Is the Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith?

And now for the participants tonight, first and foremost on my left, a man who holds the title of a professor, director, author, minister, and when

I found out of all the different things that this gentleman does, I thought, when does he have time to eat, to sleep, some of the normal things that we do as human beings?

He will bring us the Protestant viewpoint tonight. He is a professor at Grand Canyon University College of the

Christian Studies in Arizona, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries for Christian apologetics, and an ordained

Baptist minister. Let's welcome James White. And on my right, a gentleman who has really seen both sides of the fence,

I guess you could say. He went from being a student at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College to being a student on the roads of the

Roman Catholic priesthood. That's quite a different term there. He will present the

Catholic viewpoint tonight, raised a Baptist and became a youth pastor in the Assemblies of God.

He is a convert to Catholicism. He is currently director of apologetics for St. Joseph Radio and a youth minister here in the

Diocese of Orange. Let's welcome Tim Staples. This evening's moderator,

Father Hugh Barber, as you may guess, is a Catholic priest and he too is a convert to Catholicism, coming over from the

Episcopal Church. And I do want to ask you, Father, what possessed you to take on such a chore tonight?

What possessed you to take this on tonight? Obedience. Obedience, he says. Father Barber is going to lead us in an opening prayer, and I'd just like you to give an extra warm welcome to our moderator,

Father Hugh Barber. Let us pray.

Eternal and most merciful Father, you are truth. You can neither deceive nor be deceived.

All that you have revealed to us through your Son is true. We ask you to hear his prayer, the prayer which the

Apostle tells us he ever lives to make in your presence as our great

High Priest. Hear the prayer which he makes for us at this hour in the presence and united to all of the elect, the citizens of Heaven, who are looking upon us with interest.

He prayed, sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth, that they may be one.

Grant us, O Heavenly Father, that unity of heart and mind which is founded upon your word, your word which stands forever.

We ask this grace for ourselves, trusting that surely you hear the prayers of those whose sole desire is to bring their brethren to eternal life.

We ask this prayer as we ask all of our prayers in the name of your son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the

Holy Spirit, God, world without end. So we have the opening statement twenty five minute limit and I told the people that I'm going to be a little harder on him because of the obvious suspicion that might arise from my clear theological point of view.

But I'd like to reassure Mr. White that I have a cousin, dear cousin, the first cousin in the home just three short weeks ago in North Carolina, so I could claim the title favoritism on the other side as well, and so now we can begin and trust that everything will move smoothly, according to that providential work of God, which, of course, is what we are all about here.

It is good to be with you this evening.

I especially want to thank all of you local folks for importing Phoenix weather for me to make me feel very much at home.

You didn't need to do that. I was sort of looking forward to something under ninety degrees, but I'm glad that you're here this evening and I congratulate you on making the good choice.

The things we discussed this evening are eternal things. They are important things. They are things that many people in our culture today do not appreciate him and do not take time to think about, and I hope that you will think very, very closely this evening about what is said.

There is very little time, unfortunately for us to even begin to say what we want to say. You are the judges of the debate.

You will need to go from here and do some work. You will need to look up passages. You may need to do some homework.

I challenge you to do so if you do not leave here this evening with things to think about, and I think both

Mr. Staples and I have failed in our tasks before you this evening. Long ago, a man named

Theodoric, one of the early fathers of the church, wrote a book in which he presented a dialogue between an Orthodox believer and one who had been led astray at one point.

The conversation of the other gives us an important truth when you have one of his imaginary disputants utter these words.

The doctrine of the church should be proven not announced, therefore show that the

Scriptures teach these things. I come this evening in the spirit of this ancient writer, not merely to announce to you some doctrine on my own authority, but to prove the truth of the doctrine of full of scriptura and to show that the

Scriptures do, in fact, teach their own sufficiency to act as the sole infallible rule of faith.

The church. I contrast my position with that found in the popular Roman Catholic writer, John O 'Brien, who is written quote, greatest of our reverence for the

Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe and quote.

I hope Mr. Staples will tell us that he likewise use the Bible as John O 'Brien did in those words.

Now, I want you to understand the very beginning that there are two positions being presented here this evening, not just one.

There are two positions being presented. I believe in full of scriptura that the Scriptures that God breathed the revelation of the almighty himself is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, but unfortunately many of these debates are marred by the fact that people don't recognize there are two positions up this evening, and I'm going to assert and prove and know that my friend,

Tim, is going to take umbrage to that that the other position being presented to be described as sola ecclesiae that the church is the ultimate authority in all things, but I want to think as to why

I presented in this way. The Roman Catholic position is that the church defined the extent of Scripture in the canon.

The church tells you what the text means, gives you the guidelines that the role of interpretation is reserved to the church.

So what Scripture is and what Scripture says is ultimately determined by the ecclesiae of the church and the church also tells you what is and what is not tradition.

The church defined the tradition that is not tradition in the church tells you what tradition does and does not mean.

So if you have an entity that defined the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture, the extent of tradition and the meaning of tradition that I would say that entity is, in fact, your ultimate and final authority unquestionable, and that means you have two ultimate authority being presented to the evening.

Mine is the famous God breathe Scripture is the term the Paul uses when he writes to Timothy and says, all

Scripture is they are not God breathe, and then you have the assertion that the church is the final authority that yet the

Bible is God breathe Mr. Staples believe that I appreciate that it makes the debate a whole lot easier, and he also believe the tradition from what he told me on the

Bible and command show just a couple days ago is likewise inspired and yet both are defined and interpreted by one ultimate authority and that is the church and I know that my friend,

Mr. Staples is going to try to say no, that's not what we believe, but I will make this assertion right now that every argument is going to be presented to say no, we don't believe in soul

Ecclesia will, in fact, prove my point now it is vital to remember that throughout this debate as we start throwing things around in his questions come up.

It is important to remember that one must remember their two positions here and an argument is against the other.

If it is applied to one's own position and cause the problem that is an inconsistent argument.

If Mr. Staples, for example, argues that, well, all of the tour doesn't lead to a unanimity of opinion and therefore can't be true, then

I'm going to respond. Well, so like me, it doesn't either. You have all sorts of different opinions. If the argument is used against all of the refute it, then why doesn't refuse your own position and you cannot use argument to refute your own position against someone else's both.

I need to keep that in mind. Now the document of the tour is really rather straightforward, but in my experience, it is rarely represented accurately in most situations.

So let's go to a briefly stated. It's simply that because the Scriptures are the only example of God breathe revelation, the possession of the church.

They form the only infallible rule of faith for the church. In other words, that the

Bible is they are not God breathe, as Paul said in second Timothy three fifteen. It provides to us the very voice and speaking of God, just as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter twenty two verse thirty one.

God's voice can admit of no higher or equal authority. It is the ultimate authority in all things for God cannot refer to any higher authority than himself to establish the truthfulness of what he said it is by definition, our absolute authority for the third denied that there is another infallible rule of faith in the church.

There may be other rules that we utilize subordinate standard, but they are always and must be subject to the correction of the highest authority that is

Scripture as the government. What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle for holy

Scripture, the rule for our doctrine left me there to be wiser than we are.

Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher and again elsewhere.

He put it this way. Neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops, if by chance they are in anything with the result that their opinion is again the canonical

Scriptures of God important, I think, to define what full of the

Torah is not full of the Torah is not a denial that God's word has at times been in oral form during those times of inscription, nor the normative situation of the church, which is where we are today, is what we're addressing regards to the

Torah. We do not have revelation coming today. Roman Catholic agrees it's not like the

Mormon to have an open can of Scripture. God has revealed his word now in the situation where God revealed his word.

What is the ultimate authority for the church is not a denial of the role of the

Holy Spirit in leading and guiding the church. In fact, it is a integral part of what

Protestant have always believed to emphasize that the Holy Spirit of God must be active in a person's heart to have a proper understanding and a desire to even be obedient to the word of God.

It is not an assertion that the Bible contains all knowledge. Very, very often full of Scripture is misrepresented by Roman Catholic writers by referring, for example,

John twenty one twenty five, saying, well, there are many things that Jesus did that are not contained in Scripture that has nothing to do what the level of culture culture is not a claim that we have all knowledge.

We do not know how the apostles dress each day. We don't know what they ate at each meal, neither do we need to know the

Scriptures are sufficient for particular purposes. They're not an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge and the doctrines of Scripture has never claimed that it is a misrepresentation to attack it on that basis.

Furthermore, it is not an assertion that we can learn nothing from the generations that have gone before.

It is not a claim that we have to go back of my opponent is alleged in the past two thousand years and reinvent the wheel with each generation.

We can learn many things from what God has done with his church over the past generation, but the ultimate authority for every generation is always the

Scriptures and never the church. There are also a lot of common misunderstandings about the doctrine that we should dismiss immediately.

For example, I would say the single worst argument against all of the third of something along the line of the blueprint for anarchy.

Look at what happened there. Twenty three thousand Protestant denominations of all of the Torah is an utter failure.

Well, if all of the Torah claimed that by having a sufficient source revelation from God, everybody is going to become sinless, abandon all their tradition, read everything there is in Scripture, be fair with it, then that might be a decent argument, but that's not what all of that is.

The misuse of a sufficient source is not a valid argument against that source.

A very good friend of mine recently expressed in this way. Many of you are undoubtedly entering into the computer age, and let's say you got a new printer.

I did just recently, and you're given a printer manual. The guy that will follow the instructions and everything will work fine.

Well, you're a little impatient. None of you out here. I may be the only one has this problem. You're a little impatient and you don't want to read through that whole thing and read all that technique and so on and so forth.

So you just sort of start putting things together and lo and behold, the strange characters are coming out of the printer won't stop and your computer screen flashing and you've got a problem and you go back to the people who told you the computer and they say,

Well, did you follow the instructions? Well, I know I didn't really didn't really read all of that stuff and they take your computer back and they follow the instructions and put everything together.

It works just fine. Now is there something wrong with the manual, because you didn't follow it.

Of course, not the manual was sufficient for the purpose for which it was designed. The fact that you didn't read it or didn't understand it or were impatient or thought you knew more than the manual could tell you is not the fault of the manual.

In the same way, just because someone says, I believe the Bible and then goes off and teaches some strange thing has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the

Bible to lead us to God's truth and the function of the soul and follow the rule of faith of the church. There are people who pick up the documents of Vatican two and come up with all sorts of wacky ideas that make the documents of Vatican two somehow bad insufficient.

You see that argument can be used both ways. It's not a good argument. Most obviously, the

Torah does not claim that there will be a unanimity of opinion, simply because God has given us his word, even in the days of the apostles.

There were those who twisted the Scriptures their own destruction, even when the apostles were alive.

John had the right against Gnosticism and Doctrine and Paul had the right against the Judaizers in Galatia.

Certainly, no one argued that the apostles were insufficient in the future, and yet there the presence of perfectly sufficient teachers did not result in a unanimity of opinion.

Did it? No, it didn't. Now, historic

Protestants have always asserted that there are difficult passages in the Bible, things that are hard to understand and we must apply our minds and our hearts to be diligent students of the word.

The Scriptures do this. Protestants believe that God will hold each man and woman responsible for his truth.

We will not be able to say, well, such and so person told me about the group told me to believe that the final judgment that excuse will not work, but is just here.

The battle is engaged. A few days ago, when Mr. Staples and I were on the Bible Answer Man show,

Mr. Staples became rather animated at one point, and I'm glad that he believes in what he believes and can become animated better than those dry folks who don't seem to really care too much about what they're talking about and will be animated this evening.

But at one point he said, look, we don't just have a book.

We have a living church, and later on he said, we have a man that can walk into a room and say,

God, I don't think what Mr. Staples meant was he can give revelation, but that he can interpret the revelation that has been given.

But if that phrase, we don't just have a book Mr. Staples, neither do I. He was four twelve says the word of God is alive and powerful and discern the thoughts and tents of the heart.

It's not just the book. It's God read it. God speaking to us in Matthew twenty two chapter twenty two.

Jesus holds men accountable for what the Scriptures say, as if God had spoken those words directly to them.

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have an ultimate authority. Someone who did they not say of the Lord, but you don't follow them.

You see, Mr. Staples, you made a fallible decision when you chose your ultimate authority.

You had choices you could make the Mormons will offer you an ultimate authority.

Jehovah's will offer you an ultimate authority, but it is your decision to choose which of the ultimate authority you're going to choose, and that is a fallible decision.

And for those of you who are seeking for infallible certainty, you can never have more infallible certainty than that choice when you make a decision for what your ultimate authority to be.

I'm very straightforward with mine is mine. The Scriptures will discuss more about what that means.

We develop this subject. Well, someone might say, yes, but we have a living church.

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. I remember reading in a book that Mr. Staples like a lot called surprised by truth.

Someone saying that as a Protestant, they were shocked when they first read first Timothy three fifteen, and I was shocked that a positive can never be shot at first in the three fifteen.

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. There are pillars alongside here.

There's hopefully a seemingly consistent way to survive a lot of earthquakes, a very good foundation underneath this place is in, but one of the pillar and foundation do it holding up that roof above you both are glad it is the church isn't the truth.

The church presents and preaches the truth. A pillar and foundation hold something else up.

What does the church do the church as the obedient bride of Christ, listen to the word of Christ.

It comes to her and that which is the only thought that which is God read the

Scriptures. She does not replace them. She does not elevate herself to where she is in control of them, which he defined them.

He proclaims them, but only the Scriptures are the only thought the church is not

God breathed. Mr. Staples claimed the tradition, whatever that might be, and we get in that is inspired by the favorite passages.

I've listened to many of his those of you who are with a Joseph Catholic radio. You'll be glad to know that you have someone who listens to you frequently on bike ride down in Phoenix, Arizona, out in the desert.

One of his favorite passages to prove the point of second Thessalonians two fifteen. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the tradition which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

See, it's right there. Hold to the tradition. There you have the two sources. You've got the oral tradition.

You've got the written Scriptures, Roman Catholicism, and it's doctrine of authority in all its glory, right?

In no way. First of all, note if you have your Bible with you. What is said in the passage.

First of all, there is one body of truth in view here delivered in two ways by preaching and by letter.

Remember, Paul had preached the Thessalonians and he's referring to preaching that he had delivered to them and the letter that he had written them, which we call first Thessalonians.

Notice also the entire church, not just the bishop. The entire church of Thessalonica had already been taught these items, these traditions.

These are not then teaching that are limited to the bishop, but are generally known truth that every person in the church knew and believed.

And any claim that the oral component contains anything other than what is found in the written component requires the defender of such a position to prove from the writings of the early church itself that these things, these traditions were generally known and believed by the

Christian people. We will see that when we look at the doctrines that have been infallibly and clearly defined by Rome on the basis of tradition that these doctrines are uniformly utterly unknown in the early church.

But all of this involves a gross misreading of the text in the first place. Paul is in no way talking about some extra scriptural revelation in this passage.

Instead, when we read the passage in its own immediate context, we find he is talking about something much more easily defined than some oral traditions, whatever they might be talking about the gospel.

Paul taught the Thessalonians what the gospel both in person as well as by his first letter to the

Thessalonians. It can be seen by the fact that the term Paul uses here in second Thessalonians two fifteen when exhorting us to stand firm in these traditions is used by Paul elsewhere in first Corinthians chapter sixteen verse thirteen when he says to stand firm in the faith.

Paul is not giving us a command here to hold to oral tradition is giving us a command to hold to the gospel, which he had preached that my time is fleeting.

I want to point out my favorite example from the past. I teach church history and I like to point out one particular individual.

