Pints With Aquinas - 215: Why Sola Scriptura is FALSE w/ Patrick Madrid

Episode Date: July 21, 2020

Today's episode of Pints with Aquinas is all about why Sola Scripture (Bible Only) is FALSE. And I speak with a man who's certainly well-qualified to have a discussion about it: The Pat Madrid. In this episode, Pat and I will teach you: - The meaning of Sola Scriptura - Why Sola Scripture is false - What is meant by the phrase "Catholic Tradition" - and more! 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-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

G'day and welcome to Pints with Aquinas. My name is Matt Fradd and today I'll be speaking with Catholic apologist and radio host Pat Madrid about Sola Scriptura. We'll be talking about what that is, why it's false, how to understand what Catholics mean by tradition. At the end of this interview, after we got off Skype, Pat said to me, wow, that was a very lively debate. And I think he said that for two reasons. Number one, I really tried my best to get us to not straw man what our Protestant brothers and sisters believe about Sola Scriptura. So whenever he would make a point, I would try to see a flaw in it and expose it and try and push back on everything he said. I would love it if you're a Protestant viewer, I would hope that you would watch this and say, on everything he said. I would love it if you're a Protestant viewer, I would hope that you would watch this and say, okay, thank you, like you weren't just,

because nobody likes their position straw man. And so I was doing my best to sort of ask him difficult questions. Then we talked about a debate that he did many years ago with Protestant apologist, James White. Now on this YouTube channel, recently we posted that full debate on sola scriptura, and I accused Pat in this interview of being unnecessarily prickly, and he responds to and formal sufficiency of scripture if you want to know how to respond to protestant claims that the bible is the sole authority for the christian when it comes to beliefs and how to live this is the show for you and i think you're going to really enjoy it and i would just ask that you would do your best to try

and watch the whole thing because it doesn't decrease in interest. As we got going, it was like a snowball. It kept getting kind of more exciting and we kept getting into different issues. And I think you're really going to appreciate. So I want to tell you about Pat Madrid. He hosts the Patrick Madrid Show radio program on Relevant Radio three hours daily on more than 170 AM and FM stations across the US, Monday through Friday, nine to noon. Check out patrickmadrid.com. I'll have that in the description below. I'll also have his Twitter handle. And Pat said he would be happy to hear from any of you on Twitter.

If you listen to this and you have an objection to something Pat said, if you want to respond to him, he'd be happy to hear it and respond to you. So please take him up on that offer. Before we get into the show, as I usually do, I just want to say thank you to our sponsor, Strive. Strive21.com is a 21-day course I created to help men break free from pornography. So if you struggle with pornography or lust in any way, and you're a man and you want to break free of it, please check out this 21-day course. Here's two reasons you should seriously consider joining it. Number one, it is 100% free. Number two, you can be as anonymous as you want. And let me throw a third reason in for good measure. There are over 17,000 men currently going through this course. So you can dialogue with them every single day.

So it's an army of men who want to live a better life, really. Every day you get like a five minute video from me. There is a challenge you have to perform, and then you have to dialogue about it in the comment section with the other brothers. It's been really powerful. And if you click on reviews up here, you'll see what the other men have to say about how this has transformed their life. So strive21.com, strive21.com, 100% free, be as anonymous as you want. All right, here is my interview with Pat Madrid. Please let me know in the comment section below what you think about it, because that really actually helps the channel. And also, if you want to support the channel, click subscribe and that bell button. Believe it or not, all of these things help with the

algorithm. So I hope you enjoy the show. Here we go. Patrick Madrid, thank you very much for being a guest on Pints with Aquinas. My pleasure, Matt. It's good to be working with you again. Absolutely. For our viewers and listeners who may not be familiar with Patrick Madrid, who are you and what are you about? Well, let's see, I'm a married Catholic layman, married to Nancy for just under 40 years now. We have 11 children and 25 grandchildren thus far. And for the better part of the last 32, 33 years or so, I've been working in the field of apologetics.

I have a daily radio program on Relevant Radio. It's a national program, 171 stations, ironically, called The Patrick Madrid Show, and it airs from 8 to 11 a.m. Monday through Friday Central Time on Relevant Radio and also on the Relevant Radio app. And that's my full-time occupation, but I also do a lot of public speaking. And over the years, I've written a bunch of books, including on topics like the one that we're going to discuss today. on topics like the one that we're going to discuss today. And actually, you were gracious enough to allow me to publish this debate that you had with James White on Sola Scriptura just last week. And it was only the audio, but let's see. I think as of now, it's got, let's see, about 10,000 views.

Oh, really? Wow. 10,000 listens. So they're hearing the audio. Yeah, in fact, there was actually no video of that. 15,000, yeah. So I did a little introduction, and then I played a little graphic, but 15,000 people have heard it in a week.

So for my viewers, I think they're really excited to hear us kind of talk about Sola Scriptura, and maybe even at some point talk about that debate, if you remember it. I know I was about 10 years old or something. That's great. That makes you feel really young. Yeah. Well, one of the things we try to do on Pints with Aquinas is to really try and give the other side a fair shake. We have many evangelical listeners, some of whom are seriously becoming Catholic. And so I really want to try to understand what Protestants mean by sola scriptura

and try and give the best defense of it maybe before responding. So do you think you could just help us understand what that means? What do Protestants mean by sola scriptura? Okay, first let's talk about the term itself. Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase. It could be translated in English as by scripture alone. Colloquially, I think most people would think of it as the Bible alone, and for many Protestants that would mean an automatic rejection of tradition, but there are some nuances

there that we'll have to explore. Not all Protestants reject tradition. Many do, not all do, and many Protestants have different understandings of the term tradition. But by and large, in the Protestant world, the idea of going by Scripture alone entails that they regard Scripture to be the sole formally sufficient rule of faith for Christians, and that everything else by way of comparison is lesser than Scripture and not on par with Scripture as the authority for praxis and belief. So that's the way most Protestants tend to understand Sola Scriptura. And there are permutations that we can get into, but generally that's the basic approach to it. Right. And I've heard Protestants talk about, you know, when they say we believe in

sola scriptura, we don't believe in solo scriptura. So we're not saying that it's just you and your Bible under a tree somewhere. We value the things that faithful men and women have had to say throughout the centuries. We can learn from them. But at the end of the day, it's Scripture which has the final say. And so if you're claiming to be an authority or if somebody else is claiming that there is another authority, if that contradicts Scripture, we go with Scripture. Right. Now, what you're alluding to, those who have read as widely as you can read in this area, there's not that much written in the Protestant world on Sola Scriptura. And several volumes that came out in the past 20 years augmented the dearth of material that was there before, but you're

paraphrasing Keith Matheson's claim of solo scriptura, which is doggerel Latin. It's incorrect Latin, and it's intentionally incorrect because it doesn't agree in gender. And so his use of the term solo was to try to differentiate between what he regards to be the legitimate scriptural alone, sola scriptura, by scripture alone. So the bad Latin aside, which was intentional on his part, that he sees is sort of the knuckle-dragging, fundamentalist, anti-intellectual, it's just the Bible kind of approach to things. And in fact, there are some Protestants who do hold a view like that. But what Matheson attempted to do, I don't think he was successful, but what he attempted to do in his book called The Shape of Sola Scriptura was to position this sola scriptura version between the extreme of solo scriptura, the fundamentalists, and Scripture and tradition in the Church, which would be the Catholic teaching, and to kind of position it as like a via media.

