The Instigator
SterlingCamp
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Coveny
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible

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 3 votes the winner is...
Coveny
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,374 times Debate No: 102388
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (70)
Votes (3)

 

SterlingCamp

Pro

This debate is contending the issue of whether or not Roman Catholicism is in opposition to the Bible. Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions. Refer to the second rule for the primary point of this debate.

While there are many groups who claim to be biblical such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are not despite that they adhere to some of the bible. It is not a matter of what they agree upon, but the severity of the contraditions found in their teachings. To be biblical is to line up with all of the bible. In this statement, I not only assert that there are contradicitons between the Roman Catholic Church's traditions and the Bible, but that those contradictions are servere in their implications.

Please read the rules cafefully before accepting this debate.

Rules:

(1) Evidence should primarily be from the Bible (Old and New Testament) as we are debating a biblical issue. All theological issues should be grounded in the Bible. The Bible is defined as the traditional protestant canon established in the London Baptist Confession of Faith. You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using.

(2) This debate is not discussing canonization itself. It is dicussing the traditions of the Catholic church and how they line up with scripture. This debate is not to discuss the view that the Catholic traditions are authoritative, but rather whether or not the traditions contradict teachings found in scripture. This debate’s goal is to strip away presupposed authority of Roman Catholic Tradition and compare it with the teachings of the Bible. While there will be some teachings of the Catholic Church that are biblical, the debate focuses on whether or not all of their teachings (most of which are well known) are biblical, which is of great importance.

(3) No personal attacks on individuals, or any games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate.

(4) There are four rounds:

(a) The first round is acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed.

(b) The second round will be initial arguments or refutations.

(c) The third round will be rebuttals or a furthering of one's case

(d) The fourth round will be final arguments, summaries, and conclusions.

(5) All definitions will firstly be valid in accordance to orthodox biblical theological terms. If there is any reason to define a term it will firstly be in accordance with the theological definition. All secondary definitions will be based on definitions provided by dictonary.com. While this should be a non-issue as we are discussing the Roman Catholic Church's traditions and not theological matters perse, it should be noted.

Conclusion:

I only ask that the person who ends up partaking in this challenge will take it seriously. I hope to have fun in this endeavor. I will most likely re-issue this debate afterwards with the same argument for future challenges.

God bless you all and I look forward to the challenge.

Coveny

Con


Hello I accept this debate.



Evidence will be from the old and new testament translation and reference must be sited. When definition cannot be defined by orthodox biblical theological terms it will be defined by dictonary.com.



As Con my position is that roman catholicism is NOT in opposition to the Bible.



As the word opposition is not defined by Pro, and not listed in orthodox biblical theological term dictionary.com has this definition of it:



1. to act against or provide resistance to; combat.


2. to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct.


3. to set as an opponent or adversary.


4. to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion:


to oppose a resolution in a debate.


5. to set as an obstacle or hindrance.


6. to set against in some relation, especially as to demonstrate a comparison or contrast:


to oppose advantages to disadvantages.


7. to use or take as being opposite or contrary.



This causes a bit of a problem of choice. I will go with the #1 definition as it should be considered the most common, and does fit within the context. If Pro wishes to use a different defination please state it in R2, if no contention to the defination happens then #1 will be considered the one used for this debate.



Therefore, my position is that roman catholicism does NOT act against or provide resistance to the old and new testaments.



It should also be noted that I am an atheist, and I am not debating an argument based on my beliefs in the validity of the new and old testament, only that abstractly catholicism does not act against the old and new testament.


Debate Round No. 1
SterlingCamp

Pro

Hello everyone! I hope this to be a fruitful debate for both parties as well as being beneficial for those who will be voting on this debate. While Con felt the need to provide a definition, the debate's goal was clearly expressed in rule #2 to which I encourage Con to read again as his need for a definition of opposition is non-existence. This debate is centered around one question; Are the Roman Catholic Church’s traditions biblical? The Roman Catholic religion has three authorities that are said to be equal: (1) Scripture, (2) Sacred Tradition, and (3) The Magisterium.

We will not be discussing whether or not these three authorities are valid, but rather whether or not the sacred tradition matches up with scripture. For if the Roman Catholic Church’s traditions do not match up with scripture, then they are unbiblical and an illegitimate church.

This debate’s goal is to strip away presupposed authority of Roman Catholic Tradition and compare it with the teachings of the Bible. My sources will primarily include the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


Let’s begin:

Tradition of the Eucharist:

Also known as the Lord’s Supper, where believers take part in eating of bread and wine, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states, “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: The victim is one and the same. In this divine sacrifice, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner” (1367) and further, “the work of redemption is carried on” (1405). Additionally, Jesus allegedly returns to the earth every day and in the Eucharist, “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” (CCC, 1374).

This proclamation teaches that the sacrifice of Christ continues and the work of redemption is being carried on. The Bible teaches:

(1) There are no more offerings necessary for sin so long as one has forgiveness in Christ, “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” (Hebrews 10:18).

(2) Jesus finished his redeeming work on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30).

(3) There is an eternal redemption already secured, “He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12).

(4) Jesus offered himself once to bear sins and his offering is not to be repeated because it made perfect those who are sanctified, Hebrews 10:14, “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

This Eucharistic practice takes place 200,000 times each day around the world on Catholic Altars as priests everywhere lift up the bread and wine to be worshipped as the “body of Christ”.

