The Instigator
MrDebitCredit0995
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Sola Scriptura

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...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,547 times Debate No: 27772
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

As requested, I will wait to accept your challenge. :)

Argument begins at Round 2
daley

Con

Bring it on.
Debate Round No. 1
MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

The Bible is the only authority of Christians, and God did not permit us to make our own laws (Proverbs 30:5-6)
daley

Con

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Christians should base their beliefs on the Scriptures (the Bible) only is not a doctrine that holds up to Biblical scrutiny. I will argue that Christian doctrine should also be derived from Divine Revelation through the Holy Spirit (as given through the prophets, apostles, etc), and the Traditions of the Church which can be supported by logical argument as long as these do not contradict Scripture. I hold this position for the following reasons:

The Existence of Christian Doctrines that are not found in the Bible
(1) The Bible canon is a widely accepted belief among Christians that 66 books are inspired of God and belong in the Bible. But the collection of these books finds no basis in Scripture. There is no Bible verse telling us how many or which books should be included in the canon. Books like Esther, Job, Genesis, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Timothy make absolutely no claim of divine inspiration. Nowhere do these books say "this is the word of the Lord," or "the vision God gave me," or "the angel of God came to me, saying"" And even though some books, like Isaiah and Revelation do claim to be divinely inspired, such a claim alone is not enough to warrant inclusion in the canon as there are many books which make this claim that are not included in the list.

(2) The position of Satan before sin entered the world. Most Christian denominations believe Satan was once an obedient, high-ranking angel before he was ousted from heaven. The Bible never says this.

(3) Most Christians believe slavery is wrong even though the Bible is silent on the issue. The Bible doesn"t speak out against one human owning another as property.

(4) Posts in the Christian Church such as Minister and Priest find no backing in the Bible.

Biblical prophets made predictions not foretold in the Scriptures, and yet these predictions were worthy of belief by the Church. Acts 11:27-28

Jesus and his disciples didn"t practice Sola Scripture.
(1) Christians accepted the resurrection, not based on the Bible, but based on the authority of the eyewitnesses. The disciples didn"t have any beliefs based on the Old Testament about Jesus resurrection because at first, they didn"t even believe the Messiah would have to die. (Luke 24:1-11; John 20:16-29) Neither did they base it on the New Testament because this wasn"t written yet. They didn"t believe in the resurrection because the Gospel of Mark said so, but because the apostles taught it and handed down that belief. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16)

(2) While different denominations use the Bible to debate if Christians should speak in tongues, the first Christians in Acts 2:1-11 used this gift without an Old Testament command to do so.

(3) The structure of the Church with apostles being the foundation was not based on the Old Testament, and the New Testament wasn"t written yet. So apostleship was not a Biblical concept while it operated before the NT was written. (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11-12)

(4) The OT Jews were not evangelizers. Evangelism was a new concept not based on the OT and was introduced without any Scriptural basis. (Matthew 28:19-20)

(5) Jesus said that we shouldn"t swear (Matthew 5:33-37) but this wasn"t based on any OT text even though this was the only Bible he had.

(6) Baptism was a widely held belief before the NT was written, yet there is no OT support for it. (John 1:26; 3:22-26; Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:37-42)

(7) The Communion was taken with wine with no OT precedent. (Luke 22:17-20) Paul kept this meal before the Gospels were written commanding it. 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

Divine Revelation is a just means of knowing truth aside from the Bible. (Matt 16:13-17) This was how men knew God before the Bible was written, and the Bible never says such revelation has ceased.

Traditions like socialism (the rich sell their possessions and give to the poor) were practiced without any written commands in a Bible. (Matt 19:21; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 6:1-6 food distribution) The house to house method of ministry also had no Biblical basis. (Matt 10:11-14; Acts 5:42; 20:20) The word of God isn"t Scripture till its written down, so these Christians lived by God"s word in addition to Scripture. And not all of God"s word is written down anyway.

For these reasons we can say that Christians in Biblical times didn"t believe in Sola Scriptura then, neither can it be true now. If it wasn"t Biblical before the Bible was finished, how could it become Scriptural after its completion? Just as Christians did then, we too can formulate beliefs based not only on Scripture, but also on the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit as received through those with appropriate authority in the church, or such revelation as preserved in the Traditions of the Church. I guess my main point is that the word of God isn"t limited to the Bible, but God can speak to each of us, and those who are enlightened by his Spirit may impart information to us not found in the Bible. We can even have doctrine from nature/consciense (1 Cor 11:13-16)

