:7King James Version (KJV).

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

King James Bible, 1Corinthians 11;24
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

9. We give every Lord's day, King James Bible, 1 Corinthians 16;2
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

10. My opponent falsely changed what the scripture of 2 Timothy 3;16 to say, by his own words, and I quote him, BTW, 2 Timothy still says "useful" or "profitable" and not "sufficient for all matters of faith". end of quote. Here's what the verse actually says, 2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

My opponent intentionally added the words "and not ", thus falsifying what the scriptures say.

11. We are called Christians only, King James Bible, Acts 11;26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

12. We believe in the Trinity as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, which are three distinct personalities able to function on their own or all together.

1 John 5:7-8 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (Read More...)
John Chapter 14

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

1 John 4:2. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

John 1:14 .And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

13. The bible is complete, no other source is needed nor inspired, again, if my opponent wishes to prove by scripture that another book is inspired, then I urge him to bring forth that proof.

14. Now you know all about who, when, where, why and what about the only true church, that being the churches of Christ, not the Catholic church.

15. For any other information needed here is another site to back up and provide even greater information on the churches of Christ.
http://traces-of-the-kingdom.org...

My opponent can go to this site for a more detailed look at the lies and deception of the practices of the Catholic church.
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org...

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church

by Matt Slick

The Protestant Reformation happened for a reason. Basically, it was to combat the many false teachings that the Roman Catholic Church had adopted through the centuries. When Martin Luther compared Catholicism to Scripture, the result was his nailing the 95 theses to the Wittenberg door. However, instead of reforming the Roman Catholic Church, it resulted in the protesters, the Protestants, whose aim was to get back to the Scriptures.

Following is a summarized paragraph with references found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) of many of the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. How do we know they are false? By comparing Scripture with what is taught.

-----------------------

The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105), Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035), Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100), The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034), The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846), Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82), Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068), Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3), Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027), The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477), Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980), Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475), Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472), Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969), Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969), Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966), Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677), The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).
1.The Catholic church is the one true church
1. CCC 2105 "The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is 'the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.' By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them 'to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.' The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies."

2.Infallibility of the Catholic Church
1.CCC 2035, "The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed."

3.Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture
1.CCC 100, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

4.The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ
1.CCC 2034, "The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are 'authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.' The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for."

5.The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation
1.CCC 846, "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

6.Sacred Tradition equal to scripture
1.CCC 82, ". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'."

My opponent must confess his error is my prayer, as the proof is overwhelming that the Catholic church is nothing more than a man made false religious entity.
Debate Round No. 4
hutch976

Con

Closing Arguments

Quote from opponent:

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

My opponent intentionally added the words "and not ", thus falsifying what the scriptures say."

No, you misread what I wrote. The verse says "profitable or useful" AND IT DOES NOT SAY "SUFFICIENT", as goes the definition of sola scriptura.

NEWS FLASH: Sola Scriptura is found NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE. It is a phrase invented 1500 years later.

All my opponent has done in this debate, is fail to demonstrate how his denomination is not man made.

Does he believe in the Holy Trinity? Does he believe in the Hypostatic Union? We don't know, he never mentioned it.

BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT FUNDAMENTALISTS DO WHEN YOU CORNER THEM! His only response is to show doctrines he does not understand about a denomination to which he does not belong. We Catholics, has scriptural backings for every single doctrine and dogma of faith. My opponent simply does not agree with our interpretation of scripture.

But when people disagree with scripture, and all you have is scripture to go on (e.g. Sola SCriptura)...you get whack jobs like my opponent and 40,000 different churches. "Let there be no division among you".

I hope the audience can see just how poorly my opponent dodged questions, misquoted me, and acted like a child in this debate.

Thank you for playing. I pray for you. I knew this debate would not convince you otherwise, but I simply wanted to expose you and your piss poor tactics and methods.
WFTL

Pro

I'm saddened by my opponents choice of childish words, such as "piss, whack jobs, acted like a child". His argumentum ad hominem is uncalled for.. Now he says I didn't say whether I believe in the Trinity, as I obviously did if he would've just looked at # 12, which states I do believe in the Trinity. # 17 shows 1 John 4;2 shows I indeed believe in the Hypostatic union, as they are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus, which is called the Hypostatic Union. Does the words have to be in the bible, such as sola scripture, if so, where's the word Trinity, but you and I believe in it, thus your analogy is flawed.

My dear precious opponent, you have been given scripture that debunks everything the Catholic church teaches, therefore there can be but one conclusion, that being the Catholic church teaches false doctrine, and is therefore a man made religious entity.
================================================================================================

I have proven the bible to be the only book that is inspired by God, and although I gave my opponent the opportunity to prove me wrong, he decided not to act upon it, why, because he cannot prove that any other book is inspired, therefore he has failed.

