Today on the DL we got back to the 1993 sola scriptura debate with Patrick Madrid

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic here is James White.

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning a beautiful morning here in Phoenix, Arizona they say we could have lows in the 60s over the weekend and a high we might even have one day a high of 89 a First high in the 80s.

That's for us. That's like Time to cold snap cold snap time to get out the leather jackets and the muck lucks. Attach the dog sled. No, I was up and I was up now, Alaska. It sounded like a good a good thing to say.

And I'm having to try to get my mind into this because I was just informed That there was a blessed event over the past few hours, mr. And mrs. Figgy. Some of you were on our cruise Up in Seattle and you you met mr. And mrs. Figgy and the figlet.

And in fact, we had did we put we put that on the on the on the blog? Didn't we a picture of me pulling the figlet and people were all saying see he's gonna eat her and stuff like that and Well Now there's a a second figlet that was born last evening.

They have a boy. I have a girl and a boy now and and so congratulations and all but the reason I'm all Misty eyed is because his name is Ethan James. And I was just informed that that was named that names after me.

So I'm just like All right. Well Now I'm gonna have to find some way to get up to the Sacramento area and And and meet Ethan James or as we will lovingly know him little dr. O Which means he can never grow hair Just have to keep it nice and short and That'll that'll that'll work fine.

So congratulations to them. That's that's that's exciting. So anyhow, I I Also a little bit off Bubble a bit because I was just I had heard about this a couple days ago. I actually even got an email Warning me.

This was coming but Lou rug has put up two YouTube videos analyzing our debate now. We I put up a video a while back Because I don't know it's It's sort of like debating neither Ahmed, you know There is some people that just don't get it.

They they don't understand that they were that they embarrassed themselves and and that all the Rational people in the audience people who follow an argument are sitting there Staring at them going dude.

What are you doing? What why did you put yourself out here when clearly you don't get it? And so after all these years Instead of realizing that he just doesn't get it Lou is is still thinking that that he was just the cat's meow and even though the debate was supposed to be on John 6 it was supposed to be exegetical.

Someone didn't understand what exegesis actually means and so that for those of you who are wondering that was the great Proverbs 129 debate. And it's it's and these folks just sort of wonder why they just don't get anywhere I I started listening to it I started watching it and I've got I downloaded it in there and Maybe once I get these next two book projects done and maybe if I feel like I'm you know way ahead in my preparation for the Zulfikar Shah debate and the London debates and You know, maybe I'll I'll do something about it.

But honestly thinking about Bart Ehrman and Zulfikar Shah and all the rest that stuff makes me go. Yeah, I don't know. It's really worth making even a comment on such silliness. You know, what's interesting is that the.

MP3s on that show. Mm-hmm. We've never really moved any. Oh, yeah now we are.

Yeah, well once we put it once we put the link up, yeah people want to hear the whole thing it's just It's just so sad. So we really appreciate Lou. Oh, yeah. That's very good. Yes. That's a good thing.

Very good thing. I Just sometimes I just shake my head. Anyway, by the way The Zulfikar Shah debate has been confirmed. There are two campus organizations on the campus of Duke University that are Sponsoring it.

I just realized I got to any two emails this morning. I need to fire one back immediately say, okay I need the specifics so that we can sick Mike on this With we've got the picture. We need the room, you know, etc, etc.

So we can get a banner ad up on this but this will be on the Thursday September 1 T F Notice as soon as I said that I went that's not September. It's a November 20th, let's go back to November here. Yes, Thursday, November 20th, Duke University I'll be debating Zulfikar Shah.

I have read some of dr. Shah's materials I Have a booklet from Shabir Ali Attacking the deity of Christ now I believe this is one of the first things he did and that Probably explains why it was very very very very very very very surface level Really bad.

I'm sorry But I just I have to believe that Shabir would do a much better job today than he did In that little that little booklet because it's really bad. But I have looked at dr. Shah's Material he was doing a written debate.

I've seen his opening statement a written debate and It is light years beyond that beyond even what Shabir Ali presented. So if some of you have been a little disappointed and someone like Osama Abdullah or another occupant.

This will be very different and initially we were going to be debating the deity of Christ, but when I got the email yesterday with the official title of the debate the official title was The Bible and the Quran.

How how did I think I said like a friendly comparison it's about the Bible in the Quran, which is great. That's that's fine with me. If that's you know, I understand the student groups want to be. You know, they've got to be able to do some Compromise not so much compromise in the negative sense.

