Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5110
The Bible is the sole rule for all Christian doctrinal and moral principles.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
In this debate, I am here to disprove the Protestant notion of sola scriptura: that is, according to the Baptist Confession of 1689:
"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience..."
That Holy Scripture is to be held as authoritative, no Christian can deny without denying their faith. That Holy Scripture is infallible, and thus free from error, I also concede. However, *only sufficient*? I deny - for I hold to that alongside Scripture, there also exists another, extra-biblical authority, called Tradition, which, I will use St. Alphonsus Liguori's definition of:
"Traditions are those truths which were first communicated by Jesus Christ or by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, then by the Apostles were given to the disciples, and thus under the guidance of the Holy Ghost without interruption were, so to say, transmitted by hand and communicated up to the present time. These Traditions, which are the unwritten Word of God... are necessary that belief may be given to many articles of Faith...about which nothing at all exists in Scriptures, so that these truths have come to us only in the font of Tradition."
It consists of:
* doctrines that have been defined and proposed as part of the Faith, such as those concerning the Trinity, the manner of predestination/free will, and the canon of Scripture
* religious practices such as the commemoration of the Last Supper (a.k.a the Mass), or veneration of the saints
* the writings of theologians to explain the interpretation of Scripture, or on the spiritual life
My opponent denies this, and insists that the only rule of faith required is Scripture itself. I will now proceed to show the problems with the sola scriptura thesis from four different viewpoints - a Scriptural, grammatical, logical and historical one.
#1: SCRIPTURAL
A commonly asked question by my opponent (and Protestants like him) who oppose Catholic doctrine/practices is to ask for a Scriptural reference, along the lines of "Show me where X is in the Bible". As regards to sola scriptura, my opponent cites verses such as the following:
* "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
* "But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few." (Acts 17:10-12)
* "...blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it." (St. Luke 11:28; or for that matter, any other verse with 'the word of God' in it, such as St. Matthew 4:4, Proverbs 30:5)
My opponent will use this to speak of the importance of Scripture for a Christian life. So far, so good. But then, he will say, WITHOUT ANY TEXTUAL BASIS, that it alone is the only thing we need for such matters. Notice, however, in each of these verses, it IS MISSING, however, a key word: and that is "only" (or a synonym of it). If sola scriptura truly was Biblical, my opponent would have no problem demonstrating where exactly Scripture explicitly teaches itself to be the "only sufficient" source of Christian doctrine. And no, it's not literalist at all to request a definitive chapter/verse reference for "Scripture alone". After all, it's YOUR HERMENEUTIC. You quote Romans 3:23-24 to attempt to prove that the Blessed Virgin Mary sinned, by pointing out the word "all". You quote St. Mark 7:8 to denigrate the use of "traditions of men" in preference for Scripture. I could go on, but that's against the spirit of this debate topic. My point is, YOUR HERMENEUTIC requires a literalist view. SO FOLLOW IT.
#2: GRAMMATICAL
An additional objection can be made to the "sola scriptura" interpretation of the above verses, in that my opponent greatly misconstrues its meaning to imply sole sufficiency. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, he conflates "profitable" with sole sufficiency. This does not follow grammatically. Let me demonstrate with an example: I am a software developer, and when I am stuck on a programming bug, I will look up the answer on StackOverflow. Thus I can say that "StackOverflow is a great way for developers to find solutions to their programming problems". It would be the height of illiteracy were someone to conclude that I am telling them that StackOverflow is the only thing I need to become a programmer. Just because something is helpful, it does not necessarily imply self-sufficiency. One would think that it would be evident in the wording if it tried to exert itself as the sole, binding authority.
As to the "inspired by God" part of this verse; and by extension, this would also apply to verses using "word of God", the same principles can be applied: it simply means that God is the author of Scriptures, but nothing about that it alone being standard of measure. Do not respond by saying that "God gave us everything we needed to know in Scripture", that's besides the point. He indeed gave us Scripture, but that same Scripture also says that He:
* sent 72 disciples out to be His ministers (St. Luke 10)
* required a heresy check of sorts with the words "tell it to the church" (St. Matthew 18:15-20)
* instituted a religious hierarchy (e.g. Sts. Paul, Timothy, Titus, Ananias) to "preach the Word in season" (2 Timothy 4:2)
In other words, he set up a religious body that would help arbitrate matters of Faith, and make Him known to all; not leaving it just to individual persons to figure it out for themselves.
#3: LOGICAL
Let's propose that sola scriptura is true, for a moment. Suppose that I am an atheist, and I go up to my opponent and propose to him that Numbers 5:11-31 supports abortion, and therefore it is justifiable to be pro-choice. I hope that my opponent will respond "No, that is wrong" and immediately explain the context of that verse, and urge him to "Ask the Holy Ghost to inspire your understanding of Scripture" - i.e. to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). Moreover, I'm willing to bet that my opponent came to the doctrines he held through study and research - perhaps a friend, a "pastor" at his church, a website, or some Scripture commentary convinced him of it (with some touch of the Holy Ghost, too). What my opponent does not realize is this: by approaching Scripture this way, he has completely refuted his adherence to sola scriptura.