The Catholic church isn't mentioned in the bible, as there's nothing at all in the bible about a Pope, Peter ever being in Rome,

Here is a site that my opponent can use if he so desires to see the false doctrines taught by the Catholic church, which is already been documented by scripture to be false, which I did earlier in my argument above in one of the other rounds.
http://www.gospeloutreach.net...

Errors of the Roman Catholic Church
Part 1

by Keith Piper

The Roman Catholic Church believes many false doctrines that are contrary to the Bible, and were unknown to the early Church, such as:
1.Human Tradition is Elevated to Or Above the Word of God (1545 AD)
2. Wrong Gospel, Wrong Message of Salvation
3. Confession of Sins to Priest to Obtain Absolution of Sins
4. Penance
5. Priests
6. Celibacy of Priests and Nuns (1079 AD)
7. Confirmation
8. Extreme Unction (526 AD)
9. Infant Baptism (370 AD)
10. Transubstantiation (1215 AD)
11. Adoration of the Host (Wafer Bread) (1220 AD)
12. The Mass (394 AD)
13. Other Mediators Between God and Man
14. Prayers to Saints (375 AD)
15. Purgatory (593 AD)
16. Papal Infallibility (1870 AD)
17. Indulgences (1190 AD)
18. Idolatry = Making Images (786 AD)
19. Mary Veneration (431 AD)
20. Catholic Attitudes to the Bible (1229 AD)
21. Peter as the Rock
22. 15 Apocrypha Books Added to the Old Testament Bible (1546 AD)
23. Names of Blasphemy (350 AD)
24. Rosary Prayer Beads (1090 AD)
25. Low Moral Standards
26. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary
27. Crossing Oneself (300 AD)
28. Was Peter the First Pope?
29. Roman Catholic Lies, Immorality, Corruption
30. The Inquisition, Torture, Massacres, Murders, Wars (1184 AD)
31. 15 Evidences that the Roman Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon the Great, the Whore of Revelation 17
32. Who Gave Us the Bible? God or the Roman Catholic Church?
33. They Turn People Away From Christ to Honor Twelve Other Things
===================================================================================================

The Catholic church simply put together the Epistles in a manner that God wanted, as God would not allow anyone, including the Catholic church to add or take away what he wanted us to know, as God has that ability to preserve what, and only what, he wants us to have.

I did not misquote you my dear friend, I simply showed how you were adding a word, such as "sufficient" which does not come close to the word " perfect " as seen in 2 Timothy 3:17King James Version (KJV)

17 That the man of God may be "perfect", thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So my opponent desires to add what the bible should mean instead of what the bible says, as his opinion on what should be said is why people misquote scripture.

===================================================================================================

CONCLUSION:

I conclude this debate with this information that shows how one can be saved.

"Hear

First, we must hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Romans 10:17). One is not a Christian because his parents are. Just as sin is not inherited, neither is faith (Ezekiel 18:20). Each person must believe in Jesus Christ for himself. Christianity is a religion of teaching (Matthew 28:19,20. Unless one has heard the Gospel and learned that Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, and arose from the dead, he cannot be saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The apostle Paul wrote: "How shall they call Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher" (Romans 10:14)? One must first hear and understand the Gospel before he can believe it.

"Believe

Second, one must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Jesus said: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). The jailor at Philippi asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:30,31). Jesus also said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). One comes to believe in Jesus Christ when he hears the Word of God (Romans 10:17). This is the reason it is so important that the Gospel be preached to the whole world (Mark 16:15).

"Repent

Third, one must repent of his sins in order to be saved (Acts 17:30,31). Jesus commanded that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). Repentance is a result of being sorry for one's sins (2 Corinthians 7:10). When the Jews on Pentecost Day learned from Peter that they had crucified the Son of God, they "were pricked in their heart" (Acts 2:37). They wanted to be forgiven of their sins, so they asked, "What shall we do?" They were told to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:37,38). When one repents, he turns away from his sin (1 Thessalonians 1:9). He shows he has repented by doing good works (Matthew 3:8).

"Confess

Fourth, one must confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). This great truth is the very foundation upon which the church of Christ is built (Matthew 16:18; Acts 4:11,12; 1 Corinthians 3:11). Jesus said that we must be willing to confess Him before men if we want Him to confess us before the Father (Matthew 10:32,33). The apostle Paul wrote: "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:8-10). When Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, the eunuch responded, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Philip told him he could be baptized if he believed. The eunuch then confessed, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:35-38). We must make this important, yet simple confession also in order to be saved.

"Be Baptized

Fifth, one must be baptized in order to be saved. Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" (Mark 16:16). Please note that baptism follows belief. One who does not believe that Gospel cannot be truly baptized. Therefore, babies cannot be baptized for they are too young to (1) have sin, (2) hear the Gospel, (3) repent of sins, and (4) confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Baptism also follows repentance. On Pentecost Day, Peter told those who asked what to do to be saved to "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized..." (Acts 2:38). One cannot be truly baptized who has not truly repented.