But as we'll see as we discuss, even that has quite a few problems of its own. Okay. So I really want to try to understand tradition. Well, first of all, why don't I just ask you a more simple question. Why should we reject sola scriptura? Well, the fundamental reason, if you believe in the authority of the Bible, is because the Bible rejects sola scriptura. And we can make that case positively and negatively, apophatically and cataphatically, to use the theological terms. In the positive sense, we see Scripture saying,

for example, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2, St. Paul speaking, he says, I praise you because you remember me in everything, and you hold fast to the traditions just as I handed them on to you. In fact, even that language is redolent of the meaning of the word tradition in Greek, which means literally to receive something and to hand it on. And he goes on from there to speak about the Last Supper and what we Catholics understand to be the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. But there he's speaking in 1 Corinthians about unwritten traditions that he praises the Corinthians for holding fast to. And you notice that he doesn't say, but now that I'm writing you this epistle, you can forget all the oral tradition and just hold fast to the things I'm teaching you in this epistle.

So it's assumed in his statement that they are doing well by holding fast to these oral teachings that he had given them. In 2 Thessalonians 2.15, he says something similar. He says, I urge you, brothers, to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you receive from us, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. So there we see a more explicit example of Scripture actually denying the idea of going by Scripture alone in a strict sense, because here we're told in Scripture to hold fast both to Scripture and to the oral tradition that comes from the apostles. Now, there are many rejoinders that you will hear from, you know, well-intentioned and sincere Protestant folk. I've heard them all. So I don't want to suggest that

just by quoting this verse, somehow that ends the debate, because there are three or four or five rejoinders to that. But those are two examples. There are others, but that would be on the positive side. So we could say as Catholics, we don't accept the idea of sola scriptura as the sole formally sufficient rule of faith, because the Bible says not to. And then on the negative side, we could say this because the Bible nowhere claims this for itself. The Bible nowhere says, whether explicitly or implicitly, that we are to look to Scripture as the sole formally sufficient rule of faith for Christians. So in order for that to be a coherent position,

to say I only go by Scripture alone, well, then Scripture would have to say that. Otherwise, you're appealing to something outside of Scripture to say I'm going by Scripture alone, and that's a self-defeating situation. And obviously many Protestants point to 2 Timothy 3 verses 12 through 17. This seems on the face of it to lend credence to sola scriptura. It says, all scripture is breathed out by God, according to this translation I'm reading, and profitable

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. So if the Scripture completes me and equips me for every good work, that sort of seems to align with sola scriptura, doesn't it? No, no it doesn't. I suppose superficially one could perhaps see that, but even superficially, if you look at the plain language there, it doesn't say that Scripture is complete. It says the man of God is complete. And you mentioned the debate that I had with James White, and I'd like to maybe expand on that debate a little bit if we have time. Yeah, we will, for sure.

This was the center of that debate. This was the focus of the debate. And so we spent a good deal of time looking at that particular passage. But just even as a cursory point, you can say that even this passage doesn't modify Scripture. The idea of being complete modifies the man of God, not Scripture. And then, of course, the argument is, but it's Scripture that makes the man of God complete, therefore Scripture is all you need. And that was the general logic that we were talking about during that particular debate. So in context, for example, you see that in the beginning of that section, St. Paul appeals to the Old Testament by saying, because from your infancy, you learn the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you all these things that he goes on to talk about later, training and whatnot,

and he's specifically referring there to the scriptures that were available when Timothy was a child, which excluded the New Testament. So if the broader context of the passage speaks to sufficiency, then there's another problem there, because it would seem to suggest that the Old Testament is sufficient. And St. Paul certainly didn't mean that, and neither Protestants nor Catholics believe that, but looking at what he says in context, you can see that he's appealing to Scripture, and he's suggesting that Scripture will do all these important things for you, which it will, but he in fact is not saying, or even implying, I would argue, that Scripture is

sufficient. But what if he's talking about Scripture per se, Scripture in as much as it is Scripture? So if 2 Timothy is Scripture, wouldn't that be included? Okay, I just want to pause for a second and say thank you to our second sponsor, who I know you're going to want to hear from, and that is Halo. Halo is a Catholic meditation app to help you find peace and grow in your spiritual journey. It is very well put together, and it is 100% Catholic. So please check them out, hallow.com, H-A-L-L-O-W.com. They update this app with free content every day.

But to get access to the full app, there's a small amount of money you have to pay monthly. But you can get access to the full, everything that Halo has to offer for a free month, for a full month rather. If you like it, then you might decide to get the full version. But they have Lectio Divinas. It'll help you pray. If you get distracted while you're praying, it'll help you with that. It has sleep stories. It really is great. I do recommend it. Halo.com. Halo.com. Click the link below and you can use Matt Fratt as a promo code when you're signing out to get the full experience of the app. Back to the show with Pat Madrid. But what if he's talking about Scripture per se? Scripture in as much as it is Scripture. So if 2 Timothy is Scripture, wouldn't that be included?

It would. And this is one of those peculiarities of the discussion that we have with our Protestant friends, and that is in order to epistemologically understand the term Scripture, we have to know what it encompasses, what comprises Scripture. And he helps us a little bit there by saying that all Scripture is inspired by God, but he doesn't identify what all those Scriptures are. Now, we could assume, and rightly so, we could assume for the purposes of knowing what's in the Bible, that he's referring to those 73 books of the Old and the New Testament. But even that doesn't help sola scriptura per se, because it doesn't define which books are in the canon. And so in my own work in apologetics and writing and speaking,

I talk about this issue that this is another one of those peculiarities in that I've met so many people who say that they go by Scripture alone, they adhere to sola scriptura, and then when I ask them, well, where does Scripture tell you which books belong in Scripture they draw a blank because obviously the Bible nowhere says which books belong in Scripture so that adds to the what I regard to be the incoherence of the position because the person is saying I only accept those things that are found in Scripture well the candidate of the New Testament for example is not found in Scripture yeah in order to know what Scripture is, you have to look to something outside of the New Testament, which doesn't tell you. It describes Scripture,

it refers to Scripture, it extols Scripture, it emphasizes the authority and the importance of Scripture, but it never tells you exactly which ones are Scripture and which ones are not. So in order to defend this position of sola scriptura, it's necessary for that defender to actually appeal to something outside of the Scripture, aka the canon, in order to defend sola scriptura. And that's another example of where it really doesn't. Yeah, it's very difficult to get around. I really am trying my best to understand where my intelligent Protestant brothers and sisters are coming from. But it seems like this just runs headlong into the fallacy of circularity.

You know, you're arguing in a circle. And even if the Scriptures were to document the 73 books and say these are the 73 books, that would still seem to be a circular argument, right? These 73 books are inspired. Why do you believe in God? Yeah. Because the Bible says he exists. Well, how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God? Well, because God said so. Assuming the conclusion, it doesn't resolve anything.

Well, I want to get back to that, because I want to try and see if we can give it a fair shake and see what some of their responses might be to that. But before we get to that, you said that this verse modifies the man of God and not Scripture. But it does say, you know, the man of God will be complete and equipped for every good work. That seems to encompass everything that we need, doesn't it? That we can be a complete man of God and equipped for every good work. If Scripture does that, why do you need to appeal to something else? and equipped for every good work, if Scripture does that, why do you need to appeal to something else? For the following reasons, and I raised this in the debate that you posted, my debate with James White.

