Pints With Aquinas - 210: An EPIC Debate on Sola Scriptura w/ Patrick Madrid & James White

Episode Date: June 16, 2020

I'm doing something different today. I want to share with you a debate between Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid and Protestant apologist James White on the topic of Sola Scriptura. This debate took place in 1993—I was just 10 years old!! Watch as James White argues that Christians should view the Bible as the sole, infallible rule of faith. And then watch as Patrick Madrid counters with the Catholic view on the Bible's role in our faith lives. This debate sent SHOCKWAVES through the Christian church in 1993, and I think it's just as powerful today as it was back then. Big thanks to Pat Madrid for letting us share it. 🔴 Check out Patrick Madrid's assessment of the debate in this article: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-white-mans-burden Enjoy!  SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints  Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/ GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.  LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/  SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd  MY BOOKS Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist... Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecr... The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myt...  CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequ... -- Website - mattfradd.com Facebook - facebook.com/mattfradd/ Twitter - twitter.com/mattfradd

G'day and welcome to Pints with Aquinas. My name is Matt Fradd. I hope you're doing very well. We have a very awesome episode in store for you today, very different than usual. I'm going to share with you a debate between Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid and Protestant apologist James White on the topic of sola scriptura. White on the topic of sola scriptura. Now, this debate took place in 1993. I was 10 years old. And I remember shortly after my conversion, wondering about sola scriptura. And I downloaded this debate. I had to pay money to get it, of course. And it was fantastic. I just thought that Patrick Madrid did the Catholic position justice. That's my opinion.

You might come up with a different opinion. But I contacted Pat Madrid and I said, would it be okay if I just shared this debate for free on YouTube? Because it is so incredible. And even though it's older, and so the recording is not as crystal clear as this, it is absolutely spectacular. And he said, yes. So that's as crystal clear as this. It is absolutely spectacular. And he said yes. So that's why we're sharing this.

Let me read to you the description that Pat has on his website, and then I'll tell you a little bit about James White and Patrick Madrid. This is that debate you've been hearing about, a classic you won't want to miss. Patrick Madrid debates James White on the question, does the Bible – sorry, does the Bible, whenever I misspeak, I just blame it on my Australian accent. If I say Bible, you wouldn't know the difference. Just it's an Australian thing. Let's see here. Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? no-holds-barred debate, the Protestant apologist makes his case for why he thinks Christians should view the Bible as the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians. Patrick Madrid then presents

a Catholic critique of those arguments and tries to make the case for why the Bible nowhere teaches the notion of the formal sufficiency of Scripture. This debate is regarded by many as their all-time favorite Catholic versus Protestant debate on the important subject of Sola Scriptura. Let's say a word about debates in general. I, as you know, have begun doing these monthly debates with my friend Cameron Bertuzzi on Patreon. We just debated the Eucharist. If you're not a patron and want to become one, you can get access to that video footage of the two of us going back and forth on Sola Scriptura. I would say that my interactions with Cameron are way more friendly than those between Patrick Madrid and James White. And I'm wondering, I'm trying to figure out why. And I think it's because

there actually has been a lot of kind of anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States of America. And I mean, it's not all on the part of the Protestants, but I think especially back in the 80s and 90s, there was a lot of talk from Protestants about the Catholics being the whore of Babylon and just a lot of misunderstandings that Protestants seem to want to keep misunderstanding. It didn't seem like there was any kind of desire to actually figure out what Catholics taught. And honestly, as I listened to this debate, there were a few times I thought that both James White and Patrick Madrid were unnecessarily snarky. That said, if I was doing

a debate back in the 90s, maybe I would have done the same thing. So I don't want to overly critique them. But just to say, yeah, there is some of that. Now, I'm sure I'm going to get emails from people saying, this is ridiculous. What we need to be doing is focusing on what we agree on, not dividing the body of Christ. And to that, I would say, I agree that we need to focus on what unites us and celebrate that and to even lead with that 100%, especially in a day and age where the culture has become so pagan. We need to link arms, join forces in these different social issues, especially like fighting abortion and these sorts of things, defining what marriage is, even as the country tries to undefine it and these sorts of things. Peter Kreeft put it well, professor of philosophy at Boston College. He said, when a maniac is at the door, feuding brothers reconcile. So I'm all with that. That said,

we cannot, if we believe in the truth and we believe that truth is objective and not relative, we can't pretend that some of these differences don't matter. And this is one of the two pillars of the Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura, that is to say Bible only and then sola fide, faith alone. I think sola scriptura is unbiblical and just, well, self-destructive. It doesn't work. You can't make sense of it. And I think Pat Madrid, again, does a good job of showing this. Me pointing that out is not me crapping on my Protestant brothers and sisters, many of whom put me to shame in their prayer lives

and their scripture readings and their acts of charity towards the poor. So I'm not saying I can't learn from my Protestant brothers and sisters. I love them. But it's not okay to hide behind a sort of false ecumenism where we all basically agree on the same thing. It's not okay because if things are mutually exclusive, they can't both be right.

And so I think that sola scriptura is a tradition of men that ought to be rejected by Christians. And so if you're a Protestant listener, I hope you'll listen to this with an open mind. And obviously I would say the same thing to my Catholic listeners. Give it a listen. Let me know what you think below. This is what I'm most pumped about is what you guys say in the comment section below. I cannot wait to read your comments. And I've got a treat for you. In a couple of weeks from now, I'm gonna be interviewing Patrick Madrid

about Sola Scriptura. We're gonna talk about this debate, what his experience of it was like. And so you're gonna get a sort of behind the scenes sort of take on this very, very famous debate. All right, let me give you the bios of both debaters. I won't share their bios as they were in 1993, but rather today. James White, first of all, the Protestant apologist, is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries,

an evangelical reformed Baptist Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He has contributed to more than 20 books. Patrick Madrid is an acclaimed public speaker, radio host, and author. He serves as an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College and Seminary and St. Patrick's Seminary and University in Menlo Park, California. Right. Before we get into the show, I want to say thank you to two of our sponsors. The first is Halo. Halo is an app that will help you to pray. So if you've been wanting to do better at prayer, if you would like to learn how to pray and stay concentrated, focused throughout,

download this app, Halo. They have content that's downloaded every single day. If you would like to learn how to pray and stay concentrated, focused throughout, download this app, Halo. They have content that's downloaded every single day, and it's free. You can pay and get access to the entire thing, okay? Now, you can try it out for a month just by using the promo code MattFrad. So use the link below, click through, and you can try this out for yourself. I'm not lying. I'm not just doing this because they're paying me to do it, which they through, and you can try this out for yourself. I'm not lying. I'm not just doing this because they're paying me to do it, which they are, and I'm grateful for. So that's another reason why you should patron them.

But it's totally sophisticated in the sense that it's high quality and it's 100% Catholic. Halo.com. That's halo.com. The second sponsor is Strive. This is a course that I created, strive21.com. If you are a man who's struggling with pornography or lust in any way, please check out strive21.com. We have over 17,000 men going through the course right now. Every day, you get a five-minute video from me, a challenge to perform, and you're then encouraged to interact with the brothers in the online community.

then encouraged to interact with the brothers in the online community. And with 17,000 men strong, there are a lot of men all around the world who are breaking free from porn right now by using strive21.com. It's 100% free and you can be as anonymous as you want. Again, strive21.com. Please be sure to check that out. Okay, let's get into this debate with Pat Madrid and James White. Good evening. It's good to be with you. I'm very thankful to the church for allowing us to be here. I need to thank all of you San Diegans. I understand there's a big push on to make this a very friendly city.

And I think it's very friendly of you to bring in Phoenix weather just for me while I'm here. Very kind of you. Except in Phoenix, all of our buildings have air conditioners and you need to sort of put those two things together and that'll make things a whole lot easier. There have always been those who have refused to give the scriptures their proper place. There have always been those who have refused to give the scriptures their proper place there

have always been those who wished to add to scripture their own authority and the unique teachings that set them apart indeed basil cesarea ran into some of the same problems long ago and replying to his opponents who appealed to their customs and traditions as relevant and authoritative he said if custom is to be taken in proof of what is right then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here if they reject this we are clearly not bound to follow them therefore let god-inspired scripture decide between us and on whichever side we found doctrines in harmony with the word of god in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. And so we gather this

evening to debate the same question. Is the Bible the sole and infallible rule of faith of the church? Or must we have other revelation from God? Do we need the Book of Mormon or the writings of the Watchtower or Mary Baker Eddy or the so-called apostolic unwritten traditions of Rome? Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith of the church? Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of the soul of scriptura does not say. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail.

John 21, 25 25 speaks the fact there are many things that jesus said and did that are not recorded in john or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it but the bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith of the church we do not need to know the color of thomas's eyes we do not need to know the menu of each meal of the apostolic band for the scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. Secondly, it is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's truth.

1 Timothy 3.15 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. The truth is in Jesus Christ and in his word. The church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and in so doing functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The church does not add revelation or rule over scripture. The church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed scripture. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet the apostles proved their message from Scripture as we see in

Acts chapter 17 verse 2 and 18 verse 28. And John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be apostles, Revelation 2.2. The apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament. And finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the church. What then is sola scriptura? The doctrine of sola scriptura simply stated is that the scriptures and the scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith for the church.

All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith of the Christian church. The scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church, or counsel. The scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian church looks to the scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the church is always subject to the word and is constantly reformed thereby.

Now, given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid. Sola Scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement. Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church negatively it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of god hence logically i must do the following things first i must demonstrate that the bible teaches that it is a rule of faith for the church. Secondly, I must demonstrate the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. That is, I must demonstrate its sufficiency or in the language used in the New Testament

itself that the Bible is artios. And thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith does not refer us to any other rule of faith. Absent a demonstration on Mr. Madrid's part of some other rule of faith, the proceeding is sufficient to establish the fact that the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura. Now, some opponents of sola scriptura have engaged in what can only be called cheap debating tricks in attempting to force the defender of scriptural sufficiency to prove a universal negative. That is, the less honest debater might attempt to force me to prove the non-existence of another rule of faith. Since I am saying that scripture is unique in its function

as the rule of faith of the church, some might challenge me to demonstrate that no other rule of faith could possibly exist. To illustrate this, I call your attention to my pen yes to my pen if our debate this evening was that i was going to stand here and say this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe how would i go about proving it well the only way i could prove the statement there is no other pen like this in all the universe is if i looked in all of your purses and all of your shirt pockets and in all the stores in the world that carry pens and look through all the houses and all over the planet Earth and the moon and the planets and the solar system and the entire universe looking for another pen like this. And of course I could not do that.

But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out and get a cross-medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine and say, see, another pen just like yours. And he's won the debate. In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand, or he must demonstrate the existence of the other pen. That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true, I quote.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand. End quote.

Hence, I shall demonstrate that the Bible teaches its sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith in the church. And if Mr. Madrid wishes to attempt to show us some other rule of faith, I will gladly respond to such an attempt. Now, the doctrine of sola scriptura is based upon the inspiration of scripture. Our primary passage this evening, I hope you have your Bibles with you, will be found in Paul's second letter to Timothy.