Proverbs 30:5-6 clearly wasn"t saying that no more doctrines could be added after the book of Proverbs was written, for many other Bible books were added since; rather, it is saying we should add nothing that isn"t in harmony with his word. But notice it doesn"t say "add nothing to the Bible," but add nothing to "his word." His word wasn"t limited to the Bible. If it were, then no one could accept the book of Proverbs as the word of God because this book never claims divine inspiration and neither does any other Bible book claim Proverbs is such. So the only way men knew Proverbs was inspired is by listening to the traditions of God"s people respecting which books were accepted, as well as the word of the Spirit speaking to their hearts which confirmed those traditions as true. Circumcision, for example, was a binding practice among God"s people before the Torah was written. They didn"t wait for the Bible to tell them about it.
Debate Round No. 2
MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

The Bible is written for us to understand what Christianity is all about, therefore, it is our guide.
"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." - John 20:30-31

"I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
I delight in your decrees;
I will not neglect your word." - Psalm 119:15-16

"The Existence of Christian Doctrines that are not found in the Bible"
God guided the Hebrews in making the Bible, they have the 66 books. Greeks added 7 on them, making it 73.

Let us go back to Catholic theology, just one question: Why do you think they have 73 books, but before, they only have 66?

Point 2:
Satan

"How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[b]
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit." - Isaiah 14:12-15

Let me point back for non Sola Scriptura Christian churches. One factor why I don't believe in non Sola Scriptura and "just rely on the church" doctrine is because, they tend to make non Biblical percepts.

Some non Sola Sriptura churches tends to make their own doctrine, then, looking at the Bible for support. Sola Scriptura churches on the other hand, makes the Bible a basis for their doctrines.

"Jesus and his disciples didn"t practice Sola Scripture."

That is because they don't have the Bible yet. But, they do base on the Old Testament, and even Paul based on the Old Testament and on his books he write.

All in all, were blessed to have the Bible, a guide. A reference we can have for our faith. Jesus is God, so He knows the teachings of our faith. Paul struggles since he does not have any basis yet, only the Old Testament and his books that we wrote.

Question:
If Sola Scriptura is non Biblical, why do non Sola Scriptura churches make non Biblical based doctrines? Isn't it were not allowed to add to His' words? (Proverbs 30:5-6)
daley

Con

My opponent says that "The Bible is written for us to understand what Christianity is all about," but the Bible never actually makes this claim. Genesis never claims that it was written to explain what Christianity is about, nor can we find such a statement in Ruth, Esther, or Job, or any statement comparable to this. How could Old Testament books be written to explain what Christianity is about when there was no Christianity yet? Surely Pro doesn"t believe that Christianity is about animal sacrifices (Lev 16), slavery (Exo 21:2-11), animal sacrifices (Lev 1-3) and temple rituals. But these things are found all over the Old Testament. How could these things explain what it means to be Christian when Christians don"t do these things? A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as laid out for us during his human life. If those Old Testament saints were Christians, it strikes me as bizarre that no one was called Christian until around 44 CE in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

Most Bible books don"t even tell us the reason why they were each written. Pro quotes John 20:30-31 to prove the Bible was written to explain the meaning of Christianity; but this hypothesis fails for the following reasons:

First, John 20:30-31 was not discussing the book of John in totality, but only the miracles (or signs) Jesus performed. It say that Jesus performed many signs not written in this scroll, but these particular miracles were written to prove a certain point. So Pro cannot use this Scripture to show the reason for the Bible being written, he can only use it to explain why the miracles were written.

Second, the purpose of writing these miracles, according to John, was to show only that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and we can gain everlasting life by believing in him. Now this is an entirely separate issue from what Christianity is about, because Christianity is an entire way of life, complete with laws and rituals. We can have salvation by accepting Jesus in our hearts as our personal Savior (which is what John 20:30-31 encourages), but this still doesn"t tell us what are the many requirements of the Christian life such as baptism, evangelism, and avoiding fornication, homosexuality, drunkenness, stealing and so on. So John 20 never claims to be writing to explain Christianity as Pro suggests.

The precepts and decrees the Psalmists says he will keep at Psalm 119:15-16 were those of the law of Moses, which commanded observance of many holydays (Lev 23) and animal sacrifices. Christians do not live by these laws, teaching that such commandments were abolished. (Eph 2:15; Col 2:14-17; Heb 8:13) So far from explaining Christianity, Psalm 119 advocates a pre-Christian theology and way of life which Christianity came to replace. So clearly this teaching, that the Bible was written to explain what Christianity is about, is not a Bible teaching, and is evidence against Sola Scriptura.