If you consider it in comparison to, say, in James 1, verse 4, where St. James says, let your perseverance be complete, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Now, the Greek word there is telios, and it's a different word, obviously, from artios, as we see in 2 Timothy 3.16 and 17, but it's a stronger word. In other words, it goes beyond what artios says as being making the man of God fit or complete for every good work. I mean, it's certainly true. We agree with that. But if you look at in James chapter one, where it says, let your perseverance be complete so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing, it's a much more extravagant claim for perseverance. And yet no Catholic would say that all you need is perseverance.

Right. We no longer need the Scriptures because perseverance does it for us. Yeah. Yeah. So it's just simply an appeal to the fact that just because the word in 2 Timothy 3.16 says complete, okay, it does mean that in a certain sense, obviously, but it doesn't mean it in an exhaustive sense. If it did, then you could say, well, then all I need is scripture. I don't need to pray. I don't need faith. I don't need fellowship.

I don't need to study. I mean, we could think of a whole host of things that we would agree with our Protestant friends are necessary. But if we rule out any other possibility on that basis, then we've got real problems with James chapter 1, where the same argument could be made, but even more forcefully. Okay, so suppose, and forgive me, this might be a little all over the place. I've got so much to ask and talk about, so if you want to go somewhere, feel free to interject. So if you want to go somewhere, feel free to interject. But suppose you could show that this doesn't prove sola scriptura, which it seems that you have. You could disprove sola scriptura, and you would still have to make a case for what Catholics mean by tradition.

Now, one rejoinder I've heard to Catholic apologists like yourself who point to the New Testament, which talks about submitting to the traditions by word or mouth, is aren't you making an assumption that those traditions that were passed on orally are something different to what is in the Scripture? And let me just kind of wax on that a little bit, because this is something I'm even struggling with, right? I could see somebody saying, look, I know what scripture is. I can assess it and then I can assent to it. But unless I'm aware of exactly what it is you mean by tradition that there is this unwritten list of traditions that are just as binding as the new testament

and the old testament but they haven't necessarily been written down or codified and so that they seem sort of mutable and vague and it's it seems quite suspect like if you can't justify the immaculate conception say well then you'll just refer to this ambiguous list of traditions that may not predate us or the Middle Ages or whatever. So can you understand that trouble people have and recognize it maybe as a legitimate one? Because I think that's important, right? You want to try and understand where your opponent is coming from so that you can then respond to it. That's the way apologetics should be conducted, where you're seeking to understand the person you're speaking to. You're not just talking at him or just trying to cudgel, club him to death

with facts and Bible verses and things. So it's an important point you're raising. I would say a couple of things. Number one, in order to demonstrate that sola scriptura is not, in fact, a biblical teaching, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary to be able to show the alternative to it. You could, in fact, just say, this can't be true. We're not sure what the truth is, but at least we can rule this out. This here can't be true. So, okay, I think we have to at least posit that. With regard to tradition, probably understood, in Dei Verbum, which is the document in Vatican II, which most recently in the life of the Church elucidates what the Church means by the topic, it says essentially that tradition,

and of course this is my own paraphrasing, that sacred tradition, which is distinguished from human tradition, and I'll talk a little bit about the distinctions there, that sacred tradition comes from God, not from man. And it is, as St. Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2.15, it is the gospel as it was transmitted to the very first Christians, either through the oral teaching of the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or by the inspired writings that they conveyed to the different communities. So the very beginning of sacred scripture. conveyed to the different communities, so the very beginning of sacred scripture. And the Bible itself identifies the transmission of the gospel as being given in both modes. It doesn't restrict it to one or the other.

Interestingly, in Luke's gospel, the very first chapter, chapter 1, verses 1 through 4, he identifies the original mode of this transmission as purely oral. the original mode of this transmission as purely oral. And he says, you know, that the eyewitnesses from whom you, most excellent Theophilus, have heard the gospel of Jesus, I've now decided to set forth all the details accurately anew to give you kind of in an orderly sequence what you knew to be true purely from the oral tradition of the church. That was their most excellent Theophilus was not in a Bible study reading any written works. He was hearing the gospel from the eyewitnesses. So these are just markers in the New Testament that remind us that tradition is, as Dave Ervin speaks about it, it is that other mode of transmission.

as Dave Ervin speaks about it, it is that other mode of transmission. And I think this is maybe the best way to understand sacred tradition or divine, divinely inspired tradition, in that it is the authentic understanding of those things that Jesus and the apostles said and did. And in the case of the apostles that they wrote down, we know what they wrote. So the Bible is our objective body of data. We can all read the words, and we can all say, okay, I see here they're speaking about faith or repentance or salvation, but what in fact did they mean by these things? So in 1 Corinthians 15, where St. Paul speaks about baptism for the dead, he's referring to it, and I would argue that the context is really clear that he's not referring to Christians being baptized for the dead. He's

referring to some group, it seems, out there. But Mormons, they seize on this passage, and they say, look, this means baptism for the dead, therefore we should baptize ourselves by proxy for dead people. And they build an entire theological framework out of a verse. It doesn't mean what they think it means. So tradition, it very much entails the lived understanding of the meaning of these things that Jesus and the apostles said and did, so that a thousand years later, two thousand years later, we have some recourse to be able to tell, is this understanding that we have today of this passage, is it authentic? Does it track with what the earliest Christians understood the apostles to mean? One final example. At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread and wine. He said, this is my

body, this is my blood. Now, there's a variety of opinion as to what he meant by that. Some say that this was simply, this is a memorial meal, and these are symbols of me and nothing more. Of course, the Catholic view is that he meant much more than that, and that these symbols, which they are, but they're more than symbols, are also Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, are the appearances of bread and wine. The reason I use this as an example is that this was one of the final instructions Jesus gave to the apostles before his death on the cross, and that was to do this. Well, what did he want them to do? And what meaning did it have? And so sacred tradition is

the way in which the church from the very beginning handed down not just the story, not just the facts, and then recorded it in scripture eventually, but also the meaning so that we can have an Ignatius of Antioch in the year 107, 106 on his way to Rome to be martyred. He can say to people in his epistles, 106 on his way to Rome to be martyred, he can say to people in his epistles, listen, if you encounter somebody who does not believe what we believe, who were taught by the apostles, that the Eucharist is the very flesh of Jesus that suffered for our salvation on the cross, then avoid that person, because he's believing in something that didn't come from the apostles. Again, a paraphrase. That's tradition in action. That's where you're

seeing this kind of vouchsafing of the authentic meaning. I realize I've talked quite a bit there, but those are all parts of the answer to your question. I think there's going to be a lot of Protestants who are maybe shocked and maybe surprised, if I understood you correctly. I think a lot of Protestants, when they hear sacred tradition, they think, as I mentioned earlier, this list of things we have to believe that we're not terribly sure what they are, but they're somewhere, maybe in the Vatican vault somewhere, and it's sort of got your scripture, and then you've got this list of traditions, whatever they are. But you're saying something that seems like a lot easier to swallow. You're saying that tradition, sacred tradition, because I guess the scriptures are part of sacred tradition, they're a handing

on of what the apostles taught, but is how we interpret Scripture rightly? Is that really what Catholics have meant throughout the ages, that it's just about interpreting the Scriptures correctly? Well, it is, but it's not just that. There's a bit more to it. So let's just first of all say it's definitely that, the lived understanding of the authentic meaning of what the apostles and, of course, our Lord himself said and did. But there's more to it. So there are things that are enshrined in sacred tradition that are, you can read them in Scripture, but people have various understandings of that.

