Moderator Scoring Copy: Antony’s Round 2b|
Thesis Statement in BLUE
Valid Documentation in RED
Closing Summary in PURPLE
Non-considered statements in GREY
Invalid arguments (-5 points each, up to 25 points) in PINK
Moderator comments in ORANGE
Like a ball of yarn, the string of Sola Scriptura "unravels" throughout the Text (i.e., "to separate and clarify the elements of something", according to the dictionary). The resounding praise and repeated virtues of Scripture are incomparable with the hushed whispers made for Tradition (which is precisely why my intro was spent tearing down tradative strongholds). Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient by, "[His] granting us everything pertaining to life and godliness through the true knowledge of Him..." (2 Pet 1:3). Since the only place that contains this knowledge of the "preeminence" of Christ's life, is in Scripture (Col 1:18, Heb 1:1-2)---which is able to make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15), it irresistibly follows that Scripture is preeminent. All this presupposes the vital illumination of the Holy Spirit to help understand sufficiently (John 3:3-8, Eph 1:18; 3:4), but does not presuppose that everyone will understand Scripture exhaustively. Why?
1) God has ordained teachers (1 Cor 12:28, Acts 18:26)
2) opens our understanding as He sees fit (Luke 24:45).
3) allows different interpretations to arise so there may be debate (1 Cor 11:19).
Verga's stunningly inaccurate thesis proclaims that Catholicism believes in the material sufficiency of Scripture. (Source?). However, The New Catholic Encyclopedia reports,
"Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation" [Vol 14, p. 228]. (Invalid for this debate, all sources must be online sources, not to mention that it is, AT BEST a tertiary source (third generation) as it is a quote from an encyclopedia (not an official document of the Catholic Church) which is quoting a cardinal who is giving his theological OPINION on this matter - whether or not Scripture is materially sufficient IS debatable amongst Catholics and you CAN find Catholics who agree with Verga, and others who disagree - and for the sake of THIS debate, it is wholly invalid! We’re not here to debate Verga’s OPINION that Scripture IS materially sufficient! We’re here to debate whether or not sola scriptura is biblical - please get back on topic. I must also mention that this quote CAN be found online! However, ONLY at either the blogs of AOMin or James Swan - and of course, now at MY site too). -5 points
He then says,
"it must be taught explicitly in the Bible and practiced by the apostles".
Answer: While still a cardinal, the current pope stated,
"...no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine"
[Joseph Ratzinger's, "The Transmission of Divine Revelation" in Herbert Vorgrimler's, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. 3, p. 195]. (Invalid for this debate, all sources must be online sources, and again you’re citing a COMMENTARY, not Catholic teaching or dogma - AND - you’re merely trying to find Catholics who disagree with Verga again, which is NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE!). -5 points
Demanding an "explicit" Sola Scriptura reference, is hypocritical when he can't furnish the same for his own doctrines, happily accepting many things without a speck of evidence for apostolic practice. (This is an invalid argument for 2 reasons: 1) We’re not debating the standard of Catholic practice, this debate is about sola scriptura; 2) It is a tu quoque argument “he can’t furnish the same...” does not make a bit of difference to THIS debate). -5 points Consequently, this illegitimate thesis makes his entire argument collapse like the Twin Towers
(Ps 11:3). Furthermore, my adversary is bothered I quoted the Bible only 10 times, and allegedly no where do I even allude to the supremacy of the Word??? I suggest he re-read what I said about all 176 verses of Psalm 119!
I was asked how it's possible for the Scriptures to precede, and thus have higher authority, over the church when it was its members who wrote them.
Answer: I was referring to the typical belief that, " the declaration of the Catholic Church that the books of the N.T. are all inspired by God, constitutes the sole authority for the universal belief in their inspired character." ("Finding Christ's Church", by Fr. John O'Brien, p. 18). (Invalid for this debate, all sources must be online sources). -5 points No. They were inspired from the moment of their writing and didn't have to wait for the magisterium to impart authority to them. (Invalid, no source to consider, unsubstantiated arguments are invalid). -5 points
T.V. says, "Jesus Gives the Apostles all his authority" ----
implying the succession of bishops. But true apostolicity isn't in a succession of men, but a succession of doctrine: "Therefore know that only those who are of the faith are sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7).
As to, "where did the Lord write down the laws regarding slaves in Exodus 21?"
Answer: To use the word by the Council of Trent (opening statement link), the laws were dictated to Moses and codified in chapter 21. (Cannot be considered at all, referring generally to the Opening Statement and CALLING it a “link” does not make it a validly linked online source). -5 points
The solitary dignity of Holy Writ is characterized by
1) it's public character throughout the world (Matt 24:14) and the standard used on Judgment Day (John 12:48, Rev 20:12).
2) It's permanence and solidity (John 10:35) unmatched with the controversial content of Tradition.
3) It's indisputable verification through "many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3).
4) It being the word of God which is "perfect" (Ps 19:7). Oral transmission was temporary. So in the spirit of 1 Cor 13:10, "when that which is perfect shall come, the partial shall pass away."
Thesis Statement: [Original 25 points] Reviewed 25 points (no change)
Valid Documentation: [Original 10 points] Reviewed 0 points (-10 from original)
Closing Summary: [Original 25 points] Reviewed 25 points (no change)
Invalid arguments: [Original 10 points] Reviewed 20 points (+10 from original)
Total Adjusted Score: [Original 70 points] Reviewed 70 points (no change)
For details on reviewed scoring, click here.