But as far as topic goes and make both sides happy and both sides can promote it and and stuff like that. So I'm looking forward to that. That will be November 20th. So once again, this is a continuation of the over two weeks.

That I will be gone in November. We will have to arrange some Skype. We're gonna we're gonna need to practice. We're gonna need to try to set up Skype so that we can see if I can do it from from London.

So we can get a few dividing lines in there while we're at it. Just to make sure that you know, people know what's going on. We haven't fallen off the face of the earth, but that's London leave November 6th the debates the next week.

Wonderful other opportunities I can't tell you about but there was still wonderful other opportunities during that time that I can tell you about afterwards but I can't tell you about beforehand because that would serve jeopardize us doing it and Then instead of flying all the way back across the United States and then all the way back over I'll just be flying straight to Durham from London via Charlotte, of course and Then preparing for the Zulfikar Shah debate and then speaking at the Battle of the Truth conference.

So I really hope that you realize that one of the ways you can help to support the ministry and these are difficult financial times so one of the ways you can help to support the ministry other than Getting The DVDs and CDs and mp3s from a omen org that really does help us tremendously.

When you do that, or if we carry books that you want to purchase, you know. Even if you can find it for 59 cents less someplace else. When you get it from us, you're helping to keep this ministry going.

So just keep that in your. I've had folks come in the channel. Hey, I just got your book for a buck less than you offered over at such-and-such a place. It's like well, thank you. But Another way is, you know support the things that we're doing.

So Being there at the debate being there at the conference Helping to make the Battle for the Truth conference the success as well. Maybe even drop the folks to the Battle for the Truth conference. So the church sponsoring line say, you know Thank you very much for putting the work out that you've done to arrange the debate with the Zulfikar Shah as well very very important stuff, so Keep that kind of thing in mind.

So November's coming up. The cruise is still available. You know, I Just again would invite you to go on the web look around to some other ministries as to what they charge for the cruises and Then then then look at ours and Look at what we're going to be doing what we'll be discussing and of course the BART Airmen debate we need to have all hands on deck.

I'm really hoping everybody in the southeastern area will consider Making the trip being there for us even if you're not on the cruise be there for the conference and the debate as well and That will be exceptionally useful to I hope you're praying toward those things one last thing before you get back to the soul scripture a debate I am Was contacted this morning and and I'd had a little contact last week I was talking with some of the folks in Southern, California, and I had expressed to pastor George sag a very Christian perspective my wide open willingness To do anything that I need to do to arrange to debate probably the man that would be considered the heir apparent of Akhmed didot now Akhmed didot Was not much of a scholar.

Let's just be blunt about this. I've already documented many errors on his part. I would have loved to have had the opportunity of debating him, but did not have that opportunity and I don't see you've got it.

You've got to recognize there are the popular debaters amongst the Muslims and then there are the best debaters amongst Muslims and those are not necessarily the same thing and While I would love in the United States, I think the the most well-known name well respected name amongst Muslim scholars in the United States might be Hamsa Yusuf and I would be very very open to Dialogue and debate with him on the key issues that separate us, but it worldwide worldwide including in heavily Muslim areas heavily Muslim countries.

The name dr. Zakir Naik is the name that comes up over and over and over again and So that is a Debate that I would like to see happen. I really would like to see that debate happen and so I would got a contact this morning and I don't know if it was a valid contact or not, but given the form that it came in and The language it used it sounded to me like it was a valid Contact From someone who seemingly has a means of providing Getting things started to try to arrange a debate with dr. Zakir Naik now generally that would mean traveling to India.

So I would love to do that I would be happy to do that if it would result in more than one debate with dr. Naik and if the topics could be such that It would be fair in that context now. I realize that I would be in the vast minority and that Dr. Naik has a school of debating there.

But the fact the matter is we've played some of his material And It's I'm Not overly good. In fact at times. He simply repeats verbatim what Akhmadid had said and Repeats the same errors, too so anyway that could prove to be very very Interesting as well if that works out.

I'm certainly Desirous that it would because I think those would those especially Would be debates that would be watched and viewed by a large number of people a large number of people and I know that so we are very excited about the fact that given the outreach that We have done on YouTube We know the Muslims are watching we can see the hits to our website from Indonesia and Indonesia is the heart population wise of Islam and so We have opportunity to do things today that Preceding generations simply did not have the opportunity to do but we need you to stand with us to do that.