The gentlemen from Catholic Answers have made it a practice for years to assert that Protestants cannot provide a single verse that teaches sola scriptura. Yet they are quite mistaken in this, though they have been corrected a number of times in the past, and let us examine the passage to see if this is the case. 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 16 through 17. See if this is the case. 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 16 through 17. All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work. We begin by knowing that scripture is theanoustos, God-ed. The term is very strong. I refer anyone who wishes a full

discussion of this term to B.B. Warfield's excellent treatment of it. That which is theanoustos has ultimate authority, for there can be no higher authority than God's very speaking. All scripture is God breathed. It is common for Roman Catholic apologists to follow an error made by John Henry Cardinal Newman with reference to this passage. Indeed, Carl Keating, Patrick's associate to Catholic Answers, makes the same mistake in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and he repeated it again only recently

during debate on this subject in Denver during the papal visit. Newman said that if this verse proves the sufficiency of scripture, it proves too much, for Paul is talking here only about the Old Testament, which would leave the New Testament as an unnecessary addition. But such is not Paul's point at all. Scripture, Paul's point is, if it is scripture at all, is God breathed. Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon, but the nature of scripture itself as originating in

god all scripture then including the new testament is god breathed because scripture is god breathed and hence represents god's very voice speaking it is profitable for the work of the ministry in the church of jesus christ we are told that the work of teaching and rebuking and correcting and training and righteousness can be undertaken due to the nature of scripture as god breathed what is paul's What is Paul's point? and instructing is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims the contrary, from Scripture itself. Now, Mr. Madrid will certainly disagree for addressing this very passage less than 50 days ago. In a debate on this topic, he said, speaking specifically of verse 16, quote, I defy you to show me where it says sufficient. In your remarks, you said when you cited 2nd Timothy 3.16, you said sufficient, but that is not what the bible teaches end quote of course no one asserts

the term profitable in verse 16 equates to sufficiency when his opponents referred him to verse 17 mr madrid said quote well 17 doesn't say sufficient either 17 says that so the one that belongs to god may be competent and equipped for every good work that does not teach sufficiency where does the bible teach that it is sufficient end quote is mr madrid correct here well let's see verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16 the fact that the church has god's voice always present with her in god breathes scripture means the man of god specifically here of course timothy but i doubt anyone would disagree that these comments refer to all those who belong to christ and who are a part of his body, the church, might be complete, fully equipped for every good

work. The first term to examine is the adjective translated complete, the Greek term artios. We note that it is related in its root to the second term we will examine, the verb which is translated fully equipped, that being the verb exartizo. Paul is here providing us with a play on words, the verb compounding and emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective. Now the term artios, Vine tells us, means fitted, complete. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker tell us the term means complete, capable, proficient. That is, as they say, able to meet all demands,

giving the specific citation of 2 Timothy 3.17 as the reference. One of the newest lexical resources, Lo and Nita's Greek-English lexicon based on semantic domains, uses the term qualified as well. The great Greek scholar Richard Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament, said with reference to this term, quote,

If we ask ourselves under what special aspects completeness is contemplated in Artios, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that completeness, but involves further the adaptation and aptitude of these parts for the ends which they were designed to serve.

The man of God, St. Paul would say, should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to God can be complete, capable, proficient, and qualified because he has available to him always God's inspired scriptures. Surely here Paul would have to direct us to any and all other rules of faith that we would need to be complete but he does not but paul was not satisfied to merely state the man of god may be artios complete but he goes on to define what he means fully equipped for every good work

the term is exartizo here in the perfect passive participial form the prefix x having as robertson noted the perfective force vine tells us that here in second simothy participial form the prefix x having as robertson noted the perfective force vine tells us that here in second simothy it means to fit out that is to furnish completely bauer art gingrich and donker expressed this with the term equip hendrickson makes reference to a related term cut our tidzo and it's used at luke 640 where it is translated fully trained we see here then that paul teaches that the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work. Now what does it mean to say that one is fully equipped if not to say that one is sufficient for a task? I've recently taken up long distance bicycle riding.

And I've found a lovely little bike shack, a bike store where they are able to give me everything that I need. The clothes and the gloves and the helmet and the bike and the tires and tubes, which you need a lot. They're able to fully equip me for the task of riding a bike. Does that not mean then that they are sufficient as equipers for their task? Most definitely it does. We further see the scriptures can equip the man of God for every good work. Now, Mr. Madrid, do you not believe that it is a good work to pray to Mary? Yet the scriptures nowhere teach this. Do you not believe it is good to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? Yet the Bible does not teach this. Do you not believe that the man of God should teach in the church that the Pope in Rome is infallible in his teaching office? Yet the

scriptures know nothing of such a concept we see then that the roman position is contradicted by that of the apostle for he knew of no other rule of faith that was necessary so that the man of god to be equipped for every good work no other rule of faith that is than the scriptures but finally we remember mr madrid's challenge to show him a verse that teaches sufficiency mr madrid i would like to direct you to the scriptural standard, by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a fact be established. I first refer you to Lo and Nita's Greek-English lexicon, where we encounter the definition given for the semantic domain of ex-artizo, I quote,

to make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something, to make adequate, to furnishish completely to cause to be fully qualified adequacy end quote they translate our passages completely qualified for every good deed while lo and need to give us two witnesses i wish to direct you as well to the well-known scholarly resource by fritz reinecker and cleon rogers entitled linguistic key to the greek new testament here we find the following in regards to both terms here in verse 17. Quote, artios, fit, complete, capable, sufficient, i.e. able to meet all demands. Ex artizo, completely outfitted, fully furnished, fully equipped, fully supplied.

End quote. Hence we see the following. Number one, Paul here teaches that the Bible is a rule of faith. For he says the church's function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God-inspired scripture. Number two, we see that this passage teaches the sufficiency of the scriptures to function in this way. And number three, we see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith, but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by his teaching on the ability of Scripture to completely equip the man of God. Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of sola scriptura is taught plainly in this passage.

Mr. Madrid must be able to fully refute the information I have provided to you to win this evening's debate. Now, one might well ask, is this the only place where Sola Scriptura is taught? Most certainly not, though it is the clearest. For example, we find this concept plainly enunciated in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when coming into conflict with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Note the words recorded in Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 15. Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,

Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat. Jesus replied, And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, Honor your father and mother, and anyone who curses his father and mother must be put to death. But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift to go to God. He is not to honor his father with it.

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Here we find the Lord providing us with the example that we must follow this evening. The Jewish leaders objected to the fact that disciples did not follow the rigorous hand-washing rituals of the Pharisees. They identified this as a breaking of the tradition of the elders. They firmly believed that this body of tradition was authoritative, and some even believed that it had been passed down from Moses himself, though this surely is without warrant. But does Jesus accept this claim of authority? Not at all. Instead, he launches a counter-attack against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the command of God through the following of their own

traditions, specifically in this with reference to the Korban rule. The Lord Jesus holds this traditional teaching up to the light of scripture and finds it wanting. In the same way, we too must hold any tradition up to the light of scripture, for no tradition is on the same level of authority as scripture. Traditions are not God-breathed and hence are subject to examination

on the part of the higher authority of scripture. Even though the Jews believe their traditions to have authority, they are held responsible for recognizing that God speaks to them in scripture, not in their traditions. The same is true tonight. While Rome may claim divine authority for her supposedly sacred traditions, and even subjugate scripture so as to make it a part of sacred tradition, needing other aspects such as the supposedly apostolic unwritten traditions,

and the authority of the magisterium of the church, the person who wishes to follow the example of Christ will hold such traditions up to the light of scripture, knowing how fearful it is to be found guilty of nullifying the word of God for the sake of merely human traditions. And so, my friends, I present to you the wonderful doctrine of the sufficiency of God's inspired scriptures. As a follower of Jesus Christ and a minister in his church, I gladly proclaim to you the glorious grace of God in giving to the church the scriptures so that we can always be assured of hearing God's voice speaking to us. We need not wonder about supposedly authoritative traditions whose origins are obscure and whose teachings are suspect. Instead, we have the certainty of holding in our hands the same

scriptures that our Lord Jesus described as the very speaking of the Father himself. This is the firm himself this is the firm ground upon which the church can stand in an uncertain and threatening world this is the rule of faith that constantly calls the church to christ likeness let us never abandon the firm foundation of god breathed scripture the word of god the bible thank you the bible says in proverbs 18 17 the man who pleads his case first seems to be in the right until his opponent comes and puts him to the test. And folks, that's what I'm here to do tonight. I'm here to test the claim of sola scriptura. My opponent has just given you a very forceful, a very smooth presentation of the Protestant doctrine of the Bible alone, a case which may seem convincing at first glance

my job is to show you why he's wrong mr white has appealed at least very briefly to the writings of the early church fathers in an attempt to bolster his position or just to prepare your uh disposition to hear it claiming that a few of the church fathers taught sola scriptura or at least by giving that implication i will resist the temptation to bury mr white under a mountain of quotations from the church fathers proving they did not teach sola scriptura i have here 52 pages of quotations from the early church fathers including serial of jerusalem athanasius and all the other fathers that james might like to quote showing that they did not teach sola scriptura. And also showing that Mr. White, if he chooses to refer to them,

is misrepresenting their views, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses misrepresent the Church Fathers on the Trinity. The way a kidnapper might cut and paste a newspaper to make a ransom note, he may try to cut and paste quotes from the Church Fathers to create the illusion that they believed in sola scriptura. This ploy would be unfortunate because what the church fathers believed or didn't believe is not the subject of our debate tonight. The subject is does the bible teach sola scriptura? What the early church fathers believed is irrelevant so I won't waste time by raising or responding to any material that's not in discussion. Now many of you here tonight are Protestants.

You've been raised to believe in sola scriptura, the notion that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians. In fact, you probably take it for granted that the Bible teaches this. So my task is to demonstrate that sola scriptura is unbiblical. I don't have to prove the case for tradition. Mr. White claims that I must be able to prove every point from Scripture alone. So sola scriptura itself must be proved from scripture alone. And if it can't be done, sola scriptura is a self-refuting proposition and therefore it is false. Tonight's debate is about truth. The truth Jesus wants for you and for me to stand firm and hold fast to. But what is the

truth about sola scriptura? Does the Bible really teach it? Did the apostles teach it? Did Jesus teach it? Many approach scripture with a predetermined conviction that the Catholic Church must be wrong. So they search to find verses which they can cobble together in an attempt to refute a given Catholic teaching. Their hostility to the Catholic Church

often makes it very difficult for them to view the Catholic case objectively. I would ask you to please tonight put aside any predetermined ideas you may have about Sola Scriptura, pro or con. Let the Lord speak to you tonight through scripture. You will see, I believe, that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura. The apostles did not teach Sola Scriptura. Jesus did not teach sola scriptura jesus did not teach sola scriptura and i believe that if you want to be faithful to the teachings of jesus you must reject sola scriptura as a tradition of men if you don't reject it god will hold you accountable protestant apologists commonly make several mistakes in their zeal to vindicate sola scriptura. My opponent tonight may not make all of these mistakes, but you need to know about them so that you can know how to handle them when you encounter them.

Mistake number one. If you have your notepads out, I'd ask you to write these down. Mistake number one. Confusing formal and material sufficiency. This is a crucial point in tonight's debate. It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call the material sufficiency of Scripture. This means that Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they're all there.

Formal sufficiency, on the other hand, is the position that Mr. White is attempting to prove. Sufficiency on the other hand is the position that mr. White is attempting to prove formal sufficiency means that scripture contains all necessary Christian truth and and this is a very important and that scriptures meaning is so clear that the church and tradition are not necessary To arrive at an accurate interpretation of the meaning of scripture in the course of this debate Mr. White may make the mistake of assuming that the Catholic Church rejects the material sufficiency of Scripture. It doesn't. What it does reject is the error of the formal sufficiency of Scripture. As a Catholic, I contend that all Christian doctrines are at least implicitly present in Scripture, but that doesn't mean Scripture is always sufficiently clear so that every Christian doctrine is explicitly and conclusively evident. For example, the Bible does not say that Christians should baptize infants, nor does it say that only adults must be baptized.

It simply doesn't tell us. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament assumed their readers already knew the answer to this question from observing the practice of the church. So they didn't see the need to address this issue explicitly. Some people, such as Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians, say the biblical evidence that babies were baptized in the New Testament is good, so therefore we should baptize babies. Others, such as Baptists, Pentecostals, and Jehovah's Witnesses,

say the biblical evidence shows that babies were not and should not be baptized. Scholars on both sides of the debate admit that the biblical evidence is simply inconclusive but if the evidence is inconclusive on this or any other doctrine then scripture is manifestly not sufficient to give us a conclusive interpretation of everything that it teaches in fact scripture itself denies that its doctrines are always clear to all readers. In 2 Peter 3, verses 15 and 16, we read, Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters,

speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable people distort as they do other scriptures to their own destruction. So we see here that the bible warns us that its doctrines can be misunderstood they can be unclear and they can be distorted mistake number two using a hermeneutic of anachronism protestant apologists read back into scripture and the writings of the church fathers the particular doctrines they wish

to find and they ignore or explain away what they don't wish to see mormons do this in their attempt to prove so-called that the bible in the early church believed in many gods since the time the devil used scripture to tempt jesus in the desert doctrinal error has always been advanced under the guise of bible verses jesus said in matthew 7 verse 15 beware of false prophets who will come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath they are ravenous wolves. Error comes packaged

under the wrapping paper of Bible verses. The Arians did it. The Albigensians did it. The Mormons do it. And I'm afraid tonight Mr. White is doing it. Mistake number three.