To say that "Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule" yet insist on following a specific interpretation of it - be it one's own, or someone else's - is to insist on following an infallible, extra-biblical authority. I say infallible, because if Scripture is the ultimate authority, then it follows that whosoever discerns doctrine from it must also possess some infallibility, otherwise there would be no stable standard of Christian dogma to follow. In addition, one cannot truly ever be "sola scriptura" so as long as they read it only through a Christian lens. Just like I can't say "I only want McDonalds for breakfast" and "I only want Tim Hortons for breakfast" in the same breath, I cannot insist on "You must adhere only to Scripture" and "You must read Scripture with faith" in the same breath. Either it's one or the other, or one must follow the other. In the case of the latter, Scripture and Tradition preserves that.
#4: HISTORICAL
For any serious scholar of Christianity, they can see that it was not until the Council of Rome in 382 AD that the list of books that comprise what we now know as the books of Scripture. Which means that up until then, the works of Scripture were scattered about among various peoples. The Gospels were not composed until some 30-70 years after Christ's Ascension; St. Paul wrote various letters to various communities, none of which had the full list due to obvious reasons of distance, and your objection that "God's Word has always existed, was preserved, and He inspired men to recognize and receive them as being divinely inspired" is not a valid argument; rather, it begs the question by what standard was it known that they were inspired, if it could not be known to anyone except the text itself that it was as such.
So, having explained my reasons for rejecting sola scriptura, this concludes my opening paragraph. I will invite my opponent in the rebuttal rounds (Rounds 2-4) to address them, and to answer the following questions:
1. Without referencing any of the verses I quoted in the first section, show me where "Scripture alone" is explicitly taught, according to the criterion listed. If you cannot provide such, or duck out of answering for some reason, you demonstrate that you failed to uphold your own standard of interpreting Scripture.
2. In order to prove sola scriptura true, prove that the following statement holds: "If X is helpful, then X is solely sufficient for the task at hand".
3. How do you reconcile the fact that you require others to follow your tradition of what Scripture means, yet insist at the same time, that all one needs to come to an understanding of Christ and Faith, is to simply read the Scripture?
4. How do you explain sola scriptura in the light of the fact that believers up until the 4th century could only rely on teachers to orally explain the Faith, and know who was teaching Truth .vs. a heresy, without this access to Scripture? And if it was obvious from the start, why did no theologian from that time express this very sentiment?
Pro
#2
First of all, I am quite impressed with my opponent's objections to Sola Scriptura. It was very informative and well laid out. The amount of hard work, effort and intellectual rigor that went into that was quite impressive. So first of all, I just want to concede the amount of hard work, effort and intellectual rigor put forth by my opponent in this regard. Hats off to you for that!
I will first lay out the groundwork for why Sola Scriptura is essential, and I then I'll explain why it's quite problematic why it's not wise to deter to any other source as an infallible source of Truth.
1. Why Sola Scriptura is true. Of course, and not surprisingly , my opponent would highlight my usage of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which once again says :
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And my opponent also rightly pointed out that Scripture is infallible and without error. But then it was said by my opponent that 'sacred tradition' is also infallible. Of course the argument would be that sacred tradition would have to be in alignment with Scripture. but that is precisely an argument in my favor!
Think about friends. For sacred tradition to also be considered infallible it would have to rely on Scripture to be infallible and thus becomes a self defeating proposition entirely .
2. The obvious problem with having anything other than Sola Scriptura as/the source of ultimate authority to refer to is , of course, what if Scripture and that/those source(s) are in conflict with Scripture. If that happens, how would you determine which is true or false? Of course, it would be a given (I'd hope) just by those two verses in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that Scripture would out-rule and be the deciding factor, should such a problem arise. And of course, that is precisely the problem with putting , in my opponent's case, tradition on equal footing with Scripture. What if tradition is in conflict with Scripture at some point(s)? And, again, if tradition must rely on Scripture to be considered infallible, then that is just a back-handed way of supporting my entire argument from the start, friends.
3. While my opponent, admittedly does have somewhat of a point in that Scripture was more or less, orally given and passed for about the first 300 hundred years of the Church's existence and then finally put together in one collective body of work and , then , finally canonized, there is of course, something overlooked here, too.
The early church still had the ENTIRE Old Testament to refer to point them to the work and person of the Lord Jesus Christ. There's that , and keep in mind that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself pointed to the Old Testament Himself after His resurrection on the road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:13-35 for this story) to prove all that was prophesied concerning all about Him, and that it ultimately pointed to all that would happen to Him. Secondly, we don't know how many copies of the the Pauline and other New Testament letters the early church had in its possession , but they were already in circulation before they, along with the rest of the Bible was canonized. So , in conclusion on this point, I find it rather disingenuous of my opponent to say that the early church survived mostly or only on oral tradition(s) for the first 300 years of its existence.
