Pro
#1
This is my first debate challenge that has been accepted, and I do not really know how it works, so hopefully this opening is decent.
Sola Scriptura does not claim that scripture is our only authority. It claims that scripture is our only infallible authority, as nothing is on par with the breath of God. One could argue the Catholic Church is the breath of God in a manner, but that is a burden of proof that I doubt my opponent will be able to fulfill.
I will form will form my argument in a syllogism, so no one gets lost in irrelevant points.
P1. Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is the only infallible authority for modern Christians
P2. The Bible is infallible
P3. No institution, including a specific church, is infallible
C. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is valid.
P1. This is simply what the term has historically meant. It is often misconstrued as meaning the only authority, but none of the early Protestants considered it to mean this. My opponent cannot raise a legitimate objection to this premise.
P2. My opponent cannot raise a legitimate objection to this premise, because the argument against Sola Scriptura relies on the reliability of both the Roman Catholic Church and the BIble.
P3. This is really where the battle lies, and it will put my opponent on the offensive. I will try to anticipate some objections, but the burden of proof lies on them to show that a specific institution is infallible, so most of the furthering of the conversation should come from my response to their arguments for the truthfulness of the Catholic Church’s infallibility.
Regarding Peter being a rock. I can grant this premise that my opponent will likely attempt to argue, despite my own lack of surety on if they are correct. Paul says God’s household is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone. To say that Peter was part of that foundation in which Christ is the cornerstone is largely unobjectionable (Ephesians 2:19-20).
Regarding the Keys to the Church: I think this is a really poor argument. Peter receiving the Keys to the Church does not imply the papacy, because the implication of him receiving the keys (as Christ says immediately after) is that he will be able to bind and loose in heaven and earth. Wow! That’s a really strong argument for the Catholics. Except is doesn’t end there. If it did, maybe I’d be catholic too. All of the apostles are rewarded the ability to bind and loose, so this is in no sense a papal like office. Also, in Mathew 18:18 where Christ says this, the implication from his prior parable seems to be that the authority is a real authority to prohibit one from joining in fellowship, but that is no implication of infallibility. Authority does not equal infallibility. Even God grants Satan some manner of Authority, but my no means does he have infallibility, which my opponent must support.
Lastly, the Catholic Church has many accretions. They adhere to ideas that were clearly developed over time (Im not sure if examples are required. I would be surprised if my opponent denied this) but we are specifically told not to adhere to man made traditions in place of God’s law. We do not see God developing his law bit by bit. He speaks infallibly. He does not encourage people to be a little bit correct until eventually they have accrued enough to get to the correct doctrine.
C. The syllogism follows. If the premises are granted, so is the conclusion. No objection can be made to the form of my argument.
That’s all I have for this first one. Thanks to my opponent for accepting the challenge. I will also point out that I am fully open to the idea of Catholicism, and have sought to become catholic because of the seriousness its members have toward the faith, but I just find the arguments exceedingly poor, and see it as essentially another rendition of what Christ critiqued the Pharisees for. They had true authority as they sat in the seat of Moses, but they taught falsely with no infallibility. The Jews certainly should have adhered to sola sciptura. Christ warned them to do that very thing: ““The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”
Matthew 23:2-3 NIV
So, they have real authority to teach what Moses taught, so listen when they say what Moses said, but when it’s just something they say and do, you are not meant to follow. That’s sola scriptura. I guess I wasn’t done yet.
