Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? (White vs Madrid)

My name is Roger Wagner, I'm the pastor of Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church and it's a joy to welcome all of you here tonight for this debate on the question of does the

Bible teach sola scriptura. Before I introduce our speakers, let me give you an idea how the program is going to go tonight.

First of all, each of the speakers will give a 20 -minute presentation, an opening statement of their position, and then each of them will have a 10 -minute rebuttal presentation.

Then we'll take a break for about 15 minutes, give everybody a chance to get some lemonade and stretch their legs, and then when we come back, there'll be a second rebuttal period of 10 minutes each, and then a time of cross -examination.

Each of the two speakers will cross -examine one another. They'll have 30 seconds to frame a question, which they'll direct to the other speaker who will have two minutes to answer the question, and then one minute by the questioner to offer a rebuttal, and then another minute for a second rebuttal by the person asked the question.

And then there'll be a total of four questions along that format during that period of time.

Then each of the speakers will be permitted 12 minutes for a closing statement.

We're not going to invite questions from the floor. That often becomes a time -consuming operation, and I'm told by people who go to these things all the time that everybody in the audience wants to make a speech rather than ask a question.

So this is not a democracy. You're not going to get a chance to ask any questions in the program, but you will be invited if you want to stay around for a little bit at the end of the debate, talk with either one or both of the speakers.

They'd be happy to hear from you for a little while after the program. So that's the way it's going to go, and I want to introduce both of the speakers so that they can come.

And Mr. White will speak first, and then Mr. Madrid, and then we'll go on from there.

Let me introduce Patrick Madrid first of all, here sitting on the right side of the table, left side as you face us.

He is the vice president of Catholic Answers, an apologetics organization presenting

Catholic answers, as they say, to thoughtful inquirers. It's headquartered here in San Diego.

He has been active as an apologist for Catholicism, giving seminars not only throughout the

United States but in other countries as well. He's written several articles in defense of the Catholic faith.

He studied at Queen of Angels Seminary in San Fernando, California, and he, his wife, and their seven children live in Southern California.

James White, on your right, is the director of ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona.

He studied at Grand Canyon College in Phoenix and has, in recent years, been involved not only in apologetics ministries but also in teaching theology and church history in high school as well as a college level.

He, his wife, and their two children live in Phoenix. So we're glad to have these two gentlemen here to present their opposing views of this question, does the scripture teach sola scriptura, or that the

Bible alone is the authoritative rule of faith and practice for the Church of Jesus Christ?

Before Mr. White comes and gives his first presentation, let's bow in a word of prayer and ask the

Lord to bless our evening together. Lord, you are the one who has said that you are the author of truth and the enemy of falsehood.

And so the fact that we can have a debate and try to wrestle with true and false answers presupposes the existence of that truth in yourself and in your revelation of yourself.

We know, Lord, much of our world wouldn't care one way or the other because they have surrendered to a relativism that says nothing is really true and nothing is really false.

We pray that you might open our hearts to your word and spirit, that we might be taught by you even as these men set their arguments before us and we seek to bring every thought captive to your

Lordship. We pray that you will sustain them physically on this warm evening and we as well as we try to give them our careful and thoughtful attention.

We thank you that in your providence you have brought us together, you give us this opportunity to strive to understand the truth and live in it much more fully.

So we pray your blessing upon this time that we have together this evening, in Jesus' name, amen.

Mr. James White will address us first of all. Good evening, it's good to be with you.

I am very thankful to the church for allowing us to be here. I need to thank all of you

San Diegans, I understand there's a big push on to make this a very friendly city and I think it's very friendly of you to bring in Phoenix weather just for me while I'm here.

Very kind of you, except in Phoenix all of our buildings have air conditioners and you need to sort of put those two things together and that'll make things a whole lot easier.

There have always been those who have refused to give the scriptures their proper place. There have always been those who wished to add to scripture their own authority and the unique teachings that set them apart.

Indeed, Basil of Caesarea ran into some of the same problems long ago in replying to his opponents who appealed to their customs and traditions as relevant and authoritative.

He said, if custom is to be taken and proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here.

If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God -inspired scripture decide between us and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

And so we gather this evening to debate the same question. Is the Bible the sole and infallible rule of faith of the church or must we have other revelation from God?

Do we need the Book of Mormon or the writings of the Watchtower or Mary Baker Eddy or the so -called apostolic unwritten traditions of Rome?

Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith of the church?

Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening and let me begin by defining what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail.

John 21 -25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world cannot contain it.

But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith of the church.

We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the apostolic band for the scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith of the church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's truth.

First Timothy 3 -15 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. The truth is in Jesus Christ and in his word.

The church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and in so doing functions as the pillar and foundation thereof.

The church does not add revelation or rule over scripture. The church being the bride of Christ listens to the word of Christ which is found in God -breathed scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself.

Yet the apostles proved their message from scripture as we see in Acts 17 -2 and 18 -28.

And John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be apostles in Revelation 2 -2.

The apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the

Old Testament. And finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the

Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the church. What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura simply stated is that the scriptures and the scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith of the church.

All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in scripture is not binding upon the

Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith of the

Christian church. Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God breathes revelation.

Their authority is not dependent upon man, church, or counsel. The scriptures are self -consistent, self -interpreting, and self -authenticating.

The Christian church looks to the scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the church is always subject to the word and is constantly reformed thereby.

Now given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid. Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

Hence, logically, I must do the following things. First, I must demonstrate that the

Bible teaches that it is a rule of faith for the church. Secondly, I must demonstrate the

Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. That is,

I must demonstrate its sufficiency, or in the language used in the New Testament itself, that the Bible is artios.

And thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith does not refer us to any other rule of faith.

Absent a demonstration on Mr. Madrid's part of some other rule of faith, the proceeding is sufficient to establish the fact that the

Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura. Now some opponents of sola scriptura have engaged in what can only be called cheap debating tricks in attempting to force the defender of scriptural sufficiency to prove a universal negative.

That is, the less honest debater might attempt to force me to prove the non -existence of another rule of faith.

Since I am saying that scripture is unique in its function as the rule of faith of the church, some might challenge me to demonstrate that no other rule of faith could possibly exist.

To illustrate this, I call your attention to my pen. Yes, to my pen. If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would

I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement there is no other pen like this in all the universe is if I looked in all of your purses and all of your shirt pockets and in all the stores in the world that carry pens and looked through all the houses and all over the planet

Earth and the moon and the planets and the solar system and the entire universe looking for another pen like this.

And of course I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out and get a cross -medalist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine and say, see, another pen just like yours.

And he's won the debate. In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand, or he must demonstrate the existence of the other pen.

That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, it also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles themselves, the

Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us transmitted as it were from hand to hand, end quote.

Hence, I shall demonstrate that the Bible teaches its sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith of the church.

And if Mr. Madrid wishes to attempt to show us some other rule of faith, I will gladly respond to such an attempt.

Now, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based upon the inspiration of scripture.

Our primary passage this evening, I hope you have your Bibles with you, will be found in Paul's second letter to Timothy.

The gentlemen from Catholic Answers have made it a practice for years to assert that Protestants cannot provide a single verse that teaches

Sola Scriptura. Yet they are quite mistaken in this, though they've been corrected a number of times in the past.

And let us examine the passage to see if this is the case. Second Timothy, chapter three, verses 16 through 17.

All scripture is God breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

We begin by knowing that scripture is Theanustas, God breathed.

The term is very strong. I refer anyone who wishes a full discussion of this term to B .B.

Warfield's excellent treatment of it. That which is Theanustas has ultimate authority, for there can be no higher authority than God's very speaking.

All scripture is God breathed. It is common for Roman Catholic apologists to follow an error made by John Henry Cardinal Newman with reference to this passage.

Indeed, Karl Keating, Patrick's associate to Catholic Answers, makes the same mistake in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

And he repeated it again only recently during debate on the subject in Denver during the papal visit. Newman said that if this verse proves the sufficiency of scripture, it proves too much.

For Paul is talking here only about the Old Testament, which would leave the New Testament as an unnecessary addition.

But such is not Paul's point at all. Scripture, Paul's point is, if it is scripture at all, is

God breathed. Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon, but the nature of scripture itself as originating in God.

All scripture, then, including the New Testament, is God breathed. Because scripture is

God breathed and hence represents God's very voice speaking, it is profitable for the work of the ministry in the

Church of Jesus Christ. We are told that the work of teaching and rebuking and correcting and training in righteousness can be undertaken due to the nature of scripture as God breathed.

What is Paul's point? The Church is not left without the voice of God. But when the

Church listens to scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to her. The authority of the

Church, then, in teaching and rebuking and instructing is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from scripture itself.

Now, Mr. Madrid will certainly disagree for addressing this very passage less than 50 days ago in a debate on this topic.

He said, speaking specifically of verse 16, quote, I defy you to show me where it says sufficient in your remarks.

You said when you cited 2 Timothy 3, 16, you said sufficient, but that is not what the Bible teaches, end quote.

Of course, no one asserts the term profitable in verse 16 equates to sufficiency.

When his opponents referred him to verse 17, Mr. Madrid said, quote, Well, 17 doesn't say sufficient either.

17 says that so the one that belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work. That does not teach sufficiency.

Where does the Bible teach that it is sufficient? End quote. Is Mr. Madrid correct here? Well, let's see.

Verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. The fact that the Church has God's voice always present with her in God's scripture means the man of God, specifically here, of course,

Timothy. But I doubt anyone would disagree that these comments refer to all those who belong to Christ and who are a part of his body.

The Church might be complete, fully equipped for every good work. The first term to examine is the adjective translated complete, the

Greek term artios. We know that it is related in its root to the second term we will examine, the verb which is translated fully equipped, that being the verb exartizo.

Paul is here providing us with a play on word, the verb compounding and emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective.

Now, the term artios, Vine tells us, means fitted, complete. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker tell us the term means complete, capable, proficient.

That is, as they say, able to meet all demands, giving the specific citation of 2nd

Timothy 317 as the reference. One of the newest lexical resources, Loewenita's Greek -English lexicon based on semantic domain, uses the term qualified as well.

The great Greek scholar Richard Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament, said with reference to this term, quote, If we ask ourselves under what special aspects completeness is contemplated in artios, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that completeness, but involves further the adaptation and aptitude of these parts for the ends which they were designed to serve.

The man of God, St. Paul would say, should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed, end quote.

I pause only long enough to note that Paul here asserts that the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient, and qualified because he has available to him always

God's inspired scriptures. Surely here, Paul would have to direct us to any and all other rules of faith that we would need to be complete, but he does not.

But Paul was not satisfied to merely state the man of God may be artios, complete, but he goes on to define what he means.

Fully equipped for every good work. The term is ex artidso, here in the perfect passive participial form, the prefix ex having, as Robertson noted, the perfective force.

Vine tells us that here in Second Timothy it means to fit out, that is to furnish completely. Bauer, Gingrich, and Donker expressed this with the term equip.

Hendrickson makes reference to a related term, cat artidso, and it's used at Luke 640 where it is translated fully trained.

We see here then that Paul teaches that the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work.

Now what does it mean to say that one is fully equipped if not to say that one is sufficient for a task?

I've recently taken up long distance bicycle riding and I found a lovely little bike shack, a bike store where they are able to give me everything that I need, the clothes and the gloves and the helmet and the bike and the tires and tubes which you need a lot.

They are able to fully equip me for the task of riding a bike. Does that not mean then that they are sufficient as equipers for their task?

Most definitely it does. We further see that the scriptures can equip the man of God for every good work.

Now Mr. Madrid, do you not believe that it is a good work to pray to Mary? Yet the scriptures nowhere teach this.

Do you not believe that it is good to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? Yet the

Bible does not teach this. Do you not believe that the man of God should teach in the church that the pope in Rome is infallible in his teaching office?

Yet the scriptures know nothing of such a concept. We see then that the Roman position is contradicted by that of the apostle for he knew of no other rule of faith that was necessary so that the man of God could be equipped for every good work.

No other rule of faith that is than the scriptures. But finally we remember Mr. Madrid's challenge to show him a verse that teaches sufficiency.

Mr. Madrid, I would like to direct you to the scriptural standard by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a fact be established.

I first refer you to Lo and Nida's Greek English lexicon where we encounter the definition given for the semantic domain of ex artidso,

I quote, to make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something, to make adequate, to furnish completely, to cause to be fully qualified, adequacy, end quote.

They translate our passages completely qualified for every good deed. While Lo and Nida give us two witnesses,

I wish to direct you as well to the well known scholarly resource by Fritz Reinecker and Cleon Rogers entitled

Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. Here we find the following in regards to both terms here in verse 17, quote, artios, fit, complete, capable, sufficient, i .e.

able to meet all demands, ex artidso, completely outfitted, fully furnished, fully equipped, fully supplied, end quote.

Hence we see the following. Number one, Paul here teaches that the Bible is a rule of faith for he says the church's function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God inspired scripture.

Number two, we see that this passage teaches the sufficiency of the scriptures to function in this way.

And number three, we see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith, but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by his teaching on the ability of scripture to completely equip the man of God.

Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of sola scriptura is taught plainly in this passage. Mr. Madrid must be able to fully refute the information

I've provided to you to win this evening's debate. Now one might well ask, is this the only place where sola scriptura is taught?

Most certainly not, though it is the clearest. For example, we find this concept plainly enunciated in the words of the

Lord Jesus Christ when coming into conflict with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Note the words recorded in Matthew's gospel chapter 15.

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?

They don't wash their hands before they eat. Jesus replied, and why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

For God said, honor your father and mother and anyone who curses his father and mother must be put to death. But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, whatever help you might otherwise have received from me as a gift to God, he is not to honor his father with it.

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Here we find the Lord providing us with the example that we must follow this evening.

The Jewish leaders objected to the fact that disciples did not follow the rigorous hand -washing rituals of the

Pharisees. They identified this as a breaking of the tradition of the elders. They firmly believed that this body of tradition was authoritative, and some even believed that it had been passed down from Moses himself, though this surely is without warrant.

But does Jesus accept this claim of authority? Not at all. Instead, he launches a counterattack against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the command of God for the following of their own traditions, specifically in this with reference to the

Korban rule. The Lord Jesus holds this traditional teaching up to the light of scripture and finds it wanting.

In the same way, we too must hold any tradition up to the light of scripture, for no tradition is on the same level of authority as scripture.

Traditions are not God -breathed and hence are subject to examination on the part of the higher authority of scripture. Even though the

Jews believe their traditions to have authority, they are held responsible for recognizing that God speaks to them in scripture, not in their traditions.

The same is true tonight. While Rome may claim divine authority for her supposedly sacred traditions and even subjugate scripture so as to make it a part of sacred tradition, needing other aspects such as the supposedly apostolic unwritten traditions and the authority of the magisterium of the church, the person who wishes to follow the example of Christ will hold such traditions up to the light of scripture, knowing how fearful it is to be found guilty of nullifying the word of God for the sake of merely human traditions.

And so, my friends, I present to you the wonderful doctrine of the sufficiency of God's inspired scriptures. As a follower of Jesus Christ and a minister in his church,

I gladly proclaim to you the glorious grace of God in giving to the church the scriptures so that we can always be assured of hearing

God's voice speaking to us. We need not wonder about supposedly authoritative traditions whose origins are obscure and whose teachings are suspect.

Instead, we have the certainty of holding in our hands the same scriptures that our Lord Jesus described as the very speaking of the

Father himself. This is the firm ground upon which the church can stand in an uncertain and threatening world.

This is the rule of faith that constantly calls the church to Christ likeness. Let us never abandon the firm foundation of God breathed scripture, the word of God, the

Bible. Thank you. The Bible says in Proverbs 18, 17, the man who pleads his case first seems to be in the right until his opponent comes and puts him to the test.

Folks, that's what I'm here to do tonight. I'm here to test the claim of Sola Scriptura. My opponent has just given you a very forceful, a very smooth presentation of the

Protestant doctrine of the Bible alone, a case which may seem convincing at first glance.

My job is to show you why he's wrong. Mr. White has appealed, at least very briefly, to the writings of the early church fathers in an attempt to bolster his position or to to prepare your disposition to hear it, claiming that a few of the church fathers taught

Sola Scriptura, or at least by giving that implication. I will resist the temptation to bury

Mr. White under a mountain of quotations from the church fathers, proving they did not teach

Sola Scriptura. I have here 52 pages of quotations from the early church fathers, including

Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and all the other fathers that James might like to quote, showing that they did not teach

Sola Scriptura and also showing that Mr. White, if he chooses to refer to them, is misrepresenting their views, just as the

Jehovah's Witnesses misrepresent the church fathers on the Trinity. The way a kidnapper might cut and paste a newspaper to make a ransom note, he may try to cut and paste quotes from the church fathers to create the illusion that they believed in Sola Scriptura.

This ploy would be unfortunate because what the church fathers believed or didn't believe is not the subject of our debate tonight.

The subject is, does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? What the early church fathers believed is irrelevant, so I won't waste time by raising or responding to any material that's not in our discussion.

Now, many of you here tonight are Protestants. You've been raised to believe in Sola Scriptura, the notion that the

Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians. In fact, you probably take it for granted that the Bible teaches this.

So my task is to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. I don't have to prove the case for tradition.

Mr. White claims that I must be able to prove every point from Scripture alone. So Sola Scriptura itself must be proved from Scripture alone.

And if it can't be done, Sola Scriptura is a self -refuting proposition. Therefore, it is false.

Tonight's debate is about truth, the truth Jesus wants for you and for me to stand firm and hold fast to.

What is the truth about Sola Scriptura? Does the Bible really teach it? Did the apostles teach it?

Did Jesus teach it? Many approach Scripture with a predetermined conviction that the

Catholic Church must be wrong, so they search to find verses which they can cobble together in an attempt to refute a given

Catholic teaching. Their hostility to the Catholic Church often makes it very difficult for them to view the

Catholic case objectively. I would ask you to please tonight put aside any predetermined ideas you may have about Sola Scriptura, pro or con.

Let the Lord speak to you tonight through Scripture. You will see, I believe, that the

Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura. The apostles did not teach Sola Scriptura. Jesus did not teach

Sola Scriptura. And I believe that if you want to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus, you must reject

Sola Scriptura as a tradition of men. If you don't reject it, God will hold you accountable.

Protestant apologists commonly make several mistakes in their zeal to vindicate Sola Scriptura. My opponent tonight may not make all of these mistakes, but you need to know about them so that you can know how to handle them when you encounter them.

Mistake number one, if you have your notepads out, I'd ask you to write these down. Mistake number one, confusing formal and material sufficiency.

This is a crucial point in tonight's debate. It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call the material sufficiency of Scripture.

This means that Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there implicitly or explicitly, but they're all there.

Formal sufficiency, on the other hand, is the position that Mr. White is attempting to prove. Formal sufficiency means that Scripture contains all necessary Christian truth and, and this is a very important and, that Scripture's meaning is so clear that the church and tradition are not necessary to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the meaning of Scripture.

In the course of this debate, Mr. White may make the mistake of assuming that the Catholic Church rejects the material sufficiency of Scripture.

It doesn't. What it does reject is the error of the formal sufficiency of Scripture. As a

Catholic, I contend that all Christian doctrines are at least implicitly present in Scripture, but that doesn't mean

Scripture is always sufficiently clear so that every Christian doctrine is explicitly and conclusively evident.

For example, the Bible does not say that Christians should baptize infants, nor does it say that only adults must be baptized.

It simply doesn't tell us. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament assumed their readers already knew the answer to this question from observing the practice of the church, so they didn't see the need to address this issue explicitly.

Some people, such as Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, say the biblical evidence that babies were baptized in the

New Testament is good, so therefore we should baptize babies. Others, such as Baptists, Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses, say the biblical evidence shows that babies were not and should not be baptized.

Scholars on both sides of the debate admit that the biblical evidence is simply inconclusive. But if the evidence is inconclusive on this or any other doctrine, then

Scripture is manifestly not sufficient to give us a conclusive interpretation of everything that it teaches.

In fact, Scripture itself denies that its doctrines are always clear to all readers. In 2

Peter 3, verses 15 and 16, we read, Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable people distort as they do other scriptures to their own destruction.

So we see here that the Bible warns us that its doctrines can be misunderstood. They can be unclear and they can be distorted.

Mistake number two, using a hermeneutic of anachronism. Protestant apologists read back into Scripture and the writings of the church fathers, the particular doctrines they wish to find, and they ignore or explain away what they don't wish to see.

Mormons do this in their attempt to prove, so -called, that the Bible and the early church believed in many gods. Since the time the devil used

Scripture to tempt Jesus in the desert, doctrinal error has always been advanced under the guise of Bible verses.

Jesus said in Matthew 7, verse 15, Beware of false prophets who will come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath they are ravenous wolves.

Error comes packaged under the wrapping paper of Bible verses. The Aryans did it.

The Albigensians did it. The Mormons do it. And I'm afraid tonight Mr. White is doing it.

Mistake number three, thinking that the phrase word of God applies to Scripture alone. Scripture does refer to itself as God's word, but many other things are called

God's word as well. For example, we see Jesus is called the word of God in flesh in John 1, verses 1 through 14.

The Bible speaks of God's sovereign blessings that he speaks on his people as his word in Isaiah 55, verses 10 through 11.

And the Bible calls the oral proclamation of the gospel, the word of God, such as in 1

Thessalonians 2, 13, where Paul says, And for this reason, we to give thanks to God unceasingly that in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you have received not a human word, but as it truly is the word of God.

So remember, when you see tonight or hear tonight the phrase word of God, it doesn't always mean the

Bible. We have to be careful to search for the context of this verse in the meaning or the meaning of this verse in context.

Now, Mr. White will only beg the question if he tries to use verses such as Psalm 119, 89, where the psalmist says forever,

O Lord, your word is settled in the heavens. This verse and the other verses like it, which which describe the attributes of the word of God, don't prove the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

All they prove is that there is a certain attribute that the word of God has. And again, we have to know whether it's the written word of God or the oral word of God or the word of God in flesh.

Bible uses it in various ways. Mistake number four, confusing testimony with authority.

Some Protestants argue that if the Catholic Church were the official witness to God's word, it would be over God's word.

This is false just because one person serves as one as a witness to another person doesn't mean that he has an authority over that person.

I'll give you a few examples. John the Baptist testified and he testified authoritatively to Jesus Christ, the word of God.

But John the Baptist did not have authority over Jesus Christ. Same in the same way, the church as the bride of Christ recognizes

Christ's voice and serves as an accurate, faithful witness to it. But that does not mean and Catholics do not claim that the church has authority over the word of God.

Mistake number five, many say we can't have more than one ultimate authority.

On the surface, that might sound convincing, but notice that it's false when you when you look at it more carefully.

The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are equally ultimate and equally authoritative. And one gospel does not subjugate the other gospel.

The same with the prophet Isaiah and the prophet Jeremiah. Here were two prophets of God walking the earth at the same time, delivering inspired oracles of God for his people.

He didn't subjugate one prophet over another. They were both ultimate authorities in their own way.

And yet there was no subjugation. They worked harmoniously together, as is God's plan. Mistake number six, which we have already heard tonight, the attempt to shift the burden of proof, sometimes less scrupulous and honest

Protestant apologists will attempt to divert attention away from their very weak case for Sola Scriptura by claiming that the

Catholic must prove the Catholic position on tradition. The Catholic Church can demonstrate the biblical grounds for this doctrine, but tradition is not on trial here tonight.

No matter what Mr. White may tell you, Sola Scriptura is on trial. If you don't believe me, then go get the flyer that Mr.

White produced, which says, does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? That's the issue. Don't forget that.

Don't let him try to fool you if he tries to shift the burden of proof onto my shoulders, saying I must prove the

Catholic view. I don't have to. I don't have to prove the Catholic position on tradition. Mr. White or infant baptism or the papacy or even bingo.

The question is, does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Mr. White uses the pen analogy.

I find that very intriguing. He argues that to prove there is no other pen like this pen, he would have the impossible task of searching the entire

Earth, all the bookstores, all the pockets, the whole Earth. He would have to visit the moon.

He had to search all the planets in the solar system. He would have to search the entire universe to make sure that no other pen like this pen existed.

No, Mr. White. Tonight, this Bible is your universe.

This is what you have to search. You don't have to go to any other planets tonight, Mr. White. I invite you to stay right here on planet

Earth and simply show us where in the Bible the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found. Now, in our remaining moments, let's examine some key scripture passages that are frequently brought up.

Let's turn immediately to Second Timothy 316 verse 17, pardon me, 316 and 17, which

Mr. White leans so heavily upon. And let's take a look at what it really says. He quoted it for you already, so I won't feel the need to quote it again.

But I do want to quote from his book where he says, this is on page 42 of his book,

Answers to Catholic Claims. I believe that the case for Sola Scriptura is so flimsy that if you want to find how flimsy it is, you can just go right to Mr.

White's book, Answers to Catholic Claims, which purports to deal with the sufficiency or the formal sufficiency of scripture.

This book, I think, shows how flimsy that case is. Mr. White says Second Timothy 316 and 17 literally screams sufficiency.

Well, this verse is screaming, but it's only because of the way Mr. White is twisting it and his attempt to shoehorn

Sola Scriptura into it. Second Timothy 317 does not teach the formal sufficiency of scripture, folks.

It simply doesn't. It teaches perhaps material sufficiency, which I would be perfectly happy to go along with, but just because scripture contains all the necessary equipment, remember,

Paul is saying that the man of God through scripture will be equipped, will be competent, will be thoroughly furnished, as it says in the

King James, for every good work. Every Catholic says amen to that. There's no argument. But just because it will give you all the equipment that you need doesn't mean that it will necessarily make you able to use that equipment properly.

Let me demonstrate. Scripture says we must rightly divide the word of God.

That means that some people can wrongly divide it. They can wrongly use it. Some of you here tonight will think

I am wrongly using the word of God. So that, in effect, proves what I'm saying. Some people will use it correctly.

Others won't. So just having the Bible alone is not enough to fully equip the man of God in the sense that he may have all the raw materials.