So pray for us as well. All right, let's move on to the subject of the 1993 solo scriptura debate Algo and channel was Preparing to begin a protest if we did not do more solo scriptura debate today We did half an hour last week.

That's not enough for I'll go. No, I'll go I'll go needs more so we will be We will get 45 minutes in today and he'll still be complaining about that. So well, we'll we'll see how this all turns out obviously if you're a first-time listener, we are listening to a debate that I did against Patrick Madrid in 1993 in the San Diego area on the subject of solo scriptura.

We've already covered a bunch of stuff. We have found Patrick's arguments to be extremely circular and To be self-refuting. But we continue on with that demonstration. We are in we're over halfway through the debate now, thankfully.

So we do plan to be done by mmm Christmas at this particular rate.

But let's let's continue on. In this town actually in San Diego and look at all the different books with all the different opinions dealing with fundamental doctrine. There is not just a panorama of different views.

There are fundamental disagreements over key life-or-death issues That affect the Christian that are going to have an effect on his eternal destiny. And I brought up two of them and mr White neglected to deal with either one because I think he doesn't know how to answer it.

Baptismal regeneration and the baptism of infants. I'm not equating the two as having equal importance.

I can bring up many other examples and I'll do that later in the evening. Yeah, I failed to deal with him now. Here's the man who said now don't try to don't try to change the subject by forcing me to defend tradition.

Even though I'm using it to attack soul scripture and I'm going to resist the temptation get into the church. But let me throw out baptismal regeneration and pedo baptism. And if you don't chase after the the the rabbit that I just released then you're failing to deal with them.

So if I stay focused on the subject and I demonstrate that his argument is internally incoherent that it refutes his own position. Because his own position does not provide for unanimity of opinion on all sorts of subjects in Rome Catholicism.

Well, then I'm the one failing because I don't know how to answer it. Now, of course, I've actually debated the subject and Did so consistently with sola scriptura, but hadn't in 1993 but have since then but again I I find that kind of argumentation.

No again self-reviewing. The fact is mr. White has no answer to that. He can only say that he goes by what his opinion.

Yeah, I gave an answer. Demonstrated how he doesn't have any grounds even to make the objection, but I have no answer for that particular.

Objections of scripture that is a misuse of the Bible. That is not what Jesus intended for scripture. Mr White is unfortunately part of that vast majority of people out there who see the Bible as their private play toy.

Now that sounds pejorative. I'm sorry, but that it is not only pejorative, but it of course is false and mr Madrid is slightly less than honest in his argumentation and hasn't improved much unfortunately since 1993 on that level.

Of course, it'd be really easy for me to say well, mr Madrid is amongst that vast majority Roman Catholics and view the Roman Catholic tradition is his private playground. Because he has to privately interpret it.

He has to interpret it and he interprets it different other people. I guess I before I sat in the Catholic answers offices and I listened to he and Jerry Matta ticks arguing Over the issue of predestination from different viewpoints amongst Roman Catholics.

So why use this kind of pejorative? Emotional Argumentation when it refutes your own position. If your position is so strong why use such bad argumentation. The fact mr.

White will quote the Bible to teach what he wants to be taught. He will teach what his position is over against what other Protestant ministers say with equally good credentials say Who are also going to the Word of God.

It boils down to a dispute over mr. White's opinion versus their opinion. Now you hear that.

What's missing. Well if you if you take that assertion to its logical conclusion, what what is he saying? Nobody has Any idea what the Bible actually says? Unless you follow Rome and we immediately say and Rome provides us with this inspired interpretation where well it doesn't.

It doesn't provide the inspired interpretation. So in reality don't follow the Bible just follow what Rome teaches. It's this idea of even wanting to go the Bible. That's really the problem as far as Rome is concerned here.

You see Romanism in all its ugliness in all of its anti biblical anti-christian attitude and I consider that anti-christian attitude when you can sit around and You can destroy people's confidence that God has spoken the Word of God.

You can destroy people's confidence that God's Word speaks with clarity to the issues of salvation that we can go into it and debate these Issues and in its place want to present a false religion or like Rome that puts you on the treadmill of indulgences and penances.

And a false gospel, that's evil. That's just wrong. Especially when you use it and you're doing it with such bad argument. I don't think that's what Jesus intended for his church.

He says. That I can't refute the Greek translations. Well, of course, I didn't bring a Greek library with me tonight.