Thinking that the phrase Word of God applies to scripture alone. Scripture does refer to itself as God's word. But many other things are called God's word as well. For example, we see Jesus is called the word of God in flesh in John 1 verses 1 through 14. The Bible speaks of God's sovereign blessings that he speaks on his people as his word in Isaiah 55 verses 10 through 11. Blessings that he speaks on his people as his word in Isaiah 55 verses 10 through 11. And the Bible calls the oral proclamation of the gospel the word of God, such as in 1 Thessalonians 2.13. Where Paul says, and for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly that in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you have received not a human word, but as it truly is, the word of God. So remember, when you see tonight or hear tonight the phrase word of God, it doesn't always mean the Bible.

We have to be careful to search for the context of this verse in the meaning or the meaning of this verse in context. Now, Mr. White will only beg the question if he tries to use verses such as Psalm 119, 89, where the psalmist says, Forever, O Lord, your word is settled in the heavens. This verse and the other verses like it, which describe the attributes of the word of God, don't prove the formal sufficiency of scripture. All they prove is that there is a certain attribute that the word of God has. And again, we have to know

whether it's the written word of God or the oral word of God or the word of God in flesh. The Bible uses it in various ways. Mistake number four, confusing testimony with authority. Some Protestants argue that if the Catholic Church were the official witness to God's word, it would be over God's word. But this is false.

Just because one person serves as a witness to another person doesn't mean that he has an authority over that person. I'll give you a few examples. John the Baptist testified. And he testified authoritatively. To Jesus Christ the word of God. But John the Baptist did not have authority. Over Jesus Christ. In the same way.

The church as the bride of Christ. Recognizes Christ's voice. And serves as an accurate. Faithful witness to it. But that does not mean. And Catholics do not claim. That the church has authority over the Word of God Mistake number five many say we can't have more than one ultimate authority

On the surface that might sound convincing but notice that it's false when you look at it more carefully The four Gospels Matthew Mark Luke and John are equally ultimate and authoritative. And one Gospel does not subjugate the other Gospel. The same with the prophet Isaiah and the prophet Jeremiah. Here were two prophets of God walking the earth at the same time, delivering inspired oracles of God for his people. He didn't subjugate one prophet over another. They were both ultimate authorities in their own way. And yet there was no subjugation. They worked harmoniously together, as is God's plan.

Mistake number six, which we have already heard tonight, the attempt to shift the burden of proof, sometimes less scrupulous and honest Protestant apologists will attempt to divert attention away from their very weak case for sola scriptura by claiming that the Catholic must prove the Catholic position on tradition. The Catholic Church can demonstrate the biblical grounds for this doctrine but tradition is not on trial here tonight no matter what mr white may tell you sola scriptura is on trial if you don't believe me then go get the flyer that mr white produced which says does the bible teach sola scriptura that's the issue don't forget that don't let him try to fool you if he tries to shift the burden of proof onto my shoulders saying I must prove the Catholic view.

I don't have to. I don't have to prove the Catholic position on tradition, Mr. White, or infant baptism, or the papacy, or even bingo. The question is, does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Mr. White uses the pen analogy. I find that very intriguing. He argues that to prove there is no other pen like this pen, he would have the impossible task of searching the entire earth, all the bookstores,

all the pockets, the whole earth. He would have to visit the moon. He'd have to search all the planets in the solar system. He would have to search the entire universe to make sure that no other pen

like this pen existed. No, Mr. White. Tonight, this Bible is your universe. This is what you have to search. You don't have to go to any other planets tonight, Mr. White. I invite you to stay right here on planet Earth and simply show us where in the Bible the doctrine of sola scriptura is found. Now, in our remaining moments, let's examine some key scripture passages that are frequently bought up let's turn immediately to second timothy 3 16 verse 17 pardon me 3 16 and 17 which mr white leans so heavily upon and let's take a look at what it really says he quoted it for you already

so i won't feel the need to quote it again but i do want to quote from his book where he says this is on page 42 of his book answers to catholic claims i believe that the case for sola scriptura is so flimsy that if you want to find how flimsy it is you can just go right to mr white's book answers to catholic claims which purports to deal with the sufficiency or the formal sufficiency of scripture this book i think shows how flimsy that case is. Mr. White says, 2 Timothy 3.16 and 17 literally screams sufficiency.

Well, this verse is screaming, but it's only because of the way Mr. White is twisting it in his attempt to shoehorn sola scriptura into it. 2 Timothy 3.17 does not teach the formal sufficiency of Scripture, folks. It simply doesn't. It teaches, perhaps, material sufficiency, which I would be perfectly happy to go along with,

but just because Scripture contains all the necessary equipment, remember Paul is saying that the man of God through Scripture will be equipped, will be competent, will be thoroughly furnished, as it says in the King James, for every good work. Every Catholic says amen to that. There's no argument.

But just because it will give you all the equipment that you need doesn't mean that it will necessarily make you able to use that equipment properly. Let me demonstrate. Scripture says we must rightly divide the Word of God. That means that some people can wrongly divide it. They can wrongly use it. Some of you here tonight will think I am wrongly using the Word of God. So that, in effect can wrongly divide it. They can wrongly use it. Some of you here tonight will think I am wrongly using the word of God. So that in effect proves what I'm

saying. Some people will use it correctly. Others won't. So just having the Bible alone is not enough to fully equip the man of God in the sense that he may have all the raw materials. He may have all the equipment, but he may not know how to use it properly. Mr. White used a very quaint example about a bike store and how the bike store can outfit him thoroughly, give him everything he needs, bike tires, inner tubes, helmets, and all the various things that he might need. But what about Mr. White if you don't know how to ride a bike? Or what if you don't know the rules of the road? Or what if you don't know the proper way to handle a bike in difficult terrain or in bad weather? The church and sacred tradition,

which the Bible does talk about and we'll show later tonight, is in that support role. Sure, the Bible will fully equip the man of God, but it doesn't presuppose that the man of God automatically knows how to use that scripture. That's where the church comes in in sacred tradition. Those are the ways that the church helps to guide the man of God in the proper use of sacred scripture. Don't forget that point. Finally, how can Mr. White assert that Paul has in mind the formal sufficiency of scripture when in the very same epistle in 2 Timothy 2, 2, which I'm sure he'll get to later, Paul charges Timothy with handing on oral tradition. Oral tradition.

One other point. Mr. White places a very heavy emphasis on Greek and Greek grammar. And all those other fancy ways of studying scripture. But they're irrelevant tonight for tonight's purpose. Because we can take Mr. White's principle. His interpretive principle. And apply it to another passage. Very similar. And find out if it works. Mr. White says, in effect, because the Bible says it will make you perfect and complete,

lacking in nothing, or perfect and complete, fully equipped, therefore you don't need anything else. It excludes everything else. Well, let's apply that, for example, to James 1.4. James 1.4, Paul says here, let your perseverance be perfect and complete. Let your perseverance be perfect so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Now what does that mean, Mr. White? Does that mean that if I persevere, that I'm perfect and complete, therefore I don't need the Bible? Does that mean I don't need fellowship? I do not need prayer?

I don't need to do the good works that Paul talks about so often as those that accompany saving faith What about those I do need all of those? But if the Bible is to be sufficient if it's proved to be sufficient from Second Timothy 3 17 simply because it will it says it will make you complete then the Bible proves that Perseverance and by the way the context in James 1 and 2 is perseverance in good works, that perseverance in good works will make you perfectly complete, lacking in nothing. No Protestant would accept that hermeneutic principle. I do not accept Mr. White's faulty and shabby misuse of 2 Timothy 3.17. Mr. White mentioned the verses in scripture,

Matthew 15 and Colossians 2. Perhaps he didn't mention Colossians 2, but these are places where Jesus condemns the traditions of men. Fair enough. Traditions of men, which are bad, should be condemned. But not all tradition is to be condemned. In fact, elsewhere, Paul praises oral tradition. We don't have time to go into all of these at the moment. We'll save them for later. But just jot these down.

1 Corinthians 11, 2, where Paul says, I commend you for holding firm to the traditions Just as I gave them to you second Thessalonians 2 15 Paul commands the church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they have been given whether orally Spoken or through an epistle of theirs So in other words tradition is one major category and there are two subsets in the one category. Oral tradition, written tradition.

That's what the Word of God says. I'm sure we're going to get heavily into 2 Thessalonians 2 later in the night. There are many other things I'd like to say. There are many other points I'd like to bring up. But I want to mention one thing. Tonight, we can only cover the peaks and valleys in this debate. There is a mountain of evidence that can be brought forth Biblically and historically although members historically is not the emphasis of tonight's debate which can show

That the Bible doesn't teach sola scriptura that the church didn't believe sola scriptura in the early days But I want you to concentrate on one point I'll try to give you as many as time will allow, as many reasons as time will allow, why Sola Scriptura is false. If you can only remember one of these reasons, please remember this one. The central flaw,

you might say the fatal flaw, of Mr. White's position tonight, is that unless Sola Scriptura can be shown from Scripture alone, which he has not done. Simply by saying, well, it says you'll be made equipped for every good work, therefore that means sufficient. It doesn't mean sufficient, folks. No more than James 1.4 means sufficient, as far as perseverance in good works. So if he can't show this from Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura is itself unscriptural.

That means it's false. It's a tradition of men which must be rejected by everyone who wants to be faithful to the teachings of scripture. That's why I reject sola scriptura, because I love the written word of God. I don't want to see it undermined. I don't want to see its authority corrupted or compromised. I don't want to see scripture become the private play toy of every individual person who has some idea, whether true or bogus, about how religion should be. That is not what Jesus intended for his church. That is not what the Bible says about itself. The fact is, there are no verses which teach that scripture is formally sufficient, as I'm most confident Mr. White's arguments this evening will demonstrate. Thank you.

We've had the first two presentations then of the formal statement of the various sides of the question. Now we'll proceed to a first rebuttal. Ten minutes for each speaker mr white will speak and then mr madrid 10 minutes in answer to the presentation of the other speaker i wish to immediately respond to some of the things mr madrid just said so they're fresh in your mind because they amazed me so mr madrid Madrid said, all that fancy stuff about Greek is irrelevant. We're talking about the language in which Paul wrote and the meanings of the terms he used was just labeled irrelevant. Mr. Madrid, I would like to suggest that you look at those languages

because you made a very fatal error in your presentation. In fact, it's interesting, you utilized one of the four passages that's mr keating utilized in denver using the term complete matthew 19 21 colossians 128 colossians 412 and james 1 4 all use the term complete and catholic answers like to say well see here these if you're gonna say second timothy says this, then all these other things make you complete too. And Mr. Madrid called it faulty and shabby work that I had done on the passage. And said that 2 Timothy 3 no more proves sola scriptura than James 1.4. There's a little problem.

None of those passages use the terms used in 2 Timothy if you looked at it in the Greek. Timothy if you looked at it in the Greek. It is a common error for a beginning Bible student to assume that an English translation is going to utilize different words for different Greek terms. The terms used in Matthew 19.21 is telaios. Colossians 1.21 telaios. Colossians 4.12 telaios. And James 1.4 telaios. And Hala Kleroi. None of them use artion. Mr. Madrid did not even begin to address the information that I presented he said it doesn't teach sufficiency and yet I quoted you major lexical

sources that said what sufficient and Mr. Madrid you don't have the authority to overthrow the meaning of those terms no matter how much you may wish to do so no other passage in the Bible can be used to deflect what we said about 2nd Timothy chapter 3 now Mr. Madrid said that I'm trying to shift the burden of proof if you listen closely I presented the position I said now if mr madrid wants to recognize that asking someone to prove a universal negative is impossible great fine we won't talk about that if he attempts to prove this existence of another rule of faith then we'll talk

about that too i left that up to him i wasn't attempting to shift any burdens at all i was just simply logically dealing with the issues that are presented before us mr madrid Madrid also said, well, you know, in regards to ultimate authority, this idea that you can't have two ultimate authorities, and yes, I had said that. I've said that in a number of debates in the past on Sola Scriptura. You cannot have two ultimate authorities. The word ultimate does not allow for that meaning. But Mr. Madrid said, well, look, you've got four Gospels.