He may have all the equipment, but he may not know how to use it properly. Mr. White used a very quaint example about a bike store and how the bike store can outfit him thoroughly, give him everything he needs.

Bike tires, inner tubes, helmets, and all the various things that he might need. But what about Mr.

White if you don't know how to ride a bike? Or what if you don't know the rules of the road? Or what if you don't know the proper way to handle a bike in difficult terrain or in bad weather?

The church and sacred tradition, which the Bible does talk about and will show later tonight, is in that support role.

Sure, the Bible will fully equip the man of God, but it doesn't presuppose that the man of God automatically knows how to use that scripture.

That's where the church comes in, in sacred tradition. Those are the ways that the church helps to guide the man of God in the proper use of sacred scripture.

Don't forget that point. Finally, how can Mr. White assert that Paul has in mind the formal sufficiency of scripture when in the very same epistle in 2

Timothy 2 .2, which I'm sure he'll get to later, Paul charges Timothy with handing on oral tradition, oral tradition.

One other point, Mr. White places a very heavy emphasis on Greek and Greek grammar and all of those other fancy ways of studying scripture, but they're irrelevant tonight for tonight's purpose.

Because we can take Mr. White's principle, his interpretive principle, and apply it to another passage, very similar, and find out if it works.

Mr. White says, in effect, because the Bible says it will make you perfect and complete, lacking in nothing, or perfect and complete, fully equipped, therefore, you don't need anything else.

It excludes everything else. Well, let's apply that, for example, to James 1 .4. James 1 .4,

Paul says here, let your perseverance be perfect and complete, or let your perseverance be perfect so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Now, what does that mean, Mr. White? Does that mean that if I persevere, that I'm perfect and complete, therefore,

I don't need the Bible? Does that mean I don't need fellowship? I do not need prayer? I don't need to do the good works that Paul talks about so often as those that accompany saving faith?

What about those? I do need all of those, but if the Bible is to be sufficient, if it's proved to be sufficient, from 2

Timothy 3 .17, simply because it says it will make you complete, then the Bible proves that perseverance, and by the way, the context in James 1 and 2 is perseverance and good works, that perseverance and good works will make you perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

No Protestant would accept that hermeneutic principle. I do not accept Mr. White's faulty and shabby misuse of 2

Timothy 3 .17. Mr. White mentioned the verses in Scripture, Matthew 15 and Colossians 2, perhaps he didn't mention

Colossians 2, but these are places where Jesus condemns the traditions of men. Fair enough. Traditions of men which are bad should be condemned, but not all tradition is to be condemned.

In fact, elsewhere, Paul praises oral tradition. We don't have time to go into all of these at the moment.

We'll save them for later. But just jot these down. 1 Corinthians 11 .2, where Paul says, I commend you for holding firm to the traditions just as I gave them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2 .15, Paul commands the church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they have been given, whether orally spoken or through an epistle of theirs.

So in other words, tradition is one major category, and there are two subsets in the one category, oral tradition, written tradition.

That's what the Word of God says. I'm sure we're going to get heavily into 2 Thessalonians 2 later in the night.

There are many other things I'd like to say. There are many other points I'd like to bring up, but I want to mention one thing.

Tonight, we can only cover the peaks and valleys in this debate. There is a mountain of evidence that can be brought forth biblically and historically, although remember historically is not the emphasis of tonight's debate, which can show that the

Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, that the church didn't believe Sola Scriptura in the early days. But I want you to concentrate on one point.

I'll try to give you as many as time will allow, as many reasons as time will allow, why Sola Scriptura is false.

You can only remember one of these reasons. Please remember this one. The central flaw, you might say the fatal flaw of Mr.

White's position tonight, is that unless Sola Scriptura can be shown from Scripture alone, which he has not done, simply by repairing to...

That means sufficient, folks, no more than James 1 .4 means sufficient as far as perseverance in good works.

So if he can't show this from Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura is itself unscriptural.

That means it's false. It's a tradition of men which must be rejected by everyone who wants to be faithful to the teachings of Scripture.

That's why I reject Sola Scriptura, because I love the written word of God. I don't want to see it undermined.

I don't want to see its authority corrupted or compromised. I don't want to see Scripture become the private play toy of every individual person who has some idea, whether true or bogus, about how religion should be.

That is not what Jesus intended for his church. That is not what the Bible says about itself.

The fact is, there are no verses which teach that Scripture is formally sufficient, as I'm most confident

Mr. White's arguments this evening will demonstrate. Thank you. We've had the first two presentations then of the formal statement of the various sides of the question.

Now we'll proceed to a first rebuttal of 10 minutes for each speaker. Mr. White will speak and then

Mr. Madrid, 10 minutes in answer to the presentation of the other speaker.

Thank you. I wish to immediately respond to some of the things

Mr. Madrid just said so that they're fresh in your mind, because they amazed me so. Mr.

Madrid said, all that fancy stuff about Greek is irrelevant. We're talking about the language in which

Paul wrote and the meanings of the terms he used, which was just labeled irrelevant. Mr. Madrid, I would like to suggest that you look at those languages because you made a very fatal error in your presentation.

In fact, it's interesting, you utilized one of the four passages that Mr. Keating utilized in Denver, using the term complete.

Matthew 19, 21, Colossians 1, 28, Colossians 4, 12, and James 1, 4, all used the term complete.

And Catholic answers like to say, well, see, if you're going to say 2 Timothy 3 says this, then all these other things make you complete, too.

And Mr. Madrid called it faulty and shabby work that I had done in the passage, and said that 2

Timothy 3 no more proves sola scriptura than James 1, 4. There's a little problem. None of those passages use the terms used in 2

Timothy if you looked at it in the Greek. It is a common error for a beginning Bible student to assume that an

English translation is going to utilize different words for different Greek terms. The terms used in Matthew 19, 21 is telaius,

Colossians 1, 21, telaius, Colossians 4, 12, telaius, and James 1, 4, telaius, and halakleroi.

None of them use arteons. Mr. Madrid did not even begin to address the information that I presented.

He said, it doesn't teach sufficiency, and yet I quoted you major lexical sources that said what?

Su -fi -cient. And Mr. Madrid, you don't have the authority to overthrow the meaning of those terms, no matter how much you may wish to do so.

No other passage in the Bible can be used to deflect what we said about 2

Timothy 3. Now, Mr. Madrid said that I'm trying to shift the burden of proof.

If you listen closely, I presented the position. I said, now, if Mr. Madrid wants to recognize that asking someone to prove a universal negative is impossible, great, fine, we won't talk about that.

If he attempts to prove this existence of another rule of faith, then we'll talk about that too. I left that up to him.

I wasn't attempting to shift any burdens at all. I was just simply logically dealing with the issues that are presented before us.

Mr. Madrid also said, well, you know, in regards to ultimate authority, this idea that you can't have two ultimate authorities, and yes,

I had said that. I've said that in a number of debates in the past in Sola Scriptura. You cannot have two ultimate authorities.

The word ultimate does not allow for that meaning. But Mr. Madrid said, well, look, you've got four Gospels. And Mr.

Madrid is engaging in a little shifting of the grounds here. You see, all four

Gospels have the same nature. They are Theanoustas. They together form that which is

God's revelation. And so if Mr. Madrid would like to say, well, you can have another ultimate authority, you can have these other elements of authority, the teaching magisterium, the oral tradition, then

Mr. Madrid is going to have to prove that those oral traditions are Theanoustas, or they cannot function along with God -breathed scripture.

Mr. Madrid then said, well, we can wrongly divide the word of God. And he used the example that I used, a little bike store that I go to, and he says, but Mr.

White, what if you don't know how to ride a bike? Well, some people might think that. But the problem is, we need to be focusing on the nature of that bike shop.

Because that's what the debate's about. Is it the bike shop's fault who I am when

I come in? You say, well, yes, they need to teach you how to ride. There's a little problem here. There's a little problem here.

You see, Paul says, the scriptures are sufficient for whom? Remember 2 Timothy 3?

Who's it addressed to? Non -bike riders? No. The man of God.

You see, the analogy breaks down. Because to make the analogy work, you've got to be a bike rider to go into the bike den and get your stuff.

It's the man of God who is equipped for every single good work.

And Mr. Madrid said, well, we have 2 Timothy 2 too. The very same book that Mr.

White is quoting from says something differently. Well, let's take a look at 2 Timothy 2 too. It was not read in your hearing, but I'll read it for you.

But you, my child, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these things entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others.

Joy and suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. You hear anything in there that denies sola scriptura?

But we're told, you see, well, you're supposed to entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others those things that you've heard from me.

And you need to listen to every presentation that is made by the Roman Catholic apologists because there's an underlying assumption.

You see, as soon as you hear all these passages, and we're going to take the time to look at 2 Thessalonians 2 and 15 and all the rest of that, here's the assumption.

That if you hear about a spoken tradition, if you hear about, for example,

Timothy hearing things in the presence of Paul, those things must contain information like maybe the

Immaculate Conception or bodily assumption of Mary or papal infallibility. They must contain some different data that is being passed on rather than what's in Scripture.

There's the problem. I challenge Mr. Madrid to show us any bit of evidence that any time that the term tradition is used in Scripture where the

Christian church is passing it on, that it means that what is in that tradition differs from what's in the

New Testament. That's the assumption that must be proven by the Roman Catholic for these citations, these passages to be relevant at all.

Now, did Paul teach something different in the presence of many witnesses than he taught in his epistle to the Romans or the

Galatians? It's interesting that Tertullian addressed this very passage and Mr. Madrid said he could bury me and held up a notebook.

Well, I'm not going to get into stuff like that. It's sort of silly. We can debate that if we want. But Tertullian addressed this very passage when refuting those false teachers of his day who claimed that the apostles had two different teachings.

Sound familiar? One which was open and known by all and a second secret doctrine known only to a few.

He says, but here is, as we have said, the same madness in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing and preached not any doctrine which contradicted one another but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men for they proclaimed some openly and to all the world will stay disclosed others only in secret and to a few because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee and again, that good thing which was committed unto thee, keep.

What is this deposit, Tertullian says? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? Or is it a part of that charge of which he says

I commit unto thee, son Timothy and also that precept of which he says I charge thee in the sight of God who quickeneth all things before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate that thou keep this commandment.

Now what is this commandment and what is this charge from the preceding and succeeding context that will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about some far -fetched doctrine but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other doctrine than that which

Timothy had heard from himself as I take it publicly before many witnesses is his phrase.

So Tertullian says, no this isn't some secret doctrine this isn't some oral tradition that contains some other revelation than what we have in scripture, no, no, no this is all what is taught by the

Apostle Paul and is what's taught by the Apostle Paul the same as what we have in scripture? Well I'd like to refer you to a passage look at 2

Thessalonians 3 .6 2 Thessalonians 3 .6 What do we have here?

Well it's interesting, here's one of those passages it talks about tradition or teaching 2 Thessalonians 3 .6

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we command you brothers to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching or the tradition you received from us

Oh well here is this oral tradition this oral tradition we need to keep Really? No Look back at 1

Thessalonians 5 verse 14 as well as 1 Thessalonians 4 Paul is referring back to the tradition he had already delivered to them that is in writing as we will see the term tradition normally refers to that which was orally preached but it's the same message in fact in 2

Thessalonians 2 .15 as we will see the next time we have some time together it's talking about the gospel not oral tradition somehow passed down through the

Episcopate not oral traditions that you have to have to have the completeness of God's revelation No we are talking here about the gospel itself the teaching of the gospel which of course is found in the

New Testament and so I just simply point out to you Mr.

Madrid did not even begin to refute the information I presented to you he simply said well it doesn't teach that I presented to you the references the terms, their meaning

I gave you an exegesis of the passage that you can follow along I invite you to look at it

Mr. White Mr.

White I'm reminded of Jesus' words to Martha Mr.

White you are anxious and concerned about many things but only one thing is important that you show us in the

Bible where it teaches the sufficiency of Scripture and I'm going to hold you to that tonight

I was going to say I was going to hold his feet to the fire but that might have bad connotations you know the inquisition and all that I'd like to I'd like to begin my remarks simply by just going through the few points that Mr.

White brought up and try to respond to them as briefly as I can but hopefully as effectively number one let me point out Mr. White blundered badly into error number one for most of his rebuttal period by confusing formal and material sufficiency or by perhaps not remembering what

I told him and told the audience with regard to the material sufficiency position of the Catholic Church I'll restate it again so that Mr.

White can keep that in mind the Catholic Church does not need to prove that everything that is in oral tradition is not found in the written tradition our position is that everything that is in oral tradition is in sacred

Scripture it's in written tradition everything Mr. White brought up the assumption he could bring up any doctrine he might like none of which would be the topic of our debate tonight but at some future point perhaps we could discuss where those doctrines are found the assumption for example since he brought it up I'll just refer to it

Revelation chapter 12 Mr. White it's a very commonly used passage for Catholic apologists I don't know why you would have missed that the woman clothed with the sun was seen not only by modern

Catholic apologists as Mary's assumption but also the early church fathers which Mr. White is so fond of bringing into the picture

I'd be more than happy in some future point to demonstrate in a different debate how the early church fathers viewed

Revelation 12 they exegeted that passage to mean that Mary had been brought up into heaven in a special way but that's another topic

Mr. White is resting his case on the say -so of a few Protestant Greek scholars that to me is not an infallible source of authority

Mr. White, the Bible is now I didn't mean to denigrate the Biblical language and I'm sorry that you took it that way when

I said that your argument was irrelevant what I meant was that you can use all the Protestant Biblical scholars citations that you want to show that a word means something but notice that the word sufficient came as the third or fourth definition or the third or fourth meaning that was assigned to this word it was not the primary meaning

I am not going to debate what this Protestant Greek scholar may or may not have said first of all they're

Protestant so they're naturally going to give a spin to something that a Catholic scholar might see something different in and Mr.

