EPIC Debate on Sola Scriptura w/ Patrick Madrid & James White

g'day and welcome to pints with Aquinas my name is Matt Fred I hope you're doing very well we have a very awesome episode in store for you today very different than usual I'm gonna share with you a debate between Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid and Protestant apologist James 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 had to pay money to get it of course and it was fantastic like 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 a 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 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 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 um let's see here does the Bible teach Sola scriptura in this 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 no we're teachers the notion of the formal sufficiency of Scripture this debate is regarded by many as their all-time favorite Catholic verse Protestant debate on the important subject of Sola scriptura say a word about debates in general I as you know have begun doing these monthly debates with my friend Cameron Batusi 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 wonder 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 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 listen to this debate there are 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 gonna 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 a hundred percent 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 undefined' it in these sorts of things Peter Kreeft put it well professor of philosophy at Boston College you said what 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 solafeet a faith alone I think so 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 the scripture readings and their you know the acts of charity towards the poor okay so I'm not saying I can't learn from my prose and mothers and sisters I love them but it's not okay to hide behind a sort of false Akuma nism like where we all basically agree on the same thing it's not okay because if they 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 you know obviously I would say the same thing to my Catholic listeners give it a listen let me know what you think below I really this is what I'm most pumped about is what you guys say in the comment section below I can't 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 in 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 hallo hallo 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 hallo they have content that's downloaded every single day and it's free you can pay and get access to the entire thing ok now you can try it out for a month just by using the promo code Matt Fran 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 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 a hundred percent Catholic hallowed calm that's hallow dot-com the second sponsor is strive this is a course that I created stri of 21 com if you are a man who's struggling with pornography or lust in any way please check out strive 21 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 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 strive 21 calm it's 100% free and you can be as anonymous as you want against strive 21 calm please be sure to check that out ok let's get into this debate with Pat Madrid and James White good evening it's good to be with you I am very thankful to the church for allowing us to be here I need to thank all of you sandy Aegon's 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 accepted 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 wished to add to scripture their own authority and the unique teachings that set them apart indeed basil seseri 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 and proof of what is right then it is certainly competent for me to put for it 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 they found doctrines and harmony with the Word of God in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth until we gather this evening to debate the same question is the Bible the sole and fallible rule of faith of the church or must we have other revelations 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 Sola 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 speaks to the fact there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not record 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 will of faith 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 the Apostolic band for the foot of these scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the church secondly it is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's truth first 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 the Apostles revelation to to 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 regular fidei 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 will look faith of the Christian Church the Scriptures are not in need of any supplement their authority comes from their nature is god-breathed revelation their authority is not dependent upon and church or council 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 use of New Testament self that the Bible is archeops 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 the demonstration I'm 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 and 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 to carry pens and look through all the houses and all over the planet Earth and the moon and then this the the planets in the solar system and the entire universe looking for another pen like this and of course I could not do that but it'd 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 to 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 precedes 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 and both hands 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 gentleman from Catholic Answers have made it a practice for years to assert the 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 2nd Timothy chapter 3 verses 16 through 17 all Scripture is god-breathed and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for instruction for training and righteousness in order that the man of God might be complete fully equipped for every good work we begin by knowing the scripture is a honest us God breathed the term is very strong I refer anyone who wishes a full discussion of this term to be be Warfield's excellent treatment of it that which is stay honest Oz 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 apologist to follow an error made by John Henry Cardinal Newman with reference to this passage indeed Karl Keating Patchett's associate the Catholic Answers makes the same mistake in his book Catholicism and fundamentalism and he repeated again only recently during debate on the 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 in righteousness can be undertaken due