And Mr. Madrid is engaging in a little shifting of the grounds here you see all four gospels have the same nature they are theon new stops they together form that which is god's revelation and so if mr madrid would like to say well you can have another ultimate authority you can have these other elements of authority, the teaching magisterium, the oral tradition, then Mr. Madrid's going to have to prove that those oral traditions are theanoustos, or they cannot function along with God breathes Scripture.

Mr. Madrid then said, well, we can wrongly divide the Word of God. And he used the example that I used, the little bike store that I go to, and he says, but, Mr. White, what if you don't auto-ride a bike? Well, some people might think that. But the problem is,

we need to be focusing on the nature of that bike shop because that's what the debate's about. Is it the bike shop's fault who I am when I come in? You say, well, yes. They need to teach you how to ride. There's a little problem here. There's a little problem here.

You see, Paul says the scriptures are sufficient for whom? Remember 2 Timothy chapter 3? Who's it addressed to? Non-bike riders? No. The man of God. You see, the analogy breaks down. Because to make the analogy work,

you've got to be a bike rider to go into the bike den and get your stuff. It's the man of God who is equipped for every single good work. And Mr. Madrid said, well, we have 2 Timothy 2 too, the very same book

that Mr. White is quoting from says something differently. Well, let's take the very same book that Mr. White is quoting from says something differently. Well, let's take a look at 2 Timothy 2.2. It was not read in your hearing, but I'll read it for you. But you, my child, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses. These things entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others. Join in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

You hear anything in there that sola scriptura but we're told you see well you're supposed to entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others those things that you heard from me and you need to listen to every presentation that is made by the roman catholic apologist because there's an underlying assumption you see as soon as you hear all these passages and we're going to take the time to look at second Thessalonians 2 15 and all the rest of that here's the assumption that if you hear about a spoken tradition if you hear about for example here Timothy hearing things in the presence of Paul those things must be contain information like maybe the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary or papal infallibility. They must contain some different data that is being passed on rather than what's in scripture. There's the problem. I challenge Mr. Madrid to show us any bit of

evidence that any time that the term tradition is used in scripture where the Christian church is passing it on that it means that what is in that tradition differs from what's in the New Testament. That's the assumption that must be proven by the Roman Catholic for these citations, these passages to be relevant at all. Now did Paul teach something different

in the presence of many witnesses than he taught in his epistle to the Romans and the Galatians? It's interesting that Tertullian addressed this very passage, and Mr. Madrid said he could bury me and held up a notebook. Well, I'm not going to get into stuff like that.

It's sort of silly. We can debate that if we want. But Tertullian addressed this very passage when refuting those false teachers of his day who claimed that the apostles had two different teachings. Sound familiar? One which was open and known by all,

and a second secret doctrine known only to a few. He says, But here is, as we have said, the same madness in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing and preached not any doctrine

which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men. For they proclaimed some openly and to all the world will stay disclosed, others only in secret and to a few.

Because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy oh Timothy guard that which is entrusted to thee and again that good thing which was committed unto thee keep what is this deposit Tertullian says is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine or supposed to characterize or is it a part

of that charge of which he says this charge I commit unto thee son Timothy and also of that charge of which he says this charge i commit unto thee son timothy and also that precept of which he says i charge thee in the sight of god who quickeneth all things before jesus christ who witnessed a good confession under pontius pilate that thou keep this commandment now what is this commandment and what is this charge from the preceding and succeeding context it will be manifested there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about some far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other doctrine than that which Timothy had heard from himself,

as I take it publicly, before many witnesses is his praise. So Tertullian says, no, this isn't some secret doctrine. This isn't some oral tradition that contains some other revelation than what we have in Scripture. No, no, no, no. This isn't some oral tradition that contains some other revelation than what we have in Scripture. No, no, no, no.

This is all what is taught by the Apostle Paul. And is what's taught by the Apostle Paul the same as what we have in Scripture? Well, I'd like to refer you to a passage. Look at 2 Thessalonians 3.6.

2 Thessalonians 3.6. What do we have here? Well, it's interesting. Here's one of those passages that talks about tradition or teaching. 2 Thessalonians 3.6. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,

we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching or the tradition you received from us. Oh, well, here is this oral tradition.

This oral tradition we need to keep. Really? No. Look back at 1 Thessalonians chapter 5, verse 14, as well as 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Paul is referring back to the tradition he had already delivered to them, that is, in writing. As we will see, the term tradition normally refers to that which was orally preached but it's the same message in fact in second Thessalonians 2 15 as we will see in the next time we have some time together it's talking about the gospel not oral traditions somehow passed down to the episcopate

not oral traditions that you have to have to have the completeness of God's revelation. No. We are talking here about the gospel itself. The teaching of the gospel, which of course is found in the New Testament. And so I just simply point out to you, Mr. Madrid did not even begin to refute the information I presented to you. He simply said, well, it doesn't teach that. I presented to you the references, the terms,

their meaning. I gave you an exegesis of the passage that you can follow along. I invite you to look at it. Thank you. I'm reminded of Jesus' words to Martha. Mr. White, you are anxious and concerned about many things, but only one thing is important, that you show us in the Bible where it teaches the sufficiency of Scripture.

And I'm going to hold you to that tonight. I was going to say I was going to hold his feet to the fire, but that might have bad connotations, you know, the Inquisition and all that. to hold his feet to the fire, but that might have bad connotations, you know, the Inquisition and all that. I'd like to begin my remarks simply by just going through the few points that Mr. White brought up and try to respond to them as briefly as I can, but hopefully as effectively. Number one, let me point out, Mr. White blundered badly into error number one for most of his rebuttal period by confusing formal and material sufficiency, or by perhaps not remembering what I told him and told the audience

with regard to the material sufficiency position of the Catholic Church. I'll restate it again so that Mr. White can keep that in mind. The Catholic Church does not need to prove that everything that is in oral tradition is not found in the written tradition. Our position is that everything that is in oral tradition is in sacred scripture. It's in written

tradition. Everything. Mr. White brought up the assumption. He could bring up any doctrine he might like, none of which would be the topic of our debate tonight, but at some future point, perhaps, we could discuss where those doctrines are found. The assumption, for example, since he brought it up, I'll just refer to it. Revelation chapter 12, Mr. White. It's a very commonly used passage for Catholic apologists. I don't know why you would have missed that. The woman clothed with the sun was seen not only by

modern Catholic apologists as Mary's Assumption, but also the early church fathers, which Mr. White is so fond of bringing into the picture. I'd be more than happy in some future point to demonstrate in a different debate how the early church fathers viewed revelation 12 they exegeted that passage to mean that mary had been brought up into heaven in a special way but that's another topic mr white is resting his case on the say-so of a few protestant greek scholars that to me is not an infallible source of authority, Mr. White. The Bible is. Now I didn't mean to denigrate the biblical language, and I'm sorry that you took it that way, when I said that your argument was irrelevant. What I meant was that you can use all the Protestant biblical scholar citations that you want to show that a

word means something, but notice that the word sufficient came as the third or fourth definition of the third or fourth meaning that was assigned to this word it was not the primary meaning i am not going to debate what this protestant greek scholar may or may not have said first of all they're protestant so they're naturally going to give a spin to something that a catholic scholar might see something different in now mr white might respond by saying well greek is Greek, Mr. Madrid. You can't argue on the basis of ideology or politics. I'm going to save that for some future point,

simply because we don't have the time to go into what the Catholic scholars say on that issue. So I'm not going to go into that now. Mr. White says that no other passage can be used to deflect 2 Timothy 3.17. Well, Mr. White, I used James 1.4 to deflect 2 Timothy 3.17. In fact, not really to deflect it, but simply to hold up a mirror to it and show that you're misusing it. You're saying that because the man of God is equipped, and sure, it does use a different Greek word there,

but the sense is that you're arguing for an implication here, Mr. White, because he can be equipped for every good work, greek word there but the sense is that you're arguing for an implication here mr white because he can be equipped for every good work therefore it implies that he doesn't need anything else now mr white failed utterly to interact with my use of james 1 4 he just simply dismissed it out of hand he said nothing can be used to deflect it i want mr white to tell us why james 1 4 cannot be interpreted under his principle to mean that perseverance in good works and perseverance under persecution, which is what James is talking about, why that doesn't mean sufficiency. I want him to tell us about that. the errors, although he is prone to do so, but he has committed a few of them tonight. So I don't want him to

read too much of what I said about the errors into his own personal situation. He mentioned that the same old argument about there cannot be two ultimate authorities, one subjugating one to the other. If you don't like the example of the Gospels, then I can move on to a different one. What about Jesus

and Scripture? When Jesus was walking the earth, Jesus was and is God, the ultimate authority. And yet Mr. White would have no compunction in saying that the word of God is the ultimate authority. Well, did the Bible cease being the ultimate authority when Jesus was on the scene? In one sense,

Mr. White is going to have to argue, if he wants to make his case stick even barely, that Jesus constantly referred to Scripture as the court of last appeal well that undercuts his position because if Jesus is referring to an authority outside of himself then what does that say about Jesus? was Jesus the ultimate authority? I say yes

was the word of God in that sense that Mr. White wants to assign to it the ultimate authority? Mr. White would say yes well he's got a quandary there then, folks, because I've just demonstrated two ultimate authorities. I also mentioned the prophets Isaiah and the prophet Jeremiah. Mr. White failed to interact with that. Jeremiah and Isaiah were both, in their own sense, ultimate authorities.

He did not address that. He says that my analogy breaks down regarding the bike shop because um the man of god is obviously implying that the man of god in this analogous sense can can ride a bicycle well if that is does not suit mr white i'd be happy to use analogy of his own choosing and that would be the analogy that he uses again on page 42 of his book answers to catholic claims he says he hit the rest of the passage again here's the screaming verse literally scream sufficiency if they are not sufficient how then can they make the man of god complete fully equipped in bold print for every good work if i

have the ability to fully equip someone for a military mission mr white says then am i not sufficient as an equipper of Of course. Then the objection carries no weight. The Catholic objection. Well, I'm afraid Mr. White has dug himself a little deeper in by using that analogy. So I'll switch to that one if he doesn't like the bicycle one. If somebody goes into the military, and many of you in this room have been in the military, when you get there, you're issued a uniform, a helmet, a rifle, ammunition. Not all at once, of course, but you're issued ammunition, maybe hand grenades, maybe you're assigned to a tank unit. You are issued all sorts of equipment.

And to follow Mr. White's analogy, you're fully equipped by the U.S. military to carry out a military operation. But the military also has to train the soldier to fire that rifle to know how to throw a hand grenade and when to throw a hand grenade how to drive the tank when to duck when the bullets are coming how to thrust with the bayonet i could go on and on i could bury mr white in his own analogy the fact is just because the military fully equips the soldier to carry out his mission does not mean the soldier is necessarily ready to do it. He needs support things also, and that is the training and the guidance. The military will teach him, this tactic works, this tactic does not work.

All of that is necessary so that the military man may be truly complete and equipped for every military work. I'll go further. Mr. White is talking about how the man of God, that phrase used there in 2 Timothy 3.17, implies that the man can ride a bike. We'll just go back to that for a moment. But let me ask you, Mr. White, is Pastor Wagner a man of God, in your opinion? Do you think he would qualify under that rubric? If he is, then is he rightly dividing the word of God when he baptizes babies? This denomination of Mr. White baptizes babies.

Mr. White's denomination does not. They would say, and I think Mr. White, if he's going to be honest with us tonight, would have to admit that he would see that as a misuse of God's word

by arguing for infant baptism. Mr. White is in another quandary here. He says, well, sure, it assumes that the man of God will know how to use the word of God. It doesn't, folks. If Pastor Wagner is the man of God, and if James White is the man of God, we've got a problem then.