4. As to the logical argument given by opponent it's also rather weak. Likely we've both come across atheists in our various discourses online, especially those from atheists, on Twitter. Now as to the texts on slavery, that's also a terribly weak argument. 2 Timothy 2:15 says: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Now, it's obvious the atheist who would throw such a ridiculous argument from a cursory glance is clearly not rightly dividing the Word of Truth with their argument of God being in favor of slavery. And , just for the sake of clarity, rightly dividing the Word of Truth means that the reader of the Bible is tasked to determine what is prescriptive and descriptive. And what that means is that which is prescriptive is that which applies to all people at all times, such as the 10 commandments , and that which applies to a certain time , place and people group, in the Bible. Now , I am not saying, whatsoever , that we can't learn from those things which are descriptive, or the text in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be Paul lying, which of course isn't true :) But, for the sake of argument, God providing manna in the desert while the Israelites escaped Egypt is a clear example of descriptive Scripture, whereas once again , the 10 Commandments, is prescriptive Scripture.
5. The Historical argument. My opponent once again appeals to logic in this argument as well. But , again I find it weak. the argument is that the Bible itself never explicitly argues for Scripture to the be sole authority for one's life, to paraphrase. But think consider this , friends. If that is the case, why does Scripture ONLY reference other Scripture in support of itself. For example, there is no explicit teaching or doctrine on the Trinity either, but one could (and I've done it, as well as countless others) that the doctrine for the Trinity is all over Scripture. Arguing for verbatim or explicit doctrine on Sola Scriptura is once, again, a rather weak argument in my opinion.
So, in conclusion, the reasons for Sola Scriptura:
1)It's most logical given the problems that arise if you veer away from it
2)if you have Scripture that conflicts with other supposed infallible sources, how would you determine which to go with?
3)oral tradition is a weak and somewhat disingenuous argument
4)a good thing to keep in mind when considering whether Scripture is the sole authority is that it only ever references Scripture.
5)If Scripture is infallible , as both me and my opponent both agree on, then its sufficiency , I'd argue, is just that - sufficient.
Round 2
Con
#3
I appreciate the kind and respectful opening sentiments, but let's not get too carried away with words.
#1: RE - ORAL TRADITION, BIBLICAL PROOF FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA
First, to point out that Scripture existed in the early church (which, according to my opponent, is non-infallible anyways!) consisted of only the Old Testament is a red herring. Ditto for how many copies were circulated, I'm not asking about that or one specific part of the Bible you hold in your hands: I'm asking for both; the whole Word, and nothing but it. You read it in the epistles of how strongly oral tradition was held - see 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Jude 1:17, 2 Timothy 1:13, and Acts 8:29-35, to name a few. My opponent considers "Arguing for verbatim or explicit doctrine on Sola Scriptura... rather weak". Translation: "I have no such proof, so I'll dismiss it." Yet, at the same time, he goes on to discuss how Scripture only ever references Scripture as proof of its truth. But yet, somehow, sola scriptura is also a fundamental part of his doctrine - but somehow this requirement can be waived on some arbitrary account to suit his needs? Please. Now that's dishonest!
#2: RE - TRADITION, CONFLICTS
Moving on, I would like to make some corrections to your definition of Tradition. You write that "in order for it to be infallible, it must rely on Scripture". Not quite right. Go back and re-read the definition of Tradition I listed: it is "the unwritten Word of God" which speaks of dogmatic things "...about which nothing at all exists in Scriptures". To quote a source on what these consist of (and I will reference this later):
...the professions of faith, the sacred liturgy, the writings of the Church Fathers, the practice of the Church, the stories of the martyrs, and archaeological monuments. (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Cardinal Parente, pg. 284-285)
Now, you post what I admit is an interestingly worded question: "If you have Scripture that conflicts with other supposed infallible sources, how would you determine which to go with?" As demonstrated before, my opponent's definition of Tradition is faulty, and therefore, this question, by extension, is faulty as well. I would like to answer that Tradition and Scripture can never contradict one another, but that's too simplistic of a response. Rather, first of all, that begs the question: since you mentioned Scripture cross-referencing itself (which, by the way, highlights its qualitative importance and how well it harmonizes, rather than contradicts, since "God is not the author of confusion" cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33) - by what authority can we properly infer this? Would not this, then, if Scripture professes an infallibility, pre-suppose the existence of an infallible interpreter inspired by the Holy Ghost exercising this authority? Sound familiar to you?