There's a saying in church history. Athanasius contra mundum Athanasius against the world.

The great Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius. At one point in his life, I have found himself standing literally against the entire world.

About the year three forty between three forty and three fifty during the Aryan ascendancy of the Council of Nicaea, where the

Nicene faith that we would all I would assume here this evening agree with the

Nicene faith was under attack. In fact, the majority of the bishops in the church and the Council were being held, denied it or moderated it or compromised it.

But there is one diehard guy down there in Alexandria, kicked out of the church five times, one time by five thousand soldiers come in the back door when he was going out going out the other side of Athanasius.

At one point in time, I would like Mr. Staples to address that the one point in time if you could put yourself yourself in his context.

He stood against the majority, the vast majority of bishops, priests, monks and church council that have ever been held.

But he said, you're all wrong. You're all wrong, but if the product and thing to do it.

Why would Athanasius do that is a bishop in the church might be because he taught these words.

Let this then Christ loving man, they are offering to you just for rudimentary sketch and outline a short compass, the faith of Christ and of his divine appearing upward, but you taking occasion by this.

If you light upon the text of the Scriptures by genuinely applying your mind them, you will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said, for they were spoken and written by God to men who spoke for God.

Rather than finding O 'Brien's idea that Scripture is not a safe guide as to what we are to believe Athanasius said, quote,

For the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture than from other sources. These other sources for him included church council, but that might be which

Athanasius defended so strong. He also said, but since Holy Scripture is of all things most efficient for us, therefore, recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters to read the divine word.

I know he's in the set before you that which most claims attention and the sake of which principally

I've written these things and then these words were indeed the holy and God read

Scriptures are self -sufficient for the preaching of the truth. Is that why Athanasius could stand against even the forced retraction and collapse of the bishop of Rome in his bed and stand for the truth that Jesus Christ is fully

God, because he knew that all the councils on earth and all the bishops on earth could not change

God's truth found in his holy word. That is why it doesn't conflate.

I don't care if all the Catholic bishops agree of their opinion against them. Don't follow it, and that is what

I'm going to see the scriptures are God read. If Mr.

Staples wants to win the debate is very easy. The thesis is the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

He agrees the Scriptures are infallible right at me that we don't want to misrepresent you believe their

God read you have to argue about that part. So we believe the Bible is

God read it infallible in the rule of faith in the church. All the people have to do is show up another honest off God read infallible rule of faith for the church, but it obviously can't be the church itself.

The church can't be her own rule. They're the issues before you keep them in mind clearly open your

Bible to be have them take notes. Join with us as we begin this time together of seriously consider the sufficiency of God.

Thank you. If we could.

If we could. I would like to thank you all for coming out to a discussion.

I'm not really happy to see so many friendly faces here, but I want to just remind us that the issues that we're talking about this evening are very serious.

We're talking about eternal life and eternal death here. These issues are absolutely crucial, and I pray for your undivided attention, not only for myself but also for James.

I want you to listen to what he is saying. In fact, I recommend getting some of the books, such as the

Roman Catholic controversy, and I recommend you read those Catholics to hear the arguments as they are presented from the other side on this issue.

We need to be well -versed, I believe, in the arguments that are coming the other way, because there are many Catholics are being deceived or being led away from the most blessed sacrament because of slick arguments misrepresentation of church fathers as well as sacred scriptures.

So I would like to begin my my my opening talk as I took a little turn here because I was a bit taken aback at my opponent's quotation from St.

Athanasius, and this is a great example of exactly what I want my students. Those of you that are here against that is taking a quote from a father or from Scripture out of context in order to create a shoehorn, a doctor, and that's what we cannot do.

Let me quote you from St. Athanasius and his four letters to Serapion. My opponent is just presented the novel idea that St.

Athanasius, a Catholic bishop, taught Sola Scriptura. Let me quote to you,

St. Athanasius himself. Yes, St. Athanasius believe that the Scriptures are inspired. They're authoritative.

They are rule of faith. We believe that as Catholics, but both within and you be the judge.

What St. Athanasius teaches will be saying, and this is after Athanasius is going to a number of Scriptures when he is writing against the

Aryan heresy. These things concerning the Holy Spirit by themselves alone show that in nature and essence, he has nothing in common with or property creatures, but distinct from things originate property and not alien from the

Godhead and essence of the sun in virtue of which essence in nature is the holy trial.

Now, if you stop right there, you'd say, My, my, my St. Athanasius believes in Sola Scriptura, but if I were to do that,

I would be dishonest because I would not be presenting to you St. Athanasius in completion.

Let me read the next line, but beyond these Scriptural saying, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the

Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave me. No, please get from the beginning with the

Lord gave the apostles preached and the father's kept upon this. The church is founded and he should fall away from it should not be a

Christian and should no longer be so called. So yes,

I think Athanasius taught the inspiration of Scripture as all Catholics do when you quote you from the document of Vatican two and set the record straight.

What the Catholic Church really teaches in day there will not be paragraphs nine and ten for both of them.

That is Scripture and tradition flowing out of the same wellspring come together in some fashion to form one thing and move toward the same goal.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God. There you have it, folks. We Catholics believe that the word of God is the open new stuff.

It is the word of God. God breathe as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit and tradition transmits in its entirety.

The word of God, which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the

Holy Spirit, sacred tradition and sacred Scripture make up one single sacred deposit of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church.

My opponent has just told you that the Roman Catholic Church teaches solar equation.

I am amazed. In fact, I'm convinced that if the Holy Father Pope John Paul the second were to come in here and argue with this guy and say, excuse me, the

Catholic Church doesn't teach that you would be quick to correct Pope John Paul the second. In fact, we do not teach that we teach it.

I just read the Scriptures inspired and traditionally form one revelation one deposit of faith.

The church is not above the Scriptures. That is not true. That is not what we teach, but we do teach the church is the bride of Christ.

She is our mother, and as such, she has authority over the children, just like in the family to authority over the children to tell them what daddy says that is what the

Catholic Church teaches. I'm going to present to you both beyond a shadow of a doubt with the evening that this in fact is the teaching of sacred

Scripture. I'm going to demonstrate that solicitor is not historical. It is not biblical, and it is not reasonable, nor is it workable.

I could give more quotes where my opponent is taking fathers out of context, but I will pass for now, but somehow

I think we may return to that later and let me proceed to the second point that is not only a solicitor, not historical, no

Christian taught, no Christian taught solicitor for the first thirteen hundred years of Christianity, but it is also not biblical and I will begin in the

Old Testament. Now, clearly, what we see in sacred Scripture and I don't need to go over all of these verses.

Mr. White would agree with me. Deuteronomy fourteen Deuteronomy twenty nine nineteen Deuteronomy twenty eight fifty eight

Deuteronomy thirteen one Joshua one eight. We can go over a litany of Scriptures that demonstrate that the word of God is binding on the consciences of believers in the

Old Testament. We agree. However, what we also see in the Old Testament is the orally spoken word of God that is equally as blinding on the consciences of believers.

If I could get a little animated second Chronicles chapter twelve verse five, then

Shemya and I quote Shemya the prophet came to Rehoboam and the commanders of Judah had gathered in Jerusalem and said,

Thus saith the Lord. Notice the response.

The response is, well, you know, it's great that you said that novel. We've got to wait till it's written down before we obey it.

Of course not, and I don't think Mr. White is trying to say that, but what

I think Mr. White is misrepresenting is when that word of God is spoken. It is the word of God in a bind forever and it binds all believers, whether it is written down or not.

In fact, the majority of their large number of prophets. We could go through Elijah, Elijah, in fact,

Shemya that I just quoted, who never wrote a letter. Yet the word is spoken with blinding on the consciences of believers, and we could go through this litany of Scriptures.

I have the spoken word of God being equally the word of God. It is just as much the word of God as the written word of God is, but I want to get to my third point in the

Old Testament. We also see a teaching authority, not that Lord over the Scriptures of my opponent has attempted to say the

Catholic Church teaches, which he does not, but what we see is a magisterium in Old Testament version of a teaching authority that tells the people of God what, in fact, the word of God and the tradition is

Deuteronomy seventeen eight through twelve. The Scripture said very plainly, if you perceive trouble between blood and blood cause and cause go to the

Bible, get it out and start arguing passages that it says no, it says, go to the priest or the judge or the one whom the

Lord is placed in authority over you and notice he that will not hear the word of the priest of the judge of the one whom the

Lord is placed over you will be put to death. Does that sound like full security. Exodus chapter twenty eight, verse thirty, we read in the breath of decision, you shall put the arm and thumb and what in the world is arm and thumb, the arm and the thumb of what is that this is a

Scripture talking about the high priest who had the arm and the thumb of his breath piece of decision, as it's called, and what is it, therefore, that they may be over Aaron's heart, whenever he enters the presence of the

Lord, but he shall always bear the decisions of the Israelites over his heart in the Lord's presence. He had authority, the high priest to hear from God and to direct the people of God that my friends is what a magisterium is all about, and I want you to notice further that in Matthew twenty three verses one and two

Jesus Christ, the son of God acknowledges this authority that he himself established as God in the

Old Testament in Matthew chapter twenty three verses one and two, and I quote in Jesus spoke to the multitude of disciples and described in the

Pharisees what sit in the chair of Moses would come from the material principles.

Exodus twenty eight thirty. We have an authority established as well as Deuteronomy seventeen.

However, this is a tradition preserved in the church that Jesus acknowledges as such, and that is what he said to the apostle.

He said the scribes and Pharisees in the chair of Moses, all things therefore, whatsoever they shall say observe and do what they said that the commandment to the apostles, but according to their works, do not.

I know many of my Protestant friends out there are you. You're just biting at the bit machine, and I can't wait.

I want that question for Matthew chapter fifteen, where Jesus condemned the traditions of men from the up from the same

Pharisees and priest doesn't will notice Jesus makes a distinction that you'll do well to remember tonight, because you're going to hear it again.

Jesus makes a distinction between the traditions of men and Catholics. Please remember that we have

Catholic in the church. James, we have the same problem. They have the Old Testament. We have Catholic Catholics who want to exalt their own teachings, their own traditions with a small period above the traditions of the church, and that is wrong.

It's always been wrong, always will be, but notice Jesus does not condemn all tradition.

He doesn't even condemn all tradition that purports to be coming from God. He can give the traditions of men that purport to come from God, but here he acknowledges the tradition of the

Old Testament church when it is spoken authoritatively from the chair of Moses in John chapter eleven verses forty seven to fifty two.

Please read the verses. If you're Protestant here, if you're Catholic, please read the verses,

John chapter eleven verses forty seven to fifty two. We are present at the

Council of the Pharisees and priests who were gathered to decide how they were going to get rid of Jesus, and when they were gathered,

Caiaphas being the high priest. Hey, that's the guy with the arm in the thumb and not a very wicked man and my opponent will point out, oh, there's been a lot of bad folks.

Yeah, there's been a few. Alexander the sixth is not a guy I had over for dinner, but that has no bearing whatsoever on infallibility as this fellow

Caiaphas, though he was the epitome of evil. He's about to put Jesus Christ to death.

Notice what happens. He stands up in the middle of the council and says, You know nothing more.

Do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people that the whole nation perish not notice what

John says. John says parenthetically, it's everybody knows this. He did not say this on his own, but because he was high proof that he prophesied

God is faithful to the authority that he establishes right up until the end. There were in an answer to the prophecy of our

Lord himself from Mark chapter twelve and Luke chapter twenty when he would take that authority from them and give that authority to the

New Testament church. Let's spend a good segue. Let's come up to the New Testament now, and let's see if we can't be

Scripture tradition and magisterium in the New Testament. Well, I think my opponent has has beaten second

Timothy three sixteen in the ground, and I'm sure we're going to hear it again and I'm so glad he acknowledged that we

Catholics agree all Scripture is the open stuff. It is God breathe and useful for teaching.

In fact, it is sufficient. I say as a Catholic, that's right thing. It is sufficient to equip us for every good work.

We Catholics believe that I know that might come as a shock that we are permitted to believe that a Catholic and I hold to that after the majority of the fathers.

I believe that it is useful for teaching and in fact it is sufficient to equip us.

However, my opponent not only did he make this mistake with the fathers that he'll take fathers out of contact that he just did with St.

Athanasius and done numerous times in his book, but he will be the same thing when it comes to Scripture.

Remember the students number one, I said, and I always say in my class, he is falling to the same error of our friends and Jehovah's Witnesses who they will grab hold of one verse.

How many of you have ever talked to Jehovah's Witnesses, and I mean really dialogue with a knowledgeable when you know that they will take you for a spin if they're knowledgeable Scripture.

They will, and they will hold on to verses like John twenty ten first ten of the two fathers, one

God, one media between God and the man Jesus Christ is a man. How much more do you need the

Scripture says he's a man and a pounded in your head and you know what we respond. We respond to Catholic.

We say absolutely, I agree with you just go ahead and let him say he's a man, and then we say yes, we agree with a hundred percent man is not fifty percent man is not eighty percent man.

He is a hundred percent man, but that's what both are other Scriptures that teach clearly. He is also a hundred percent

God John one one and such, and we agree on that point, but I'm going to suggest to you that just as my opponent had taken the father of the church out of contact.

He's done the same thing with sacred Scripture. Yes, Scripture is inspired. It's the word of God, but so my friend is the spoken word of God, and that is what oral tradition is.

Luke ten sixteen. Whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you rejects me, and I I just I loved it when he quoted a second

Thessalonians two fifteen. But I would like to refer first to first Thessalonians chapter two verse thirteen.

Why, because this is very significant. This is the first epistle Saint Paul ever wrote, and yet notice what he said.

For this reason, we can give thanks to God unceasingly that in receiving the word of God from hearing us, he had written anything to me.

You receive my human word, but as it truly is the word of God in second Thessalonians two fifteen.

Therefore, brother, stand firm and hold back to the tradition you are taught notice either by oral statement or by letter of hours.

Now, Mr. White, I don't think the Scriptures can get any more than that. The word of God comes to us by Scripture that is the written word and by oral tradition.

I asked Mr. White to show me where the Scripture said that that commandment no longer applies to us.

Where does the Scripture say all that only applied to them once everything got written down. Well, then now we go by that the

Bible never said that he never never anywhere. Mr.

White will have to show me educate me where in fact the Scripture does go through a litany of Scriptures more

Scriptures that demonstrate the tradition, the spoken word of God is equally as authoritative as the written word.

Now I must move forward to the magisterium. Do we see a magisterium of the church in the new testament.

Let me quote Matthew chapter eighteen verses fifteen three and I want you to notice there is a parallel to Deuteronomy chapter seventeen that I quoted you earlier.

If your brother shall offend against the building, you can between being alone. If he hears you you gain your brother.

If he will not hear you take with you one or two more than in the mouth of two or three witnesses. Every word may stand if you will not hear them tell the church, and if you will not hear the church, let him be to be as a human and a publican that is excommunicated, cut off from the believers, and then

I think you whatsoever you shall bind upon her shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you lose upon her shall be loosed in heaven.

I want you to notice folks what it did not say if you have a problem between my opponent will no doubt stand up and say, oh, well, that's only talking about a minor disagreement.

I had one in one debate honest, honest, honest engine. I had one debate about told me that well, you know that talking about things like getting your car.

Well, I invite you to look at the context of Matthew chapter eighteen verse where Jesus said that you offend one of the little ones.

It's better for you to tie a stone or a millstone around the neck of the captain of the thing in the lead. One of the little ones.

That's the context of Matthew eighteen. There is no better. There is no worse fault that we can have between one another than heresy.