And I'm not implying that either one is not a man of God. Don't misunderstand. I'm simply saying that one argues for the position of infant baptism based on what scripture says. The other one denies that based on what scripture says. So Mr. White's appeal to 2 Timothy 3.17 as just presupposing that they'll know what to do with the word of God falls flat. Let me give you another example. What about the Lutheran minister who believes in baptismal regeneration based on what the Bible alone says. Remember Martin Luther, the founder of that

denomination said sola scriptura the Bible alone so the Lutheran minister is going by what scripture says he believes scripture teaches about baptism he believes in regeneration. Mr. White I can assure you his hair will stand on end when he hears that preached by

somebody because he as a Baptist is anathema on the issue of baptismal regeneration. He will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration. Well, Mr. White has another dilemma on his hands. Is the Lutheran minister not a man of God? Now, unless Mr. White is going to tell you, well, on every issue that they agree with me on, then they're men of God? Now unless Mr. White is going to tell you. Well on every issue that they agree with me on. Then they're men of God. But if they disagree with my interpretation of scripture. They cease to be men of God.

Or maybe they never were men of God in the beginning. Or maybe Mr. White is simply wrong in his interpretation of 2 Timothy 3.17. He will admit to you. And if he doesn't I will be happy to assert it. That he is not infallible he can make mistakes how does he know that he's right on this interpretation he doesn't know he can only hope he can only assert he can only assume why should i accept his fallible errant human interpretation of god breathed scripture over and above what Pastor Wagner might say

or what Pastor Nock might say or the Lutheran minister. Why? Ask yourself that question tonight. Thank you. Mr. Madrid, assuming that teaching that the Pope is infallible is something that the man of God would do in the church, could you please explain how, in light of 2 Timothy 3.17,

that the scripture equips the man of God for every good work, how the scripture equips you to teach this doctrine? Let me ask you to restate it. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your question. Okay, I'll repeat it. Given that we would assume that teaching that the Pope is infallible is a good work, how, in light of 2 Timothy 3, 16 through 17, it says that the scripture is able to thoroughly equip the man for every good work. How is it that the scripture equips you to teach the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope?

Okay, if I understand your question correctly, let me answer by saying that one of the good works that is implied, it's actually explicated there, is teaching sound doctrine. And part of sound doctrine, part of the full counsel of God, Mr. White, is the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Now, I know that you do not accept or agree with the various Bible verses that can be brought forward by the Catholic apologists to support that position. That simply makes my case. The Catholic is using scripture in the proper method that Jesus intended in harmony with what the church has always taught and in harmony with what the church has always taught

and in harmony with the tradition and authoritative teaching that the church has handed down therefore this doctrine or pardon me this verse assists me as a man of God in teaching sound doctrine I don't have to rely on my own private authority on what I think the bible means I could be wrong you could be wrong I'm able to look at the context of Scripture in the overall life of the church and see how the church interprets it. I'd go further and say that the very fact that you asked that question,

at least the implication of that question, proves my point. You're saying that the Catholic position on the authority of the bishop of Rome, the Catholic position based on scripture is erroneous. You're saying, and I've heard you say it many times in debates with Jerry Manitix and in other things that you've done, that the Catholic position is simply wrong. That these scriptures don't in fact teach that.

Well, that proves my point. If scripture were sufficient, formally sufficient, Mr. White, because remember, I did say it was materially sufficient If it was formally sufficient, then there would be no dispute if scripture could interpret its own meaning for us There wouldn't be this debate tonight Pastor Wagner would not be Holding to a doctrine of infant baptism which you reject that very fact disproves your question about or your your claim about the formal sufficiency of scripture okay well first of all of course the point is the teaching of the

infallibility of the bishop of rome is a traditional teaching uh it comes from tradition primarily it is not found in scripture you'll never find a reference to the bishop of rome or anything even regarding that in scripture. The other church didn't believe it. And I've debated that. I'd be glad to have more debates on that. But notice what was again just said. And I did address this.

In what Mr. Madrid said I didn't. But I did. What we're hearing here is. If the scripture was sufficient to equip the man of God. Then there would be what? No difference of opinion. Everybody would just lockstep in line. Right?

That's what we're being told. Seemingly, that not only ignores issues that are not central to the faith, but also ignores the fact that, as I said, the man of God studies the word of God. And men of God have to study the word of God throughout their entire lives. And they grow and they learn. And that's the work of the spirit in their lives. Seemingly, someone wants to short circuit that entire process. Well, Mr. White, I'm not trying to short circuit anything. I'm simply trying to explain that you have you have failed, I guess, to grasp the importance of your question because it undercuts your position.

The fact is, God's inspired word does not rely on us for its inspiration, does not rely on us for the fact that it is inerrant. And I believe that it is inspired and inerrant. But the fact is, God gave us the scriptures to be used. Now, that presents a problem because you want to use scripture and the only way you can use it is by interpreting it now you are fallible god's word is infallible the problem is that when you approach god's word and you want to interpret it over against what the church teaches you are in effect saying that your interpretation should be trusted what i want to to know is, why should your interpretation be trusted? You talk about men studying for many years.

Of course. Catholics study for many years for the same purpose. The fact is, ultimately it comes down to your opinion against someone else's opinion. We know what the Bible says, Mr. White. Okay. I don't think I've ever said the phrase Mr. White so many times in one space of time. Mr. White, I'm holding in my hands a copy of an early work known today as the book of Thomas the Contender.

You may be familiar with it. It claims to have been written by the Apostle Matthew. You probably would not say that this book belongs in the Bible, since if I opened your Bible, it would probably not have it there. Given your assertion that Scripture is self-authenticating, would you regard this book as self-authenticating? Bear in mind that it attempts to authenticate itself by claiming to have been written by the Apostle Matthew.

Thank you. There are a whole host, of course, of books that were written primarily in the second century. In fact, almost all of them were written in the second century. That were the Gnostic Gospels and various other sundry things like that. And we're being asked, well, why don't you accept this as scripture? And this all goes back to the whole issue of canon. And we need to recognize what's being said here. We're being told that, well, you see, without a church authority, you can't know what the canon is.

Without an infallible authority, you can't know what the canon is. And of course, I would say, well, how do you know it's an infallible authority to begin with? Because we get on this long, big circle that goes around, around, around, never actually answers the question. long, big circle that goes around, around, around, never actually answers the question. Because you might find another church that claims infallible authority up in Salt Lake City that has a different canon than that which Mr. Madrid has. But they claim infallible authority too. But anyways, we are told that, you know, you're asking me, well, why don't I believe this is a part of scripture? Well, first of all, I believe canon is determined by inspiration god is the author of canon men are not the author of canon god is the author of canon so god is the one who determines

the can so the issue is not whether this is canonical scripture or not the issue is how do we as human beings recognize what is and what is not inspired scripture we need to keep these things straight because there are some people who seem to think that the church has the power to create canon and of course it does not no council that ever sat in the first in the early church said we by choosing these books are making them canon scripture they didn't say that okay but in 18 seconds how do i know it's not well first of all it's contradictory that which is theonustos and since it is contradictory that which is theonustos and inconsistent therewith it is not testified historically i do not know of any

christians who ever accepted it and it is contradictory that which we have i don't accept the scripture as well you shouldn't mr white as well you shouldn't I found it interesting though that you part of your appeal was to tradition That nasty word again you said it was not testified to by other Christians. It was not historically regarded as scripture Here again. Mr. White isn't gay. Mr. White is engaging in filching Catholic tradition but not admitting that he's actually taking it. He's using it, but he won't admit it. That's what's going on here. Second of all, he says that without an infallible authority, you can't know what the canon of scripture is. Well, Mr. White says this is our only infallible authority. So Mr. White, here it is. Where does

the Bible tell you which books belong in the Bible? He can't tell us that. There's no inspired table of contents. It's like a dog chasing his tail. He says, I believe scripture is inspired. It's the only infallible authority. Well, how do you know that infallibly? Well, because the scripture. Well, where does the scripture tell you that? Well, it doesn't.

So he just has to go around in circles. And he won't admit that he's appealing to the tradition of the church. The fact is, he has those 27 books in his Bible because the Catholic church said those were canonical. I have the 27 books in my Bible because the Holy Spirit of God inspired them long before there was ever a man in Rome who called himself the vicar of Christ. The Catholic church did not give me that in any way, shape or form. He says I'm filching tradition. No, i love the term tradition i just don't like the way that the roman catholic church centuries after the early church redefined it to substantiate their own claims to supremacy the meaning of the tradition in the bible in the early

church is not what the roman catholic wants to say it is it means something completely different and then he said that i had somehow said without an infallible authority you can't know or something i didn't even recognize what I supposedly was saying but we go back again to what's being said Mr. Madrid wants to say well look you need some some golden index here and you're relying upon me to tell you what scripture was no I am not relying upon him to tell us what scripture was in fact I think what I'll do is in my next question I'll illustrate exactly how that is. the person next to you can say that or actually as well we're just tracking we have 30 seconds to frame a question

and quickly answer and then we can hear what we're saying or hear who wants to let's try to be restrained a little bit longer

we'll have a second question now from Mr. Ford right Mr. Madrid I've asked you this before how did the Jewish man 50 years

before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were scripture? Would you like me to repeat that? No, I think I got that okay. Thank you. Well, it was a short question. What can I say?

I appreciate that. The Jewish man of the 50 year period before Christ knew that that scripture that scripture first and second chronicles was inspired because the old testament church the old testament people of God regarded it as scripture it had the the official uh the official pedigree of coming from an apostle from a prophet and it had always been regarded that way. So he would draw not only on what his internal testimony was of what those books say,

but he would also base what his position was on what the constant teaching of the Old Testament people was as well. As you remember, they regarded 1 and 2 Chronicles as scripture. What I'd like to ask you, though, is, and whether we do it now or later is your choice later in the debate tonight, is you keep going back to this issue of how does he know? How does he know? Well, that's what I want to throw back at you.

How do you know? Let's take it out of the Old Testament, Mr. White, and bring it back to the New Testament. And let's settle once and for all how you know that those 27 books belong in Scripture. How do you know that they are inspired? How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? What is your authority to know that those 27 books belong in scripture how do you know that they are inspired how do you know matthew wrote matthew what is your authority to know that you if you reject the catholic church that's fine that's your choice i think you do so at your own peril but if you reject the catholic church you have to furnish us with some other source upon which you base your testimony that

those words in that bible in that 27 books of the Bible, are God's words. Now, I don't want to give anyone the false impression, as I think you were trying to do earlier, that I believe that the Catholic Church rendered the Bible as inspired. You know that that is not the Catholic position. You know, Mr. White, that the Catholic Church does not claim to have made the Scriptures canonical simply because she chose those books. That is a red herring. It's false. The Catholic Church recognized the canon of scripture. The Catholic Church received the word that was given to her by her husband, Jesus Christ. And as you well know, the church hears and recognizes the voice of her husband.

So it is the church, Mr. White, I assert, who recognized. I have 24 seconds left in two minutes I have 24 seconds left the church recognizes her husband's voice and she preaches that to the world you, if you reject the church have to fall back on something else what will it be? the moratorium fragment?

the church fathers? this or that Greek scholar perhaps? your own personal interpretation you have to tell us tonight what your authority is Mr. Mr. White first of all in sticking to the actual question that I asked we're told that the Old Testament church told the man that Isaiah and second chronicles were scripture that's interesting because does that mean the Old Testament church was infallible that is the same Old Testament church that taught the corban rule i think yes same old testament church oh that's the same old testament church that rejected the apocryphal books and never believed they were

scripture but you say that they are scripture and place someone under the anathema doesn't believe those things so i guess the old testament church was fallible which means you can have a fallible authority to tell you that something's scripture because it's very plain that the lord jesus held everyone responsible for reading scripture in fact in matthew chapter 22 he said to the sadducees but but about the resurrection of the dead have you not read what god said to you and mr madrid's keeps saying what's your authority listen to what jesus says he says these men have you not read what god said to you if god speaks you, you do not ask him for his business card. God's word is theanoustos. God breathed. It's his speaking. Mr. White, the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is beating the wrong dead horse.