So where St. Peter, for example, says baptism now saves you, it's not a removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal for a clean conscience. So there's a passage where it seems very clear that baptism is not only a necessary sacrament, but also it's a saving sacrament, but there are many who disbelieve it. So here again, we have the same problem. We're reading the same words on the page. What do they mean? And what did they mean to the original Christians who heard this from the apostles? So when you see an infant being baptized, you're seeing tradition. When a Catholic goes to confession and receives

absolution from the priest, you're actually experiencing tradition, because this is the living out of this understanding that we can see even back in ancient times, often in seminal form, but you can still see it there. So whether liturgically or theologically, the meaning that's drawn out from this objective body of data in Scripture is crucial. Otherwise, it's every man for himself. And as I like to say, if you don't have that informative principle of sacred tradition that helps us, it leads the church to understand, then the Bible becomes a Rubik's Cube. Absolutely.

And literally, you are by yourself. And if you don't agree with the interpretation that a given pastor has, just get up and start a different church, and then your interpretation will hold sway. But then somebody there might say, well, I don't agree with that, and can go and start his own church. So that's one of the practical side effects of this issue. I'm seeing this a lot today with the new crop of Protestant apologists.

It seems like they'll take a series of premises that, for some reason, they think are binding. Like God exists and God is loving and God is all-powerful and he sent his son Jesus Christ and he died for us. But then they'll say, well, I don't really believe in hell because when I read these scriptures, it leads me to believe in kind of annihilationism. Or it seems, you know, when you take Paul in context, it seems like he is advocating homosexual relationships in certain circumstances. Now, certainly that's not the vast majority of Protestants, but I see exactly what you're saying. A lot of Catholics do that too, so I don't want to let the Catholics off the hook because

there's that same problem in certain Catholic circles, sadly. Okay. Talk to us about the difference between the material sufficiency of Scripture and the formal sufficiency of Scripture, because regarding what you had to say about tradition being the lived understanding of the Scriptures, it sounds like that's what we're getting to. Yes. Well, the term formal and material, It sounds like that's what we're getting to. Yes. Well, the term formal and material, I don't know that too many people had even heard those terms much before apologetics became popular in the U.S., say, in the 80s and into the 90s. In fact, it did come up in that debate that you referenced.

Yeah, it was a big thing. So simply put, the two terms are that formal sufficiency, which is the position that Protestants tend to argue for. And you'll see it, for example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the various bullet points on matters of doctrine, the section on Scripture at the very beginning. It essentially says this. that all those things necessary for salvation are sufficiently clear in Scripture that the average person with, you know, sufficient effort can access them and understand them. And that's good as far as it goes. That gets also to the question of perspicuity, which is the clarity of a given verse, and that's a whole another topic for discussion, because certainly there are some verses that seem fairly clear to me as a Catholic, and yet they don't seem so clear, and vice versa. So formal sufficiency holds that everything that's

necessary for salvation is sufficiently clear and it is sufficiently explicated in Scripture that one could then say that Scripture is sufficient in itself, because it's not merely there, it's also explained or it's stated sufficiently clearly. Okay. Now, there's more that one could say about formal sufficiency, but in a nutshell, that's what it would be. Material sufficiency is something less than that, and that is the recognition that all of the data necessary for salvation, in one way or another, whether explicit or implicit, is present in Scripture. But even that is not easy to see with something like the canon of Scripture. So Catholics hold to, by and large,

even if they've never really thought about it and they don't know the word for it, but they may agree that all those things necessary for salvation are found in Scripture in some sense. But yet you've got something necessary for salvation, like the canon of Scripture, that is not in Scripture. So we could say then that in those implicit statements where St. Paul says, 2 Timothy 3.16, for example, all Scripture, he's referring to it, but he's not identifying it. Or all of the passages that refer to Jesus saying, you know, that you must, you know, he quotes Scripture against the devil when he's being tempted in the desert. devil when he's being tempted in the desert. Material sufficiency is the recognition and the admission that Scripture does contain all these things, but some of them are inaccessible to us without tradition to inform us as to the correct understanding. And that would extend also to the canon. It would extend to Christological issues, which is one reason why in the early church, the defenders of orthodoxy, they not only appealed to Scripture, which is one reason why in the early church the defenders of Orthodoxy,

they not only appealed to Scripture, which the Arians did, and the Monophysites and the Monothelites and all the various heresies involving Christ or the Holy Spirit, they appealed to Scripture certainly, but the defenders of Orthodoxy appealed to Scripture and tradition to show that these novelties that were being brought forth, say, by the Arians, denying the divinity of Christ, denying the Trinity, the defenders of Orthodoxy pointed to this is not how the fathers, the apostles, and the disciples of the apostles, they did not understand these verses that way. They understood it in the Orthodox sense. So there you can see that material sufficiency is part of, I would argue, the early church's recognition of Scripture, but never was it severed from apostolic tradition, and it was never pitted against the church. So you don't see Scripture against the church, you don't see Scripture against tradition in the mouths and the pens of the Church Fathers. The model that you see in the patristic era is Scripture and tradition in the Church, and that was their bulwark against heresy.

That's how they could defeat the Arians, for example. Are there any Catholics who would reject material sufficiency in that they would say, no, you don't have all of the material you need in Scripture explicitly or implicitly to get you the right theology. You actually need the Church to tell you something that may not even be found in Scripture. So, for example, someone could say, I understand that you're trying to make a case for Mary's assumption in Revelation chapter 12 or something. But actually, you were going to use that example. Did you? Yeah. But actually, that's not as clear. And it's a good example. Yeah. So we can say, well, it doesn't need to be clear. It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if the scripture does not even implicitly teach, say, the Immaculate Conception, because the Church teaches us. So I'm not down with material sufficiency either. Is that an option for the Catholic? It is. I mean, material sufficiency is not a dogma of the faith. It's not something that the Church says you must believe this, unlike, say, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or something like that. I would say that most Catholics are as you just described it, because most Catholics, for whatever reason, have never delved into these matters. They wouldn't even know the term material sufficiency or formal sufficiency. It just it doesn't it doesn't enter their world, their experience. So I would say this is more of an academic question among those who have delved into it, but it's not a requirement.

The 85-year-old lady who's praying the rosary, you know, during Mass, she has no idea what any of this means, nor does she need to know. She, you know, she trusts in Jesus and His Church. But you accept material sufficiency for the most part. As you say, things like the canon can't be taken out of Scripture. Well, not explicitly for sure. And even implicitly, it's about as implicit as you could possibly get. Your good example of the bodily assumption of Mary is another one. We see references to things that we can use to say, well, We see references to things that we can use to say, well, 1 Thessalonians 4, for example, talks about a bodily assumption. It describes people being bodily assumed into heaven when Jesus returns.

