Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this video
On my left, a man who holds the titles of a professor, director, author, minister, and when
I found out of all the different things that this gentleman does, I thought, when does he have time to eat, to sleep?
Some of the normal things that we do as human beings. He will bring us the
Protestant viewpoint tonight. He's a professor at Grand Canyon University, a college of Christian studies, and that's in Arizona, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries for Christian Apologetics, and an ordained
Baptist minister. Let's welcome James White. And on my right, a gentleman who has really seen both sides of the fence,
I guess you could say. He went from being a student at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College to being a student on the road to the
Roman Catholic priesthood. That's quite a different turn there. He will present the
Catholic viewpoint tonight. Raised a Baptist and became a youth pastor in the Assemblies of God, he's a convert to Catholicism.
He is currently director of Apologetics for St. Joseph Radio and a youth minister here in the Diocese of Orange.
Let's welcome Tim Staples. And I'd just like you to give an extra warm welcome to our moderator,
Hugh Barber. So we have the opening statements, a 25 -minute limit.
It is good to be with you this evening. I especially want to thank all of you local folks for importing Phoenix weather for me to make me feel very much at home.
You didn't need to do that. I was sort of looking forward to something under 90 degrees, but I'm glad that you're here this evening.
And I congratulate you on making the good choice, the things that we discussed this evening are eternal things.
They are important things. They are things that many people in our culture today do not appreciate and do not take time to think about.
And I hope that you will think very, very closely this evening about what is said.
There is very little time, unfortunately, for us to even begin to say what we want to say. You are the judges of this debate.
You will need to go from here and do some work. You will need to look up passages. You may need to do some homework.
I challenge you to do so. If you do not leave here this evening with things to think about, then
I think both Mr. Staples and I have failed in our tasks before you this evening. Long ago, a man named
Theodorette, one of the early fathers of the church, wrote a book in which he presented a dialogue between an Orthodox believer and one who had been led astray.
At one point in the conversation, Theodorette gives us an important truth when he has one of his imaginary disputants utter these words.
The doctrine of the church should be proven, not announced. Therefore, show that the scriptures teach these things.
I come this evening in the spirit of this ancient writer, not merely to announce to you some doctrine on my own authority, but to prove the truth of the doctrine of sola scriptura and to show that the scriptures do in fact teach their own sufficiency to act as the sole infallible rule of faith of the church.
I contrast my position with that found in the popular Roman Catholic writer John O 'Brien, who has written, quote,
Great as 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, end quote.
I hope Mr. Staples will tell us if he likewise views the Bible as John O 'Brien did in those words.
Now, I want you to understand from the very beginning that there are two positions being presented here this evening, not just one.
There are two positions being presented. I believe in sola scriptura, that the scriptures, the
God breathed revelation of the almighty himself is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.
But unfortunately, many of these debates are marred by the fact that people don't recognize there are two positions up here this evening.
And I am going to assert and prove and know that my friend Tim is going to take umbrage to this, that the other position being presented could be described as sola ecclesia, that the church is the ultimate authority in all things.
But I want you to think as to why I present it in this way. The Roman Catholic position is that the church defines the extent of scripture in the canon.
The church tells you what the text means, gives you the guidelines, is that the role of interpretation is reserved to the church.
So what scripture is and what scripture says is ultimately determined by the ecclesia, the church.
And the church also tells you what is and what is not tradition. The church defines this is tradition, this is not tradition, and then the church tells you what tradition does and does not mean.
So if you have an entity that defines the extent of scripture and the meaning of scripture, the extent of tradition and the meaning of tradition, then
I would say that entity is in fact your ultimate and final authority, unquestionable.
And that means you have two ultimate authorities being presented to you this evening. Mine is the theanustos,
God -breathed scriptures, the term that Paul uses when he writes to Timothy and says all scripture is theanustos,
God -breathed. And then you have the assertion that the church is the final authority, that yes the
Bible is God -breathed, Mr. Staples believes that, and I appreciate that, it makes the debate a whole lot easier.
And he also believes that tradition, from what he told me on the Bible Answer Man show just a couple days ago, is likewise inspired.
And yet both are defined and interpreted by one ultimate authority, and that is the church. And I know that my friend
Mr. Staples is going to try to say, no that's not what we believe, but I will make this assertion right now, that every argument that is going to be presented to say no we don't believe in sola ecclesia will in fact prove my point.
Now it is vital to remember this throughout this debate, as we start throwing things around and as questions come up, it is important to remember that one must remember there are two positions here, and an argument that one side uses against the other, if it is applied to one's own position and causes a problem, that is an inconsistent argument.
If Mr. Staples for example argues that, well sola scriptura doesn't lead to a unanimity of opinion and therefore it can't be true, then
I'm going to respond, well sola ecclesia doesn't either. You have all sorts of different opinions. If the argument used against sola scriptura refutes it, then why doesn't it refute your own position?
And you cannot use arguments that would refute your own position against someone else's. Both sides need to keep that in mind.
Now the doctrine of sola scriptura is really rather straightforward, but in my experience it is rarely represented accurately in most situations.
Sola scriptura briefly stated is simply this, because the scriptures are the only example of God -breathed revelation, the possession of the church, they form the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
In other words, since the Bible is theanoustos, God -breathed, as Paul says in 2nd
Timothy 3 .16, it provides to us the very voice in speaking of God, just as Jesus taught in Matthew 22 .31.
God's voice can admit of no higher or equal authority. It is the ultimate authority in all things, for God cannot refer to any higher authority than himself to establish the truthfulness of what he says.
It is by definition our absolute authority. Sola scriptura denies that there is another infallible rule of faith in the church.
There may be other rules that we utilize, subordinate standards, but they are always and must be subject to the correction of the highest authority, that is scripture.
As Augustine put it, what more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.
Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher.
And again elsewhere he put it this way, neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything with the result that their opinion is against the canonical scriptures of God.
Now it's important I think to define what sola scriptura is not. Sola scriptura is not a denial that God's word has at times been in oral form during those times of inscripturation.
The normative situation of the church, which is where we are today, is what we're addressing in regards to sola scriptura.
We do not have revelation coming today. The Roman Catholic agrees. It's not like the Mormons who have an open canon of scripture.
God has revealed his word. Now in the situation where God has revealed his word, what is the ultimate authority for the church?
It is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in leading and guiding the church.
In fact it is an integral part of what Protestants have always believed to emphasize that the
Holy Spirit of God must be active in a person's heart to have a proper understanding and a desire to even be obedient to the word of God.
It is not an assertion that the Bible contains all knowledge. Very, very often sola scriptura is misrepresented by Roman Catholic writers by referring, for example, to John 21 -25 saying, well there are many things that Jesus did that are not contained in scripture.
That has nothing to do whatsoever with sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not a claim that we have all knowledge.
We do not know how the apostles dressed each day. We don't know what they ate at each meal. Neither do we need to know.
The scriptures are sufficient for particular purposes. They're not an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge.
And since the doctrine of sola scriptura has never claimed that, it is a misrepresentation to attack it on that basis.
Furthermore, it is not an assertion that we can learn nothing from the generations that have gone before.
It is not a claim that we have to go back, as my opponent has alleged in the past, 2 ,000 years and reinvent the wheel with each generation.
We can learn many things from what God has done with his church over the past generations, but the ultimate authority for every generation is always the scriptures and never the church.
There are also a lot of common misunderstandings about the doctrine that we should dismiss immediately. For example,
I would say the single worst argument against sola scriptura goes something along these lines. Sola scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy.
Look at what has happened there. 23 ,000 protestant denominations, sola scriptura is an utter failure.
Well, if sola scriptura claimed that by having a sufficient source revelation from God, everybody is going to become sinless, abandon all their traditions, read everything there is in scripture, be fair with it, then that might be a decent argument.
But that's not what sola scriptura says. You see, the misuse of a sufficient source is not a valid argument against that source.
A very good friend of mine recently expressed it in this way. Many of you are undoubtedly entering into the computer age, and let's say you got a new printer,
I did just recently, and you're given a printer manual and the guy says, well, follow the instructions here and everything will work fine.
Well, you're a little impatient, none of you out here may be the only one who has this problem, you're a little impatient and you don't want to read through that whole thing and read all that technese and so on and so forth, so you just sort of start putting things together and lo and behold, strange characters start coming out of your printer.
It won't stop and your computer screen is flashing and you've got a problem. And you go back to the people who sold you the computer and they say, well, did you follow the instructions?
Well, no, I didn't really read all of that stuff there, you know. And they take your computer back and follow the instructions and put everything together and it works just fine.
Now, was there something wrong with the manual because you didn't follow it? Of course not.
The manual was sufficient for the purpose for which it was designed. The fact that you didn't read it or didn't understand it or were impatient or thought you knew more than the manual could tell you, is not the fault of the manual.
In the same way, just because someone says, I believe the Bible and then goes off and teaches some strange thing, has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the
Bible to lead us to God's truth and to function as the sole infallible rule of faith of the church. There are people who pick up the documents of Vatican II and come up with all sorts of wacky ideas.
Does that make the documents of Vatican II somehow bad? Insufficient? You see, if that argument could be used both ways, it's not a good argument.
Most obviously, sola scriptura does not claim that there will be a unanimity of opinion simply because God has given us his word.
Even in the days of the apostles, there were those who twisted the scriptures to their own destruction.
Even when the apostles were alive, John had to write against Gnosticism and Docetism. Paul had to write against the
Judaizers in Galatia. Certainly, no one would argue that these apostles were insufficient as teachers.
And yet, the presence of perfectly sufficient teachers did not result in a unanimity of opinion, did it?
No, it didn't. Now, historic Protestants have always asserted that there are difficult passages in the
Bible, things that are hard to understand, and that we must apply our minds and our hearts to be diligent students of the word.
The scriptures command us to do this. Protestants believe that God will hold each man and woman responsible for his truth.
We will not be able to say, well, such and so a person told me or such a group told me to believe this. In the final judgment, that excuse will not work.
But as just here, the battle is engaged. A few days ago when Mr. Staples and I were on the
Bible Answer Man show, Mr. Staples became rather animated at one point.
And I'm glad that he believes in what he believes and can become animated. It's better than those dry folks that don't seem to really care too much about what they're talking about.
And we'll be animated this evening. But at one point he said, look, we don't just have a book, we have a living church.
And later on he said, we have a man that can walk into a room and say, thus saith God. And I don't think what
Mr. Staples meant was he can give revelation, but that he can interpret the revelation that has been given.
But it's that phrase, we don't just have a book. Mr. Staples, neither do
I. Hebrews 4 .12 says the word of God is alive and powerful.
It can discern the thoughts and tense of the heart. It's not just a book. It's God breathed.
It's God speaking to us. And in Matthew chapter 22, Jesus holds men accountable for what the scriptures say as if God had spoken those words directly to them.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have an ultimate authority. Someone who can say, thus saith the Lord, but you don't follow them.
You see, Mr. Staples, you made a fallible decision when you chose your ultimate authority.
You had choices you could make. The Mormons will offer you an ultimate authority. Jehovah's Witnesses will offer you an ultimate authority.
But it is your decision to choose which of these ultimate authorities you're going to choose, and that is a fallible decision.
And for those of you who are seeking for infallible certainty, you can never have more infallible certainty than that choice when you make that decision for what your ultimate authority is going to be.
I'm very straightforward with what mine is. Mine's the scriptures. And we'll discuss more about what that means as we develop this subject.
Well, someone might say, yes, but we have the living church. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
I remember reading in a book that Mr. Staples likes a lot called Surprised by Truth, someone saying that as a
Protestant, they were shocked when they first read 1 Timothy 3 .15. And I was shocked that any Protestant could ever be shocked at 1
Timothy 3 .15. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
There are pillars alongside here. There is hopefully, seemingly since this place has survived a lot of earthquakes, a very good foundation underneath this place this evening.
But what does a pillar and foundation do? It's holding up that roof above you, folks. Aren't you glad it is?
The church isn't the truth. The church presents and preaches the truth. A pillar and a foundation holds something else up.
And what does the church do? The church as the obedient bride of Christ listens to the word of Christ that comes to her and that which is theanoustos, that which is
God -breathed, the scriptures. She does not replace them.
She does not elevate herself to where she is in control of them, where she defines them. She proclaims them.
But only the scriptures are theanoustos. The church is not God -breathed.
And Mr. Staples claims that tradition, whatever that might be, and we'll need to get into that, is inspired. And one of his favorite passages,
I've listened to many of his, those of you who are with St. Joseph Catholic Radio, you'll be glad to know that you have someone who listens to you frequently on bike rides out in Phoenix, Arizona, out in the middle of the desert.
One of his favorite passages to prove this point is 2 Thessalonians 2 .15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
See, it's right there. Hold to the traditions. There you have the two sources.
You've got the oral traditions. You've got the written scriptures, Roman Catholicism and its doctrine of authority in all its glory, right?
No. In no way. First of all, note if you have your
Bibles with you, what is said in the passage. First of all, there is one body of truth in view here, delivered in two ways, by preaching and by letter.
Remember, Paul had preached the Thessalonians, and he's referring to the preaching that he had delivered to them and the letter that he had written to them, which we call 1
Thessalonians. Notice also the entire church, not just the bishop.
The entire church at Thessalonica had already been taught these items, these traditions.
These are not then teachings that are limited to the bishops, but are generally known truths that every person in the church knew and believed.