In response to my claim that Christians hold doctrines not found in the Bible, he says: "God guided the Hebrews in making the Bible, they have the 66 books." This teaching of his isn"t Biblical because the Bible never tells us that the Bible was inspired by God. We know this because nowhere does any Scripture refer to a collection of books called the Bible and say that God guided Hebrews to make them. Neither Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy ever claim to be the word of God; the writers never claim that God guided them in the writing, and none of them claim to be written by a Hebrew. How does Pro know that it was a Hebrew who wrote Luke"s Gospel? How does he know he wasn"t a Gentile proselyte? So already Pro is making doctrinal claims not found in the Bible, hence negating his Bible-only doctrine. Luke doesn"t claim to be inspired by God, but says he interviewed the eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-4) So even Pro"s claim that all Bible books were made under divine guidance isn"t found in the Bible.

He quotes Isaiah 14:12-15 to explain Satan"s position in heaven before the fall, but this passage doesn"t mention Satan. It mentions Lucifer who is identified as a man in verse "a man" in verse 16 and as king of Babylon in verse 4. He is therefore a human who lived and died in history. Verse 11 describes the decomposition of his human body, which could not apply to a spirit being like Satan. This tells us that the Lucifer surrounded with such symbolic language in this passage is not Satan the Devil. Pro has shown no evidence from the Bible that Satan"s name is Lucifer, or that Lucifer"s name is Satan. He has given us no reason to think they are one and the same, not even a proper exegesis of the text he cites. So again, Pro has doctrines not found in Scripture, namely, that Satan"s name is Lucifer and that he made the claims Pro attributes to him by misapplying Isaiah 14:12-15 to him; therefore, he isn"t following Sola Scriptura here.

Now, I never said to rely "only" on the church, so Pro"s faith is misplaced; he"s thinking of Catholicism here, but I"m not Catholic, so his fears are misplaced. I"m saying the Bible isn"t the only authority, neither is the church, for we also have divine revelation outside the Bible; and unless he can show such revelation has ceased he cannot prove Sola Scriptura.

Pro admits that Jesus and his disciples didn"t practice Sola Scriptura, and gives the excuse that this "is because they [didn"t] have the [complete] Bible yet." But if none of the Scriptures in the Bible were teaching Sola Scriptura while it was being written down, how could those same Scriptures teach Sola Scriptura after it is completed? Proverbs 30:5-6 didn"t teach Sola Scriptura during the time of Jesus, but all of a sudden, it begins to teach Sola Scriptura now? This is ridiculous. The Bible teaches the same doctrine today as it did when Jesus was walking about in Galilee, no more, no less. Pro is giving to the Bible passages a meaning that was completely foreign to the original writers. Obviously, his interpretation is therefore not Biblical, and is by definition an anti-Sola Scriptura interpretation " an interpretation not supported by the Bible itself.

To this I"d like to add that Paul gave his opinions as guidance for the church in addition to what the word of God had said in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12. So we see the church has authority to teach things not found in the Bible as long as they do not contradict God"s word, and such is another rule of faith. No doubt, the faithful were obedient to Paul"s opinion, and still are today.

In summary:
1) Pro is guilty of holding non-Biblical doctrines just as non-Sola Scriptura churches are. He was unable to find Biblical support for his doctrines regarding the number of books needed for the Bible canon, Satan"s pre-fall name and position, the inspiration of all Bible books, the Christian attitude towards slavery, and the posts of Minister and Priest in the church.
2) He admitted that Jesus and the earliest Christians did not practice Sola Scriptura. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that Sola Scriptura isn"t Biblical, for Jesus and his disciples would have believed Sola Scriptura is it were taught in the Bible.
3) Pro holds the ridiculous position that the Bible teaches now, what it didn"t teach back then when it was first written. It should be clear to even the most hardheaded fundamentalist that this cannot be true.
4) He hasn"t refuted or even attempted to rebut the authority of prophets to prophesy things not recorded in the Scriptures as worth of belief. (Acts 11:27-28)
5) He hasn"t refuted or attempted to rebut the role of divine revelation as being just a worthy rule of faith as the Bible. (Matt 16:13-17)
6) Nor has he replied to the traditions of the church as being a worthy rule of faith along with the Bible, traditions such as the method of ministry and socialist practices. (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 6:1-6; 5:42; 20:20)

For these reasons you should vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

I have seen Con's side, and indeed, some of them I agreed. There are things that God will reveal to you that is not in the Bible, like what? Like future "partner" (husband/wife), work, etc.

But Con stands out that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical because Jesus did not use the Bible in His ministry. On the contrary, God gave us the Bible for direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17) God does not have the Bible in His time here on Earth, but be happy now that we have the Bible.

My only point: The Bible is the only authority

My question is: How come Catholics and Protestants are having a debate about the number of the books of the Bible?
daley

Con

Pro says: "There are things that God will reveal to you that is not in the Bible, like what? Like future "partner" (husband/wife), work, etc."