False doctrine that can destroy souls at St. Paul described it. False doctrine eat like a canker worm.

That doesn't mean the body that's talking about our souls. There is no greater problem that we can have, and according to the

New Testament, folks, that the Scriptures that my my opponent so venerate and I appreciate that we take it to the church and the church.

Yes, the church has the final say that that mean the church is Lord over the

Scriptures. No, it means the Lord. The Lord had given to his church this great gift to his bride authority over the children.

Can you imagine a family? We have Jesus of the house in the church as as white, but can you imagine if the white had no authority over the children.

She couldn't say anything to the kid. They just run roughshod over her. That's absurd.

Of course not. Jesus gives up in an authoritative church, not the Lord over the word of God, but the church hears the word of her husband and recognize it and the children.

Yes, we're going to the church, not the Bible is the ground and pillar and foundation of truth.

I couldn't believe when my opponent quoted as he did on the radio the other day, Ephesians chapter four, verse twelve.

He said he just quoted me and said, we don't just have a book, but we have a living church and they quote

Hebrews four twelve that says the books alive, or at least that's how he said it on the radio. The books alive will get what will check.

Listen to that Bible you got in your hand and there's a heartbeat and then I want you to look at Hebrews four twelve and look at the contact.

The contact says look at verse thirteen. Him him him is referring the word of God.

You see, this is a common error that my Protestant friends make common air, and that is equating the

Scriptures with the word of God. Whenever you see word of God and Scripture people's twelve is not talking about Scriptures on a person

Jesus Christ. The word of God comes to us first as a person second orally preach the first Peter chapter two.

Then it is written and finally my time is running out.

I want to demonstrate to you that this magisterium of the church did not die in the first century.

Jesus did not give authority to the apostle and inhabit authority die with them, and somehow and Mr.

White is going to have to show me the verses somewhere. There's this trend. There's this change where we don't go by the tradition, the spoken word of God and the written word of God anymore, but we don't obey our bishops, but we just go by the

Scripture alone. I'm not sure you have to show me where that is in sacred Scripture, but let me show you what the truth is both of the

Catholic Church prevented the teaching of the sacred Scripture that in Ephesians chapter three verse ten, and I want you to notice the context of Ephesians three and Ephesians three ten

St. Paul said that the manifold wisdom of God made might now be made known through the

Bible to the principle of the church to the principalities and authorities in heaven's notice.

It wasn't by way. I picked it up for James. It was predestined before the foundation of the world that this would be the means whereby

God would reveal his manifest wisdom to the angels, the powers and principalities, and I was in a debate not long ago with a fundamentalist who said,

Well, that verse only says that the church teaches angels. Well, that's true.

I guess you got me there, but if you read a little bit further, you're going to see the context. You have the church in effect, and they don't want to get into that great mystery of how she does teach angel, but we would have another issue, but if you continue reading, you'll see that the church is not only teaching angels, but in Ephesians chapter four, the

Scriptures of God is set a possible profit passage of in the church. Why the work of the ministry building up of the things right, so that we can be not children notice children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.

We have a mother in the church that we can drop and she is divine as well as human.

Now I want you to notice so that we can be not tossed to and fro with everyone that I would suggest to you folks that product is not good.

I'm running out of time. I'll get to this in my next statement and rebuttal. Promise them is a positive.

That's full of Scripture is a utter failure. Not only not historical, it's not biblical, but both the fact that there are twenty three thousand denominations within five hundred years ought to say,

Hey, there's something going on here. Twenty three. That's forty new church. In fact, my mother just sent me forty new churches a year for five hundred years.

Which one is the future? My mother just sent me a newspaper clipping from Virginia, where we have a new

Baptist church. That's one of his. I don't know how late. Well, that is about the church. It just wouldn't start a new church.

Maybe that's the news. Maybe that's the true church. It's been around for two weeks, but now

I want to demonstrate to you folks that this authority in the church does not see in the first century.

This is very important in Hebrews thirteen seven. Get your Bible out and read it.

St. Paul or whomever wrote Hebrews. We do not know that. Remember your playlists who have spoken the word of God to you follow their faith.

They follow considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.

The Bible says to follow your playlist. Who are these guys? Are they the apostles? They're the ones who are doing fine.

The apostles in Acts chapter fifteen verses one and two. The Bible makes it very clear what we ought to do in a case when we have a disagreement over Scripture or whatever it may be concerning the faith.

In Acts fifteen, the apostles took it to the church and the church of the final two fifteen minute rebuttals and then to ten minute rebuttal.

I must begin by apologizing. It is my desire that in the dialogue both sides be accurately represented misrepresentation do nothing to accomplish anything in the past twenty five minutes.

The Protestant position has been misrepresented so many times. Most fundamentally over and over and over again.

In fact, this message of the nation was left out. There would have been much left over and over and over again.

If the church has authority to hear what I said about the church of the pillar and foundation.

There is a difference between having authority to teach God's truth and being infallible, and that's different.

The fallacy being presented as well. If you have an infallible church, you have your new

Bible in the woods. The idea that the church of the bride of Christ involved by the spirit of God learning from the

Scriptures and teaching of the people of their sanctified in their journey in Jesus Christ, that middle ground seemingly lost.

I'm sorry, because that definitely limits the value of the dialogue.

I try. I try when I fight from document and when

I fight for writers to be fair to those writers and those documents. Mr.

Staples accused me of misrepresenting Athanasius. Mr. Staples has a list of quotations on his desk.

I have a nation when Athanasius talks about these issues.

I would invite you to leave the book on the table called full. I have a chapter in there on both return early church.

There are other authors like R .C. Sproul and John MacArthur and and people like that who contributed to the book.

Look up the references. Find them for yourself. Don't read them in quote books like Jurgens. Read them in their actual context and see for yourself, but also realize that Athanasius said these words mainly then do they run about with the pretext they have demanded counsel for the faith sake for divine

Scripture is sufficient above all things, but of the council be needed on the point there are the proceedings of the father for the night in Bishop did not neglect this matter, but they the doctrine so exactly the persons reading their words honestly cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced where in the divine

Scripture. You'll find consistently in this book that Athanasius defend the deity of Christ and the night in council, not on the basis of the night in council have some authority in of itself that is separate from what

God revealed in Scripture, but the nightingale have authority because what it says is in line with the divine

Scripture. It is easy to accuse people misrepresenting people very my opponent has talked about the papacy in the past, and I've tried to correspond with him about misrepresentation there in the

United and I'm not going to look him up yourself. Please take the time to do so.

Mark chapter seven. Please turn there if you have the opportunity. Mark chapter seven verses eight to thirteen. We have the same situation we encounter

Matthew chapter fifteen where the Lord Jesus teaches us that there is one ultimate authority, not ultimate authority description there.

We have a situation where Jesus encounters the Scribes and Pharisees, which we've just been told, I guess, and Caiaphas were infallible authority.

I know they're infallible authority. Yes, infallible completely different issue.

Caiaphas and John eleven authority high priest. Yes, infallible. Obviously not. He was an error on many things.

Here's one of them. He believed the Corban rule. Matthew fifteen one to nine. Mark chapter seven verses eight to thirteen neglecting the commandment of God.

You hold the tradition of men. Wait a minute. The Jews didn't think this is a tradition of men.

Look at tractate a boat in the Talmud. They claim the exact same type of oral tradition path down through their hierarchy, their own claims today, and this had that pedigree.

What do you do? He said in verse twelve and seven verse thirteen.

Thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition, specifically differentiating between the word of God and that term tradition, which you handed down, and you do many things.

What you do when you encounter a tradition that is claimed to be divine origin. If you follow

Jesus, you tested Scripture. Mr.

Staples said we have this infallible faith. I'd like to ask him to show

Roman Catholic Church has defined certain doctrines on the basis of tradition. One of them is fairly recent.

The bodily function of the Virgin Mary. I would like to ask Mr. Staples, in light of his comments on Second Thessalonians two fifteen, which

I do not believe even began to deal with the context and the language that Paul used, but if you want to say that this is a command to hold these traditions.

It's not, but let's say he does not go without interpretation. The command in the past tense statement that the things were already taught the

Thessalonians that must mean that the Thessalonians believe in it. If you're saying that this tradition was from the apostles.

Therefore, everyone in the church in Thessalonica, not just a bishop, but everyone in the church of Thessalonica learned the thing and that the things do not exist in Scripture.

I trace it for a history. Tell us about this doctrine.

Tell you first find it. Can we find it in Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Uranus, Tritonian nation,

Dr. Ludwig on the middle of the Catholic faith admits the first time it's found in the transliterate literature of the fifth century literature that was anathematized by Pope Galatius in four ninety five.

If it's apostolic about working from the trade for a show of infallible faith in light of Second Thessalonians two fifteen.

When Mr. Staples had a gentleman named Clayton Bauer Junior on his program while back, he said with him full approval of the

Roman Catholic Church. This is Mr. Bauer speaking is not a Bible -based church, but the Bible is a church -based book like that disabled.

If he agrees with that, if he doesn't, he can dismiss the rest of it. I like to point out to you that quite on the contrary, the

Scriptures preexisted the church and with a very feed bed in which he grew. Because of this, you'll find many an early father who will castigate those who try to separate the

Bible from the church, but they will the same time deny the very fundamental assertion of my opponent this evening.

When did we go to Pompeii, he said the following quote. When did the doctrine of the company authority of the

Lord of the gospel of the come to the commandment of the apostles of the apostles for that those things must be done, which are written written

God testifies in commandment of the Joshua, the book of this law shall not depart out of your mouth that you may observe all things which are written.

If therefore it is either commanded in the gospel or contained in the epistles and the act that also the sacred doctrine must be observed more than a century later, when it doesn't know that he did not find fault at all with what the printed.

Instead, he himself asserted that the church must be proved from the Bible with some of the comments that let us not hear this.

I say this, you say, but not the Lord. Surely it is the book of the Lord and authority.

We both agree in which we both believe there. Let us seek the church there. Let us discuss our case.

He also said, let those things be removed from our mission code against each other, not from divine canonical books, but from elsewhere.

Someone may perhaps ask why you want to remove these things from the net, because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents by divine

Oracle. He also said, whatever they may induce and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are his sheep, hear the voice of our shepherd.

Therefore, let us search for the church in the sacred canonical. Now, I hope that you will not ignore those references and because of the fact that a contact from the content shown in the content demonstrate the thing that you all over here.

The father said, OK, that's fine. Let's go to look at the father said over there, but let's not ignore what he said here. I can give you example after example, battles of Syria, for example, when dealing with people in a different view of the

Godhead that they have their customs. We have our custom. Let's go to the God breathed Scripture and the final, which the

God breathed written scriptures cast a vote of truth that the fiber going to believe, but then later on when he was talking about other traditions, such as which direction to face and praying and how many times the baptized someone in baptism and so on and so forth.

He said, we have these traditions in battle is inconsistent. We do need to look at the context, not just a list of quotes.

I want that upon that very wide under fifty -six pages, a quote from the dollar that kind of braggadocious attitude.

Keep you writing these references down and digging deep and taking time. Matthew chapter twenty three was presented to us by Mr.

Staples. He says here Jesus accepts tradition, the seat of Moses. He accepts tradition of infallible authority here, because he doesn't reject the current form of worship in the synagogue.

Or something about infallible authority here. How do you think about infallible authority?

This overthrows the dozen Matthew fifteen remark seven. Certainly not an acceptance of some infallible authority.

It's a recognition that there are authorities that exist outside of Scripture, but they're not infallible. They may be good.

They may be right. The staples over and over again ignored what

I said in my presentation. I pointed out the full scripture speaks the normative condition of the church.

Well, the word of God was all at one point. The point is what you see

Rome tells us that the word of God orally with things like papal infallibility in the Immaculate Conception of bodily assumption in the church.

So why should I believe that claim? Why does Mr. Staples believe today in the bodily assumption of Mary.

I submit to you is because the solar tradition doesn't teach it.

If you can't trace it back to the beginning of the tradition of the scriptures don't teach it. So I can leave it for you.

I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. I'm trying to focus upon the simple fact that we have a battle here between two alternate or.

Mr. Staples said that the Scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work. All right. If Mr.

Staples believe that it is true. The Immaculate Conception, for example, is true.

The bodily assumption is true. Then show us how the Scriptures equip him to teach that doctor.

It certainly must be a good work to teach it right. If it's true, and show how the Scriptures equip him to teach that doctor can do that.

Obviously, he's not actually saying the Scriptures are sufficient. He saying this broader context, the sacred tradition with a capital

F and a capital T include this other extra biblical revelation is somehow what is sufficient to look up the references right down notes from what we said, listen to what

I said about what full scripture is and then check out the objections of the made to the mistake.

For example, over and over again citation for the Salonians two thirteen, for example, is based upon the assertion that I deny the church has any authority.

I ask you listen to anything I said. Read Roman Catholic controversy read full scripture and find one place where the church is one.

The difference is not between having authority and not having authority is between being infallible and godly and having authority because you possess the godly revelation and can teach from now it's evident that we have some of the partisan crowd, and that's great.

I'm glad I'm not to stand up here and say, Now you my students. I have students.

I teach at three different schools. You're not my students. Your people

I care for enough to come out here and challenge you to lay aside your prejudices to lay aside your partisan spirit.

Consider these things. You're my judges, because you have to judge what is being said.

First of all, I do realize that it does seem to be a partisan crowd, but I I I hope

I'm not sounding. Let me just say that I'm passionate about the

Catholic Church, because for many, many years I was raised a Baptist. I was in a semi -guided pastor.

I lived Protestantism and I know Mr. White will tell me I don't know a thing about Protestantism, but I have read and I have studied and I tried to remain proud

Protestant folks. Believe me, those of you who know me. If anybody is here who knew me before I was

Catholic, I was a far cry from a candidate. Anybody would think in fact that the fellow that converted me said, man, when you left,

I was so glad you were gone and I thought, forget that guy. He'll never be

Catholic, so I'm not up here. You know, just trying to pile up points and win a debate.

That's not what I'm here for. I'm here to present the truth of the Catholic faith, but in the process of doing that, understand

I need to expose the errors of my opponent, and that's all that I'm doing. I like this guy.

Anybody with a rush tie. You've got a like, but not to the point enough of a nicer.

My opponent just quoted to St. Basil of Caesarea, and I have the quote from his book.

I believe it's on page one fifty five, where he is in St. Basil even a check that St.

Basil of Caesarea to supposedly show that Basil taught souls return. I want you to remember what he said.

He said, Yes, their battle teaches the scriptures of the soul of faith, and then he said in other places.

Well, if he's talking about well, which way you're going to face when you're praying, then he will talk about tradition.

I'm going to quote you from St. Basil of Caesarea on the spirit, and it's true that in this work there are lots of things discussed, but I want you to see the content of what he's saying.

He said, Listen, of the dogma and charisma is preserved in the church.

Some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles handed on to us in mystery in respect to piety.

We both are of the same force. It is more Mr. White than just which way you're facing when you pray.

It is the dogma and charisma of the Catholic faith, and I could go through and quote

St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine. In fact, I think we'll have to get to him later, because I encourage you to read

St. Augustine. He is a Catholic bishop Catholic to the core, but I need to get now to second

Timothy chapter three verse sixteen. I want to come back to the point that my opponent made this opening statement that second

Timothy three sixteen demonstrates proves to us that the Scripture is the sole rule of faith.