Hence, any claim that the oral component contains anything other than what is found in the written component requires the defender of such a position to prove from the writings of the early church itself that these things, these traditions, were generally known and believed by the
Christian people. We will see that when we look at the doctrines that have been infallibly and clearly defined by Rome on the basis of tradition, that these doctrines are uniformly, utterly unknown in the early church.
But all of this involves a gross misreading of the text in the first place. Paul is in no way talking about some extra scriptural revelation in this passage.
Instead, when we read the passage in its own immediate context, we find he is talking about something much more easily defined than some oral traditions, whatever they might be.
He's talking about the gospel. Paul taught the Thessalonians what? The gospel.
Both in person, as well as by his first letter to the Thessalonians. This can be seen by the fact that the term
Paul uses here in 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, when exhorting us to stand firm in these traditions, is used by Paul elsewhere in 1
Corinthians 16, verse 13, when he says to stand firm in the faith.
Paul is not giving us a command here to hold to oral traditions. He is giving us a command to hold to the gospel, which he had preached to them.
But as my time is fleeting, I want to point out my favorite example from the past. I teach church history and I like to point out one particular individual.
There's a saying from church history, Athanasius Contramundum, Athanasius against the world.
The great bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, at one point in his life found himself standing literally against the entire world.
About the year 340, between 340 and 350 during the Arian ascendancy after the council of Nicaea, where the
Nicene faith that we would all, I would assume here this evening, agree with. The Nicene faith was under attack.
In fact, the majority of the bishops in the church and the councils that were being held denied it or moderated it or compromised it.
But there was this one diehard guy down there in Alexandria, kicked out of his church five times.
One time by 5 ,000 soldiers coming in the back door while he was going out, going out the other side.
His name was Athanasius. At one point in time, and I would like Mr. Staples to address this, at one point in time, if you could put yourself in his context, he stood against the majority, the vast majority of bishops, priests, monks, and church councils that had ever been held.
But he said, you're all wrong. You're all wrong. Tremendously Protestant thing to do,
I would say. Why would Athanasius do that? He's a bishop in the church.
Might it be because he taught these words, let this then Christ -loving man be our offering to you just for a rudimentary sketch and an outline and a short compass of the faith of Christ and of his divine appearing usward.
But you taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, you will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said, for they were spoken and written by God through men who spoke for God.
Rather than finding O 'Brien's idea that scripture is not a safe guide as to what we are to believe, Athanasius said, quote, for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from scripture than from other sources, end quote.
These other sources for him included church councils such as that of Nicaea, which Athanasius defended so strongly.
He also said, but since holy scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters to read the divine word,
I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention and for the sake of which principally
I have written these things and then these words, for indeed the holy and God -breathed scriptures are self -sufficient for the preaching of the truth.
Is that why Athanasius could stand against even the forced retraction and collapse of the
Bishop of Rome in his day and stand for the truth that Jesus Christ is fully
God? Because he knew that all the councils on earth and all the bishops on earth could not change
God's truth found in his holy word. That is why
Augustine could say, I don't care if all the Catholic bishops agree, if their opinion is against this, don't follow it.
And that is what I'm presenting to you this evening. The scriptures are God -breathed.
If Mr. Staples wants to win this debate, it's very easy. The thesis is the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
He agrees the scriptures are infallible, right? I believe that's what he said. I don't want to misrepresent him. He believes they're
God -breathed. We don't have to argue about that part. So we believe the Bible is
God -breathed, it's infallible, it's a rule of faith of the church. All Mr. Staples has to do is show us another theanustos,
God -breathed, infallible rule of faith for the church. But it obviously can't be the church itself, can it?
The church can't be her own rule. There are the issues before you. Keep them in mind clearly.
Open your Bibles if you have them, take notes, join with us as we begin this time together of seriously considering the sufficiency of God's word.
Thank you. Thank you.
And please, if we could, please, if we could withhold applause.
I would like to thank you all for coming out to our discussion. I'm really happy to see so many friendly faces here.
But I want to just remind us that the issues that we're talking about this evening are very serious.
We're talking about eternal life and eternal death here. These issues are absolutely crucial and I pray for your undivided attention, not only for myself, but also for James.
I want you to listen to what he is saying. In fact, I recommend getting some of his books, such as the
Roman Catholic Controversy. And I recommend you read those Catholics to hear the arguments as they are presented from the other side on this issue.
We need to be well -versed, I believe, in the arguments that are coming the other way because there are many Catholics who are being deceived, who are being led away from the most blessed sacrament because of slick arguments, misrepresentations of church fathers as well as scriptures.
So I would like to begin my opening talk. Actually, I took a little turn here because I was a bit taken aback at my opponent's quotation from St.
Athanasius. And this is a great example, folks, of exactly what I warn my students, those of you that are here, against.
That is taking a quote from a father or from scripture out of context in order to create or shoehorn a doctrine.
That is what we cannot do. Let me quote to you from St. Athanasius and his
Four Letters to Serapion. My opponent has just presented the novel idea that St.
Athanasius, a Catholic bishop, taught sola scriptura. Let me quote to you
St. Athanasius himself. Yes, St. Athanasius believed that the scriptures are inspired, they are authoritative, they are a rule of faith.
We believe that as Catholics. But, folks, listen, and you be the judge what
St. Athanasius teaches. Listen, these sayings, and this is after Athanasius has gone through a number of scriptures when he is writing against the
Arian heresy. These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit by themselves alone show that in nature, in essence, he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures but is distinct from things originate proper to and not alien from the
Godhead and essence of the Son. In virtue of which essence and nature, he is the Holy Triad.
Now, if you stopped right there, you'd say, my, my, my, St. Athanasius believes in sola scriptura.
But if I were to do that, I would be dishonest because I would not be presenting to you St. Athanasius in completion.
Let me read the next line. But beyond these scriptural sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, please, no, please. Gave from the beginning was the
Lord gave, the apostles preached, and the fathers kept. Upon this the church is founded, and he who should fall away from it should not be a
Christian and should no longer be so called. So, yes,
St. Athanasius taught the inspiration of scripture as all Catholics do. Let me quote to you from the documents of Vatican II and set the record straight, what the
Catholic church really teaches. In Dei Verbum, I'll read paragraphs nine and 10.
For both of them, that is scripture and tradition flowing out of the same wellspring come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.
Sacred scripture is the speech of God. There you have it, folks. We Catholics believe that the word of God is
Theopneustos. It is the word of God. God breathed as it is put down in writing under the breath of the
Holy Spirit. And tradition transmits in its entirety the word of God, which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the
Lord and the Holy Spirit. Sacred tradition and sacred scripture make up one single sacred deposit of faith, of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church.
My opponent has just told you that the Roman Catholic church teaches sola ecclesia.
I am amazed. In fact, I'm convinced that if the Holy Father Pope John Paul II were to come in here and argue with this guy and say, excuse me, the
Catholic church doesn't teach that, he would be quick to correct Pope John Paul II. In fact, we do not teach that.
We teach, as I have just read, the scripture is inspired as is tradition. They form one revelation, one deposit of faith.
The church is not above the scriptures. That is not true. That is not what we teach. But we do teach the church is the bride of Christ.
She is our mother. And as such, she has authority over the children, just like in the family.
She has authority over the children to tell them what daddy says. That is what the
Catholic church teaches. And I'm going to present to you folks proof beyond a shadow of a doubt this evening that this in fact is the teaching of sacred scripture.
I'm going to demonstrate that sola scriptura is not historical, it is not biblical, and it is not reasonable, nor is it workable.
Now I could give more quotes where my opponent has taken fathers out of context, but I will pass for now.
But somehow I think we may return to that later. And let me proceed to the second point, that is, not only is sola scriptura not historical, no
Christian taught sola scriptura for the first 1300 years of Christianity.
But it is also not biblical. And I will begin in the Old Testament. Now clearly folks, what we see in sacred scripture, and I don't need to go over all of these verses,
Mr. White would agree with me, Deuteronomy 4 -2, Deuteronomy 29 -19, Deuteronomy 28 -58,
Deuteronomy 13 -1, Joshua 1 -8. We could go over a litany of scriptures that demonstrate that the word of God is binding on the consciences of believers in the
Old Testament. We agree. However, what we also see in the Old Testament is the orally spoken word of God that is equally as binding on the consciences of believers.
Excuse me if I do get a little animated. 2 Chronicles 12 -5, then
Shemiah, and I quote, Shemiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and the commanders of Judah had gathered at Jerusalem and said, thus saith the
Lord. Notice the response. The response isn't, well, you know, it's great that you said that and all, but we got to wait until it's written down before we obey it.
Of course not. And I don't think Mr. White is trying to say that. But what
I think Mr. White is misrepresenting is when that word of God is spoken, it is the word of God. It abides forever and it binds all believers, whether it is written down or not.
In fact, the majority of, there are a large number of prophets. We could go through Elijah, Elisha, in fact,
Shemiah that I just quoted who never wrote a lick. Yet the word they spoken was binding on the consciences of believers.
And we could go through this litany of scriptures I have for the spoken word of God being equally the word of God.
It is just as much the word of God as the written word of God is. But I want to get to my third point in the
Old Testament. We also see a teaching authority, not that Lord's over the scriptures as my opponent has attempted to say the
Catholic church teaches, which she does not. But what we see is a magisterium in Old Testament version of a teaching authority that tells the people of God what in fact the word of God and the tradition is.
Deuteronomy 17, eight through 12. The scripture says very plainly, if you perceive trouble between blood and blood, cause and cause, go to the
Bible, get it out and start arguing passages. Is that what it says? No. It says, go to the priest or the judge or the one whom the
Lord has placed an authority over you. And notice he that will not hear the word of the priest or the judge or the one whom the
Lord has placed over you will be put to death. Does that sound like Sola Scriptura to you? Exodus chapter 28, verse 30, we read in the breast piece of decision, you shall put the
Urim and Thummim. Now what in the world is Urim and Thummim? Is that something you eat?
The Urim and the Thummim. What is that? This is a scripture talking about the high priest who had the
Urim and the Thummim in his breast piece of decision as it's called. And what is it there for?
That they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the Lord. Thus he shall always bear the decisions of the
Israelites over his heart in the Lord's presence. He had authority, the high priest, to hear from God and to direct the people of God.
That, my friends, is what a magisterium is all about. And I want you to notice further that in Matthew 23, verses 1 and 2,
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, acknowledges this authority that he himself established as God in the
Old Testament. In Matthew chapter 23, verses 1 and 2, and I quote, Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying,
The scribes and the Pharisees, what? Sit in the chair of Moses. Where does that come from?
Well, the material principle is Exodus 28, 30. We have an authority established as well as Deuteronomy 17.
However, this is a tradition preserved in the church that Jesus acknowledges as such.
And notice what he says to the apostles. He says, The scribes and Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses.
All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say, observe and do. Do what they say.
That's a commandment to the apostles. But according to their works, do not. I know many of my
Protestant friends out there are, you're just biting at the bit and you're saying, man, I can't wait. I want that question from Matthew chapter 15, where Jesus condemns the traditions of men from the same
Pharisees and priests, doesn't he? Well, notice Jesus makes a distinction that you'll do well to remember tonight because you're going to hear it again.
Jesus makes a distinction between the traditions of men and Catholics. Please remember this.
We have Catholics in the church, James. We have the same problem they had in the Old Testament. We have Catholics who want to exalt their own teachings, their own traditions with a small t above the traditions of the church.
And that is wrong. It's always been wrong, always will be. But notice Jesus does not condemn all tradition.
He doesn't even condemn all tradition that purports to be coming from God. He condemns the traditions of men that purport to come from God.
But here he acknowledges the tradition of the Old Testament church when it is spoken authoritatively from the chair of Moses in John chapter 11 verses 47 through 52.
Folks, please read these verses. If you're Protestant here, if you're Catholic, please read these verses.
John chapter 11 verses 47 through 52. We are present at the council of the
Pharisees and priests who were gathered to decide how they were going to get rid of Jesus.
And when they were gathered, Caiaphas being the high priest, hey, that's the guy with the urn and the thumb.
And notice he's a very wicked man. And my opponent will point out, oh, there have been a lot of bad popes.
Yeah, there have been a few. Alexander VI is not a guy I'd have had over for dinner. But that has no bearing whatsoever on infallibility as this fellow,
Caiaphas, though he was the epitome of evil. He's about to put Jesus Christ to death.
Notice what happens. He stands up in the middle of the council and says, you know nothing nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people that the whole nation perish not.
And notice what John says. John says, parenthetically, everybody knows this.
He did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied.
God is faithful to the authority that he establishes right up until the end there, before an answer to the prophecy of our
Lord himself from Mark chapter 12 and Luke chapter 20, when he would take that authority from them and give that authority to the
New Testament church. That's a good segue. Let's come up to the New Testament now.
And let's see if we can't see scripture, tradition, and magisterium in the
New Testament. Well, I think my opponent has beaten 2 Timothy 3 .16
in the ground, and I'm sure we're going to hear it again. And I'm so glad he acknowledged that we
Catholics agree. All scripture is the openestos. It is God -breathed and is useful for teaching.
In fact, it is sufficient, I say as a Catholic, that's right, James, it is sufficient to equip us for every good work.
We Catholics believe that. I know that might come as a shock, but we are permitted to believe that as Catholics.
And I hold to that, as do the majority of the fathers, I believe, that it is useful for teaching.
And in fact, it is sufficient to equip us. However, folks, my opponent, not only does he make this mistake with the fathers, that is, he'll take fathers out of context, as he just did with St.
Athanasius. And he's done numerous times in his books. But he will do the same thing when it comes to scripture.
