Should Scripture alone be the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and practice?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should Scripture alone be the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and practice?". Your opponent's style: A Evangelical Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura

The resolution is "should Scripture alone be the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and practice?". As the affirmative, my opponent must prove that the answer to this question is "yes". As the negative, I must prove that the answer is "no". Notice that my opponent must specifically show that Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority, and that it is not enough to show Scripture is merely inspired or authoritative. I will give three basic reasons why the resolution, linked the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, should be rejected. First, the resolution is unbiblical. If Scripture alone were to be the sole infallible authority, then the doctrine that Scripture alone is infallible must appear in Scripture. If not, then Sola Scriptura exists as a rule outside of Scripture, making it false under the doctrine's own terms. As an example, common passage that Protestants will use to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This passage undoubtedly teaches the inspiration, authority, and importance of Scripture. However, in no way does it assert Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority. My opponent must provide 1 or more passages of Scripture that teach Sola Scriptura, or else the doctrine should be rejected. My second point concerns history, specifically the Church fathers. When attempting to enlist the help of the Church fathers to defend this doctrine, the Protestant runs into a dilemma. When examining the earliest fathers like St. Ignatius of Antioch, they quickly realize there is no evidence for their position at that time in Church history. In later Church fathers such as St. Augustine, you can find statements that praise Scripture very highly, but you can also find passages of him praising Church authority and saying he would never have believed the Gospels had the Catholic Church not revealed them to him. Keep in mind that the historical case, does not alone falsify the resolution, but it does bring about strong doubt as claiming a doctrine so crucial was not taught in Church history for multiple centuries is quite a problematic one. My final contention is that Sola Scriptura is unworkable. The primary reason this is true is Scripture can't even tell us what belongs in Scripture. In fact in the early centuries, there were disputes over what Old Testament and what New Testament books were Scripture. There were Epistles that some regarded as Scripture that no major Christian denomination regards today was Scripture. And likewise several older works we would both agree are not works of Scripture. What helped calm these disputes? The authority of the Church. This strongly suggests that the resolution that Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority is false, and provides strong evidence for another necessary authority. In summary, my opponent must adequately respond to all three of my major contentions and erect in their place a positive case for the resolution being true.

You've misread the burden of proof, and it costs you everything. The resolution doesn't require Sola Scriptura *to be named* in Scripture—it requires Scripture *to be* the sole infallible authority. That's a category error. Your canon argument actually proves my point: the Church decided the canon using what standard? Which fathers agreed? Because they appealed to apostolic authorship and content, not institutional authority. You're circular: using Church authority to prove we need Church authority. Give me one infallible pronouncement from your magisterium that doesn't rest on Scripture underneath it.

My opponent has grotesquely misunderstood my first argument. I showed that if Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, that entails a logical contradiction. They did not dispute that, nor provide Biblical evidence. Second off, I never said it had to be named in Scripture, as if the words Sola Scriptura had to appear, I said it had to be taught in Scripture. Claiming category error without evidence while misrepresenting my case is unhelpful. Also, my canon argument is in no way circular and it was not an attempt to definitively establish Church authority. I said it highly suggested the need for Church authority. That is not the same as saying we need Church authority. The starting premise was not "the Church as authority", it was there is no clear criteria in Scripture to determine which works are Scripture. The criteria you establish to know which books are apart of Scripture, apostolic authorship and content are flawed. Not all of the New Testament books are authored by Apostles. That is a simple fact. Additionally, what about for the Old Testament? And "content" is so broad it could refer to almost anything. And who is the judge of it? Finally, my opponent has skipped the step of making an actual positive case for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If my arguments fail, that still does not prove the affirmative position.

You're right—I dodged the positive case. Here it is: Scripture claims its own sufficiency. Second Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture equips believers "completely for every good work." That's a claim to theological completeness. Your "teaching in Scripture" demand is the real circular move—you're demanding Sola Scriptura prove itself by your rules, which already reject it. The canon problem cuts both ways: if the Church infallibly decided the canon, what Scripture validates that infallibility? You need an infallible judge. I say that judge is Scripture itself, interpreted by the faithful. Where's yours?

First off, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I stated in my opening directly that I believe this passage teaches inspiration, authority, importance, and material sufficiency. Even if you argue it teaches formal sufficiency (which it doesn't), that still does not get you to Sola Scriptura, meaning Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority. I have not if fact made a circular move as for my entire first argument, I was actually operating under your rules. I did not in any way presuppose the doctrine as false. The second half of you reply is a clear burden shift maneuver. Remember you hold the affirmative position. I don't have to prove another infallible authority exists. That is not part of my job description as the negative. You also have yet to respond to my second claim about Church fathers and church history.

You're right on the burden. But "material sufficiency" means Scripture contains everything needed—that *is* Sola Scriptura. The fathers disagreed on doctrine constantly until someone with authority settled it. That someone was the Church, not individual interpretation. You claim Scripture is self-interpreting, but Christians have split into 45,000 denominations reading the same text. Either Scripture alone doesn't work, or your interpretation of it doesn't bind anyone. Which is it?

You have changed the definition of Sola Scriptura. It is not that everything needed is contained in Scripture, it is that Scripture alone is the Sole infallible authority. There is a significant gap there. I never once claimed Scripture is self interpreting. I don't believe that. It almost feels like you flipped flopped sides during the last part of your response.

Fair point—I conflated sufficiency with authority. But you've dodged the core problem: if Scripture isn't self-interpreting, *who* interprets it infallibly? You can't say "the faithful" because they disagree radically. You can't say "scholars" because they contradict each other constantly. You need an infallible interpreter. The Church provides one. Scripture alone leaves you with chaos masquerading as unity. Who settles doctrine disputes in your system?