Abridged Version of Papal Infallibility Debate With Robert Sungenis

This is the Dividing Line broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 in the metro Phoenix dialing area, or toll free across the United States at 1 -866 -550 -3915, that's 866 -550 -3915.

And now, with today's topic, here is James White. Good afternoon and welcome to the Dividing Line this afternoon. My name is Rich Pierce and I'm sitting in for Dr. White today as he does some traveling back in New York State.

And in the meantime, today I've got a special treat for you. It arrived yesterday, the tapes from the debate in October with Robert Syngenis over the subject of papal infallibility. It is a special treat for us to be able to hear excerpts today of that debate.

I'm going to put it out there right away, not the whole debate, but this is a little bit of a teaser. And there is so much of it, I want to get right to it. And so Mr. Syngenis will be beginning his remarks as he affirms the doctrine of papal infallibility.

You'll hear the introductions, the whole works, and we're going to get right to that right now.

Papal Infallibility and the Catholic Claim to Authority

I'm Bob Syngenis. I'm happy to be here to defend the Catholic position on this very important topic. Just to let you know a little bit about myself, I was born and raised a Catholic for 19 years. And after that, I was a Protestant for 18 years.

And eight years ago, I came back to the Catholic Church. And I'm happy to represent the Catholic Church's teachings. And I can safely say that I know both sides of the issue, having spent equal time on both sides.

I do run an organization, and it's called Catholic Apologetics International. And we teach and defend the Catholic faith across the country and internationally with books and tapes and lectures and debates like this and all kinds of things.

We have an internet site, and you can call us up anytime, day or night, and we'll answer your questions about the Catholic faith. And feel free to do that if, after tonight, you have any questions about what's debated.

So with that, as far as my education, I was educated more as a Protestant than I was as a Catholic. So I went to a Protestant seminary. I graduated from there, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

And so I'm very familiar with Protestant doctrines, how you think, what you believe, and why you believe them. And I hope tonight to maybe give you the other side of the story. Thank you.

It is good to be with you this evening. My name is James White. I'm the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I teach for the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

I'm an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and author of a number of books, two of which which are relevant here, The Roman Catholic Controversy and Mary, Another Redeemer. And our work with Alpha and Omega Ministries has given us the opportunity of engaging, and I believe this is about the 28th or 29th, moderated debate like this on the subjects of Roman Catholicism and giving an answer.

And so I really do appreciate the hard work that has gone into making this evening an opportunity for us to address this very important issue.

In 1870, Pope Pius IX said in Pastor Aeternus, quote, it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals.

And that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves not because of the consent of the church. Now there are certain criterion for papal infallibility that are listed here.

Let me go through them for you. Number one, the pope must be speaking in his recognized role as teacher for all Christians. Number two, that he precisely defines a doctrine, not merely give general teaching.

Number three, that the definition concerns only matters of faith or morality. Number four, that the definition is commanded to be believed and obeyed by the whole church. And number five, that such teachings are irreformable and not subject to denial from the church.

Without these criterion fulfilled, the Roman pontiff does not speak infallibly. If only a percentage of them are fulfilled, then the Roman pontiff is not speaking infallibly. Does this infer that when the pope does speak infallibly that he can and has taught error?

Well, this is one of those have you stop beating your wife questions that takes a little more than a yes or no answer to answer. God gives each man a measure of wisdom. Moses, for example, was a great man and had a great amount of wisdom from God.

With that wisdom, Moses made many great decisions for the people of Israel. He commissioned 70 elders with a proportionate amount of wisdom to help in making these judgments. Solomon too had great wisdom.

He saved a baby's life from the treacherous hands of a barren woman by using his wisdom. Yet no one would say that Solomon or his decisions were infallible. In the end, although things are a little different today, we still go by the same principle.

In his ordinary teaching, the pope will use his God-given wisdom to lead the church. John Paul II, for example, has written many encyclicals and letters and has spoken about the faith on countless occasions to the world.