to the nature of Scripture as God breathed what is Paul's point the church is not left without the voice of God for when the church listens to Scripture she is hearing her Lord speaking to her the authority of the church then in teaching and rebuking and instructing is derived despite Roman Catholic claims the contrary from Scripture it now mr. Madrid will certainly disagree for addressing this very passage less than fifty days ago in a debate on this topic he said speaking specifically a verse sixteen quote I defy you to show me where it says sufficient in your remarks you said when you cited second Timothy 3:16 you said sufficient but that is not what the Bible teaches in quote of course no one asserts the term profitable in verse 16 equates to sufficiency when his opponents refer them 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 did the Bible teach that it is sufficient and 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 Bree Scripture means the man of God specifically here of course Timothy by dhow anyone would disagree that these comments refer to all those who belong to Christ and who are parted his body the church might be complete fully equipped for every good work the first term to examine is the adjective translate complete the Greek term are kiosks we know that it is related in its route to the second term we will examine the verb which is translated fully equipped that being the verb X our tip zone Paul is here providing us with a play on words the verb compounding and emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective now the term art EOS mine tells us means fitted complete bower art 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 second Timothy 3:17 is the reference well the newest lexical resource is lo Anita's greek-english lexicon based on semantic domains uses the term qualified as well the great Greek scholar Richard trench and his synonyms the New Testament said with reference to this term quote if we ask ourselves under what special aspects completeness is contemplated in our kiosk it would be safe to answer that it is not as the present we have 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 which he is appointed and clothed I pause only long enough to know that Paul here asserts that the man of 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 the Paul is not satisfied to merely state the man of God may be rtos complete but he goes on to define what he means fully equipped for every good work the term is ex art Enzo here in the perfect passive participial form the prefix ex having as robertson noted the perfective force vine tells us that here in 2nd Timothy it means to fit out that is to furnish completely bower Gingrich and donger express this with the term equip Hendrickson makes reference to a related term Cotter Tibbs oh and it's used at Luke 6:40 where does translate 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 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 a helmet and a 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 equip or their tasks most definitely it does refer bestia the Scriptures can equip the man of God for every good work and mr. Madrid do you not believe that 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 the Mary was bodily assumed into heaven if 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 physician is contradicted by that of the apostle for he knew of no other rule of faith that was necessary so the man of God should be equipped for every good work no other rule of faith that is than the scriptures but finally we remember mr. Madrid's challenged 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 low and Nita's greek-english lexicon where we encounter the definition given for the semantic domain of XR Tibbs oh I quote to make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something to make adequate to furnish completely to cause to be fully qualified adequacy end quote they translate our passages completely qualified for every good deed while though a 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 rtos fit complete capable sufficient ie able to meet all demands xr2 so completely outfitted fully furnished fully equipped fully supplied and quote hence we see the following number 1 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 if paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith but implicitly denies the necessity of such 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've provided to you to win this evening's debate no 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 Lord Jesus Christ when coming into conflict with the traditions of the Jewish leaders note the words record in Matthew's Gospel chapter 15 then some of the Pharisees and teaches 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 a mother whatever hope you might otherwise have received for me as a gift to bowed 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 the sciples did not follow the rigorous hand-washing rituals the Pharisees they identified this as a breaking of the tradition of the elders they firmly believe that this body of tradition was authoritative and some even believe they 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 the following of their own traditions specifically in this with reference to the korban rule the Lord Jesus calls 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 of Scripture traditions are not God breeds and hence are subject to examination 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 a sacred tradition needing other aspects such as the supposedly apostolic unwritten traditions and the authority the Magisterium of the church the person who wishes to follow the example of Christ will old 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 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 and giving to the church the Scriptures so 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 a certainty of holding in our hands the same scriptures that our Lord Jesus described at the very speaking of the Father himself this is the firm ground upon which the church can stand an uncertain and threatening world this is the rule of fate that constantly calls a church to price 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 is just giving you a very forceful a very smooth presentation of the Protestant doctrine for 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 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 Cyril of Jerusalem Anthony sheis and all the other fathers that James might like to quote they did not teach Sola scriptura and also showing that mr. white if he chooses to refer to them he's 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 for 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 a 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 this 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 