The Instigator
Lucky10279
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility

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 2 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,974 times Debate No: 23831
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

Lucky10279

Con

First I want to point out how illogical the doctrine of "the bible alone" is. First of all if the bible is the only source of truth, then why doesn't the BIBLE say that?

Second of all, if the bible is the only source of truth, then why isn't there a list in the bible of all the books that are suposed to be in the bible? After all if the bible is the only source of truth, then how do we know what books are supposed to be in the bible if it doesn't tell us that?
We know because the Catholic Church tells us that. But the if Catholic Church does not have papal infallibility, than we have no way of knowing if the bible is really inspired scripture or not.

Third, if the Church does not have any infallibility, than neither does the bible. The CHURCH gave us the bible. The bible didn't just drop from the sky. The Catholic Church gave us the bible. So either they both are infallible or neither of them are.
THEBOMB

Pro

Thank you for this debate.

I would like to clarify the resolution a bit, Resolved: the pope is fallible and sola scriptura is logical. From this, my burden is to prove either 1) the pope is in fact, fallible and/or 2) sola scripture is logical (in terms of theology).

For the purposes of this debate, I would like to say that the bible will be the final, authoritative, source for this debate. Any arguments which contradict biblical evidence are considered null and void, seeing how this is a theological debate. The bible is the final authority on theological matters. So, if Papal infallibility is shown to contradict biblical evidence, and/or Sola Scriptora is shown to be upheld by biblical evidence, the resolution is upheld.

Now I would like to offer the following definitions:

Papal infallibility: the Pope is preserved from even the mere possibility of error when the pope declares a dogmatic teaching to the Church. (In reality, this dogma has only been invoked 10 or so times.)

Sola Scriptura: "the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness."

Bible: "any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity."

Dogma: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"

I first will answer my opponents objections then move to my case.

1) Illogicality of "the bible alone"

Seeing how, the bible is the final authoritative source for theological matters, even when invoking papal infallibility, the pope does not disregard the bible, as it was divinely inspired by god, the bible is prima facie the main source of truth about everything. The bible itself is infallible, according to both Catholic and Protestant dogma (which is basically this debate). Since this is true, why is it necessary to have an infallible person make proclamations about something which is infallible in itself?

2) List of books

This is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The bible is the source of all theological truth. Furthermore, your declaration that without papal infallibility "we have no way of knowing if the bible is really inspired scripture or not" is unsubstantiated. There has only been seven instances where papal infallibility has been invoked, none of which have to do with whether the bible is divinely inspired. (1) It was realized on its own, without the pope declaring it to be so. The Catholic Church compiled the bible, before Protestantism was in existence, they did not declare it to be divinely inspired

3) The Church gave us the bible?

This is so blatantly wrong I do not even know where to start. The Church did not write the bible. The books of the bible were inspired and written before the Church was in existence. The Church merely compiled previously written documents. No papal infallibility was used to do so. In reality, both Protestant and Catholic dogma hold the bible was divinely inspired by God.

Now onto my case.

I will argue against Papal Infallibility first.

Under this heading, my logic will be simple. 1) All men are imperfect. 2) The Pope is a man. Therefore, the pope is imperfect and cannot be infallible. 3) Imperfection opens up the possibility for error. Therefore, the pope cannot be infallible.

Now I really only have to support premise one. I sincerely hope my opponent will not argue premise two with me…

My biblical defense of premise one.

The Creation story (Genesis 1)

God created man to be perfect living in the Garden of Eden, but, man sinned, shown by the eating of the fruit from the tree of good and evil, and thus, became imperfect because now, man knew the difference between good and evil, and could commit good and evil acts, if God is perfect and all that is good, evil must be imperfection, thus, man can commit evil and is imperfect.

Now since the Pope is a man, the pope has the ability to commit imperfect acts, in anything he does. Since, only a perfect being is free from error, as an imperfect being, the pope is not free from error. Therefore, the pope cannot be completely infallible because the pope is not free from error.