Like Moses, his judgments are trustworthy and demand the assent of God's people. When he writes, he writes with authority. When he speaks, he speaks with authority. Yet not every sentence of an encyclical, for example, if diagrammed and analyzed, would show that everything the pope said was absolutely without the slightest tinge of error.

But in such teachings, not every word or phrase has to be infallible in order for the general teaching to be in line with the general truth of the Christian faith, which was passed down through the fathers and the previous popes and councils.

But things are very different when the pope speaks infallibly. Speaking infallibly means that not only is the general teaching correct, but every word, every phrase, every sentence used to arrive at that truth is without error, for it is a precise definition of a specific issue.

To give you an idea of this in a conciliar document, the Nicene Creed is infallible in every word, every phrase, every sentence it proclaims. There is not a single item that is subject to error. Christ is begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and so on and so on. In the same way, when Pope Pius XII defined the assumption of Mary in 1950, all his words were without error, for they defined a specific issue and bound people to that issue under threat of anathema.

In cases like these, similar to God's other intrusions into human history, the Holy Spirit miraculously protects the Church from producing any error. In my next section, I will explain the biblical basis for this Catholic teaching.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Question of Authority

Why are we here this evening? Why would someone such as myself desire to debate the subject of papal infallibility? Quite simply, it's because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you may ask, what do you.

Mean?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the reason why we have this debate this evening. Fundamentally, the differences that exist between what I believe is biblical Christianity and the Roman Catholic system of belief comes to the issue of authority in defining what the Gospel is.

It was only a few years ago that I debated another Roman Catholic apologist by the name of Jerry Matitix. And in the course of our debate on the doctrine of Mary, Mr. Matitix very boldly proclaimed that the bodily assumption of Mary, which is based upon the dogma we debate this evening, the infallibility of the Pope, as Mr. St. Genes just said in making reference to those things, that the bodily assumption of Mary is a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And so who has the authority to define the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Has the Gospel once for all been delivered to the saints? Or is the Gospel subject to addition? Now Rome does not say that the bodily assumption is an addition, that in fact it is an apostolic tradition.

But when we examine those teachings, whether it be the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption, the Mass as a Perpetuatory Sacrifice, the infallibility of the Pope himself, when we examine these dogmas and we find them to be ahistorical, to be things that the Apostles and the Lord Jesus never taught, fundamentally we come down to the conclusion that we have two differing views of authority.

And the ultimate authority of the Church in the Roman Catholic system results in the proclamation of dogmas that I believe violate the command of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1, 6 -8. Therefore, if I love people, including those who are a part of the Roman Catholic Communion, then the greatest act of love that I can give to them is to point out to them the errors of the system that would take from them the Gospel of Grace and add anything to the Gospel that brings men into a right relationship with God.

And so ultimately the only reason that we address this issue this evening, the only reason that we address Bishop Honorius and Bishop Zosimus and we get into the historical details is to come back to being able to say what is the Gospel, where do we go to find out what the Gospel is?

Do we go to that which is the Anustos, the Scriptures, and do we confess that they are sufficient to act as the sole infallible rule of faith of the Church, or is there something more, is there an infallible magisterium that we must follow to know what the Gospel is?

That's why we're here this evening. And so I invite every one of you, whether you are Catholic or non-Catholic, whatever your background is, to listen carefully to what is said this evening, because remember ultimately the system that is being defended this evening claims to have the authority to define the Gospel by which you will either stand before God or by which you will not be able to stand before God.

The issues this evening are eternal. The issues this evening are vital. And I'm so thankful that you're here to share in this experience with us.

Thank you.

Matthew 16, Matthew 18, and the Keys of the Kingdom

I will cover two passages in this eight-minute section. The first passage is Matthew chapter 16, verses 18 to 19. Here Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom. This giving of the keys is in itself very important, since the keys to the kingdom are given to no other single person of the apostolic band.