Traditions of Mediators:

Catholic tradition elevates the virgin Mary as another sinless mediator. “Without a single sin to restrain her…she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race” (CCC, 494). She “did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation” (CCC, 969).

What the bible teaches:

(1) Jesus is the only one who is qualified to be the mediator between God and men. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

(2) Additionally, only in Christ can those who were formerly far off be brought near by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13).

(3) The biggest problem with the Catholic tradition is that it is baseless in its exaltation of Mary. The gifts of eternal salvation are through Christ and his work on the cross, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realm” (Ephesians 1:2).

(4) There is no need for Mary to provide gifts nor intercessory work as Christ is perfect in his intercession and the book of Hebrews makes this clear in comparing Christ to earthly high priests, “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:23-25).

(5) In addition, there is no co-redeemer with Christ, and Mary was not the “cause” of salvation for the human race. Referring to Christ Acts 4:12 says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

A simple list of Charges:

(1) The Roman Catholic Church teaches a distinction between clergy and “lay people”, while the New Testament teaches a priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9).

(2) The Catholic Church teaches that forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest, however, the bible teaches that the confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9)

(3) In Prayer, the Catholic church teaches to use Mary, and saints for intercessory prayers, while Scripture teaches us to pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).

(4) On the subject of Assurance of Salvation, the Catholic Church teaches that that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured, however, 1 John 5:13 makes it clear that all of 1 John was written for assuring believers of certainty for their salvation.

(5) Last for this segment, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is through the Catholic Church, “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (CCC, 215). However, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ himself is the ONLY means of salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12).

Conclusion:

In this debate, I would challenge Con to provide any biblical support for these traditions. What we see before us are contradictions, and teachings brought about by an institution. This would not be the first time that men created an establishment, claimed authority, contradicted scripture, and led people astray. It was an issue within Jesus’ day as he noted that that Pharisees’ loved their man-made traditions, while correcting them with Scripture by saying things such as, “have you not read?”

I look forward to seeing any biblical support for these traditions. Any church that contradicts scripture, regardless of their appeal to authority, cannot be a biblical church let alone a legitimate church.

God bless you all.

-S.C.

Coveny

Con

I call foul. This debate is centered around “Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible” as that is what I agreed to be against NOT “Are the Roman Catholic Church’s traditions biblical?” these are two totally different positions, and I did not agree to the second one, I agreed to the first one, and will be debating from that stance.

A rule is defined as:
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:

So any rules cover only how the debate of “Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible” is conducted. However, the sentence of “This debate is not to discuss the view that the Catholic traditions are authoritative, but rather whether or not the traditions contradict teachings found in scripture.” Supports the debate being about Catholicism going against the bible.

Next I would like to address rule #1 “You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using.” Pro has listed scripture multiple times without citing the translation he is using.

********
My position
********
Con1 - Supports
Catholicism has spread the bible across the global. Even if Catholicism has had the biggest impact on supporting the use of the new and old testament across the global, it is one of the major reasons. So rather than oppose the bible Catholicism has help and supported the bible.


Con2
– Impossible to follow the teachings of the bible
The bible has numerous incidents of contradictions:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://bibviz.com...

The biggest contradiction is whether jesus and yahweh are the same. In John 14:9 “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” indicates that if you have seen jesus you have seen yahweh.
https://www.biblegateway.com...

But in Mathew 27:46 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”. How could god have forsaken himself if they are the same entity?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...

This leads to it being impossible to follow the teachings of the bible. At best a theist must choose which of the passages to follow as they cannot follow both. Many do mental gymnastics in attempt to prove this congruent, but if the bible is a matter of interpretations then how can either side know for certainty they have chosen the interpretation intended by jesus and/or yahweh.


Con3
– Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
The teaching of the bible contradicts the teachings of the bible, so even if there are parts Catholicism that go contradict the teachings of the bible, this would still not be the opposite of what the bible does, and therefore not be an opposition, but in fact emulating the bible. Therefore not opposing but imitating the bible.

In conclusion, rather than opposing or resisting the bible the catholic church has been one of the biggest supporters of the bible and spread it use across the global. It is impossible to follow the bible to the letter but the catholic church follows the way that it interprets the bibles teachings. However even if appear to be contradiction between what the catholic church does and what the bible teaches these would still emulate the bible because they bible appears to have many contradictions.


*****
Rebuttals
******
Tradition of Eucharist
“EUCHARIST Taken from a Greek word meaning "thanksgiving," Eucharist designates Holy Communion, the central act of Christian worship. At the Last Supper Christ gave thanks (Matt. 26:27; 1 Cor. 11:24), and embodied in the communion service is our Own thanksgiving. The word came into use very early, as exemplified by its use in the writings of the apostles ("Now concerning the Eucharist...." Didache 9:1) and the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (Ign. Phil. 4:1, about A.D. 107).”
http://www.antiochian.org...

Eucharist is giving thanks to the sacrifice that Christ preformed on the cross. It is not an offering, sacrifice, or redemption in and of itself. However, and this is where I think your confusion is, being thankful for the sacrifice he made is part of achieving redemption. The subtle difference is it doesn’t create redemption, nor can it by itself provide redemption, but being thankful is part of the redemption puzzle. “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Mary is a sinless mediator–
Neither in CCC 494 and 969 does it state that mary is a mediator so your points is not valid and I will not address them individually.
http://www.scborromeo.org...
http://www.scborromeo.org...