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 searched 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 teach Sola scriptura and I believe that if you want to be faith 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 their formal 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 it's 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 evidence 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 Lutheran's Methodists and Presbyterians say the biblical evidence that baptized that babies were baptized in the New Testament is good so therefore we should baptize babies others such as Baptist Pentecostals and jehovah's witnesses say the biblical evidence shows that babies were not and should 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 second 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 it 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 save 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 Aryans did it the albicans ian's 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 have called God's Word as well for example we see that 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 and the Bible calls the oral proclamation of the gospel the of God such as in first Thessalonians 2:13 where Paul says and for this reason we to 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 here 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 1 1989 where the psalmist says forever o Lord your word is settled in the heavens this verse and the other verses like it which 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 one 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 authoritative Lee to Jesus Christ the Word of God but John the Baptist did not have authority over Jesus Christ same 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 when you look at it more carefully the four Gospels Matthew Mark Luke and John are equally ultimate and equally authoritative and one gospel does not subjugate the other gospel the same with a prophet Isaiah in the Prophet Jeremiah here were two prophets of God walking the earth at the same time delivering inspired Oracle's 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 flier that mr. white produced which says does the Bible teach Sola scriptura that's the issue don't forget that don't hit 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 she argued that to prove there is no other pin 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 had 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 brought up let's turn immediately to 2nd Timothy 3:16 verse 17 part of me 3 16 and 17 which mr. white lean 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 here book where he says this is on page 42 of his book answers the 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 the 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 second 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 and his attempt to shoehorn Sola scriptura into it second 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 equipments 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 does it 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 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 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 but what if you don't know the proper way to handle a bike and did terrain or in bad weather the church and sacred tradition which the bible does talk about and will show later tonight isn't 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 a 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 2nd Timothy 2:2 which I'm sure he'll get you 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 and 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 one for James one for 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 perfectly 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 accompanied 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 2nd 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 wanted to is perseverance and good works that perseverance in good works will make you perfectly complete lacking in nothing no Protestant would accept that nudee principal i did not accept mr. White's faulty and shabby misuse of second Timothy 3:17 mr. white mentioned the verses in Scripture Matthew 15 in Colossians 2 perhaps needn'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 first Corinthians 11:2 where Paul says I commend you for holding firm to the traditions just as I gave them to you 2nd 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 their so in other words tradition is one major category 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 2nd 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 historically although our 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 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 saying well it said she'll be made equipped for every good work therefore that means efficient it doesn't mean sufficient folks no more than James 1:4 means sufficient as far as perseverance and good works so if you can't show this from Scripture alone Sola scriptura 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 becomes a private playtoy 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 [Music] 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 and mr. white will speak and then mr. Madrid ten minutes in answer to the presentation of the other speakers I wish to immediately respond to some of the things that mr. Madrid just said so they're fresh in your mind because they amazed me so mr. Madrid said all right fancy stuff about Greek is irrelevant we're talking about the language in which Paul wrote and the meanings of the terms to use he 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 utilize one of the four passages that's mr. Keating utilized in Denver using the term complete Matthew 1921 Colossians 1:28 Colossians 4:12 in James 1 for all used the term complete and Catholic Answers like to say we'll see here these if you're gonna say 2nd Timothy 3 says this then all these other things make you complete - and mr. mr. Madrid called it faulty and shabby work that I had done in the passage and said the second Timothy three no more proof so scripture than James 1 for this little problem none of those passages use the terms used in second Timothy if you looked at in the Greek it is a common error for a beginning Bible student to assume that a English translation is going to utilize different words for different Greek terms the terms used in Matthew 19 21 is Elias Colossians 1 21 Colossians 4 12 Elias and James wanton for Tobias and Horwich Leroy none of them use our t ox mr. Madrid did not even begin to address the information that I presented infinite 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've said about second Timothy chapter 3 now mr. Madrid said that I'm trying to shift the burden of proof if you listen closely I presented