The Instigator
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
ScottyDouglas
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The Holy Catholic Church vs Baptist

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 5 votes the winner is...
ScottyDouglas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,686 times Debate No: 25761
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (5)

 

AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Since I moron'd this up the last time I tried, here we go again.

Do not use semantics.

Resolved: The Holy Catholic Church follows the teachings of Christ

I fully reserve to myself the ability to use the Deuterocanon, as well as non-Biblical sources.

Thank you.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I have been waiting to do this again, Thanks to my opponent, I can. I know he has been waiting also! I am going to start my case here since my opponent did not specify rules. This debate is about Roman Catholicism, so I think I should start here, since I am objecting. I will not argue or rebuttal in the last round to be fair, Thanks!

I have a number of contentions I can bring forth but to make this debate fruitful, I will focus on three and we will argue them.

My whole case is centered around....UNBIBLICAL DOCTRINE and my contentions will stem from that. Here they go!

C1) ALTERING OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Do not pray to statues or other Gods! How be it that the Roman Catholic doctrine takes out the part of the commandment's of God!

The Ten commandment in the KJV reads:
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
http://www.bible-knowledge.com...
Roman Catholic commandments:
1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep holy the Lord"s Day.
4. Honor thy father and thy mother.
5. Thou shall not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor"s wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor"s goods.
http://www.roman-catholic-catechism.com......

We see the exit of the second commandment completely and the addition of one. As their 9th & 10th commandment was actually linked in the Bible and not seperate. They did this to confuse people into thinking it is OK to worship, pray and bow to graven images.

C2) IDOLTRY http://www.the-ten-commandments.org...

1. Exodus 20:4-5
“Thou shalt not MAKE unto thee ANY graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not BOW DOWN thyself to them Nor SERVE them.”

Do Catholics MAKE graven images?Yes
Do Catholics KNEEL down to statues of Mary or Jesus?Yes
Do Catholics SERVE Mary? Yes

2. Leviticus 26:1
“You shall make you NO IDOLS nor GRAVEN IMAGE. Neither rear you up a STANDING IMAGE. Neither shall ye set up any IMAGE OF STONE in your land to bow down unto it.”

Do Catholics rear up STANDING IMAGES? Yes.
Do Catholics set up any IMAGE OF STONE? Yes.
http://romeitaly.ca... http://images.search.yahoo.com... http://images.search.yahoo.com... http://images.search.yahoo.com...

3. Deuteronomy 27:15
“CURSED be the man that MAKES ANY GRAVEN or MOLTEN IMAGE, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place.”

Does God put a curse on any person that makes any image? Yes.
Why does God call an image an ABOMINATION? Because He hates it.

C3) UNBIBLICAL RITUALS

1. Priests Forbidden to Marry
The apostle Peter, whom the Catholic Church teaches was the first pope, was married.

“When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him.” (Mat 8:14-15)

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.” (1Ti 4:1-3).

“Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1Co 9:5).

2. Clergy-Laity Distinction
It is unbiblical to make a distinction between clergy and laity. Scripture teaches that there must be no divisions in the Body. All disciples in the kingdom of God are priests (1Pe 2:5,9-10; Rev 1:6).
Jesus Himself taught us not to use titles like “Father,” “Leader,” or “Rabbi”. He said, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Mat 23:8-11).

3. Emphasis on Works Rather than Grace
The Catholic Church emphasizes that man must work for his salvation, which is contrary to Scripture. The apostle Paul wrote: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Eph 2:8-9).

References:
http://carm.org... http://wordistrue.blogspot.com... http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Debate Round No. 1
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to what will hopefully be something interesting.

My case is centered around the Bible not being the only source of truth, and my arguments will stem from that.

Altering of the Ten Commandments

The first thing that I would like to bring up are the Ten Commandments according to Judaism:

1. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of slavery in Egypt.
2. You shall have no other gods but me.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

My opponent's claims are groundless. While he would have us believe that there is an explicit, obvious, and undoubtable distinction between each commandment in the Bible, such a distinction does not really exist as he is implying. The only real differences are Commandment 1 and Commandments 9 & 10.

Commandment 1 (from the New American Bible): "I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me."

The Jews lumped in the making-idols part with the not having other gods part as well, so I don't see the grounds on which my opponent is objecting. If you can't have other gods besides the LORD, you can't worship idols anyway so this point seems kind of moot. The main point is God doesn't want people thinking idols are gods.