My next argument against Papal infallibility is as follows: 1) the pope is infallible. 2) Thus, the pope has full authority to declare any teaching as dogmatic. 3) The pope can declare something which contradicts dogmatic teaching as dogmatic. 4) Contradictions are errors. Therefore, the pope cannot be infallible as the pope would thus be able to contradict something which cannot be contradicted committing an error.

I would also like to ask my opponent to find biblical passages which gives ALL Popes papal infallibility, not just the first pope. You must justify papal infallibility currently.

Now onto a defense of Sola Scriptura.

The books of the bible are the divinely inspired words of God. This gives the bible the full authority of God, as it comes from God. Thus, every single statement of the bible is the teaching of God and requires full agreement. Every biblical command is the directive of God himself. We can hold this to be an axiomatic truth for the next section.

1. The bible contains all one must know to reach salvation(2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 5:39, John 17:20, and Psalm 19:7-8)

"and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy). We can see that Scripture is all that is needed to become righteous. "You study[a] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5). The Scriptures are all that is needed to have eternal life. "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message" (John 17). You only need to believe in the bible to be saved. "The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes." As we can see, the bible is perfect, everything the bible says is correct, no interpretation is needed. There are no deficiencies in the bible which need to be filled by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.

2. The bible presents all commands of the Christian faith clearly (Psalm 19:8, Psalm 119:105, Psalm 119:130, 2 Timothy 3:15, Deuteronomy 30:11, 2 Peter 1:19, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 8:31-32, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, John 8:43-47, and 2 Peter 3:15-16).

God's word is freely accessible to all people. No one needs for clergy to explain the meaning of any part of the bible. It is evident from the bible itself, whether in that passage or another passage of the bible.

3. Scripture is united with the Holy Spirit ( Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Psalm 119:105, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Timothy 1:16-17, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 6:63, Revelation 1:3, and John 7:17)

Scripture creates the acceptance of its own teaching. It creates a living agreement of faith.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Lucky10279

Con

You have an incorrect definition of papal infallibility. Here is the correct definition: "The preservation of the head of the Church of Christ from teaching error in matters of faith or morals. This preservation is due to the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, and is given in order that the faithful may be assured of the truth of their belief. In order to exercise this prerogative the pope must teach as doctor and pastor of all Christians in virtue of his supreme authority, not merely as a private theologian; he must teach a matter of faith or morals; he must define, with the manifest intention of obligating to consent; the definition must obligate the universal Church. The efficient cause of this infallibility is the Divine assistance. The object of papal infallibility is those truths contained explicitly or implicitly in the public deposit of Revelation, comprehended in Scripture and tradition. The ex cathedra definitions of the Roman pontiffs are irreformable of their very nature, independently of the antecedent, concomitant, or subsequent consent or concurrence of the Church, ie., the bishops and the faithful."

The list of books is not irrelevant. since the bible has no list of books that are supposed to be in the bible then how we know what books are supposed to be in the bible?

You just said that the Church compiled the bible. That is what I meant when I said that the church gave us the bible.
Yes all man are imperfect. I agree with that. The pope is not infallible because he is perfect. He's not perfect. He is infallible in matters of faith and morals because Jesus gave him that power. Jesus said in the bible "As the Father sent Me, so I send you". How did the Father send Him? With all authority. And He sends them in the same way. He was speaking to the apostles, who were the first bishops and Peter was one of the apostles was the first pope. Are going to claim that Jesus can't give them that power? Jesus is all powerful so of course He can. It is made clear in the bible that when one of the apostles dies it is very important that someone else take his place, and the men who take there places receive that same authority. it is past down to them. The current bishops and pope, are their replacements.

I believe that Scripture verse 100 percent, but I do not believe that it says what you are trying to make it say. So Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching. That doesn't mean that it is the only source of truth. NOWHERE in the bible does it say the bible is the only source of truth. If you can find ONE verse in the bible that says that the bible is the only source of truth, then I will admit defeat on the matter of sola scriptora.