this 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 this wee bit also said well you know in regards to ultimate authority this idea that you can't have two ultimate authority x' and yes i had said that i've said that a number of debates in the past and sola scriptura you cannot have two bolts and authorities the one ultimate does not allow for that meaning that 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 say on new stocks 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't have these other elements of authority the teaching Magisterium your old tradition then mr. Madrid is going to have to prove that those oral traditions are they on new sports or they cannot function along with Dadri Scripture mr. Madrid then said well we can wrongly divide the Word of God and he used the example that I used a little bike store that I go to and he says but mr. white what did you know how to ride a bike well some people might think that but the problem is we really need to be focusing on the nature of that bike shop because that's a debate about is it the bike shops fault who I am when I come in you say well well yes maybe they need to teach you how to ride there's a little problem here little problem here you see Paul says the Scriptures are sufficient for whom remember second sin mm Chapter three who is it address to non bike riders no the man of God you see the analogy breaks down because to make analogy work you've got to be a bike rider to go in the bike den and get your stuff it's the man of God who is equipped for every single good work mr. Madrid said well we have seconds we have second Timothy 2:2 the same the very same book that mr. white is quoting from says something differently well let's take a look at second 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 and suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus you hear anything there's an Isola scriptura we're told you see what 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 that we're gonna take the time to look at second Thessalonians 2:15 all the rest of it was the assumption that if you hear about a spoken tradition if you hear about for example here Timothy hearing things and the presence of Paul those things must be can information like maybe the Immaculate Conception or a bodily assumption of Mary ER 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 thought in his epistle to the Romans of 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 to get into stuff like that sort of silly we can debate that if we want but Tertullian address is 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 doctor known only to a few he says but here is as we have said the same madness and they're 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 into all the world will say disclosed others only in secret into a few because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy o Timothy guard that which is entrusted to thee and again that good thing which was committed unto the key what is this deposit stole Ian says is it so secret is to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine or supposed to character or is it a part of that charge 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 but witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate that thou keep this commandment now what is this commandment what is this charge from the preceding and succeeding context it will be manifest that there is no mysterious end Darkly suggested in this expression about some far-fetched doctrine but that a warning 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 phrase so Tertullian says no this isn't some secret doctrine this isn't some some oral tradition that contains some other revelation than what we have in Scripture 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 the scripture what I'd like to refer you to a passage look at 2nd Thessalonians 3:6 2nd Thessalonians 3:6 [Music] what do we have here well it's interesting here's one of those passages it talks about tradition or teaching second Thessalonians 3:6 in the name of 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 receive from us oh well well here's this oral tradition this oral tradition we need to keep really no look back at 1st Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 14 as well as 1st 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 thoroughly preached but it's the same message in fact in 2nd 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 pass down to the episcopate not all traditions that you have to have to have the completeness of God's revelation no we're 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 [Music] I invite you to look at it thank you 25 [Music] I'm writing of Jesus's 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 gonna say I was going to hold his feet to the fire but that might have bad connotations you know with the Inquisition and all that like to 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 it's effectively number one let me point out mr. white blundered badly into error number one for most of his rebuttal period by confusing formal 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 an 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 about debate tonight but it's 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 apologist I don't know why you would have missed that the woman clothed with the Sun was seen not only by modern Catholic apologist as Mary's assumptions but also the early church fathers which mr. white is so fond to bring 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 executed that passage to mean that Mary had been brought up in 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 scholars citations that you want to show that a word means something but notice that the word sufficient came as a third of fourth definition or the third or fourth meaning that was assigned to this work 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 Protestants so they're naturally going to give a spin to something that a Catholic scholar might see something different in that mr. white might respond by saying we'll greet his Greek mr. Madrid you can't argue on the basis of ideology or politics I'm going to save that for some future points to but 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 second Timothy 3:17 well mr. white I used James 1/4 to deflect 2nd Timothy 3:17 in fact not really to deflected but simply to hold up a mirror to it and show it's 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 therefore it implies that he doesn't need anything else now mr. white failed utterly to interact with my use of James 1 for he just simply dismissed it out of hand they say nothing can be used to deflect it I want mr. white - 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 Paul or James is talking about why that doesn't mean sufficiency I want him to tell