I will however quote from CCC 494.
“Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him”

She gave herself over to and serves jesus, and through jesus redemption and mediation between god and man occurs. It could be said that by giving herself over to yahweh, to create jesus, she did create redemption and mediation on earth however, she was not able to provide redemption and mediation herself, this is redemption and mediation because of yahweh using her as a vessel. The power lies not in her, but comes from her through yahweh.


Priest synonymous with believer

The new testament teaches that you no longer NEED a priest to mediator with god. This is a distinction between priest’s status in the old versus new testament as mediator, this does not mean priest synonymous with believer, or believer synonymous with priest, just a loss of the mediator ability of priests. Believers are priests in the aspect that they can mediator between themselves and yahweh There is still a distinction in the new testament between the two titles.
Acts 5:14 – “And believers were the more added to the Lord”
https://www.biblegateway.com...
Exodus 19:24 – “let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.”
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Confession
Priests do not forgive sins; this has never been the case. Priest are witnesses of your sins during confession to yahweh. The teaching is confessing your sins to yahweh, and asking yahweh for forgiveness. The priest is only there to help practitioners with that, they hold no power to forgive sins by any catholic traditions.


Direction of Prayer

Catholics are not praying to mary, they are asking mary to pray for them. As mary was of earthly origin, and has the favor of yahweh many feel that she can both relate to use better and Yahweh is more likely to listen to her prayers. This is no different than when someone gets in a car crash and asks others to pray for them, they are asking mary to pray for them, not treating mary as a celestial being. (the same holds true for saints)


Salvation assurance

Difference parts of the bible list difference aspects of salvation.
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Yahweh will judge believers by different standards
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...

If you follow yahweh’s teachings salvation is assured, but it’s impossible to know exactly what yahweh’s teachings are for each person, so salvation cannot be assured.


Salvation through church

“The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever." "And now, O LORD God, you are God, and your words are true"; this is why God's promises always come true. God is Truth itself, whose words cannot deceive. This is why one can abandon oneself in full trust to the truth and faithfulness of his word in all things. The beginning of sin and of man's fall was due to a lie of the tempter who induced doubt of God's word, kindness and faithfulness.”
http://www.scborromeo.org...

Does not list anything about salvation only being through the church try again.

Conclusion rebuttal
I have shown where the bible supports many of these traditions, and where Pro misunderstands the passages of the bible. This is not the first time that a man thinks he knows better than a religion, and Con is the reason we have so many different cults that worship yahwah. (jews, baptist, catholics, mormons, islamic, etc) They all disagree on the interpretation of teachings of yahweh so they split. Pro must prove that his interpretation is correct, and to say that is highly contested is an understatement. The world is bathed in the blood of this disagreement.
Debate Round No. 2
SterlingCamp

Pro

Inability to qualify by simple adherence to the rules:

Those who are viewing the debate should take note of Con’s inability to adhere to the specific parameters I set for the debate in the rules. A prerequisite for the debate was, “Please read the rules carefully before accepting this debate” (Round 1) and Round 1 from Con’s end, according to these rules should have been, acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed.” Immediately in round two we see that Con has openly ignored the entire premise of the debate as I began round one by saying, “Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions.” Con’s misconception however is as follows; “This debate is centered around “Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible” as that is what I agreed to be against NOT “Are the Roman Catholic Church’s traditions biblical?”

Furthermore, the rules that Con accepted (“Hello I accept this debate”) includes rule #2, which makes this debates’ POINT very, very, clear, “This debate is not to discuss the view that the Catholic traditions are authoritative, but rather whether or not the traditions contradict teachings found in scripture.”

In addition, Con breaks rule #3 by ignoring the prerequisites of this debate as this debate rejects “any games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate.” Con’s semantics, and blatant ignoring of laid out rules should be considered. He continues this trend until he actually makes a point in which I apologize for as I forgot to mention that all of my Scripture comes from the ESV (English Standard Version). Con forgets, however, that the rules of the debate are to be accepted in the first found and he consequently forfeits in his attempt to redefine what rules to debate by. Again, it is worth noting that this was made abundantly clear, “Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions.

While I will debate further so that this is not a complete waste, this should be taken into account.


Rebuttals:

Cons Claim: “Catholicism has spread the bible across the global..Catholicism has help and supported the bible.”

Response: This has no relevance within this debate. However, this is false, and Con provides no evidence for its claim. The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church was very reluctant in even allowing translations of the bible into the common language of the people. This is seen historically through men such as William Tyndale, Jan Hus, John Wycliff who were executed for translating the Bible. The council of Trent, following the protestant Reformation, was where we see the public status of the church being formally elevated in equality with scripture as well as the call for interpretation through, "the fathers". "The Church has the sole authority to interpret the Scriptures. This teaching essentially denied the need for the Bible in the language of the common man. In fact, placing the Bible in the hands of lay people was considered dangerous." (http://www.newadvent.org...).


Cons Claim: “Impossible to follow the teachings of the bible. he bible has numerous incidents of contradictions”.

Response: This is another debate within itself.

Cons Claim: “The biggest contradiction is whether Jesus and Yahweh are the same.”

Response: This is firstly, not relevant to the debate as both orthodox protestants and Roman Catholics believe Jesus to be Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of the being God, while Jesus (Yeshua) is the name of one of the persons within the God head. Trinitarianism and the deity of Christ is another debate all together. Not only this, but Con assumes the non-existence of proper hermeneutics. Again, Trinitarianism and Christ’s deity is a non-issue between orthodox protestants and Catholics.




