The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,088 times Debate No: 50008
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




For this debate, I will be arguing that the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is incorrect and unreliable. I would prefer if a Christian debated me. First round is opening argument, second round rebuttals, and third round is rebuttals and closing statements. I wish anyone who would accept this challenge good luck.


In Christianity, it is important that we learn directly from the source of God's divine doctrine: the bible. In this Christian debate, as is stated, we both believe that the bible is the divine source of knowledge; it has the stance of all that is good. We therefore have to rely on the bible as our source for all divine literature within Christianity. Since we believe that the Bible is the divine inspiration of God in word form, we must then derive any of God's teachings from this holy book.

Within Christianity, this is a valid argument. As we know that the Bible is the true Word, we know that all Christian ideals must come from this summation of books. On that note, the Bible is open to interpretation and all have the right to derive all of their theology from the bible. In reading Scripture, we are able to tell how God wishes for us to act and to proceed in our lives. However, all traditions that are within Christianity are not mentioned in the Bible. It is due to this that the doctrine of sola scriptura is needed.

All theologies must be completely derived from the bible. In this, the entire Truth is able to be made. through the rejection of ideals that are not mentioned in the Bible, we come closer to the actual tradition that the Bible wishes for us to have.
In short, since the Bible is containing of all of God's true word,
sola scriptura is the most reliable and correct doctrine in Christian theology.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes indeed while the Bible is infallible, not everyone's interpretation is. This is proven true by seeing all the different Christian denominations around the world. With that being said, whose to say that the interpretations of scripture by men like Polycarp and Clement of Rome are not trustworthy? Besides, these men received their teachings from the apostles themselves. On another note, why then does Pail quote Greek philosophers? Or what about Jude who quotes from the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch? Clearly there are also allusions to Apocryphal texts and other unknown documents throughout the scriptures. For example, "the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2) Does this not reflect Wisdom 3:8 which states, "They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever." (Wisdom of Solomon 3:8 DRA) And also, with that being stated, Paul told the Thessalonians to hold to all the traditions he had taught them. Traditions are oral teachings that were never written down. And just read Luke 1:1-4 which says, "FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4 DRA) So we see that Luke wrote his account only to let Theophilus know for certain what he had heard from tradition orally. Thus, we have a book of the Bible.

Another interesting fact is that the books of Chronicles were not written until the time of the Jewish exile. Why was this so? It was so that the Jewish people could know for certain the teachings they heard orally (tradition). In fact, most of the books of the Bible were not written in the time that they took place. Chronicles is one example. The Gospel of John is another. Most people would agree that Jesus' ministry was somewhere between 30-33 A.D. However, the Gospel of John was not written until roughly 90 A.D. And it also was really unique compared to Matthew, Mark, and Luke which already existed. And in that same gospel, the story of the woman caught in adultery was said to be tradition that was later added. And yet we consider that to be scripture. And take for example Hezekiah finding more compiled proverbs of Solomon (Proverbs 25:1) And we consider those also to be scripture though they were found much later. There is to much to discuss so I will end my argument here for a start. There are many other proofs but I will end my argument here.


There is so much wrong with your argument.
Firstly, you claim the infallibility of the Bible, yet then say that Chronicles is not accurate. You attempt to explain that since the books are not written in the time of the actual events, that they are not accurate. However, by accepting the infallibility of the Bible, you agree that the Bible is accurate and is true. Your argument has a logical contradiction.
In addition, the argument you present is that no scripture can be trusted. You state that what we consider to be scripture is actually false, as you have suggested that scripture becomes fallible once the date of its writing is not that of the rest of the book that it is in. This is incredibly fallacious, as you attempt to state that the Bible, which you claim is infallible, is inaccurate and not able to be taken.
Never do you back up your point that the scripture should not be the sole source of our divine inspiration. It has been stated:

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."
We know that the scripture is true. We have the ability to interpret scripture. We cannot for sure say who is correct and who isn't, but we do know one thing: that scripture is the source of divine information that we must use.
Debate Round No. 2


You never rebutted my argument nor understood it. I never said Chronicles was inaccurate. Your lack of understanding is amazIng. I just said that since Chronicles was written much later, it was based on tradition that's all. Since you have me nothing else to rebut or counter argue, your argument is completely useless because we believe the exact same thing. And I believe that tradition has great value. So to conclude this, you never gave any more evidence and you just mistook my entire point I was trying to make. Believing in tradition in no way annuals the authority of scripture. Let me just suk it up for you, tradition is just scripture that was not written down if found to be accurate. Even John the Apostle claims this in John 21:25


mhawk10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Tristboi22 7 years ago
As for 2 Timothy 3:16, it simply says that "SCRIPTURE is God-breathed..." Just because God breathes into something, does not make it infallible. In fact God breathed into Adam's nostrils in Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." We still know that Adam still sinned even though God breathed into him. The King James says, "All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God..." Even if we were to look at that translation, "inspiration" does not mean "verbatim". If a tree inspires me to write a poem, I would not say that the tree wrote it. Many people claim that they were "inspired" to preach a sermon on Sunday morning, but again, that does not mean that what they are saying is not infallible.
Furthermore, when this particular verse was written, it had to be talking about Old Testament Cannon since the New Testament had not been fully written and put together yet.
Posted by philochristos 7 years ago
Tristboi22, the Bible DOES make that claim in 2 Timothy 3:16. It says all scripture is "theopneustos," which means "God breathed."
Posted by WWJD1245 7 years ago
I can actually see what you mean by that. Except in the cases of the prophets though.
Posted by Tristboi22 7 years ago
It always amazes me that Christians always make the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" when the Bible does not make that claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.