And remember this, students, remember what I said, and I always say in my classes, he has fallen to the same error of our friends, the
Jehovah's Witnesses, who, they will grab hold of one verse. How many of you have ever talked to Jehovah's Witnesses? And I mean really dialogue with a knowledgeable one.
You know that they will take you for a spin if they're knowledgeable through scripture. They will.
And they will hold on to verses like John 20, 10, 1 Timothy 2, 5. There's one God, one meteor between God and man.
The man, Jesus Christ. See, he's a man. How much more do you need? The scripture says he's a man.
And they'll pound it in your head. And you know what we respond? We respond as Catholics, we say, absolutely. I agree with you.
Just go ahead, let him say it. He's a man. And then we say, yes, we agree. He is 100 % man.
He's not 50 % man. He's not 80 % man. He is 100 % man. But guess what, folks, there are other scriptures that teach clearly.
He is also 100 % God, John 1, 1 and such. Now we agree on that point.
But I'm going to suggest to you that just as my opponent has taken the father of the church out of context, he has done the same thing with sacred scripture.
Yes, scripture is inspired. It's the word of God. But so, my friends, is the spoken word of God.
And that is what oral tradition is. Luke 10, 16, whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me.
And I just, I loved it when he quoted 2 Thessalonians 2, 15.
But I would like to refer first to 1 Thessalonians 2, verse 13.
Why? Because this is very significant, folks. This is the first epistle St. Paul ever wrote.
And yet notice what he says, for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly that in receiving the word of God from hearing us, he hadn't written anything to him yet.
You receive not a human word, but as it truly is the word of God. Then in 2 Thessalonians 2, 15, he says, therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, notice, either by oral statement or by letter of ours.
Now, Mr. White, I don't think the scriptures can get any more plain than that. The word of God comes to us by scripture that is the written word and by oral tradition.
Now I asked Mr. White to show me where the scripture says that that commandment no longer applies to us.
Where does the scripture say, oh, that only applied to them. Once everything got written down, well then now we go by that, see.
The Bible never says that. Never anywhere. So Mr. White's going to have to show me, educate me, teach me where in fact the scripture does say.
And we could go through a litany of scriptures, more scriptures that demonstrate the tradition, the spoken word of God is equally as authoritative as the written word.
But now I must move forward to the magisterium. Do we see a magisterium of the church in the
New Testament? Let me quote Matthew chapter 18 verses 15 through 18. And I want you to notice there is a parallel to Deuteronomy chapter 17 that I quoted to you earlier.
If your brother shall offend against thee, go rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he hears you, you've gained your brother.
If he will not hear you, take with you one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may stand.
If he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.
That is excommunicated, cut off from the believers. Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven.
And whatever you loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven. I want you to notice, folks, what it did not say.
If you have a problem between brother and brother, now my opponent will no doubt stand up and say, oh, well, that's only talking about minor disagreements.
I had one in one debate, honest, honest, honest engine. I had in one debate a fellow told me that, well, you know, that's talking about things like denting your car.
Well, I invite you to look at the context of Matthew chapter 18, where, where Jesus says, if you offend one of these little ones, it's better for you to tie a stone around, a millstone around your neck and be cast into the sea than to lead one of these little ones astray.
That's the context of Matthew 18. Folks, there is no better, there is no worse fault that we can have between one another than heresy, false doctrine that can destroy souls.
As St. Paul describes it, false doctrine eats like a canker worm. And that doesn't mean the body, that's talking about our souls.
There is no greater problem that we can have. And according to the New Testament folks, the scriptures that my, my opponent so venerates, and I appreciate that.
We take it to the church and the church. Yes, the church has the final say.
Does that mean the church is Lord over the scriptures? No, it means the Lord, the
Lord has given to his church, this great gift to his bride authority over the children.
Can you imagine a family? We have Jesus as the husband, the church as, as wife, but can you imagine if the wife had no authority over the children?
She couldn't say anything to the kids, they just run roughshod over her. That's absurd, of course not.
Jesus gives us an authoritative church, not the Lord over the word of God, but the church hears the word of her husband and recognize it and teaches the children.
Yes, 1 Timothy 3 .15 says the church, not the Bible, is the ground and pillar and foundation of truth.
I couldn't believe when my opponent quoted, as he did on the radio the other day, Ephesians 4 .12,
when he said, he just quoted me and said, we don't just have a book, but we have a living church.
And then he quotes Hebrews 4 .12 that says, the book's alive, or at least that's how he said it on the radio. The book's alive, well guess what folks, check, listen to that Bible you got in your hands and see if there's a heartbeat.
And then I want you to look at Hebrews 4 .12 and look at the context. The context says, look at verse 13, him, him, him.
It's referring, the word of God, you see this is a common error that my Protestant friends make, common error, and that is equating the scriptures with the word of God whenever you see word of God in scripture.
Hebrews 4 .12 is not talking about scripture, it's talking about a person, Jesus Christ. The word of God comes to us first as a person, second orally preached according to 1
Peter 2, then it is written. And finally, my time is running out.
I want to demonstrate to you that this magisterium of the church did not die in the first century.
Jesus did not give authority to the apostles and then have that authority die with them. And somehow, and Mr.
White is going to have to show me the verses, somewhere there's this change where we don't go by the tradition, the spoken word of God, and the written word of God anymore.
And we don't obey our bishops, but we just go by the scripture alone.
I'm not sure, you'll have to show me where that is in sacred scripture. But let me show you what the truth is, folks, as the
Catholic church presents it. The teaching of sacred scripture is that in Ephesians 3 .10,
and I want you to notice the context of Ephesians 3. In Ephesians 3 .10,
St. Paul says, so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the Bible to the principal...
Is that what that said? No. Through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.
Notice, it was, and by the way, Jane, I picked this one out for James. It was predestined before the foundation of the world that this would be the means whereby
God would reveal his manifest wisdom to the angels, the powers and principality.
Remember, I was in a debate not long ago with a fundamentalist who said, well, that verse only says that the church teaches angels.
Well, that's true. I guess you got me there. But if you read a little bit further, you're going to see the context.
Yes, the church in a sense, and St. Thomas Aquinas gets into that great mystery of how she does teach angels, but that's another issue, isn't it?
But if you continue reading, you'll see that the church does not only teach angels, but in Ephesians chapter four, the scripture says,
God has set apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers in the church. Why? For the work of the ministry, the building up of the saints, right?
So that we henceforth be not children, notice children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.
We have a mother in the church that we can trust, and she is divine as well as human.
Now I want you to notice, so that we henceforth be not tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.
I would suggest to you folks that Protestantism, and I'm running out of time, I'll get to this in my next statement and rebuttal.
Protestantism is proof positive that Sola Scriptura is an utter failure.
Not only is it not historical, it's not biblical, but folks, the fact that there are 23 ,000 denominations within 500 years ought to say, hey, there's something going on here.
23 ,000, that's 40 new churches. In fact, my mother just sent me 40 new churches a year for 500 years. Which one is the true church?
My mother just sent me a newspaper clipping from Virginia where we have a new
Baptist church. I don't know how they relate. Well, it's a Baptist church, they just split and started a new church.
Maybe that's the true church. It's been around now for two weeks. But now,
I want to demonstrate to you folks that this authority in the church does not cease in the first century.
This is very important. In Hebrews 13 .7, get your Bibles out and read it.
St. Paul, or whomever wrote Hebrews, we do not know, said, remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you, follow their faith.
Whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.
The Bible says to follow your prelates. Who are these guys? Are they the apostles? They are the ones ordained by the apostles.
In Acts chapter 15, verses one and two, the Bible makes it very clear what we are to do in a case when we have a disagreement over scripture, or whatever it may be concerning the faith.
In Acts 15, the apostles took it to the church, and the church had the final say.
Thank you. So we have two 15 -minute rebuttals, and then two 10 -minute rebuttals.
I must begin by apologizing. It is my desire that in these dialogues, both sides be accurately represented.
Misrepresentations do nothing to accomplish anything. In the past 25 minutes, the
Protestant position has been misrepresented so many times I lost count. Most fundamentally, over and over and over again.
In fact, if this misrepresentation was left out, there wouldn't have been much left. Over and over and over again.
The church has authority. Yeah, it does. Didn't you hear what I said about 1 Timothy 3? The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
There is a difference between having authority to teach God's truth and being infallible. A vast difference.
The fallacy being presented is, well, either you have an infallible church, or you have you and your
Bible in the woods. The idea that the church, as the bride of Christ, and dwelt by the Spirit of God, learning from the scriptures and teaching those to people, so they are sanctified in their journey in Jesus Christ, that middle ground is seemingly lost someplace.
And I'm sorry, because that definitely limits the value of this dialogue.
I try. I try when I cite from documents and when
I cite from writers, to be fair to those writers and those documents. Mr.
Staples accuses me of misrepresenting Athanasius. Mr. Staples has a list of I have
Athanasius. And when Athanasius talks about these issues,
I would invite you, please, there's a book out on the table called Sola Scriptura. I have a chapter in there on Sola Scriptura and the early church.
There are other authors like R .C. Sproul and John MacArthur and people like that who have contributed to the book. Look up the references.
Find them for yourself. Don't read them in quote books like Juergens. Read them in their actual contexts and see for yourself.
But also realize that Athanasius said these words. Vainly, then, do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded counsels for the faith's sake.
For divine scripture is sufficient above all things. But if a counsel be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the fathers.
For the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced where?
In the divine scriptures. You will find consistently in this book that Athanasius defends the deity of Christ and the
Nicene counsel, not on the basis that the Nicene counsel has some authority in and of itself that is separate from what
God has revealed in scripture, but the Nicene counsel has authority because what it says is in line with the divine scriptures.
It is easy to accuse people of misrepresenting people. It's very easy. My opponent has talked about the papacy in the past and I've tried to correspond with him about misrepresentations there.
That doesn't do you any good and I'm not going to get into it. Look them up yourself. Please take the time to do so.
In Mark chapter 7, please turn there if you have the opportunity. Mark chapter 7 verses 8 through 13, we have the same situation we encounter in Matthew chapter 15, where the
Lord Jesus teaches us that there is one ultimate authority. That ultimate authority is scripture.
There we have a situation where Jesus encounters the scribes and Pharisees, which we've just been told
I guess in Caiaphas were an infallible authority. I didn't know they were infallible. Authority?
Yes. Infallible? Completely different issue. Caiaphas and John 11?
Authority. High priest? Yes. Infallible? Obviously not. He was an heir on many things.
Here's one of them. He believed in the Corban rule. Matthew 15, 1 through 9. Mark chapter 7 verses 8 through 13.
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men. But wait a minute. The Jews didn't think this was a tradition of men.
Look at Tractate Aboth in the Talmud. They claim the exact same type of oral tradition passed down through their hierarchy that Rome claims today.
And this had that pedigree. And what does Jesus do? Oh, well, he must accept it then. No. He says in verse 12, and it says in verse 13, thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition, specifically differentiating between the word of God and that term tradition that they were using, which you handed down and you do many things such as that.
What do you do when you encounter a tradition that is claimed to be divine in origin? If you follow
Jesus, you test it by scripture. Now, Mr.
Staples says we have this infallible rule of faith. I'd like to ask him to show us.
The Roman Catholic Church has defined certain doctrines on the basis of tradition. One of them that's fairly recent is the bodily assumption of the
Virgin Mary. I would like to ask Mr. Staples, in light of his comments on 2
Thessalonians 2 .15, which I do not believe even began to deal with the context and the language that Paul used, but if he wants to say that this is a command to hold these traditions.
It's not, but let's say he does. Let's go with that interpretation. The command is in the past tense,
Mr. Staples, in the sense that these things were already taught to the Thessalonians. That must mean the Thessalonians believed in this, if you're saying that this tradition was from the apostles.
Therefore, since everyone in the church in Thessalonica, not just the bishop, but everyone in the church in Thessalonica learned these things and that these things do not exist in scripture.
All right, trace it for us. Trace it through history. Tell us about this doctrine.
Tell us when you first find it. Can we find it in Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine?
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith, admits the first time it's found is in the transitive literature of the fifth century, literature that was anathematized by Pope Galatius in 495.
If it's apostolic, if that's where it came from, then trace it for us. Show us this infallible rule of faith in light of 2
Thessalonians 2 .15. When Mr. Staples had a gentleman by the name of Clayton Bower Jr.
on his program a while back, he said with Tim's full approval, the Roman Catholic Church, this is
Mr. Bower speaking, is not a Bible -based church, but that the Bible is a church -based book. I'd like to ask
Mr. Staples if he agrees with that. If he doesn't, he can dismiss the rest of this. But I'd like to point out to you that quite on the contrary, the scriptures preexisted the church and were the very seedbed in which she grew.
Because of this, you will find many an early father who will castigate those who try to separate the Bible from the church, but they will at the same time deny the very fundamental assertion of my opponent this evening.
When Cyprian wrote to Pompey, he said the following, quote, whence is this doctrine? Does it come from the authority of the
Lord and of the gospel, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For that those things must be done which are written, written,
God testifies and commands when he says to Joshua, the book of this law shall not depart out of your mouth, that you may observe to do all things which are written.
If therefore it is either commanded in the gospel or contained in the epistles and the acts, then also this sacred doctrine must be observed.
More than a century later, when Augustine dealt with this passage, he did not find fault at all with what Cyprian had said. Instead, he himself asserted that the church must be proved from the
Bible. Listen to just some of his comments. He said, let us not hear this I say or this you say, but thus says the
Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe.