In order to do this, I'm going to quote second Timothy in context beginning in verse fourteen that we could go back for the book started for fourteen, but continue in those things which thou has learned and which have been committed to the knowing of whom thou has learned them, and because from thy tiny infancy thou has known the

Holy Scriptures which can instruct me to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable to teach, reprove, correct and instruct in righteousness.

I want you to notice and I refer to Cardinal Newman, one set of this passage in Cardinal Newman.

You may know with a convert from Anglicanism wrote the great work on the development of Christian doctrine.

By the way, he wrote when he wasn't even Catholic. He had things he wrote in there, even against the papacy, but he later came to see through his understanding of the development of doctrine that the

Catholic Church is a true church, and he became Catholic. But at any rate, Cardinal Newman once wrote that if this verse that my opponent quoted to prove full

Scripture and full Scripture, it proves too much. Why, because the context of the passage is we're going to interpret this in an exclusive way like my opponent is, and remember,

I am the one who told you I warned you, and I'm sorry if I refer to my students. I love my students and my kids from my ministry that are here forgive me, but I was going to warn you do not quote one

Scripture like the Jehovah's Witness and we're hanging on and we're hanging on to this verse that says

Jesus is man and we show us anything else and it doesn't matter, because we got this one verse.

There are many other verses you can demonstrate that, and now let me demonstrate to the context of second

Timothy three to show that even in context, my opponent got it all wrong.

Why, because what St. Paul is speaking about again, if we're going to hold to this exclusive interpretation of Scripture in the

Old Testament, nowhere to fall. Obviously, he's not referring to the passage. He's now sitting down with his stylus and writing.

He's not referring to second Peter, perhaps Hebrews, certainly the book of Revelation that had not even been written yet folks, so the context is he is speaking about the

Old Testament. Yes, it is true that the New Testament is also inspired, but I can't let

Mr. White make that jump, because in order to even say what the New Testament is, he has to refer to Catholic tradition, the tradition of the church, because the

Bible itself doesn't tell us what, in fact, the New Testament even in second point.

The word that is translated in the King James is perfect. The Greek word is

RTO and the verb that is used subsequently XRT zone does not mean sufficient in the sense that James White wants to make it mean that is that is sufficient in the sense that we don't need anything else whatsoever.

I urge you to hear my words. This is the same error of the Jehovah's Witness, the

Aryans who hold to one verse and exclude the others. Yes, the Scriptures inspired and as such, it is able to equip us, but folks think about how can it tell us what it is.

You see, the Scripture itself tells us to go to the tradition of the church and to the church itself as an authority.

Why, because obviously I'll use the most obvious case. There are so many cases that we could use the most obvious canon of sacred

Scripture in the early church. Folks, and I have a number of what I recommend you read the

Catholic commentary on Scripture, the new Jerome biblical commentary in the article in Canada.

This is a matter of historical record, but this isn't something that we can dispute the bishop in the church in the early church disagreed over what in fact the

New Testament was contained. Let me quote you origins commentary on the psalms, and he said,

I quote Peter upon whom is built the church of Christ. I want you to notice one thing certain about the church is built upon against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail against what only he left us only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity.

Let us concede a second, which, however, is doubtful. One thing he was certain about the

Jesus Church upon Peter, but notice he's not so sure about second

Peter and friends in the early church. There was huge disagreement.

Yes, I said huge and I have a list here and if need be, I will call upon it to demonstrate that fact, but the point is, where do you go and if Mr.

White is going to teach and if you are going to say that the Scripture is the sole rule of faith, both one of the most important doctrines in the early church.

One of the most important thing you better get right is what the Bible means, don't you think, and yet so Mr.

What I ask you to demonstrate to me from the Scriptures you believe in full Scripture you said, so you need to demonstrate how the

Bible teaches us which books of the Bible are in fact the Bible and I also want you to notice he never did respond to what

I asked him to do to demonstrate to me Scripture that said that gives the time when the commandment from second

Thessalonians two fifteen stopped and then we start only believing in what's written and you need to give me

Scripture, Mr. White, to show me where that commandment is. Secondly, I would like to mention again to get back to to RTF and expertise to say that this means sufficient and we do not need anything else.

Again, Mr. White said, Well, I'm not saying we don't need anything else. We do need the church.

I believe he would agree with that. We do need the church. It's just that the church has an ultimate authority in the

Scripture, but I want to demonstrate to you folks that the

Scripture itself and yes, I did make the statement or or my my companion on the radio broadcast did say that the church is not a

Bible based church. The Bible is the Bible is a church -based book.

I got it right. The fact is, the church did not create the

Bible. I'm sorry, the church did in fact, the Bible, the

Bible was not existed. That is the New Testament. When Paul first started preaching the word of God and Peter and so forth, it would come along later and in fact, the argument would go on for centuries over which both of the

Bible were in fact, the Bible and when in fact, the church called counsels in order to come to the bottom line on what

Scripture was notice what they did not do. They did not go to the Scriptures and say, see the

Scripture proves that Hebrews is the word of God. The Scripture proves that shepherd of Hermas or the epistle of Clement is not the word of God.

Show me Mr. White and you've got a partisan crowd here for you to convert a lot of Catholics.

If you could show where the Bible demonstrates to us that it is sufficient by demonstrating to us that it shows us what the canon of Scripture is the fact that it cannot, and I could give you a litany of other traditions, which

Mr. Whitehold that also cannot be proven from Scripture alone. Why is there a problem there?

The problem is that Scripture alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith.

That is why God has given us the tradition and the church to interpret that tradition finally can finally get my point on that Greek verb exartes.

I believe if you use the principle of hermeneutics that my opponent is using with exartes of you reach a devastating conclusions when you consider verses like James chapter one verse four.

Now I know Mr. White is a different Greek word might be professor. If you were here would be happy to hear me say that, but I do realize that these are two different Greek words, but what

I'm doing is I'm using an analogy here to show that that verse second to the three -fifteen does not keep sufficiency in a formal sense.

In fact, I would suggest people can you imagine what would happen if I attempted to prove a

Catholic doctrine using one verse of Scripture, one verb, in fact, in a subordinate clause of one

Scripture and say there it is, man. That's the word of God. Can you imagine what Mr. White would say to me?

Can you imagine in James chapter one verse four, the Scripture says, and let patience have its perfect work that you may perfect.

You may be perfect and entire and lacking in nothing, but it doesn't get much more playing than that.

If we were to use his hermeneutic principle here, then John Lennon was wrong. All we need is patience.

We don't need anything else. We certainly don't need description on Jesus. We don't need a Bible. All we need is patience.

Of course, that's absurd, but that person is not teaching sufficiency nor is second

Timothy three sixteen, at least in the formal sense that he wants to make it out to be now.

Secondly, I want to point out how the Scripture is unworkable in demonstrating that the history of Protestantism and issue another challenge.

Mr. White, the first challenge is to demonstrate that the canon of Scripture is proved in Scripture itself.

Secondly, I have another challenge. Mr. White has discussed how the traditions that Paul talks about is nothing other than the gospel, which is contained in the written

Scriptures. By the way, that's another Protestant tradition not found in Scripture. Where does Saint Paul say where is the

Scripture say that what he talked about is nothing other than what's written in Scripture. He said exactly the opposite.

In fact, it is to be that Mr. White. I think you're missing something very important.

You presume that when you say Paul is talking about the gospel that everybody knows what the gospel is.

You and I, James, Mr. White, radically disagree on what the gospel is, and in fact,

I can point out to you how the Protestant theologians and denominations, in fact, disagree over what the gospel is.

Where do you go? Not only do we have his the historical reality that Christians disagree over what

Scripture is now. We have churches twenty six thousand of them.

In fact, I've read as many twenty three to twenty six, give or take a thousand or two, and let me ask you what is the gospel?

What is the essential? What are the essential truth that I must believe in order to be a Christian is that the thirty nine articles of the

Anglican Church is that the twelve fundamentals of the fundamentalist church of the last century is today among the evangelicals and God knows what is essential in evangelical

Christianity. I don't know what this man believe. I do not know what he considers is essential for Christianity.

Thank you. Now ten minute rebuttal.

I'd immediately like to ask the moderator to request my opponent no longer seen anyone agree with me on that.

Not only that, I have no idea what song you're talking about it. I'm glad my opponent has listened to my debate with Patrick Madrid on both because the debate is responding to at least.

I hope that the one because you know why I'm really disappointed. In fact, he had a time to read my book because almost everything that Mr.

Staples had said about my brief comments on thirty three fifteen to seventeen are dressed in my book and fortunately gave you the indication that I've never dealt with.

In fact, he keeps accusing me of being a Jehovah's Witness and using this one verse now the

Jehovah's Witnesses in Phoenix know me real well and they would really be surprised that I was a Jehovah's Witness.

I've got a book coming out next spring on the Trinity at that really make me a lousy Jehovah's Witness. But the problem is, if if if Mr.

Staples read my book, he would know that I don't listen to me three fifteen to seventeen in context over the space of more than four pages with eleven and that was the brief discussion and I invited

Mr. Staples to contact me and after any other information you could possibly want anything I've written, he'll tell you.

I sent I sent him my book tapes, no charge, just so that this wouldn't happen, just so that this wouldn't happen.

I'm not deciding one verse. The view of Scripture enunciated by Paul in Second Timothy, chapter three, view of every prophet and apostle, especially the view of the

Lord Jesus Christ as he views the Bible as God's very speaking man.

I don't pardon him, pardon him, and misunderstood the application of the passage talking about him and talking.

I recognize I am everything disabled. This is the Old Testament. No two ways about it.

That is not the issue. Again, I apologize because we've done.

We spent a lot of time on issues that need to be spent on, but that's not my position. I'm sorry about that, but Mr.

Staples is made a couple statements and I want to spend most of my time dealing with an argument.

He said the church did read the Bible, as in the New Testament, and that the air.

The God's people have always had a relation to live in the

Old Testament. What happened when the book of the law will be discovered to be read before the king is closed.

Oh, my goodness. What have we done? They have Scriptures. Sometimes we see some terrible things that have the

Scriptures become almost unknown. People wander around in darkness, but the church of Jesus Christ taken to take a translation in a

Bible Society text of the degree it will put every citation of the Old Testament in the power of the

New Testament and tell me New Testament writers didn't have the Scriptures and for the church.

The citation of the Scriptures of the final authority is that we have the church of the authority to teach the

Scriptures. The church is subservient to the Scriptures. He also said,

Mr. White didn't respond to my thing about second Deuteronomy fifteen. Yes, I did.

Maybe, maybe he was writing something at that time, but I specifically pointed out that the misinterpretation of the passage.

It's not a command and it is simply an error to say, well, what you've got here is you've got a command to hold on to extra -scriptural revelation.

When did that stop? Mr. Staples. Paul was not calling these people to hold the extra -scriptural revelation.

What Paul taught them in person and what he wrote to them were one of the same thing. He didn't contradict himself.

He wrote with one message and it was the gospel. Mr. Staples says, will you all disagree on the gospel?

I've talked to so many Roman Catholic disagree on the gospel. I guess that makes the teaching of the church unclear to know.

Well, of course not, but I can tell you one thing about the gospel. Whatever you might say about people being confused about the gospel,

Mr. Staples. There's one thing that no person who simply read the New Testament is going to be confused about, and that is no person ever to be confused about the idea that the gospel includes such things as indulgences.

Never be confused by that, and I feel for anyone who think that it does, because the clear message

New Testament gospel is the sufficiency of the work of one person. Not thought of possible in purgatory, finished work of Jesus Christ.

Now issue four minutes again seems like this is a trump card again.

Unfortunately, everything I said about the subject in the book was, I guess, not looked at, not dealt with, responded to.

I differentiated in my book is in the Roman Catholic controversy. And by the way, you're on the page that was cited on page thirty five of the book on culture.

In fact, I cited everything that he read, plus more, more contact than what he read, and it is taking another invite you to look.

But I dealt with the issue of the can extensively. I pointed out the cannon is to start determined and decided by one person.

Why, because the cannon is simply the last of what God inspired and what he doesn't.

God ultimately, and Roman Catholic theologians agree with God ultimately is the author of canon. The candidate is separately from Scripture in the function of the work of inspiration of the

Scripture. The issue we have to deal with here is how do we know how do we gain knowledge of what the cannon is, and it is able to make that if I have infallible knowledge of what the candidate when you get that infallible knowledge stable new

Catholic encyclopedia admit that the first dogmatic and infallible definition of what the canon is in its fullness took place about four hundred years ago.

What did I do before then fifteen forty fifteen hundred years. No one can live a proper

Christian life because it didn't have a foul revelation of the canon. Of course not. Pope Gregory the

Great didn't even agree with the canon of the Council Trent came up with Cardinal Cuyahoga and Thomas of the of the time of Reformation last of those who believe that the bureau of the books were canonical.

So what we have here. Well, Mr. Staples has just proven my original assertion right again.

Why is Mr. Staples have infallible certainty about not because he read

Athanasius or Jerome or gone into tradition or gone into Scripture or Sola.

Again, all the authority I have infallible certainty. How did the disabled and you don't ask you a question of you.

How did the godly man who lived in Palestine fifty years before Christ know that they are second

Chronicles of Scripture. You know, the question is like to see what you say you have an infallible revelation.

You're going to say that because the can and they held you there in Palestine was different than yours.

It could have been infallible. Well, did he not have a foul revelation and how can Jesus hold men responsible for what

Scripture says he did not be chapter twenty two. Wait a minute.

If Jesus can hold men accountable for Scripture says without some infallible magisterium to tell them what

Scripture is, then why can't I as a Protestant have a sufficient knowledge of the can without an infallible magisterium.

Why can't I do that? I can do a fact matter is that Mr.

Staples talks to us about this infallible tradition. It's not infallible that tradition to which he holds has made many an error.

It's contradicted itself and has now defined as dogmatic beliefs binding upon the

Christian conscience. Doctrines utterly unknown in the Bible and unknown in the early church, and I can stand up here and say talk about all the challenges of made

Mr. Staples. I haven't heard a word response on like you talk about my response. We don't have time to get everything.

There's been some things you can say. I'm not to be able to get to the things I heard of the way of debate on this issue.

I think Mr. Staples need to step up to the back of Mr. Staples believe the bodily assumption of Mary.

That's my first question. Does he believe it's an apostolic doctrine. Secondly, and would you please trace it for us and demonstrate that his understanding of Second Thessalonians two fifteen is in fact correct.

I think it's a fair request. First of all, my opponent asked me the question.

How did the man of God know what Scripture was fifty years before Christ?

He knew it by adhering to the tradition of the church as I demonstrated to you the tradition of the church.

I'm speaking of the Old Testament in the sense that the book of Acts does the church of the clays of the called out ones in the wilderness, but the fact is the

Old Testament church, so to speak, did not. It is true, did not have a council or an infallible statement from the high priest.

They did not have a council where they concluded what the canon was, and I find that fascinating.

In that, yes, even though they didn't. In fact, I have here a list of a number of different canons that the

Jews relied on the if you're Alexandrian Ethiopian Jew, you had the

Septuagint or something that what we would call today the Septuagint, which contain both the proto and deuterocanonical books.

If you're in a scene, you had the penitent you had much of what we have minus the book of Esther, and you had some of the deuterocanonicals.

If you're a Pharisee, you had the Palestinian canon. If you are a

Hellenistic Jew, the dispersion you have the Septuagint. If you are sad to see you accepted the penitent only.

So yes, they were divided on this issue at the time of Christ. That's a fact that you see that does not change the fact that the

Old Testament man of God is still bound to the authority that God established in the

Old Testament. You see, my opponent cannot answer the question, so he is making a clever debate trick here and trying to shift the burden of proof on the need.