us about that I didn't say that was mr. white would commit all 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 you mentioned that the same old argument about there cannot be to ultimate authorities one subjugating one to the other if you don't like the example of the Gospels and I can move on to a different one what about Jesus and scripture when Jesus wat 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 gonna have to argue if he wants to make this 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 where's Jesus the ultimate authority I'd 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 the man of God is obviously implying that the man of God in this analogous sense can read can ride a bicycle well if that is does not soothe mr. white I'd be happy to use analogy of his own choosing and that would be see that he uses again on page 42 of his book answers the Catholic claims she says yet 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 equip of course then the objection carries no way to put that 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 had 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 were issued all sorts of equipment and to follow mr. White's analogy you're fully equipped by the US 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 very mr. white in his own analogy the fact is just because the military fully eclipsed 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 second Timothy 3:17 implies if 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 baptized his 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 but 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 a man of God we've got a problem then and I'm not implying that neither 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 denied that based on what scripture says so mr. White's appealed to 2nd 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 is a Baptist is anathema on the issue of baptismal regeneration he will tell you in no uncertain terms that the bible does not teach baptism regeneration well the 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 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 well maybe mr. white is simply wrong in his interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:17 he will admit to you and if he does and I'll 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 breathes scripture over and above what pastor Wagner might say or what pastor NOC 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 second Timothy 3:17 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 I'm not sure I understand the thrust 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 second 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 apologist to support that position that simply makes my case the Catholic is using scripture in its proper method the proper method that Jesus intended in harmony with what the church has always taught and in harmony with the tradition and an authoritative teaching that the church has handed down therefore this doctrine were part of 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 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 biblical authority of the authority of the Bishop of Rome the the Catholic position based on Scripture is erroneous you're saying and I've heard you say many times in debates with Jerry Matta ticks and and 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 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 adoption of infant baptism which you reject that very fact disproves your question about or your claim about the formal sufficiency of Scripture [Music] well first of all of course the point is in teaching the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome is a traditional teaching 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 be glad to have the more debates on that but notice what was again just said and I I did address this in what you know mr. Madrid said I didn't but I did well 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 we're being told seemingly that not only ignore is 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 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 in an errant 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 woman's 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 know is why should your interpretation be trusted you talk about men studying for many years of course Catholics say 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's face 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 open 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 where you'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 round never actually answers the question because you might find another church to claims infallible Authority up in Salt Lake City that has a different can and 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 there are some people who seem to think that the church has the power to create Cannon and of course it does not know council it ever sat in the firt in the early church said we by choosing these books are making them Canon Scripture they didn't say that ok but in 18 seconds how do I know it's not well first of all it's contradictory that which is they all knew Stas and since it is contradictory that which is they are new Stas inconsistent therewith it is not testified historically I do not know of any Christians who ever accepted it and it is contradictory to that which we have I don't accept to the scripture as well you shouldn't mr. white as well you shouldn't I found an 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 who was not historically regarded as Scripture here again mr. wife is engaged 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 infallible 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 is ever a man in Rome called himself a Vicar of Christ no argument 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 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 a an infallible Authority you can't know or something I didn't you 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 [Music] at work right mr. Madrid have asked you this before how did the Jewish man fifty years before Jesus Christ know that the books of second chronicles in Isaiah were Scripture would you like me to repeat that no I think I got that okay and thank you it was a short question what can I appreciate that the Jewish man of the 50 year period before Christ knew that that's that scripture 1st 2nd chronicles was inspired because the Old Testament church the Old Testament people of God regarded it as Scripture it had the the official of the official pedigree of coming from an apposite 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 1st and 2nd chronicles as Scripture what I'd like to ask you though is in what whether we do it now or later is is your choice later in the debate tonight if you keep