Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility

Thank you for this debate. I would like to clarify the resolution a bit, Resolved: the pope is fallible and sola scriptura is logical. From this, my burden is to prove either 1) the pope is in fact, fallible and/or 2) sola scripture is logical (in terms of theology). For the purposes of this debate, I would like to say that the bible will be the final, authoritative, source for this debate. Any arguments which contradict biblical evidence are considered null and void, seeing how this is a theological debate. The bible is the final authority on theological matters. So, if Papal infallibility is shown to contradict biblical evidence, and/or Sola Scriptora is shown to be upheld by biblical evidence, the resolution is upheld. Now I would like to offer the following definitions: Papal infallibility: the Pope is preserved from even the mere possibility of error when the pope declares a dogmatic teaching to the Church. (In reality, this dogma has only been invoked 10 or so times.) Sola Scriptura: "the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness." Bible: "any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity." Dogma: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" I first will answer my opponents objections then move to my case. 1) Illogicality of "the bible alone" Seeing how, the bible is the final authoritative source for theological matters, even when invoking papal infallibility, the pope does not disregard the bible, as it was divinely inspired by god, the bible is prima facie the main source of truth about everything. The bible itself is infallible, according to both Catholic and Protestant dogma (which is basically this debate). Since this is true, why is it necessary to have an infallible person make proclamations about something which is infallible in itself? 2) List of books This is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The bible is the source of all theological truth. Furthermore, your declaration that without papal infallibility "we have no way of knowing if the bible is really inspired scripture or not" is unsubstantiated. There has only been seven instances where papal infallibility has been invoked, none of which have to do with whether the bible is divinely inspired. (1) It was realized on its own, without the pope declaring it to be so. The Catholic Church compiled the bible, before Protestantism was in existence, they did not declare it to be divinely inspired 3) The Church gave us the bible? This is so blatantly wrong I do not even know where to start. The Church did not write the bible. The books of the bible were inspired and written before the Church was in existence. The Church merely compiled previously written documents. No papal infallibility was used to do so. In reality, both Protestant and Catholic dogma hold the bible was divinely inspired by God. Now onto my case. I will argue against Papal Infallibility first. Under this heading, my logic will be simple. 1) All men are imperfect. 2) The Pope is a man. Therefore, the pope is imperfect and cannot be infallible. 3) Imperfection opens up the possibility for error. Therefore, the pope cannot be infallible. Now I really only have to support premise one. I sincerely hope my opponent will not argue premise two with me… My biblical defense of premise one. The Creation story (Genesis 1) God created man to be perfect living in the Garden of Eden, but, man sinned, shown by the eating of the fruit from the tree of good and evil, and thus, became imperfect because now, man knew the difference between good and evil, and could commit good and evil acts, if God is perfect and all that is good, evil must be imperfection, thus, man can commit evil and is imperfect. Now since the Pope is a man, the pope has the ability to commit imperfect acts, in anything he does. Since, only a perfect being is free from error, as an imperfect being, the pope is not free from error. Therefore, the pope cannot be completely infallible because the pope is not free from error. My next argument against Papal infallibility is as follows: 1) the pope is infallible. 2) Thus, the pope has full authority to declare any teaching as dogmatic. 3) The pope can declare something which contradicts dogmatic teaching as dogmatic. 4) Contradictions are errors. Therefore, the pope cannot be infallible as the pope would thus be able to contradict something which cannot be contradicted committing an error. I would also like to ask my opponent to find biblical passages which gives ALL Popes papal infallibility, not just the first pope. You must justify papal infallibility currently. Now onto a defense of Sola Scriptura. The books of the bible are the divinely inspired words of God. This gives the bible the full authority of God, as it comes from God. Thus, every single statement of the bible is the teaching of God and requires full agreement. Every biblical command is the directive of God himself. We can hold this to be an axiomatic truth for the next section. 1. The bible contains all one must know to reach salvation(2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 5:39, John 17:20, and Psalm 19:7-8) "and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 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" (2 Timothy). We can see that Scripture is all that is needed to become righteous. "You study[a] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5). The Scriptures are all that is needed to have eternal life. "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message" (John 17). You only need to believe in the bible to be saved. "The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes." As we can see, the bible is perfect, everything the bible says is correct, no interpretation is needed. There are no deficiencies in the bible which need to be filled by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine. 2. The bible presents all commands of the Christian faith clearly (Psalm 19:8, Psalm 119:105, Psalm 119:130, 2 Timothy 3:15, Deuteronomy 30:11, 2 Peter 1:19, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 8:31-32, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, John 8:43-47, and 2 Peter 3:15-16). God's word is freely accessible to all people. No one needs for clergy to explain the meaning of any part of the bible. It is evident from the bible itself, whether in that passage or another passage of the bible. 3. Scripture is united with the Holy Spirit ( Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Psalm 119:105, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Timothy 1:16-17, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 6:63, Revelation 1:3, and John 7:17) Scripture creates the acceptance of its own teaching. It creates a living agreement of faith. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...