The bible can be very difficult to understand. We DO need help to understand it.

If the bible is the only source of truth then what did they do before there were typewriters? Back then all books were handwritten and VERY expensive. Most people couldn't afford a bible. Why would a good and loving God make it that most people did not have access to the only source of truth?

And if the bible is the only source of truth then why does the bible say in 1 Timothy chapter 3 verse 15 say that the pillar and ground of the truth is the church?

Yes Scripture is united with the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't make it the only source of truth.
THEBOMB

Pro

I would like to point out that the only definition my opponent contested was the one on papal infallibility. Since my opponent did not contest the definition of Sola Scriptura, my opponent has accepted my definition and it will hold constant throughout the rest of the debate.

Contested definition.

My opponent's definition has no source behind it. Where does the definition come from? This definition also is basically the one I provided. The pope is infallible when teaching religious doctrine and dogma. My opponent's definition says the exact same thing "The preservation of the head of the Church of Christ from teaching error in matters of faith or morals." Faith and morals are doctrinal parts of the Catholic Church.

I would also like to point out one thing; my opponent throughout their entire attack completely misunderstands Sola Scriptura. As stated above, Sola Scriptura is "the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness." Sola Scriptura holds the bible is the only NEEDED source of truth. Other people can still help a person understand morals and understand the bible, but, ultimately, these other people are not needed. A person can still have help.

1)Illogicality of bible alone

Completely dropped by my opponent. On this alone, we can say papal infallibility is unnecessary.

2)List of books

My opponent has just rehashed her original statement here. The doctrine of infallibility was never invoked to compile the bible. The Church merely took the documents, and placed it in one "easy to read" place, the bible. These documents would be sacred, for Christians, whether in one document, or many. "The Biblical canon was the result of debate and research" (1) No infallibility was invoked.

3)The Church gave us the bible

My opponent drops the point that the documents were divinely inspired, and thus, infallible, before there was a bible.

Defense of my case"

Papal infallibility

"he is infallible in matters of faith and morals because Jesus gave him that power. Jesus said in the bible "As the Father sent Me, so I send you"

I would kindly ask my opponent reference what verse they are citing. The verse you are citing is John 20:21 and you are taking it out of context the rest of the verse brings to light exactly what it means "The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20: 20-23)

Jesus was giving his disciples the authority to forgive sin. In no way shape or form was Jesus giving any one man infallibility. He was giving priests, bishops, and the pope, the authority to forgive people of their sins. This verse does not give the pope infallibility in any way. Jesus was sent to forgive all men of their sins if they accept him. Jesus then sent the disciples with the authority to forgive sin if they accept Jesus.

My opponent completely ignores my next argument about contradictions with the conclusion "the pope cannot be infallible as the pope would thus be able to contradict something which cannot be contradicted committing an error."

Onto Sola Scriptura.

1.The bible contains all one must know.

Exactly which verse is my opponent referring to? I provided four. Since I assume they are talking about 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and once again, my opponent misunderstands sola scriptura. The bible contains all that is necessary, and by these four verses, since through the bible man is "thoroughly equipped for every good work" and since in them "you have eternal life" and since there are no deficiencies in the bible on matters of faith, that bible is all that is needed. The bible is the only source of truth which is necessary.

2.The bible is clear

"The bible can be very difficult to understand. We DO need help to understand it." My opponent merely asserts this, they provide no reason why we should believe it, whereas, my statement is backed up by 11 scriptural verses. I implore my opponent to find somewhere in the bible where it says the bible is difficult to understand.

3.United with Holy Spirit

It is not necessary to have any other truth as the bible is…infallible truth.