In fact, my opponent's interpretation of not making any graven images seems to pretty much fly in the face of the Bible itself. In Exodus 25, God commands the Israelites to make two graven cherubim, and in Numbers 21 God commands Moses to make a graven serpent. I'd like my opponent to explain why God throws out a commandment, then promptly orders his people to violate it (Exodus 20 - Ten Commandments, Exodus 25 - God orders graven images).

Since there is no set in stone (har har) edition of the ten commandments (the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants all divide them differently) my opponent has no grounds on which to claim that Catholics "altered the ten commandments". In fact, the Catholic edition is closer to the original Jewish edition because it doesn't say anything about making graven images, which obviously weren't the affront to God my opponent believes them to be.



Idolatry

My opponent obviously believes all sculptors are horrible, evil, hell-bound individuals.

He also adds a bunch of assertions with no sources for his first bit there, so I'll just dismiss them by saying "No".

Observe Leviticus 26:1 from the New American Bible:

"Do not make false gods for yourselves. You shall not erect an idol or a sacred pillar for yourselves, nor shall you set up a stone figure for worship in your land; for I, the LORD, am your God."

It is obvious this means "Idols are not gods to be worshipped, so don't" but my opponent is claiming it means you can never make anything out of stone. You decide which makes more sense.

Clearly my opponent thinks God holds some great hatred for images for some bizarre reason, and I sure do hope my opponent has never drawn anything in his life. Anyway, his own verse says "and putteth it in a secret place", so if I make an image and hang it on my fridge I should be safe.


Unbiblical Rituals

1. Priests

Priesthood is voluntary and Eastern rite priests can be married.

2. Clergy-laity

My opponent proceeds to claim that scripture teaches that there must be no divisions in the Body, then cites scripture that does nothing to prove his point (seemingly chosen at random because it contained the words "priest" and "priesthood"). Sure we may all be priests, but even the early church appointed bishops, as will be evidenced by a ton of random quotes I will now pull up.

"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric." - Against All Heresies, St. Irenaeus

"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church." - Letter to the Smyrneans, St. Ignatius of Antioch

"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop's command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . On a presbyter [priest], however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains." - St. Hippolytus

Matthew 23:8-11 reads

"(8) As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. (9) Call no one on earth your father, you have but one Father in heaven. (10) Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. (11) The greatest among you must be your servant."

I counter with 1 Corinthians 4:15, which says

"Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

3. Words and Grace

My opponent's claim is again sourceless. As I wrote in our last debate:

"If any one saith [says], that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema [excommunicated]." - Council of Trent



The Bible Alone is an untenable position

My opponent says he uses the Bible alone, but that's obviously not true. For starters, there are at least three competing Bibles that I know of (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant), and since none of them says anything about the others the decision to pick a Bible is made without using the Bible. Equally damning, the Bible nowhere says that the Bible alone is enough, therefore to reach that conclusion my opponent again would have had to go beyond the Bible. Therefore, his own position is untenable.



Conclusion

That's all for this round. I wish my opponent luck.

ScottyDouglas

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponents case is self proclaimed not centered around the Bible. I think that is the major problem here not only for him but for Roman Catholicism. My opponent is suggesting non-inspired doctrine is as good as the Bible, which is inspired. That is a false statement. We can not miss that Jesus Christ is the Word and it is through Jesus Christ alone through His Word that is sufficent for knowledge and righteousness.

C1) Altering of the Ten Commandments

I find it dishearting that my opponent can not see any problem with clearly removing specific commands of God.
My opponent claims my arguments are groundless here but I have exzact Biblical commandments in my Bible and the commanments I stick with. My opponent seems not to have a distinction between actual Biblical commands, word for word, and picking and choosing. The distinction is the Bible itself.

My opponent then gives us a New version of the Bible that is completely misrepresented. Well that is my opponents problem. We see again from the original KJV and the actual text of the Hebrew OT, " KJV Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God." We see that my opponent does not oppose that these words being removed from the commandments and therefore showing that Roman Catholicism does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My opponents asks why did God command that the Israelites make alters and covents to him in Exodus 25 and Numbers 21. Will in Exodus 25 we can read and see that God commanded that the Israelites build a alter and the ark of the covenant unto the Lord, so He may dwell amoungst them. The instruction by God to make cherubim, which are angels in heaven, is not for the purpose of worship at all. Instead, it is a representation of the heavenly realm where God dwells and the angels are about the throne (1samuel 4:4 & Hebrews 9:5). In Numbers 21 God punished them. He sent poisonous snakes among them. Moses to prayed to God to take away the snakes but God did not remove the snakes. Instead, he provided a way to cure every person whom the snakes had bitten. They had to look up at a bronze snake on the pole. If they did this, they lived. If they did not do this, they died.