Con’s Claim: “This leads to it being impossible to follow the teachings of the bible.”

Response: Here Con puts a nail in his own coffin. If it is impossible to follow the teachings of the Bible, than the Roman Catholic Church could not possibly be following the bible and thus is in opposition to the Bible.




Con’s Claim: “The teaching of the bible contradicts the teachings of the bible..”

Response: Not only is this begging the question, but Con assumes his first premise true in order to justify his conclusion. Con not only assumes contradictions in the bible in order to somehow maintain that the Roman Catholics follow the bible, which he has stated is impossible, but he sets the stage for ignoring core biblical teachings as if they are doomed to failure already.



On the Tradition of Eucharist

Con provides no information that addresses the claims of the Catholic Church’s Catechism, and actually contradicts the teachings of the Roman Catholics View of the Eucharist. Sadly, Con’s source is that of the Orthodox Church (also known as the Greek Orthodox Church), not the Roman Catholic Church. A simple search of “Antiochian Orthodox Christian” would have made this very clear. In addition, from a Roman Catholic site, “(The Eucharist) The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine.” (http://www.newadvent.org...). All of Con’s arguments fall short as he (1) Cited a Greek Orthodox Church believing it to be the Roman Catholic Church and (2) Did not address the Roman Catholic view held by the Catholics. I both provided information now from the Catholic Church’s Catechism and now a Catholic Encyclopedia.


On Mary is a sinless mediator–

Con’s Claim: “Neither in CCC 494 and 969 does it state that mary is a mediator"

Response: This is just wrong, from his own source, “969 Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

#494 Is not obvious in its statement, but also supports what is already been expressed as Mary is seen as a means of salvation, thus a Mediator between God and man, which also includes intercession. Con fails to not only to support his own claim, but fails to address the scripture provided that states Christ is the ONLY mediator.




In regards to Priest synonymous with believer:

Con’s Claim: “The new testament teaches that you no longer NEED a priest to mediator with god.”

Response: Con puts another nail in his coffin without realizing it. As I have shown scripture supporting that there is ONE meditator between God and man, Con admits that we do not need a priest or mediator and the Roman Catholic Church provides both priests and Mary as mediator.


Regarding Confession:

Con’s Claim: “Priests do not forgive sins; this has never been the case.”

Response: “Rome teaches that divine forgiveness is granted through the priest’s absolution to those who confess their sins to a priest and make satisfaction for them.” (http://justforcatholics.org...)



In Regards to Direction of Prayer:

Con’s Claim: “Catholics are not praying to mary, they are asking mary to pray for them.”

Response: Instead of arguing on intersessory work; Con conveniently leaves out his biblical support for asking Mary to pray for believers.


On Salvation assurance:

Con states, “so salvation cannot be assured”, while I cited the purpose of 1 John,I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13, ESV). Con cites John 3:16, which states that if you believe you have eternal life. He also cites James 2:14-17, which talks about genuine faith producing works. He cites Luke 10:25-28, which has nothing to do with Assurance of Salvation. Matthew 7:21-23, which does not address whether or not assurance of salvation can be obtained.


Regarding Salvation through church:

Con argues that the Catechism does not show this to be the case, however, he is wrong. To make the argument more obvious here:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church ALONE, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.”


Conclusion:

(1) Con openly rejects the rules he accepted by accepting the debate.

(2) Con cannot tell the Greek Orthodox Church apart from the Roman Catholic Church

(3) Con claims it is impossible to follow the teachings of the Bible, yet argues that the Roman Catholic Church is following the Bible.

(4) Makes points irrelevant to the debate without supporting them sufficiently and uses these assumptions to further his case.

(5) Does not provide biblical support for the traditions I have cited, yet attempts to explain them while stating that there is no proper interpretation of scripture.

(6) Con’s rebuttals were not actually rebuttals, and claims that my initial cases were wrong, while being wrong himself (ex: Mediator), and failing to actually provide biblical support for his claims.

-S.C.

Coveny

Con

I have provided the reasons I am debating what I am debating, and this has become a point of semantics, which as part of the rules would be decided by dictionary.com, which I am adhering to. I have not forfeited. Rather than going into further detail, I’m not going to beat a dead horse on this topic as it’s a matter of contention that is outside the scope of the actual debate.

I have addressed this debate in a serious manner from what the debate states is my side, even if mistakes were made on definitions.

Con1 – Supports
Pro claim “this is false”

I did not expect the spread of the bible by catholics to be contested or I would have provided supporting information. “Clearly, Christianity has spread far from its historical origins.”
http://www.pewforum.org...

There were also many catholic missions.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

And they are still sending missionary’s to this day
https://archden.org...

To spread the bible is very relevant to show if the catholic church opposed the bible or not. If you oppose something, then you do not assist in the spread of it. Catholicism has obviously assisted in the spread of the bible; therefore, it has not opposed the bible. The point stands.

Con2 – Impossible to follow the teachings of the bible
Pro does not refute this point. The point stands.


Con3 – Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
As Pro did not refute Con2 then Con3 is not begging the question, because that conclusion is unopposed, and therefore stands as true.