There, let us seek the church. There, let us discuss our case. He also said, let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other, not from divine canonical books, but from elsewhere.
Someone may perhaps ask, why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents, but by divine oracles.
And he also said, whatever they may adduce and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are his sheep, hear the voice of our shepherd.
Therefore, let us search for the church in the sacred canonical scriptures. Now, I hope that you will not ignore those references simply because someone says, oh, they're out of context.
Really? Show me the context. Show me that the context demonstrates these things aren't true.
Oh, well, over here this father said, okay, that's fine. Let's go over there and look at what that father said over there, but let's not ignore what he said here.
I can give you example after example. Basil of Caesarea, for example, when dealing with people had a different view of the Godhead, said they have their customs, we have our customs.
Let's go to the God -breathed scripture and the side on which the God -breathed scriptures cast its vote of truth.
That's the side we're going to believe. But then later on when he was talking about other traditions, such as which direction to face when praying and how many times to baptize someone and baptism and so on and so forth, he said, well, we have these traditions.
Do you mean Basil was inconsistent with himself? Yes, he was. We do need to look at the context.
Not just a list of quotes. I once had a poet say, I can bury Mr. White under 56 pages of quotes.
My friends, please, don't let that kind of braggadocious attitude keep you from writing these references down and digging deep and taking time.
Matthew chapter 23 was presented to us by Mr. Staples. He says, here
Jesus accepts tradition, the seed of Moses. He accepts tradition as an infallible authority here because he doesn't reject the current form of worship in the synagogue service.
Where's something about infallible authority here? I don't see anything about infallible authority. This overthrows what he does in Matthew 15 or in Mark 7?
Certainly not. This isn't an acceptance of some infallible authority. It's a recognition that there are authorities that exist outside of scripture, but they're not infallible.
They may be good. They may be right. Mr. Staples over and over again ignored what
I said in my presentation. I pointed out that Sola Scriptura speaks to the normative condition of the church.
Well, the word of God was oral at one point. Yeah? So? The point is, in what form is it now?
You see, Rome tells us that the word of God orally was things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception and bodily assumption.
The apostles never taught that. The other church didn't believe that. So why should
I believe this claim? Why does Mr. Staples believe today in the bodily assumption of Mary? I submit to you it is because of Sola Ecclesia.
Tradition doesn't teach it. If he can't trace it back to the beginning, he's got to admit tradition doesn't teach it.
The scriptures don't teach it, so why does he believe it? Sola Ecclesia, just as I said. I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. I'm trying to focus upon the simple fact that we have a battle here between two ultimate authorities.
Mr. Staples said, the scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work. All right? If Mr.
Staples believes that it is true, that the immaculate conception, for example, is true, the bodily assumption is true, then show us how the scriptures equip him to teach that doctrine.
It certainly must be a good work to teach it, right, if it's true. Then show us how the scriptures equip him to teach that doctrine.
If he can't do that, then obviously he's not actually saying the scriptures are sufficient. He's saying this broader context, this sacred tradition with a capital
S and a capital T that includes this other extra biblical revelation is somehow what is sufficient.
Get the tapes, look up the references, write down notes from what we've said, listen to what
I said about what Sola Scriptura is, and then check out the objections that have been made to it by Mr.
Staples. For example, over and over again, the citation of 1 Thessalonians 2 .13,
for example, is based upon the assertion that I deny the church has any authority. I ask you, listen to anything
I said in my opening statement, read the Roman Catholic Controversy, read Sola Scriptura, and find one place where I said the church has no authority.
Just one. It's not there. The difference is not between having authority and not having authority.
It's between being infallible in God -breathed and having authority because you possess the
God -breathed revelation and can teach from it. That is the issue. Now, it's evident that we have somewhat of a partisan crowd this evening, and that's great.
I'm glad. But I'm not going to stand up here and say, now, you, my students, I have students.
I teach at three different schools. You're not my students. You're people
I care for enough to come out here and challenge you to think, to lay aside your prejudices, to lay aside your partisan spirit, in a sense.
Consider these things. You're my judges, not my students, because you have to judge what is being said here this evening.
First of all, I do realize that it does seem to be a partisan crowd, but I hope
I'm not sounding... Let me just say this. Folks, I am passionate about the
Catholic truth, because for many, many years, I was raised a Baptist. I was an Assymigod youth pastor.
I lived Protestantism, and I know Mr. White will tell me I don't know a thing about Protestantism, but I have read and I have studied and I tried to remain
Protestant, folks. Believe me, those of you who know me, if anybody is here who knew me before I was
Catholic, I was a far cry from a candidate. Anybody would think... In fact, the fellow that converted me said, man, when you left,
I was so glad you were gone. And I thought, forget that guy, he'll never be
Catholic. So I'm not up here just trying to pile up points and win a debate.
That's not what I'm here for. I'm here to present the truth of the Catholic faith. But in the process of doing that, understand
I need to expose the errors of my opponent, and that's all that I'm doing. I like this guy.
In fact, anybody who wears a rush tie, you've got to like. But now to the point.
Enough of the nicer. My opponent just quoted to you
Saint Basil of Caesarea, and I have the quote from his book. I believe it's on page 155, where he uses
Saint Basil. He's going to check that. Saint Basil of Caesarea to supposedly show that Basil taught soul scripture.
And I want you to remember, folks, what he said. He said, yes, there Basil teaches the scriptures of soul rule of faith.
And then he said in other places, well, if he's talking about, well, which way you're going to face when you're praying, then he will talk about tradition.
Well, is that the case? I'm going to quote to you from Saint Basil of Caesarea. On the spirit.
And it's true that in this work, there are lots of things discussed, but I want you to see the context of what he's saying.
He says, listen, of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the church.
Some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles handed on to us in mystery.
In respect to piety, both are of the same force. It is more, Mr. White, than just which way you're facing when you pray.
It is the dogmas and kerygmas of the Catholic faith. And I could go through and quote
Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Augustine. In fact, I think we'll have to get to him later. Because, friends,
I encourage you to read Saint Augustine. He is a Catholic bishop, Catholic to the core. But I need to get now to 2
Timothy 3 .16. I want to come back to the point that my opponent made in his opening statement that 2
Timothy 3 .16 demonstrates, proves to us, that the scripture is the sole rule of faith.
In order to do this, I'm going to quote 2 Timothy in context, beginning at verse 14.
In fact, we could go back further, but let's start at verse 14. But continue in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and because from thy tiny infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, and instruct in righteousness.
Now, I want you to notice, and I refer to Cardinal Newman, who once said of this passage, and Cardinal Newman, you may know, was a convert from Anglicanism who wrote the great work on the development of Christian doctrine, which, by the way, he wrote when he wasn't even
Catholic. He had things he wrote in there even against the papacy. But he later came to see through his understanding of the development of doctrine that the
Catholic Church is the true church, and he indeed became Catholic. But at any rate, Cardinal Newman once wrote that, if this verse that my opponent quoted to prove sola scriptura proves sola scriptura, it proves too much.
Why? Because the context of the passage, if we're going to interpret this in an exclusive way like my opponent is, and remember,
I'm the one who told you, I warned you, and I'm sorry if I refer to my students. James, I love my students, and my kids from my youth ministry that are here, forgive me.
But I was the one who warned you, do not quote one scripture like the Jehovah's Witness, and we're hanging on, man, we're hanging on to this verse that says
Jesus is man. And boy, show us anything else, and it doesn't matter because we've got this one verse.
See, there are many other verses, and you see, and I demonstrated that. And now let me demonstrate to you the context of 2
Timothy 3 to show that even in context, my opponent's got it all wrong.
Why? Because what St. Paul is speaking about, again, if we're going to hold to this exclusive interpretation of scripture, is the
Old Testament. Nowhere does Paul, obviously, he's not referring to the passage he's now sitting down with his stylists and writing.
And he's not referring to 2 Peter, perhaps Hebrews, certainly the book of Revelation that had not even been written yet, folks.
So the context is he is speaking about the Old Testament. Yes, it is true that the
New Testament is also inspired. But folks, I can't let Mr. White make that jump.
Because in order to even say what the New Testament is, he has to refer to Catholic tradition, the tradition of the church, because the
Bible itself doesn't tell us what, in fact, the New Testament even is. Second point. The word that is translated in the
King James is perfect. The Greek word is artios. And the verb that is used subsequently, ex artizo, does not mean sufficient in the sense that James White wants to make it mean.
That is sufficient in the sense that we don't need anything else whatsoever. I urge you to hear my words.
This is the same error of the Jehovah's Witness, the Aryans, who hold to one verse and exclude the others.
Yes, the scripture is inspired, and as such, it is able to equip us. But folks, think about it.
How can it tell us what it is? You see, the scripture itself tells us to go to the tradition of the church and to the church itself as an authority.
Why? Because obviously, and I'll use the most obvious case, there are so many cases that we could use, but I'll use the most obvious case, the canon of sacred scripture.
In the early church, folks, and I have a number of quotes, I recommend you read the
Catholic commentary on scripture, the New Jerome biblical commentary, and the article on canonicity, and this is a matter of historical record, folks.
This isn't something that we can dispute. The bishops in the church, in the early church, disagreed over what, in fact, the
New Testament was to contain. Let me quote to you Origen's commentary on the Psalms, and he says,
I quote, Peter, upon whom is built the church of Christ. I want you to notice. One thing he's certain about is who the church is built upon.
Against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail. He left us only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity.
Let us concede a second, which, however, is doubtful. One thing he was certain about is that Jesus built his church upon Peter.
But notice, he's not so sure about second Peter. And friends, in the early church, there was huge disagreement.
Yes, I said huge, and I have a list here, and if need be, I will call upon it to demonstrate that fact.
But the point is, where do you go? And if Mr. White is going to teach, and if you are going to say that the scripture is the sole rule of faith, folks, one of the most important doctrines in the early church, one of the most important things you better get right, is what the
Bible is, don't you think? And yet, so, Mr. White, I ask you to demonstrate to me from the scriptures, you believe in Sola Scriptura, you've said so, you need to demonstrate how the
Bible teaches us which books of the Bible are in fact the Bible.
And I also, I want you to notice, he never did respond to what I asked him to do, to demonstrate to me scripture that said, that gives us the time when the commandment from 2
Thessalonians 2 .15 stopped, and then we start only believing in what's written.
And you need to give me scripture, Mr. White, to show me where that commandment is.
Secondly, I would like to mention, again, to get back to Arteas and Exartizo, to say that this means sufficient, and we do not need anything else.
Now, again, Mr. White said, well, I'm not saying we don't need anything else. We do need the church.
I believe he would agree with that. We do need the church. It's just that the church has an ultimate authority in the scripture.
But I want to demonstrate to you folks that the scripture itself, and yes, I did make the statement, or my companion on the radio broadcast did say, that the church is not a
Bible -based church. The Bible is a church -based book.
I got it right. The fact is, the church did not pre -exist the
Bible. Or, I'm sorry, the church did, in fact, pre -exist the Bible. The Bible was not in existence.
That is the New Testament. When Paul first started preaching the word of God, and Peter, and so forth, it would come along later.
And, in fact, the arguments would go on for centuries over which books of the Bible were, in fact, the
Bible. And when, in fact, the church called councils in order to come to the bottom line on what scripture was, notice what they did not do.
They did not go to the scriptures and say, see, the scripture proves that Hebrews is the word of God.
The scripture proves that Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Clement is not the word of God.
Show me, Mr. White, and you've got, you said it, a partisan crowd here, but you could convert a lot of Catholics.
If you could show where the Bible demonstrates to us that it is sufficient by demonstrating to us that it shows us what the canon of scripture is.
The fact is it cannot. And I could give you a litany of other traditions which Mr. White holds that also cannot be proven from scripture alone.
Why? Why is there a problem there, folks? The problem is that scripture alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith.
That is why God has given us the tradition and the church to interpret that tradition. Finally, again, to finally get to my point on that Greek verb, exartizo.
I believe if you use the principle of hermeneutics that my opponent is using with exartizo, you reach devastating conclusions when you consider verses like James chapter one, verse four.
Now, I know, Mr. White, this is a different Greek word. My Greek professor, if he were here, would be happy to hear me say that.
But I do realize that these are two different Greek words. But what I'm doing is I'm using an analogy here to show that that verse, 2
Timothy 3, 16, does not teach sufficiency in a formal sense. In fact, I would suggest to you folks, can you imagine what would happen if I attempted to prove a
Catholic doctrine using one verse of scripture, one verb, in fact, and a subordinate clause of one scripture and say, there it is, man, that's the word of God.
Can you imagine what Mr. White would say to me? Can you imagine? In James chapter one, verse four, the scripture says, and let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and entire and lacking in nothing.
Folks, it doesn't get much more plain than that. If we're going to use his hermeneutic principle here, then John Lennon was wrong.
All we need is patience. We don't need anything else. We certainly don't need the scripture.
We don't need Jesus. We don't need a Bible. All we need is patience. Of course, that's absurd, but that verse is not teaching sufficiency, nor is 2
Timothy 3, 16, at least in the formal sense that he wants to make it out to be.
Now, secondly, I want to point out how that scripture is unworkable in demonstrating that the history of Protestantism, and I'm going to issue another challenge to Mr.
White. The first challenge is to demonstrate that the canon of scripture is proved in scripture itself.
Secondly, I have another challenge. Mr. White has discussed how the traditions that Paul talks about is nothing other than the gospel, which is contained in the written scriptures.