My opponent then claims, "In fact, the Catholic edition is closer to the original Jewish edition because it doesn't say anything about making graven images." Lol, my opponent obviously did not see my ten commandments in round 1 that are directly quoted word for word from the Bible and Roman Catholic's version is not. I would say that mine is closer to actual Biblical teaching.

C2) Idolatry

"My opponent obviously believes all sculptors are horrible, evil, hell-bound individuals."

Lol, Nah, I never stated as such. The worship of them and the plantation of them in the church of God is though.
My opponent must explain to us, why, the supposed house of God at the vatican and other branched churches, have sculptors and idols inside them? Why they are prayed to and bowed to? Why they are kissed?

My opponent should explain what sense to make idols, sculptors amd images inside the House of God, when the Bible says not too? Does my opponent suggest that what the Bible says doesn't matter? Or that because God had destinct reasons for it, that I explained, gives them rights to?

"Clearly my opponent thinks God holds some great hatred for images for some bizarre reason."

Well, I do think that, I have good reason for it. God commanded it. This includes a image of Jesus Christ.
Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it:
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

The Catholic Church approves the worship of images of Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2132) states: http://www.usccb.org...
The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honour paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

The Council of Trent explains: http://thecounciloftrent.com...
... the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear.

Catholics do bow down to them, kiss them and pray unto them! They have them errected against the commandments.

C3) Unbiblical Rituals

1. Priests

Eastern-rite Catholics are not held to the same discipline as Roman-rite priests. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. Since celibacy is a discipline and not dictrine it is a practice that is legislated by ecclesial authority. A authority the do not have in the first place as the only authority is God and His Word.

2. Clergy-laity

Pro states, "My opponent proceeds to claim that scripture teaches that there must be no divisions in the Body, then cites scripture that does nothing to prove his point (seemingly chosen at random because it contained the words "priest" and "priesthood"). Sure we may all be priests, but even the early church appointed bishops, as will be evidenced by a ton of random quotes I will now pull up."

This is only a claim that can be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition against the Word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised by people that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.

My oppnent goes even further and shows us by using quotes used by Roman Catholic doctrine and clergy. These words used is not Biblical in any way and if so then my opponent would provide those scriptures. They are not Biblical and shows that these docrines and practices are made in the minds of men and not the Word God!

1 Corinthians 4:13 "Being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things to this day. 14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."

3. Words and Grace

My opponent again quotes, not scriptures, but philosophies of men. I think He needs a news flash that those thoughts are not Biblical. It is critical for these teachings to defame the need of the Bible, the Word of God. Why? To insert their teachings and philosophies in the minds of men.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

C4) The Bible Alone is an untenable position

I never claim that the Bible alone is not enough. The Holy Spirit guides us to understanding through the Bible. The Holy Spirit would not guide us away from the Biblical teaching though as we have seen the Roman Catholic church is doing. I use the KJV Bible and none other.

Resolved: Roman Catholics do not follow or adhere to Jesus Christ teachings.

Debate Round No. 2
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Although this is rather rude of me, I must confess I am somewhat disappointed at my opponent's responses. However, I will forge on.

For starters:

Con writes "My opponent is suggesting non-inspired doctrine is as good as the Bible, which is inspired. That is a false statement."

How do you know the doctrine is uninspired? How do you know that the Bible is inspired? You haven't supported this claim at all. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, but the Bible isn't Jesus Christ (obviously), so while Jesus may be sufficient for knowledge and righteousness the Bible is not.

The Holy Catholic Church has sacred tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15) which, along with the teaching authority of the Magesterium (1 Timothy 3:15) give it its power.

I would like to apologize for misspelling the title of the third contention in my last round.

Ten Commandments

lol? I was quoting Exodus 20:3, which is why Exodus 20:4 wasn't there (obviously). My opponent writes some stuff saying that God let people make graven images, so really I don't see the problem here. I quoted the Jewish edition for my opponent's reading, but it appears he more or less ignored it completely. My point is, every single verse couldn't have been one of the commandments or you would have something like 17 commandments, so how people divide up those verses into ten commandments varies. The Jews would differ with your separation of their second commandment, as they rightly saw that making things that you don't worship is fine. If my opponent continues to argue this, I ask why he doesn't deem Exodus 20:9 a commandment.