White might respond by saying well Greek is Greek Mr. Madrid you can't argue on the basis of ideology or politics

I'm going to save that for some future point simply because we don't have the time to go into what the Catholic scholars say on that issue so I'm not going to go into that now

Mr. White says that no other passage can be used to deflect 2 Timothy 3 .17 well

Mr. White I used James 1 .4 to deflect 2 Timothy 3 .17 in fact not really to deflect it but simply to hold up a mirror to it and show that you're misusing it you're saying that because the man of God is equipped and sure it does use a different Greek word there but the sense is that you're arguing for an implication here

Mr. White because he can be equipped for every good word therefore it implies that he doesn't need anything else now

Mr. White failed utterly to interact with my use of James 1 .4 he just simply dismissed it out of hand he said nothing can be used to deflect it

I want Mr. White to tell us why James 1 .4 cannot be interpreted under his principle to me that perseverance in good works and perseverance under persecution which is what

James is talking about why that doesn't mean sufficiency I want him to tell us about that I didn't say that Mr.

White would commit all the errors although he is prone to do so but he has committed a few of them tonight so I don't want him to read too much of what

I said about the errors into his own personal situation he mentioned that the same old argument about there cannot be two ultimate authorities one subjugating one to the other if you don't like the example of the

Gospels then I can move on to a different one what about Jesus and Scripture when Jesus was walking the earth

Jesus was and is God the ultimate authority and yet Mr.

White would have no compunction in saying that the word of God is the ultimate authority well did the Bible cease being the ultimate authority when

Jesus was on the scene in one sense Mr. White is going to have to argue if he wants to make his case stick even barely that Jesus constantly referred to Scripture as the court of last appeal well that undercuts his position because if Jesus is referring to an authority outside of himself now what does that say about Jesus was

Jesus the ultimate authority I say yes was the word of God in that sense that Mr. White wants to assign to it the ultimate authority

Mr. White would say yes well he's got a quandary there then folks because I just demonstrated two ultimate authorities

I also mentioned the prophets Isaiah and the prophet Jeremiah Mr. White failed to interact with that Jeremiah and Isaiah were both in their own sense ultimate authorities he did not address that he says that my analogy breaks down regarding the bike shop because the man of God is obviously implying that the man of God in this analogous sense can ride a bicycle well if that does not suit

Mr. White I'd be happy to use an analogy of his own choosing and that would be the analogy that he uses again on page 42 of his book

Answers to Catholic Claims he says yet the rest of the passage again here's the screaming verse literally scream sufficiency if they are not sufficient how then can they make the man of God complete fully equipped in bold print for every good work if I have the ability to fully equip someone for a military mission

Mr. White says then am I not sufficient as an equipper of course then the objection carries no weight the

Catholic objection well I'm afraid Mr. White has dug himself a little deeper in by using that analogy so I'll switch to that one if he doesn't like the bicycle one if somebody goes into the military and many of you in this room have been in the military when you get there you're issued a uniform, a helmet a rifle ammunition not all at once of course but you're issued ammunition maybe hand grenades, maybe you're assigned to a tank unit you are issued all sorts of equipment and to follow

Mr. White's analogy you're fully equipped by the U .S. military to carry out a military operation but the military also has to train the soldier to fire that rifle to know how to throw a hand grenade and when to throw a hand grenade how to drive the tank, when to duck when the bullets are coming how to thrust with the bayonet

I could go on and on I could bury Mr. White in his own analogy the fact is just because the military fully equips the soldier to carry out his mission does not mean the soldier is necessarily ready to do it he needs support things also and that is the training and the guidance the military will teach him this tactic works, this tactic does not work all of that is necessary so that the military man may be truly complete and equipped for every military work

I'll go further Mr. White is talking about how the man of God that phrase used there in 2

Timothy 3 .17 implies that the man can ride a bike we'll just go back to that for a moment let me ask you Mr.

White is Pastor Wagner a man of God in your opinion? do you think he would qualify under that rubric? if he is, then is he rightly dividing the word of God when he baptizes babies?

this denomination of Mr. White baptizes babies Mr. White's denomination does not they would say, and I think

Mr. White if he's going to be honest with us tonight would have to admit that he would see that as a misuse of God's word by arguing for infant baptism

Mr. White is in another quandary here he says, well sure, it assumes that the man of God will know how to use the word of God it doesn't folks if Pastor Wagner is a man of God and if James White is a man of God we've got a problem then and I'm not implying that either one is not a man of God, don't misunderstand

I'm simply saying that one argues for the position of infant baptism based on what scripture says the other one denies that based on what scripture says so Mr.

White's appeal to 2 Timothy 3 .17 as just presupposing that they'll know what to do with the word of God, falls flat let me give you another example what about the

Lutheran minister who believes in baptismal regeneration based on what the Bible alone says, remember

Martin Luther the founder of that denomination said sola scriptura the Bible alone, so the

Lutheran minister is going by what scripture says he believes scripture teaches about baptism he believes in regeneration

Mr. White, I can assure you, his hair will stand on end when he hears that preached by somebody because he as a

Baptist is anathema on the issue of baptismal regeneration, he will tell you in no uncertain terms that the

Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration Mr. White has another dilemma on his hands is the

Lutheran minister not a man of God now unless Mr. White is going to tell you on every issue that they agree with me on, then they're men of God but if they disagree with my interpretation of scripture, they cease to be men of God, or maybe they never were men of God in the beginning or maybe

Mr. White is simply wrong in his interpretation of 2 Timothy 3 17, he will admit to you, and if he doesn't,

I will be happy to assert it, that he is not infallible he can make mistakes how does he know that he's right on this interpretation he doesn't know he can only hope, he can only assert he can only assume, why should

I accept his fallible errant human interpretation of God breathed scripture over and above what

Pastor Wagner might say or what Pastor Nock might say or the Lutheran minister, why ask yourself that question tonight thank you alright, well nothing like a debate to get everybody's juices flowing and I'm sure you're intellectually challenged and you've already expressed your opinion one way or the other on what we've heard so far now we'll be hearing a second ten minute rebuttal presentation by each of the speakers and then we'll have the period of cross -examination where they will ask questions of one another and then the formal debate time will conclude with a closing twelve minute presentation by each one of the speakers, so we'll have

Mr. White and then Mr. Madrid come in that order and give their second rebuttal presentations now

I'd like to point out that in Mr.

Madrid's closing statements the term divide and conquer rings through my mind in regards to saying, well you've got these

Protestants to believe this and these Protestants to believe that and you see there's these contradictions between these

Protestants and so obviously it means that the word of God is not sufficient to decide such issues and we need my authority we need to believe that the

Bishop of Rome is the infallible interpreter of all these things and I go, well that's interesting but it certainly doesn't seem that Paul believed that but notice what

Pat is trying to say, he's trying to say that the word equip has to actually mean resulting in our inerrancy when you think about it, that's what he's trying to say you see if it's possible for Christians to disagree on an issue then obviously you need some other authority and I have to laugh because I think of Roman Catholics that I talk to, every single one of them says, hey my position is the

Roman Catholic position, let's say he's a heretic but I'm a Roman Catholic yes indeed there is just as wide a variety of opinions amongst those who call themselves

Roman Catholics and appeal to the same document as there is amongst Protestants so it doesn't seem to solve anything for Mr.

Madrid if he says, well you need this other authority because even with that other authority, Roman Catholicism ends up with all these different opinions and all these different understandings of their own documents that they then write to somehow interpret the scriptures it's very interesting that that takes place the point is not that what 2

Timothy 3 .16 is saying is that all you gotta do is read the Bible and you'll be inerrant, that's not what it says the man of God must do what?

he must study he must work he must immerse himself in the word of God what does

Psalm 1 say? the godly man does what? he meditates upon the word, how often? day and night why would you need to do that if it was just simple, right on the face of it no, there's work required but that doesn't mean that I need the

Bishop of Rome to stand up here and say you must believe what I say, but that's exactly what the Council of Trent said, let me read it furthermore to check unbridled spirits it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine distorting the holy scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presumed to interpret them contrary to the sense which

Holy Mother Church to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the

Fathers even though such interpretation should never at any time be published but Trent says we have this authority and we alone we need to remember what

Rome is really saying, it's interesting, John O 'Brien a Roman Catholic writer and a very popular book called The Faith of Millions said far from being hostile to the

Bible, the Catholic Church is its true mother she determined which are the books of religion from the many writings circulated and inspired in the early

Christian ages and assembled them all within the covers of a single book, she is not the child of the Bible as many non -Catholics imagine, but its mother she drives neither her existence nor her teaching authority from the

New Testament and the same writer had earlier written great is 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 no that isn't what

Paul said, and please keep in your mind, Mr. Madrid said oh those are Protestant scholars but he hasn't shown us one single shred of lexical evidence from any source,

Catholic, Protestant, or Atheist to refute the definitions of Arteas and Exar Tisla I've given to him and if he cannot he loses the debate it's that simple now,

Mr. Madrid said well, Mr. White you need to look at James 1 .4, you need to tell us how do you understand

James 1 .4 I mean you just pointed out that the same term isn't used in James 1 .4

that's used in 2nd Timothy chapter 3 well it may be important that we understand that it is a different term and hence it has different meanings and it's interesting to me

Mr. Madrid is sort of Catholic answers corollary to myself in the sense that we both deal with Mormonism in fact

I'm going to be heading up to the General Conference of the Church, Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints right as soon as I leave from here heading up there to debate two

BYU professors on radio about the doctrine of God and it's interesting, one of the passages that Mormons like to use in regards to the doctrine of God is

Matthew 5 .48 and this is one that Pat knows real well be therefore perfect as your

Father in Heaven is perfect same term is used in Matthew 5 .48,

it's used in James 1 .4 and now how would Mr. Madrid explain what Matthew 5 .48

is saying to a Mormon, well he'd say well you need to understand here that we're not talking about identity to be perfect as your

Father in Heaven is perfect does not mean that we become gods the term telios refers to something else, it refers here in this context to having a fullness of moral attributes because we're talking here in Matthew 5 it's a sermon on the mount

God the Father is perfect in that way and we are called to be perfect morally and so the context determines the meaning of the passage well it's the same thing in James 1 .4,

perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, what is that? we're talking about sanctification we're not talking about the man of God in the church of God teaching and exhorting and rebuking we're talking about in a man's personal life the completion of the work of sanctification in him we are being what?

conformed to the image of Christ and when one is like Christ one is telios one is perfected by them so the point again is we need to look at the context of passages and in 2

Timothy chapter 3 what's the context? the context is the man of God functioning as the man of God in the church of God doing what?

teaching, rebuking exhorting, etc. and Paul says the scriptures are able to sufficiently equip the man of God to do this the scriptures are sufficient and in light of this then

I point out again the scriptures do not present to you the concept of papal infallibility the immaculate conception or the bodily assumption of Mary even though Rome says you must believe these things now if it is a good work for the man of God to stand in the church of God and teach those things we have a contradiction between Roman teaching and scriptural teaching now

Mr. Madrid said that I was constantly confusing formal and material sufficiency go back and listen to the tape this is all being taped this evening

I was just discussing the things that Pat himself had brought up and then he brought up Revelation chapter 12 he said well this is

Mary I'd like you all to read Revelation chapter 12 I'd like you to take a chance to look at it this evening and you'll find out yes modern

Roman apologists definitely say that this was Mary you will find that you're certainly not forced to that conclusion but even if you said you were he did say that well this is always how it's been understood

I think any of you that are familiar with the early church know that that is not the case at all that is not the case at all that's just simply untrue now we then went back to this ultimate authority issue and Pat said well okay let's use a different analogy let's talk about Jesus in the

Bible is Jesus the ultimate authority or is the Bible the ultimate authority and again

I have to point out to Mr. Madrid what is the nature of scripture the very first comments

I made to you this evening was what the doctrine of soul scriptura is based upon what the inspiration of scripture that scripture is

God breathed now when Jesus teaches who is he he is

God what are his words you see there is no difference in regards to the nature of what the

Lord Jesus teaches and what the word of God teaches so Mr. Madrid wants to use this argument that he has to show us that the teaching magisterium of the church and the oral tradition are

God breathed or you cannot join them together and of course

I don't believe that he wants to attempt to do that he says hey we would be glad to do that I am here to tell you

I am glad to accept that challenge right now anytime that he wishes to do that Mr.