My opponent then makes a brand new historical argument. They state "If the bible is the only source of truth then what did they do before there were typewriters? Back then all books were handwritten and VERY expensive. Most people couldn't afford a bible. Why would a good and loving God make it that most people did not have access to the only source of truth?" First of all, the Scripture is the only necessary source of truth. Second, my opponent makes it seem like Protestants never congregated, which, they do. The bible is the only necessary source of truth, Lutheran priests could still preach the bible…Also, what did Roman Catholics do before there were typewriters? I doubt many people ever visited the pope *cough* king, dictator, killer *cough* in the early days of the Church. Then the printing press was invented and this entire contention is irrelevant. (Also, in the early days of Christianity, it was illegal for a person other than clergy to own a bible…) If we really want to discuss history, I suggest my opponent drop this contention before we go into the bloody history of the Catholic Church, and the fact that the Catholic Church did not even follow its own teachings…

My opponent then cites 1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." I ask, how exactly does this contradict sola scriptura? The verse states that the church is the "pillar and foundation" which says that the church exists to protect and to promote the truth. As the "supporting foundation" of the truth, the church is the guardian and communicator of the gospel. This does not contradict sola scriptura in anyway.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Lucky10279

Con

Lucky10279 forfeited this round.
THEBOMB

Pro

My opponent obviously is passionate about this subject, yet, not enough to finish this debate. A wonderful forfeit. All points have been conceded.
Debate Round No. 3
Lucky10279

Con

First I apologize for forfeiting the last round. I was very busy and forgot about this debate.

I do NOT drop the point that the bible was divinely inspired. It was.

Yes, He was giving them the power to forgive sins, but He was also giving them papal infallibility. They need AUTHORITY to forgive sin. Jesus does not say that the authority applies only to forgiving sins. Remember He said "So as THE FATHER SENDS ME, so I send you". So we have to ask, how did the Father send Him? He sent Him will ALL AUTHORITY. And Jesus sends the apostles IN THE SAME WAY.

Now where in the bible does it say that the bible contains all that we need to know. Yes, you gave 4 verses but none of them say that the bible contains all that we need to know. If the bible is the only needed source of truth then why does THE BIBLE say that?

History should show that the bible is hard to understand. If the bible is easy to understand then why is the there so much controversy between Catholics and Protestants over what certains parts of the bible mean? If it was so easy to understand then we wouldn't have this problem.

I can't remember the passage from the bible that proves my point but I'll find it and post it next round.

The pope cannot contradict Himself on matters of Faith and Morals. Jesus will not allow it to happen.

And again tell me how you know that that the bible is inspired by God other than that the Church teaches that? Papal infallibility has been invoked many more than seven times. Anything the Church teaches on Faith and morals are infallible teachings. And there are many more than 7 teachings. Where did you get the idea that papal infallibility had only been invoked 7 times?

The Church does serve to protect and promote the truth , yes, but that is only part of what that verse means. It also means that the church has truth. It's not the bible or the Church, it's the bible AND the Church. And I want to Clarify, when I say "Church", I mean the Catholic Church, what Church are you talking about though?
THEBOMB

Pro

Contested Definition

Dropped

1)Illogicality of the bible alone

Once again, dropped by my opponent. On this alone you can vote con as it shows that papal infallibility is unnecessary and thus, only the bible is necessary. I remind my opponent that they cannot bring this point up again in the final round as refutations in the concluding round is abusive.

2)Biblical Canon

Dropped by my opponent.

3)Divine inspiration

I never said my opponent dropped that the bible is infallible, I simply pointed out that the individual documents made up in the bible were infallible before there was a bible, or a pope for that matter.

"Yes, He was giving them the power to forgive sins, but He was also giving them papal infallibility. They need AUTHORITY to forgive sin. Jesus does not say that the authority applies only to forgiving sins. Remember He said "So as THE FATHER SENDS ME, so I send you". So we have to ask, how did the Father send Him? He sent Him will ALL AUTHORITY. And Jesus sends the apostles IN THE SAME WAY."