Idolatry

lol^2? God obviously commanded the use of stone thingies in religious contexts if he ordered some made for the Ark of the Covenant (and the temple was supposed to have some too, but I can't remember the exact verse), and it's quite clear he doesn't have a problem with that, so I see no issue with the "plantation" of them in the church of God.

The "don't bow down" thingy has to do with worship. If I live in Japan and I bow to my pal, does that mean I'm worshipping him as a god? Use some common sense. As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops so wisely says "Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves".


Rituals


1. Priests

Con writes "A authority the do not have in the first place as the only authority is God and His Word."

So then according to you, obviously the Bible is impotent, because God's Word is Jesus Christ (John 1:1). Did you just attack your own argument? That should probably be a concession of the entire debate right there, because if you don't think that even the Bible has authority you have no metric by which to judge whether or not Catholics follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and therefore you can never negate the resolution.

2. Clergy-laity

lol^3? Those were the Early Church Fathers. Since you concede that they were Catholics, that begs the apostasy question. 2 Timothy 1:11 reads "for which I was appointed preacher and apostle and teacher.". Why appoint him preacher, apostle, and teacher if everyone is the exact same? In fact, why would Jesus even pick twelve apostles if everyone is the exact same? Most likely, my opponent is wrong.

3. Works and Grace

The deeds of the law were the Old Testament. Jesus himself gave us commands, and to think that he did that for absolutely no reason other than to hear himself speak doesn't strike me as sensible. That quote from the Council of Trent was to show you that Catholics put emphasis on grace, but of course you promptly ignored it and moved the goalposts.

You should read the Epistle of St. James. Here are some select quotes from it:

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24

"(14) What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, (16) and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? (17) So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." - James 2:14-17

"Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?" - James 2:20

"Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves." - James 1:22

I could go on and on with this, but I trust my opponent gets the point.


The Bible alone is an untenable position

I should have clarified that I added this contention myself. My opponent has not supported his claim that the Bible is enough with anything other than his own musings, so I ask him to do so, neither has he supported his claim that the Holy Spirit would not guide away from Biblical teaching. I believe that I have shown reasonable cause to doubt that the Bible is the sole authority, as it itself never claims that. Additionally, I would ask him if the Holy Spirit would not guide you away from Biblical teachings, why do you need him in the first place? If he's not going to tell you anything the Bible doesn't, what use is he? Regardless, I refer my opponent back to my Round 2 argument on this.

To my opponent.
ScottyDouglas

Con

My opponent asked, "How do we know the doctrine of Roman Catholics is uninspired?"

That is easy, the apocrypha is not inspired. If they would include non-inspired books in the Bible then it is very reasonable to say RC doctrines are not inspired also. The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles.

He also ask's, "How do you know that the Bible is inspired?"

We can also know the Bible is the inspired Word of God because of messianic prophecies foretelling Jesus Christ hundreds of years prior, telling of His virgin birth and how He would be the rejected corner stone of the Church.

Then He claims, "While Jesus may be sufficient for knowledge and righteousness the Bible is not."

Really? Jesus Christ calls himself the Word of God and He inspired all scripture. I think these passages below show that the scriptures are sufficent enough!

John 10:35 "to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can't be broken),"

2 Peter 3:16 "In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Romans 15:4 "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that through patience and through encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope."

Mark 12:24 'Jesus answered them, "Isn't this because you are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God?"

My opponent should show that the RC is in fact holding to the tradidtions of scripture and the apostles who wrote them. This is the argument here, that they are not! The Catholic religion teaches that Jesus chose the Apostle Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ would build the Church.

Matthew 21:42 "Jesus saith to them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"

Jesus Christ was the rejected cornerstone!

1 Peter 2:6 "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

JESUS is the cornerstone upon which the Church is built. Surely, a flawed sinful man such as Peter could not have been the cornerstone of the church.

C1) Ten Commandments

My opponent does not see the difference between God ordering you to make images of His throne to commune and taking it upon yourselves. Is my opponent saying God ordered the RC to raise up the images within the church? My opponent still see's no problem with taking out exzact words in the 10 commandments. We can agree the order of the commandments or which is placed where is not as important as including every word in the commandments. It doesn't matter who that may be, Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, or any variant. I deem every word that is incited in the ten commandments as important and needed to be included. I agree that graven images can be included in the 1st commandment but those words should be included in it and not excluded.