Well, by the way, that's another Protestant tradition not found in scripture. Where does St. Paul say, where does the scripture say that what he talks about is nothing other than what's written in scripture?
He says exactly the opposite in 2 Thessalonians 2, but be that as it may. Mr. White, I think you're missing something very important here.
You presume that when you say, Paul is talking about the gospel, that everybody knows what the gospel is.
Folks, you and I, Mr. White, radically disagree on what the gospel is.
In fact, I can point out to you how that Protestant theologians and denominations, in fact, disagree over what the gospel is.
Where do you go? Not only do we have the historical reality that Christians disagreed over what scripture is, now we have churches, 26 ,000 of them, in fact.
I've read as many, 23 to 26, give or take a thousand or two. Let me ask you, what is the gospel?
What are the essential truths that I must believe in order to be a Christian? Is it the 39 articles of the
Anglican church? Is it the 12 fundamentals of the fundamentalist church of the last century? Is it today among the evangelicals?
And God knows what is essential in evangelical Christianity. I don't know what this man believed.
I do not know what he considers is essential for Christianity. Thank you.
Now, 10 minute rebuttals. I'd immediately like to ask the moderator to request that my opponent no longer sing.
Anyone agree with me on that? Not only that,
I have no idea what song he was talking about either. I'm glad that my opponent has listened to my debate with Patrick Madrid on Sola Scriptura, because that's the debate he's responding to, obviously.
At least I hope that's the one, because you know why? I'd be really disappointed if, in fact, he had the time to read my book.
Because almost everything that Mr. Staples has said about my brief comments on 2
Timothy 3, 16 through 17 are addressed in my book. And unfortunately, he gave you the indication that I've never dealt with these things.
In fact, he keeps accusing me of being a Jehovah's Witness, and using this one verse. Now, the
Jehovah's Witnesses in Phoenix know me real well, and they would really be surprised that I was a Jehovah's Witness. I've got a book coming out next spring on the
Trinity. That really makes me a lousy Jehovah's Witness. But the problem is, if Mr.
Staples read my book, he would know that I dealt with 2 Timothy 3, 16 through 17 in context, over the space of more than four pages, with 11 end notes.
And that was the brief discussion. And I invited Mr. Staples to contact me and ask for any other information he could possibly want.
Anything I've written, he'll tell you. I sent him my books, tapes, at no charge. Just so that this wouldn't happen.
Just so that this wouldn't happen. I'm not just citing one verse. The view of Scripture enunciated by Paul in 2
Timothy 3 is the view of every prophet and apostle in Scripture. It is especially the view of the
Lord Jesus Christ as he views the Bible, as God's very speaking to men.
I dealt with Cardinal Newman. Cardinal Newman misunderstood the application of the passage.
We're not talking about the canon of Scripture there. We're not talking. I recognized. I even, everything that Mr. Staples said, this is the
Old Testament. I said that. Yes, it is. No two ways about it. That is not the issue. And again,
I apologize because we've gone, we've spent a lot of time on issues that didn't need to be spent on because that's not my position.
I've dealt with those things and I'm sorry about that. But, Mr. Staples has made a couple statements and I want to spend most of my time dealing with the canon argument.
He says the church did pre -exist the Bible as in the New Testament and that's the error.
You see, God's people has always had God's revelation to rely upon, even in the
Old Testament times. Remember what happened when the book of the law would be discovered? It would be read before the king and he'd tear his clothes and, oh my goodness, what have we done?
They had the Scriptures. Sometimes we see some terrible things that happen when the Scriptures become almost unknown.
God's people wander around in darkness. But, the church of Jesus Christ, take a new, take a translation.
The United Bible Society's text does this in the Greek. It will put every citation of the Old Testament in italics.
Take a look at the New Testament and tell me the New Testament writers didn't have the
Scriptures. They did. And for the church, the citation of the Scriptures, that was it.
That was it. Final authority. As the Scriptures say it, that's it. And we as the church have the authority to teach those
Scriptures. But, the church is subservient to those Scriptures. He also said,
Mr. White didn't respond to my thing about 2 Thessalonians 2 .15. Yes, I did.
Maybe he was writing something at that time. But, I specifically pointed out that it's a misinterpretation of the passage.
It's not a command. And it is simply an error to say, well, what you've got here is you've got a command to hold on to extra -scriptural revelation.
When did that stop? Mr. Staples, Paul was not calling these people to hold to extra -scriptural revelation.
What Paul taught them in person and what he wrote to them were one and the same things. He didn't contradict himself.
He wrote with one message. And it was the Gospel. Mr. Staples says, well, you all disagree on the
Gospel. I've talked to so many Roman Catholics who disagree on the Gospel. I guess that makes the teaching of the church unclear too.
No, of course not. But, I can tell you one thing about the Gospel. Whatever you might say about people being confused about the
Gospel, Mr. Staples, there's one thing that no person who simply reads the New Testament is going to be confused about.
And that is no person is ever going to be confused about the idea that the Gospel includes such things as indulgences.
Never be confused by that. And I feel for anyone who would think that it does.
Because the clear message of the New Testament and the Gospel is the sufficiency of the work of one person. Not satis passio in purgatory, but the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Now, the issue, four minutes, the canon. Seems like this is a trump card again.
Unfortunately, everything I said about this subject in the book was, I guess, not looked at, not dealt with, not responded to.
I differentiated in my book. This is in the Roman Catholic Controversy. And by the way, you were wrong about the page that Basil was cited on.
It's page 35 of the book on Sola Scriptura. And in fact, I cited everything that he read plus more, more context than what he read.
And yet he says, I'm taking it out of context. I invite you to just look. Just look. But I dealt with the issue of the canon extensively.
I pointed out that the canon is determined and decided by one person, God. Why? Because the canon is simply the list of what
God inspired and what he doesn't. God ultimately, and Roman Catholic theologians agree with this,
God ultimately is the author of canon. The canon does not exist separately from scripture. It is a function of the work of the inspiration of the scripture.
The issue we have to deal with here is, how do we know, how do we gain knowledge of what the canon is?
And Mr. Staples may stand up here and say, I have infallible knowledge of what the canon is. Well, when did you get that infallible knowledge,
Mr. Staples? The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the first dogmatic and infallible definition of what the canon is in its fullness took place about 450 years ago.
What did anybody do before then? 1 ,500 years, no one could live a proper
Christian life because they didn't have an infallible revelation of the canon? Of course not. Pope Gregory the
Great didn't even agree with the canon that the Council of Trent came up with. Cardinal Cayetan, Thomas of Rio at the time of the
Reformation laughed at those who believed that the Deuterocanonical books were canonical. So what do we have here?
Well, Mr. Staples has just proven my original assertion right again. Why does
Mr. Staples have infallible certainty about the canon? It's not because he's read Athanasius or Jerome or gone into tradition or gone into scripture, sola ecclesia.
There it is again, ultimate authority. I have infallible certainty. How did
Mr. Staples, and you know I'm going to ask you this question because you listen to the debate. How did the godly man who lived in Palestine 50 years before Christ know that Isaiah or 2
Chronicles or scripture? You know that's the question that I ask. I'd like to see what you say. Did he have an infallible revelation?
I can't believe you're going to say that because the canon they held to there in Palestine was different than yours so it couldn't have been infallible.
Well, did he not have an infallible revelation? Then how could Jesus hold men responsible for what scripture says?
He did, Matthew chapter 22. Wait a minute. If Jesus can hold men accountable for what scripture says without some infallible magisterium to tell them what scripture is, then why can't
I as a Protestant have a sufficient knowledge of the canon without an infallible magisterium?
Why can't I do that? I can't. The simple fact of the matter is when
Mr. Staples talks to us about this infallible tradition it's not infallible. That tradition to which he holds has made many an error.
It's contradicted itself and has now defined as dogmatic beliefs binding upon the
Christian conscience doctrines utterly unknown in the Bible and unknown in the early church. And I could stand up here and say, talk about all the challenges that I've made
Mr. Staples that I haven't heard a word of response like he talked about my not responding. We don't have time to get to everything up here.
There's gonna be some things he's gonna say I'm not gonna be able to get to. There's gonna be some things vice versa. That's the way of debates. But on this issue
I think Mr. Staples needs to step up to the bat. Does Mr. Staples believe in the bodily assumption of Mary?
That's my first question. Does he believe it's an apostolic doctrine? Secondly, and would he please trace it for us and demonstrate that his understanding of 2
Thessalonians 2 .15 is in fact correct? I think it's a fair request. Thank you very much.
First of all, my opponent asked me the question, how did the man of God know what scripture was 50 years before Christ?
He knew it by adhering to the tradition of the church. As I demonstrated to you, the tradition of, now when
I say church, I'm speaking of the Old Testament in the sense that the book of Acts does as the church or the called out ones in the wilderness.
But the fact is, the Old Testament church, so to speak, did not, it is true, did not have a council or an infallible statement from the high priest.
They did not have a council where they concluded what the canon was. And I find that fascinating.
In that yes, even though they didn't, in fact I have here a list of a number of different canons that the
Jews relied on. If you're an Alexandrian or Ethiopian Jew, you had the
Septuagint or some, what we would call today, the Septuagint, which contained both the Proto and Deuterocanonical books.
If you were an Essene, you had the Pentateuch. You had much of what we have, minus the book of Esther.
And you had some of the Deuterocanonicals. If you were a Pharisee, you had the Palestinian canon.
If you were a Hellenistic Jew of the dispersion, you had the Septuagint. If you were a Sadducee, you accepted the
Pentateuch only. So yes, they were divided on this issue at the time of Christ.
That's a fact. But you see, that does not change the fact that the Old Testament man of God is still bound to the authority that God established in the
Old Testament. You see, my opponent cannot answer the question. So he is making a clever debate trick here and trying to shift the burden of proof onto me.
But of course, that's not what this debate is about. He is supposed to demonstrate to me that the Scripture alone is a sole rule of faith.
And when I ask him to give me Scripture, he's the one who believes it, not me. Sola Scriptura.
The Scripture alone is the sole rule of the faith. Well, if that's true, then we ought to see why we accept the canon of Scripture in the
Scripture. In fact, whenever Mr. White goes, I want you to notice, whenever Mr.
White goes to prove why he accepts this or that canon, what does he do? He goes to the tradition of the
Church. He just doesn't want to admit that he's more Catholic than he knows.
Second point is, I did not call Mr. White a Jehovah's Witness. But I think he did fail to see the point that I was making in demonstrating, and I know we toss around these numbers a lot in debates, but it is true, the 23 ,000 churches, the 26 ,000 churches.
But I believe my question is a valid one. He's already demonstrated that he can't give me an infallible reason.
He can't give me an authoritative reason why he can accept Scripture as the inspired infallible rule of faith.
Listen, folks, if you don't have an infallible source, to understand what the
Scripture is, then how can you say, as St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote, that you even have the habit of faith?
Because faith must be rooted in an infallible source. Now, Mr.
White, I accept your challenge to debate infallibility. I accept your challenge to debate
Mariology. That's not what we're here to debate tonight, but I hope, I pray that we will do that in the future.
But I do need to point out that Mr. White does not understand the development of doctrine as the
Catholic Church teaches. Just because there is not an infallible pronouncement on something does not mean that the children are not bound to follow the teachings of the elders.
And that's a very important point, and I think our Catholic friends would do well to heed this. Remember, when the
Holy Father speaks to the Universal Church on an issue of faith and morals, even if he is not speaking ex cathedra, we are still bound to follow that teaching.
And no, in those situations, we do not have infallible certainty. Absolutely. I agree,
Mr. White. So you're right. The Old Testament people of God did not have infallible certainty on the canon.
Hence, you had all the different canons. That proves my point, folks. You don't need Scripture alone.
In fact, Mr. White pointed out in Josiah what happened when they lost the Scripture. Well, it's true. We need the
Scripture. But the Church, the Old Testament Church, went right along, didn't it, without the sacred
Scriptures. Why? Because you also had a tradition and you also had an authoritative magisterium, a teaching authority.
But again, I want to emphasize and this is a misnomer, that it's only the infallible teachings of the
Church that we have to follow. That is simply not true. If there is not an infallible teaching, then what do you do?
You acknowledge, you study to show yourself approved. There is much freedom, in fact, in the Catholic Church on these issues.
But the key difference is this, folks. The Bible teaches plainly that Jesus gave authority to his
Church to declare the Word of God for us so that we can, in situations where there is major disagreement on essential issues concerning the doctrine of the faith, there is a man who can walk in and say, just as I said, thus saith
God. There shall be one shepherd, one fold, one sheepfold.
That is the promise we have in sacred Scripture. So, Mr. White, once again, I have to ask you.
You're the one who is teaching Sola Scriptura. You need to demonstrate to me from the Scriptures, I'm going to hold you to this, what in fact the
Scriptures are. You keep turning this thing on me. I've answered you now. Understand me, that in the early centuries of the
Church, when the bishops were in dispute over what the canon was, there was certain liberty.
That's why we don't condemn Saint Clement of Alexandria for accepting books of Scripture that we don't today.
There was legitimate freedom. But folks, what we see throughout the history of the Church, as I demonstrated from the
Word of God, that when a situation arises that needs clarification, the
Church has authority to speak by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that is an infallible authority.
And I'm going to ask you again, in my second challenge that you didn't respond to, to demonstrate to me what the
Gospel is. And this is very important, folks. He wants to gloss over this issue. But the fact is, folks, we have the reality of things like this.