But he has revealed more than that. He has also revealed the Bible canon, and plenty of doctrines not found in the Bible. I would also add to this another rule of faith outside the Bible - objective moral values. We don't need the Bible to tell us right from wrong, we knew about morality before the Bible was written. How do we know God is good? Because God says so in the Bible? No. Because if morality were decided based on God's commands, then if God changed his mind, and said for example that murder was now good, would that make it good? What kind of basis would this be for ethics? It is obvious that God says something is good or bad because it actually is; therefore, objective moral values exist as an independent standard outside the will of God, independent of the Bible. This rule of faith is also infallible; for example, the holocaust was wrong no matter who or how many people agree that it was good.

Pro says: "But Con stands out that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical because Jesus did not use the Bible in His ministry."

I never said that Jesus didn't use the Scriptures in his ministry, but rather, he did not rely only on the Scriptures. He gave teachings that were not in the Scriptures of his day, showing that he had other rules of faith besides the Bible.

True, God gave us the Bible for direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but this isn't the only thing he gives for our direction. He also gave the Holy Spirit, an infallible guide. He gave divine revelation as well. It is foolish to reject all the other things God gave us as Pro is doing. Without these other things the Bible isn't worth very much anyway.

Pro hasn't even replied to most of my evidence proving the Bible IS NOT our only authority. We also have the Holy Spirit, Divine Revelation, Traditions, Apostles and Prophets, as well as Objective Moral Values, all of which are other authorities needed to Christian living in its fullest sense.

Pro asked: How come Catholics and Protestants are having a debate about the number of the books of the Bible?

My question to him is this: does the Bible tell us how many books should be in the Bible? If not, than what authority settled the issue? Obviously, we need more than the Bible.
Debate Round No. 4
MrDebitCredit0995

Pro

The Bible is our only spiritual authority, that even pastors or church leaders should follow. Our pastors are our authority, yes (or church leaders, depending on the denomination you have)

But the pastors follow the Bible, meaning, we should follow the Bible too.

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c

Morality and Spirituality is related, but not part of spirituality. If morality is spirituality, too, then, atheist who also practice morality are part of spirituality, too, thus, believe in God as well.

How come the question goes back to me? From a lot of Christian denominations, who should I follow, then ? Catholics? Evangelicals? Mormons? Witnesses? Calvinist? Lutherans? Orthodox?
daley

Con

My opponent says: "The Bible is our ONLY spiritual authority," that is FALSE. We have other spiritual authorities such as the Holy Spirit, Divine Revelation and Objective Moral Values. All people in the church including pastors follow these rules of faith, as well as the Traditions of the Church.

He says: "But the pastors follow the Bible, meaning, we should follow the Bible too."
Answer: As the pastors follow Tradition, divine revelation, and decrees of the church on doctrine, so should we.

He says: "Morality and Spirituality is related, but not part of spirituality. If morality is spirituality, too, then, atheist who also practice morality are part of spirituality, too, thus, believe in God as well."

The relationship between the two doesn't change the fact that moral values are another standard outside the Bible as a rule of faith.

Then he asked: "How come the question goes back to me? From a lot of Christian denominations, who should I follow, then ? Catholics? Evangelicals? Mormons? Witnesses? Calvinist? Lutherans? Orthodox?"

The Bible doesn't answer this question, and this is one of the reasons why we need other rules of faith besides the Bible. If the Bible had all the answers, the Sola Scriptura camp wouldn't be asking this question.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JonK 3 years ago
JonK
i'm still not sure that i'm against sola Scriptura. if we make an honest and satisfactory attempt to understand the Bible and then live by what it says. i don't think bad would come to our souls. Jesus said that not even He is good. that only the God in heaven is good so no matter what we aren't gonna be looked at as 'holy'. but we would still likely get to heaven. you may say, 'well if someone takes it into their own hands to comprehend the Bible, then they might not be baptized and baptisms might be necessary for salvation. while this is true, i think we would be just as likely to not get, in this case, baptized as if we were going by non-Biblical authority as well. furthermore, we don't know that baptism is completely necessary so that would be onto another debate. anyway, as i said, i'm not sure i'm against sola Scriptura but i may still vote con if i were able...
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
lol, got any evidence besides an assertion
Posted by MrDebitCredit0995 4 years ago
MrDebitCredit0995
The Catholic church have 66 books, but early, one "saint" added 7 books and approved by Pope Damascus 1.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Catholics have always had 73 books in the Old Testament... The Jews who decided on the 66 book canon were the same ones who rejected Jesus as the messiah and all of the New Testament as inspired.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MrDebitCredit0995daleyTied
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: Pro seemed unwilling or unable to engage most of Con's arguments, but Con made a solid case and refuted Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
MrDebitCredit0995daleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con addressed all of Pro's arguments. Pro ignored most of Con's arguments.