going back to this issue of of how does he know how does he know well that's what I want to throw back at you how do you know but let's take it out of the Old Testament mr. white and bring it back to the New Testament and let's 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 Moute 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 impressions I think you were trying to do earlier that I believe that the Catholic Church rendered the 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 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 of 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'll it be the Murrah torreón 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 description that's interesting because does that mean the Old Testament church was infallible that is the same Old Testament church that taught the Korb and 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 in place someone Indian a fan that 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 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 that have you not read what God said to you and mr. Madrid's keep 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 to you you do not ask him for his business card God's Word is FeO new stas God breathed that's his speaking mr. white the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is in Iran 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 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 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 wealth 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 we'll look you're 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 when 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 a description is that a violation of souls for sure it seems that mr. Madrid 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 and recognizing that there is truth outside of Scripture quotes from pagan philosophers but no one would think that Paul was bi say it citing a pagan philosopher adding it to the can of Scripture was he no he didn't accept it on what basis now 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 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 arrived 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 I can't and different than Romans 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 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 I I get in the lotus position and I go in there's Matthew 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 as his people as a whole and they never take that to mean that they have the authority to create Canon but mr. Madrid and 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 gonna hold you to that this evening Mike my question well since we're holding each other so much tonight mr. white I'd like 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 it was written by Matthew we can 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 it is a common question that is utilized all the time well how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew hmm 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 wherewhere is where's 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 study the issue and I go back I look at history and it's the same thing with what was said earlier on mr. e mr. Madrid you accused me of violating Sola scriptura because I executed 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 you can 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 right 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 of 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 that why can't I do that tonight well I guess I can't [Music] again time mr. white the reason is a commonly utilized question by Catholic apologist 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 oh man you gave us your your hunch based on your study although you've never seen any actual autographs as I have not seen them none of us in the room have seen them you were lying by the way on that transmission of an accurate of transmission of those documents by the Catholic Church mr. white not 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 if 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 and 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 you're saying we shouldn't accept this when 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 him 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 they're most obviously is but again who is the author of Canon I have answered the question who is the author of cannon man or God is it Rome or God it is gone so the question is recognizing that which is inspired not infallibly determining who wrote the Gospel of Matthew now I would have returned the question to you in fact that's what I'm gonna do in just a moment you keep saying well without this infallible Authority mr. dread how do you know that Rome is infallible I can show you that will fallible fallible statements over and over and over again from Roman pontiff's 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 she's really what Roma's claiming I have to me I have no idea where we are in this who's a question okay and we each have one left okay all right I think it's three of that thing it's gonna work out right that's fine I have I have myself down I have both of us downs already having asked three really I think for under 30 yeah I have us down as having a story but not answered all three I only have my so I get to ask one question he has a solution okay well fine well mr. Madrid I guess I'll just have to ask the question that was just I was just asking I'm gonna 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 his 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 independent 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 cat or 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 to 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 step I have to say does that church is there a church today which fits that description which is viewing 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 eat most easily contested chain of syllogistic arguments that is how one knows God's ultimate authority is through a a process you'll find this on pages 126 of 127 of Carl Keating's book I think very well done by mr. Madrid and repeating it that ends with a statement the Catholic believes in inspiration because the church tells him so that is putting it bluntly in that same church as 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 that is what's being presented to us tonight as to what's to replace the Christian recognizing the scripture is god-breathed and hence accepting God's 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 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 in a sense caricature or have a pejorative comment form I 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 has taught for 2,000 years than what you say about