Because, if the person - me, you, an institution - relinquishes any claim to infallibility, then they forfeit the right to absolutely dictate things like what constitutes dogma, theological facts, settle moral issues and the like. Everything thus becomes a mere opinion and we would have no sure guide on what Christ willed in His earthly mission. This is not what He intended! Which is why He entrusted His Church to the Apostles, who exercised their authority through councils, the ordination of ministers (Acts 2, 6, 13, 15, 19; 1 Timothy 4, 5, St. James 5:14-16, Ephesians 4:11-15), of which obedience was commanded to the doctrines and experiences they passed down (Galatians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Romans 16:17, Jude 1:18-22), some of which were not contained in Scripture (St. John 21:25). So, if there is a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, then this leaves two options: either both Scripture and Tradition are non-infallible (you and I would both consider that absurdity), or either one or the other owes to a faulty transmission and must be disregarded at worst, downplayed at best. That's my answer to your dilemma. Since it is absurd to attribute fault to Scripture, Tradition must be non-infallible - but then you have the following problems I will lay out below. Don't call this a false dichotomy, because that's how Christianity works, either it's true or not - no in-between - "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5) But to quote the infomercials: "But wait! There's more!"
#3: BIBLE ONLY - IT'S ALL LOGICAL?
My opponent claims that sola scriptura is the most logical theological system to boot. Really...? Let's break it down. Under this Protestant system, Tradition is eschewed with the hopes to preserve what they consider the purity of Scripture's plain meaning. In doing so, however, consider what my opponent requires in the interpretation of Scripture: the use of a prescriptive/descriptive categorization, the invocation of the Holy Ghost, reading Scripture in context, some good common sense (whatever that means) and perhaps, if I may add, a touch of logic. Some of these things are laudable and definitely helpful in exegeting Scripture. But if you contend that Scripture "is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule" then this leaves one question: WHERE IS THIS INSTRUCTION SPECIFICALLY NOTED THERE? (Again, do not escape this question. It's YOUR HERMENEUTIC, FOLLOW IT.)
The answer: there isn't. It's all extra-biblical. In other words, you uphold a Tradition of sorts. In addition to this, my opponent also notes that "millions of people happen to come to the same conclusions as me". Again, you acknowledge the existence of an extra-biblical authority which has been of some help to forming your beliefs. That's also not to add that my opponent's "church services" probably has a particular order consisting of hymns, readings, sermons, special service days, etc - what part of Scripture outlines THAT? It's also a known fact that Sunday has been set aside as the Lord's Day, in place of Saturday as per the ancient Jewish custom. The reason being for this is that it was considered that Christ resurrected gloriously, in body, on a Sunday. How did you come up with that just by Scripture alone, when the days were not named as such? Somebody must have determined these principles, and compiled them into what we know as Tradition. To sum it up, ultimately, sola scriptura, as I mentioned in my opening paragraph, necessitates (assuming my opponent deems his interpretation as having some binding power) a level of footing with that of Scripture. So much for it being the only authority. No matter how you square it:
The inspiration and interpretation of Scripture cannot be known without the aid of Tradition. While the Holy Scriptures have a value of their own, and are, in a certain sense even necessary in containing not only the Word, but also the language of God, they also give details, developments and illustrations to an extent unattainable by Tradition. They are a sort of textbook to Tradition, enabling the Faithful to acquire a vivid knowledge of revealed truths... There are many regulations which have been handed down with apostolic authority, but not as revealed by God... called merely apostolic Traditions. (A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Fr. Matthias Scheeben, pg. 69)
Having expressed further why Scripture and Tradition must be considered as hand-in-hand tools for Christian principles, I would like to pose a few additional questions.
1. You said, in a video: "I by no stretch of the imagination believe I have perfect theology, but I do believe that God has given me the ability to rightly divide His Word, so that when I see it misconstrued/misapplied/misinterpreted I can typically spot it 99/100 times" How can you say this, and yet admit that your theological conclusions from Scripture are absolutely binding for salvation?
2. What logical principle deduces that infallibility of something necessitates that it's all we need?
2a. If there is, would that not exclude the need for extra material like outlines for interpreting Scripture, worship guidelines, ordained ministers, etc? If not, how do you distinguish?
Pro
#4
1. Oral Tradition - biblical Truth
First of all of all, I find my opponent's response to this not only weak, but that large parts were missing altogether. Secondly, I challenge my opponent to show where I EVER said, implied and/or suggested the Old Testament is infallible . I argued for just the exact opposite of that very idea! I argued that the early church had the entirety of the Old Testament, that Jesus demonstrated to two disciples on the Road to Emmaus (again , see Luke 22:23-35 for the story, if interested) that the Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would come, what kind of Person He'd be and things He'd have to go through, up to and including an unbelievable agonizing death.
Secondly , they did have copies of the New Testament to some degree.
Now, I want to make it clear , I'm by no way dismissing the importance and value of oral tradition. It's important , there's no question about it. And the gospel most concerns itself with the message of the person, work and ministry of Jesus Christ, up to and including His death, resurrection and ascension. Oral traditions are important and exist in all cultures as long as cultures have existed. but again, are oral traditions infallible? I think you'd be hard pressed to logically and demonstrably say yes to oral traditions, as lovely and important as they, to be considered infallible.