But of course, that's not what the debate is about. He is supposed to demonstrate to me that the Scripture alone is a sole rule of faith, and when

I ask him to give me Scripture, he's the one who believes it. Not me. Sola scriptural.

The Scripture alone is the sole rule of the faith. Well, if that's true, then we ought to see why we accept the canon of Scripture in the

Scripture. In fact, whenever Mr. White goes, I want you to notice whenever Mr.

White goes to prove why he accepts this or that can. What does he do? He goes to the tradition of the church.

He just doesn't want to admit that, you know, he's more Catholic than he knows. Second point is,

I did not call Mr. White a Jehovah's Witness, but I think he he did fail to see the point that I was making in demonstrating, you know, and I know we talk around these numbers a lot of debate, but it is true that twenty three thousand churches, the twenty six thousand churches, but I believe my question is a valid one.

He's already demonstrated that he can't give me an infallible reason. He can't give me an authoritative reason why he can accept

Scripture as the inspired infallible rule of faith. Listen, folks, if you don't have an infallible source to understand what the

Scripture is, then how can you say that St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote that you even have the habit of faith, because faith must be rooted in an infallible source.

Now, Mr. White, I accept your challenge to debate infallibility. I accept your challenge to debate

Mariology. That's not what we're here to debate tonight, but I hope I pray that we will do that in the future, but I do need to point out that Mr.

White does not understand the development of doctrine at the Catholic Church teaches just because there is not an infallible pronouncement on something does not mean that the children are not bound to follow the teachings of the elders.

That's a very important point, and I think our Catholic friends would do well to heed this. Remember when the

Holy Father speaks to the universal church on an issue of faith and morals, even if he is not speaking at the draft, we are still bound to follow that teaching and know in those situations we do not have infallible certainty.

Absolutely. I agree, Mr. White, so you're right. The Old Testament people of God did not have infallible certainty on the cannon.

Hence, you have all the different canons that proved my point. You don't need Scripture alone.

In fact, Mr. White pointed out in Josiah what happened when they lost the Scripture. Well, it's true.

We need the Scripture, but the church, the Old Testament church, went right along, didn't it? Without the sacred

Scriptures. Why? Because you also had a tradition and you also have an authoritative magisterium, a teaching authority.

But again, I want to emphasize that, and this is a misnomer, that it's only the infallible teaching the church that we have to follow.

That is simply not true. If there is not an infallible teaching and what you do, you acknowledge you study to show yourself approved.

There is much freedom, in fact, in the Catholic Church on the issue, but the key difference is that the Bible teaches plainly that Jesus gave authority to his church to declare the word of God for so that we can in situations where there is major disagreement on essential issues of concerning the doctrine of faith.

There is a man who can walk in and say just as I said, God, there shall be one shepherd, one full one sheepfold.

That is the promise we have in sacred Scripture. So Mr. White, once again,

I have to ask you, you're the one who is teaching full of the tour. You need to demonstrate to me from the

Scriptures. I am going to hold you to this. What, in fact, the Scriptures are. You keep turning this thing on me.

I answered, you know, understand me that in the early centuries of the church when the bishops were in dispute over what the canon was, there was certain liberty.

That's why we don't condemn a thing. Clement of Alexandria for accepting books of Scripture that we don't today.

There was legitimate freedom, but both what we see throughout the history of the church, as I demonstrated from the word of God that when a situation arises that needs clarification.

The church has authority to speak by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that is an infallible authority, and I'm going to ask you again my in my second challenge that you didn't respond to demonstrate to me what the gospel is, and this is very important.

He was to gloss over this issue, but the fact is both we have the reality of things like the

Augsburg Confession disagrees with the Westminster Confession on baptismal regeneration. Mr.

White doesn't believe in baptismal regeneration. Many Protestants do the Augsburg Confession does Martin Luther did.

Of course, when we get the issues like this, what usually happens is the problem will say, oh, well, that's a peripheral.

That's a peripheral issue baptism, even though for two thousand years is unanimous consent of the church.

The baptismal regeneration is a dogma of the faith, and I don't think Martin Luther would agree with you that baptism is a peripheral issue.

Dr. Walter Martin, who many of you know and respect, wrote in his book,

The Kingdom of the Cult. He taught that Jesus Christ is not the eternal son, but he is the eternal word who became the son.

Both were talking about another Jesus here, and we could want when it comes to salvation and here is a central doctrine.

I'm sure Mr. White would agree salvation. Do you know how many different doctrines of salvation we have in the Protestant churches?

We could bring Chuck Smith up on the stage and he would categorically disagree with James White on justification whether you can lose your state of grace, whether free will is involved, whether grace is resistible, double predestination.

We could go on. Mr. White and Chuck Smith would disagree, and we could go from Protestant church to Protestant church, and we get all these different.

Let me ask you something. If the word of God is sufficient, are these not men of God? Did Mr.

White just quote Second Timothy three sixteen and say that Scripture is all we need to equip the man of God?

If that is the case, then friends, how can we? How can we say that the church and I would suggest you folks, if you recall from St.

Basil, when he said, I think this is a very important point. When Basil, whom

Mr. White had misquoted, said that we need to hold to the unwritten traditions as well as the church, and he said,

If we cut off from ourselves the unwritten traditions, we end up reducing the curriculum to just a word that is exactly what has happened in Protestantism.

Folks, the curriculum has been reduced to nothing more than a word. Why? Because there is no one in the

Protestant churches who can say that God, therefore, as a product, you will always be uncertain.

You will never have the certainty of faith out of which a true hope can flow, and that's what we offer in the

Catholic Church. Now again, perhaps in the rebuttal period,

I will respond. Perhaps in the rebuttal period,

I will get to the bodily assumption and some of these charges that my opponent is made. That's not the issue of the debate, but I'll respond anyway, and I want you to remember,

I have agreed we will debate these issues in the future and full and I'll demonstrate to you how that I came to believe in the body assumption of Mary through sola scriptura, and I invite those of you who don't know to get a hold of my tapes on this issue to take on the bodily assumption in the other

Marian doctors and listen to them and listen to a Catholic response from the Scriptures to Mr.

White's church. Now we want to be able to respond to as many questions as possible, and so even though it says in the program that there will be five minute responses and rebuttals to the questions obviously wouldn't get to very many of that with the case, and so by mutual consent of the parties here, they will try to keep their answers to a minute or two, depending upon the nature of the question.

I need to force of the questions are indeed questions formulated as concisely as you can, and if you have that natural inclination to want to bear witness to the truth, which is a very admirable thing.

Just be content that your presence is sufficient witness, and so if you have your here and that shows, and so just ask a question to please do not make any little commentaries of speeches or responses to what you heard so much, but rather genuine questions that touch on the material, and so for those who are going to ask questions of the staples are on the side.

Those are going to ask questions of Mr. White on the side, and will begin with Mr.

White. First question is, if you need to wait.

I would just like to preface my question very quickly with. I won't read the whole description of the overview on the eight twenty seven thirty one of the

Scripture where you need to be in the chariot reading the book of Isaiah, and as you do not fill up and ask him, you understand you are reading and the unit respond.

How can I understand and show me I were a nonbeliever and I were open the

Bible and try to get the correct authority to interpret the

Bible for me, which church would I rely on for that authority would I try to filter through the twenty five thousand different Christian denomination would

I try to go to the Book of Mormon would I try to Jehovah's Witness or would I try the the

Baptist Church that was established in the nineteenth century. How would you respond to that? Is that a liturgically significant thing?

I'm a Baptist. I don't know actually yet, but if the surgical significance is different. The question is based on a chapter eight in the

Ethiopian. Unfortunately, it goes again to the issue that seemingly a dichotomy is trying to be presented here that either you have infallible church or you have no church at all and you're just you and your

Bible out in the woods. No Holy Spirit, no church, no nothing. The issue again is the issue of infallible authority.

I have never claimed and probably do not claim in part, and so the truth does not assert that God does not use means to explain the truth that God does not use the church to grow people up never ever been a claim.

Unfortunately, he's being raised as a canard of the misrepresentation. The issue is what is the infallible authority to which that Ethiopian unit turned.

He turned the Scriptures Philip was used to explain the Scriptures to him, and we can be very thankful that he was.

I have the opportunity to explain the Scriptures to many people and I'm thankful that opportunity. In fact, I've explained the

Scriptures to many Jehovah's Witnesses. Believe it or not, but that didn't make me infallible.

The word is what is infallible, and I just remind you of what the other said. The doctrine of the church should be proven not announced.

Therefore, show that the Scriptures teach the thing that is not in any way shape or form of denial.

To say that it is to misunderstand what the doctrine actually is. I think the scripture raises is an excellent one, because it demonstrates the fact that the

Scripture is not sufficient. It does not interpret itself, and when the

Ethiopian unit asked the question, how can I let somebody show me that is there for a reason that Scripture was written in the context of the community for a reason to demonstrate to us the fact that we need to in fact, the

Scripture is not sufficient on its own. Second Peter chapter three.

I referred to earlier. St. Peter tells us that, and I don't make this point efficiently, and account the long -suffering of our

Lord salvation. So carry on as our most dear brother,

Paul, according to the wisdom God -given has written to you and also knowledge of his speaking them of the things in which are certain things hard to be understood, and the undisciplined and unstable rest.

I was reading Professor Bloom who is an evangelical scholar and his interpretation of the passage when it says that we are not to in the second

Peter earlier in chapter one verses twenty and twenty one. It says understand the first that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation.

He makes the point here that the reason why the epistle is written one of the main theme is that people were in fact privately interpreting the

Scripture apart from the church. Now I'm sure Dr. Bloom would argue the app and the analogy of faith or something that regard, but I think it's important here in evangelical acknowledges that this verse is talking actually condemning private interpretation of Scripture.

Did you know that condemning private interpreting that doesn't mean we can interpret Scriptures, you know, get together and execute

Scripture together and so forth, but it doesn't say something about who is the final authority because when you read later on there in the verses

I just read what Peter say about those who are giving this private interpretation.

I think in this context, he says that they are resting the

Scriptures to their own destruction and notice the word is unlearned that on the faith which means undisciplined, not discipled by proper authority that you throughout the

New Testament. The church of the power to bind and lose whatever she buys owner is bound in heaven.

The clear teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ will come in.

Yes, yes, talk about those who are undisciplined. So disciple of the church is called to do.

It doesn't mean you substitute a different infallible rule. Instead, you do what called by Christ called the church to do to the question from a stable.

He responded, so I can respond. If it says undisciplined, you have to make a distinction here.

There are people here. I think other waiting here patiently. My turn.

You say that the church is infallible. Yet when I look at the church tradition,

I see that the fourth Lateran Council conferred a special indulgence on people who would buy you the sword help to exterminate heretics.

There were several subsequent papal decrees that affirmed this as well. When I read

Vatican to that seems to be contradicted. Remember one of the group that is a distortion of the fourth

Lateran Council. It's rooted in a misunderstanding of the word exterminate. It does not mean to exterminate.

It means to drive out an exterminate. When you see that word, you might be thinking in English and tell that means go out and murder and kill.

It's not saying to drive out the heretics. Now we have to understand the context in which this council was held.

We're talking about a different culture. We had Christendom. There were Christian nation and we had a

Christian nation where people decide when it would be terrible if we had a

Christian nation that decided that things like abortion were wrong, and if you did that you could be prosecuted.

Would that be terrible? No, I would suggest you that be a good thing, but you see,

I think Americans, because we're in a non -Christian culture, we are so, you know, into this notion.

I think the false notion of freedom. That's not freedom at all. That the purpose of government is supposed to be to give us every freedom in the world freedom to have abortion freedom to do this or that.

No, you see, in the thirteenth century was believed that you to understand, and I said that on the radio with James that heresy was considered a worse than murder.

Why, because when you fall into the center, you're not just killing bodies, you're killing souls.

Now there is no contradiction between Vatican two and the Fourth Lateran Council. We live in a different age and obviously in the age that we live in.

We're not going to be saying we're going to go out and drive out the heretics from America. Why, because we don't have

Christian nation anymore, but I would suggest to you that if the world was Christian and we had

Christian Kings, don't you think that it would be a good thing to drive out, let's say, those who would want to murder babies in the womb?

I mean, would it be a good thing? I'm not going to exterminate them, but I am saying you make laws so that you can have a righteous nation.

Let me tell you exactly what the Lateran Council said. It's a convicted heretic shall be handed over for due punishment of their secular superiors of the latter's agent

Catholic to assume the cross and develop themselves the extermination of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and privilege of those who go to the

Holy Land. Please compare that with Vatican two, which says this freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or social groups of any human power in such wise and matters religious.

No one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own belief. This is the allegedly infallible tradition that we are asked by Mr.

Staples to believe that well, but you need to realize there in a different culture. God's infallible truth is defined by culture.

Is that what we're being asked to believe here? Let me ask you something. Then he uses the hot button topic of abortion and I stand against abortion, but I want to point something out to you.

Same thing I pointed out on the radio. The Council of Constance killed

Jan Hus, not for being abortionist for believing that you're justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ and for translating the

Bible in the Czech language, the people read for themselves. That's not abortion. If that heresy tells you what happens when full of the

Torah is abandoned, because you see the church was out of control. Why?

Because there's no rule of faith left to correct her. She's become her own rule of faith.

We see in the crusade. We see it in the position. This is what happens when the church no longer believes in full of the question for Mr.

White. Even if you have a very, very different view of the church.

Mr. Staples has talked about how the mother of the children. You know that means mother church.

We believe the church is the body of Christ. All those who have been called by God into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ make up that church is a living communion in which we love one another in the bond of Jesus Christ.

The church is not an organization that stands over us as a mother. We are the church and the ministers in the church are called by God to pastor our souls.

Yes, you're not on some higher level. With all due respect to our moderator.

I do not believe that you have any way, shape or form present difference between the quote unquote clergy and lay.

One of the great scandal of the Reformation from the Roman Catholic perspective of the belief that each individual is a believer priest before God responsible for what he or she believes, and each individual has direct and immediate access to God through God's spirit and God's throne.

The finished work of Jesus Christ. You see, there are Christians that span all those however many denominations you want to create or say there are not.

I'm not sitting here. I've got Presbyterian friends here and people from other churches, and I'm church versus their church.

We are one of the bond of God's truth, but we do not solve our differences by abandoning the one infallible rule of faith.

God has given to us and substituting one to give them an alleged infallibility and unity based upon that.

We stick with God inspired. Well, I agree with what

Mr. White said about me are the body of Christ. Absolutely. Within the body there are many gifts and Jesus gives authority.

I want you to notice here throughout this evening what James White is arguing for. He is arguing for a church that has no way of pronouncing authoritatively what the truth is on a doctor.

He's arguing for anarchy. Why do I say that now? Listen, OK, before you know, don't you know some of the older you.

This is a man. He sounds all lovey -dovey with you, but when you get down to the essence of what he believes the majority, the overwhelming majority of you

Protestant that are plotting him. He is diametrically opposed to when it comes to the issue of predestination.

How a person is justified before God. He is opposed to many of you on issues like like the real presence of our

Lord in the Eucharist. If you're if you're Lutheran, he is opposed to on many such issues and yet you're applauding and both in Protestant were talking about essential doctrines.

I could go down a litany of doctors that we can talk about moral doctrine.

When I talk about evangelicals, it's like what moral doctrine you like a doctor

Thompson in his book, and I love the guy sincere man here in preparing for adolescence.