Baptism is a burial in water (Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12). Therefore, sprinkling or pouring are not proper baptism. Baptism is in order to be saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). One is not saved before he is baptized! Baptism is "for the remission (forgiveness) of sins" (Acts 2:38). Just as Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28), so we are baptized in order to receive the remission of sins. In baptism, the sinner's sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus (Acts 22:16; Revelation 1:5).

What does one have to do in order to be forgiven of his sins?

He must:

1.Hear the Gospel of Christ

2.Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God

3.Repent of all his past sins

4.Confess that Christ is God's Son

5.Be Baptized for the remission of sins

When he does this, he is added by the Lord to His church (Acts 2:41,47). He is born again (John 3:3-5; 2 Corinthians 5:17). He is in Christ where all spiritual blessings are to be found (Ephesians 1:3; Galatians 3:26,27). In short, he is a Christian (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16).

http://www.oceansidechurchofchrist.net...
===================================================================================================

SOURCES:
KJV, and the sites given above, so my opponent can use them if he so desires.

Thank you for debating me, In Christian love.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 week ago
dsjpk5
Apparently.
Posted by WFTL 2 weeks ago
WFTL
One vote, that's all that voted?
Posted by Pigney 2 weeks ago
Pigney
WFTL , you say they are true, but you are simply wrong. You have made some of the most terrible claims and labeled them as true, simply because you "know it". Seriously?
And Peter 1 makes it pretty clear that he was in Rome.
Plus, there is no way to positively prove the Bible is inspired. The only authority that has declared such of the Bible is the pope. So, that negates pretty much everything you said.
In Pacem Christi,
The Pig of Ney
Posted by hutch976 3 weeks ago
hutch976
Well dsjpk5,

I'm sure if you actually voted it would be revoked, as I have pissed off every moderator on this site. But that was a thoughtful analysis. I wish I had your level of temperance.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 weeks ago
dsjpk5
As far as I can tell, the burden if proof is on Pro to show the Catholic Church teaches false doctrine. He is the one making the positive claim. If he is unable to do so, then Con wins by default. Here's my analysis:

Pro had two main arguments he made. One revolved around Sola Scriptura, the other on the requirements of becoming an Apostle. As for the latter, Pro made an interesting argument, but failed to show where the Catholic Church had a doctrine concerning whether or not they believe there are still Apostles today. If no doctrine concerning this issue can be found, then such a doctrine can't be false since it's assumed to be non-existent.

As for Sola Scriptura, Pro was able to show such a doctrine existing, and made a strong argument against it. He offered many verses supporting his claim, including: 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Timothy 3:16, Colossians 2:10, Galatians 1:6-9, among others.

On the other hand, Con had verses of his own that seemed to negate Pro's claims and support those of the Catholic Church, including : John 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Acts 2:42, 2Peter 3:16, and Acts 8:31.
Con was also able to refute Pros 2 Timothy argument by showing the verse only said scripture was "helpful", and not "sufficient". I found this argument to be very compelling.

In my final analysis, since Pro's verses were equally buoyed by verses submitted by Con, it's at the very least unclear if the Catholic Church teaches false doctrine. And if it's unclear if they teach false doctrine, it's impossible to say it's man made. With this in mind, I give arguments to Con since Pro was unable to carry his burden of proof.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 weeks ago
dsjpk5
That debate isn't just about sola scriptura. It encompasses too many issues for a debate (in my opinion).
Posted by WFTL 3 weeks ago
WFTL
dsjpk5, you're welcome to challenge me on the new debate I have started, and feel free to show sola scripture not to be all that's needed if you like, In Christian love.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 weeks ago
dsjpk5
Then accept my challenge. Send me a debate challenge, and make your first round argument a copy/paste of your argument that begins with "Sola Scriptura is all that is needed", and ends with "My opponent has no way to prove his premise with the info. I have provided."
Posted by WFTL 3 weeks ago
WFTL
dsjpk5, it's like this my friend, the only book that's inspired is the bible, and no one can prove any other book to be inspired. The Catholic church is the second biggest deceiver of mankind. As I said in my debate there's not one thing in the entire bible that even mentions a Catholic church.

No Pope, as the Catholic church just made it up to have someone to be in charge of church affairs. Peter was never in Rome as the bible proves it. There's nothing in the bible that says we are born in original sin.

In order to be the one and only true church you must go according to the New Testament pattern as we do, so why not prove the church of Christ wrong, as no one has been able to yet.
Posted by Kaladin_1016 3 weeks ago
Kaladin_1016
Thanks for defending the faith, hutch976!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 weeks ago
dsjpk5
hutch976WFTLTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.