The Augsburg Confession disagrees with the Westminster Confession on baptismal regeneration. Now, Mr.
White doesn't believe in baptismal regeneration. Many Protestants do. The Augsburg Confession does. Martin Luther did.
Of course, when we get to issues like this, what usually happens is the Protestant will say, oh well, that's a peripheral issue, baptism.
Even though for 2 ,000 years, it is the unanimous consent of the Church that baptismal regeneration is a dogma of the faith, and I don't think
Martin Luther would agree with you, that baptism is a peripheral issue.
Dr. Walter Martin, who many of you know and respect, wrote in his book,
The Kingdom of the Cult, he taught that Jesus Christ is not the Eternal Son, but he is the
Eternal Word who became the Son. Folks, we're talking about another Jesus here. And we could go on, when it comes to salvation, and here is a central doctrine
I'm sure Mr. White would agree, salvation. Do you know how many different doctrines of salvation we have in the Protestant churches?
We could bring Chuck Smith up on this stage, and he would categorically disagree with James White on justification, whether you can lose your state of grace, whether free will is involved, whether grace is resistible, double predestination.
We could go on, Mr. White and Chuck Smith would disagree. And we could go from Protestant church to Protestant church, and we get all these different things.
And let me ask you something, if the Word of God is sufficient, are these not men of God? Didn't Mr.
White just quote 2 Timothy 3 .16 and say that scripture is all we need to equip the man of God?
If that is the case, then friends, how can we say that the church, and I would suggest to you folks, if you recall from St.
Basil, when he said, I think this is a very important point, when
Basil, whom Mr. White had misquoted, said that we need to hold to the unwritten traditions as well as the traditions, he said, if we cut off from ourselves the unwritten traditions, we end up reducing the kerygma to just a word.
That is exactly what has happened in Protestantism, folks. The kerygma has been reduced to nothing more than a word.
Why? Because there is no one in the Protestant churches who can say, thus saith
God. Therefore, as a Protestant, you will always be uncertain. You will never have the certainty of faith out of which a true hope can flow.
That is what we offer in the Catholic church. Again, perhaps in the rebuttal period,
I will get to the bodily assumption and some of these charges that my opponent has made.
That is not the issue of the debate, but I will respond anyway. I want you to remember, I have agreed, we will debate these issues in the future in full.
I will demonstrate to you how that I came to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary through sola scriptura. I invite those of you who don't know to get a hold of my tapes on this issue, two tapes on the bodily assumption and the other
Marian doctrines and listen to them and listen to a Catholic response from the scriptures to Mr.
White's charge. Thank you. First question, please.
Good evening, Mr. White. Good evening. I would just like to preface my question very quickly with,
I won't read the whole scripture, I'll just overview it on Acts 8, verses 27 to 31.
The scripture where the eunuch is sitting in the chariot reading the book of Isaiah and as he's doing that,
Philip goes up to him and asks him, do you understand what you are reading? And the eunuch responds, how can
I understand unless some man show it to me? Well, if I were a non -believer and I were to open the
Bible and try to get the correct authority to interpret the
Bible for me, which church would I rely on for that authority? Would I try to filter through the 25 ,000 different Christian denominations?
Would I try to go to the Book of Mormon? Would I try to Jehovah's Witness or would
I try the Baptist church that was established in the 19th century?
How would you respond to that? Is that a liturgically significant thing you were just saying?
I'm a Baptist, I don't know. Actually, yes, but it's liturgical significance is different. This is a musical symbol.
The question is based upon Acts chapter 8 in the Ethiopian. And unfortunately, it goes again to this issue that seemingly a dichotomy is trying to be presented here, that either you have an infallible church or you have no church at all.
And you're just you and your Bible out in the woods, no Holy Spirit, no church, no nothing.
You see, the issue again is the issue of infallible authority. I have never claimed, and Protestants do not claim, and Sola Scriptura does not assert that God does not use means to explain his truth, that God does not use the church to grow people up.
That's never, ever been a claim. And unfortunately, it keeps being raised as a canard, as a misrepresentation.
The issue is what is the infallible authority to which that Ethiopian eunuch turned?
He turned to the scriptures. Philip was used to explain those scriptures to him, and we can be very thankful that he was.
I've had the opportunity of explaining the scriptures to many people, and I'm thankful for that opportunity. In fact, I've explained the scriptures to many
Jehovah's Witnesses, believe it or not. But that didn't make me infallible.
The word is what is infallible. And I just remind you of what Theodorette said, the doctrine of the church should be proven, not announced.
Therefore, show that the scriptures teach these things. That's what Philip did. And that is not in any way, shape, or form a denial of Sola Scriptura.
To say that it is, is to misunderstand what the doctrine actually is. I think the scripture you raise is an excellent one because it demonstrates the fact that the scripture is not sufficient.
It does not interpret itself. And when the Ethiopian eunuch asked the question, how can
I, unless somebody showed me, that is there for a reason. That scripture was written in the context of a community for a reason, to demonstrate to us the fact that we need this.
In fact, the scripture is not sufficient on its own. It's second
Peter chapter three, I referred to earlier, Saint Peter tells us that, and I don't know if I made this point sufficiently, and account the long suffering of our
Lord, salvation. Soterion, as our most dear brother,
Paul, according to the wisdom God given him, hath written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are certain things hard to be understood, and the undiscipled and unstable rest.
I was reading Professor Bloom, who is an evangelical scholar, and his interpretation of this passage, when it says that we are not to, in second
Peter earlier, in chapter one, verses 20 and 21, it says, understand this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
He makes the point here, that the reason why this epistle is written, one of the main themes is, that people were in fact, privately interpreting the scripture apart from the church.
Now I'm sure Dr. Bloom would argue the analogy of faith or something to that regard, but I think it's important that here an evangelical acknowledges, that this verse is talking, it's actually condemning private interpretation of scripture.
Did you know that? It's condemning private interpretation. That doesn't mean we can't interpret scriptures, get together, exegete scripture together and so forth, but it does say something about who is the final authority.
Because when you read later on there, in the verses I just read, what does Peter say about those who are giving this private interpretation?
I think in this context, he says that they are resting the scriptures to their own destruction.
Notice the word is unlearned, that's amethyst, which means undiscipled, not discipled by proper authority.
That's what you see throughout the New Testament. The church has the power to bind and loose, whatever she binds on earth is bound in heaven.
That's the clear teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Well, can
I make one comment? You certainly may, yes. Yes, he talks about those who are undiscipled, Mr.
Staples. So disciple, that's what the church is called to do. That doesn't mean that you substitute a different infallible rule.
Instead, you do what Christ calls the church to do, to disciple. Question for Mr.
Staples. Yes. Well, now he responded, so I can respond to his response. If it says undiscipled, you have to make a distinction here.
These dear people here, they have so many questions. Think how they're waiting here patiently. My turn.
Tim, you say that the church is infallible, yet when I look at church tradition,
I see that the fourth Lateran council conferred a special indulgence on people who would, by use of the sword, help to exterminate heretics.
There were several subsequent papal decrees that affirmed this as well. When I read
Vatican II, that seems to be contradicted. Well, number one, that is a distortion of the fourth
Lateran council, and it's rooted in a misunderstanding of the word extermino. It does not mean to exterminate.
It means to drive out. Now, extermino, when you see that word, you might be thinking in English and say, oh, that means go out and murder and kill.
That's not what it's saying, to drive out the heretics. Now, we have to understand the context in which this council was held.
We're talking about a different culture. Folks, we had Christendom. There were Christian nations, and if we had a
Christian nation where people decide, wouldn't it just be terrible if we had a
Christian nation that decided that things like abortion were wrong, and if you did that, you could be prosecuted?
Wouldn't that be terrible? No, I would suggest to you that'd be a good thing. But you see,
I think Americans, because we're in a non -Christian culture, we are so into this notion,
I think it's a false notion of freedom that's not freedom at all, that the purpose of government is supposed to be to give us every freedom in the world, freedom to have abortion, freedom to do this or that.
No, you see, in the 13th century, it was believed that to understand, and I said this on the radio with James, that heresy was considered a worse sin than murder.
Why? Because when you fall into the sin of heresy, you're not just killing bodies, you're killing souls. Now, there is no contradiction between Vatican II and the
Fourth Lateran Council. We live in a different age, and obviously, in the age that we live in, we're not going to be saying we're going to go out and drive out the heretics from America.
Why? Because we don't have Christian nations anymore. But I would suggest to you that if the world was
Christian, and we had Christian kings, don't you think that it would be a good thing to drive out, let's say, those who would want to murder babies in the womb?
I mean, wouldn't it be a good thing? Now, I'm not saying to exterminate them, but I am saying you make laws so that you can have a righteous nation.
Let me tell you exactly what the Lateran Council said. It said, Convicted heretics shall be handed over for due punishment to their secular superiors, or the latter's agents,
Catholics who assume the cross and devote themselves to the extermination of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and privilege as those who go to the
Holy Land. Please compare that with Vatican II, which says, This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or social groups of any human power.
In such wise and in matters religious, no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.
This is the allegedly infallible tradition that we are asked by Mr. Staples to believe. And he says, Well, but you need to realize they were in a different culture.
God's infallible truth is defined by culture? Is that what we're being asked to believe here? Now, let me ask you something.
Then he uses the hot -button topic of abortion. And I stand against abortion, but I want to point something out to you.
Same thing I pointed out on the radio. The Council of Constance killed
Jan Hus, not for being an abortionist, but for believing that you're justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ and for translating the
Bible into the Czech language so people could read it for themselves. That's not abortion. If that's heresy, this tells you what happens when
Sola Scriptura is abandoned. Because you see, the church was out of control. Why?
Because there's no rule of faith left to correct her. She's become her own rule of faith.
We see it in the Crusades. We see it in the Inquisition. This is what happens when the church no longer believes in Sola Scriptura.
Question for Mr. White. Mr. White, we've heard a lot this evening about 23 ,000 to 26 ,000 denominations.
Does that mean that Protestants believe there are 23 ,000 to 26 ,000 churches? What is the church?
Who is the true church? I won't even try to imitate the accent.
I love it. That's beautiful. No, obviously, we have a very, very different view of the church.
Mr. Staples has talked about how the mother speaks to the children. Do you know what that means about the church?
We believe that the church is the body of Christ. All those who have been called by God into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ make up that church.
It is a living communion in which we love one another in the bond of Jesus Christ. The church is not some organization that stands over us as a mother.
We are the church. And the ministers in the church are called by God to pastor our souls, yes, but they are not on some higher level.
With all due respect to our moderator, I do not believe that the New Testament in any way, shape, or form presents this difference between the quote -unquote clergy and the laity.
One of the great scandals of the Roman Catholic perspective was the belief that each individual is a believer -priest before God, responsible for what he or she believes, and that each individual has direct and immediate access to God's truth,
God's spirit, and God's throne through the finished work of Jesus Christ. You see, there are
Christians that span all those however many denominations you want to create or there are.
They're not, I'm not sitting here, I've got Presbyterian friends here and people from other churches, and I'm not sitting here saying, well, it's my church versus their church.
We are one in the bond of God's truth, but we do not solve our differences by abandoning the one infallible rule of faith
God has given to us and substituting one that gives us an alleged infallibility and a unity based upon that.
We stick with God's inspired word. Well, I agree with what
Mr. White said about we are the body of Christ, absolutely, but within the body there are many gifts, and Jesus gives authority.
I want you to notice here throughout this evening what James White is arguing for. He is arguing for a church that has no way of pronouncing authoritatively what the truth is on a doctrine.
He's arguing for anarchy, folks. Why do I say that? Now, listen, okay, before you, now some of the
Protestants say, oh, you're, well, listen, this is a man, he sounds all lovey -dovey with you, but when you get down to the essence of what he believes, the majority, the overwhelming majority of you
Protestants that are applauding him, he is diametrically opposed to when it comes to the issue of predestination, how a person is justified before God.
He is opposed to many of you on issues like the real presence of our
Lord in the Eucharist, if you're Lutheran. He is opposed to you on many such issues, and yet you're applauding him.
Folks, in Protestantism, we're talking about essential doctrines here. We're talking, I could go down a litany, folks, of doctrines.
We could, you talk about moral doctrine. When I talk to evangelicals, it's like, what moral doctrine?
Men like Dr. Dobson in his book, and I love the guy, he's a sincere man, but here in preparing for adolescence, he says masturbation is not a sin.
Why? Because the scripture doesn't say anything explicit about that. How about divorce and remarriage? Man, I have friends that are pastors that divorce, remarry, and don't miss a
Sunday. Why? Because there is no one to say, thus saith God, this is the truth.
You have disagreement and doctrine over whether you can, in fact, divorce and remarry in the Protestant churches.
It depends which church you go to. Well, and if you want to divorce and remarry, just do what Henry VIII did, check out and find one or maybe start one that agrees with you.
Okay, question for Mr.
Staples. Mr. Staples, Romans 5 .1 says, therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ. According to this verse and others, this justification is always spoken of as a past tense event.
So my question is, how can the Catholic gospel be reconciled to this justification according to a point in history?
Well, first of all, the verb you're talking about is dikaiao, and I've got to make a correction there.
Actually, the manuscript authority points to a subjunctive there, let us have peace with God.
Not we have peace, as the King James will say, but at any rate, let's, you know, so even if it did, we have peace with God.
We agree, having been justified, how? Through baptism, through our incorporation into the body of Christ, which by the way, is unanimously taught by the church fathers over 2 ,000 years, baptismal regeneration, which
Mr. White rejects. I guarantee, folks, he quotes the fathers. He loves the fathers.