2.Traditions - Conflicts
First of all, I need to point out that my opponent admitted my question was 'interesting' and then claimed it was a faulty question , but just danced around it. My opponent never gave a satisfactory answer to this question. And I want you , our audience to keep that in mind. My opponent used nuanced and intellectual lingo to dance around this question. in short, my opponent more of less avoided it and merely deflected it , claiming it was a faulty question without really give an answer as to to why it. They did give an answer, but the answer itself, was faulty and , indirectly , a deflection. Again, for tradition to be infallible it has to be in sync with Scripture , which again, is just a back handed support for my position. But my opponent fails to recognize the self defeating proposition they are arguing from.
3. Bible only - It IS logical
my opponent doesn't seem to realize that I can easily go with non-biblical sources , and they are incredible amount of non-biblical sources that have helped me greatly in my walk with Christ. But once again, these sources are by no way , shape of form, infallible, and the Scripture itself is the source by which I measure any and all of these sources to be true or false, or somewhere in the middle. I hope you can see the obvious logical holes in my opponent's arguments, as I do. Peace.
Round 3
Con
#5
I appreciate my opponent keeping his response relatively short. Not only does it make my life easier (and give me an earlier sleep time), but also demonstrates how little ammunition you have going when you rely on defending sola scriptura with your life! Moving on:
First of all, why dedicate much of your time to debunking the historical argument? I spent 2 sentences on it, and focused most of my energy on demonstrating the logical contradictions one faces when dealing with the system; but then you open up with it and the length of your paragraph is ostensibly double that of the others on their own. You also asserted that "for tradition to be infallible it has to be in sync with Scripture" - which again, I repeat, is fauilty and is not the definition I posted above. Go back and read what Tradition is according to the Catholic understanding of it.
Second, I'd also like to point out the lack of Scriptural references in my opponent's defense. For a guy that claims sola scriptura is Biblical, you sure aren't doing a good job of only - er, I mean, sufficiently - citing your case with Scripture. It's almost like... *gasp* there's a third-party method we must use to prove it (and sola scriptura is unsuitable)!!
Speaking of which, you claimed "My opponent never gave a satisfactory answer... (he) more of less avoided it and merely deflected it, claiming it was a faulty question without really give[sic] an answer as to to why it[sic]. They did give an answer, but the answer itself, was faulty and, indirectly, a deflection." Translation: "I couldn't gather a rational response to your contention, so I will just pretend that you are unwilling to '(give) a satisfactory answer to (my) question'". And note your sophistry in you saying that "He did give an answer, but not really". That's your refutation? Come on, don't insult my intelligence - at least give me a rational defence that I can think about, instead of rehashing the same arguments! Let me highlight where I responded to you what a conflict between Scripture and Tradition entails:
"So, if there is a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, then this leaves two options: either both Scripture and Tradition are non-infallible (you and I would both consider that absurdity), or either one or the other owes to a faulty transmission and must be disregarded at worst, downplayed at best. That's my answer to your dilemma."
The reason is this. If one believes themselves to be illuminated by the Holy Ghost when discerning Scripture, and we know that "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) nor "God is not a man, that he should lie" (Numbers 23:19) then it is pertinent that my understanding of Scripture bears this mark of infallibility as well, because everything that I disseminate from it, ritualize, or incorporate to my spiritual life depends on it. Otherwise, I would be very fearful of giving scandal to whoever I spread my teachings to, because I might be passing on the wrong idea, offending God in the process and not only damning myself, but my followers as well. Ask yourself, if you believe your sources are fallible and prone to error: what good is a teaching authority that bears no manifest force of belief, can't teach, or is subject to constant change and redefinition with each passing age - even if it is supposedly based on Scripture? How is that logical to trust something that could go wrong, to understand something that can't? Would you apply this principle to the Apostolic teaching office in Acts as well?
Finally, you conveniently refused to answer the other questions I laid out. I was generous enough to (even if you thought my answer was unsatisfactory) give you my perspective, so I expected to see the same from you instead of whatever pitiful spiel you produced here. At no point either did you attempt to engage with the least bit of reconciling the fact that sola scriptura does not inevitably lead to Tradition. All you did was recycle the same talking points you did, some of them mere empty assertions. Let me remind you this is a formal debate - if you want to convince me of your position, back it up. If you're going to point out the flaws of my argument, engage me with another line of thinking to think about!