And if he had he couldn't read it. Anyways, why doesn't he just be honest and admit it?

He doesn't know what he's talking about. He didn't bring all sorts of Linguistic apparatuses to throw at you to try to to build my case based on what this scholar that scholar might say. I brought the Bible.

I'm sorry that as I was struck me as well the lamest comebacks that Patrick Madrid has ever put on tape. Or digital or whatever it is, you know CD DVD. I wish we had it on DVD. That would be nice. But I didn't come with a Greek library tonight.

I came with the Bible. What is that? What what what is the the true? Intellectual Value of that statement. All he's saying here is I can't refute what he said. I don't know the languages. I haven't done my homework on this stuff.

I can't do exegesis and So I'm here with the Bible. No, you're not. You're not using the Bible using Rome's ultimate authority. Don't don't claim you use in the Bible and Don't try to claim. I'm somehow trying to impress people by Remember, this is the very same man Who less than six weeks earlier?

Had been standing in a church in Denver seven found that debate I still I still haven't had time to be digging through all those tapes try to find it, but Here's the same man who stood in Denver in a church in Denver Boston Church in Denver Demanding to be shown where the Bible over and it was a broken record over and over and over again made that demand and When I fulfill it in a debate with him not even two months later.

What is it? Well, I didn't come with I didn't come with all my Greek stuff. You know, I came with the Bible. Just admit it. Is there a Catholic in the audience who will admit? Okay. He doesn't know he can't answer this.

He's just he's just melting down here. But he's he's good enough to melt down while throwing out red meat for his followers. So they don't notice that he's melting down. You're not gonna you're not gonna sell as many books back at the Catholic answers book table out in the in the grassy area outside the the room if Patrick Madrid honestly says Don't know never looked at for it never heard it before First time has ever been presented to me.

I'm gonna have to look it up. That would have been you know, the honest thing to do but not the things, you know best for book sales.

I believe in going by what God's Word says and mr. White's position. You have to remember is He wants to have it both ways because he's telling you on one hand scripture sufficient. Well, that means that scripture is perspicuous that you can look at it and see what it means.

Well, I don't know about that. Do you catch me saying if scripture is sufficient then it has to be surface level simple. That's again where I pointed out to he and Carl Keating later. That's not what we believe guys.

You're arguing against a strong man. The response was who cares? We're wrong. We can do whatever we want. We can that's not what you believe tough. We've heard other process say it. So I've heard Catholics say everything to that's irrelevant.

I'm still going to use the official dogmatic definition. And if you want to come up something else, that's fine. But That's not we believe it has to be perspicuous has to be just on the surface level.

You can't have doing it. You can't have any Disputes about anything. It just has to be so plain that everybody agrees on everything and that's a straw man. That's absurd. How many times do we have to say that people bring their?

Traditions the scriptures and violate the scripts because of that they bring their ignorance to the scriptures this idea that well scripture is sufficient. Then somehow it's going to have to make everybody agree.

100 is a lie LIE lie and when you hear Roman Catholic apologists Using that argumentation you need to call them out. It's a lie. Just just let's be honest about it LIE lie stop lying about what the situation is.

Let's have some truthfulness here. We're not saying that what we're saying is the scriptures of the soul infallible rule of faith the church if it was God's will to give us a soul infallible rule of faith and then Withdraw his spirits.

They were all left sitting around doing nothing and have no idea what it means. He could have done that. That's not what he did. That wasn't what his purpose was. But part of his purpose is that with that soul infallible rule of faith and with the guidance the Holy Spirit in the church.

We learn from one another we learn from those who came before. That doesn't create a new source of revelation. But it does cause us to grow in our appreciation of the Word of God or understanding the Word of God.

And when we struggle through these things, it's that struggling that causes us to love God's truth all the more you see Rome Can't allow for our understanding of the church. Rome wants only on one side you out in the woods your Bible or it's the Pope.

There is no middle ground there is no room for Protestants who have an appreciation of church history. That's why it's always driven them nuts. When I have quoted early church fathers, they couldn't believe when I start first started doing that.

You should have seen Scott Hahn and Jerry Matta ticks in the first debate where I was quoting early church fathers that they weren't accustomed to that they had never taken the time to look at good and Whitaker and Salmon and all these others that had been doing that kind of stuff for a long time they thought the early church fathers were all theirs and So.