Although in Matthew 18, verse 18, the other apostles are also given the power to bind and loose, they are not given that power in connection with the keys of the kingdom. In fact, right after Jesus gives Peter the keys in Matthew 16, verse 19, the words for you, in the clauses you shall bind or you shall loose, are Greek singulars which refer only to Peter.

There are several distinguishing features of Matthew 16 from which we derive the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope. First, if we back up a few sentences to verses 13 to 17, we see that Peter is given a direct revelation from the Father that none of the other apostles receive.

What he receives is the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. At Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus says, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven.

In other words, no flesh and blood human taught this to him. It came directly from the Father. Second, still speaking to Peter in verse 18, Jesus says that he will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against the church.

This shows that Jesus will be continually active in protecting the church throughout its existence. Thus, it is no surprise to read in John 14, verse 16, Jesus saying these words, And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another counselor to be with you until the end of the age, the spirit of truth.

And again in John 16, verse 13, when he, the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. Hence, the protection of the church is not merely referred to its physical existence, but to its possessing of truth given to it by the Holy Spirit.

By declaring that Jesus is the Messiah in verse 13, Peter has already shown us how the Father will reveal truth to him through the Holy Spirit. Third, the parameters of what the church will receive are detailed in the statement of verse 19.

Jesus says, Whatever you bind, and whatever you loose. The word whatever comes from the Greek words, ho-ay-on, and means precisely what our translations render it. Jesus says that whatever Peter decides to bind or loose, then that is bound or loosed.

This is the same Greek singular we find in Luke 22, verses 31 to 32, when Jesus says, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you, singular. Like weak, but I have prayed for you, singular, that your faith may not fail, and you, singular, once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.

Whatever one's interpretation of Matthew 16, it must be admitted that, in verse 19, Peter is given the sole prerogative to decide what shall be bound and what shall be loosed. Hence, if we as Catholics state that the Pope, who has succeeded the office Jesus gave to Peter when he gave him the keys of the kingdom, has the power to decide what will be bound and what will be loosed, we derive it right from this passage.

If for example, the Pope decides that in order to establish infallible teaching, all Peter's successors must fulfill the five criterion of infallibility I listed earlier from Pastor Aeternus, in order for their teaching to be considered infallible, then that teaching stands and all Pontiffs will be subject to it.

No, the Pope is not being audacious here. He is merely following Jesus' declaration that whatever you, Peter, decide to bind, it shall be bound in heaven. Notice that Jesus does not say whatever Scripture says you can bind, you shall bind, but whatever you, Peter, shall bind shall be bound.

This is why Paul also, in 1 Timothy 3 .15, says, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not Scripture. Fourth, and most important, is how, in Matthew 16, verse 19, Jesus uniquely constructs the reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth.

Not only does Jesus give Peter full prerogative to decide precisely what will be bound or loosed, Jesus says that whatever Peter decides the binding or loosing will be, then that binding or loosing will also be bound or loosed in heaven.

Now, here is the fascinating and absolutely overwhelming truth that emanates from this reciprocal relationship Jesus established. God is in heaven, thus the binding or loosing of Peter is sent to God in heaven.

We know from Titus 1 .2, in the very nature of God, that he cannot lie. He cannot tell a lie, he cannot sanction a lie, he cannot condone a lie, he cannot confirm.

A lie.

Thus, it is an axiomatic theological truth that God cannot bind or loose a lie. Yet we are told clearly in Matthew 16, verse 19, by Jesus himself, that whatever Peter binds or looses, God will bind or loose in heaven.

If, since he cannot lie, God can only bind truth, then this must mean that whatever Peter decides to bind or loose cannot be a lie. Otherwise, this would make God a liar, for he committed himself to bind whatever Peter.

Bound.

Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council

The next passage is Acts 15, verses 1 -28. I don't have time to read all that I have written on this, but let me begin. This is the precedent for papal infallibility because in Acts 15, it opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved.

There was much discussion about this. One Pharisee stood up and said, it is necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be.

Saved.

There was a lot of discussion. No one came to a conclusion. This was especially difficult because Scripture did not predict or even allow the rescission of circumcision. In fact, circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years prior to Moses and the Mosaic law.