He says masturbation is not a sin. Why? Because the Scripture doesn't say anything explicit about the divorce and remarriage.

I have friends and pastors that that divorce remarry and don't listen. Why? Because there is no one to say, say,

God, this is the truth of disagreement and doctrine over whether you can in fact, divorce and remarry in the

Protestant churches. It depends which church you go to. Well, if you want to divorce and remarry, just do it in the eighth day.

Check out and find one or maybe start one that agrees with you. If you take a look.

Romans five one. Therefore, being justified first and others.

Well, first of all, the word that the verb you're talking about. I got to make a correction there.

Actually, the manuscript authority points to a subjunctive there. Let us have peace with God.

Not we have. He says the King James will say, but at any rate, let him.

So even if we have peace with God, we agree having been justified how through baptism, through our incorporation into the body of Christ, which, by the way, is unanimously taught by the church fathers over two thousand years baptismal regeneration, which

Mr. White rejects. I can quote the father. He loves the father.

He loves to go to the father, but I challenge you, Mr. White, honestly read with the father say about baptismal regeneration and tell me honestly that you can tell me that the

Christianity does not believe in baptismal regeneration, but both justification having been justified. Yes, we have peace with God, but both remember there is also a present participle used with that same verb in Romans three twenty four being justified, which implies an ongoing process, and I'll refer you to Galatians two verses sixteen and seventeen, where we have a future passive of the verdict.

I assume they knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law and by the way the Catholic Church teaches that we are not justified by the works of the law or any work that we do by our own strength, but we are justified by grace through faith that works itself out in love at Galatians teaches in Galatians five six, but knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

We also believe in Christ Jesus, and actually that's a bad translation. We have an error there. The air is slightly irregular in Greek, but it is a past tense norm.

Normally we have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified as a future passive by the faith of Jesus Christ, not by the works of the law with the

Catholic Church, but by the works of the law. No flesh of the justified, but if while we seek to be justified in the following week until I know

I'm out of time it while we seek to be justified in Christ, we are found sinners is quite the minister of sin.

God forbid if I build up again the things which I just heard referring to the Old Testament law. I make myself power about pain that is a covenant breaker, one who cuts himself off from God.

Read Galatians chapter five in conclusion, where Paul to stand back in the yoke in the faith and be not held again under the yoke of bondage.

He says you may board of Christ, you who intend to be justified by the works of the law. You have fallen from grace for we've been spirit by faith.

Wait for the hope of justification folks hope of that means future. We don't have it yet. If you hope for according to Romans eight twenty four, you ain't got it yet.

Not in full. There you have the

Catholic obedience to clergy . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . check in a numbers .

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Great Language, and that they do not watch the artistcakill the

Greek. This takes a chance to the name the passage about the 21 mark in light of that.

It sounds real good, but in the disabled. I understand that the disabled sometimes tells what is expertise in that language is why we should believe that I teach the language and a professor of it and a critical consultant on a major translation from at least

I've done some background on that as a staple problem is that you hear

Mr. Staples then said after going to another. Yes, we have been justified in the past and action by baptism.

What the Romans five one. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God for Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me say something in Roman Catholicism. You can commit a mortal sin and lose the grace of justification and be an enemy of God.

You can be justified and then be unjustified by committing a mortal sin. None of you in this room know that you're not commit a mortal sin by time you go to bed this evening.

Hence, the relationship you have with God could very well end the term peace.

Irene in the Greek shalom in the Hebrew very rich term. It is not simply meaning ceasefire.

It means a fullness of relationship. It means a wellness. You see, my friend, this is an important issue and I hope to get the bait justification

Sunday, because in point of fact, the difference between us on that issue is quite a bit.

I have peace with God this evening, not because of anything I've done, not because of any merit of earned because of one person in the work that he accomplished in my behalf perfectly thousand years.

I stand before God and I have peace that cannot be destroyed. Because my

Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect. That is the question for Mr.

White. I am fascinated by your continuous confusion of the concept of rule as a judge.

Can you possibly give us a scriptural proof that the scripture is the judge in the controversy.

What I mean by this is worth it. If I say that the macroconceptions of Virgin Mary and the glorious assumption of the

Virgin Mary are taught in scripture and you say no, where is the form where this dispute is resolved and who pronounced the judgment as to which is right in the final on the topic.

Every six months I go to the general conference of the

LDS Church in Salt Lake City. I've done it past twenty five general conference outside the gate of the temple and passed out back more than about twelve of about thirty thousand of them feel similar.

And if I speak to those people, they stand there and I open up the Bible and I read them.

I have forty three ten before me. There is no God formed and there should be none after me. So you may know Mormons are polytheists.

They believe God wants to live on another planet. There are other gods besides him, and I show him that plain scripture outside the gate of the temple, and he says that you have a right to interpret that you see, we have a we have a church and we have a prophet.

The prophet tells me there's more than one God, and so you may show me that passage, but doesn't really mean.

How do I respond like that? Oh, no, I have an infallible authority in the pope, and he said there is one

God in one of the twelve of my infallible authority to bishop of the priest of the prophet in Salt Lake City.

There is one that will reduce to your own authority versus his ultimate authority or has

God spoken clearly anyone in this room actually doubt that a serious in -depth exegesis of the forty third chapter of Isaiah would not demonstrate the truth of monotheism is that were actually are we actually told the

Scriptures are so muddled, so unclear they cannot teach. I certainly hope not.

So the question you're asking is, well, we want. We don't want to do exegesis. We want someone to tell us to believe that and that will be infallible.

Now, the Scriptures call to do what the Scriptures call to do to be a workman who is diligent in studying the word of God.

We can handle accurately the word of truth. I want you to notice before you plot that he didn't respond to the question.

First of all, yes, I did not say he didn't. He didn't give the

Scripture. I have demonstrated to you go back to Matthew chapter eighteen and you read it.

You pray you get before God and you tell me that the New Testament teaches soul of Scripture when you go to the

Bible and you read Matthew chapter eighteen. We could get her to the page, but I pray that you will, and honestly, search got such a hard -to -forget as far as the

Mormons go. Well, the Mormons James White said they say they have an authority and you

Catholics say you have an authority, so it will take about fifteen seconds to dismiss the

Mormon started in eighteen twenty two. They are eliminated from the possibility of being the church

Jesus Christ established in the story now. It's not what we want here.

He said we want to have this authority over us to speak. It's not what we want.

It's what the historic Christian faith has taught for two thousand years demonstrated in her ecumenical councils over twenty one of them.

Twenty one of them over two thousand years. It's not what we want. This is what the Christian church, the true church of Jesus Christ, has taught for two thousand years.

It's what God has given up the gift of the church, so that we be not henceforth children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.

And once again, Mr. White didn't answer the question where I gave you the point of the Jesus gives us when there is a disagreement.

Mr. White has yet to give us the formula where Jesus says that if you disagree what you do get your

Bible to start arguing passages, and if you don't agree with the pastor will go start your own church. Listen, that is nowhere to be found in Scripture as a question for Mr.

Staples in Jude, the letter from Jude. We're told that the body of truth concerning Christ and our salvation was delivered to all the saints, not to a magisterium, not to a select group of people who alone can decode the

Word of God for the masses. As a saint of God, as a believer in Jesus Christ, I've sought to understand authentically the

Word of God by the help of the Holy Spirit. I cannot find in the Word of God any teaching concerning Mary's immaculate conception and her protection from original sin.

We're told in Psalms that we are a screens from the womb and we are born in sin and she often in a mother's womb and iniquity.

I cannot find in the Word of God. One question, because you just after the war, so it is one question merely because there was a question.

I just did it, and it will first you you you asked about authority and now you're asking about Mary and a couple of things about the authority from the

Word of God. I think you authentically understand God's Word. According to you, I have that right, because the faith is being delivered to me.

I think you need to give me a little more time. All right. First of all, one of one of the things they and the old boy.

Yeah, the onus is upon you, not just our brother to show from Scripture and history.

You haven't done it tonight, so please address it where we see a unity in the scenes and a compliance of Scripture regarding the doctrine of Mary of the

Roman Catholic Church. Okay, the first point is on you. You said the faith was once for all delivered.

We agree. Absolutely. The faith was once and for all delivered. However, my brother, you know that the

Scripture teaches so plain that there are different functions in the body of Christ.

You need to tell me that the apostle. Here's one we all agree with. Let's talk about apostolic confession.

We all agree. You need to tell me that the apostle Paul doesn't have any more authority than anybody else. All the difference is once for all delivered to the same.

I love your accent. You need to come back to the church, but I just had to get that.

I love that I was delivered once for all to the same. Well, guess what that includes the apostle.

So if I'm going to execute that passage the way you do, then I'll have to say that the apostle. They don't have any more than anybody else, and I can just disagree with Paul, and I want to.

Well, that's absurd. Second, the point is that there is authority in the body of Christ, and I would suggest you didn't stop with the apostle.

This is what we need to out the history of the church, and we need to debate this point of light that from Clement to Ignatius forward.

We see an authoritative church. We do not see the soul of Scripture anywhere.

Now, as far as Mary, you say, well, show me in Scripture, and I told you earlier as a

Protestant, I came to believe in Marian doctrines through the Scripture alone.

I came to see, for example, if we're going to talk about Mary's mother, God, we see in Luke one forty three.

She's the mother of God. I guarantee there are a number of people here. You probably don't believe Mary, the mother of God, James White does.

I do want to deny that denied that Mary, the mother of God, is in in heresy.

It's called the Nestorian heresy, which denies that that Jesus is one person. Why? Because if you say

Mary is not the mother of God, then what is she the mother of the man Jesus? And guess what? We have to do that, so we see

Mary as the mother of God. Secondly, well, as far as the

American conception. Yes, there are. Let me refer to St. Jerome, who said, in fact, he was defending the perpetual virginity of Mary when he's right that Mary is the gate represented in Ezekiel chapter forty four verses one and two.

Notice it says. I think you have a vision of the gate and the spirit passes through.

I believe the east gate and then got to let that gate be shut and never be opened again. And St.

Ambrose tells us this shows us the perpetual virginity of Mary. What about the American conception? Well, in Luke chapter one verse twenty eight, we see

Mary is named Kari. That's a name. It's a verb, but it's a name.

It's a perfect participle, which means one who has been filled or perfected in grace, which is the way

St. Jerome translated it, and I think he may be full of grace, which means he she had no stain upon her.

Amber said at St. Augustine said in his work on the grace and nature.

Let me be perfectly clear about Mary that she is free from all things and I don't know if I got that exact that quote exactly right.

Let me tell you something. I can challenge you and we will debate this issue to get my take on this.

Obviously, I can't explicate this fully in this short period of time that I have, but there is

I guarantee you a lot more immeasurably more Scripture for Marian doctrine than the one

Scripture actually have a Scripture one subordinate clause that Mr. White uses to prove solicitor outside of it is written here or there, which we have

Jesus and it is written big deal. He also said, I say unto you. Remember, he could not prove solicitor uses one little verse in the other verses are even more ridiculous than the one uses for solicitor.

I can give you much more from there. You might take four minutes for Mr.

White. But if you want one word, look at using

Ezekiel to prove perpetual virginity. Look at using Luke one twenty eight in the heart of many to prove immaculate conception.

You want one verse. I believe that this is the classic example of an excellent example of something else.

You see, Mr. Staples believes in the immaculate conception against tradition.

I can point out fundamentals of Catholic dogma left the early church fathers who believe that Mary committed personal and the

Roman Catholic Lord published by that liberal place called and worded the concept of perpetual virginity first come from where the first found stable for the

Evangelium of James and the ascension of Isaiah Gnostic work, the second century bodily assumption, the transliterate of the fifth century heretical.

These are not biblical teaching is not biblical exegesis and the only reason that one could possibly say that one believe the doctrine is because of the early church didn't believe the thing.

The Bible doesn't teach the thing, and hence to say, I believe the thing is to demonstrate that you are functioning with the ultimate authority beyond what the

Scriptures themselves each number for people that will be right.

He's over there saying that there is no authority in the church.

He misrepresenting the fact that I am sorry, but over and over again over again in the early church.

We have an authoritative church. Therefore, they couldn't believe in full authority. I believe in authority church.

My church exercises discipline. My church says divorce is wrong. My church does all the things in the base of the word of God.

I know all sorts of other Protestant churches to do that. I get the argument, but I didn't do that. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the church having the authority to do what the

Scriptures define for her to do. Sola scriptura is a denial that the church is herself an infallible rule of faith, and so I have to ask him.

You're a nice guy, but why can't you represent Sola scriptura properly. If I got up here and I'll admit that Madrid, the exact same thing we did.

Patrick Madrid used in a definition of Sola scriptura that I never gave, and when we pointed out later later,

Carl King said we didn't have to have a debate definition. If I got up here and debated a different definition of the

Immaculate Conception than what Rome is officially and dogmatically declared. Mr.

Staples be crying foul of one time down the other year misrepresenting you must not have a good answer, because you have to keep misrepresenting my position.

Mr. Staples. If you really have these wonderful answers for the claims of efficiency of Scripture to function of all of our faith in the church.

Why do you have to keep misrepresenting Sola scriptura? You can't see you, but I'll look over the general direction and I want you to respond to this.

If Jesus Christ take his hand and write the

New Testament himself, and you have no reason to be done, and everybody would agree to write himself plenty of time.

Why didn't he do it. I'm afraid, obviously, that I've either failed to explain it or you fail to listen to what full

Scripture is, because the question has absolutely nothing to do with full Scripture. Jesus Christ in a very true way did exactly what you did exactly what you're saying.

I believe that every word of this book is a honest thought, and I believe that God is the payoff of the

Jesus Christ is the payoff. Therefore, this is his word. It is the word of Christ. He did it through other people.

He did it through all he did it through the possible. It is no less authoritative, because of that, even if he had taken his own hand that wouldn't change anything when when the

Holy Spirit of God brings about the writing of Scripture. How is that different than if God had had used his own hand to do it in the

Ten Commandments, because God used his own finger to write them more inspired than what we have in the

New Testament. Of course, not different levels of inspiration in that way. The issue, even from a

Roman Catholic perspective, there is no question about the authority, at least from Mr.

Staples Roman Catholic perspective. I can find Roman Catholic theologians to fill this place up. They would think our entire debate this evening was absurd, because it's based on the idea that the

Bible is infallible revelation from God, and you know that you know that the argument you got between traditionalist and modernist and all the rest of that, but we are debating that, because Mr.

Staples believe that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God, that they are revelation. The issue is not well.

Jesus is written in the now take care of everything not even written if you still have churches saying you can't properly understand what we thought you had interpreted the same thing going on with the political solve any problem.

It doesn't get past the fact that this is the infallible, the ultimate and final authority, and we are being asked to believe that there's another ultimate final authority along with it, and I deny that I think we're back on the issue of authority and I just want to make this point.

I think the key difference between the evening is that we believe and Mr.

White said on the radio and earlier today that the book is alive.

Scriptures are equal to Hebrews chapter four verse twelve, which is quoting a verse entirely out of context.

Why, because was limited. It says the word of God is living effect will more piercing than any two -edged sword reason to the division of soul, spirit, joints and marrow, and is a discernible thought into the heart.

Neither is there any creature invisible in his life, but all things are naked and open to his eyes.

It's referring to a person you see when we're talking about the word of God. A lot of times, and I understand that I was product that you're taking

Scripture when in reality, the word of God is first the person Jesus Christ second is orally proclaimed thirdly, and down the line.

Historically, it was recorded in Scripture. Further, we have we believe not just the living book, but a living body on this earth living body on this earth.

