I will demonstrate that Sola scriptura is ahistorical, not taught in scripture itself, and ultimately leaves the final arbitration of doctrinal determinations in a non-binded state, subject to the conscience and opinion of the individual believer what buddy

My opponent makes a critical mistake assuming my position. I dont believe it is "me and my bible alone" although it literally means SCRIPTURE ALONE, which if you dont want someone to misunderstand your position, the reformers probably should have had a better marketing team, as scripture alone naturally causes one to assume it means what it says. Therefore, the definition my opponent is using is already moving the goal posts definitionally, because it is not defending the plain meaning of the slogan. That being said, the definition my opponent is using is still only one of several options on the definition of sola scriptura, as protestants have never come to a settled agreement. There are various forms. There truly is a me and my bible position. There is a Bible and my tradition, bible and all my tradition. But, the charitable thing to do is simply to argue the definition my opponent put forward. You see, the reason why there is no consensus defintiion is because it is not found in scripture itself. Scripture is spoken highly of, yes, but it does not frame itself as the sole authority at all. None of the verses used to support scripture support scripture ALONE. If Sola scriptura is not taught explicity in scripture, it is an inferred doctrine, and the human imagination so so broad that every heresy is an inferred doctrine from scripture. Why trust this inference? Since my opponent agrees with scripture + tradition as an interpretive tool, tradition never used sola scriptura as the sole authority for the church prior to the reformation. That means both the scripture, which doesnt contain the doctrine, and tradition, which doesnt contain the doctrine, are both against it. The prompt is that it is false, and the opposite is that it is true. If it is a true doctrine, the key to understanding the bible and salvation, one would expect it to be in either of those two streams. It is not. Secondly, as a doctrine, it must be a doctrine that finds its origin in either God, or Man. If it is a doctrine of God, why is it not explicitly taught in the very scripture one uses to determine God ordained truth? If it is a doctrine of man, it is not divine truth, why are you following it as if it were from God? The problem with my opponents position is that it says scripture is the final authoirity over tradition creeds, tradition... but its only testable as far as inte individuals interpretation, or the protestant paradigms interpretation. The people in tradition and in the creeds explicitly believed they were teaching what scripture teachings. So its not scripture vs tradition, its my interpretation of scripture vs the traditional interpretation. And the value that the protestant places on tradition creates what I call the "High Regard Fallacy." Lets take a few examples. The Trinity, Divinity of Christ and the Canon of Scripture. These are three things whose agreed upon correct interpretation come from the traditions understanding of scripture. Why is the trinity considered true? because you highly regard that understanding of scripture. But is it Binding upon the conscience? No, because according to protestantism, there is no authority which can bind the conscience. Arius the heretic also taught EXPLICITLY from the scriptures. Why is he wrong and the Trinity right? Because of the authoritative, binding, Spirit lead adjudication of the Nicean Council. You see, if you only highly regard something, and it is nonebinding, One could choose to not highly regard it. So it is just highly regarded opinion, but opinion nevertheless. This is why sola scriptura, even though it may highly regard traditional understandings, has no authority to bind the conscience by protestantisms own principles, and so everything devolves to opinion, highly regarded or otherwise. Then there is the fact the protestant canon "scriptura" differs from what has been accepted East and West prior to the reformation with its 66 book canon. So its Sola Scriptura, but the curated Scriptura you choose. Did you take the highly regarded traditional canon? No. It was just a highly regarded opinion, so you can change it. Luther wanted to drop James and Jude and Hebrews as well. He called James an "epistle of straw"... because it contradicted his Faith Alone doctrine, but was convinced not to by Melenthen. So it was only the deuteros that got eventually cut. But you see, you say you honor the tradition, but instead you curate, say scripture alone, juddge according to private judgement... and scripture explicitly says it "is of no private judgement"... where these things certainly devolved to. These many issues, logical, epistimological, historical, and fruit bearing, all determine individually and especially combined, that sola scriptura cannot be true.

The one who holds interpretive power is the Church, according to the scripture, composed of, first the apostles, and then their successors who have the power of "binding and loosing" and "whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven." And "upon this rock I will build my church... the gates of hell will not prevail against it.". These are specific promises to that adjudicating authority. Church is the greek word ekklesia, which had a preChristian usage. It was the a group of free land owning men who made binding legislative judgements for a greek city-state. It wasnt an invented word. So Jesus said *I* will build my church. Who is bulding it? Jesus. The gates of hell will not prevail. So it is impossible for the church to be prevailed upon. The judgemnts are binding... and look at the order of the verse.. "whatever you bind on earth... will be bound in heaven" .. the judgement resides, yes, in the interpretive authority of the church, lead by the spirit, and heaven ratifies that decision. The ekklesia is the adjudicating legislative body of the kingdom of God, and is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" according to Paul. All of that is very strong words for the authority of the Church... yet what do we hear about scripture? Peter says the writings of Paul are hard to understand, and unstable and unlearned men twist them *as they do with the rest of the scriptures*.. so at the least, the writings of Paul, plus the rest of scriptures are dangerous to be handled by unlearned men. Remember, the prompt is not is Sola scriptura reasonable. Its not is it prudent. Its not is it a beneficial backstop... its is *true*... and to be true my opponent must positively demonstrate that it is in the face of these objections. Since my opponent is arguing from "classical protestantism"... and the "classical definition." Tell me, which of the mainline protestant denominations wouldnt be under unrecognizable to their founders today? Gay clergy, female clergy, nontrinitarian stances, even the dimunition of the truth of the scriptures are all rampant in the MAINLINE protestant denominations, showing that the operating definition and practice of my opponents position has not arrived at a stable, unified, blblical christianity of the first centuries, but quite the opposite. The very traditions that have remained stable accross centuries are the ones who use tradition authoritatively.

Sola scriptura is necessarily a printing press era doctrine, because prior to that the vast majority of people were illiterate and books were so expensive only the elite owned them. Prior to that, i was completely untenable as a "public text" to check against except the very ones who made the decisions. Regarding their rebuttal. Why that council is exactly the right question. To my opponent, the council and therefore the trinity is NONBINDING and therefore the trinity is just a pious opinion. Councils test everything by scripture. Thats what they do. The question is just whether you personally agree with it or not. Why the council? Because of the PROMISE by christ to lead and guide the church into all truth.. not the individual. *He* will build the church. Thats why. Because council of jerusalem acts 15 "it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us... "... the binding ekklesia made its judgement guided by the spirit. Its not circular, its the mechanism Christ set up, which he said would not fail. Does the holy spirit fail? Its not just binding, the church is promised to be the pillar and ground of truth, and what it binds in is bound in heaven. You deny what the council authoritatively teaches, you are overtly contravening the promise of the holy spirit, who says it is of "no private interpretation."

He doesnt tell people to stop reading, but he says "the rest of the scriptures" the same thing happens to. We have 7 ecumenical councils that were recieved by the whole church. the whole church, which christ promised would not fail, that he would build recieved and integrated 7 councils. Those are the ones. Who gives you the authority to be the "checkable" one? Why is that your job? Its a job given specifically to the ekkelsia, the legislative body of the kingdom of God on earth. My opponent has not in any way made an argumetn for why sola scriptura is TRUE and not FALSE, only that they find its method preferable, which is itself, a non binding opinion, as sola scriptura is not in scripture.