So we could say, well, then clearly the idea of a bodily assumption in itself is not contrary to the Bible because the Bible talks about it. That doesn't talk about Mary, obviously. Bible talks about it. That doesn't talk about Mary, obviously. We could speak about Mary in heaven wearing a crown in Revelation chapter 12, this mystical depiction of the woman who gives birth to the child. So there are things that we can do, but there's no place in Scripture that a Catholic could go to and say, look, see right here, it teaches the assumption of Mary. But to come back to your original question, as I understood it, this is the irony, is that the Bible doesn't require you to do that. The Bible doesn't say you must prove anything from the Bible. And that's a dramatic realization when I've talked to my Protestant friends and I'll ask them, you know, in good faith,

please show me where the Bible requires that I prove anything from the Bible. And it doesn't. What's the best answer you've gotten to that question that comes as close to the Protestant position? I mean, some people are very thoughtful and they ponder it. And, you know, I leave it to God to kind of finish up the process for them. Some people I've known have actually wound up experiencing conversion as a result of that. But it is a topic that deserves to be considered, that if the Bible nowhere claims, nowhere requires that you prove anything from the Bible, then it's a presupposition that many Christians have that unless I can prove it from the Bible, it's probably not true. And we've even sort of skirted around that presupposition in this conversation. Not that you hold that view or that I hold that view. But when we're speaking to

Protestants, especially, but even many Catholics, they just sort of have that kind of built-in assumption, well, I better be able to find it in the Bible. And this is why, Matt, as you know, many Catholics get flustered and defensive when they're asked a question about the assumption. And there's, you know, it's pointed out to them, well, you can't show me that in the Bible. They get nervous because they're assuming that, well, there's something wrong with that then if I can't prove it to you from the Bible. And what I'm trying to point out, as I know you know, is that the Bible doesn't demand that we do so. It's nice when we can. Yeah. So here's an objection.

If the church doesn't require me to accept even the material sufficiency of Scripture, why even talk about Scripture and tradition as authorities? I mean, you talked about tradition being the lived understanding of the scriptures. You've heard James White say, it's really sola ecclesia. Basically, as a Catholic, you just do what the church tells you.

So why bother even pretending that scripture or tradition is an authority? Because even if you think you've got valid arguments from scripture or from tradition, what the church says has to trump what you're saying.

So just say sol reclesia. Isn't that a lot more honest? Well, I've had that discussion with James over the years. I find him to be very formidable in his efforts to critique the Catholic Church. Formidable? Okay, sorry, I was wondering where you were going. In his efforts to critique the Catholic Church, and he and I have known each other now for, seems to me, going back to probably 1989 or thereabouts. So we have a long history, and I'm very familiar with his arguments, and he is with mine. and he is with mine. I don't agree with that, with the term sola ecclesia by the church alone for this reason. There's a nuance there that I think should be allowed for, and that is, it's not that the church says, all right, we're going to go with the Bible this time,

we're going to go with tradition this time, and ah, you know, the Bible says something, it's kind of inconvenient, so we're going to call tradition on this one. Okay, that's really not what we see. If you consider, for example, Acts chapter 15, the Council of Jerusalem, you'll notice that the preponderance of Scripture said no shellfish, no pork, kosher food laws. You can't eat these kind of animals. And so the body of Scripture as it stood at the time, and this, of course, would be prior to any of the New Testament Scriptures being written, Scripture said one thing. And St. Peter received this revelation from God in Acts chapter 10, rise up, Peter, kill and eat. The unclean animals are now clued for you, that kind of thing. And so when St. Peter shared this revelation with the assembled apostles and

the other leaders at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15, we know that St. James issued the final judgment on this issue, and the whole church recognized it as true. And then we're told that they were sent out to tell everybody, this is what the church wants. It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit, we're told. And they were given certain instructions. Do not eat meat that has blood in it, meat of strangled animals, for example. Keep yourselves away from sexual impurity, things of that nature. So here we see the church operating in exactly that fashion. It was not appealing to Scripture. It was appealing to

direct revelation from God. And it was saying, henceforth and forever, this no longer, we no longer have to be Jews to be Christians. You no longer have to keep kosher. You no longer have to avoid certain animals that were ritually unclean prior to this time. And I don't think that my friend James White would argue with that point because it's right there in black and white. The church operated and said, this is what we're going to do, and this is the correct understanding of this. And that, I believe, is the model that Jesus established. That, I believe, is the model that Jesus established. The model that he established was he instituted a church and he gave the church certain prerogatives, certain authorities that were subordinate to his own, but they were dependent upon his authority to forgive sins, to preach and teach and so on. church moving forward in time operated on that basis, and then, as the Holy Spirit directed,

then began to make some of these teachings portable in the form of the written Word, thanks be to God, but it never ceased preaching and teaching in the oral form. But it's always the model that we see, my view is, my belief is, that the model that we see in Scripture is Scripture, front and center, and tradition in the Church, never opposed to one another, never pitted against one or the other. And that, to my mind, is the biblical model for not sola ecclesia, not sola scriptura, but Scripture and tradition in the Church together. Okay, that's a good answer. I'm trying to think of what some people might say if they were pointing to the Scriptures

to have them sort of justify their authority. Sometimes I'll hear Protestants say this, and very recently I've heard a PhD theologian, Protestant theologian, saying that the Catholics believe that it was the authority of the Church that invested the Scriptures with their authority, whereas we believe, as Christians, that the Scriptures have their own authority, which is an incorrect way of understanding. Yeah, it's incorrect. It's certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches. I go back to Dei Verbum again, the document in Vatican II, which really clarifies this. But it was already clear long before. The Council of Trent says the same thing in its section on the canonical scriptures on divine revelation.

So to maybe restate it accurately, the Catholic Church says that all Scripture is inspired by God, 2 Timothy 3, 16. God is the one who made these books inspired, not the Church. But it was through and in the Church that God revealed which books were inspired. So I didn't decide, nor did you decide, that the gospel according to St. Matthew belongs in Scripture. That's something God decided. But he didn't reveal it to me or you or anyone else individually. He revealed it in and through the church. And that's part of that mystery of Scripture and tradition in the church, where if you begin to cut them apart and separate them, then the ability to say with certainty, I know this is

what Scripture means, suddenly you find yourself at the mercy of what you're teaching or what your pastor teaches, and then what if you have a change of heart? And then you may have to change churches. I just want to add one more thing to this issue of tradition and in the church here. In the early centuries of the church, you can see a very strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture. And sadly, that got lost, especially in the years after the Protestant Reformation, because this is one of those really unfortunate phenomena, and that is that whereas Protestants, they associated any talk about tradition or even just the reality of tradition as they see it in their own life, they associate it so strongly with the Catholic Church that they began to reject it. And the same thing is true in reverse, where many

Catholics, most Catholics, maybe all Catholics at one point, they associated an emphasis on the priority of Scripture as being Protestant. Therefore, there sadly was a de-emphasis on Scripture on the part of many Catholics, and that led to untold problems in the Catholic Church as well. So my hope is in our conversations with people like James White, who's a worthy person in this discussion, and he brings to the fore many of the things that we need to grapple with. I'm advocating for recovering that apostolic era model of Scripture and tradition in the Church so that we can, I mean, ultimately, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could find that union that Christ wants for us in John chapter