They just don't have room for Protestants. Who have appreciation for church history have an appreciation for the church who are? Churchmen who believe that the church which is the local church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

They don't they don't they don't even know what to do with someone like that. They're much better off when they can find themselves some surface level quote-unquote anti-catholic out there. Whose whose Personal theology is a quarter of an inch thick and those the folks they want to debate.

They don't want to debate the folks that have a meaningful Soteriology ecclesiology. Theory of history and church history and so on that. I don't want any of that stuff. They just want to do this kind of stuff, which we're hearing from.

Patrick Madrid. And that you can tell what the Bible means. Mr. White is then saying Well not in this case because in this case you need Greek lexicons. And you need this scholar to prove what this word means and that's called approve what that means again.

Just more meltdown on Patrick's part. He's ignorant of the languages and to argue that This is just a matter of one scholar versus another scholar in a meaningful debate a judge would have stopped him and said name your scholar.

You keep saying it's one scholar versus another scholar. I've raised my scholars. I gave my sources and he's assuming there are sources that counter man mine so that it's a it's an it's just a toss-up.

But he never provides them. So on that level any Roman Catholic listening this you must admit that at least on that level just on a debate level. They did the debates not even much of a debate. You you can't just say well there are other scholars who well there doesn't remember the debate with Hams Abdul Malik.

When I I kept kept pushing him and I kept saying and see this is this is where the Catholics could see this and they'll Agree with me, but they can't see it when it's their own side. But I kept pushing him what Greek manuscripts do not contain these verses.

Well, they're out there. Tell which Greek manuscripts. Well, I've seen him. Where have you seen him? Well, they're scholars. What scholars? Well, I can't name right now. He lost the debate that on any meaningful definition of what a debate is.

Hams Abdul Malik lost the debate at that point. Well, here's Patrick Madrid. I Present my lexical sources. He presents nothing. He presents Well, it's just your sort your scholars is my scholars, but he doesn't give any scholars because he can't deal with the language.

Debate over he loses. Why is he running around claiming to be to an O when this is the kind of performance that he puts in? Well, because I because that's the way Rome is we're infallible. We must be right.

Even though they will admit that I beat everybody else, you know, Patrick Madrid said I beat Jerry Matta ticks and this person I'd be that person and blah blah blah. They'll they'll admit that I beat other folks, but when it comes to them, well now that they're there.

They're there. I was right. If mr. White is going to be consistent He has to argue for the perspicuity of Scripture if it's sufficient formally for all doctrine It must be able to on the face of it. Tell us what it means.

On the face of it and and when I challenged him on this over and over again afterwards, you know I don't have to argue your definition. I don't care what the Westminster Confession of Faith the London Baptist Confession of Faith says.

I don't care about the Savoy Declaration. I don't I don't care about any of that stuff. I don't care if you all admit that that that solo scriptura does not mean that all scripture is simplistic. We want to argue that all scripture is simplistic.

So that's what we're gonna argue and you need to defend what we think you should. It is. It would be very humorous If it weren't for the number of people that you hear going. Wow. Yeah, I think Patrick did just great.

You know, it's just like were you listening? Were you thinking were you charting this out? Were you did you actually sit down and or were you doing like the one guy at the debate with Tim Staples? Where he'd come in recent convert.

You come in listen to Staples speak and then as soon as I get up he left. And then he waits. I was that come in listen to Staples and then afterwards had the gall to say well, of course Staples one. You know, I've seen people do that there there is such an amazing level of blindness.

Among some people that it's it's truly shocking. I don't believe mr. White can prove that especially in the area of baptism regeneration. Mr. White has I'm afraid once again. Straight off the course. I'd like to bring him back to it.

In fact, I think that he's going to drive smack dab into a brick wall at this point and that brick wall is the canon of scripture.

Now here we go, did I not say Here is the Catholic answers mechanism. This isn't a debate on the canon of scripture. I've done that. I debate Patrick on the canon of scripture any day. If he wants to arrange it, let's do it.

I'll demonstrate that it was not Rome that determined the canon of scripture. I'll demonstrate the Rome's modern canon of scripture is not that of the Apostles and Jesus Christ. No problem. The facts are on my side history is on my side.

The circularity of Rome's position is easily demonstrated. Be happy to debate him on that subject. Marian dogmas the papacy. You know a whole bunch of stuff that Patrick will never debate me on because he knows better.