And I've used that line before. I wish you had learned from it. You keep going around in circles. You're not giving us an answer. You keep saying that when God speaks to us, we know his voice. Well, that's what I said about the church. And you'd have to show me where the Bible teaches that every individual Christian is going to know and recognize Scripture in all its parts. You talked earlier about the Mormon. Now, the Mormon claims that God is witnessing to him. So, Mr. White, this is Mormonism that you're putting forth here. earlier about the mormon now the mormon claims that god is witnessing to him so mr white this

is mormonism that you're putting forth here you are asserting that it's your burning in the bosom perhaps if you like that phraseology it's what you think should be in scripture i think ultimately you are like a ship cut adrift you have no anchor you have no way of knowing other than the fact that you accept the church's teaching, but you won't admit it. My question? Okay. Okay. Catholics and Protestants agree that scripture gets its authority from God,

and the Holy Spirit witnesses as to which books belong in the Bible, whether he does so corporately, through the church, or privately to each individual Christian, would you admit that by appealing to the witness of the Holy Spirit and by your earlier admission that you would appeal to the testimony of the early Christians, would you admit that you are appealing to something outside of scripture itself to know with an infallible certitude what scripture is it's very interesting that when sola scriptura is debated against catholic answers and others when the sufficiency of scripture to function as the sole rule of faith of the church

is established the argument very quickly turns away from the actual topic of the debate to the issue of, well, canon. We need to talk about canon. They are related issues, but they are not the same issues. And I'd be glad to debate canon issues with Mr. Madrid, too. But now Mr. Madrid is saying, well, look, you're violating sola scriptura. You're violating sola scriptura with regards to the canon of scripture itself. And hence, you are being inconsistent, Mr. White. Well, you know, it's interesting.

We could, with much profit, point out that Mr. Madrid's argument is completely circular. And in fact, I will do that in just a moment. But, am I violating sola scriptura to say for example with reference to the gospel of Thomas or some other Gnostic writing of the second century that well you look at it and you see that it's contradictory to scripture you see that no one's ever believed that it was scripture and hence you don't believe that it is scripture

is that a violation of sola scriptura it seems that Mr.rid is saying that it is i am but is it isn't it interesting that the apostles themselves utilize the very same standards for example paul in recognizing that there is truth outside of scripture quotes from pagan philosophers but no one would think that paul was by citing a pagan philosopher adding it to the canon of scripture was he no he didn't accept it on what basis on what basis did did paul or peter any of the others not accept the old testament pseudepigrapha because rome said it didn't belong there because there was some infallible old testament church

not at all. They did not utilize the standards. Mr. Madrid does. Well, I guess that's your admission and that you can't answer the question, Mr. White. You've talked for two minutes about this and that and the other, but you haven't given us the answer to how you know which books belong in the Bible. You still haven't said why or how you know. Those 27 books, Mr. White, do have an awful lot to do, I think, with the issue of sola scriptura. Because if you want to get in front of this audience and say the Bible alone, you better be prepared to tell us what the Bible is. And why you accept these books as scripture. That's what I want from you.

Sometime tonight. Just remember, you have a room full of Catholics here tonight. There are some Protestants, but you have a lot of Catholics. Now is your golden opportunity. Now you can show the Catholic world how you arrive at this infallible certitude about Scripture, using something outside of Scripture to get to it. That's your dilemma. And I'm going to hold you to it before the end of the night.

It's very interesting. God worked with God's people. In the Old Testament. To bring about the canon of the Old Testament. A canon different than Rome's by the way. And now we're being told. Well God just couldn't do that in the New Testament. And Mr. White. If you don't have some infallible authority.

Then you can't recognize what God says. Now he wants to make it sound as if what I'm saying is that I go out and I get in the lotus position and I go, mmm, there's Matthew's scripture and that's not what I'm talking about doing. I believe that God does work with his people.

I believe God has always worked with his people. And I do believe that people recognize that which is inspired. But I believe he works with his people. And I do believe that people recognize. That which is inspired. But I believe he works with his people as a whole. And they never take that to mean. That they have the authority to create canon. But Mr. Madrid. None of this.

Has anything to do with the fact. That scripture says. It is sufficient to equip the man of God. And I'm going to hold you to that. This evening. My question. to equip the man of God and I'm gonna hold you to that this evening my my question well since we're holding each other so much tonight mr. white I'd like to I would like to hold you to that issue but I would like to inject another element into it which I alluded to before the Gospel of Matthew nowhere

claims to have been written by Matthew, yet you believe it was. Your Bible says that it was written by Matthew. We could select John for that matter, or Mark. How do you know that Matthew wrote Matthew, and what is your basis for accepting it? Is it because he was an apostle, or because he had the approval of an apostle in the case of Mark or Luke, how do you know and what is your basis? Well, again, we stray from the topic, but it is a common question that is utilized all the time. Well, how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? Well, the question I have to ask is,

since Matthew doesn't say that Matthew wrote Matthew, do I have to know Matthew wrote Matthew? where is where is it said that to be born again you must believe that Matthew wrote Matthew I haven't found that and since the book of Matthew doesn't say that Matthew wrote Matthew I don't recall being told that I had to believe that now do I believe Matthew wrote Matthew yeah I do you know why well because I studied the issue. And I go back and I look at history and it's the same thing with what was said earlier on. Mr. Madrid, you accused me of violating sola scriptura because I exegeted the passage

in the original languages. Look, he's not appealing to the Bible, he's appealing to the Greek. What was the Bible written in? That's what I am appealing to. And so, when we look at John, for example, you can examine the Gospel of John. And there's all sorts of discussions about

pointing out how the identity of John is revealed in the Gospel of John. But there are people who disagree with that. And it is not something that means that I'm going to call that person a non-Christian if he says, well, I'm not really sure that Matthew wrote Matthew. Now, did Matthew write Matthew?

I certainly think so. There's a lot of good evidence for it. But does that mean I'm violating sola scriptura to go back and examine church documents and examine church history and examine the text? No, of course not. That's not a violation of sola scriptura at all. And so you say, well, you can't know that Matthew wrote Matthew

unless the roman catholic church tells you so well that's interesting because christians knew or claimed to know that matthew wrote matthew long before there even existed a roman catholic church or even existed anyone in rome who claimed to infallibly speak for christ so i'm not sure how they managed to do that and if they did manage to do that why can't I do that tonight well I guess I can't again time Mr. White the reason it's a commonly utilized question by Catholic apologists is because you can't answer the question just as you just demonstrated right now you don't have any answer for the question how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? You gave us your hunch based on your study.

Although you've never seen the actual autographs, as I have not seen them. None of us in the room have seen them. You're relying, by the way, on that transmission of an accurate transmission of those documents by the Catholic Church, Mr. White. By the Catholic Church, down through the ages. It can be demonstrated very conclusively. You're relying on that, but you won't admit it. you say you don't have to know why or if matthew wrote matthew i find that very curious because if it can't be established that this book was written by an apostle under the inspiration of the holy spirit then why should we accept it at all

after all this book claims to be written by an apostle under the inspiration of the holy spirit and you say we should not accept it and i don't see any substantive difference between your saying we shouldn't accept this one we should accept this one the only the only connection is that you don't have an answer for either i'm tired of being said that i'm not answering questions after i answer them but i'd invite anyone to take this this book take a look at it then read the gospel of matthew and reflect upon mr madrid's recent words that there is no difference in what I'm saying between the two there most obviously is but again who is the author of Canon I have answered the question who is the author of Canon men or God is it Rome or God it

is God so the question is recognizing that which is inspired not infallibly determining who wrote the gospel of Matthew. Now, I would return the question to you. In fact, that's what I'm going to do in just a moment. You keep saying, well, without this infallible authority, Mr. Madrid, how do you know that Rome is infallible? I can show you fallible, fallible, fallible statements over and over and over again from Roman pontiffs. They've made many mistakes. So how do you know that?

You're using an argument that is circular and goes back to what is used by everyone and saying, well, I'm the final authority, which is really what Rome is claiming. I have no idea where we are in this, who's asking what question. Okay. And we each have one left?

Okay. All right. have one left? Okay. All right. I think it's three, but I think it's going to work out right now. That's fine. I have myself down, I've had both of us down as already having asked three.

Really? So I think we're on the third. Yeah. Okay. I have us down as having asked three, but not answered all three. I only have myself down for having asked two, so.

Go ahead. Well, we're confused. So I get to ask one question, he gets to ask one question. Okay, well, fine. Well, Mr. Madrid, I guess I'll just have to ask the question I was just asking. I'm going to turn the question back on you now. I don't think it's necessarily on sola scriptura. But how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is an infallible authority upon which you can trust?

This is how I know, Mr. White. First, let me move this to two minutes. This is how I know. I can look independent of what I see in Scripture. In fact, I'm not even going to treat Scripture as an inspired document for the moment, just for the sake of argument. I'm going to look at whether or not a man named Jesus Christ lived. Can I prove that historically? Yes. Can I prove that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead and appeared to many people who, as eyewitnesses, claimed that he died and rose from the dead? I can prove that. In two minutes, I can't prove it

for your satisfaction, but I think we would all agree that those things are true. I can demonstrate through non-Christian, unbiased sources, in fact, sometimes actually biased against the Christian position, that Jesus Christ instituted a church. We can look at the writings of these early Christians, not only the apostles, but also the men and women in the post-apostolic era. I can look at the scripture and see what, just of whether or not whether or not I believe it's inspired I can look and see a description of the church that Jesus established all of you know the verse in

Matthew 16 verse 18 on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it mr. white and I would argue all night long over what the rock is but the fact is Jesus established a church the next point is as I look at Scripture I see that the church is described as having certain functions, certain attributes, certain characteristics, certain jobs that it has to perform. And I can compare and find out, well, historically, yes, I can show that that was done through the writings of the scriptures. So if I believe that Jesus is God, if I believe that his promise is true that he founded a church then i have to say this is the next step i have to say does that church is there a church today which fits that description which is doing all the things that jesus said if that's true

if i can find that and i have by the way it's the catholic church then i know that what is described here in this book is the same church that i see today. So when that church tells me, Jesus said in Luke 10, 16, he who listens to you listens to me, he who refuses to hear you refuses to hear me. When I hear that church speak, I know that it's Jesus speaking through the church. God's ultimate authority is determined at the end of the longest, most easily contested chain of syllogistic arguments. That is how one knows God's ultimate authority is through a process.

You'll find this on pages 126 and 127 of Carl Keating's book, I think very well done by Mr. Madrid in repeating it, that ends with the statement the Catholic believes in inspiration because the church tells him so. That is putting it bluntly.

And that same church has the authority to interpret the inspired text, that is where the ultimate authority lies. I could dispute quite easily, factually, biblically, and historically every single step that he just took. That is what's being presented to us tonight as to what's to replace the Christian

recognizing that Scripture is God breathed and hence accepting God speaking in his word in the testimony of Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority. That's what we're to replace that with. I certainly hope no one's willing to do that. Well, Mr. White, I think the the essence of this argument boils down to one issue. Well, Mr. White, I think the essence of this argument boils down to one issue. In my case, I'm appealing to the church to tell me that this scripture is what it claims to be, that Matthew wrote it, that it came from the other apostles in the case of the other books, that it's trustworthy, that it's inerrant.

I believe all of that because the church witnesses to me that it's so. But I see that you have the same problem you you in a sense caricature or or have a pejorative comment for my appeal to authority well you have the same problem mr white you appeal to this authority independent of its context in the church and say that you just you just know that it's inspired you just know that it's god's word but you haven't given us any evidence for that knowledge you haven't pointed us in any direction other than your own personal studies or your Biblical lexicons that you may turn to but as we all know mr. White you are fallible

Your opinion on this issue. I'm afraid is worthless I want to know with certitude and I would much rather trust the church that is taught for 2,000 years than what you say about the Bible years than what you say about the Bible. Mr. White, you claim that sola scriptura is true, or pardon me, your claim that sola scriptura is true requires you to say that all apostolic traditions, or at least all of them that the church was meant to have, are recorded in scripture. Thus far tonight, you have merely made this bare assertion but you haven't cited any verses to prove it. Please cite for us some texts from scripture

requiring us to say that all such traditions which are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11.2 and 2 Thessalonians 2.15 and elsewhere that all these traditions must all be written down. It seems, Mr. Madrid, you weren't listening to my presentation very closely because I mentioned 2 Thessalonians 3.6. It uses the term tradition. It refers back to what Paul had written in 1 Thessalonians 5.14.