As to the point of making it ignore core teachings and doomed to fail, this is not so. There are simply different interpretations of what defines “core teachings”. (see the part about jesus being yahweh, or being a separate entity earlier in the debate) These core teachings can be contradictory to a degree with the bible but cannot completely ignore it. By Pros logic there can only be one religion based off the bible, yet there are thousands of Christian denominations. The point stands.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com...


Eucharist
Yup missed that, no big deal though I’ll start from here. (thanks for finally providing a link to something)

The sacrament is an outward sign of christ
Blessed Sacrament - the Eucharist the definition of a Christian sacrament as "an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ" is verified.
http://www.newadvent.org...

being the bread of life.
John 6:35 - Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger
https://www.biblegateway.com...

So that yahweh can give them grace
http://www.newadvent.org...

which is eternal salvation.
http://www.newadvent.org...

So to recap. The bread of life which is jesus, is an outward sign(not a sacrifice/offering) instituted by jesus to gain internal grace from yahweh. This references to eternal life not redemption.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Redemption removed original sin. Grace is eternal life. Not the same thing.

Mediators
"Mary's maternal function towards mankind in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ but rather shows its efficacy," because "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
And
“The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.”
http://www.newadvent.org...

So the church does not see Mary as a mediator, but the mother of the mediator which is a subordinate role to the one mediator who is jesus.

Confession
Confession is a sacrament of Penance, as previously linked sacrament is an external sign of internal grace given by jesus. Part of the sign includes absolution, which completes the sign, so that jesus can give grace, and wash away the sin. “The grace conferred is deliverance from the guilt of sin and, in the case of mortal sin, from its eternal punishment” Again priests don’t remove sin jesus does, and this whole process was instituted by jesus.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Direction of Prayer
The church does not see mary as an entity to pray to, and you have proved no links to support that claim. The only reason I brought it up was to explain to you what’s happening because you seemed confused. An intercessory is to pray FOR others, so that’s not praying TO mary, that’s asking mary to pray for you. This is not a contradiction of scripture stating that you should pray TO yahweh. Does that help?

Salvation assurance
As previously stated you are assure salvation if you follow the teachings, but there are no assurance that you are following the teachings correctly. To put it another way, you assure winning the game if your team has more points, but there is no way to know how many points you have, so there is no way to assure you are going to win eternal life.

Salvation through church
Would it be too much to ask to use a source and a link every now and then??? This is what I found:
https://www.ewtn.com...

The subjection to the Roman Pontiff which Boniface VIII demanded would be fulfilled as each soul came to the gate of heaven - Submission to the Roman Pontiff could be a result of the soul’s salvation rather than the condition for their salvation
http://www.patheos.com...

Conclusion
Pro has ignored my arguments, or dismissed them without explanation or sources. He has shown repeatedly that he is not taking this debate seriously. I have presented three ways in which Catholicism has NOT opposed the bible, and I have addressed all his arguments. He has yet to address mine. Pro has ridiculed me and made a game of this debate. I have consistently provided sources, links to support my arguments, and presented them clearly, researched, and seriously, and yet at every turn he just keeps repeating what he sees as my mistakes. I feel that his conduct in this debate poor, and frankly I’m getting very tired of it, and would like some civility.
Debate Round No. 3
SterlingCamp

Pro

Con insists that I am playing semantics when I clearly defined the nature of this debate.

Rebuttals:

Con’s Claim: “To spread the bible is very relevant to show if the catholic church opposed the bible or not.”

Response: This is just not true. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of the largest organizations of bible destitution yet most of their doctrines completely contradict scripture. Again, English Translations would have never occurred if it was up to the Roman Catholic Church. I extend my arguments.


Cons Claim: The point stands.

Response: If this point stands than Con loses the debate. Note from round three,

Con’s Claim: “This leads to it being impossible to follow the teachings of the bible.”

Response: Here Con puts a nail in his own coffin. If it is impossible to follow the teachings of the Bible, than the Roman Catholic Church could not possibly be following the bible and thus is in opposition to the Bible.”

Con’s Claim:As Pro did not refute Con2 then Con3 is not begging the question, because that conclusion is unopposed, and therefore stands as true.”

Response: This is logically fallacious, Con is grasping at straws. Con also goes back into the Jesus being Yahweh discussion, which I have already stated is not a matter of this debate and it is NOT an issue that Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree on. As for “thousands of denominations” this is a myth, though, there are different denominations. Con fails to understand the reason for denominational differences. There are three types of teachings; Dogmatic, Doctrinal, and Tradition. Dogmatic are the essential and core truths. If you don’t hold to these than you are not a legitimate church such as the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. As much as they claim to be Christian, orthodox protestants do not consider them a denomination. Doctrinal teachings are those that aren’t essential, that can be disagreed upon, but doesn’t affect salvation. Traditional teachings are exactly that; things such as music preference or clothing preference. Denominations exist because of Doctrinal and traditional difference, not dogmatic difference. Those that differ from Dogmatic teachings are not denominational. A denomination is a recognized branch of the Christian Church. Since this is a NON-Issue, I digress without stressing the point.



Regarding the Eucharist:


Con’s Claim: “Yup missed that, no big deal though I’ll start from here.”

Response: Yes, it is a big deal. You are debating for the Roman Catholic Church, not the Greek Orthodox Church. Let’s look back at what I provided, that Con overlooked. I provided the following definition: “The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine.” (http://www.newadvent.org...)

What is the Sacrifice of Mass? Exactly what Con in round two state it is not, “Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice” (http://www.newadvent.org...)