He loves to go to the fathers, but I challenge you, Mr. White, to honestly read what the fathers say about baptismal regeneration and tell me honestly that you can tell me that the
Christianity does not believe in baptismal regeneration. But folks, justification, having been justified, yes, through baptism, we have peace with God.
But folks, remember, there is also a present participle used with that same verb dikaiao in Romans 3 .24,
being justified, which implies an ongoing process. And I'll refer you to Galatians 2, verses 16 and 17, where we have a future passive of the verb dikaiao sune, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law and by the way the
Catholic church teaches it. We are not justified by the works of the law or any works that we do by our own strength, but we are justified by grace through faith that works itself out in love, as Galatians teaches in Galatians 5 .6.
But now, but knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, and actually that's a bad translation.
We have an aorist there. The aorist is slightly irregular in Greek, but it is a past tense normally.
We have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified.
That's a future passive by the faith of Jesus Christ, not by the works of the law, which the
Catholic church teaches, but by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified. But if while we seek to be justified, notice
Paul includes himself, I know I'm out of time. If while we seek to be justified in Christ, we are found sinners.
Is Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. If I build up again the things which I destroyed, referring to the Old Testament law,
I make myself parabatain, that is a covenant breaker, one who cuts himself off from God.
Read Galatians chapter 5 in conclusion where Paul says stand fast in the faith and be not held again under the yoke of bondage.
He says you're made void of Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the works of the law, you have fallen from grace, for we through the spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justification.
Folks, hope of, that means future, we don't have it yet. If you hope for it according to Romans 8, 24, you ain't got it yet.
Not in fullness. There you have
Catholic obedience to the clergy. He's a magisterium of one.
Three minutes for Mr. White. Thank you very much. I congratulate Mr. Staples on getting all of that in.
I just wish most of the facts were accurate because they weren't. They sounded real good because they go real fast, and when you're really excited, you say a lot of things, everybody goes, wow, that guy's really into it.
But I hope you take the tape and turn it down to real slow speed and look at everything that was said.
First of all, he said the verb in Romans 5, 1, dicaeo is in subjunctive. He's thinking of the verb echo, which is, there's a text for variant there, even all
Roman Catholic scholars, however, go with the indicative there. The problem is with Mr.
Staples' position is that first of all, he made a number of assertions there in regards to the Greek language that just simply don't wash.
The participle in the Greek language takes its tense from the main verb of the passage, and what he said about Romans 3, 24, it doesn't make any sense in light of that.
It sounds real good, and Mr. Staples talks about his students and stuff.
I'm just going to have to ask Mr. Staples sometime to tell us what his expertise in that language is, why we should believe that.
I teach the language, I am a professor of it, and I'm a critical consultant on a major translation, so at least
I've done some background on that. I'd ask Mr. Staples to comment on that. The problem is, did you hear
Mr. Staples then said after saying all that other stuff? Yes, we have been justified as a past tense action by baptism.
What did Romans 5, 1 say? Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ. Let me say something. In Roman Catholicism, you can commit a mortal sin and lose the grace of justification and be an enemy of God.
You can be justified and then be unjustified by committing a mortal sin. None of you in this room know that you're not going to commit a mortal sin by the time you go to bed this evening.
Hence, the relationship you have with God could very well end this evening. The term peace,
Irenae in the Greek, shalom in the Hebrew, is a very rich term. It does not simply mean a ceasefire.
It means a fullness of relationship. It means a wellness. You see, my friends, this is an important issue and I hope we get to debate justification someday because in point of fact, the difference between us on that issue is quite simply this.
I have peace with God this evening, not because of anything I've done, not because of any merit
I've earned, but because of one person and the work that he accomplished in my behalf perfectly 2 ,000 years ago.
I stand before God and I have peace that cannot be destroyed simply because my
Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect Savior. That is the difference. A question for Mr.
White. I am fascinated by your continuous confusion of the concept of rule as if it was a judge.
Can you possibly give us a scriptural proof that the scripture is the judge in a controversy?
What I mean by this is if I say that the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and the Glorious Assumption of the Virgin Mary are taught in scripture and you say no, where is the forum where this dispute is resolved and who pronounces the judgment as to which is right and which is the faith of the church?
We're finally on the topic tonight. Every six months,
I go to the general conference of the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. I've done it past 25 general conferences.
Stand right outside the gates of the temple and pass out tracts to the Mormons, about 12 of us, about 30 ,000 of them. Feels sort of similar, right?
As I speak to those people, they stand there and I open up the Bible and I read them Isaiah 43 .10, before me there is no
God formed and there shall be none after me. Some of you may know Mormons are polytheists. They believe God was once a man who lived on another planet.
There are other gods aside from him. And I show him that plain scripture standing outside the gates of the temple.
And he says, yeah, but you don't have any right to interpret that. You see, we have a church and we have a prophet.
And the prophet tells me that there's more than one God. And so, you know, you may show me that passage, but it doesn't really mean anything.
How do I respond? Do I say, oh no, I have an infallible authority in the
Pope. And he says there is one God. And the Mormon says, oh, well, but my infallible authority, the priest, the prophet in Salt Lake City says there isn't one.
Is that what we're reduced to? Is your ultimate authority versus his ultimate authority? Or has
God spoken clearly? Does anyone in this room actually doubt that a serious, in -depth exegesis of the 43rd chapter of Isaiah would not demonstrate the truth of monotheism?
Are we actually being told the scriptures are so muddled, so unclear, they cannot teach this?
I certainly hope not. And so, the question that you're asking is, well, we don't want to do exegesis.
We want someone to tell us to believe this, and then it'll be infallible. It's not what the scriptures call us to do.
What do the scriptures call us to do? To be a workman who is diligent in studying the word of God so he can handle accurately the word of truth.
Well, I want you to notice before you applaud that he didn't respond to the question, first of all.
Yes, I did, Mr. Stavis. He didn't give the scripture. I have demonstrated to you, folks, go back to Matthew chapter 18 and you read it.
You pray, you get before God, and you tell me that the New Testament teaches sola scriptura when you go to the
Bible and you read Matthew chapter 18. And we could pick a page, folks, but I pray that you will, and honestly, search your heart before God.
Now, as far as the Mormons go, well, the Mormons, James White says, they say they have an authority.
And you Catholics say you have an authority. So, see? Well, folks, it will take about 15 seconds to dismiss the
Mormons. Started in 1822, they are eliminated from the possibility of being the church
Jesus Christ established. End of story. Now, folks, it's not what we want here.
He says we want to have this authority over us to speak the word. It's not what we want.
It's what the historic Christian faith has taught for 2 ,000 years, demonstrated in her ecumenical counsels over 21 of them, 21 of them over 2 ,000 years.
It's not what we want. This is what the Christian church, the true church of Jesus Christ has taught for 2 ,000 years. It's what
God has given us, the gift of the church so that we be not henceforth children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.
And once again, Mr. White didn't answer the question. I gave you the formula that Jesus gives us.
When there is a disagreement, Mr. White has yet to give us the formula where Jesus says, now, if you disagree, what you do, get your
Bibles and start arguing passages. And if you don't agree with your pastor, well, then go start your own church, Martin Luther. Listen, that is nowhere to be found in scripture.
I suppose that would suffice. I just have a question for Mr.
Staples. Mr. Staples, in Jude, the letter from Jude, we're told that the faith, the body of truth concerning Christ and our salvation was delivered to all the saints, not to a magisterium, not to a select group of people who alone can decode the word of God for the masses.
As a saint of God, as a believer in Jesus Christ, I've sought to understand authentically the word of God by the help of the
Holy Spirit. I cannot find in the word of God any teaching concerning Mary's immaculate conception and her protection from original sin.
We're told in Psalms that we are estranged from the womb and we are born in sin and shapen in our mother's womb in inequity.
I cannot find in the word of God... We better keep it to one question because you've just asked about four.
It's one question, Mary, because... Okay, what's the question then? I've just stated it.
Well, first you asked about authority and now you're asking about Mary and a couple of things about Mary.
Yeah, because the authority from the word of God, I seek to authentically understand God's word.
According to Jude, I have that right because the faith has been delivered to the saints. Okay, well, I think you need to give me a little more time.
All right, first of all, Jude... Can I just add one other thing? Then the onus is...
And not just our brother, to show from scripture and history, and you haven't done it tonight, so please address it, where we see a unity in the saints and a compliance with scripture regarding the doctrine of Mary as the
Roman Catholic Church announces it. Okay, the first point is on Jude. You said the faith was once for all delivered.
We agree, absolutely, the faith was once and for all delivered. However, my brother, be honest, you know that the scripture teaches so plainly that there are different functions in the body of Christ.
You mean to tell me that the apostles... Here's one we all agree with. Let's not talk about apostolic succession.
We all agree. You mean to tell me that the apostle Paul doesn't have any more authority than anybody else?
Oh, but this says it's once for all delivered to the saints. By the way, I love your accent. You need to come back to the church.
But listen, I just had to get that. I love that Irish accent. It was delivered once for all to the saints, folks.
Well, guess what? That includes the apostles. So if I'm going to exegete that passage the way you do, then
I'll have to say that the apostles, oh, they don't have any more authority than anybody else, and I can just disagree with Paul when
I want to. Well, that's absurd. Second point, okay, well, the point is, is that there is authority in the body of Christ, and I would suggest to you it didn't stop with the apostles.
And this is what we see throughout the history of the church, and we need to debate this point at length, that from Clement to Ignatius forward, we see an authoritative church.
We do not see sola scriptura anywhere. Now, as far as Mary goes, you say, well, show me in scripture.
And I told you earlier, as a Protestant, I came to believe in Marian doctrines through the scripture alone.
I came to see, for example, if we're going to talk about Mary as mother of God, we see in Luke 1 .43,
she's the mother of God. I guarantee you there are a number of people here, you're Protestant, you don't believe Mary's the mother of God. James White does.
I do. Why? Because Jesus is God. And to deny that, to deny that Mary is the mother of God is the end in heresy.
It's called the Nestorian heresy, which denies that Jesus is one person. Why? Because if you say
Mary is not the mother of God, then what is she? She's the mother of the man Jesus. And guess what? We have two Jesuses then.
So we see Mary as the mother of God. Secondly, oh gosh, I got two minutes. Well, as far as the
Immaculate Conception goes, yes, there are... Let me refer to Saint Jerome, who said, in fact, he was defending the perpetual virginity of Mary when he writes that Mary is the gate represented in Ezekiel chapter 44, verses one and two.
And notice it says, Ezekiel has a vision of the gate and the spirit passes through.
I believe it's the East Gate. And then God says, let that gate be shut and never be opened again. And Saint Ambrose tells us, this shows us the perpetual virginity of Mary.
What about the Immaculate Conception? Well, in Luke chapter one, verse 28, we see Mary is named
Caecare Tomine. That's a name. It's a verb form, but it's a name. It's a perfect passive participle, which means one who has been filled or perfected in grace, which is the way
Saint Jerome translated it. And I think he knew Greek. Full of grace, which means she has no stain upon her, as Ambrose says, as Saint Augustine said in his work on grace and nature.
Let me be perfectly clear about Mary, that she is free from all stains of sin. And I don't know if I got that quote exactly right, but let me tell you something, folks.
I again challenge you, and we will debate this issue to get my tapes on this. Obviously, I can't explicate this fully in this short period of time that I have, but there is,
I guarantee you, a lot more, immeasurably more scripture for our Marian doctrines than the one scripture, actually half a scripture, one subordinate clause that Mr.
White uses to prove Sola Scriptura outside of it is written here or there, which we, Jesus saying it is written, big deal.
He also says, I say unto you, folks, remember, he could not prove
Sola Scriptura. He uses one little verse, and the other verses are even more ridiculous than the one he uses for Sola Scriptura.
I can give you much more for Mary. Get my tapes. That was about five minutes, do you think, about five minutes?
Well, he has, it's a four. It's a four? It's a four minutes for Mr. White.
Of course, it pains a priest to cut someone off about the Blessed Mother, but necessary, fair.
Since Mr. Staples is advertising tapes, I debated Mr. Jerry Matitix on Long Island in August of this year on the
Marian doctrines, each of these specific passages. If you want an example of using one verse, and it is,
I think we can all tell, Tim's getting a little excited to say that my doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based upon one verse. We obviously know that's not the case.
He's getting a little excited. But if you want one verse, look at using Ezekiel to prove perpetual virginity.
Look at using Luke 1 .28 in Ciccara to Mene to prove immaculate conception. You want one verse eisegesis, this is the classic example of it.
And here's an excellent example of something else. You see, Mr. Staples believes in the immaculate conception against tradition.
I can point Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, lists the early church fathers who believed that Mary committed personal sin.
This is a Roman Catholic source published by that liberal place called Tan. Where did the concept of perpetual virginity first come from?
Where is it first found, Mr. Staples? Protoevangelium of James and the Ascension of Isaiah, Gnostic works, the second century.
Bodily assumption, the transvestist literature, of the fifth century, heretical. These are not biblical teachings.
This is not biblical exegesis. And the only reason that one could possibly say that one believes these doctrines is because of sola ecclesia.
The early church didn't believe these things. The Bible doesn't teach these things.
And hence to say, I believe these things is to demonstrate that you are functioning with an ultimate authority beyond what the scriptures themselves teach.
Now, Mr. Staples says now, well, see? Mr. White, he's over there saying that there is no authority in the church.