the Bible [Music] mr. white you claim that Sola scriptura is true probably 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 no 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 first contains 11 - in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 and elsewhere that all these traditions must all be written down it seems mr. Madrid you weren't listening on a presentation very closely because I mentioned 2nd Thessalonians 3:6 the use of the term tradition refers back to what Paul had written in 1st Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 14 there are numerous others such as 1st Corinthians 11:23 2nd Thessalonians 2 5 and 2nd Peter 1 12 through 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 1st Corinthians 11 he says that he has delivered to them that which he also received he has delivered to them in both ways the 2nd Thessalonians says he's 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 but what is in these suppose that apostolic traditions is different than what we have in the New Testament mr. Madrid just said it's my job to prove that there's that what's in the apostolic traditions is is the same well wait a minute wait a minute e of some separate source of information it's mr. Madrid and so I want to turn around - mr. Madrid and say mr. Madrid I challenge you to demonstrate on the basis of scripture that what is in your supposed traditions is well as referred to in places like 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 or 2nd Timothy 2:2 that is a challenge that I have laid before any 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 the matter is we see in 2nd 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 page 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 ok mr. white I be happy to take you 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're 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 revelations ceased at the death of the last apostle now the Canon of Scripture is something that I promise 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 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 the way to the end of the fourth century before we knew what Canon Scripture was how that happened remember apostolic traditions in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 or what already delivered so your timings all off furthermore mr. Madrid the Apostles did not believe that the Apocrypha was inspired Scripture so you see me they're 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 has defined on the basis of tradition show me where they believed in the authority of the Bishop of Rome is 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 now 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 Abel 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 a mr. white and then mr. Madrid with their closing statements heathered 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 it 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 himself which of course is a very circular argument the church claims 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 it 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 so forth are if they are valid are equally valid against himself an argument that you use that when turn 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 second Timothy 3:16 through 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 that 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 Greek and all I did was I went to what 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 they say oh no they're all wrong tarts heads o means he's provide us with none of that at the beginning of debate I laid out what I had to do I had to demonstrate that the Bible as a rule of faith there teaches it 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 it situations is like 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 second 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 brethren loved by the Lord for God chose you from the beginning for salvation by the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through faith and the truth unto which he called you by our gospel so that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ therefore our brothers stand firm and hold fast the traditions which you were taught either by word or by letter of ours what do we have here this is really the primary passages use 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 twofold 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 that Saloni UNS have already heard what paul has preached this is a single body of tradition 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 a revelation to the power of the Episcopal and secondly that what is passed on is different in substance from what is found in the New Testament with reference 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 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 for sicilians 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 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 steak atte that is translated as standing firm here in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 is used by Paul elsewhere for example in 1st Corinthians chapter 16 verse 13 first Corinthians 16:13 notice what 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 well well Paul taught orally that's when 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 was even a fisherman roamed the time but but he passed it on anyways and then that was passed on down to the power of the epistle that is what we're being asked to believe and I don't believe it and I'll have any reason to believe it the same thing happens we look at Matthew chapter 23 another passages 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's seat it's been alleged the concept of Moses his seat in Matthew chapter 23 1 through 7 is the passage that would ask you to read this is in fact a refutation the concept of Sola scriptura for not only this concept not found in the Old Testament but Jesus is alleged gave his approbation this extra scriptural tradition but is this sound' exegesis is this passage being properly understood when used this way first we know that the passage has spawned a plethora of differing understandings amongst scholars including Roman Catholic scholars but a few items immediately remove the Roman topologist interpretation and application from consideration first Moses's seat refers to a seat in the front of synagogue on which the teacher of the law that were reading the Scriptures 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're here only speaking of a position that exists 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 see in the New Testament church and stood this way because the New Testament church did not adopt it and did not have Moses's seat we first note interpreters such as Jeremiah's and Carson view this passage as engaging in