17, but in the meantime, begin to erase some of these unnecessary barriers that separate Catholics and Protestants? You know, the problem of tradition and the problem of sola scriptura could be, these problems could be greatly reduced if we could understand them for what they really are. And so that Catholics could understand what Protestants are trying to say, even though we may disagree with their conclusions, they're saying something important about scripture that Catholics need to listen to and accept, because it ultimately is Catholic, what they're saying in a certain sense. And then I hope that our Protestant friends would be willing to at least hear the Catholic perspective without the polemics, so that they can regain the proper

appreciation for tradition and recognize its rightful place in the life of the Church. Sometimes, that's really great. Sometimes when I'm talking with Protestants and say I want to help them understand why we believe in purgatory, I'll sometimes say something like, okay, look, for now the term doesn't matter. Maybe the term is just a stumbling block, but let's make an argument from Scripture for this kind of encounter or this process that takes place prior to death. Or if I'm talking about mortal versus venial sin, maybe I'll drop that language for now to kind of help them understand

the concept. And if they can understand the concept, then I can say, okay, yeah, that's what we mean. That's what we mean by mortal. That's what we mean by purgatory. Have you ever tried that approach when dialoguing with a Protestant? Maybe tradition? Because I think when Protestants think tradition, they think, you know, statue of Mary, you know, a forest of candles, a blaze in front of her. All these things that seem so alien to them. They're like, oh no, I don't want to take on these traditions. The reconciliation or the confession boxes.

And they're thinking of something different. Yes, yes. So is there a way we can talk about this without using that word? Yeah, it's an important point you're raising. Maybe this would be a good time for me to distinguish between tradition, capital T tradition, if you like, and small t tradition. I realize that that way of describing it has its own limitations. But to distinguish between apostolic tradition or sacred tradition and human tradition, very often I found that what people hear when they hear the word tradition is human tradition. And of course, as we know, in Mark chapter 7 and Matthew chapter 15, Jesus condemns the traditions of men that nullify the word of God.

And he gives an example of the Korban rule, where the scribes and the Pharisees had developed this scheme whereby you could avoid the commandment to honor your father and mother by this trickery in which you would donate, you'd make Korban or dedicated your money to the temple so that when your parents came asking you for financial help, you could say, I'd love to help you, but, you know, all my money is Corban. But really, you had use of your money, as you know. So there's a clear example of you've got this human concoction, this human tradition that clearly goes against the Word of God, the very

words of God in the Ten Commandments. And so Jesus rightfully excoriates and condemns that. The problem is that because those two passages are so widely known, and passages such as 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2, and 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 15, and other New Testament references to tradition in a good sense, many of our Protestant friends, they assume that tradition is always and everywhere bad. And it's not. So let me give you an example. The theological heirs of John Calvin, who are known as Calvinists or the Reformed churches, they have a certain tradition.

In other words, their method of interpreting Scripture within the framework of what John Calvin worked out in, for example, the institutes of religion. That's their tradition. And so when they approach Scripture, if they're talking to a Baptist or Lutheran, they're going to say, no, no, no, no, you're misunderstanding that verse. That's not what the verse means. This is what the verse means. And they're operating on the basis of the interpretation that they've received, by and large, from John Calvin. Lutherans, at least those who are kind of old school Lutherans, will be operating with their interpretive tradition that comes from Martin Luther, and so on and so forth. So all we as Catholics are trying to get people to see is this in itself is not invalid. It is valid to approach Scripture with a hermeneutical tradition

so that you can safeguard your understanding of Scripture and not wind up as an Arian or a Mormon or some other group like that. Our modest proposal as Catholics is, let's start it at the very beginning and look at the tradition that we see come forth in the early church. And let's let that be our guide. And I don't think that's an audacious request. And my belief, honestly, Matt, is that to the extent that we're able to do this in good faith without the polemics and without mutual suspicion and recriminations and all the things that just get in the way. And I, you know, hey, I've had my share in that over the years. I think all of us, if we're going to be honest, we have to admit that there are times when maybe our own

desire to win an argument got in the way of the truth. But in any case, I'm just putting it out here right now, that if we could at least do that and consider from the beginning what did the earliest Christians understand about these passages, it would help a lot to move us forward and move us closer to each other in truth, not in compromise, but in truth. Yeah, I find myself so struck. Like, I just did a debate with a Protestant apologist by the the name of cameron batuzzi excellent awesome young guy runs a youtube channel and we debated the eucharist and i did a deep dive into scripture and tradition on this point and i i pointed out the fact that it's not till you know the 11th century with berengarius of tours and then you've got wickliffe and then you've got some people you know starting to deny but even martin luther wouldn't take the symbolic view. And I said, doesn't it bother you?

Like for the first thousand years of church history, nobody had heard of your belief? And he's like, no. I'm like, well, it bloody well should. That's right. And again, it's like there's this distinction between, well, no, I don't need that. I just have the Scripture. It's like, of course you have the Scripture. I have the Scripture.

We both know the Scripture. The Mormons have Scripture. The Jehovah's Witnesses have Scripture. Yeah. In itself, it doesn't resolve anything. I mean, you know, people would say, well, if I said as a Catholic, well, the Bible says X, they'd say, well, you're misinterpreting the Bible. Now, it remains to be seen whether or not one is misinterpreting the bible now it remains to be seen whether or not one is misinterpreting the bible but the only way you can know that is if you appeal to how the earliest christians understood the bible otherwise you're simply saying i am the arbiter

of how to understand scripture and if you don't agree with me, you're wrong. It's solipsistic. It's subjective. Can I give you a quick example of how I... both Calvinists, they identified themselves as being there to kind of critique my talk. Okay, that's fine. And they said, almost everything you said here tonight about Mary is wrong, and we'd like to show you why. And I said, okay. So they asked if we could go to get a cup of coffee at Denny's, which we did. I don't know why I was drinking coffee at 10 o'clock at night. And at Denny's.

Well, Denny's, you know, hey, that was not so bad. But anyway, so there we were. So these two Calvinist fellows on one side of the Well, Denny's, you know, hey, that was not so bad. But anyway, so there we were. So these two Calvinist fellows on one side of the table, I'm on the other side, we have our Bibles out. And you may have heard me use this story before. I haven't. It was one of these moments where, man, I tell you, a light bulb went on. So they said, well, you're teaching things that are not in the Bible about Mary. And I said, what, for example? They gave me an example. So I opened my Bible and I started offering some scripture in support of that Marian teaching well then it switched from you're teaching things that are not in the Bible to you're misinterpreting what's in the

Bible and I said no I'm not you are and they said no you're misinterpreting I said no I'm not you are and just for a fact I was just putting it back on them because the very fact that they said I was misinterpreting it didn't mean I was misinterpreting it, nor vice versa. So then it just became this this hour long struggle in which they kept saying, no, that's that you're that's not how to understand it. And I said, well, there are reasons to understand it that way. And I could cite St. Augustine or, you know, some earlier figure who held that view. But he kept coming back to, they just said, that's the wrong interpretation. So I took out my pen out of my pocket. I was at my wit's end, Matt. I didn't know what else to do. So on the napkin on the table in front of me, I jotted down six words. I jotted down, I never said you stole money. And I turned it around in front of me, I jotted down six words. I jotted down, I never said you stole

money. And I turned it around in front of the two fellows, one of whom was an ex-Catholic, by the way. And I said, you just saw me write this sentence in your presence in our common language. Do you understand what it means? And they looked at it. I never said you stole money. Yeah, I understand it. And I said, are you sure you understand what i mean by that and they said of course what do you you know what's the big deal and then for effect i said a third time now just to be sure you know exactly what i meant by this right and they said yes they were exasperated with me so then i said all right did i mean i never said you stole money implying that maybe matt frad said it but i didn't say it or did i mean i never said you stole money, implying that maybe Matt Fradd said it, but I didn't say it? Or did I mean, I never said you stole money? I thought it, but I never said it. Or did I mean,

