The Holy Catholic Church vs Baptist

My opponent asked, "How do we know the doctrine of Roman Catholics is uninspired?" That is easy, the apocrypha is not inspired. If they would include non-inspired books in the Bible then it is very reasonable to say RC doctrines are not inspired also. The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles. He also ask's, "How do you know that the Bible is inspired?" We can also know the Bible is the inspired Word of God because of messianic prophecies foretelling Jesus Christ hundreds of years prior, telling of His virgin birth and how He would be the rejected corner stone of the Church. Then He claims, "While Jesus may be sufficient for knowledge and righteousness the Bible is not." Really? Jesus Christ calls himself the Word of God and He inspired all scripture. I think these passages below show that the scriptures are sufficent enough! John 10:35 "to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can't be broken)," 2 Peter 3:16 "In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Romans 15:4 "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that through patience and through encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope." Mark 12:24 'Jesus answered them, "Isn't this because you are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God?" My opponent should show that the RC is in fact holding to the tradidtions of scripture and the apostles who wrote them. This is the argument here, that they are not! The Catholic religion teaches that Jesus chose the Apostle Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ would build the Church. Matthew 21:42 "Jesus saith to them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?" Jesus Christ was the rejected cornerstone! 1 Peter 2:6 "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" JESUS is the cornerstone upon which the Church is built. Surely, a flawed sinful man such as Peter could not have been the cornerstone of the church. C1) Ten Commandments My opponent does not see the difference between God ordering you to make images of His throne to commune and taking it upon yourselves. Is my opponent saying God ordered the RC to raise up the images within the church? My opponent still see's no problem with taking out exzact words in the 10 commandments. We can agree the order of the commandments or which is placed where is not as important as including every word in the commandments. It doesn't matter who that may be, Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, or any variant. I deem every word that is incited in the ten commandments as important and needed to be included. I agree that graven images can be included in the 1st commandment but those words should be included in it and not excluded. C2) Idolatry My opponent show us last round He does not know His Bible nor was concerned enough about it or this debate to research it. My opponent does not reconize that God ordering Moses to build the Ark and the Cherubs as representing His throne in Heaven, is far different then building statues and images to bow to and pray to. The context is in the Bible for this and my opponent has not read it we see. My opponent see's no problem with planting images of men in the House of God even though God commanded against it over and over in the Bible. My opponent then tries to include a nod and slight bow as the same as getting on your knees and praying to a staute. My opponent then wants us to believe that because the church say's it is not worship, it is not. I ask the readers, If you bow down on your knee's, pray and kiss a statue, is it nor worship of that statue? C3) Rituals 1. Priests "Did you just attack your own argument?" No I did not, Jesus Christ is the Word and He inspired the scriptures. Jesus Christ created the world and all that is in it. The instructions in the Bible is the Word's of Christ. My opponent also went off track here, this was about marriage for priests, which the Bible say's are allowed. This goes against scripture, it is a RC ritual alone. 2. Clergy-laity My opponent then claims that Jesus gave only the apostles authroity to teach. Well who would teach, lead and preach to the lost if not them? Who would teach the Word of God about salvation? Once we recieve salvation and the Word then we are equals and all are teachers. Who would write the NT and the story of Jesus then? Just anyone? 3. Works and Grace Many people misunderstand the words of James. We read in Romans 4:3, "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Paul said in Romans 5:1, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul doesn't mention works. Romans 4:5 declares, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." James is simply saying that if a person is genuinely saved by faith, then there should be fruit (good works) in that person's life to show it. Also, notice carefully James' words, "...shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18). With God we are justified by our faith; but with men we are justified in seeing works. The reason is simply because mankind cannot see out heart; but God can. James said, "shew me" your faith and I'll "shew you" my faith. C4) The Bible alone is an untenable position My opponent ask's, "Additionally, I would ask him if the Holy Spirit would not guide you away from Biblical teachings, why do you need him in the first place? If he's not going to tell you anything the Bible doesn't, what use is he?" The Holy Spirit is the Comforter. He does not lead away from the scriptures and my opponent will never find one passage to support that claim. Why would the spirit of God lead you away from His own Word that was given? Now that makes no sense whatsoever. The Holy Spirit is given by Jesus to comfort us in our hardships and to help us in understanding of the scriptures. Most certainly not to give doctrine that leads away from scripture. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com... http://carm.org... http://www.ccel.org...