The Instigator
dis8996
Pro (for)
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)

The Bible is Not The Sole Rule of Faith (Sola Scriptura is a False Doctrine)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
dis8996 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 332 times Debate No: 102873
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

dis8996

Pro

OPENING STATEMENT:
Sacred Scripture is useful but it is not the Sole Rule of Faith, it is not the Ultimate Authority. This teaching of "Bible Alone" or "Sola Scriptura" is an invention of the leaders of the reformation and was never a teaching of the Early Church. The Early Church always held Sacred Scripture, along with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, to be the Authority of Christians but never Sacred Scripture alone. Protestants have based their religion on the Bible Alone and they claim to follow the Bible in all things yet, nowhere in Scripture is their teaching of Sola Scriptura found. Sola Scriptura is not biblical, not logical and was never taught in the Early Church. Because of these key factors, the Bible is Not the Sole Rule of Faith, or the Ultimate Authority. I will later prove this in my next round.
kwagga_la

Con

Thank you for initiating the Debate.

Definition: Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. https://en.wikipedia.org...

There are two things we need to understand regarding Sola Scriptura:

1. The Scriptures determine tradition.
2. Determined tradition must therefore agree with Scripture.

I mention this because the Protestants adhered to the Scriptures only because the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) introduced traditions that were contrary to Scriptures. Some of these unscriptural traditions were the selling of indulgences and requiring the priesthood to be celibate. These doctrines cannot be supported by the 27 NT books. To generalize the subject may confuse the original intent of the Protestants. They did not object to ALL the traditions of the RCC but to some of them. The ones that could be justified from the Scriptures were unchallenged by the Protestants. The RCC claims tradition for their unscriptural doctrines because, well, because it is unscriptural.

Pro states that Sola Scriptura cannot be found in the Bible. I obviously disagree and also would like to point out the fallacy in his argument. The Bible applies to 66 Books. The New Testament was written over a period of time and to look for scriptures in the NT while it was written to justify Sola Scriptura for ALL the NT itself is far fetched. Sola Scriptura refers to 27 books completed and accepted by the Church. The writers of the NT did however esteem the OT as their source of what to believe:

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Note: All according to Scripture " Sola Scriptura.

Christ Himself appealed to Scripture and not tradition first: John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

The Protestants referred to Sola Scriptura based on a compiled and completed NT that was only done after most of the writers of the NT passed away. Therefore to look for Sola Scriptura verses in the whole bible is unwarranted and also the deductions that were made based on it.

The following quotations should be self evident that Pro's claim is wrong when considering the Early Church:

Justin Martyr - "And on this account we are, through fear, very earnest in desiring to converse [with men] according to the Scriptures, but not from love of money, or of glory, or of pleasure (Traditions " Con). For no man can convict us of any of these [vices]. No more do we wish to live like the rulers of your people, whom God reproaches when He says, "Your rulers are companions of thieves, lovers of bribes, followers of the rewards." Now, if you know certain amongst us to be of this sort, do not for their sakes blaspheme the Scriptures and Christ, and do not assiduously strive to give falsified interpretations."

Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

Irenaeus - Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources (Tradition included " Con) than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support

Irenaeus - "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has
come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

More quotes can be given but I think this is sufficient to show that the Scriptures where first and second tradition.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 7 months ago
kwagga_la
Should I just accept for round 1 or start with the arguments?
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
Amen, brother.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.