Again, “The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. It is now in the New Law, the sacrifice that is acceptable to God.” (https://www.ewtn.com...)

I extend my argument as Con has yet to properly understand or address the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist.





In Regards to Mediators:

Con’s Claim: So the church does not see Mary as a mediator, but the mother of the mediator which is a subordinate role to the one mediator who is jesus.

Response: The most compelling argument thus far, however, the argument stands as Mary should not be a Mediator, period. Con takes his own citations and attempts to say that Mary is not considered a Mediator, while his quotes say nothing of that. I extend my arguments that There is ONLY one mediator. Again, the Church documents clearly present Mary as a Mediator, “Mediatrix.” (CCC, 969)





Regarding Confession:

Con’s Claim: Again priests don’t remove sin
http://www.newadvent.org......

Response: Con attempts to turn his argument here, but still cannot agree with Catholic Teachings. Initially Con stated, “The priest is only there to help practitioners with that, they hold no power to forgive sins by any catholic traditions.”

First from his own source, “Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same”

What is Absolution? “Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, he frees man from sin” and “Absolution is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Church.” (http://www.newadvent.org...)

Con in his arguments continues to contradict the Roman Catholic Position.



Concerning Direction of Prayer:

Con’s Claim: “The only reason I brought it up was to explain to you what’s happening because you seemed confused. An intercessory is to pray FOR others, so that’s not praying TO mary, that’s asking mary to pray for you.”

Response: Because I did not want to get into intercessory prayer, I asked Con for biblical support telling believers to ask the dead saints to pray for them. However, he can’t because it is not biblical. Regardless, I have already made it clear that Jesus is sufficient for intercessory prayer as High Priest. A point Con ignored.





Salvation assurance:

Con’s Claim: “As previously stated you are assure salvation if you follow the teachings, but there are no assurance that you are following the teachings correctly.”

Response: Again, Con IGNORES the purpose of the entire letter of 1 John. He also brings up a works-based salvation, which is another debate in itself. Since he cannot address that John wrote so that people may KNOW they have salvation, I’ll throw in a bonus, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV). This is another debate as the Roman Catholic Church describes salvation differently. Before Con references the passage of James again, I have already states that James makes the claim that genuine faith will produce works, however, you are not saved by those works.





Regarding Salvation through church:

Response: Con ignores Catholic Church writings, and the declarations of the council of Trent. He further tries to turn the argument for his own gain while ignoring what was provided.




Conclusion:


“Pro has ignored my arguments”, Most of Con’s arguments deviate from the debate itself as he blatantly ignored the purpose of this debate and carries the debate on his presupposition that the Bible cannot be followed or properly understood. I have ignored arguments only in that the word count does not allow me to address all of the fallacious arguments.

“I have presented three ways in which Catholicism has NOT opposed the bible, and I have addressed all his arguments.”, Con has only shown that he does not understand Catholicism’s teachings and he has not addressed all of the arguments, but skipped over most of them or misrepresented his OWN arguments in order to further his position.

“He has yet to address mine.”, All of the points have been addressed.

“Pro has ridiculed me and made a game of this debate.”, Con’s emotionalism is based on the comments of the debate, not the debate itself. Con’s accepting of this debate without (1) adhering to the rules of the debate and (2) failing to understand the institution he is representing has shown to be a game in itself.




Con:

(1) Has not proven his case

(2) Continues to ignore arguments

(3) Appeals to “Conduct” to save his argument

(4) Does not represent Roman Catholic Teachings correctly

(5) Quote Mines as I have shown from his own sources

(6) Furthers arguments that were not a part of this debate and uses them as his lifeboat.

(7) Shows little consistency as he has claimed it is (a) impossible to follow the bible and (b) there is no proper interpretation:

a. He states The Catholic Church follows the Bible even though he claimed it is impossible to follow the bible
b. He also attempts to interpret scripture, while saying his interpretation is correct, while previously saying there is no objective or proper interpretation.

-S.C.

Coveny

Con

Pro continues to beat the dead horse and ridicule me. Do you want to know some other things that are in opposition to the bible? Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Scientologist, etc. The debate sets Catholicism in the same categories, that is why I accepted the debate. As I have stated several times… The only good news on this front is this is the last round so I won’t have to continue listening to it.

Ok as my arguement stand unchallenged I will bring them together now.

To prove that Catholicism opposes the bible Pro must prove (Con1)that Catholicism has somehow acted against or resisted the bible. My counter to this is that Catholicism has increased the bibles influence across the global. This is a clear sign that Catholicism has not worked against the bible, and Pro has not refuted the claim Catholicism has spread the bible and therefore lost the debate.

Pro core argument is that contradiction equal opposition to the bible to prove this Pro must both prove (Con2) it is possible to not contradict the bible, and if he can prove that point he must also prove that (Con3) contradicting the bible is a form of opposition to it.

(Con2) It is impossible not to contradict the bible has not been refuted or disagreed with in any way, and therefore contradictions do not equate to going against the bible.

To further explain why this is true, I will use an example with darts. Imagine a dart board with several darts in it but none have hit the center. Can you prove that it’s possible to hit the center if no one has ever done it? That is the position Pro is in, and he has failed to prove that it is possible to follow the bible without contradicting it. (getting a bullseye) Just like the people trying to get the bullseye but missing are not opposing the bullseye, Catholicism isn’t opposing the bible. The point being attempting to achieve something but failing can NOT be opposing it unless you can prove that it's possible to achieve it in the first place. (you can hit the bulleye, but you missed on purpose to oppose the bullseye)

(Con3) Pro weakling refutes this claim. But to prove that contradicting is a form of opposition he must show that it is opposite of the bible.