I never said you stole money? Could have been somebody else. Or did I mean, I never said you stole money? Maybe you accidentally lit it on fire. Or did I mean, I never said you stole money. You know, maybe it was something else. Maybe you were surfing the internet on company time and stealing time from your employer. I didn't say you stole money. So I asked them again, I said, now, which of these five different meanings did I intend by this six word sentence written on a napkin in your presence in our common language. And they kind of looked at each other and they looked at me and kind of sheepishly they said, all right, well, I guess, you know, you got us on that one. We don't know for sure what you meant. So then I, you know, I held up

my Bible and I said, now, come on, guys, are you trying to tell me that you you're guaranteed to know with certainty the meaning of all of these different scriptures in the Bible written by different authors at different times in different languages for different audiences for different purposes. And you somehow automatically know the correct interpretation of all of this and you can't tell me what I wrote on a napkin?

Six words? Come on. And that's kind of where the conversation ended. That's really powerful. Here's the happy ending. Yeah. About six months later, the former Catholic Calvinist fellow, he came up to me at another event. He says, do you remember me?

I said, I sure do. He said, do you remember that napkin thing you did at Denny's? I said, yeah, I remember that. He says, well, that didn't convert me. But he said, I have come back to the Catholic Church because when you said that, it was like a key unlocking a door. And he said, I realized, OK, there is something to this. And maybe I should at least consider what other interpretations might be there other than the one that I adhere to right now. And he said that's when he began to read the early church fathers.

And he said, oh, my gosh. And then one thing led to another. And eventually he wound up becoming Catholic again, thanks be to God. But the point is, sometimes in a conversation, you just can't, you don't want to bludgeon people with Bible verses. I don't want to. I know you don't want to. Sometimes it requires a kind of creative way of looking at it from a slightly different perspective, which is what I never said you stole money was for him. Yeah, that is really, really, really helpful.

Before I move on to your experience with James White at that debate, I want to ask you maybe just a point to help our Catholic listeners, right? And I know you know this, and this is kind of the point you were making in the debate. I don't need to prove that Catholicism is true to prove that sola scriptura is false. And I think sometimes when we get into arguments with our Protestant brothers and sisters, we're taking on more of the burden of proof than we need to. So if a Protestant of goodwill wants to debate

sola scriptura i can show that's false without having to show that they have to submit to the catholic church isn't that right to rome to rome yeah and don't you think that's helpful that we know that so that we can stay on task as opposed to having to try and because if you feel like in order to show sola scriptura is false i've also also got to show that the Catholic Church is true, which also means I have to show why we can pray to Mary and why purgatory is a thing, and we're taking on more than we need to. Does that make sense? Indeed, it does. And maybe that's one of the faults of beginning apologists, where they realize that there are certain discrete themes that can be discussed unto themselves that don't require having to drag the whole, you know, everything

else into it. So I think you said it about as well as I could. I mean, it's not necessary that we say you must therefore, you know, but we could at least deal with the correctness or incorrectness of a given teaching to see even just logically, not to mention biblically, does this really withstand scrutiny? And then we'll see where things go. We'll see if things fall into place. Sometimes I feel like soft sell apologetics is more helpful. In my debate with Cameron Batuz, I'm like, look, you don't have to become a Catholic, but you cannot continue to hold to this. I mean, of course, I want him to be a Catholic, but you cannot continue to hold to this symbolistic kind of view or rather metaphorical view of the Eucharist. You can't. It's just, given the scriptures we're going to look at today and

what the earliest Christians had to say, maybe you can become an Anglican, or maybe consubstantiation could be true. Maybe you need to become an Orthodox, but you have to abandon this. I feel like it's like if you went into a department store and somebody was trying to sell you everything, you'd just want to leave. But if somebody was like, look, this is the best deal you're going to find here.

Feel free to peruse. You'd be a lot more open to receiving what that person had to say. And I feel like when it comes to apologetics, that can be helpful too. Yeah. And obviously apologetics entails the whole person. So not just the intellect, but also psychology, emotions, memories, one's current circumstances. There is a lot that goes into apologetics. And when we neglect to at least recognize some of those other realities, we can really do more harm than good. Excellent. All right.

Tell us about that debate with James White because I tell you what, I mean, if I was in your shoes debating him back in the 90s, was it? I think I would have been quite prickly because it just seemed like the, you know, the dialogues between Protestants and Christians, they were like that. I mean, both of you were prickly towards each other, I think. I think even unnecessarily prickly. But I think if I was you back then, I would have done the same thing because it's like you're dealing with someone who's being arrogant

and telling you that you don't care what the Greek in the New Testament means. It's almost like rhetorically you have to kind of jab back at him. But yeah, just tell us what that debate was like because I would love to know i have i have a number of things i'd like to share on that issue um first of all um i'd like to kind of begin in the present if i may and i'll take you back in time in a moment but um i like james white and uh i have a lot of respect for him i don't agree with a number of things that he teaches and I don't agree with a number of things that he teaches, and he doesn't agree with a number of things that I teach. But I have respect for him, and I recognize that he is sincere. And he's also, you know, he's very formidable.

But formidability does not equal correctness. And I'm sure he would agree with that as well, that formidability is one thing, but correctness is another. But I want to grant him that and say at the outset that I like him and I have respect for him. Casting my mind back to 1993, it was very hot that day. It was, you know, by San Diego temperatures, it was unusually hot. This was in Chula Vista. And it was in a in a an Orthodox Presbyterian church that had no air conditioning, because by and large, you don't need air conditioning in San Diego, as you know, because you live there for a while.

But that particular day was very hot. So everybody was a bit cross. Everybody was a bit grumpy that day because we're in this inferno of a church building that must have been 100 degrees inside. And I, you know, James and I were wearing suit and tie. So it was doubly uncomfortable for us there. I remember there were these big box fans that were blowing air. That was at least a bit of relief. But just from a human standpoint, it wasn't pleasant. And I felt sorry for the audience. They were enduring all this heat. So that was just a reality that we that we dealt with. We we also were both approaching the debate after several years. So this would have been 93. I first met James in 89, I believe. part of four or five years of skirmishes and disagreements and, you know, letters back and forth and mutual criticisms and things like that. So we came to the table already with a kind of backlog of mutual irritation with each other. And from a human standpoint, I'm sure that did not

make things any better. And we were both defending a position that we both deeply believe in. And we have our reasons for believing it. And we wanted to make the very best case we could in the short period of time that we had. And so being younger, I'll speak for myself here, I can't speak for him. But being younger at the time, I was 33. And apologetics certainly is in some sense a spectator sport. So you know that you've got a certain group of people who are cheering for you. And you know that you've got a certain group of people who are hoping you'll lose the more spectacularly, the better. And everything's being recorded. So there is a kind of pressure to perform and, and all of that. So I think that's where the prickliness really came from,