Until you address them, I will not accept your challenge to "to show where I EVER said, implied and/or suggested the Old Testament is infallible" (which, by the way, sounds rather damning at face value). In case you missed them, or chose to ignore it hoping I wouldn't notice, here they are:
1. You said, in a video: "I by no stretch of the imagination believe I have perfect theology, but I do believe that God has given me the ability to rightly divide His Word, so that when I see it misconstrued/misapplied/misinterpreted I can typically spot it 99/100 times". This leaves some problems:
1a. If you're not infallible, and the sources that you use are not infallible, then would it not follow that your theological conclusions have no weight? Do not say something along the lines of "Scripture is self-attesting/simple to understand" or you automatically concede defeat.
1b. On the other hand, if you are, are you not, by leaving behind a note of your findings, leaving behind an infallible testimony? Because the people who claim the same as you then aren't really interpreting Scripture, they're just relying on your word for it and not studying it for themselves like you want (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). You know, like in the Catholic system you call "cultish" (which, ironically, would apply to you too if that was the case!!)? Again, do not deflect and go off on a tangent on why Catholicism is supposedly false, or some other, or you automatically concede defeat.
2. If Scripture is the supreme authority as per your understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, prove that this logically concludes sole sufficiency. How does "profitable" translate to "sole authority"?
3. What Scriptural principle teaches the idea of the distinction of a prescriptive/descriptive terminology, requiring the invocation of the Holy Ghost, contextual understanding, and some good common sense (whatever that means)? Or things like worship guidelines, setting aside Sunday as the Lord's Day, etc? If you admit there's no such, and that these principles are in no way deserving of binding force, why insist on them still knowing that they are vague/prone to error?
Don't be "a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (St. James 1:8)! If you're gonna talk, back it up and don't duck on my points!
Pro
#6
First of I'd like to point out my opponent's obvious and unnecessary anger, which was quite obvious in the most recent argument laid out. Secondly, I would like to clarify that I at not point insulted my opponent's intelligence. That was just how my opponent, unfortunately, chose to interpret it. in fact, in my opening argumentations, I began my stating that I was (to paraphrase) rather impressed with my opponent's intellect. And it is slightly ironic that we are getting into matters of interpretation on what I said regarding my opponent's prior arguments. Now that aside, and then as is to completely destroy my opponent's own complaint about my supposed insult to intelligence, a comment was maid about the brevity of comments in my previous post. It was a passive aggressive insult. Now, I'm not one to take offense to petty remarks that like that; I'm only mentioning it to highlight the obvious hypocrisy of my opponent complaining about my supposed shot to their intellect, then , in a back-handed way, does the same thing to me. Finally, I by no stretch of the imagination have ever or will ever take shots at my opponent's intellect, only the holes in the argument(s) presented. And I'll leave it at that.
Moving on
"So, if there is a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, then this leaves two options: either both Scripture and Tradition are non-infallible (you and I would both consider that absurdity), or either one or the other owes to a faulty transmission and must be disregarded at worst, downplayed at best. That's my answer to your dilemma."
I hope I'm not (and I doubt I am) the only one who sees the numerous problems with these statements. First of all, my opponent has created false premises by which the conclusions are equally fallacious. Allow to me to demonstrate. "So , if there is a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, then this leaves two options; either both Scripture and Tradition are non-infallible, or either one or the other owes to a faulty transmission and must be disregarded at worst, downplayed at best." First of all, my opponent has created a false duality by claiming that if A + B = C, then A and B can't be trusted, to put it succinctly . But that is , a ridiculously absurd premise. My opponent is arguing the conclusion from the premise, which is logically fallacious, and still doesn't address the obviousness of Tradition must be aligned with Scripture in order to be considered infallible in the first place, which means it isn't and is , again, just a back-handed argument for my position.
The reason is this. If one believes themselves to be illuminated by the Holy Ghost when discerning Scripture, and we know that "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) nor "God is not a man, that he should lie" (Numbers 23:19) then it is pertinent that my understanding of Scripture bears this mark of infallibility as well, because everything that I disseminate from it, ritualize, or incorporate to my spiritual life depends on it. Otherwise, I would be very fearful of giving scandal to whoever I spread my teachings to, because I might be passing on the wrong idea, offending God in the process and not only damning myself, but my followers as well. Ask yourself, if you believe your sources are fallible and prone to error: what good is a teaching authority that bears no manifest force of belief, can't teach, or is subject to constant change and redefinition with each passing age - even if it is supposedly based on Scripture? How is that logical to trust something that could go wrong, to understand something that can't? Would you apply this principle to the Apostolic teaching office in Acts as well?
I am not sure exactly where my opponent is trying to go with this paragraph, exactly, but it seems at the very least my opponent is taking Scripture out of context to fit things into the argument that really don't work in terms of arguing against Sola Scriptura. Of course, I'm in agreement that God is not the author of confusion , but that has nothing to do with this debate. I have not presented confusing arguments. And this sentiment about being fearful about potentially passing on wrong theology sounds disingenuous to me. Of course we both believe we are right and our opponent is wrong on this matter. And my opponent still cannot (and has not) justified why one would even need a source outside of Scripture as sufficient. Scripture itself , by way of authority , assumes its own supremacy and sufficiency for the life of a believer. I would, once again , like to reiterate I have nothing against tradition(s), so long as they are in submission to Scripture. And of course, that is where we differ. My opponent wrongly (and dangerously for that matter) puts tradition on equal footing with Scripture, but has no reason or any real argument for doing so.