So, for this example I want you to think of a court jester. If the jester argues with himself are you really opposing the jester by arguing with the jester? When you engage in the same activity (even if that activity seems negative) as someone, you are not opposing them, we are emulating and working with them. We are actually on their side, even if that side looks negative from the outside.

Pro has not disputed this claim or refuted the point, therefore contradictions can be seen as a form of emulation, not a form of opposition.

As Pro has not proven that contradiction are a form of opposition I will not continue to refute his contradiction as I have in previous rounds. I will however say that I am glad he is finally using links… at the end of the debate, and ask that anyone voting on sources taking that into consideration.

While I am at it Pro has not conducted himself in a civil manner. There is a misunderstand in what the debate is over. I accepted it and have debated his points on his topics up till this round. Pro on the other hand does not address my points in a serious manner and ridicules them. So rather than accepting that there is a semantic issue and moving on Pro continues to spend time belaboring it. I have taken this debate seriously, and yet Pro states I have not. I have done research, and yet Pro states I have not. All of this is evident in my responses which are long, in depth rounds with good sources to support my arguements. Has Pro done that? No. Did I make a mistake? Yes. Did he make a mistake? Yes. Yet rather than just accepting it as a mistake and moving Pro draws more attention to it and portrays it ten times worse than it really is. I still stand that I am debating my side of the debate as the title lists it, and that I have NOT broken any of the rules set forth in the debate. Pro did NOT want this to be a “fun” endeavor, and I’m not at ALL happy with his conduct. But then again Pro is a theist and I guess they all just seem to skip the parts about loving your neighbor in the bible. (there you I actually showed some negative attitude it return)

In conclusion, my arguments are articulate, well thought out, and a valid defense of Roman Catholicism not being in Opposition to the Bible. I have proven that not only does the catholic church not opposing the bible, they are assisting it. I have shown that it is not possible to be perfect in that regard, and that those imperfections are in fact emulating the bible which is the most sincere form of flattery. The catholic religion is based off the bible, and comprises around 50% of the theists that following the teachings of the new and old testament. The idea that the catholic church opposes the bible is completely unfounded as shown by me in this debate.

In closing, I hope that you enjoyed this debate more than I did. (the bar isn't that high)
Debate Round No. 4
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: logicinlife // Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct; Con actively ignored the rules in which one of them was accepting the rules when accepting the debate. Simple. Pro specifically described what the debate was about and Con said "I'm not debating that." In addition he tried poisoning the well by making it seem as if Pro was bullying him. This is an issue of conduct. Pro's arguments were more convincing as he used the bible to back up his claim while con failed to address scriptures that Pro provided. Pro showed assurance of salvation to be possible with 1 John and Con responded with texts irrelevant to the argument. Most of Pro's sources were Catholic websites themselves, while he did use an evangelical site on one. Con however used a protestant bible site, and a Greek orthodox site, until Pro pointed this out. In the end Con ignored most of Pro's actual arguments. Con raised a fair point in terms of intercession vs prayer in both the argument of Mary and Priests, however, Catholic doctrine puts Mary as a Mediator as pro shows

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains every point allocated. If the reporter takes issue with some specific aspects of the vote, contact me and provide those reasons why it should be removed. The given reason is not clear.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: creationtruth// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately for Con, his conclusion that his arguments were "articulate, well thought out, and a valid defense of Roman Catholicism not being in Opposition to the Bible" fails to hold true. Con failed to conclusively address many of Pro's arguments and rebuttals, and many of his arguments were irrelevant or blatantly fallacious as pointed out by Pro. For this reason points go to Pro for arguments. Con also utilized some irrelevant sources and failed to adequately cite scripture to support his case. For this reason points go to Pro for reliable sources. Overall, it is clear that Pro won this debate.

[*Reason for removal*] On both arguments and sources, this vote is insufficient. The voter is required to provide some specific assessment of each, which requires more than generalizations such as those the voter has used. The voter must assess specific points made by each side, and explain what sources were relevant and what makes citation adequate.
************************************************************************
Posted by SterlingCamp 8 months ago
SterlingCamp
I didn't change any wording.
Posted by Coveny 8 months ago
Coveny
logicinlife I'm a buffoon and weasel now? I didn't change the wording like Pro did in round 3. (which is what you are quoting as "the rules") I followed exactly what this debate was "about" and I follow the rules state in round 1. You know round 1 before I accepted the debate and Pro tried to change what the debate was about.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: logicinlife// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct; Con actively ignored the rules in which one of them was accepting the rules when accepting the debate. Simple. Pro specifically described what the debate was about and Con said "I'm not debating that." In addition he tried poisoning the well by making it seem as if Pro was bullying him. This is an issue of conduct. Pro's arguments were more convincing as he used the bible to back up his claim while con failed to address scriptures that Pro provided. Pro showed assurance of salvation to be possible with 1 John and Con responded with texts irrelevant to the argument. Most of Pro's sources were Catholic websites themselves, while he did use an evangelical site on one. Con however used a protestant bible site, and a Greek orthodox site, until Pro pointed this out. In the end Con ignored most of Pro's actual arguments. Con raised a fair point in terms of intercession vs prayer in both the argument of Mary and Priests, however, Catholic doctrine puts Mary as a Mediator as pro shows

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains every point allocated.
************************************************************************
Posted by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
If you accept a debate without reading the creator's rules, its on you, don't be stupid. Read a bit ;)
Posted by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
Coveny, being intellectually dishonest I see. Pro's argument from round two, with quotes from yourself,

"Immediately in round two we see that Con has openly ignored the entire premise of the debate as I began round one by saying, "Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions." Con"s misconception however is as follows; "This debate is centered around "Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible" as that is what I agreed to be against NOT "Are the Roman Catholic Church"s traditions biblical?"""