C2) Idolatry

My opponent show us last round He does not know His Bible nor was concerned enough about it or this debate to research it. My opponent does not reconize that God ordering Moses to build the Ark and the Cherubs as representing His throne in Heaven, is far different then building statues and images to bow to and pray to. The context is in the Bible for this and my opponent has not read it we see. My opponent see's no problem with planting images of men in the House of God even though God commanded against it over and over in the Bible. My opponent then tries to include a nod and slight bow as the same as getting on your knees and praying to a staute. My opponent then wants us to believe that because the church say's it is not worship, it is not. I ask the readers, If you bow down on your knee's, pray and kiss a statue, is it nor worship of that statue?

C3) Rituals

1. Priests

"Did you just attack your own argument?"

No I did not, Jesus Christ is the Word and He inspired the scriptures. Jesus Christ created the world and all that is in it. The instructions in the Bible is the Word's of Christ. My opponent also went off track here, this was about marriage for priests, which the Bible say's are allowed. This goes against scripture, it is a RC ritual alone.

2. Clergy-laity

My opponent then claims that Jesus gave only the apostles authroity to teach. Well who would teach, lead and preach to the lost if not them? Who would teach the Word of God about salvation? Once we recieve salvation and the Word then we are equals and all are teachers. Who would write the NT and the story of Jesus then? Just anyone?

3. Works and Grace

Many people misunderstand the words of James. We read in Romans 4:3, "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Paul said in Romans 5:1, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul doesn't mention works. Romans 4:5 declares, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." James is simply saying that if a person is genuinely saved by faith, then there should be fruit (good works) in that person's life to show it. Also, notice carefully James' words, "...shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18). With God we are justified by our faith; but with men we are justified in seeing works. The reason is simply because mankind cannot see out heart; but God can. James said, "shew me" your faith and I'll "shew you" my faith.

C4) The Bible alone is an untenable position

My opponent ask's, "Additionally, I would ask him if the Holy Spirit would not guide you away from Biblical teachings, why do you need him in the first place? If he's not going to tell you anything the Bible doesn't, what use is he?"
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter. He does not lead away from the scriptures and my opponent will never find one passage to support that claim. Why would the spirit of God lead you away from His own Word that was given? Now that makes no sense whatsoever. The Holy Spirit is given by Jesus to comfort us in our hardships and to help us in understanding of the scriptures. Most certainly not to give doctrine that leads away from scripture.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...
http://carm.org...
http://www.ccel.org...
Debate Round No. 3
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Let us continue.

Con writes "That is easy, the apocrypha is not inspired."

So you assert.

Con writes "The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint"

The Septuagint was universally received until a Jewish council changed the canon. That council also declared the entire NT uninspired, so I guess if you feel it had any binding authority you wouldn't have the Bible.

Con writes "all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles."

The declaration made about the canonicity of the Deuterocanon was made by a Jewish council that also reject the NT. Do you reject the NT? Then why do you reject the Deuterocanon? Also, the second part is patently false.

Matthew 2:16 and Wisdom 11:7
Matthew 6:19-20 and Sirach 29:11
Matthew 16:18 and Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 27:43 and Wisdom 2:18
Mark 9:48 and Judith 16:17

I can go on, but that would waste too much space. You've provided no evidence for you extravagent claim that no one ever referenced the Deuterocanon, but as you can clearly see people did.

Con writes "We can also know the Bible is the inspired Word of God because of messianic prophecies foretelling Jesus Christ hundreds of years prior, telling of His virgin birth and how He would be the rejected corner stone of the Church."

That argument says nothing about the Bible. Jesus =/= the Bible.

If I scribble out a little text about Jesus, is that sound scripture? What grounds do you have to say that it is not?

Con writes "Really? Jesus Christ calls himself the Word of God and He inspired all scripture. I think these passages below show that the scriptures are sufficent enough!"

Paraphrasing Con: "You don't think the scriptures are enough? Let me use the scriptures to prove that they are enough!"

I could just as easily say "The Catholic Church is right because the Catholic Church says it is right", but what kind of an argument would that be?