And one might think that it had a special place in the economy of God because it was outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on.

The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral tradition never suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded. But in the midst of this confusion, Acts 15, verse 7, records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders.

Three times in his speech, he invokes the name of God to back up his singular authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole church. In verse 7, he says that God chose him singularly to give the gospel to the Gentiles.

In Acts 15, verse 10, he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation, that men are saved by grace, not works of law.

This was an unprecedented moment for the church. Without reference to either scripture or tradition, Peter makes an irreformable doctrine for the church that will bind the church from then till the end of time.

We know this to be the case since the church, from Peter onwards, has never required circumcision for its converts.

When we consider the claim of biblical evidence for papal infallibility, we have to recognize a number of things. The argument for the idea that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter is the result of a very long chain of propositions.

You heard a few of those assertions made in regards to Matthew chapter 16. But what we need to recognize is the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in scripture. Even though there is a letter to the church at Rome, there was no singular bishop of Rome at the time, and in point of fact, church historians, Catholic and Protestant, recognize that the church at Rome continued to function under the auspices of a multitude, a plurality of elders, well into the second century.

So the idea that the apostles and the writers of the New Testament had in mind a singular successor to Peter, even if all the arguments of Peter were valid, which we do not believe they were, somewhat begs the question of how then that becomes transferred specifically to the bishop of Rome.

Now, I would like to point out, in responding to what Mr. St. Janus says later, first and foremost to you what the New Testament teaches about what our ultimate authority is. When the Lord Jesus taught, the ultimate authority, when he would quote from scripture, was the very words of God.

Jesus did bind men to scripture. He never bound them to Peter, nor did he bind them to anyone else but the scriptures. He held men accountable to those scriptures. He called them hypocrites when they had the scriptures and denied what the scriptures.

Said.

The apostles likewise. One quotation from the scriptures was sufficient to settle the case in their words as well. But it's highly significant. Think with me briefly, and time is fleeting. So just write these passages down.

When Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy chapter 3, he warns Timothy that evil men would be coming into the church. He warns Timothy there's going to be difficulties. And in Acts chapter 20, the apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that there would be those who would come up within the ranks of the eldership itself that would teach false doctrine.

Now in light of these issues, and here we're specifically talking about false teaching, how to respond to false teaching and false doctrine. In the light of the fact that the church is going to experience false teachers, what does the Bible tell us to do about false teaching?

Does it say, look to the successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome? It never says anything of the kind. Does it set up a hierarchy based upon Peter as the bishop of Rome? No, it never does. What do we see in both Acts chapter 20 and in 2 Timothy chapter 3?

We see in both instances, the apostle Paul directs the church to the scriptures. He says to Timothy, if you want to be a man of God who is able to reprove and rebuke, you go to that which is theanoustos, you go to the scriptures.

He says to the Ephesian elders in Acts chapter 20, even when men arise from among yourselves speaking perverse things, what does he say to the church in Acts chapter 20 verse 32? And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

There is no word of a bishop of Rome. There is no word of a pope or a papacy or an infallible authority outside of what God himself speaks in scripture. Now if there is going to be anywhere where we find the apostle Paul directing us to what modern Roman Catholicism teaches, this is where it would be.

We're not talking about binding and loosing. Binding and loosing has to do with the proclamation of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins. All the apostles were given equal authority and the early church fathers all believed that the apostles were given this, the keys and the power of binding and loosing are the same thing.

That was the early church's view. So that was in the proclamation of the gospel. But what about doctrine? What about theology? Where do we go for that? And when we find the scriptures talking about doctrine and theology, what do they direct.

Us to?

They direct us solely and only to God's holy word. That needs to be remembered when we think about the biblical evidence concerning this doctrine that I submit to you was unknown in the early church. It was unknown to the apostles and it was unknown to the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

And so if we follow the apostolic example and the apostolic command, then we do not look to Peter. In Luke chapter 22 when the Lord Jesus reestablishes Peter and says, when you've been turned, strengthen the brethren.