In your little weasel of a comment here you said, "Again if Pro wanted to debate "The bible does not support the tenets and traditions of Roman Catholicism" that"s what Pro should have made the debate about, and that"s what the rules should have said. They did not." Thats exactly what the rules imply. You're just presenting it with different wording ya bafoon. Amazing how you keep turning your position around to squeeze your way out of your own nonsense.
Posted by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
Coveny, being intellectually dishonest I see. Pro's argument from round two, with quotes from yourself,

"Immediately in round two we see that Con has openly ignored the entire premise of the debate as I began round one by saying, "Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions." Con"s misconception however is as follows; "This debate is centered around "Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible" as that is what I agreed to be against NOT "Are the Roman Catholic Church"s traditions biblical?"""

In your little weasel of a comment here you said, "Again if Pro wanted to debate "The bible does not support the tenets and traditions of Roman Catholicism" that"s what Pro should have made the debate about, and that"s what the rules should have said. They did not." Thats exactly what the rules imply. You're just presenting it with different wording ya bafoon. Amazing how you keep turning your position around to squeeze your way out of your own nonsense.
Posted by SterlingCamp 8 months ago
SterlingCamp
Okay.
Posted by Coveny 8 months ago
Coveny
The title of the debate is "Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible" this is the debate I engaged in. If anyone didn"t accept the debate it was Pro. The rule others claim that I am not following is
"This debate is not to discuss the view that the Catholic traditions are authoritative, but rather whether or not the traditions contradict teachings found in scripture."

Tradition contradict the teaching found in the scripture... The word contradict means opposition (what I debated) to the bible with the definition of that word from the source listed in the rules:

to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically.
http://www.dictionary.com...

So rule two says "whether or not the traditions are contrary or opposite teachings found in scripture."

My debated was that Roman Catholicism is not opposite/contrary/contradict/opposed to the bible as that was the title and what the rules state. Period. These are what the words used to define this debate mean, and I followed them.

I upheld the debate set forth and followed the rules set forth forth. I debated this in good faith, and received nothing but hardship for it. Again if Pro wanted to debate "The bible does not support the tenets and traditions of Roman Catholicism" that"s what Pro should have made the debate about, and that"s what the rules should have said. They did not.

Had Pro worded the debate title, and the rules in line with what he wanted to debate I never would have accepted this debate, but Pro attempted to change the rules in bad conduct after I accepted the debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 3RU7AL 8 months ago
3RU7AL
SterlingCampCovenyTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Only points for arguments will be awarded. PRO attempts to redefine their own chosen resolution in round 1 point 2 and offers only a weak assertion in round 3 that attempts to conflate lack of perfect harmony with "opposition" as support. CON makes an excellent argument in round 3 with their dartboard example driving home the point that simply because Roman Catholicism may "miss the mark" somewhat, that fact alone does not make it fair to say they are "in Opposition to the Bible" thus CON effectively negates the (actual) resolution. I realize that PRO is upset because they laid down some poorly defined, vague "rule" in round 1 point 2, but there can be no rule that contradicts debate rule number one, which is "PRO must support the resolution and CON must negate the resolution".
Vote Placed by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
SterlingCampCovenyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct; Con actively ignored the rules in which one of them was accepting the rules when accepting the debate. Simple. Pro specifically described what the debate was about and Con said "I'm not debating that." In addition he tried poisoning the well by making it seem as if Pro was bullying him. This is an issue of conduct. Pro's arguments were more convincing as he used the bible to back up his claim while con failed to address scriptures that Pro provided. Pro showed assurance of salvation to be possible with 1 John and Con responded with texts irrelevant to the argument. Most of Pro's sources were Catholic websites themselves, while he did use an evangelical site on one. Con however used a protestant bible site, and a Greek orthodox site, until Pro pointed this out. In the end Con ignored most of Pro's actual arguments. Con raised a fair point in terms of intercession vs prayer in both the argument of Mary and Priests, however, Catholic doctrine puts Mary as a Mediator as pro shows
Vote Placed by WalkingTarget 8 months ago
WalkingTarget
SterlingCampCovenyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While this might not have been the intent of the debate, Con does articulate that Catholic church does not act in opposition to the bible is spite of his views. Pro claims violation of rule 2 but Con never claimed Catholic traditions are authoritative or bring up the canon of scripture so Con did not violate rule 2. Also, Pro began titled the debate, "Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible." He also opens in round 1 by saying, "This debate is contending the issue of whether or not Roman Catholicism is in opposition to the Bible." but as pro defined in rule 2, "? the debate focuses on whether or not all of their teachings (most of which are well known) are biblical." Con is right to say these two issues are different as having some teachings that are not biblical makes a religion act in opposition to the bible necessarily. As Pro made two positive claims and only wanted to defend one, Arguments to Con. Full summary in the comments section.