A living body on this church, which includes a head, a visible head and Jesus gave us that had not been chapter sixteen verse eighteen, and whatever he bought on her should be done and why so that the word of Jesus Christ at Babel said the correct month does not become a mere word, because if you do not have an authority to say that they have got what happened twenty three denominations that the fact is the white talk about all their ability to defend from all of them from the

Catholic teaching. Sure there are, but the difference is both we read Luke and sixteen.

If they hear you, they hear me. If they reject you, they reject me, and that birth is alive and well in the Catholic Church, because we have bishops to whom that verse is written and they can do it.

They can walk in this room right now and say, but they have got and the question is settled. Folks don't settle for the anarchy of productism.

We have the fullness of truth two thousand years of it. In fact, in the Catholic Church. In one of your rebuttals earlier this evening,

I believe I quoted you correctly here. Faith must be rooted in an infallible source.

I have a compound question for you. What is that infallible source and how do we take will.

First of all, the way we know that you get into basic apologetics. Who is

Jesus? Well, if we're going to be apologists, you have to investigate the claims of Christianity.

Certainly, we don't assume the Scriptures are inspired. I believe that the problem comes to the table with this.

Well, and you don't have any infallible authority to tell you the word of God is the word of God. You end up having a burning in your bosom.

Well, I just know it's the word of God. Why will it testify to you by the father of the father's disagree over many of the books of the

Bible and Mr. White still haven't given up a biblical authority, a biblical verse of Scripture that tells us what in fact the word of God is how we know the book of Revelation is the word of God.

When you can make an argument for three hundred years, perhaps the majority perhaps that rejected the book of Revelation did not consider to be inspired by many bishops did have no hard time with that in other books.

So how do we know we approach Jesus Christ is any other historical figure. If you're going to be an apologist and we can move beyond a shadow of a doubt and apologies that Jesus Christ lived, died, was resurrected.

He proved who he was through his miracles and he historically, and I'm not accepting

Scriptures inspired here, but is it a historical fact that he established his church and as a doctor inaugurated it with miracles, and I would argue that that the word of God continues to be confirmed through miracles for two thousand years, and we have both miracles in the

Catholic Church, and I'm not talking about being him, and it's a boy. My elbow hurt now, and you know we're talking miracles here.

I have a book at home in the miracles of Lord sixty five documented. We're talking about restoration creative miracle that demonstrate the validity of the

Catholic Church as well throughout her history, so we approach the skeptics and we see Jesus is really established a church.

It proved itself over the centuries, and it is in fact that church that gives us the

Scripture at Martin Luther himself in his commentary on John said I would be would know nothing of Scripture, except the

Catholic Church gave it to us, and I got the same thing in the middle of the manikin, so we must rely on the church.

The Bible is inspired by the church, and that's how you come to an infallible knowledge of the church's infallible knowledge, and it is disabled.

Look at that early church history. He does demonstrate his church. He would be so many facts that are directly contrary to Roman Catholic teaching.

He would be father. He would he would be no hope he would be Cardinal Newman admitting that there is no hope functioning in the church for centuries.

He did a council in the canon, limiting the authority of the bishop of Rome as other bishops in the

Council of Calcutta on the twentieth and doing the same thing you see those facts have explained away why, because of the church you believe in today, tell them all those things don't mean what they meant back in the history of the chain.

The early father who disagreed with Roman Catholic teaching today, so that the valid argument for Mr.

Staples to say, well, there are people who disagree with him. The Scripture was. So therefore, you can't say you believe the inspiration of Scripture.

You have a church to tell you what are people who disagreed with what the church taught back in that mean you got to have another source of authority to tell you that the church is true.

The people don't want to give us an infallible source of authority, tell the church is true outside of what the church, and yet if I use argument to demonstrate truth of the

Scripture of the why you can't give us an infallible passage, you know why you have to be there to position being presented here and apply the same argument to both because the argument

Mr. Staples contradict his own position. If his position is allowed to put out there in its fullness and examine the question for Mr.

White that the Scripture is infallible agree with that.

Now, the Holy Spirit is infallible. If it was to interpret the doctrine that doctrine would be infallible, correct.

He said the church has authority to interpret Scripture.

Are you the doctrine or your church's doctrine infallible?

Excellent question. Mr. Staples continually said that the product of the product of the product of the product.

I cannot say that they are the Lord that is wrong.

I believe in apostolic. I mean by that if you want to understand in the succession of the apostles.

Then teach and preach the apostles taught and preach. Let me tell you something.

You may claim some historical connection to the apostles, but if you don't teach and preach what they taught and what they preach don't claim to be a successor of theirs.

You know, Mr. Staples rather flippantly dismissed the problem. He has a lot of politics. I would love him.

You're invited to a conference of first week in October first week in April every year. I'd like to see you use that answer you use here outside the gates of Mormon temple about a dozen

Mormon elders. I sure have. I'd like. I'd like to see you do that. I can dismiss him in fifteen seconds.

I don't work doesn't work at all. We can preach

God's truth with authority without me becoming infallible. As long as I am faithful to this word and what

I preach is God's word and it's binding upon those who hear. I don't have to become an infallible authority alongside the preacher before the misnomer is a complete misrepresentation.

It's illogical. It makes no sense when we preach the word of God and proclaim the gospel of God in the scriptures.

It is binding upon those who hear it and it only gets in the way of the gospel to make me an authority.

So no, I'm not a bottom line is that there can be no certainty of faith in Protestantism.

Why, because once again, I will tell you, Mr. White is making the argument for anarchy.

He's saying, I'm not certain, and by God, you can't be either. Why, because both of the demonstrated is infallible.

Does he have certainty regarding his doctrine will guess what. Let's sit down.

I would love to get some of my Protestant friends out there right now to come up here and debate Mr. White on things like baptismal regeneration.

You believe in that the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. How about double predestination?

How many are going to raise their hand and believe that the God chooses some for heaven some for hell. Double predestined.

Mr. White believe that he's talking about this gospel gospel gospel folks, but without the church that Jesus Christ established, you have no authority.

And unfortunately, people, many, many souls are being lost because there is no standard.

You claim the Scripture is your your authority, but it is not the

Scripture. Mr. White, it is your interpretation of the Scriptures and you are not infallible.

Therefore, the words of our Lord in Luke fifteen. If they hear you, they hear me.

They reject you. They reject me. Do not apply to Mr. White. He cannot say that all he can say is, well, if I'm speaking in accordance with Scripture, then that applies to me, but he can't know if he is because he's not infallible.

Also, what do you have twenty three thousand denominations and counting.

I can. My name is Alan. I'm a Lutheran. Do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Do not believe that I'm sorry. The awkward confession teaches baptismal regeneration.

Martin Luther taught it. Now I understand some evangelical Lutherans do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but you cannot say that all

Lutherans do not believe. I'm sorry. Many, many Lutherans do. Okay, you don't.

You haven't read Luther's small catechism. We believe that you're saved by faith alone. We do not believe the water just splash water on people and become

Christians. So the Oxford confession does not teach baptismal regeneration, nor does that church. We teach justification by faith line.

My question for you is the Roman Catholic Church tells us that Matthew sixteen eighteen teaches papal infallibility.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe this. Now, when an Eastern Orthodox Christian or a

Lutheran Christian goes to Matthew sixteen eighteen and says, I don't see the word hope. I don't see the word infallibility.

I don't see these things being passed through down through time. You as a Roman Catholic just say, well, you can interpret

Scripture. I want to know why. How can you believe and defend something that is circular reason and therefore is logically incoherent?

Well, first of all, I've got some friends in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church that would strongly disagree with you and saying that they do not believe in baptismal regeneration and I think you need to check your facts on that.

There are some Lutherans who do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but even to tell me I have a friend, a good friend was raised in Missouri Synod Lutheran, and well, here we go proving my point once again.

I'm not here to argue that the Lutheran Church is the way to go, because obviously you have disagreements within the

Lutheran Church over the central issues as well. Now you mentioned Matthew chapter sixteen verse eighteen.

Now I Peter upon this rock. I will build my church. Well, you say, how can you possibly believe that that verse teaches papal authority.

This has been the constant teaching of the church for two thousand years.

Mr. White is going to quote Lenoy and his little survey. I've got sixteen fathers and say that sixty thousand folks were going to debate papal infallibility.

We don't have the time to get into all the details right now, but we have clear passages of Scripture that teach one

Jesus said to Peter, thou art the rock and upon this rock. I will build my church and I will get to you if you if you don't even believe in the rock.

He gave Peter the keys the authority and everybody knows that is a symbol of authority one for one over the kingdom of heaven on earth.

I give you the key to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you find on earth will be found in heaven. Whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed and have now listen.

It's one thing for you to say, oh, how can you say that? How can you interpret passage of the like that book. I have scores of fathers of the church councils like calcium that Mr.

White has misrepresented in in in Canada twenty eight and I feel which he misrepresented with Canon sixty eight.

These issues both we need to hash out at another time, because unfortunately, we don't have time to get into the don't tell me that we don't have

Scripture to support our claim. We would use Matthew sixteen John twenty one Luke twenty two and we use the book of Acts and there are so many other verses of Scripture much more than the one verse of Scripture that that my opponent has you and I and I say again, you cannot point me to Scripture where Jesus said it is written and say that means all of your that that is absolutely absurd.

There is one verse that he can even with full Scripture out of and boy is he resting the

Scriptures to do that. I again repeat one verb in a subordinate clause of one

Scripture to prove a doctrine that will be the foundation of the Christian church for two thousand years. I think not both, and I encourage you again give my take on the papacy where I could be on a shadow of a doubt what

Matthew sixteen eighteen is talking about. Don't listen to smoke screen about Illinois survey three minutes for Mr.

White. I've never heard so many lies. I'm very not one line.

I cannot believe that Mr. Staples. I cannot believe that Mr.

Staples. You have a book and you have a book. Yes, then you read what it says about full

Scripture. Why do you think that based on one person you know it's not true. It talks about the early church fathers.

It's hard to go on in the book and you're on the direct citation. If you want to pick up the tape and please.

I know a lot of your friends. I know you can leave whatever you have to say. I'm just asking you to think about it. There is no serious

Roman Catholic historian on this planet. They will say what he just said.

I invite any one of you. How many how many have ever looked in your father's interpretation of Luke twenty two,

John twenty one. Come on, you're the one earliest one to use it. Pick up my debate.

Six more six plus hours. Jerry Matics during the papal visit in nineteen ninety three in Denver and find out for yourself.

Mr. Staples is saying, I prove without a doubt is Mr. Staples infallible.

He's not infallible interpreter of my books, obviously, because he misrepresents them at every turn. He's not infallible interpreter of the early fathers, because I can provide you with quote after quote, and I do right here.

Mr. Staples is why do that. Here it is, and I provided Mr. Staples. I sent them to him in letters months ago.

He has never refuted them. Never, and he admitted in a response that he would have to change his presentation on the papacy in light of the information

I presented to him. I can't believe you would sit here in front of you and say for two thousand years, the church believe about Matthew sixteen.

That is untrue. Let me quote Dr. Dr. Jackson in truth, the supremacy of the

Roman as it has been understood in later time was hardly at the time of battle on the horizon.

No bishop of Rome had even been presented by fear or article where certain right of appeal to be conceded.

A bishop of Rome signed the Sermon blasphemy. No bishop of Rome was present to save the world in the laps of remnant.

The great intellectual Aryan war was fought out without any claim of Rome to speak half a century after battle that great orientals were quite unconscious of the supremacy.

Mr. Mr. Mr. Staples. Mr. White misrepresented the canon of counsel.

I see a proven in outright night on your death. He does not represent twenty and a couple of Calvin on the right there on your desk.

Prove it. I didn't. I don't in here. I ask for documentation. You're going to make accusations are back.

Back him up. Okay, well, then I must. All right. First of all, I can't wait a minute. First of all, the question that you know, the fairness there is wonderful.

I would like you to get double, double response without you have the priest to defend you. It's very interesting.

I have the exact same level of certainty about finding that you have about the church. Mr. Staples just presented an argument for why he believes the church is infallible.

It was based upon what well, you look at this look at that, and if that's enough to prove the church is infallible.

Why can't I have the exact same, and maybe I hope you're able to hear that you're leaving, but why can't

I have the exact same type of level of certainty on the same day.

It is inconsistent response. The canon is given by God. Can you can turn by God's act of inspiration that makes it a revealed truth, but the part of Scripture.

Now, I am the same question. How can I have infallible knowledge of every bit of content of the Bible. I don't have infallible knowledge of the content of the

Bible sufficient knowledge, just like the Jews, the Jesus said, you are accountable for the

Scripture is disabled. They have an infallible authority, but they were held accountable. Why can't

I. I don't understand why people will not deal with this issue of the thing.

Well, just like my friends in Salt Lake City. Do they think you can even know within the

Bible, because you don't have the problem. I think you need to have someone to tell you you need the golden index.

They don't say that I call the golden index syndrome and disabled as well as why can't give one word to give the canon and Scripture that denied.

The can with some extra biblical revelation. I'm really hoping that the staples will deal with what

I thought about the canon here. I sent in the book. It would be nice to respond back to my position in the character of the characterization of my position.

That would be helpful to all of us here. Answer how the man before Christ. He said the man knew by keeping tradition infallibly.

I like the answer. I can answer. Did a man know infallibly as you have got more to do that right now.

I already answered that question, and once again, and what I encourage you to do is get the tape, wind it back and listen to what

I already answered it. But now, as far as your question about finding. I am not saying the

Catholic Church does not say that we create the canon. The Catholic Church recognizes the canon authoritatively.

OK, there is a huge difference. We do not say that Hippo three ninety three created the canon.

The Scripture is inspired. If you take materially in the order of of of being, so to speak, but in the order of knowing you cannot know that in the way

I mean what Mr. White is saying in essence is well, you just read the Bible and it'll confirm itself in your heart and lots of people agreed about nearly sure he gives you his opinion of what the father say his opinion of even though I can show you can from the early church that disagree with the canon that we have today in the church.

Well, we just know today. How do you know what you read the Bible and Mr. White is that when

God speaks his word, he doesn't need to show you his business card.

In other words, that is no different than the Mormon who said we asked why do you believe that I've got a burning in my book that might be what we need.

And finally, both the reason why we need more than just an authority even that the faith in the

Old Testament had it because the New Testament is a better covenant established on better promises and we have a greater authority, so much so that he could say to the church if they hear you, they hear me.

Jesus does not present us with a gospel that Mr. White does. I don't have infallible authority.

Oh, I don't have infallible authority. We just get in the Scriptures and we did we pray to God. We have

God and we do the best we can, but I don't have any infallible authority. That's not the authority that Jesus Christ established in the

New Testament. He said if they hear you, they hear me and Jesus didn't open the floor for discussion when he said

God neither does his one last question for Mr.

Staples to begin with Mr. White and then we'll have a ten minute concluding statement.

Sorry, we're not able to get to all the questions that I'm sure that I don't leave before the conclusion is will will will be a very happy to see you afterwards, at least for some time, but there are ten minute concluding statements from each of our speakers.

Mr. Staples, you've made much of the fact person or group of persons that they can turn to the state of the

Lord. My question is, where were these people hiding who are able to probably end all of the arguments in ten fifty four where the

East with the West. Well, in fact, if you let me recommend a work to you by Dr.

Warren Carroll. Excellent. I think he's going to get out of the great history of our century.

He's professor, founder of Christendom College is called the found the building, the founding of Christendom.

