The Instigator
RCCD777
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Sola Scriptura (following the bible alone) is a false doctirne

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,288 times Debate No: 19468
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

RCCD777

Pro

My argument is that the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is false and that the bible is NOT THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH. Nowhere in the bible does it say to follow the bible alone. This doctrine is heretical. Anyone who is willing to debate on this issue must:
1) Show proof from the bible that we are to follow the bible ALONE
2) Tell why we are suppose to follow the bible alone
3) Answer the question if the Early Church followed the bible ALONE
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I thank my opponent for giving me a chance to debate this interesting topic.

First, I think we all know what the Bible is, but as for the specific version that will be used I will like to ask that we use the King James Version. Now, on with the debate!

(1) My proof will come from when Jesus critisized the Pharasees in the book of Mark. Mark 7:6-13 says:

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

What Jesus was trying to say to the pharasees was that they were bringing too much tredition into their ways or worshiping. Now I know Jesus at this time was talking to Jews, which are not Christians were to do as the Jews did. The thing about the Pharasees at this time, was that they added to the law (the Old Testament commandments), and idealized tradition, which is man made doctrines. The Bible is the the only command of God, or He would not have made it perfectly clear that it is wrong to add in traditions.

Another part of scripture to look at is Galations 1: 6-12 which says:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Here Paul is saying to the Galations that they had been being deceived by false 'Christian' doctrines that WERE NOT FROM THE ORGINAL WORD OF GOD. Now at this time I will state that even though the second half of the Bible was still in the process of being written down. The way the apostles were to tell the early church if they were in the right or wrong direction was through these epistles that were eventually added to the Bible and became the New Testament.

I believe this should be sufficient proof, so now I will move to the next question my opponnet asks.

(2) You ask why should christians obey the Bible alone? Well, the answer is quite simple. It's because the words of God from scripture, tells us not to add or take away from scripture or the doctrine that is Christianity. Solomon the King of Israel was given great knowledge from God from which he writes the book of Proverbs, and one proverb that he wrote is in Proverbs 30:6:
Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Another scripture that this found is in Deuteronomy 4:2-3:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you , nor take away from it , that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
This makes it very clear that we are not supposed to add to the doctrine of Christ. God alone is the author of Christianity, and has revealed it to His apostles and prophets. The Pope and Bishops have done nothing but add to the doctrine, which is forbidden to do.

(3) Actually yes the early church did. From the very start of the early christian church a substantial part of the New Testament, and all of the Old Testament was available. They were guilded by the apostles especially the the Apostle Paul who wrote their epistles to them to keep them in the right direction. All of the apostles had met Jesus face to face, and had listened to His teachings, and eventually would write the teachings down to what would become the New Testament. So, the early church did go by the Bible alone.

Conclusion

I will conclude by stating that there is a ton of more evedence that time has prohibited me from typing. But the evedense that I have post right now makes it pretty clear that the protestant doctrine Sola Scriptura is correct. Jesus made it perfectly clear to the Jews that adding traditions and other stuff to the law of God was not good, and this be the same with Catholics. And on that note I will await my opponent's reply.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
RCCD777

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Ok, 1st of all, my opponent brings up Mark 7. He says,
"What Jesus was trying to say to the Pharisees was that they were bringing too much tradition into their ways or worshiping. ....The Bible is the the only command of God, or He would not have made it perfectly clear that it is wrong to add in traditions"
My opponent interprets this passage incorrectly. There is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept). This passage is a reference to human tradition. Human Tradition is what Jesus was condemning.

My opponent also brings up Galatians 1:6-12. He says " Here Paul is saying to the Galatians that they had been being deceived by false 'Christian' doctrines that WERE NOT FROM THE ORGINAL WORD OF GOD. Now at this time I will state that even though the second half of the Bible was still in the process of being written down. The way the apostles were to tell the early church if they were in the right or wrong direction was through these epistles that were eventually added to the Bible and became the New Testament."
Again my opponent interprets another passage of scripture incorrectly. If my opponent is correct, that the epistles that would eventually be added to the bible was the only way the early church knew if they were going in the right or wrong direction then why didn't Christ tell his apostles to write? Instead he said in to the apostles in Mark 16:15 to preach not write. Only 3 apostles wrote. The apostles wrote only so that others may "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." (Luke 1:1-4)
Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures.(John 20:30)

Secondly, The bible tells us to follow tradition:
Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. (Acts 17:28) He used something other than scripture
Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. He never said to even follow his epistles. (Philippians 4:9)
In Colossians 4:16 tells us that ST.Paul wrote another letter to Laodicea which was equally authoritative but was lost.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 says "when you received the word of God, which you heard from us.." Oral revelation was also given to people.
Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. (1 Thessalonians 3:10) His letters were obviously not enough. He didn't use his letters ALONE !
Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations. (2 Timothy 2:2) Paul doesn't say that Tradition will soon be handed down through writing.

Finally, there is obviously a problem with sola scriptura for there are 33,00 protestant denominations in the world and they all follow the bible alone but have different interpretations of them. Also, the bible tells us no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. (2Peter 1:20) and the bible also says one can interpret scripture to one's own destruction (2 Peter3:16) Protestant founders have there own prophecy of scripture. An example is John Smyth, founder of Baptist Church who read the bible "privately" and concluded through his "interpretation" that it was wrong to baptize infant. I will repeat the verse again "NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION".
Consider this story from the late FR.Damien. He says " He says "Let us suppose that here is an Episcopalian minister. He is (just for the sake of argument) a sincere, an honest, a well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the Word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian; and "here is the Bible to give you a lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.

Then the Baptist comes in. He is (again for the sake of argument) a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."

"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."

Next comes the Unitarian, (presumably) well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolaters. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the Spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.

Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men (not really, but for argument's sake), and gives the Bible for his faith.

Another comes in and says: "Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the Bible says, 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."

Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. By brethren, if you want to go to heaven shake, brother, shake!"

Conclusion
Sola Scriptura is not biblical. Tradition is biblical. Scripture can be interpreted to one's own destruction so one must follow tradition which will give an explanation of the scriptures. God would not send us a bible and say "This is a holy book that is hard to understand and can be interpreted to your destruction" and leave us with nothing to interpret it with. If he did, we would be saying "this is what the bible means" or "no, this is what it means" over and over again but we wouldn't know what it meant with Tradition or without the Church which the Bible calls "THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH" (1 Timothy 3:15)
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RCCD777

Pro

My opponent can not at this time answer. He has not really forfeited. I call it a tie.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RCCD777

Pro

RCCD777 forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RCCD777

Pro

RCCD777 forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I apologize for not put the versus in italics. DDO's word typing system blows. /:
Posted by RCCD777 5 years ago
RCCD777
This too will also be discussed in the debate.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Hmm, if you aren't supposed to follow the Bible, then what is it that you are supposed to follow?
No votes have been placed for this debate.