Con writes "My opponent should show that the RC is in fact holding to the tradidtions of scripture and the apostles who wrote them. This is the argument here, that they are not!"

No, the argument is that the Catholic Church follows the teachings of Jesus.

Con writes "JESUS is the cornerstone upon which the Church is built. Surely, a flawed sinful man such as Peter could not have been the cornerstone of the church."

Why must it be either Jesus or Peter? Jesus built the Church on Peter. Peter wasn't the cornerstone, he was the rock. Since you believe flawed men can write perfect scriptures, why don't you believe flawed Peter could be the rock on which the Church was built?

Ten Commandments

Con writes " I deem every word that is incited in the ten commandments as important and needed to be included. I agree that graven images can be included in the 1st commandment but those words should be included in it and not excluded."

Your own source for the ten commandments excluded some words. Therefore, you are a hypocrite and you should drop this argument.

Idolatry

Con writes "My opponent see's no problem with planting images of men in the House of God even though God commanded against it over and over in the Bible."

He couldn't have been all against it if he commanded it himself.

Con writes "My opponent then wants us to believe that because the church say's it is not worship, it is not. I ask the readers, If you bow down on your knee's, pray and kiss a statue, is it nor worship of that statue?"

This wasn't addressed to me, but I love you so much I'll respond to it anyway. No. Even on the very off chance that for whatever reason I'm kneeling in front of a statue (say, of Mary) praying, I'm not thinking "O stone god which stands before me, help me out", because it's obvious the statue isn't a god.

Idolatry is when you worship something as a god. No Catholic worships statues like gods, and if one did he would probably be anathema.

Rituals

1. Priests

I can say this until I'm blue in the face, but becoming a priest is voluntary. Unless you can find scriptures saying "You must be married or you are an abomination!", this argument fails.

Matthew 19:12 reads

"Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.""

Relevant part underlined. If you couldn't accept not being married, you wouldn't choose to become a Catholic priest of the Latin rite now, would you?

2. Clergy-laity

I was fortunate to happen upon this scripture, which completely destroys your argument in toto.

Observe 1 Timothy 3:1

"This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task."

Even as the NT was being written, there was a clergy-laity division, as is evidenced by this verse. Therefore, unless my opponent rejects the scripture, this argument fails.

3. Works and Grace

Do note the title of this section, as my opponent shifted the topic here completely.

Con writes "James is simply saying that if a person is genuinely saved by faith, then there should be fruit (good works) in that person's life to show it."

Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that one who does no works is one who is not saved. This argument too fails.

Bible Alone

Using the Bible alone is a logically untenable position, because there are two ways to prove that the Bible alone is sufficient: while using it, and while not using it.

If you prove the Bible alone to be sufficient using the Bible, you've used circular reasoning.

If you prove the Bible alone to be sufficient without using the Bible, you've shown that something outside the Bible (your proof that the Bible alone is sufficient) is necessary.

Therefore, it is impossible to prove that the Bible alone is enough, and that makes the position logically untenable.

Regardless, I'd like my opponent to provide his reasons for rejecting the Deuterocanon (besides his appeal to popularity) and his reasons for accepting the Biblical canon as he does, as the canon of the Bible comes from outside the Bible.

Thank you.
ScottyDouglas

Con

This is the last round and as I promised I will hold off from posting a full rebuttal. I will answer my opponents questions at his request and reutter points made here.

My opponent desired to know how the Apocrypha is not inspired and I will answer with this:

It must be first and foremost noted that the apocryphal books were not included in the Hebrew canon, and never appeared in the Hebrew Bibles.

Josephus, speaking in a manner which indicates that his opinion was the general and prevailing one among his countrymen, said thus,

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life....". We see that a closed canon was the prevailing view of Jews at and before his time. Josephus states that there were twenty-two books, two less than that found in the traditional Hebrew Old Testament. This difference can be ascribed to his joining of Jeremiah with Lamentations and Ruth with Judges. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). Not one of the books is in the Hebrew language. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com...

http://www.bible.ca...

Pro also asserted that the Jews recieved the canon but seen they originally did not. We read:

Peter S Ruckman Ph.D. writes of the Septuagint in Appendix Two,

pages 407-409:

"I have a copy of the notorious Septuagint on my desk (Zondervan Publishing Co.1970, from Samuel Baxter & Sons, London). In the Introduction, the party line of the Alexandrian Cult is laid out as neatly as a tiled floor. Our writer says 'THE FACT' may be regarded as 'CERTAIN' that the Greek Old Testament LXX had begun to be translated before 285BC. The evidence for this? Don't be silly; the Alexandrian Cult never deals with evidence.