There are numerous others, such as 1 Corinthians 11.23, 2 Thessalonians 2.5, and 2 Peter 1.12-15 that all make the same point, and that is that what is preached by the individuals who are writing, for example, Peter or Paul, what was preached to them is now consistent with what they themselves are saying. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11, he says that he has delivered to them

that which he also received. He has delivered it to them in both ways, as 2 Thessalonians says. He has preached it to them, he has written it to them. But I want everyone to notice what's going on here. It is the Roman assertion that what is in these supposed apostolic traditions is different than what we have in the New Testament.

Mr. Madrid just said, it's my job to prove that what's in the apostolic traditions is the same. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Who here is alleging the necessity of some separate source of information? It's Mr. Madrid.

And so I want to turn around to Mr. Madrid and say, Mr. Madrid, I challenge you to demonstrate on the basis of Scripture that what is in your supposed traditions is what is referred to in places like 2 Thessalonians 2.15 or 2 Timothy 2.2. That is a challenge that I have laid before positions is what is referred to in places like second thessalonians 2 15 or second timothy 2 2

that is a challenge that i have laid before many a roman catholic apologist and have not received an answer to it is the assumption that underlies the position and that assumption must be addressed the simple fact of matter is we see in second thessalonians 2 15 that the tradition he speaks of there is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And you can't tell me that's not contained in the pages of Scripture. And hence, you show me a tradition, sir, an apostolic tradition that is binding upon Christians that has not found the pages of the New Testament. Show us that apostolic tradition that we are told we must follow, we must accept, and then we can move from there.

You're done? Okay, Mr. White, I'd be happy to take up on your challenge. And here it is. This canon of the New Testament is part of apostolic tradition. It's not found in Scripture, and it is binding. You believe in a closed canon. You believe that if we add to the Word of God, we are committing a sin. You would believe that the Mormons are wrong for adding the Book of Mormon to the word of God, we are committing a sin. You would believe that the Mormons are wrong for

adding the Book of Mormon to the word of God. You believe that revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle. Now, the canon of scripture is something that I promised to hold you to, which you have not yet addressed. At least you haven't given us an answer. That is one apostolic tradition that is binding, Mr. White, and it's not found in scripture. It's mr. White and it's not found in Scripture It's divine revelation and it's binding on the consciences of Christians who as you would say hear the voice of their Savior and recognize it There it is. How do you answer that? Well, it's quite easy. First of all an apostolic tradition must exist since the time of the Apostles But mr. Madrid has been telling us that we had to wait to the end of the fourth century before we knew what canon scripture was

But Mr. Madrid has been telling us that we had to wait to the end of the fourth century before we knew what canon scripture was. How did that happen? Remember, apostolic traditions in 2 Thessalonians 2.15 are what? Already delivered. So your timing's all off. Furthermore, Mr. Madrid, the apostles did not believe that the apocrypha was inspired scripture. So you seem to be going against what you call a binding apostolic tradition. And so I say, no, you have not accomplished this. I challenge a Roman Catholic.

Show me where the Thessalonians were taught the bodily assumption of Mary. Trace it through history. Show me where the Thessalonians were taught these doctrines that Roman Catholicism has defined on the basis of tradition. Show me where they believed in the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the infallible vicar of Christ.

The early church did not believe that. They had no idea of that doctrine. And yet Paul says these traditions were already delivered. Where are they? No, they were not already delivered. Rome has made them up over time. Okay, let's get back in our seats. And we now have closing statements by each of the speakers, 12 minutes each.

And some of these debates I hear applause all the way through. I appreciate us not having done that. I don't know whether that's awkward for you not to be able to applaud. But we'll thank the men at the end for their able presentations of their positions but i think it's enabled us to concentrate better not having those breaks so i thank you for that courtesy okay mr white and then mr madrid with their closing statements gathered to debate the issue does the bible teach the doctrine of sola scriptura and i have in my opening statements and in my comments

that came afterwards, done my best to make sure that we stick to that subject. But despite my best attempts, we have gone into all sorts of other issues. We've gone into hearing the Roman Catholics say that he believes the Bible is inspired because the church tells him so, which of course is a very circular argument. The church claims to have authority because it appeals to scripture but it says scripture is inspired because the church says so and so it's a very circular thing they've tried to call it spiral but it's spirals or circles depending on which direction you look at them from so it's a very circular argument that's being presented to us in regards to the position taken by mr madrid and i would like to submit to you, please think about it, all the objections that Mr. Madrid has raised in

regards to canon issues, so on and so forth, are, if they are valid, are equally valid against himself. And an argument that you use that when turned on your own position destroys your own position is not a valid argument. It's not a valid argument. What have we heard from Mr. Madrid in regards to my presentation on 2 Timothy 3, 16-17? Well, we've heard, well, you're trusting in Greek lexicons. No, I'm not trusting in Greek lexicons. Mr. Madrid said that I brought all this fancy Greek stuff, but Mr. Madrid brought the Bible. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with a little bit of Aramaic thrown in there for good measure. The New Testament was written in Hebrew with a little bit of Aramaic thrown in there for good measure. The New Testament was written in Greek. And all I did was I went to what Paul said

and demonstrated that what Paul said teaches the doctrine. Mr. Madrid has provided us no counter citations. He's provided us no reason to think that the Protestant scholars that I cited were in any way unfair, biased, going overboard. He's provided us with no Catholic scholars that say, oh no, they're all wrong. That's what Artidzo means. He's provided us with none of that. At the beginning of the debate, I laid out what i had to do i had to demonstrate that the bible is a rule of faith that teaches it's sufficient to function as a sole rule of faith and that in fact teaches that it does function in that way and i did those three things so what was mr madrid's response well he's gone off after every other topic there is to go after canon issues and well well how do you know that type of situations is like well wait a minute

let's go back to what the scripture said and the scripture says the scriptures are sufficient for the man of god for doing the works of god now i want to take the time since i promised it over and over again to walk you through a passage that I think will help us to understand this and this is 2 Thessalonians 2.15 I hope you'll turn with me there even though it's late in the evening I hope you'll still turn with me there starting in verse 13 but we ought to give thanks to God always for you brother in love by the Lord for God chose you from the beginning for salvation by the sanctifying work of the spirit and through faith in the truth unto which he called you by our gospel so that you might share in the glory of our lord jesus christ therefore brothers stand firm and hold fast to the

traditions which you were taught either by word or by letter of ours what do we have here this is really the primary passage that is used a lot utilized by roman apologists to defend the concept of the oral tradition we're told we'll see what you've got here is you've got oral tradition and you've got written tradition, the two-fold tradition, just like we've always been saying. This is a command to stand firm and hold fast a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers. There is nothing future about the passage.

The Thessalonians have already heard what Paul has preached. This is a single body of traditions that is taught in two ways. Orally, that is when Paul was personally with the Thessalonians and he preached to them, and by epistle, that being the first letter to the Thessalonians. Now what does orally refer to? For the Roman Catholic to use this passage to support his position, two things must be established.

First, that the oral element refers to a specific passing on of revelation to the power of the Episcopate. And secondly, that what is passed on is different in substance from what is found in the New Testament. With reference to the first issue, we know that the context of the passage

is the gospel message itself. Look again at verses 13 and 14 and how Paul speaks of God's work of salvation in the gospel. The traditions of which Paul speaks are not traditions about Mary or papal infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul is talking about is simply the gospel message itself. Note what he said in his first epistle to the Thessalonians about what he had spoken to them. And for this reason, 1 Thessalonians about what he had spoken to them. And for this reason, 1 Thessalonians 2.13, We also constantly thank God that when you receive from us the word of God's message,

you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. This is God-breathed revelation. And notice also that if we do a terrible thing and look at the greek of this passage the term stakete that is translated as standing firm here in second thessalonians 2 15 is used by paul elsewhere for example in first corinthians chapter 16 verse 13 first corinthians 16 13 notice what it says be on your guard stand firm in the faith be men of courage be strong Paul exhorts the Corinthians to stand firm in what in the faith and that is the context of his statement in 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 15 as well

there is nothing in the passage that even begins to cause a person to think, well, boy, what Paul taught orally, that's what he must have taught them about the oral traditions, about Mary and the Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption, and papal infallibility, even though there probably wasn't

even a bishop in Rome at the time, but he passed it on anyways, and then that was passed on down to the power of the Episcopal. That is what we're being asked to believe. And I don't believe it. And I don't have any reason to believe it. The same thing happens when we look at Matthew chapter 23.

Another passage that is frequently used by Roman Catholics. In regards to the issue of. Well here's a passage that violates sola scriptura. In Matthew 23 you have the discussion of Moses' seat. It has been alleged the discussion of Moses' seat. It has been alleged the concept of Moses' seat in Matthew chapter 23, one through seven,

is the passage that I would ask you to read. There is in fact a refutation of the concept of sola scriptura, for not only is this concept not found in the Old Testament, but Jesus, it is alleged, gave his approbation to this extra-scriptural tradition.

But is this sound exegesis? Is this passage being properly understood when used this way? First, we note that the passage has spawned a plethora of differing understandings among scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars. But a few items immediately remove the Roman apologist's interpretation and application from consideration. First, Moses' seat refers to a seat in the front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading the scriptures.

There are some scholars that dispute that, but most say that that's the case. Synagogue worship, of course, came into being long after Moses' day, and so those who attempt to make this an oral tradition going back to Moses are engaging in wishful thinking. Beyond this, we are here only speaking of a position that existed at this time in the synagogue worship of the day. Are we truly to believe that this position was divine in origin, and hence binding upon all who would worship God? It certainly doesn't seem the New Testament church understood it this way, because the New Testament church did not adopt it and did not have Moses' seat. We first note interpreters such as Jeremias and Carson view this passage as engaging and biting irony.

Read the rest of this passage, and it is harsh, harsh stuff. harsh, harsh stuff. The Jewish leaders have presumed to sit in Moses' seat, suggested by Merckx, Moulton, and Zahn, focusing on the use of the aorist tense, the verb to sit. They sat themselves in this place, but not properly. Such an understanding is entirely in line with the context,

but I am more prone to accept Gundry's understanding, in which he says the following, quote, so long as sitting in Moses' seat qualifies the speaking of the scribes and Pharisees, all things whatever does not include their interpretive traditions, but emphasizes the totality of the law. They do keep their traditions. They do not practice what they speak while sitting on Moses' seat.

Hence, their traditions are not in view. Though elsewhere Matthew is concerned to criticize the scribes and Pharisees' interpretations of the law, here he is concerned to stress the necessity of keeping the law itself. As usual, his eye is on the antinomians in the church. So what do we have here? Jesus simply refuses to overthrow the current form of worship that is engaged in the synagogue at this time because there is nothing in it like there was in the Corban rule. Oh, but the Roman Catholic says, oh, those are human traditions. Ours aren't.

The Jews didn't believe the Korban rule was a human tradition. The Jews didn't believe the Korban rule was just a human tradition. They didn't believe that the rules in Matthew chapter 15 about washing the hands, those were the traditions of the elders. They have divine authority.

Well, Rome claims the same thing. And I say to you, we must take their traditions and examine them by scripture just as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 15. For example, the Roman Catholic pontiff has taught the following. And I guess this would fall under the concept of sacred tradition. Consequently, we declare. State define and pronounce. That it is altogether necessary. To salvation for every human creature.

To be subject to the Roman pontiff. That's interesting. There were hundreds of years. When there was no Roman pontiff. All you say. Oh there's always been a bishop of Rome. Well that's not actually the case. Sometimes there were three.

