Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility

Contested Definition Dropped 1)Illogicality of the bible alone Once again, dropped by my opponent. On this alone you can vote con as it shows that papal infallibility is unnecessary and thus, only the bible is necessary. I remind my opponent that they cannot bring this point up again in the final round as refutations in the concluding round is abusive. 2)Biblical Canon Dropped by my opponent. 3)Divine inspiration I never said my opponent dropped that the bible is infallible, I simply pointed out that the individual documents made up in the bible were infallible before there was a bible, or a pope for that matter. "Yes, He was giving them the power to forgive sins, but He was also giving them papal infallibility. They need AUTHORITY to forgive sin. Jesus does not say that the authority applies only to forgiving sins. Remember He said "So as THE FATHER SENDS ME, so I send you". So we have to ask, how did the Father send Him? He sent Him will ALL AUTHORITY. And Jesus sends the apostles IN THE SAME WAY." My opponent is simply rehashing their point. I already showed how in context all Jesus was giving them the authority to forgive sins, heal illnesses, drive out demons, etc. And honestly, if we are going to be referring to what "Jesus does not say" then we might as well point out that Jesus does not ever say that he was a giant totem pole, therefore, according to my opponent's logic, the fact that he was here in human form does not mean he was not a giant totem pole. Ridiculous. You can take any passage of the bible OUT OF CONTEXT and interpret it to mean what you say, I put this verse in context and gave a better, in context, interpretation. Jesus never said, "you are now infallible" he merely said "If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." 2. The bible is clear "History should show that the bible is hard to understand. If the bible is easy to understand then why is the there so much controversy between Catholics and Protestants over what certains parts of the bible mean? If it was so easy to understand then we wouldn't have this problem." This is entirely unsubstantiated and merely asserted. But, nevertheless, I shall refute it. The entire point of this argument was to show that the bible is self-evident (as shown by the 11 verses I cited...) According to the bible itself, "No one needs for clergy to explain the meaning of any part of the bible." Difficulty in comprehending a verse does not mean you necessarily need someone else to explain it to you. Another passage of the bible will fulfill your questions. Why is there so much controversy? Well simply because different people interpret the bible differently. One person sees the passage as saying one thing, another person sees the passage as saying another thing. This does not mean the bible is not self-substantiating, it simply means these two people cannot agree on what is the truth. I implore my opponent to not post biblical arguments next round, it simply does not leave enough time for any argumentation over the passage. Defense of Sola Scriptura "Now where in the bible does it say that the bible contains all that we need to know. Yes, you gave 4 verses but none of them say that the bible contains all that we need to know. If the bible is the only needed source of truth then why does THE BIBLE say that?" I quoted and/or paraphrased the passages. As I said above "through the bible man is "thoroughly equipped for every good work" and since in them "you have eternal life" and since there are no deficiencies in the bible on matters of faith, that bible is all that is needed." Man has all that they need to gain eternal life and man is overly equipped for good works, the bible has no deficiencies on matters of faith, thus the bible is all that is needed. Since my opponent loves asking me questions, I will return the favor, where does the bible say it is not all that is needed for "eternal life?" Where does the bible say it is not all that is needed to be "equipped for every good work?" My opponent has not referenced one place where it says that a SECOND infallible source is needed to have faith. Historical argument Dropped by my opponent. "tell me how you know that that the bible is inspired by God other than that the Church teaches that? Papal infallibility has been invoked many more than seven times. Anything the Church teaches on Faith and morals are infallible teachings. And there are many more than 7 teachings. Where did you get the idea that papal infallibility had only been invoked 7 times?" The bible says it was inspired by God. It is rather clear on that matter. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This also backs up sola Sriptura as the bible is "profitable for doctrine" and since it is good for doctrine, and is the infallible word of God, it is all that is needed for doctrine. And as 2 Peter 1:21 says "For these words did not ever come through the impulse of men: but the prophets had them from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." The bible is rather clear on it being inspired by God. My opponent has provided no source for Papal infallibility being invoked more than 7 times. I did provide a source. A source beats no source. And what the Church teaches, as a whole, is MUCH different from the pope declaring something to be true. Honestly, we are not here to discuss the difference between a Church teaching and something which has been declared infallible by the pope. The major difference is, a Church teaching normally says X is true because of a, b, and c. Papal infallibility says "X is true because X is true." (I recognize this is simplifying things a bit.) What the Church teaches on faith is infallible because there is evidence, what the pope teaches (using papal infallibility) is infallible because basically, he says so. "The pope cannot contradict Himself on matters of Faith and Morals. Jesus will not allow it to happen." And Jesus would not allow this to happen why exactly? Is my opponent attempting to understand God which by being Catholic, she claims to not completely understand? 1 Timothy 3:15 "The Church does serve to protect and promote the truth , yes, but that is only part of what that verse means. It also means that the church has truth. It's not the bible or the Church, it's the bible AND the Church. And I want to Clarify, when I say "Church", I mean the Catholic Church, what Church are you talking about though?" I apologize for the confusion, when the "c" in Church is capitalized it most normally refers to the Catholic Church. When the "c" in church is not capitalized, it refers to the congregation of all Christians. It's a minor difference with a great impact. My opponent is correct, it is the bible AND the church in that all Christians in the world have an obligation to BE the pillars and the foundation of the truth. The church, the congregation of all Christians, in other words, has to support the truth. That is what a pillar, that is what a foundation, does. The church (little "c") all believe things in common, there are rather minor differences which set them apart. This does not contradict Sola Scriptura. The church is a pillar and foundation, the church upholds the truth. It does not take the place of the truth.