My opponent is simply rehashing their point. I already showed how in context all Jesus was giving them the authority to forgive sins, heal illnesses, drive out demons, etc. And honestly, if we are going to be referring to what "Jesus does not say" then we might as well point out that Jesus does not ever say that he was a giant totem pole, therefore, according to my opponent's logic, the fact that he was here in human form does not mean he was not a giant totem pole. Ridiculous. You can take any passage of the bible OUT OF CONTEXT and interpret it to mean what you say, I put this verse in context and gave a better, in context, interpretation. Jesus never said, "you are now infallible" he merely said "If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

2. The bible is clear

"History should show that the bible is hard to understand. If the bible is easy to understand then why is the there so much controversy between Catholics and Protestants over what certains parts of the bible mean? If it was so easy to understand then we wouldn't have this problem."

This is entirely unsubstantiated and merely asserted. But, nevertheless, I shall refute it. The entire point of this argument was to show that the bible is self-evident (as shown by the 11 verses I cited...) According to the bible itself, "No one needs for clergy to explain the meaning of any part of the bible." Difficulty in comprehending a verse does not mean you necessarily need someone else to explain it to you. Another passage of the bible will fulfill your questions. Why is there so much controversy? Well simply because different people interpret the bible differently. One person sees the passage as saying one thing, another person sees the passage as saying another thing. This does not mean the bible is not self-substantiating, it simply means these two people cannot agree on what is the truth. I implore my opponent to not post biblical arguments next round, it simply does not leave enough time for any argumentation over the passage.

Defense of Sola Scriptura

"Now where in the bible does it say that the bible contains all that we need to know. Yes, you gave 4 verses but none of them say that the bible contains all that we need to know. If the bible is the only needed source of truth then why does THE BIBLE say that?"

I quoted and/or paraphrased the passages. As I said above "through the bible man is "thoroughly equipped for every good work" and since in them "you have eternal life" and since there are no deficiencies in the bible on matters of faith, that bible is all that is needed." Man has all that they need to gain eternal life and man is overly equipped for good works, the bible has no deficiencies on matters of faith, thus the bible is all that is needed. Since my opponent loves asking me questions, I will return the favor, where does the bible say it is not all that is needed for "eternal life?" Where does the bible say it is not all that is needed to be "equipped for every good work?" My opponent has not referenced one place where it says that a SECOND infallible source is needed to have faith.

Historical argument

Dropped by my opponent.

"tell me how you know that that the bible is inspired by God other than that the Church teaches that? Papal infallibility has been invoked many more than seven times. Anything the Church teaches on Faith and morals are infallible teachings. And there are many more than 7 teachings. Where did you get the idea that papal infallibility had only been invoked 7 times?"

The bible says it was inspired by God. It is rather clear on that matter. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This also backs up sola Sriptura as the bible is "profitable for doctrine" and since it is good for doctrine, and is the infallible word of God, it is all that is needed for doctrine. And as 2 Peter 1:21 says "For these words did not ever come through the impulse of men: but the prophets had them from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." The bible is rather clear on it being inspired by God.

My opponent has provided no source for Papal infallibility being invoked more than 7 times. I did provide a source. A source beats no source. And what the Church teaches, as a whole, is MUCH different from the pope declaring something to be true. Honestly, we are not here to discuss the difference between a Church teaching and something which has been declared infallible by the pope. The major difference is, a Church teaching normally says X is true because of a, b, and c. Papal infallibility says "X is true because X is true." (I recognize this is simplifying things a bit.) What the Church teaches on faith is infallible because there is evidence, what the pope teaches (using papal infallibility) is infallible because basically, he says so.

"The pope cannot contradict Himself on matters of Faith and Morals. Jesus will not allow it to happen."

And Jesus would not allow this to happen why exactly? Is my opponent attempting to understand God which by being Catholic, she claims to not completely understand?

1 Timothy 3:15

"The Church does serve to protect and promote the truth , yes, but that is only part of what that verse means. It also means that the church has truth. It's not the bible or the Church, it's the bible AND the Church. And I want to Clarify, when I say "Church", I mean the Catholic Church, what Church are you talking about though?"