But the point is, there was hundreds of years when the bishop of Rome never claimed what Rome teaches about him today. So how could anyone have been saved? I don't know. The point is, you examine what this thing says in light of what? Do you just simply bow down before it and say,

well, that's my ultimate authority, so therefore I accept it. Or do you examine the tradition in the light of Scripture and do what the Lord Jesus said to do in Matthew chapter 15? The debate this evening was on whether the Bible teaches sola scriptura. Not on canon issues. Not on how the church recognizes inspiration.

And the reason that I focus so much in my presentation upon that very issue is because basically I knew that's what Mr. Madrid wanted. At least I thought so. Mr. Madrid didn't want to go off into all sorts of church history stuff and so on and so forth. And so I focused my presentation

on where the Bible teaches it because Catholic answers keep saying show us one verse and when we do, what do they do? What has been the response in showing Mr. Madrid the one verse? The response has been well, that's just Protestant scholars.

That's just, that's fancy Greek. I brought the Bible. No. My friends, remember the I brought the Bible. No. My friends, remember the thesis of the debate. Ask yourself the question, has Mr. Madrid refuted 2 Timothy 3, 16-17

and Matthew chapter 15? If he has not, no matter what other neat things he said, he has not actually engaged the debate. That is where it lies. And I'm going to challenge him to again in his final closing statements focus on the issue

and deal with those passages thank you very much I'd like to close my remarks with a word of thanks first of all to all of you for your patience in this warm room the still air I know has been uncomfortable for all of, to all of you for your patience in this warm room, the still air I know has been uncomfortable for all of us, but I'm grateful for your sitting here and being willing to wade through all of these arguments.

I'd also like to thank you, Pastor Wagner. I know that hospitality is hard to come by these days, and I appreciate you inviting us into your church this evening. I need to cover a couple of points of old business before I move into my formal remarks. First of all, I want to clarify something that I think Mr. White misunderstood.

I did not earlier in the debate issue a challenge to him for another debate. And I don't want him or anyone else to make the mistake of thinking that I am thundering challenges to debate. I said earlier that that issue that we had talked about could be debated at a future point, but I didn't specify by whom.

So please don't misunderstand that remark, because I think Mr. White did. Second of all, I have not gone after all sorts of other issues. If you remember, I am not the one who brought up the chair of Moses. I am not the one who brought up tradition. I am not the one who brought up the church contradicting itself. I am not the one who brought up any of those things. Mr. White did. None of those things have to do with whether or not the bible

teaches sola scriptura he obfuscated i'm afraid he brought up issues which he claims are related to whether or not the bible teaches sola scriptura but i don't think they are and yet the fundamental issue that has to on which his his position has to pivot is can you tell me with a certainty what the Bible is? And Mr. White has failed, utterly failed to give us an answer as to what his reason is for knowing that those 27 books belong in the New Testament. We're not talking about the canon of the Old Testament, Mr. White. We all know that there's a dispute on that issue. Let's deal on the issue that we do agree with, the 27 books of the New Testament. He has not answered that question.

Don't forget that. Mr. White likes to, in his closing remarks, say that I did not stick to the issue and that I did not deal with his translation or interpretation of 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17. I did deal with it and as he's fond of saying roll the tapes back for yourself and look at what i said and look at how i showed that he was misapplying the meaning he was he was seeing a meaning in second timothy 3 17 that's not there that he was saying that it implies that the man of god is sufficient yet he excludes the role of the church in helping that man of God properly use

that equipment that he's given. Oh yes, I did answer that question. I did deal with that verse. And Mr. White can say anything he wants, but really the burden of proof tonight is not on me or him, it's on you. Because you're the one that has to stand before God someday. You're the one who has to be judged

on the basis of whether or not you accepted his word or rejected it. You've heard the truth tonight about sola scriptura. You've heard that it's false. You've heard that it can't be established from scripture. No matter all the fancy gyrations and all the other things that Mr. White engages in, he simply has not proven the issue. At least he has not to my satisfaction. I don't believe he has proven it to the satisfaction of any honest person in this room who is willing to say is there a verse which teaches sufficiency 2 Timothy 3.16 and 17 does not teach sufficiency folks

I think we've shown that second of all I think Mr. White as I listen to his arguments he's very reminiscent of Wile E. Coyote you know I feel like the roadrunner tonight here we have Mr. White as Wile E. Coyote. You know, I feel like the roadrunner tonight. Here we have Mr. White as Wile E. Coyote, springing all these traps for me, trying to bring me down. He's got this acme box of anti-Catholic arguments that he can use. But notice that just like Wile E. Coyote, Mr. White is thwarted at every turn. He holds up the Bible and says,

this disproves Mr. Mitchell's position, but he can't even tell us what is in the Bible, whether or not it's supposed to be there. He can't tell us with certainty what the Bible is and how he knows that that is the Bible. He unbelievably spent a lot of time in 2 Thessalonians 2.15, so in my remaining moments, let me please just address that. Mr. White made a number of errors, a number of blunders. Let me point out a few of them.

Number one, he argues that oral tradition must be separate from scripture. No, that's not the case. If he had been listening carefully, he would have heard what I said in my opening remarks, that the Catholic position is the material sufficiency of scripture. Everything that is taught in oral tradition is found at least implicitly, if not explicitly, in scripture. Now, Mr. White may dispute the scriptures that I'll bring up to prove those doctrines, but that's a different issue. The fact is, it doesn't have to be separate from Scripture. It doesn't have to be different.

It doesn't have to be something that's outside of Scripture in the sense that he is talking about. Second of all, he asked for examples of revelation, which is binding and is found outside of Scripture. I gave him several. One of them, which he hasn't answered, is the canon of Scripture. That's an apostolic tradition.

The reason it's an apostolic tradition is because the apostles told the church, hey, I wrote this book. That sounds to me like an apostolic tradition, Mr. White. And it was preserved by the church. And Mr. White follows it and he accepts it, but he won't admit it. That's the key thing for you to remember. In thessalonians 2 6 and 7 paul alludes to something that he doesn't explain

he says that there is something restraining the man of lawlessness and then he says to the thessalonians you know what i'm talking about i don't think mr white could establish from scripture alone what paul was talking. That's found in tradition. The early church fathers are very clear that what Paul was talking about was the rule of law, civil law, civil society, and the order that it establishes is holding back the man of sin. Now, we could debate that issue, but that is, in fact, an apostolic tradition that is preserved outside of Scripture. Mr. White says there's no evidence that Paul intended for all traditions to be continued. But Paul said in second Thessalonians two 15, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you have been given. Now I want to address that because I think that's where

Mr. White really fell. Number one, the word that, that Paul used there is paradosis. That implies handing on. That means handing on the Greek or pardon me the Latin The Latin word Latin cognate for that is try de ray the Latin infinitive verb and that means to hand on So the very word that Paul is using implies a continuation of this Mr. White would be hard-pressed to Harmonize his interpretation of this passage with Paul's express command to hand on tradition in 2 Timothy 2.2. How is he going to explain that?

Paul says, hand on this tradition, and it's oral. We're not denying that Scripture is part of tradition. We're not denying that Scripture is part of the tradition that the church handed on. Mr. White is denying that oral tradition plays a part, but he's going smack dab in the face of what Scripture says. Finally, Mr. White is denying that oral tradition plays a part, but he's going smack dab in the face of what scripture says. Finally, Mr. White, you made a lot of emphasis about the word stakete. And you said that if, or at least you implied, that this means that this oral tradition is not to be handed on any further.

It was once for all delivered, and that's it. Well, notice the problem with that. If this disproves the continuation of handing on this oral tradition, it also disproves the handing on of the written tradition as well. Because in that passage, Paul says, stand firm and hold fast to both. Stakete. Stand there. Hold on to it. So if that disproves the transmission of oral teaching,

it also disproves the continuation of written teaching as well. The problem of the canon was brought up many times. Mr. White did not address that. I think that in my closing remarks, I'd like to focus on something that all of you are familiar with and all of you know, at least down in your heart of hearts, is at least an indication that sola scriptura is not true. heart of hearts is at least an indication that sola scriptura is not true you can open your yellow pages when you get home tonight and look at all the different so-called bible believing denominations which claim to go by the bible alone none of which agree on not only the essentials probably not only the non-essential issues but also the essential issues salvation can you lose it once you get it what about infant baptism what about the lord's supper what about baptismal

regeneration mr white whole segments of protestantism disagree with you on that issue Can you lose it once you get it? What about infant baptism? What about the Lord's Supper? What about baptismal regeneration, Mr. White? Whole segments of Protestantism disagree with you on that issue. What about tongues and prophecy and miracles? B.B. Warfield, one of your mentors, wrote vociferously against that. Many Protestants hold to it. What about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Luther and Calvin believed in her perpetual virginity. Mr. White doesn't.

There's confusion reigning among Protestantism. All of them claiming to go by the Bible alone. None of them being able to meet entirely on what the Bible means. Now Jesus, or pardon me, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1.10, I appeal to you brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ

that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. Sola Scriptura has been a blueprint for anarchy, folks. Just trace the historical record back to the time of the Reformation and look at all the competing sects that have arisen. In my final minute, I want to say that I didn't come here to win arguments.

I came here to share the truth. I came here to invite you all to the fullness of the truth, which is found in the Catholic Church. And I'd like to use the words of a famous Catholic apologist, Edmund Campion, who was a priest. He was formerly a Protestant and he converted to the Catholic Church. He wrote this letter and I hope you'll give me a couple seconds over if I go over 10 or 15 seconds.

12 minutes left? Okay. Okay, yeah, I'm... Oh, I said it at 10. Okay. Okay, so I have two minutes left. I would like to use his words to make my own tonight

because I know that many of you are not Catholic. And I know that many of you run the risk of going to hell if you do not accept the truth that Jesus Christ is offering to you. If you leave this room tonight

and you suppress the doubt that may be in your heart about what Mr. White is saying tonight or the questioning that may be in your heart about whether or not the Catholic Church is the true church, you have to answer to God at some point. You don't have to answer to me or Mr. White.

I'm inviting you to consider, to study, to pray about the Catholic position. No, Mr. White, I don't mean that in the Mormon sense of the word. I mean that in the biblical sense of the word. Here's what Edmund Campion said. I say this to all of you, and I also say it respectfully and with some affection for Mr. White. Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven for you daily by those Catholics around the world. Those Catholic apologists

whose posterity shall never die. Which beyond the seas gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose are determined never to give you over

but either to win you for heaven or to die upon your pikes. Be it known to you that we have made a league, all the Catholics in the world, whose succession and multitude must overarch all practices of the Protestant world. We cheerfully will carry the cross you shall lay upon us,

and never despair for your recovery. While we have a man left to enjoy your tyburn, or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons. the expense is reckoned. The enterprise has begun. It is of God. It cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted.

So it must be restored. If these my offers tonight be refused and my endeavors can take no place and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigor, I have no more to say, but to recommend your case in mind to Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, who sends us his grace and set us at accord before the day of payment.

To the end we may at last be friends in heaven when all injuries shall be forgotten. I pray tonight that you don't leave this alone here and that you continue to search for the truth. And I hope to see all of you in heaven someday. Thank you very much. Okay. I don't know how many of you stuck around to the end, but if you're listening to this, watching this, you have definitely stuck around to the end and good for you for doing that. That was a very spirited debate and one I hope you got a lot out of. Please tell me below

whether you think that sola scriptura is a biblical teaching. Argue for why or argue for why not. As I say, we have an upcoming episode with Pat Madrid that you're not going to want to miss. So please subscribe to my YouTube channel and click that bell

and that way you will not miss out. Hey, I want to say thank you to everybody who is supporting us on Patreon. We cannot do this work without your support. We are trying to do a lot of different things like a Pints with Aquinas Espanol channel and a lot else besides. Come to Patreon.com slash Matt Fradd. Just check it out. I'm not going to tell you all the different rewards that you get. You can read it for yourself.

But this beer stein that you keep seeing everywhere, that's the only way you can get it. You can read it for yourself. But this beer stein that you keep seeing everywhere, that's the only way you can get it. You can't buy it online. You have to become a patron, sign copies of my books, stickers sent to your door, all sorts of things, patreon.com slash mattfradd.

Thank you very much. And please do us a favor and share this debate with your friends. Bye.