Finally the last question of this is just silly in my opinion. "If you believe your sources are fallible and prone to error, what good is a teaching authority that bears no manifest force of belief, cant' teach , or is subject to constant change and redefinition with each passing age?"
First of all, I'd like to once again stress there is NO infallible source outside the Scriptures. Now, that doesn't mean in the slightest there aren't good teaching resources simply because they are not infallible. If a sermon, book and/or article has one small source of contention, on an issue that doesn't concern a primary doctrine, would you then discard the entire message, book or article? that's ridiculous, and we all know it!
After reading the rest of my opponent's statements I believe I've sufficiently covered and addressed all points now.
And I would like to make one final point to conclude:
Making one's point succinct doesn't mean the points make lack ammo. I'm a succinct communicator by nature. So was Jesus QUITE OFTEN.
Peace
Round 4
Con
#7
Before moving on, note that my opponent makes an ad hominem attack and dedicates an entire opening paragraph to it. Lol, lmao even. When you make an argument that neither attempts to refute my point of discussion but rather dismisses it and rehashes already-existing points WHICH I HAVE ADDRESSED, I'm sorry but that won't fly well with me, or for that matter, any rational person. You might say that you're succinct by nature, and fine by me, I totally understand the need for being straight-to-the-point. But this is a debate and not a talk outside Tim Hortons' at 10am in the morning. I, and others who are watching this exchange, will expect some erudition and not any less than a simple "nuh uh". That being said, thank you for taking your time to address my answer and dissect it.
I would like to make note of these three statements, to conclude, and answer them:
1. "C = A + B"
2. "Tradition must be aligned with Scripture in order to be considered infallible in the first place"
3. "my opponent still cannot (and has not) justified why one would even need a source outside of Scripture as sufficient"
4. "My opponent wrongly (and dangerously for that matter) puts tradition on equal footing with Scripture"
FOR #1
Any first-year student of logic could point out that it is wrong to represent the statement "If Christianity is true, then so must Scripture and Tradition" as C = A + B. Rather, it should be written, C = A & B; where C can only be true if both A and B are. (see the section on "Conjunction" to learn more here https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/conjunct.html) C = A + B is more of a statement which represents something quantitative; NOT a sound representation of a true/false statement. False dilemma debunked, next.
FOR #2
Well, that brings me back to my question, what Scriptural premise dictates the use of a prescriptive/descriptive categorization for Scriptural texts? Since you never bothered to answer, I will: there isn't. It's an extra-biblical method, which all comes from the mind of the one who is interpreting the text: by which, according to your logic, would be at worst unreliable, at best an opinion. Ditto for miscellaneous dogmatic things that are not clearly expounded in Scripture, like my favourite, the relationship between predestination and free will or in my opponent's case, why "This is My Body/Blood" does not have a literal meaning to it. Which leads me to the next question: why do we need Tradition?
FOR #3
Because under this system, the person will inevitably still be making up another rule of faith - THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING. We need it not because "ohhhhh all ancient cultures had it" - THAT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT. We will sooner or later need it because of a need to compile a coherent, reliable and trustworthy system to understand the Faith. A book by itself cannot be a rule of faith. It is the book, and the person's interpretation of it (which also consists of how they worship, interpret, and define the character of Christ to name a few) that must go hand-in-hand with one another. Have you ever heard of a book, movie, or an advertisement that can interpret itself without anyone's exegesis? In like manner, for dogma: by what authority do we decide which is the correct or valid systems? With sola scriptura, there is no way to absolutely determine this - it's all left to the conscience of the believer, which even then may/may not be suspect; this is the crux of the matter. Tradition consists of the means by which Scripture is interpreted, one that harmonizes its words and obscure talks. Without it, we would not know what Christ meant to teach. All your doctrines that you believe as Scriptural fall under this category. So, submit and obey it!
FOR #4
Without demonstrating proof of this, this is just another empty assertion. May I remind you that you have also not demonstrated an answer to my question #2 - to prove that profitable for teaching necessarily implies sole sufficiency. It would be like concluding "My parents are reliable sources of life advice, therefore it must mean they are the only ones I can trust" (which I believe constitutes a proper paraphrase of 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Is that logically valid? Big nope, I hope you'd answer. Furthermore, you can cite ANY verse in Scripture that talks highly of Scripture, such as Proverbs 30:5-6, St. John 10:35, or Acts 17:8-10, but that's all it means: Scripture holds a high place for Christian life, but not the only thing. Under your system, Acts 8:26-40 would make no sense. Instead of responding "And how can I, unless some man shew me?" before inviting St. Philip to show him the way, the Ethiopian would have better said: "Buzz off, monkey. I'm a scholar, I know what I'm reading about and I don't need no so-called 'Apostle of Jesus' to tell me what to think."