I apologize for the confusion, when the "c" in Church is capitalized it most normally refers to the Catholic Church. When the "c" in church is not capitalized, it refers to the congregation of all Christians. It's a minor difference with a great impact. My opponent is correct, it is the bible AND the church in that all Christians in the world have an obligation to BE the pillars and the foundation of the truth. The church, the congregation of all Christians, in other words, has to support the truth. That is what a pillar, that is what a foundation, does. The church (little "c") all believe things in common, there are rather minor differences which set them apart. This does not contradict Sola Scriptura. The church is a pillar and foundation, the church upholds the truth. It does not take the place of the truth.
Debate Round No. 4
Lucky10279

Con

You did not give a source for papal infallibility being invoked only 7 times. So tell me what your source is.

Yes, it says that it was inspired by God, but it does not say that it is infallible. NO WHERE does the bible say that it is infallible, and NO WHERE does the bible say that the bible is the only needed source of truth. You still have not given me a verse from the bible that says that it is the only needed source of truth.

Jesus would not allow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to contradict herself because He wants us to know the truth. And He gave us the Church (meaning the Catholic Church, not the congregation of all Christians, the congregation of all Christians do NOT make up one church, give a bible passage that says they do), to teach us the truth. Obviously if the Church contradicted herself then she wouldn't be teaching truth.

What the Pope teaches is infallible because it is really Jesus speaking through him.
THEBOMB

Pro

This debate has turned out to be kind of disappointing.

Papal infallibility

Completely dropped. On this alone, I win.

"You did not give a source for papal infallibility being invoked only 7 times. So tell me what your source is."

If you had read the debate, you would have known. In the first round, http://en.wikipedia.org...

"it says that it was inspired by God, but it does not say that it is infallible…"

So is my opponent saying God would tell man something which was not correct? The pope never made an infallible declaration that the bible was infallible. This is outside the scope of the debate.

"Jesus would not allow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to contradict herself because He wants us to know the truth…He gave us the Church (meaning the Catholic Church, not the congregation of all Christians, the congregation of all Christians do NOT make up one church, give a bible passage that says they do), to teach us the truth. Obviously if the Church contradicted herself then she wouldn't be teaching truth."

My opponent has provided no proof for any of these statements they are simply unsubstantiated. My opponent provided no sources, nothing. "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (http://bible.cc...) Look at the word "church" it's not capitalized, thus, it does not refer to the Catholic Church. Next, why don't the congregation of all Christians make up one church? All Christians believe in a few vital things. The exact same God, Jesus Christ, etc.

"What the Pope teaches is infallible because it is really Jesus speaking through him."

Unsubstantiated claim with no proof. This is exactly what we are (rather were) debating.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lucky10279 4 years ago
Lucky10279
Again I apologize for not posting an argument. I am very busy and forgot about this debate. I will be sure to post an argument for the next round.
Posted by Lucky10279 4 years ago
Lucky10279
And I want to be clear, by papal infallibility, I don't mean I think the pope can never be wrong about anything, and I don't mean that I think he can never sin. I believe the Pope and the bishops in union with him will never teach anything incorrect in matters of faith and morals.
Posted by Lucky10279 4 years ago
Lucky10279
I changed it to 72 hours to post your argument.
Posted by Lucky10279 4 years ago
Lucky10279
THEBOMB, yes.
Posted by Lucky10279 4 years ago
Lucky10279
OK, I can change it to 72 hours, no problem. But first tell me if you actually believe in sola scriptora. I don't want to debate it with someone who doesn't actually believe in it.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
so you are arguing the pope is infallible and sola scriptura is illogical? okay
Posted by Lucky10279 4 years ago
Lucky10279
THEBOMB, if you believe in Sola Scriptora then please do accept it. And no, con as in against sola scriptora, and as in for papal infallibility
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
if you make it 72 hours per argument I will accept.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
oh whoops, she's arguing Con so the resolution is: Sola Scriptora is logical and the pope is fallible.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
So this is basically saying, Resolved: Sola Scriptora is illogical and the pope is infallible

I am SO SO SO very tempted to accept this....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Lucky10279THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree! Con bad form!
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Lucky10279THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, and bad unstructured arguments.