was that it was it was style that sometimes got in the way. And as the old saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. But until you learn that you might try to use vinegar all the time and not be so successful so to whatever extent I'm guilty of being unnecessarily prickly or being condescending or any of those things that I have no trouble imagining that I was I certainly repent of that and I don't think that I do those things now and I I would have to guess if you just if you were to speak to James what he would probably have a similar reaction just Just looking back on it now, you know, we're older, and you might have done things differently. So well, I think I think it takes a lot of humility to do a public debate, because,

you know, you can only learn from your mistakes. And in a public debate, all of your mistakes are now public, and everybody's listening to them and watching them. I spoke to Trent Horn about that, who's a very good debater, I think a very competent debater. And he'll say the same thing. Like there's a bunch of things he'll point to and say, now everybody sees that. And I'm a little embarrassed about that. But I think that does take a lot of humility. Yeah. Because you can just sit in the wings and say, well, he's wrong and I'm never going to kind of put my money where my mouth is, you know? Yeah, yeah, that's true. I mean, apologetics is a is a rough and tumble sport, especially at that level when you're doing public debates and everything's recorded and and you're

you're on record now. And, you know, there there is a there's pressure. There's no question about it. Some people handle that pressure better than others. And when you're young and testosterone driven and you're you're seeking to, you seeking to really define yourself, sometimes those excesses can creep in. But in any case, those are just extremes. that James spoke far too quickly, like he was trying to put too much in that he had time for. So I thought just rhetorically, that was just unhelpful, you know. And then I thought you made so many great points. One of the points you made was, you know, I think if I'm understanding, remembering correctly, James said something to the effect of the man of God, right, will interpret the scriptures correctly and know what the scriptures mean, et cetera. And you pointed to the fact that the pastor of that very church held a different view

than perhaps James did or somebody else did on, say, infant baptism. And that unless James was going to accuse everybody who disagrees with him as being not a man of God, that was fantastic. That was just, it was just so clear. And then the fact that you kept holding him to, fantastic. That was just, it was just so clear. And then the fact that you kept holding him to, how do you know what the scriptures are? And he never was able to give a good answer for that, I didn't think. Fair enough. I agree. I'm sure James would not agree with you, but fair enough. You know, we all have our own biases. The one moment in the debate that sticks out of my mind is, it seems to me this was during the cross-examination, and he asked me a question to the effect of, can you show me any tradition that's necessary for salvation that's not in the Bible? And I responded by saying, well,

the canon of the Bible. And I don't remember whether I said the canon of the New Testament or just the canon in general. But either way, that was one of those interesting moments where I think he thought I was going to raise a Marian teaching or perhaps the Holy Eucharist or perhaps something like that. I didn't get the impression that he was expecting me to raise the canon issue. I don't know what he thinks about that. I'm sure he remembers it. I don't know what his recollection of that is. But that was my recollection, that it seemed to be one of those moments in the debate where there was a kind of a bit of the unexpected. I don't think the audience expected that response from it. But it was a spirited debate. We both tried really hard. It was one of those things where I'm glad we had the debate.

You know, as a mark of, I guess, as a mark of how important I think the debate was, it's required for all of my students who take my course in apologetics at Holy Apostles College and Seminary. I teach that every semester, as you know, And I also teach at St. Patrick's Seminary and University in Menlo Park. So training future priests, they all have to watch that debate and they study it in detail because I want them to get the full effect. I want them to hear the full, you know, all the arguments that can be brought in in the space of three hours. And of all the debates that I've done, that debate seems to have been the most impactful on people. And to this, I mean, look at us, we're talking about it. Yeah. You know, all these years later, because it still resonates and it still has some something to contribute to

the current state of apologetics, I think anyway. Yeah. I'm really glad that he and I had that debate. He challenged me to the debate. I didn't seek it. But we did have the debate. I'm glad we did. And I think it is helpful in showing kind of how the two sides approach this very important topic. And I think another thing that's interesting is these are really perennial issues. And so maybe you studied very hard, I'm sure you did, to engage in this debate. But then it's like, as a human being, you naturally start gravitating to different interests. But what I find fascinating is there's always a new crop of Christians who are fascinated in this issue who would have thought that, as I say, 15,000 people have listened to this debate just on my channel in a week.

If you look at the YouTube version, I didn't even know there was a YouTube version until a few years ago. Somebody put the recording and put it out there. And by the way, the pictures of us on the YouTube are not what we looked like back in those days. My hair was not white in those days. But yeah, I mean, and I don't know how many views that's had. But I still, to this day, I hear people, I hear from people who say hearing that debate was very important for me. And it had a big impact on me. So I'm really glad in retrospect that we did that debate. I think it was helpful.

I am too. It's been very helpful to me as much of your work as Patrick. So honestly, I know it's hard sometimes for me to take affirmation. of your work has, Patrick. So honestly, I know it's hard sometimes for me to take affirmation, but I just want to thank you for your humility, for your love of Christ, for your emphasis on the intellectual life. You've helped many people kind of my age who probably wouldn't be Catholics if it weren't for people like you helping us. So sincerely, thank you for your work. Thank you, Matt. That's high praise coming from you. Thank you. All right. Well, that's it, Patrick. Now, I know in the start of the show, you talked about your radio show, but if people were interested in learning

more about Pat Madrid, your books, your radio show, where do they need to go? Thank you. Yeah, I do the Patrick Madrid Show on Relevant Radio. It is a national program, three hours a day, Monday through Friday from 8 to 11 a.m. Central on about 171 stations. Also, I encourage people to get the Relevant Radio app. It's free and you can listen to the Patrick Madrid show and all the other shows live or you can listen to the podcast. And there's a ton of other stuff on there. That's the Relevant Radio app. So you'll find me there on the airwaves every day. I'm also on Twitter. I spend a lot of time on Twitter and my address on Twitter is at Patrick Madrid. I'd love to meet our listeners of this podcast and maybe interact with them. And then my website personally is PatrickMadrid.com.

So information about my books and things like that is all available there. Perfect. Well, thanks again for your time, Patrick. Thank you, Matt. Okay. Thank you very, very, very much for being here. I wanted to invite you to consider becoming a patron. Let me tell you just one of the many, many, many things that we're doing over on Patreon. We are about to launch a seven-part video series on Augustine's Confessions, and your lecturer will be a professor from the Catholic University of America who specializes in Augustine. a professor from the Catholic University of America who specializes in Augustine.

Not only will he be releasing these videos, but he will be commenting with you in the comment section. That's available for my $10 patrons. But you can see here all the different things I give you in return. That Pints with Aquinas beer, Stein, a signed copy of my book, stickers, private phone call,

all of these things I do as kind of thank yous to you for helping support the show because it does cost money and as you can tell over the last several months the quality is getting a lot better we're having better guests on you know we're growing in our subscriptions it's helping us to have a greater impact and all of that is well a lot of it is due to our patrons so please go to patreon.com slash matt frad and consider supporting us there. Cause it's not just me. There's a team of several of us and who I pay monthly.

And so all of this really does help us get better and better. Thank you so much. Before you go, please click that subscribe button and then that bell button. And that will force Google to let you know whenever we put out a new video. Thanks so much.