Every LXX manuscript cited in the Septuagint Concordance was written 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. They are as follows:"

Ruckman then lists the 4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came. Brief details include:

A- "Alexandrinus:"

written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10.

Aleph-"Sinaiticus:"

written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.

C- "Codes Ephraemi:"

written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets!

B -"Vaticanus:"

It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.

Ruckman continues:

"The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation."

"The mythological LXX or Septuagint is the most persistent spook to haunt orthodox Christianity since the myth that Christ was born in a cave. The theory is based on abstract speculation of the wildest sort without one piece of reliable documented evidence of ANY kind that there was ever on this earth one single copy of an OLD Testament in GREEK before the heading up of the school at Alexandria by Origen, one hundred years after the entire New Testament was complete, yet to this day there exists on every campus of every fundamental school in the United States the nebulous ghost of this non-existent spook."

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk...

Pro also asked, why reject the Deuterocanon? Well,

deuterocanonical and non-canonical scriptures in a single section designated "Apocrypha". This arrangement can lead to conflation between the otherwise distinct terms "deuterocanonical" and "apocryphal". http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent then cited us 5 examples of the N.T. showing links to the deuterocanon. This is false.

There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."

My opponent then further suggests that the Bible is not equal to Jesus! Well, Jesus is throughout the Bible refered to as the Word of God and the Bible is also considered the Word of God, Jesus gave inspiration for the Bible. The Bible is to be considered equal to the Word of God because it is from God. This gives grounds to compare it to the Word of God from Jesus and it being true. If Jesus inspired them then He seen it as enough for man, that is good enough for me but not for the Catholic church. They need more than the Word of Jesus Christ. My opponent calls it circular reasoning for God to justify His Word as authority on earth for His people. He calls God's judgements as circular and they are, for His judgements do not require reason or debate about them.

He also considers a founding rock as different than a cornerstone. Ask any mason and they would consider them the same. This means that Jesus Christ was saying He is the rock the Church is built upon, not Peter.

My opponent also can not get around that the Roman Catholic church has placed idols inside there church which is forbidden by God on numerous passages. He consideres commands by God at certain times for certain reasons as a reason for them to put idols in the church. He is mistaken.

My opponent also fails to see that the Catholic doctrine has prescribed that men should not marry to be preist. I have shown that is not Biblical doctrine and therefore their own. Also, my opponent does not see that a named position can have purpose as a, bishop, though he has failed to show that that position is above other members, it shouldn't. He has not shown that the Pope should also.

When a person gains salvation it is through faith and grace. One can not gain salvation by self works. You can not, feed the poor, help the sick, not curse, not be immoral, to gain salvation. Though one who does gain salvation by faith, will show His salvation by living Christ like, we fail in this, but we should try. Therefore he fails as does the Catholic doctrine in saying that works are needed for salvation because they are not. You must be saved first before true good works are shown, not vice versa.

I thank my opponent for this debate!

Conduct: Both

Spelling/grammer: Both

Arguments: My opponent has failed to show that RC doctrine follows Christ's teachings. They use uninspired books in their Bible, non-Christ like teachings. They bow, pray and kiss, Idols, un-Christ like teachings. They hold rituals and practices that are not Biblical, un-Christ like teachings. He fails.

Resources: Both

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
The line "With that done Pro really had very little left. Con was able to show that the RCC uses non-biblical teachings." lead me to believe you didn't understand the resolution.

No one has ever disputed that the RCC uses non-biblical teachings. That is irrelevant to the resolution.

"Con argued that if those teachings are inconsistent with the inspired word of God, they are non-inspired."

True, but you didn't mention this at all in your original RFD.

"My opponent is suggesting non-inspired doctrine is as good as the Bible, which is inspired. That is a false statement. We can not miss that Jesus Christ is the Word and it is through Jesus Christ alone through His Word that is sufficent for knowledge and righteousness."

That was a bare assertion.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
"With that done Pro really had very little left. Con was able to show that the RCC uses non-biblical teachings." - Medic in the Voting Reasons.

"The problem with that statement is that at no point did Always claim that the RCC uses only Biblical teachings. He claimed that they follow Jesus; having extrabiblical ideals does not stop you from following the laws of Jesus."