fighting irony read the rest this passage and it is harsh harsh stuff the Jewish leaders have presumed to sit in Moses's seat suggested by mercs Moulton's on focusing on the youth the arrow stance the verb to sit they sat themselves place but not not properly such an understanding is entirely in line with the context but I am more prone to accept Guthrie's understanding in which he says the following quote so long as sitting in Moses's 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 a seat hence their traditions are not in view though elsewhere Matthew is concerned to criticize the scribes and Pharisees interpretations the law here he is concerned to stress the necessity of keeping law itself as usual his eye is on the antinomian x' 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 core bound rule all but the Roman Catholic says oh those are human traditions ours aren't the Jews didn't believe the core ban rule was a human tradition the Jews didn't believe the core ban rule is just a human tradition they didn't believe that the the rules in Matthew chapter 15 about washing 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 [Music] 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 are hundreds of years when there was no Roman pontiff oh 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 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 focused 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 they do what has been the response in showing mr. Madrid the one verse the response has been well that's just process collars that's just that's fancy Greek I brought the Bible no my friends remember the thesis the debate ask yourself the question has mr. Madrid refuted second Timothy 3:16 through 17 and Matthew chapter 15 if he is not no matter what other neat things he said he has not actually engaged the debate that is where it lives 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 [Music] 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 there's still air I know it's been uncomfortable for all of us but I 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 you 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 by hidden specified by whom so please don't misunderstand that remarks 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 - 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 2nd Timothy 3 16:17 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 miss applying 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 used 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 was willing to say is there a verse which teaches sufficiency Matthew or second Timothy three sixteen and seventeen does not teach sufficiency folks I think we've shown that second of all I think mr. white is I listen to his arguments he's very reminiscent of wily coyote you know I feel like the road runner tonight then here we have mr. mr. white is wily coyote springing all these traps for me trying to trying to bring me down he's got this acne box of anti-catholic arguments that he can use but notice that just like wily coyote mr. white is thwarted at every turn he holds up the Bible and says this disproves mr. magista position but he can't even tell us what is in the Bible whether or not 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 second Thessalonians 2:15 so in my remaining moments let me please just address that mr. white made a number of errors the number of blunders you point out a few of them remember one he argues that all 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 an 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 a sense that he is talking about second of all he asked for examples of Revelation which is found 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 it was preserved by the church and mr. white follows it he accepts it but he won't admit it that's the key thing for you to remember in second Thessalonians 2 6 and 7 Paul alludes to something that he doesn't explain he says that there was 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 about that's found a 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 can 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 2:15 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 para dosis that implies handing on that means handing on the Greek or pardon me to Latin the Latin word Latin cognate for that is at RADA 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 traditions second Timothy 2:2 how's he gonna 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 he made a lot of emphasis about the word steak at a and you said that if you at least you implied that this that this means that this orchard 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 out of the written tradition as well because in that passage Paul says stand firm and hold fast to both steak at a 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 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 baptism regeneration mr. white two segments of Protestantism disagree with you on that issue what about tongues and prophecy and miracles BB Warfield one of your mentors wrote both Sybaris Lee 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 first 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 ever risen 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 if I go over 10 or 15 seconds 12 minutes left okay okay yeah I'm I said 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 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 and Campion said I say this all 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 over arch 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 Tiber nor to be reacted 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 endeavours 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 Sunday 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've 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 gonna want to miss so please subscribe to my You Tube channel and click that bell and that way you will not miss out hey I want to say thank you to everybody who 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 mad frat just check it out I'm not gonna 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'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 Matt Fred thank you very much and please do us a favor and share this debate with your friends bye

Channel: Pints With Aquinas

Views: 92,068

Rating: 4.8520851 out of 5

Keywords: debate, Catholic vs. Protestant, Catholic debate, Protestant debate, Christian debate, bible, scripture, sola scriptura, james white, pastor james white, matt fradd, patrick madrid, catholic answers, catholicism, catholic church, eucharist, fr. mike schmitz, bishop robert barron, word on fire, thomas aquinas, pints with aquinas, theology, theological debate, philosophy, philosopher

Id: LlLlzDBHhhA

Length: 126min 35sec (7595 seconds)

Published: Mon Jun 15 2020