Madrid wishes to undertake to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine tradition he has an open challenge for me before you all to do that anytime that he wishes to do so I wish to refocus in the last 30 seconds of my time our attention what is the thesis this evening does the bible teach the doctrine of sola scriptura

I have shown you two passages 2 Timothy chapter 3 and Matthew chapter 15 that present this doctrine I have gone into the passage

I have exegesed them I have given you solid biblical reason for accepting that truth so far all

Mr. Madrid has been able to say in regards to that information is well those are protestant sayings we must hold to the topic of this evening the bible does teach sola scriptura thank you

Winston Churchill the former prime minister of the country of England used to have very sharp conversations at times with other public figures one of whom was

George Bernard Shaw the great playwright once Shaw wrote to the prime minister and he in this little note he said dear

Mr. Churchill enclosed are two tickets to the opening night of my latest play one for you and one for a friend if you have one now the prime minister wrote back he sent the tickets back he said

Mr. Shaw I regret that I cannot attend the opening night of your play however

I would like to attend the second showing if there is one now I bring that up because it's a clever jest it's a clever quip but it doesn't

I don't believe do justice to the relationship that existed between those two men I'd like to reverse that tonight and simply say that Mr.

White and I are not here to give you a presentation or some sort of a beauty pageant about who is the more forceful the more colorful debater what matters is as Mr.

White was kind enough to point out just a moment ago does the bible teach sola scriptura now he made an awful lot of claims the last one

I think I need to address first he said that all I did in my last ten minute rebuttal was to say that Mr.

White has not addressed has not shown us any of these verses well Mr. White I did an awful lot more than that I brought up a lot of arguments that he neglected to deal with I asked him about the man of god issue

I could see why Mr. White would want to avoid that issue I could see why he wouldn't want to maybe have to publicly say well in this case

Pastor Wagner is wrong or Pastor Nock is wrong and I'm right because ultimately that's what he would be forced to say

Mr. White is confusing the issue by telling you that he goes by God's infallible inerrant word which it is of course he's confusing the issue when he says therefore that's all

I need and I know what to do because two things are at work number one he's presupposing that he is the man of God that is spoken about in 2

Timothy 3 .17 and 3 .16 that's a presupposition and he actually has to assert point number two that if you misuse scripture you are not a man of God because that remember was the fundamental argument that he brought forward when he didn't like my bike riding analogy let's move forward he talked about dividing and conquering well

I find that amusing it was not dividing and conquering Mr. White it was simply explaining the fact that Protestantism is a house divided in fact it's not even a house it's a collection of individual people living all over the landscape theologically none of whom agree in every detail about what scripture means they all claim to go by the

Bible alone Mr. White leveled a snide remark about the papacy that the Pope in Rome was what the

Catholics looked to I find that interesting because he tied Paul into that and if you read your Bible Mr.

White you'll notice that in Galatians 1 .18 after Paul had converted to the true faith where did

Paul go he went to Peter he made a journey to go see

Peter why would he do that what would be the point of it I think it was because he wanted to check his doctrine against what the church taught not just against what he knew in the

Old Testament he talks about the Catholics as being divided no Mr. White that's not true there are individual

Catholics who may say and do any given thing he brought up the fact that there are people who would say that I am a heretic well there are a lot of people who will call me a lot of things some of them

I can't repeat tonight but the fact is what an individual Catholic may or may not say about what the church teaches is irrelevant

Mr. White is confusing the issue here as he's done on so many other points I can bring you

Denzinger the Incaridium Symbolorum which Mr. White may have in his research library there the church's doctrines are formally spelled out he has

Ludwig Gott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma I can go to what the church officially teaches and say

I don't care what my opinion may be or any other person around me who claims to be a Catholic may be

I know what the church teaches I may not like it I may disagree with it but at least

I know what it teaches how many of you can do that with Protestantism I defy you you can't sir

I defy you to go to Evangelical Bookstore in this town actually in San Diego and look at all the different books with all the different opinions dealing with Fundamental Doctrine there is not just a panorama of different views there are fundamental disagreements over key life or death issues that affect the

Christian that are going to have an effect on his eternal destiny and I brought up two of them and Mr.

White neglected to deal with either one because I think he doesn't know how to answer it Baptismal Regeneration and the

Baptism of Infants I'm not equating the two as having equal importance I can bring up many other examples and I'll do that later in the evening the fact is

Mr. White has no answer to that he can only say that he goes by what his opinion is of Scripture that is a misuse of the

Bible that is not what Jesus intended for Scripture Mr. White is unfortunately part of that vast majority of people out there who see the

Bible as their private play toy now if that sounds pejorative I'm sorry but that's the fact Mr.

White will quote the Bible to teach what he wants to be taught he will teach what his position is over against what other

Protestant ministers say with equally good credentials say who are also going to the word of God it boils down to a dispute over Mr.

White's opinion versus their opinion I don't think that's what Jesus intended for his church he says that I can't refute the

Greek translations well of course I didn't bring a Greek library with me tonight I didn't bring all sorts of linguistic apparatuses to throw at you to try to build my case based on what this scholar or that scholar might say

I brought the Bible I believe in going by what God's word says and Mr. White's position you have to remember is he wants to have it both ways because he's telling you on one hand

Scripture is sufficient well that means that Scripture is perspicuous that you can look at it and see what it means and that you can tell what the

Bible means Mr. White is then saying well not in this case because in this case you need

Greek lexicons and you need this scholar to prove what this word means and that scholar to prove what that means if Mr.

White is going to be consistent he has to argue for the perspicuity of Scripture if it's sufficient formally for all doctrine it must be able to on the face of it tell us what it means

I don't believe Mr. White can prove that especially in the area of baptism regeneration Mr.

White has I'm afraid once again straight off the course I'd like to bring him back to it in fact

I think that he's going to drive smack dab into a brick wall at this point and that brick wall is the canon of Scripture this is an insurmountable problem for Mr.

White's position let me tell you what Mr. White is up here tonight waving his

Bible around quoting Bible verses telling you what the Bible means how does he know what the

Bible is these 27 books in the

New Testament from Matthew to Revelation we'll just stick with those for the moment since we have a dispute over the

Old Testament where did these come from how does Mr. White know that these are inspired how does

Mr. White know that Matthew wrote Matthew now I've listened to his debates obviously I prepared for this one by looking at the things that he wrote and hearing the things that he says and very often he'll come back with the thing well

I don't need to know if Matthew wrote Matthew I mean I know that it's Scripture Scripture testifies to me it is self -authenticating is one of his favorite arguments

Scripture in one sense is self -authenticating but in the sense that we're talking about here tonight as far as its formal sufficiency is concerned it is not self -authenticating

I would defy Mr. White to read the letter to Philemon or 3rd John and tell me what in those letters screams out at him this is inspired then

I'd ask him to take a look at the book of Chronicles maybe the first 12 passages or the first 12 chapters and tell me what about those genealogies is leaping out at him and saying this is inspired folks,

Mr. White Mr. White Mr. White is a thief Mr.

White, in the context of this debate tonight, he has stolen a tradition from the

Church, from the Catholic Church which met in councils Rome, Hippo, Carthage Carthage again, the

Pope Pope Damasus these were in the late 4th century the

Church officially defined what the canon of Scripture was Mr. White accepts that if he didn't accept it, he wouldn't have these 27 books in his

New Testament but he won't admit that, he claims that Scripture is sufficient well let me ask you, ladies and gentlemen where does the

Bible give us an inspired table of contents where does it tell us which books belong and which don't and the reason this question is so important and the reason

Mr. White can't answer this question is because it sinks his argument.

Mr. White's position is there is no revealed truth outside of Scripture the canon of Scripture is part of revealed truth, folks that is part of God's revelation to the

Church. If God's revelation is in Scripture, it is also his revelation includes what

Scripture itself is there is an example Mr. White wanted an example,

I just gave him one of a tradition that is not contained in Scripture which is part of divine revelation and which is binding that's not in Scripture Mr.

White has to deal with that issue. Thank you very much Mr. Madrid assuming that teaching that the

Pope is infallible is something that the man of God would do in the Church, could you please explain how in light of 2

Timothy 3 .17 the Scripture equips the man of God for every good work how the Scripture equips you to teach this doctrine let me ask you to restate

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your question ok, I'll repeat it given that we would assume that teaching that the

Pope is infallible is a good work how in light of 2 Timothy 3 .16

-17 it says that the Scripture is able to thoroughly equip the man for every good work how is it that the

Scripture equips you to teach the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope ok, if I understand your question correctly let me answer by saying that one of the good works that is implied it's actually explicated there is teaching sound doctrine and part of sound doctrine part of the full counsel of God Mr.

White is the authority of the Bishop of Rome now I know that you do not accept or agree with the various Bible verses that can be brought forward by the

Catholic apologists to support that position that simply makes my case the Catholic is using

Scripture in its proper method in the proper method that Jesus intended in harmony with what the

Church has always taught and in harmony with the tradition and authoritative teaching that the Church has handed down therefore this doctrine or pardon me, this verse assists me as a man of God in teaching sound doctrine

I don't have to rely on my own private authority on what I think the Bible means I could be wrong, you could be wrong

I'm able to look at the context of Scripture in the overall life of the Church and see how the

Church interprets it. I go further and say that the very fact that you asked that question at least the implication of that question proves my point you're saying that the

Catholic position on the biblical authority or the authority of the Bishop of Rome the Catholic position based on Scripture is erroneous.

You're saying and I've heard you say it many times in debates with Gerrymatics and other things that you've done, that the

Catholic position is simply wrong that these Scriptures don't in fact teach that well that proves my point.

If Scripture were sufficient, formally sufficient Mr. White, because remember I did say it was materially sufficient, if it was formally sufficient, then there would be no dispute if Scripture could interpret its own meaning for us, there wouldn't be this debate tonight.

Pastor Wagner would not be holding to a doctrine of infant baptism which you reject that very fact disproves your question about, or your claim about the formal sufficiency of Scripture well, first of all of course, the point is the teaching of the infallibility of the

Bishop of Rome is a traditional teaching it comes from tradition primarily it is not found in Scripture, you'll never find a reference to the

Bishop of Rome or anything even regarding that in Scripture. The other church didn't believe it, and I've debated that I'd be glad to have more debates on that but notice what was again just said, and I did address this in what

Mr. Madrid said, I didn't, but I did what we're hearing here is if the Scripture was sufficient to equip the man of God then there would be what?

no difference of opinion everybody would just lockstep in line right?

that's what we're being told. Seemingly that not only ignores issues that are not central to the faith but also ignores the fact that as I said, the man of God studies the

Word of God and men of God have to study the Word of God throughout their entire lives and they grow and they learn and that's the work of the

Spirit in their lives seemingly someone wants to short -circuit that entire process well

Mr. White I'm not trying to short -circuit anything, I'm simply trying to explain that you have failed

I guess to grasp the importance of your question because it undercuts your position the fact is

God's inspired Word does not rely on us for its inspiration, does not rely on us for the fact that it is inerrant and I believe that it is inspired and inerrant but the fact is

God gave us the Scriptures to be used now that presents a problem because you want to use

Scripture and the only way you can use it is by interpreting it now you are fallible

God's Word is infallible the problem is that when you approach God's Word and you want to interpret it over against what the

Church teaches you are in effect saying that your interpretation should be trusted what

I want to know is why should your interpretation be trusted you talk about men studying for many years of course, Catholics study for many years for the same purpose, the fact is ultimately it comes down to your opinion against someone else's opinion we know what the

Bible says Mr. White I don't think

I've ever said the phrase Mr. White so many times in one space of time Mr.

