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

Debate Format and Speaker Introductions

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.

The Sufficiency of God-Breathed Scripture

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.

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. 1 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, 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. The 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 that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. That is, I must demonstrate its sufficiency, or in the language used in the New Testament itself, that the Bible is archaic.

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 have been corrected a number of times in the past, and let us examine the passage to see if this is the case.

2 Timothy 3, verses 16 -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 theanoustos, 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 theanoustos 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, Carl Keating, Patrick's associate at Catholic Answers, makes the same mistake in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and he repeated it again only recently during debate on this subject in Denver during the papal visit.

Newman said that if this verse proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it proves too much, for Paul is talking here only about the Old Testament, which would leave the New Testament as an unnecessary addition.

But such is not Paul's point at all. Scripture, Paul's point is, if it is Scripture at all, is God-breathed. Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon, but the nature of Scripture itself as originating in God.

All Scripture, then, including the New Testament, is God-breathed. Because Scripture is God-breathed, and hence represents God's very voice speaking, it is profitable for the work of the ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ.

We are told that the work of teaching and rebuking and correcting and training in righteousness can be undertaken due to the nature of Scripture as God-breathed. What is Paul's point? The Church is not left without the voice of God, for when the Church listens to Scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to her.

The authority of the Church, then, in teaching and rebuking and instructing is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from Scripture itself. Now, Mr. Madrid will certainly disagree, for in 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 that 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-breathed 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 note 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 words, 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 2 Timothy 3 .17 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 that 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 2 Timothy it means to fit out, that is to furnish completely.

Bauer, Gingrich, and Donker express this with the term equip. Hendrickson makes reference to a related term, catartidso, and it's used at Luke 6 .40 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've 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 equippers 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 Lowe 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 passage as completely qualified for every good deed. While Lowe and Nida give us two witnesses, I wish to direct you as well to the well-known scholarly resource by Fritz Reinacher 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, Arteas, 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, 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 have 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 devoted to God, he is not to honor his father with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Here we find the Lord providing us with the example that we must follow this evening. The Jewish leaders objected to the fact that the 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 counter-attack against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the command of God through 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 Challenge of Proving Sola Scriptura from Scripture Alone

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 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 under 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, and therefore it is false.

Tonight's debate is about truth, the truth Jesus wants for you and for me to stand firm and hold fast to. But 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 the 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 that Jesus is called the Word of God in flesh, in John 1, verses 1 through 14. The Bible speaks of God's sovereign blessings that he speaks on his people as his Word, in Isaiah 55, verses 10 through 11.

And the Bible calls the oral proclamation of the gospel the Word of God, such as in 1 Thessalonians 2, verse 13, where Paul says,. And for this reason we too 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, 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 describe the attributes of the Word of God, don't prove the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

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

Mistake number four, confusing testimony with authority. Some Protestants argue that if the Catholic Church were the official witness to God's Word, it would be over God's Word. This is false. Just because one person serves 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. 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 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.