The reason in that passage that's singularly addressed to Peter is because Peter is the only one who publicly denied his Lord and had to be reestablished in his place of leadership. He made a public denial of Christ and he needs a public reinstatement to that position of leadership and aren't we all thankful that God doesn't discard us when we have failures as Peter did because we would all be out of an opportunity of ministry.

I am reminded when we think of the biblical evidence on this subject of the words of Augustine who will come up later on. He was talking about scripture and he said these words when he's talked about reading from the holy scriptures in order for our instruction and salvation.

He says, a thing which you ought especially to observe and to commit to your memory because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors, God has been pleased to put in the scriptures against which no man dares to speak who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian.

I agree with Augustine. God has committed to us in the scriptures that which makes us strong in refuting the heresies and errors that the church will have to deal with throughout her existence. And we need to recognize that one of the main arguments that other Roman Catholic apologists are presenting today is that, well, you know, if you only go with scripture and you don't have the papacy, then you have no way of responding to all these false teachers out there.

You have all these false teachers teaching this, that, and the other thing and if you have the Bible alone, you can't refute them. I do not believe that that is the case at all. The scriptures are sufficient for the refutation of false teaching.

It is not the scriptures fault that men like to have their ears tickled. In fact, the scriptures warn us that there will be those who are like the sailboats we saw out on the ocean today, blown about by every wind of doctrine.

It is not an insufficiency in scripture to recognize the impact of sin upon man himself. And so when we think of these particular issues regarding the assertion that there is biblical evidence for the infallibility of Peter, I remind you that what Peter did in Galatians chapter 2, when he did not walk straight in accordance to the truth of the gospel, but had to be rebuked by the Apostle Paul for his not walking in accordance to the truth of the gospel, it was after all these words had been said to him.

And upon what basis was he to be corrected? He was to be corrected on the basis of the fact that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is not something that is up for modification over time. It has been once for all delivered to the saints, and is that gospel that we stand for and that we love.

Thank you.

And we're going to go ahead and interrupt right now to take a short break, and I hope you've been enjoying, again, you're listening to the debate that took place last October between Robert Syngenis, a Roman Catholic apologist, and Dr. James White on the subject of papal infallibility.

I think you'll find, those of you who have listened to the Tim Staples debate, a remarkable difference in presentation and even the position that Mr. Syngenis is taking as he approaches this subject to that of Tim Staples.

Something very interesting to take note of there. So anyway, we're going to go ahead and take a quick break here as we continue with today's Dividing Line broadcast, and then we're going to air another segment of a half an hour clip from it, and hopefully we'll be able to get into my favorite part of these debates, which is always the cross-examination.

I'm going to try to get that section in there for you today as well. And just a programming note, next week we should be having a couple of guest hosts. Dr. White will be out for another additional two weeks, and we're going to bring in some guest hosts to talk about various subjects, so please be sure to tune in then.

And again, because we're airing the debate today, there will be no phone calls taken today, but we should be back to our regular way of doing things next week. So let's go ahead and take this short break, and we'll be right back with the Dividing.

Line.

The Conference on Rome. Over 13 hours examining major doctrines and issues that separate Roman Catholicism from Biblical Christianity, featuring the leading Protestant apologists on Rome and America.

Today.

Listen to Dr. Eric Svensson's presentation, Rome has spoken, the matter is debatable.

When the Roman Catholic apologists insist that the principle of sola scriptura has resulted in over 25 ,000 denominations, we should in turn insist that the principle of scripture plus an infallible interpreter has resulted in an even greater number of religious cults.

Pastor Rob Zins addresses the evangelical romance with Rome.

There was not a Roman Catholic Church in the first five centuries. There was, to be sure, a Catholic Church, but this is the universal designation of the body of Christ. It is not Romanism.

Pastor David King, the impact of Romans 117 on Martin Luther.