White, I'm holding in my hands a copy of an early work known today as the book of Thomas the contender, you may be familiar with it it claims to have been written by the

Apostle Matthew you probably would not say that this book belongs in the

Bible since if I opened your Bible it would probably not have it there, given your assertion that Scripture is self -authenticating would you regard this book as self -authenticating, bear in mind that it attempts to authenticate itself by claiming to have been written by the

Apostle Matthew thank you there are a whole host, of course, of books that were written primarily in the 2nd century in fact almost all of them were written in the 2nd century that were the

Gnostic Gospels and various other sundry things like that and we're being asked well why don't you accept this as Scripture and this all goes back to the whole issue of canon and we need to recognize what's being said here, we're being told that well you see, without a church authority you can't know what the canon is without an infallible authority you can't know what the canon is and of course

I would say well how do you know it's an infallible authority to begin with because we get on this long big circle that goes around and around and never actually answers the question because you might find another church that claims infallible authority up in Salt Lake City that has a different canon than that which

Mr. Madrid has but they claim infallible authority too but anyways we're told that you're asking me why don't

I believe this is a part of Scripture well first of all I believe canon is determined by inspiration

God is the author of canon men are not the author of canon God is the author of canon so God is the one who determines the canon so the issue is not whether this is canonical

Scripture or not the issue is how do we as human beings recognize what is and what is not inspired

Scripture we need to keep these things straight because there are some people who seem to think that the church has the power to create canon and of course it does not no council that ever sat in the early church said we by choosing these books are making them canon

Scripture they didn't say that but in 18 seconds how do

I know it's not well first of all it's contradictory to that which is Theanoustas and since it is contradictory to that which is

Theanoustas and inconsistent therewith it is not testified historically I do not know of any

Christians who have ever accepted it and it is contradictory to that which we have I don't accept it as Scripture as well you shouldn't

Mr. White as well you shouldn't I found it interesting though that you part of your appeal was to tradition that nasty word again you said it was not testified to by other

Christians it was not historically regarded as Scripture here again Mr. White is engaging in filching

Catholic tradition but not admitting that he's actually taking it he's using it but he won't admit it that's what's going on here second of all he says that without an infallible authority you can't know what the canon of Scripture is well

Mr. White says this is our only infallible authority so Mr. White here it is where does the

Bible tell you which books belong in the Bible he can't tell us that there's no inspired table of contents it's like a dog chasing his tail he says

I believe Scripture is inspired it's the only infallible authority well how do you know that infallibly well because the Scripture well where does the

Scripture tell you that well it doesn't so he just has to go around in circles and he won't admit that he's appealing to the tradition of the

Church the fact is he has those 27 books in his Bible because the Catholic Church said those were canonical

I have the 27 books in my Bible because the Holy Spirit of God inspired them long before there was ever a man in Rome who called himself the

Vicar of Christ no argument the Catholic Church did not give me that in any way shape or form he says

I'm filching tradition no I love the term tradition I just don't like the way that the Roman Catholic Church centuries after the early church redefined it to substantiate their own claims to supremacy the meaning of the tradition in the

Bible in the early church is not what the Roman Catholic wants to say it is it means something completely different and then he said that I had somehow said without an infallible authority you can't know or something

I didn't even recognize what I supposedly was saying but we go back again to what's being said

Mr. Madrid wants to say well look you need some golden index here and you're relying upon me to tell you what scripture was no

I am not relying upon him to tell us what scripture was in fact I think what I'll do is in my next question

I'll illustrate exactly how that is Mr. Madrid I've asked you this before how did the

Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2nd

Chronicles and Isaiah were scripture would you like me to repeat that no

I think I got that thank you it was a short question I appreciate that the

Jewish man of the 50 year period before Christ knew that that scripture 1st and 2nd

Chronicles was inspired because the Old Testament church the Old Testament people of God regarded it as scripture it had the official the official pedigree of coming from a prophet and it had always been regarded that way so he would draw not only on what his internal testimony was of what those books say but he would also base what his position was on what the constant teaching of the

Old Testament people was as well as you remember they regarded 1st and 2nd Chronicles as scripture what

I'd like to ask you though is whether we do it now or later is your choice later in the debate tonight is you keep going back to this issue of how does he know how does he know well that's what

I want to throw back at you how do you know let's take it out of the Old Testament Mr. White and bring it back to the

New Testament and let's settle once and for all how you know that those 27 books belong in scripture how do you know that they are inspired how do you know

Matthew wrote Matthew what is your authority to know that if you reject the

Catholic Church that's fine that's your choice I think you do so at your own peril but if you reject the

Catholic Church you have to furnish us with some other source upon which you base your testimony that those words in that Bible in that 27 books of the

Bible are God's words now I don't want to give anyone the false impressions I think you were trying to do earlier that I believe that the

Catholic Church rendered the Bible as inspired you know that that is not the Catholic position you know

Mr. White that the Catholic Church does not claim to have made the scriptures canonical simply because she chose those books that is a red herring it's false the

Catholic Church recognized the canon of scripture the Catholic Church received the word that was given to her by her husband

Jesus Christ and as you well know the church hears and recognizes the voice of her husband so it is the church

Mr. White I assert who recognize I have 24 seconds left in two minutes

I have 24 seconds left the church recognizes her husband's voice and she preaches that to the world you if you reject the church have to fall back on something else what will it be?

the moratorium fragment? the church fathers? this or that Greek scholar perhaps?

your own personal interpretation? you have to tell us tonight what your authority is Mr. White first of all in sticking to the actual question that I asked we are told that the

Old Testament Church told the man that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were scriptural and that's interesting because does that mean the

Old Testament Church was infallible? that is the same Old Testament Church that taught the Corban rule I think yes same

Old Testament Church oh that's the same Old Testament Church that rejected the apocryphal books and never believed they were scripture but you say that they are scripture and place someone under the anathema that doesn't believe those things so I guess the

Old Testament Church was fallible which means you can have a fallible authority to tell you that something is scripture because it's very plain that the

Lord Jesus held everyone responsible for reading scripture in fact in Matthew chapter 22 he said to the

Sadducees but about the resurrection of the dead have you not read what God said to you? and Mr. Madrid keeps saying what's your authority?

listen to what Jesus says he says to these men have you not read what God said to you?

if God speaks to you you do not ask him for his business card God's word is

Theanoustos God breathes it's his speaking Mr. White the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is beating the wrong dead horse and I've used that line before I wish you had learned from it you keep going around in circles you're not giving us an answer you keep saying that when

God speaks to us we know his voice well that's what I said about the church and you'd have to show me where the Bible teaches that every individual

Christian is going to know and recognize scripture in all its parts you talked earlier about the

Mormon now the Mormon claims that God is witnessing to him so Mr. White this is

Mormonism that you're putting forth here you are asserting that it's your burning in the bosom perhaps if you like that phraseology it's what you think should be in scripture

I think ultimately you are like a ship cut adrift you have no anchor you have no way of knowing other than the fact that you accept the church's teaching but you won't admit it my question

Catholics and Protestants agree that scripture gets its authority from God and the Holy Spirit witnesses as to which books belong in the

Bible whether he does so corporately to the church or privately to each individual

Christian would you admit that by appealing to the witness of the Holy Spirit and by your earlier admission that you would appeal to the testimony of the early

Christians would you admit that you are appealing to something outside of scripture itself to know with an infallible certitude what scripture is it's very interesting that when sola scriptura is debated against Catholic answers and others when the sufficiency of scripture to function as the sole rule of faith of the church is established the argument very quickly turns away from the actual topic of the debate to the issue of well canon we need to talk about canon they are related issues but they are not the same issues and I'd be glad to debate canon issues with Mr.

Madrid too but now Mr. Madrid is saying well look you're violating sola scriptura you're violating sola scriptura with regards to the canon of scripture itself and hence you are being inconsistent

Mr. White well you know it's interesting we could with much profit point out that Mr.

Madrid's argument is completely circular and in fact I will do that in just a moment but am

I violating sola scriptura to say for example with reference to the gospel of Thomas or some other gnostic writing of the second century that well you look at it and you see that it's contradictory to scripture you see that no one's ever believed that it was scripture and hence you don't believe that it is scripture is that a violation of sola scriptura it seems that Mr.

Madrid is saying that it is I am but is it isn't it interesting that the apostles themselves utilize the very same standards for example

Paul and recognizing that there is truth outside of scripture quotes from pagan philosophers but no one would think that Paul was by citing a pagan philosopher adding it to the canon of scripture was he no he didn't accept it on what basis on what basis did

Paul or Peter or any of the others not accept the Old Testament pseudepigrapha because Rome said it didn't belong there because there was some infallible

Old Testament church not at all they did not utilize the standards Mr. Madrid does well

I guess that's your admission then that you can't answer the question Mr. White you've talked for two minutes about this and that and the other but you haven't given us the answer to how you know which books belong in the

Bible you still haven't said why or how you know those 27 books Mr. White do have an awful lot to do

I think with the issue of sola scriptura because if you want to get in front of this audience and say the Bible alone you better be prepared to tell us what the

Bible is and why you accept these books as scripture that's what I want from you sometime tonight just remember you have a room full of Catholics here tonight there are some

Protestants but you have a lot of Catholics now is your golden opportunity now you can show the Catholic world how you arrive at this infallible certitude about scripture using something outside of scripture to get to it that's your dilemma and I'm going to hold you to it before the end of the night it's very interesting

God worked with God's people in the Old Testament to bring about the canon of the

Old Testament a canon different than Rome's by the way and now we're being told well God just couldn't do that in the

New Testament and Mr. White if you don't have some infallible authority then you can't recognize what

God says now he wants to make it sound as if what I'm saying is that I go out and I get in the lotus position and I go mmm is

Matthew scripture and that's not what I'm talking about doing I believe that God does work with his people

I believe God has always worked with his people and I do believe that people recognize that which is inspired but I believe he works with his people as a whole and they never take that to mean that they have the authority to create canon but Mr.

Madrid none of this has anything to do with the fact that scripture says it is sufficient to equip the man of God and I'm going to hold you to that this evening my question well since we're holding each other so much tonight

Mr. White I'd like to I would like to hold you to that issue but I would like to inject another element into it which

I alluded to before the gospel of Matthew nowhere claims to have been written by Matthew yet you believe it was your bible says it was written by Matthew we could select

John for that matter or Mark how do you know that Matthew wrote Matthew and what is your basis for accepting it is it because he was an apostle or because he had the approval of an apostle in the case of Mark or Luke how do you know and what is your basis well again we stray from the topic but it is a common question that is utilized all the time how do you know

Matthew wrote Matthew well the question I have to ask is since Matthew doesn't say that Matthew wrote

Matthew do I have to know Matthew wrote Matthew where is it said that to be born again you must believe that Matthew wrote

Matthew I haven't found that and since the book of Matthew doesn't say that Matthew wrote

Matthew I don't recall being told that but I had to believe that now do I believe

Matthew wrote Matthew yeah I do you know why well because I studied the issue and I go back and I look at history and it is the same thing with what was said earlier on Mr.

Madrid you accused me of violating sola scriptura because I exegeted the passage in the original languages look he is not appealing to the bible he is appealing to the

Greek well what was the bible written in that is what I am appealing to and so when we look at John for example you can examine the gospel of John and you can there is all sorts of discussions about pointing out how the identity of John is revealed in the gospel of John but there are people who disagree with that and it is not something that means that I am going to call that person a non -christian if he says well

I am not really sure that Matthew wrote Matthew now did Matthew write Matthew I certainly think so there is a lot of good evidence for it but does that mean

I am violating sola scriptura to go back and examine church documents and examine church history and examine the text no of course not that is not a violation of sola scriptura at all and so you say well you can't know that Matthew wrote

Matthew unless the Roman Catholic Church tells you so well that is interesting because Christians knew or claimed to know that Matthew wrote

Matthew long before there even existed a Roman Catholic Church or even existed anyone in Rome who claimed to infallibly speak for Christ so I am not sure how they managed to do that and if they did manage to do that why can't

I do that tonight well I guess I can't Mr.

White the reason it is a commonly utilized question by Catholic apologists is because you can't answer the question just as you just demonstrated right now you don't have any answer for the question how do you know

Matthew wrote Matthew you gave us your hunch based on your study although you have never seen the actual autographs as I have not seen them none of us in the room have seen them you are relying by the way on that transmission of an accurate transmission of those documents by the

Catholic Church Mr. White down through the ages it can be demonstrated very conclusively you are relying on that but you won't admit it you say you don't have to know why or if Matthew wrote

Matthew I find that very curious because if it can't be established that this book was written by an apostle under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit then why should we accept it at all after all this book claims to be written by an apostle under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit and you say we should not accept it and I don't see any substantive difference between your saying we shouldn't accept this one, we should accept this one the only connection is that you don't have an answer for either

I'm tired of being said that I'm not answering questions after I answer them but I'd invite anyone to take this book, take a look at it then read the

Gospel of Matthew and reflect upon Mr. Madrid's recent words that there is no difference in what

I'm saying between the two, there most obviously is but again, who is the author of Canon?

I have answered the question who is the author of Canon? Man or God? Is it Rome or God?

It is God so the question is recognizing that which is inspired not infallibly determining who wrote the

Gospel of Matthew now I would return the question to you, in fact that's what I'm going to do in just a moment you keep saying, well without this infallible authority,

Mr. Madrid how do you know that Rome is infallible? I can show you fallible fallible, fallible statements over and over and over again from Roman Pontiffs they've made many mistakes, so how do you know that?

You're using an argument that is circular and goes back to what is used by everyone in saying, well I'm the final authority, which is really what

Rome is claiming. I have no idea where we are in this

Who's asking what question? We each have one left? I think it's three, but I think it's going to work out that's fine

I have both of us down as already having asked three so I think we're on the third I have us down as having asked three, but not answered all three

I only have myself down for having asked two well we're confused so I get to ask one question he gets to ask one question

Mr. Madrid, I guess I'll just have to ask the question I was just asking. I'm going to turn the question back on you now

I don't think it's necessarily on sola scriptura, but how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is an infallible authority upon which you can trust?

This is how I know, Mr. White this is how I know I can look independent of what

I see in scripture. In fact, I'm not even going to treat scripture as an inspired document for the moment just for the sake of argument

I'm going to look at whether or not a man named Jesus Christ lived. Can I prove that historically?

Yes Can I prove that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead and appeared to many people who as eyewitnesses claimed that he died and rose from the dead

I can prove that. In two minutes I can't prove it for your satisfaction, but I think we would all agree that those things are true

I can demonstrate through non -Christian, unbiased sources, in fact sometimes actually biased against the

Christian position, that Jesus Christ instituted a church We can look at the writings of these early

Christians, not only the apostles, but also the men and women in the post -apostolic era

I can look at the scripture and see what, just independent of whether or not I believe it's inspired

I can look and see a description of the church that Jesus established. All of you know the verse in Matthew 16, verse 18.