Con argued that if those teachings are inconsistent with the inspired word of God, they are non-inspired. That is a winning argument in my opinion, as Pro has nothing concrete to use as authority other than RCC teachings, which doesn't have authority over the Bible. Here is his quote...

"My opponent is suggesting non-inspired doctrine is as good as the Bible, which is inspired. That is a false statement. We can not miss that Jesus Christ is the Word and it is through Jesus Christ alone through His Word that is sufficent for knowledge and righteousness."
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
"With that done Pro really had very little left. Con was able to show that the RCC uses non-biblical teachings." - Medic in the Voting Reasons.

The problem with that statement is that at no point did Always claim that the RCC uses only Biblical teachings. He claimed that they follow Jesus; having extrabiblical ideals does not stop you from following the laws of Jesus.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
So tell me; who is it who gives you the authority for rejecting the claim that the Old Testament is all we need for salvation?
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
No, you are just blurting out what ever you like. I have not said anything like what you are claiming. The entire Bible OT and NT is the authority, along with the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and the Father. The difference is, Jesus Christ gave the Word given by the Father to give to us. Therefore that is our guidance and sole authority on earth to do God's will and know His way's inteneded for us. We do not need others interpretations, we would have our own interpretations for ourselves, by using the Holy Spirit to guide us in the Bible. Thats the problem not only with the RCC but many christians today. They rely on other men's interpretations and doctrines. We do not need no one's elses if we read the Word and use the guidance of the Holy Ghost ourselves. The Bible is for every person to guide them in their own personnel way.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
No, you are just blurting out what ever you like. I have not said anything like what you are claiming. The entire Bible OT and NT is the authority, along with the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and the Father. The difference is, Jesus Christ gave the Word given by the Father to give to us. Therefore that is our guidance and sole authority on earth to do God's will and know His way's inteneded for us. We do not need others interpretations, we would have our own interpretations for ourselves, by using the Holy Spirit to guide us in the Bible. Thats the problem not only with the RCC but many christians today. They rely on other men's interpretations and doctrines. We do not need no one's elses if we read the Word and use the guidance of the Holy Ghost ourselves. The Bible is for every person to guide them in their own personnel way.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
So the Old Testament, according to you, is man's sole authority? We don't need God, we don't need the New Testament, just the Old Testament?

That pretty much sounds like what you've conceded to, and it sounds so wrong I would like to give you all opportunity to correct it.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
I have never challenged any of the Bible. You are and your church! LOL! Got it!
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Then you have no right to challenge the Old Testament as man's sole authority as the word of God. Got it.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
I dont have the authority. God gave it and that is it's authority.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
AlwaysMoreThanYouScottyDouglasTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Agree before: Pro Agree after: unchanged Conduct: pro Spelling grammar: Pro Convincing arguments: Pro Sourcing: Pro With 376 characters remaining, the incompetence and ineffectiveness of this website is becoming clear to me. Just as was the case with Con's entire argument.
Vote Placed by DDO.votebombcounter1 4 years ago
DDO.votebombcounter1
AlwaysMoreThanYouScottyDouglasTied
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: Countering DeFool. "RFD in Comments" votes are expected to be posted in a timely manner. As 5 hours has passed and an RFD has not been given "DeFool's" vote is a display of poor voting conduct. As a general rule, if one is going to give their RFD in the comments it is preferable that they provide their RFD and then place their actual vote.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
AlwaysMoreThanYouScottyDouglasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: CON truly did wonderful and would have garnered my vote, EXCEPT the "bible alone" argument... though not perfectly executed by PRO, CON never responded in a satisfactory way... outside of that, CON did very well, but without winning the "Bible alone" argument, all the rest of the arguments fail... so I had to vote Pro.. much to my disappointment
Vote Placed by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
AlwaysMoreThanYouScottyDouglasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and sources to Con. Pro's arguments against the authority of the Bible were countered by Con, as was the use of non-biblical references as authorities. With that done Pro really had very little left. Con was able to show that the RCC uses non-biblical teachings.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
AlwaysMoreThanYouScottyDouglasTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I give arguments to Pro, as he successfully combated most of Con's claims. I could only really give him Works through Grace (as I thought it was a fantastic interpretation of the verse that really turned it on its head). This didn't give him argument, because I found Pro argument despite this because Con could not justify his removal of the apocrypha, nor could he counter Pro's uninteniability argument. Con gets sources, as he was the only one to have them.