And if you read if you are even remotely versed in the history of the church, you see that in fact, exactly that happened.

That is, the church did in fact deal with every single heresy. There was in fact

Athanasius, whom my opponent is so fond of quoting says that the Council of Nicaea, if I can find a good quote here said that the

Council of Nicaea gave us the confession arrived at this is to the bishops of Africa.

The confession arrived at Nicaea was, we say, more sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the church.

When you look at the history of the church. Certainly, Mr. White will will will point out in both.

I get so tired of hearing it and please come to our debate on papal infallibility that I get so sick of hearing about Liberia.

The job of the job is an honorary thing to be answered over and over again until the

Lutheran Catholic dialogue. By the way, both the largest body of Protestant dialoguing with Catholic Lutheran have concluded, have agreed and said that those do say nothing about papal infallibility.

They've been answered again and again and again. I invite you to take a look at Dr. Carol's book, the father most you can get a synopsis and a couple of pages and will be happy to tell you the books right here.

If you want them. I get so sick of answering these things again and again and again, and I will, but obviously

I can't do it in a couple of minutes here, so I'm going to charge you with the same charge.

Mr. White gave you earlier that is to do your homework to go home. Check out the sources and here's a novel idea.

Go to some Catholic sources rather than I'll tell you what I get a kick out of this thirty eight volume set that I'm working my way through right now.

It is incredible the Protestant commentary that Mr. White relies on in quotes over and over again are some of the most biased anti -Catholic commentary on the

Council that absolutely distort history. Mr. White, and I hope that you will be there.

I would never accuse someone of misrepresenting without being able to back up.

Mr. Staples doesn't know what commentaries I use. I'd like to show a can show me one reference right now.

Here's the book. I can pass it over to you. These alleged commentaries just want to come on and just one.

You can never use these commentaries. They are not commentary. They are tech. You never use

Dr. Percival's commentary. You never used any of these commentaries by Philip Shaft or any other scholar that is not a commentary of the builder.

Those are the documents themselves. I'm talking footnotes. I'd like you to look at them.

These are the antonyms and fathers are available electronic text in the in the web. Now you can look at them yourself.

You can examine them yourself and I quote from the sources of that frequently. Sir, I quote from means you read means, sir, have to look at the

Greek resources themselves PLG, the far -fleeing with wrecking. I'm sorry, sir, but this constant accusation of misrepresentation without documentation should not be allowed to go by.

It's unfair, sir. Now you say, well, we'll do it someday in the future. Yes, I look forward to that, but something tells me that we get that debate in the future.

We're not going to have one of the time document all the alleged misrepresentation now allegedly of misrepresentation yet interesting.

If you will go home and get volume four of the second period. It's right here in the end, and I think father in redefinition.

You'll discover that he defends the nineteen creed on the basis of Scripture. What is open authority and I see it.

No, it was the Scripture that is not a lie. That is what not enough. No, I think that Mr.

Staples said the thing for one reason, because the church tells him to.

He's not acting as a historian right now. He's acting as a faithful son of the church who believe what he told to believe, and even the church's authority goes telling what we want to read.

I'm so sick, he said, of explaining on Oregon, Liberia, and all the rest of that.

Why should you be sick of it? I've never said I'm sick of explaining all the misrepresentation.

The Roman Catholic apologists use the full Scripture. I'm I'm I'm glad to get the opportunity to explain the thing, and you see if you will simply approach on Oregon as the men of Vatican one did were most in turn into history.

You'll see why many of them had to leave the church and others just close their mouths and no longer talk about the things they talk about beforehand.

There are all sorts of errors in regard to papal infallibility in the church's infallibility, but you see

Mr. Staples can accept any single fact that can be brought against what is open authority here is that earlier.

He looked up. He said, We have authority to say that they have God in it. He said that they have

God that makes you the ultimate authority. He just proved politically. He just proved my. I'd like to immediately end the rumors that there is going to be a wrestling match between myself and Mr.

Staples after the event this evening. Thank you for being here.

You're the faithful few that survive. There are more here when you start to know that you have extra. My friend.

I think in my closing statements to refocus our attention. I ignore everything else come before and try to serve you as best

I can. The minister of the gospel to focus your attention on why we came here in the first. Many today seek what

I call the infallible. The warm content feeling of feeling you have infallible truth.

Everybody else is wrong, except you and you've been told by the authorities leave the things you want the infallible.

Yet every one of us sitting here this evening, even though the left. The foul human being.

He may think improving beyond a shadow of a doubt, but he found. We're all fallen human beings capable of making mistakes are decisions in our actions.

Again, the decision Mr. Staples made to embrace the ultimate authority of Rome was a fallible decision.

There are many who offer you infallible certainty. Rome Salt Lake Brooklyn.

But the decision to follow any one of the ultimate authority is yours and infallible.

One can never have more infallible certainty than is provided by that first decision to accept that ultimate highest authority.

Mr. Staples certainty about the doctrines of Roman Catholicism are normal. No more certain than the first decision he made to embrace the authority.

You may say, ah, but Mr. White be fair to apply the same argument both by you to have your own authority.

You chose the Bible. That's correct, right, and I'm a fun about it.

The difference, however, between Mr. Staples myself is that the

Lord Jesus Christ described this book as God speaking in Matthew twenty two.

He's observated all tradition, even though the claim to be divine to it in Mark chapter seven.

Peter said, Holy Man spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit resulting in this book and Paul said it is the very breath of God.

It is a honest often the writer of Hebrews. Please, please go home. Start at the beginning of Hebrews four.

Mr. Staples, my regular came after the context. I think Rome is not a honest of Rome is not inspired.

It is not infallible. History shows us that the tradition that Mr.

Staples wishes to bind us to has heard many times. He may be sick of explaining them and I can understand why, but it has heard all the same.

It is heard both in the person of the Pope, such as in the case of Liberia, Honorius Sixtus and a host of others and in the wider

Council, such as when the Council of Constance burned in for being an evangelical

Christian on the fourth ladder in Council. We explained earlier gave indulgence of those who take up the sword to exterminate heritage.

Just as the crusaders. Mr. Staples tradition doesn't pass the test of being honest.

It isn't infallible, but has been demonstrated to a fault.

Once you accept it for what it is not. You can no longer critically.

All facts brought up against that. All the answers all that I know

Mormon. There's answers everything about the Book of Mormon. I believe that the Smith and fifteen -second every person in this room must make a decision concerning their own authority.

I choose the God -given scriptures and I stand with Jesus Peter Paul and all the believers down the ages who've been led by the spirit of God make that you see, if you look at the word they are not what comes from the old breed like new mom spirit.

Spirit of God never ever led any person away from the ultimate unquestioned absolute final.

The scriptures. You have a choice to make

God hold every person responsible for his truth.

You have the responsibility to handle his truth properly and to obey.

What you will do with that responsibility is up to you. God says in his word that we are to be workmen.

Rightly handling the word of truth responsibility is not placed on just one man or counsel of men, but upon each one.

You can make the choice to hand over your responsibility to someone else, but that does not rid you of that responsibility.

If you are misled by that person or church or group or whoever you will not be able to say in the judgment day.

Well, God, this person told me to believe that or that person that led me. I'm really in. I've made my choice.

I'm up front. I've made a decision that this infallible thing about you.

You've heard all sorts of stuff tonight, which I don't know is worthy of your being here for accusations counter accusations.

You do that. No, I don't have to get that happens in the you unfortunately heard a lot of misrepresentations of what those for me, and I hope that as the fervor and the emotion of the evening subside, some will have the opportunity of getting the tapes and books and even by my book, one of the things that I want you, but one of the things that I want you the emotion that I've been not a bunch of people around.

You got a bunch of people in another book. You got to be glad that all that you can sit down and go.

You know, I really thought that something. How how does my position really respond with full scripture really is, and maybe you'll listen to my opening statement to read the book and you'll go.

I wonder why so many Catholic apologists use a different definition of full scripture.

There's a lot of quote -unquote Protestant apologists running around to use all sorts of weird definitions about what

Roman Catholics believe in. I join with you and saying, hey, that's wrong. We need to do that.

So why is it that it happened in reverse and shouldn't happen. Maybe you'll have the opportunity to think about what full scripture really is, and you'll be able to realize, you know,

Tim says that this life is trying to shift the burden of proof that would be reality.

Remember what the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith.

We both agree there are no rules for what the key word of the only. So where is the other foul rule of you notice that we haven't exactly had the doctrine that asked me to raise the history trace for the infallible rule of faith.

I submit to you that in the final analysis, and I'm in a wonderful position here, no matter how hard to save life.

Every word you just prove the truth of what I'm saying in the final analysis. Mr. Staples reading

Scripture, Mr. Staples reading of church history is all determined by one thing.

The church tells him what you're supposed to find the Bible. Lo and behold, you look at Matthew sixteen eighteen.

There is what you want to find your church. Well, there is the result of authority.

You have to make that decision to honestly submit to you that if you go home tonight and read the hundred and nineteen on just consider what think about what we said tonight and take all the other stuff out of the way you discover the

Holy Spirit of God needs people to put the trust in the final and ultimate authority.

Well, I said I wasn't, but I guess I'm going to have to respond to some of these charges that forgive me for getting a little emotional and saying

I'm so sick and tired of responding to these charges that have been proven so many times over and over again, not only by Catholic, but by Protestants to be outdated, bigoted big attacks on the

Catholic Church that are not founded in truth. He mentioned on how

I answered that on the radio and any honest assessment of history will tell you the

Catholic Church did not burn anyone at the stake. The Catholic Church turned over because remember, as I said at the outset, we're talking about a culture that believes that mortal sin with a serious, serious crime.

In fact, worse than murder. And guess what? I agree with that. Do you agree that mortal sin, something that will kill someone's soul is more serious than what could kill a body.

I think many of you agree with that point, and you see, we were talking about a Christian culture that believe that to do that with a capital crime that the

Catholic Church killed him. No, the Catholic Church was a voice for mercy, but a voice for truth.

And in the case of young was he handed him over to secular authority that is a historical fact, but is that is that a proof that the church is not infallible?

Absolutely not. That is not an infallible act to start with. That's an act of example in the church today.

Our Holy Father has said it bloodless means are possible. We ought to use those. That's a little bit of a shift in our tradition concerning capital punishment.

Does that mean we've changed? I'm sure some Protestant apologists are going to be saying that now all you change.

No, we haven't changed. We still objectively believe in capital punishment, but the question is whether it is prudent to carry out at this moment in time that which certainly

Mr. White would agree is taught by God in Scripture. There is a time for capital punishment.

If we were to be reduced to anarchy, let's say, and that the rule of law is dispensed with and we have to rebuild it.

Perhaps it would be a good thing to do. Encourage the death penalty once again. So young house is absolutely ludicrous as an historical proof that the church is at Liberia.

Pope Liberia. In fact, again, I encourage you to read Doctor Warren Carroll's works on this.

Liberia is one. In fact, he did sign the creed of Sirmium as it's called or Sermonium was not heretical.

It was ambiguous and there is no doubt Liberia was a was weak.

He gave in to the Aryans and he ought not to have any also condemned St. Athanasius. But folks, what

Mr. White fails to point out to you is that Liberia was a defender of Athanasius until in fact he was in prison tortured.

He was threatened with loss of life. He didn't mention that part. So you see a pope who acts with a gun to his head.

That is not a papal act. Why? Because it must be free in order to be responsible for any moral act.

Somebody holds my hand and forces me to pull the trigger. Am I going to be culpable? Of course not. Number one, the creed he signed was not was not a repeat was not heretical and number two, he was forced to sign.

He was also forced to condemn Athanasius. Secondly, when in fact another little fact that my opponent doesn't bring up when in fact later, he was brought another creed that was definitively

Aryan. He did not sign it. I'm not saying that Liberia was right in signing that first decree.

No, but I am saying that is not an example of papal error that proves papal infallibility is wrong.

Mr. White is wrong. He is doing what I told you he does with Scripture and the father's often and misrepresents them, but you examine the facts yourself.

Pope Vigilius, who condemned the famous three chapters, Theodora, Theodora, and above Odessa.

He condemned them. Yes, he shouldn't have. He didn't want to at the outset. The emperor turned the screws and he signed a condemnation.

But guess what? That was not once again an infallible act of the pope. But secondly, there was nothing wrong in what he signed.

Why? Because all three of them were heretics, but two of them had retarded and come back to the faith.

So the pope did not want to condemn them, but because of the force of the emperor, he was forced to honor.

I'm sorry. I'm about out of time. We could do the same thing with honorees and all these other charges, but I want to close folks with it by demonstrating to you.

Number one, he has never answered the original charge to show me in Scripture. He believes in full

Scripture are not made. Where does the Bible say? Where is the Bible teach that we have twenty seven books in the

New Testament? Mr. White had to go to tradition outside the can outside of Scripture in order to prove the point.

Secondly, he cannot give me what are the essentials of the Christian faith in the

Scripture. He never responded that why he can't. Why? Because if he did, you would be shocked at what he said, because he would disagree with the majority of you, my

Protestant friend, and you would see how much confusion there is in Protestantism.

Let me close with St. Augustine, who my opponent has quoted and uses as an example of a of a good

Protestant who holds to solar scriptural. And I'm quoting from St.

Augustine against the Manichaean. There are many other things which most justly keep me in the

Catholic Church. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the church, so does her authority inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age.

The succession of priests keeps me beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the

Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep down to the present

Episcopate. Boy, that sounds Protestant. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me and will attempt to find their testimony to Manichaeus.

What should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel? How would you reply to him? Were he to say,

I do not believe that what we've been debating tonight. Folks, how would you respond? I don't know if I'm going to believe that gospel.

Someone asked me that question earlier. Listen to St. Augustine, the supposed Protestant sola scriptura adherence and how his response is for my part.

I should not believe the gospel, except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

So when those in it on authority, I have consented to believe in the gospel.

Tell me not to believe in Manichaeus. How can I put consent? I encourage you to read

John Calvin's commentary on this in the institute in Calvin. I encourage you to read that and then read it in contact and you will see the length that Mr.

White, John Calvin and others will go to dismiss what is the obvious words of St.

Augustine here. Listen. Mr. White asked me to make a choice. This is what

Augustine said. So when those on authority, I've consented to believe in the gospel. Tell me not to believe in Manichaeus.

How can I put consent? Take your choice. If you say believe the Catholics, their advice to me is put no faith in you that believing them.

I am precluded from believing you. If you say do not believe the Catholic, you cannot barely use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus, for it was at the command of the

Catholic that I believe to the gospel, but if happily you should succeed in finding in the gospel and in controvertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the

Catholic who did me not to believe in you and the effect of that will be that I should no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the

Catholic that I got my faith in it, and so whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me.

Therefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the

Catholics rather than you, but if you read them some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you, not them, for they lied to me about you, nor you for you quote me the

Scripture that I had believed on those liars on the authority of those liars and we could go on, but I'm going to suggest to you folks,

Mr. White and the Protestants have been and I would think he is very good at quoting father of the church like you heard in court saying about the north.

You heard in court saying that the Navy and I refuted those quotes and we could go down and we could go to Christmas and all the other bottom line is that you do have to make a choice.

The church of the New Testament is not the Protestant church that is twenty six thousand denominations and other confusion and chaos over the central things salvation.

The church of the New Testament is a church that speaks for Jesus and that means have not.

Well, I don't have a problem, but I don't know. Thank you all.

I want to thank you for sticking through all this and please forgive me those of you that are probably understand my passion for the truth and I and I want to see, especially those of you who have left the