On this rock I will build my church, and the gifts of hell will not prevail against it. Mr. White and I would argue all night long over what the rock is but the fact is,

Jesus established a church The next point is as I look at scripture, I see that the church is described as having certain functions certain attributes certain characteristics, certain jobs that it has to perform.

And I can compare and find out, well historically yes I can show that that was done through the writings of the scriptures. So if I believe that Jesus is

God, if I believe that his promise is true, that he founded a church then I have to say, this is the next step

I have to say, does that church is there a church today which fits that description, which is doing all the things that Jesus said.

If that's true if I can find that, and I have by the way it's the Catholic church, then I know that what is described here in this book is the same church that I see today

So when that church tells me Jesus said in Luke 10 .16 He who listens to you, listens to me

He who refuses to hear you, refuses to hear me When I hear that church speak I know that it's Jesus speaking through the church

God's ultimate authority is determined at the end of the longest most easily contested chain of syllogistic arguments

That is how one knows God's ultimate authority is through a process, you'll find this on pages 126 and 127 of Carl Keating's book,

I think very well done by Mr. Madrid in repeating it, that ends with a statement, the Catholic believes in inspiration because the church tells him so, that is putting it bluntly, and that same church has the authority to interpret the inspired text

That is where the ultimate authority lies I could dispute quite easily, factually biblically and historically every single step that he just took

That is what's being presented to us tonight as to what's to replace the

Christian recognizing that scripture is God breathed and hence accepting God speaking in his word in the testimony of Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority, that's what we're to replace that with?

I certainly hope no one's willing to do that Well Mr. White, I think the essence of this argument boils down to one issue

In my case, I'm appealing to the church to tell me that this scripture is what it claims to be, that Matthew wrote it, that it came from the other apostles in the case of the other books, that it's trustworthy that it's inerrant.

I believe all of that because the church witnesses to me that it's so But I see that you have the same problem

You, in a sense, caricature or have a pejorative comment for my appeal to authority Well you have the same problem

Mr. White You appeal to this authority independent of its context in the church and say that you just know that it's inspired

You just know that it's God's word But you haven't given us any evidence for that knowledge. You haven't pointed us in any direction other than your own personal studies or your biblical lexicons that you may turn to But as we all know

Mr. White, you are fallible Your opinion on this issue

I'm afraid is worthless I want to know with certitude, and I would much rather trust the church that has taught for 2000 years than what you say about the

Bible Mr.

White, you claim that sola scriptura is true or pardon me, your claim that sola scriptura is true requires you to say that all apostolic traditions or at least all of them that the church was meant to have are recorded in scripture

Thus far tonight, you have merely made this bare assertion But you haven't cited any verses to prove it.

Please cite for us some texts from scripture requiring us to say that all such traditions, which are mentioned in 1

Corinthians 11 .2, 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 and elsewhere, that all these traditions must all be written down It seems

Mr. Madrid you weren't listening to my presentation very closely because I mentioned 2 Thessalonians 3 .6

uses the term tradition refers back to what Paul had written in 1 Thessalonians 5 .14

There are numerous others such as 1 Corinthians 11 .23, 2 Thessalonians 2 .5,

and 2 Peter 1 .12 through 15 that all make the same point and that is that what is preached by the individuals who are writing for example

Peter or Paul what was preached to them is now consistent with what they themselves are saying for example in 1

Corinthians 11 he says that he has delivered to them that which he also received. He has delivered it to them in both ways, as 2

Thessalonians says he has preached it to them, he has written it to them But I want everyone to notice what's going on here.

It is the Roman assertion that what is in these supposed apostolic traditions is different than what we have in the

New Testament. Mr. Madrid just said, it's my job to prove that what's in the apostolic traditions is the same.

Well wait a minute who here is alleging the necessity of some separate source of information?

It's Mr. Madrid. And so I want to turn it around to Mr. Madrid and say Mr. Madrid, I challenge you to demonstrate on the basis of scripture that what is in your supposed traditions is what is referred to in places like 2

Thessalonians 2 .15 or 2 Timothy 2 .2. That is a challenge that I have laid before many of Roman Catholic apologists and have not received an answer to.

It is the assumption that underlies the position. And that assumption must be addressed. The simple fact of the matter is we see in 2

Thessalonians 2 .15 that the tradition he speaks of there is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And you can't tell me that's not contained in the pages of scripture.

And hence you show me a tradition sir, an apostolic tradition that is binding upon Christians that is not found in the pages of the

New Testament. Show us that apostolic tradition that we are told we must follow, we must accept. And then we can move from there.

You done? Okay Mr. White. I'd be happy to take you up on your challenge. And here it is. This canon of the

New Testament is part of apostolic tradition. It's not found in scripture and it is binding. You believe in a closed canon.

You believe that if we add to the Word of God we are committing a sin. You would believe that the

Mormons are wrong for adding the Book of Mormon to the Word of God. You believe that Revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle.

Now, the canon of scripture is something that I promised to hold you to which you have not yet addressed.

At least you haven't given us an answer. That is one apostolic tradition that is binding,

Mr. White and it's not found in scripture. It's divine revelation and it's binding on the consciences of Christians who, as you would say, hear the voice of their

Savior and recognize it. There it is. How do you answer that? Well, it's quite easy. First of all, an apostolic tradition must exist since the time of the apostles.

But Mr. Madrid has been telling us that we had to wait until the end of the 4th century before we knew what canon of scripture was. How did that happen?

Remember apostolic traditions in 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 are what? Already delivered. So your timing is all off.

Furthermore, Mr. Madrid, the apostles did not believe that the apocryphal was inspired scripture, so you seem to be going against what you call a binding apostolic tradition.

And so I say no, you have not accomplished this. I challenge a Roman Catholic. Show me where the

Thessalonians were taught the bodily assumption of Mary. Trace it through history. Show me where the

Thessalonians were taught these doctrines that Roman Catholicism has defined on the basis of tradition. Show me where they believed in the authority of the bishop of Rome as the infallible vicar of Christ.

The early church did not believe that. They had no idea of that doctrine, and yet Paul says these traditions were already delivered.

Where are they? No, they were not already delivered. Rome has made them up over time. Can I beg your indulgence?

Just use a Catholic phrase there for a moment. Could we take a two -minute stretch break at this point before we go to the closing remarks?

Would that be okay? I need to make a fast exit for a moment, and I'll be right back. We now have closing statements by each of the speakers, 12 minutes each.

Some of these debates I hear applause all the way through. I appreciate us not having done that.

I don't know whether that's awkward for you not to be able to applaud, but we'll thank the men at the end for their able presentations of their positions, but I think it's enabled us to concentrate better not having those breaks, so I thank you for that courtesy.

Mr. White and then Mr. Madrid with their closing statements. My reason you didn't applaud is because you're too hot to move your arm.

No problem. Okay.

This evening we gathered to debate the issue, does the Bible teach the doctrine of sola scriptura?

And I have, in my opening statements and in my comments that came afterwards, done my best to make sure that we stick to that subject, but despite my best attempt, we have gone into all sorts of other issues.

We've gone into hearing the Roman Catholics say that he believes the Bible is inspired because the Church tells him so, which of course is a very circular argument.

The Church claims that authority because it appeals to Scripture, but it says Scripture is inspired because the Church says so, and so it's a very circular thing.

They've tried to call it spiral, but it's spirals or circles depending on which direction you look at it from. So it's a very circular argument that's being presented to us in regards to the position taken by Mr.

Madrid, and I would like to submit to you, please think about it, all the objections that Mr. Madrid has raised in regards to canon issues, so on and so forth, are, if they are valid, are equally valid against himself.

An argument that you use, when turned on your own position, destroys your own position is not a valid argument.

It's not a valid argument. What have we heard from Mr. Madrid in regards to my presentation on 2

Timothy 3, 16 -17? Well, we've heard, well, you're trusting in Greek lexicons.

No, I'm not trusting in Greek lexicons. Mr. Madrid said that I brought all this fancy Greek stuff, but Mr.

Madrid brought the Bible. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with a little bit of Aramaic thrown in there for good measure.

The New Testament was written in Greek. And all I did was I went to what

Paul said and demonstrated that what Paul said teaches the doctrine. Mr.

Madrid has provided us no counter -citations. He's provided us no reason to think that the

Protestant scholars that I cited were in any way unfair, biased, going overboard.

He's provided us with no Catholic scholars. They say, oh no, that's not what our tizzo means. He's provided us with none of that.

At the beginning of the debate, I laid out what I had to do. I had to demonstrate that the Bible is a rule of faith that teaches it's sufficient to function as a sole rule of faith, and that in fact teaches that it does function in that way.

And I did those three things. So what was Mr. Madrid's response? Well, he's gone off after every other topic there is to go after.

Canon issues, and well, how do you know that type of situations? It's like, well, wait a minute. Let's go back to what the

Scripture said. And the Scripture says that the Scriptures are sufficient for the man of God for doing the works of God.

Now, I want to take the time, since I promised it over and over again, to walk you through a passage that I think will help us to understand this.

And this is 2 Thessalonians 2 .15. I hope you'll turn with me there. Even though it's late in the evening, I hope you'll still turn with me there.

Starting at verse 13, But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren loved by the Lord. For God chose you from the beginning for salvation by the sanctifying work of the

Spirit, and through faith in the truth unto which he called you by our Gospels, that you might share in the glory of our

Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, either by word or by letter of ours.

And what do we have here? This is really the primary passage that is utilized by Roman apologists to defend the concept of the oral tradition.

We're told, we'll see, what you've got here is you've got oral tradition and you've got written tradition. The two -fold tradition, just like we've always been saying.

This is a command to stand firm and hold fast a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers.

There is nothing future about the passage. The Thessalonians have already heard what

Paul has preached. This is a single body of traditions that is taught in two ways.

Orally, that is when Paul was personally with the Thessalonians and he preached to them, and by epistle, that being the first letter to the

Thessalonians. Now what does orally refer to? For the Roman Catholic to use this passage to support his position, two things must be established.

First, that the oral element refers to a specific passing on of revelations of the power of the

Episcopate. And secondly, that what is passed on is different in substance from what is found in the

New Testament. With reference to the first issue, we know that the context of the passage is the gospel message itself.

Look again at verses 13 and 14, and how Paul speaks of God's work of salvation in the gospel.

The traditions of which Paul speaks are not traditions about Mary or papal infallibility.

Instead, the traditions Paul is talking about is simply the gospel message itself.

Note what he said in his first epistle to the Thessalonians about what he had spoken to them. And for this reason, 1

Thessalonians 2 .13, we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

This is God -breathed revelation. And notice also that if we do a terrible thing and look at the

Greek of this passage, the term stekate that is translated as standing firm, here in 2

Thessalonians 2 .15, is used by Paul elsewhere. For example, in 1 Corinthians 16 .13.

1 Corinthians 16 .13 notice what it says. Be on your guard, stand firm in the faith, be men of courage, be strong.

Paul exhorts the Corinthians to stand firm in what? In the faith. And that is the context of his statement in 2

Thessalonians 2 .15 as well. There is nothing in the passage that even begins to cause a person to think, well, what

Paul taught orally, that's what he must have taught them about the oral traditions about Mary and the

Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption, and papal infallibility even though there probably wasn't even a bishop in Rome at the time, but he passed it on anyways and then that was passed on down to the power of the

Episcopal. That is what we're being asked to believe. And I don't believe it. And I don't have any reason to believe it.

The same thing happens when we look at Matthew chapter 23. Another passage that is frequently used by Roman Catholics in regards to the issue of, well, here's a passage that violates sola scriptura.

In Matthew 23 you have the discussion of Moses' seat. It has been alleged the concept of Moses' seat in Matthew chapter 23 1 through 7 is the passage that I would ask you to read.

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

But is this sound exegesis? Is this passage being properly understood when used this way? First, we note that the passage has spawned a plethora of differing understandings among scholars, including

Roman Catholic scholars. But a few items immediately remove the Roman apologist's interpretation and application from consideration.

First, Moses' seat refers to a seat in the front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading the scriptures.

There are some scholars that dispute that, but most say that that's the case. Synagogue worship, of course, came into being long after Moses' day, and so those who attempt to make this an oral tradition going back to Moses are engaging in wishful thinking.

Beyond this, we are here only speaking of a position that existed at this time in the synagogue worship of the day.

Are we truly to believe that this position was divine in origin, and hence binding upon all who would worship God?

It certainly doesn't seem the New Testament church understood it this way because the New Testament church did not adopt it and did not have

Moses' seat. We first note interpreters such as Jeremias and Carson who view this passage as engaging and biting irony.

Read the rest of this passage, and it is harsh, harsh stuff. The Jewish leaders have presumed to sit in Moses' seat, suggested by Merckx, Moulton, and Zahn, focusing on the use of the aorist tense, the verb, to sit.

They sat themselves in this place, but not properly. Such an understanding is entirely in line with the context, but I am more prone to accept

Gundry's understanding in which he says the following, So long as sitting in Moses' seat qualifies the speaking of the scribes and Pharisees, all things whatever does not include their interpretive traditions, but emphasizes the totality of the law.