I would like to also add: if God willed to be known via sola scriptura, He would have given His Revelation to us all at once, and no other - but He didn't. He disseminated His word and entrusted it to a hierarchy of Apostles and their successors, and from there, we have all the wonderful dogmas of Christianity, and the theology that stems from it! Ultimately, sola scriptura is not only illogical, but a shallow theological principle that speaks big, but accounts for little. And might I add, you have yourself avoided referencing Scripture throughout this debate(!) and, finally, answering whether or not you consider your understanding to have that weight. If no, then your dogmas are just opinions, and you forfeit the right to tell us "Believe this, because that's what Scripture says! Otherwise, you're going to Hell." If yes, then I'm sorry, as much as you want to argue that Scripture is the sole, highest authority, by making that claim, and spreading a dogmatic foundation from it, are you not putting yourself on equal footing with Scripture? And is not anyone who takes your word as Scripture's will adhere to a Tradition: your own? It is the only inescapable conclusion, by which we are to know whether or not our dogmas are right/wrong.
You cannot say that "Scripture is sole and infallible" and say "I'm ok with traditions that align with Scripture". That's a logical conundrum: like saying "I solely love my father" and "I love my mother as long as she loves my father", and impinges on the definition of "sole" (one and only). And anyone with some good common sense should be able to see that.
I appreciate the time you took to discuss this with me, and I hope we can do this again.
Pro
#8
Judging my opponent's opening paragraph it's clear my opponent either doesn't know what an ad hominem attack is and/or have misapplied. To those who don't know, an ad hominem attack is attacking a person's character or reputation instead of the argument itself. If we had more space , I'd ask my opponent to demonstrate where I've done this, and I assure, my opponent couldn't do this. The only thing I did, to be succinct, was point out my opponent's hypocrisy in the post my opponent's third post of this debate. And I'll just leave it at that.
'Well, that brings me back to my question, what Scriptural premise dictates the use of a prescriptive/descriptive categorization for Scriptural texts? Since you never bothered to answer, I will: there isn't. It's an extra-biblical method, which all comes from the mind of the one who is interpreting the text: by which, according to your logic, would be at worst unreliable, at best an opinion. Ditto for miscellaneous dogmatic things that are not clearly expounded in Scripture, like my favourite, the relationship between predestination and free will or in my opponent's case, why "This is My Body/Blood" does not have a literal meaning to it. Which leads me to the next question: why do we need Tradition?'
To deal with this question, how does one decide between descriptive/prescriptive narrative it's really not that tough , folks. The only question you need to ask yourself is this 'do what I'm reading apply to me right now?' If yes, do it . if not, move on. And , again, I'm NOT saying WHATSOEVER that descriptive narratives , such as the exodus from Egypt , for example , don't have lessons witch which we can glean or learn from , but that they have no bearing on us right now. This just assumes people who read the Bible have enough sense to figure this out. And when we read things, like the 10 Commandments, we know that yes, that applies for all people at all times. again, this assumes the average Bible reader has enough sense to make such deductions. And I think that is a fair assessment.
Without demonstrating proof of this, this is just another empty assertion. May I remind you that you have also not demonstrated an answer to my question #2 - to prove that profitable for teaching necessarily implies sole sufficiency. It would be like concluding "My parents are reliable sources of life advice, therefore it must mean they are the only ones I can trust" (which I believe constitutes a proper paraphrase of 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Is that logically valid? Big nope, I hope you'd answer. Furthermore, you can cite ANY verse in Scripture that talks highly of Scripture, such as Proverbs 30:5-6, St. John 10:35, or Acts 17:8-10, but that's all it means: Scripture holds a high place for Christian life, but not the only thing. Under your system, Acts 8:26-40 would make no sense. Instead of responding "And how can I, unless some man shew me?" before inviting St. Philip to show him the way, the Ethiopian would have better said: "Buzz off, monkey. I'm a scholar, I know what I'm reading about and I don't need no so-called 'Apostle of Jesus' to tell me what to think."
this paragraph is both insulting and intellectually dishonest. Of course my opponent knows I would never advocate to learn the Scriptures in isolation, but that both learning the Scriptures with others and studying by yourself are of equal importance, I'd argue. I am aware that 2 Timothy 3:16-17, doesn't argue itself for the sole authority/supremacy of Scripture. But I would like to point out as I conclude and bring this debate to its finality, that my opponent has not once ever argued for why we now need an authority outside of Scripture. Scripture is more than enough for all we need for life in Christ.
I appreciate the time and effort put forth my opponent as well.
Peace & Grace
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Both debating parties have put in a swell argument. Cheers to the both.