How is one himself to have that righteousness which God requires, yea, demands, and which is utterly indispensable to salvation? It is by faith, and by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we lay hold of the Lord Jesus by faith alone.

And Dr. James White examines the veneration of saints and images.

Do you think if such a person were brought before Moses, having just been caught bowing down before a statue and lighting candles and rocking back and forth in prayer, do you think Moses would have accepted the excuse, I wasn't giving.

I wasn't giving Latria, Moses, I was only giving Dulia.

Other topics addressed in this tape series. Is there something about Mary? Scripture sufficiency, the Roman versus Protestant view, canonizing the Apocrypha, an assault on scripture, Rome's sacraments, an assault on Christ's gospel, and purgatory, an assault on Christ's perfect atonement.

Look for this tape series and many others at aomin .org, that's a-o-m-i-n-dot-o-r-g, the conference on Rome.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.

And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory and indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

Welcome back to The Dividing Line. And I just want to make a little note here, you can also find on aomin .org this particular debate. The audio tapes and the video tapes have been made available to you just today.

And so in a sense, this is a little bit of an infomercial as we go through, oh, about an hour and a half through this program of the debate contents. And so it's a little bit of a teaser. And we want to make sure that you get your copy of either the videotape or the debate itself on audio.

And in the meantime, let's go ahead and get right back to the next section of the debate here on The Dividing Line.

The Bishop of Rome, Scripture, and the Church as Pillar of Truth

Dr. White has said that the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in scripture. Well, the bishop of no city is ever mentioned in scripture. So it really makes no difference whether the bishop of Rome is not mentioned.

Scripture doesn't mention a lot of things, but we can't make arguments based on its silence. And he's tried to divert the discussion to one of succession, but we really aren't here to talk about succession.

If we were, we would have to set aside another debate to do that. That's kind of hard to do. But I would be willing to come back to do another debate on that very topic. He said that Jesus never bound the truths of the gospel to Peter.

But that's exactly what Matthew 16, verse 18 says. It says, whatever you, Peter, shall bind shall be bound. He didn't say that about scripture anywhere in the New Testament. Although scripture is extolled and glorified for the beauty and the truth that it holds, it is never put in a position of being the determiner of truth singly.

That was given to Peter in Matthew 16, which he did not address. Bound to scripture? Yes, we believe that we are bound to scripture. But who is the interpreter of scripture? Everyone's bound to scripture.

But that is the key issue, is who has the authority to interpret what it says. He says that the New Testament does not set up a hierarchy to determine truth. Well, I suggest that you turn to Matthew 18, verse 18.

And it says, if you have a conflict with your brother, take it to your brother. If he doesn't listen to you, you take it to the church. Does it say take it to scripture? No, it does not. It says take it to the church.

In 2 Timothy 3 .16, which he alluded to, Noah doesn't talk about controversy there. And that's why the command to Timothy is not dealing with the church in that passage. Because Paul is not talking about controversy in 2 Timothy 3 .16.

He's talking about teaching people. When it comes to controversy, that's when the church is brought into the picture, as we see in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. And where does it direct us for doctrine and theology?

Mr. White said it only directed us to the scripture. Well, that's not what 1 Timothy 3 .15 says. 1 Timothy 3 .15 says that the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth. He said that Peter denied his Lord.

Well, we acknowledge that, but as I stated earlier, that's not a criterion for infallibility. Infallibility does not mean that the man himself is impeccable. It means only under certain conditions and guided by the Holy Spirit he can give us truth.

So that example will not demote infallibility. He said Augustine said that that which makes us strong is the scripture. Well, we agree with that in Catholicism. But the extolling of scripture is not sola scriptura.

The extolling of scripture does not demote papal authority. We extol scripture all the time, and Augustine, you will never find in his writings ever once opposing the church's teachings to scripture. Not once.

Well, this is our opportunity for rebuttal, so let me respond to some of the things that have been said. If you'll look back at Acts 15, you'll discover that the people came to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, not to Peter the pope in Jerusalem.