They do keep their traditions. They do not practice what they speak while sitting on Moses' seat. Hence their traditions are not in view.

Though elsewhere Matthew is concerned to criticize the scribes and Pharisees' interpretations of the law, here he is concerned to stress the necessity of keeping the law itself.

As usual, his eye is on the antinomians in the church. So what do we have here? Jesus simply refuses to overthrow the current form of worship that is engaged in the synagogue at this time, because there is nothing in it like there was in the

Corban rule that violated the scriptures. But we know from Matthew chapter 15 that all traditions were held up to what standard by the

Lord Jesus Christ? Oh, but the Roman Catholic says, Oh, those are human traditions. Ours aren't. The Jews didn't believe the

Corban rule was a human tradition. The Jews didn't believe the Corban rule was just a human tradition.

They didn't believe that the rules in Matthew chapter 15 about washing hands, those were the traditions of the elders.

They have divine authority. Rome claims the same thing.

And I say to you, we must take their traditions and examine them by scripture just as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 15.

For example, the Roman Catholic pontiff has taught the following, and I guess this would fall under the concept of sacred tradition.

Consequently, we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the

Roman pontiff. That's interesting. There were hundreds of years when there was no

Roman pontiff. All you say, Oh, there's always been a bishop of Rome. Well, that's not actually the case. Sometimes there were three.

But the point is there were hundreds of years when the bishop of Rome never claimed what Rome teaches about him today.

So how could anyone have been saved? I don't know. The point is, you examine what this thing says in light of what?

Do you just simply bow down before it and say, Well, that's my ultimate authority, so therefore I accept it. Or do you examine the tradition in the light of scripture and do what the

Lord Jesus said to do in Matthew chapter 15. The debate this evening was on whether the

Bible teaches sola scriptura. Not on canon issues.

Not on how the church recognizes inspiration. And the reason that I focus so much in my presentation upon that very issue is because basically

I knew that's what Mr. Madrid wanted. At least I thought so. Mr. Madrid didn't want to go off into all sorts of church history stuff and so on and so forth.

And so I focused my presentation on where the Bible teaches it. Because Catholic answers keep saying,

Show us one verse! And when we do, what do they do? What has been the response in showing

Mr. Madrid the one verse? The response has been, Well, that's just Protestant scholars.

That's just, that's fancy Greek. I brought the Bible. No. My friends, remember the thesis of the debate.

Ask yourself the question, has Mr. Madrid refuted 2 Timothy 3 16 -17 and Matthew chapter 15?

If he has not, no matter what other neat things he said, he has not actually engaged the debate.

That is where it lies. And I'm going to challenge him to again, in his final closing statements, focus on the issue and deal with those passages.

Thank you very much. I'd like to close my remarks with a word of thanks.

First of all, to all of you for your patience in this warm room. There's still air. I know it's been uncomfortable for all of us, but I'm grateful for your sitting here and being willing to wade through all of these arguments.

I'd also like to thank you, Pastor Wagner. I know that hospitality is hard to come by these days, and I appreciate you inviting us into your church this evening.

I need to cover a couple of points of old business before I move into my formal remarks. First of all,

I want to clarify something that I think Mr. White misunderstood. I did not earlier in the debate issue a challenge to him for another debate.

And I don't want him or anyone else to make the mistake of thinking that I am thundering challenges to debate.

I said earlier that that issue that we had talked about could be debated at a future point, but I didn't specify by whom.

So please don't misunderstand that remark, because I think Mr. White did. Second of all, I have not gone after all sorts of other issues.

If you remember, I am not the one who brought up the chair of Moses. I am not the one who brought up tradition.

I am not the one who brought up the church contradicting itself. I am not the one who brought up any of those things. Mr. White did.

None of those things have to do with whether or not the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. He obfuscated,

I'm afraid. He brought up issues which he claims are related to whether or not the Bible teaches

Sola Scriptura, but I don't think they are. And yet, the fundamental issue that has to on which his position has to pivot is can you tell me with a certainty what the

Bible is? And Mr. White has failed, utterly failed to give us an answer as to what his reason is for knowing that those 27 books belong in the

New Testament. We're not talking about the canon of the Old Testament, Mr. White. We all know that there's a dispute on that issue. Let's deal on the issue that we do agree with, the 27 books of the

New Testament. He has not answered that question. Don't forget that. Mr. White likes to, in his closing remarks, say that I did not stick to the issue and that I did not deal with his translation or interpretation of 2

Timothy 3 .16 and 17. I did deal with it. And as he's fond of saying, roll the tapes back for yourself and look at what

I said. And look at how I showed that he was misapplying the meaning he was seeing a meaning in 2

Timothy 3 .17 that's not there. That he was saying that it implies that the man of God is sufficient yet he excludes the role of the church in helping that man of God properly use that equipment that he's given.

Oh yes, I did answer that question. I did deal with that verse. And Mr. White can say anything he wants, but really the burden of proof tonight is not on me or him, it's on you.

Because you're the one that has to stand before God someday. You're the one who has to be judged on the basis of whether or not you accepted his word or rejected it.

You've heard the truth tonight about sola scriptura. You've heard that it's false. You've heard that it can't be established from scripture.

No matter all the fancy gyrations and all the other things that Mr. White engages in, he simply has not proven the issue.

At least he has not to my satisfaction. I don't believe he has proven it to the satisfaction of any honest person in this room who is willing to say is there a verse which teaches sufficiency?

2 Timothy 3 .16 -17 does not teach sufficiency, folks. I think we've shown that. Second of all,

I think Mr. White, as I listen to his arguments, he's very reminiscent of Wile E.

Coyote. I feel like the roadrunner tonight. Here we have Mr. White as Wile E. Coyote springing all these traps for me, trying to bring me down.

He's got this acme box of anti -Catholic arguments that he can use. But notice that just like Wile E.

Coyote, Mr. White is thwarted at every turn. He holds up the Bible and says this disproves

Mr. Madrid's position, but he can't even tell us what is in the Bible, whether or not it's supposed to be there. He can't tell us with certainty what the

Bible is and how he knows that that is the Bible. He unbelievably spent a lot of time in 2

Thessalonians 2 .15, so in my remaining moments let me please just address that. Mr. White made a number of errors, a number of blunders.

Let me point out a few of them. Number one, he argues that oral tradition must be separate from Scripture. No, that's not the case.

If he had been listening carefully, he would have heard what I said in my opening remarks, that the Catholic position is the material sufficiency of Scripture.

Everything that is taught in oral tradition is found at least implicitly, if not explicitly, in Scripture.

Now Mr. White may dispute the Scriptures that I'll bring up to prove those doctrines, but that's a different issue. The fact is it doesn't have to be separate from Scripture.

It doesn't have to be different. It doesn't have to be something that's outside of Scripture in the sense that he is talking about.

Second of all, he asked for examples of revelation which is binding and which is found outside of Scripture.

I gave him several. One of them, which he hasn't answered, is the canon of Scripture. That's an apostolic tradition.

The reason it's an apostolic tradition is because the apostles told the church, hey, I wrote this book. That sounds to me like an apostolic tradition,

Mr. White. And it was preserved by the church. And Mr. White follows it and he accepts it, but he won't admit it.

That's the key thing for you to remember. In 2 Thessalonians 2 6 and 7,

Paul alludes to something that he doesn't explain. He says that there is something restraining the man of lawlessness.

And then he says to the Thessalonians, you know what I'm talking about. I don't think Mr. White could establish from Scripture alone what

Paul was talking about. That's found in tradition. The early church fathers were very clear that what Paul was talking about was the rule of law, civil law, civil society, and the order that it establishes is holding back the man of sin.

And we could debate that issue, but that is, in fact, an apostolic tradition that is preserved outside of Scripture. Mr. White says there's no evidence that Paul intended for all traditions to be continued.

But Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2 15, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you have been given.

Now, I want to address that, because I think that's where Mr. White really fell. Number one, the word that Paul used there is paradosis.

That implies handing on. That means handing on. The Latin word, the

Latin cognate for that is tradere, the Latin infinitive verb. And that means to hand on.

So the very word that Paul is using implies the continuation of this. Mr. White would be hard -pressed to harmonize his interpretation of this passage with Paul's express command to hand on tradition in 2

Timothy 2 2. How is he going to explain that? Paul says, hand on this tradition.

And it's oral. We're not denying that Scripture is part of tradition. We're not denying that Scripture is part of the tradition that the

Church handed on. Mr. White is denying that oral tradition plays a part, but he's going smack dab in the face of what

Scripture says. Finally, Mr. White, you made a lot of emphasis about the word stegate.

And you said that if, or at least you implied, that this means that this oral tradition is not to be handed on any further.

It was once for all delivered, and that's it. Well, notice the problem with that. If this disproves the continuation of handing on this oral tradition, it also disproves the handing on of the written tradition as well.

Because in that passage, Paul says, stand firm and hold fast to both. Stegate.

Stegate. Stand there. Hold on to it. So if that disproves the transmission of oral teaching, it also disproves the continuation of written teaching as well.

The problem of the canon was brought up many times. Mr. White did not address that. I think that in my closing remarks,

I'd like to focus on something that all of you are familiar with and all of you know, at least down in your heart of hearts, is at least an indication that Sola Scriptura is not true.

You can open your yellow pages when you get home tonight and look at all the different so -called Bible -believing denominations which claim to go by the

Bible alone, none of which agree on not only the essentials, not only the non -essential issues, but also the essential issues.

Salvation. Can you lose it once you get it? What about infant baptism? What about the Lord's Supper? What about baptism regeneration,

Mr. White? Whole segments of Protestantism disagree with you on that issue. What about tongues and prophecy and miracles?

B .B. Warfield, one of your mentors, wrote vociferously against that. Many Protestants hold to it.

What about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Luther and Calvin believed in her perpetual virginity. Mr. White doesn't. There's confusion reigning among Protestantism.

All of them claim to go by the Bible alone, none of them being able to meet entirely on what the Bible means.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1 .10, I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Sola Scriptura has been a blueprint for anarchy, folks. Just trace the historical record back to the time of the

Reformation and look at all the competing sects that have arisen. In my final minute, I want to say that I didn't come here to win arguments.

I came here to share the truth. I came here to invite you all to the fullness of the truth which is found in the

Catholic Church. And I'd like to use the words of a famous Catholic apologist,

Edmund Campion, who was a priest. He was formerly a Protestant and he converted to the Catholic Church. He wrote this letter and I hope you'll give me a couple seconds over if I go over 10 or 15 seconds.

12 minutes left? Okay. Oh, I said it at 10. Okay, so I have 2 minutes left.

I would like to use his words to make my own tonight because I know that many of you are not

Catholic and I know that many of you run the risk of going to hell if you do not accept the truth that Jesus Christ is offering to you.

If you leave this room tonight and you suppress the doubt that may be in your heart about what

Mr. White is saying tonight or the questioning that may be in your heart about whether or not the Catholic Church is the true church, you have to answer to God at some point.

You don't have to answer to me or Mr. White. I'm inviting you to consider, to study, to pray about the

Catholic position. No, Mr. White, I don't mean that in the Mormon sense of the word. I mean that in the Biblical sense of the word.

Here's what Edmund Campion said. I say this to all of you and I also say it respectfully and with some affection for Mr.

White. Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven for you daily by those

Catholics around the world, those Catholic apologists whose posterity shall never die, which beyond the seas, gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose, are determined never to give you over, but either to win you for heaven or to die upon your pikes.

Be it known to you that we have made a league, all the Catholics in the world, whose succession and multitude must overarch all practices of the

Protestant world. We cheerfully will carry the cross you shall lay upon us and never despair for your recovery.

While we have a man left to enjoy your tyburn or to be racked with your torments or consumed with your prisons, the expenses reckoned, the enterprises begun.

It is of God, it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted, so it must be restored.

If these my offers tonight be refused and my endeavors can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigor.

I have no more to say, but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, who sends us his grace and set us at a chord before the day of payment.

To the end we may at last be friends in heaven when all injuries shall be forgotten. I pray tonight that you don't leave this alone here and that you continue to search for the truth.

And I hope to see all of you in heaven someday. Thank you very much. Let's thank both our speakers for their presentations.

And we do thank you very much for coming. It has been a warm evening. Let's not just be polite to the crowd, but really this is for your benefit.

Both of these men spent a lot of time and energy and effort on your behalf to lay these matters before you.

So let's close with a word of prayer and then we will pray for a safe journey home for everyone as well.

Lord, you are the one that judges the thoughts and intents of the heart. You are the one who lays us open and there indeed wrestles us into submission that we might confess and live the truth.

Lord, this particular issue may not be on the top of each one of our personal agendas when we think about our walk with you at this stage.

But we thank you for these men who have labored to lay these concerns before us and that both of them have demonstrated an urgent concern not just to win debates, but to persuade people.

And we pray that we would be persuaded by you and that we would walk in the truth.

Thank you for preserving us even through the course of this evening as we've given our attention. We thank you for sustaining these brothers.

Surely they will be weary after their efforts. And we pray for all of us as we journey to our homes that you will give us your blessing and continue to guide us as we confess the truth and as we walk in it.