But the challenge is out there let people know when he when you when you hear Patrick, you know popping off about you know How he's won all these debates then, you know challenge him on these things. Let him let him know that there are people who know that he's.

He's he's basically trying to promote himself Based upon you know, 15 year old debates rather than you know, really stepping up to the plate, but be that as it may. Here's the Catholic answers way of doing things and I had heard this before I knew it was coming you wait until you're we're over halfway through the debate and In fact now we've got coming up now is Q &A and in closing statements.

So you wait till there's no way that the Protestant or any truthful person could meaningfully lay out a Doctrine of the canon now the Roman Catholic has to go through a long Complicated process to establish his canonical authority, but for the Roman Catholic It's real easy with Roman Catholic audience.

Is you to say the church is invaluable a church tells you well, that's easy enough as If that's actually a meaningful answer Ignores all of history and everything else, but hey, it's it's nice and short and if truth isn't your thing then it works real well and so what you do is you wait until the other guy doesn't even have any more speaking time and You throw out the canon scripture.

I Honestly think sometime back in the middle late 1980s There was a meeting and there's a file someplace and They sat down. I said, hey whenever we do sola scriptura, here's where we go. Here's where we go and he's about to throw out the The the the you don't know who wrote Matthew thing and I don't I'm not sure if And I totally spaced doing this and I I need to track it down.

Maybe if sky man's listening he can post it for me or I'll go or somebody but He's gonna throw out the who wrote Matthew thing and I'm I need to try to track down if I don't get this week I'll try to get on Thursday the citation from the leading Roman Catholic scholar from the pontifical Biblical Institute Stating that Rome doesn't know whether Matthew wrote Matthew.

Now again back in Denver This had been so Sad to hear and I didn't have this quote even myself in 1993 that that I'll hopefully be able to provide you here in a few moments, but in Denver when Madrid and Keating throughout the Who wrote Matthew argument?

The response offered by the Protestants Was well, it says right here in my Bible the gospel according to Matthew and I Just wanted to When I heard that I forget where I was that's unusual for me. I must have been sitting down and not moving that's why I don't remember I was but I remember when I heard that I just wanted to Just shake my head and just oh, I can't believe it.

But anyway That's a that's actually a little later addition to the to the Greek text that according to Matthew thing, but It's very primitive, but it's still a traditional thing and there's no reason to believe that that you know that Matthew would put kata Mataya at the top of his original writing anyway the point is that they had just hammered the two Protestants on this and Yet, I really have to wonder and I wonder if I could get an honest answer, honestly, even if I asked.

But I really have to wonder Did Did these men know one way or the other did Patrick Madrid know in 1993 that from his own perspective He cannot prove or demonstrate That Matthew wrote Matthew. That that really is is the question to me.

Now someone has popped a URL up here and I'm hoping that this is what I'm looking for here doo-doo-doo-doo. No, oh, okay. Well, I mentioned it there, but I don't have the citation Rome's own Pontifical Biblical Institute has made it known that they don't know who wrote Matthew either and it is common and It is common in Roman Catholic scholarship to deny Mathian authorship of the canonical gospel.

So the entire question is rather irrelevant. Well, yeah, I did mention that but I didn't give a reference. So I'm still looking for the specific citation that's That that says that I've got it someplace and I just forgot to put together before we started the program today.

So like I said, if we can't find it before the end of the program today, we'll have it on on Thursday, but here comes the canon argument and Notice he's waited until I don't have any more rebuttal periods to respond to it.

And so here we go. This is an insurmountable problem for mr. White's position. One I'm not raised before Mr. White. He's up here tonight Waiting his Bible around quoting Bible verses telling you what the Bible means.

How does he know what the Bible is? These. These 27 books in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation. We'll just stick with those for the moment since we have a dispute over the Old Testament. Where did these come from?

How does mr. White know that these are inspired? How does mr. White know that Matthew wrote Matthew now? I've listened to his debates. Obviously I prepared for this one by looking at the things that he wrote and hearing the things that he says and very often he'll Come back with the thing.

Well, I don't need to know if Matthew wrote Matthew. I mean, I know that it's scripture. Scripture testifies to me. It is self-authenticating is one of his favorite arguments. The scripture in one sense is self-authenticating.

But in the sense that we're talking about here tonight as far as its formal sufficiency is concerned. It is not self-authenticating. I. The letter to Philemon or third John and tell me what in those letters screams out at him this is inspired now.