He keeps misrepresenting me on that. In fact, I'm sorry, but over and over again, over again, he says, in the early church, we have an authoritative church.
Therefore, they couldn't have believed in sola scriptura. My friends, I believe in an authoritative church.
My church exercises discipline. My church says divorce is wrong. My church does all those things on the basis of the word of God.
I know all sorts of other Protestant churches that do that. So I guess his arguments don't have anything to do with that, do they?
Sola scriptura is not a denial of the church having the authority to do what the scriptures define for her to do.
Sola scriptura is a denial that the church is herself an infallible rule of faith.
And so I have to ask Tim, Tim, you're a nice guy, but why can't you represent sola scriptura properly?
If I sat up here, and I'll admit, Patrick Madrid did the exact same thing when we debated this.
Patrick Madrid used a definition of sola scriptura that I never gave. And when we pointed this out later,
Carl Keating said, well, he didn't have to. He doesn't have to debate the definition you give. If I got up here and debated a different definition of the immaculate conception than what
Rome has officially and dogmatically declared, Mr. Staples would be crying foul up one side and down the other.
You're misrepresenting. You must not have a good answer because you have to keep misrepresenting my position. So Mr.
Staples, if you really have these wonderful answers for the claims of the sufficiency of scripture to function as a sole infallible rule of faith in the church, why do you have to keep misrepresenting what sola scriptura means?
That's the question I think we all have to consider. A question for Mr.
White. Good evening, Mr. White. Good evening. I can't see you, but I'll look over that general direction and sort of...
I want you to respond to this. If Jesus Christ believed in sola scriptura, why didn't he take his hand and write the
New Testament himself and you would have no reason to sit here. It would be done and everybody would agree.
Just write it himself. He had plenty of time. Why didn't he do it? I'm afraid, obviously, that I've either failed to explain it or you failed to listen to what sola scriptura is because the question has absolutely nothing to do with sola scriptura.
Jesus Christ, in a very true way, did exactly what you're saying. He did exactly what you're saying.
I believe that every word of this book is theanustos and I believe that God is the theos.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the theos. Therefore, this is his word. It is the word of Christ.
He did it through other people. He did it through Paul. He did it through his apostles. It is no less authoritative because of that.
Even if he had taken his own hand, that wouldn't change anything. When the Holy Spirit of God brings about the writing of scripture, how is that different than if God had used his own hand to do it?
Are the Ten Commandments, because God used his own finger to write them, more inspired than what we have in the
New Testament? Of course not. There aren't different levels of inspiration in that way. The issue, even from a
Roman Catholic perspective, there is no question about the authority, at least from Mr.
Staple's Roman Catholic perspective, I can find Roman Catholic theologians to fill this place up that would think our entire debate this evening was absurd because it's based on the idea that the
Bible is an infallible revelation from God. And you know that. You know that the arguments you've got between traditionalists and modernists and all the rest of that stuff.
But we aren't debating that because Mr. Staples believes that the scriptures are the infallible word of God, that they are revelation.
The issue is not, well, if Jesus has written it, then that would take care of everything. No, if Jesus had written this, you'd still have churches saying, well, you can't properly understand it unless we tell you how to interpret it.
You'd still have the same thing going on. It wouldn't have quote -unquote solved any problem. It doesn't get us past the fact that this is the infallible, the ultimate and final authority.
And we are being asked to believe that there's another ultimate final authority along with it. And I deny that claim.
Well, I think we're back on the issue of authority. And I just want to make this point.
I think the key difference between us this evening is that we believe, and Mr.
White said on the radio and he said earlier today, that the book is alive.
The scriptures are alive. And he quoted Hebrews chapter four, verse 12, which is quoting a verse entirely out of context.
Why? Because, listen, let me read it to you. It says, the word of God is living, effectual, more piercing than any two -edged sword.
Reason to the division, soul of spirit joins the marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight, but all things are naked and open to his eyes.
It's referring to a person. You see, when we're talking about the word of God, a lot of times, and I understand this,
I was Protestant. You're thinking scripture when in reality, the word of God is first a person,
Jesus Christ. Second, it's orally proclaimed. Thirdly, and down the line historically, it was recorded in scripture.
Further, we have, we believe, not just a living book, but a living body on this earth.
Living body on this earth. Now, hold on. Listen, listen, listen. A living body on this church, which includes a head, a visible head.
And Jesus gave us that head in Matthew chapter 16, verse 18. And whatever he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Why? So that, folks, the words of Jesus Christ, as Basil says, the kerygma does not become a mere word.
Because if you do not have an authority to say, thus saith God, what happens? 23 denominations. That's a fact.
Mr. White talks about, oh, there are theologians that dissent from the Catholic teaching.
Sure there are. But the difference is, folks, we read Luke 10, 16. If they hear you, they hear me.
If they reject you, they reject me. And that verse is alive and well in the Catholic church because we have bishops to whom that verse is written, and they can do it.
They can walk in this room right now and say, thus saith God. And the question is settled. Folks, don't settle for the anarchy of Protestantism.
We have the fullness of truth, 2 ,000 years of it, in fact, in the Catholic church. Yes, Mr.
Staples, in one of your rebuttals earlier this evening, I believe I've quoted you correctly here as saying, faith must be rooted in an infallible source.
I have a compound question for you. What is that infallible source? And how do we know that it's infallible?
Okay, well, first of all, the way we know that, I mean, you're getting to basic apologetics here.
Who was Jesus? Well, if we're going to be apologists, we have to investigate the claims of Christianity.
Certainly, we don't assume the scriptures are inspired. I believe that Protestants come to the table with this.
Well, and you don't have any infallible authority to tell you the word of God is the word of God. You end up having a burning in your bosom.
Well, I just know it's the word of God. Why? Well, it's testified to by the fathers. Well, the fathers disagree over many of the books of the
Bible. And Mr. White still hasn't given us a biblical authority, a biblical, a verse of scripture that tells us what, in fact, the word of God is.
How do we know the book of Revelation is the word of God? When you can make an argument in the first 300 years, perhaps the majority, perhaps, that rejected the book of Revelation and did not consider it to be inspired.
But many bishops did, had a real hard time with that in other books. All right, so how do we know? We approach
Jesus Christ as any other historical figure, if you're going to be an apologist. And we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, as apologists, that Jesus Christ lived, died, and was resurrected.
He proved who he was through his miracles. And he historically, and I'm not accepting scriptures inspired here, but it is a historical fact that he established his church, and as Augustine said, inaugurated it with miracles.
And I would argue that the word of God continues to be confirmed through miracles for 2 ,000 years.
And we have, folks, miracles in the Catholic Church. And I'm not talking about Benny Hinn and this, oh boy, my elbow hurt.
We're talking miracles here. I have a book at home of the miracles of the
Lord, 65 documented. We're talking about restoration, creative miracles that demonstrate the validity of the
Catholic Church as well throughout her history. So we approach this as skeptics, and we see Jesus is real.
He established a church. It proves itself over the centuries. And it is in fact that church that gives us the scripture.
As Martin Luther himself in his commentary on John said, we would know nothing of scripture except the
Catholic Church gave it to us. And Augustine says the same thing in his epistle against the Manichaeans. So we must rely on the church for the scripture.
Two minutes and 15 seconds for Dwight. Carl Keating, his book
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, which is on sale out there, I notice, says that we believe the Bible is inspired because the church tells us so.
Putting it bluntly, sola ecclesia. Mr. Staples just said, well, we've got this spiral argument, you see.
And if you start with this, and then you assume this, and then you argue with that, and that's how you come to an infallible knowledge that the church is infallible?
No, my friends. You see, if Mr. Staples looked at that early church history that he says demonstrates his church, he would see so many facts that are directly contrary to Roman Catholic teachings today.
He would see fathers, he would see no Pope. He would see Cardinal Newman admitting that there was no
Pope functioning in the church for centuries. He'd see the Council of Nicaea in the sixth canon limiting the authority of the
Bishop of Rome as other bishops. He would see the Council of Chalcedon, the 28th canon, doing the same thing.
But you see, those facts have to be explained away. Why? Because of sola ecclesia. The church he believes in today tells him, well, those things don't mean what they meant back then.
So history has to be changed. You see, there were early fathers who disagreed with Roman Catholic teachings today.
So if that's a valid argument for Mr. Staples to say, well, there were people who disagreed on what the canon of scripture was.
So therefore, you can't just say you believe in the inspiration of scripture. You've got to have a church to tell you. Well, there are people who disagreed with what the church taught back then.
Does that mean you've got to have another source of authority to tell you that the church is true? Mr. Staples doesn't want to give us an infallible source of authority to tell us the church is true outside of what?
The church. And yet, if I use arguments to demonstrate the truthfulness of scripture, ah, but Mr.
White, you can't give us an infallible passage. See, you know, that's why you have to see that there are two positions being presented here and apply the same arguments to both.
Because the arguments Mr. Staples uses contradict his own position, if his position is allowed to be put out there in its fullness.
And examined. And that's what we need to do. Question for Mr. White.
You said that scripture is infallible. And we agree with that.
Now, the Holy Spirit is infallible. If it was to interpret a doctrine, that doctrine would be infallible, correct?
And you said the church has authority to interpret scripture.
Are you, the doctrine, or your church's doctrine infallible?
Excellent question. Mr. Staples has continually said that as a
Protestant, I'm sorry, let me start my watch here. As a Protestant, well, Tim doesn't mind, so why should I start mine? As a
Protestant, I cannot say, thus saith the Lord, that is wrong.
I believe in apostolic succession. You know what
I mean by that? If you want to stand in the succession of the apostles, then teach and preach what the apostles taught and preached.
And let me tell you something. You may claim some historical connection to the apostles, but if you don't teach and preach what they taught and what they preached, don't claim to be a successor of theirs.
You know, Mr. Staples rather flippantly dismissed the problem he'd have if he went up to Salt Lake City.
I would love... Tim, you're invited. General conferences, first weekend in October, first weekend in April, every year.
I'd like to see you use that answer you used here outside the gates of the Mormon temple with about a dozen
Mormon elders. I sure have. I'd like to see you do that. I can dismiss them in 15 seconds.
That doesn't work, friend. It doesn't work at all. We can preach
God's truth with authority without me becoming infallible. As long as I am faithful to this word, then what
I preach is God's word and it's binding upon those who hear it. I don't have to become an infallible authority alongside this to preach with authority.
That's a misnomer. It's a complete misrepresentation and it's illogical. It makes no sense.
When we preach the word of God and proclaim the gospel of God from these scriptures, it is binding upon those who hear it and it only gets in the way of the gospel to make me an authority beside God's word.
No, I am not infallible. The bottom line is then there can be no certainty of faith in Protestantism.
Why? Because once again, I will tell you, Mr. White is making the argument for anarchy.
He's saying, I'm not certain and by golly, you can't be either. Why? Because folks, it is demonstrated.
Listen, is he infallible? Does he have certainty regarding his doctrines?
Well, guess what? Let's sit down. I would love to get some of my Protestant friends out there right now to come up here and debate
Mr. White on things like baptismal regeneration, if you believe in that, the real presence of our
Lord in the Eucharist. How about double predestination? How many are going to raise their hand and believe that? That God chooses some for heaven, some for hell.
Double predestination? Mr. White believes that. He's talking about this gospel, gospel, gospel, folks.
But without the church that Jesus Christ established, you have no authority and unfortunately, people, many, many souls are being lost because there is no standard.
You claim the scripture is your authority, but it is not the scripture.
Mr. White, it is your interpretation of the scriptures and you are not infallible.
Therefore, the words of our Lord in Luke 10, 16, if they hear you, they hear me, they reject you, they reject me, do not apply to Mr.
White. He cannot say that. All he can say is, well, if I'm speaking in accordance with scripture, then that applies to me, but he can't know if he is.
Because he's not infallible, folks. So what do you have? 23 ,000 denominations and counting.
Hi, Tim. My name's Alan. I'm a Lutheran Christian and I can't let something go. Lutherans do not believe in baptismal regeneration.
We do not believe that. I'm sorry. The Augsburg Confession teaches baptismal regeneration.
Martin Luther taught it. Now, I understand some evangelical Lutherans do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but you cannot say that all
Lutherans do not believe. I'm sorry. Many, many Lutherans do. Okay, you haven't read
Luther's small catechism. We believe that you're saved by faith alone. We do not believe the water just splash water on people and they become
Christians. So the Augsburg Confession does not teach baptismal regeneration, nor does our church. We teach justification by faith alone.
My question for you is, the Roman Catholic Church tells us that Matthew 16, 18 teaches papal infallibility.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe this. Now, when an Eastern Orthodox Christian or a
Lutheran Christian goes to Matthew 16, 18 and says, I don't see the word Pope. I don't see the word infallibility.
I don't see these things being passed through down through time. You as a Roman Catholic just say, well, you can't interpret scripture.
I want to know, how can you believe and defend something that is circular reasoning and therefore is logically incoherent?
Well, first of all, I've got some friends in the Missouri Senate Lutheran Church that would strongly disagree with you.
Saying that they do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I need, I think you need to check your facts on that.
There are some Lutherans who do not believe in baptismal regeneration. But are you going to tell me? I mean,
I have a friend, a good friend who was raised in Missouri Senate Lutheran. And well, here we go. Proving my point once again.
I'm not here to argue that the Lutheran Church is the way to go because obviously you have disagreements within the
Lutheran Church over these central issues as well. Now you mentioned Matthew chapter 16, verse 18.
Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. Well, you say, how can you possibly believe that that verse teaches papal authority?
Folks, this has been the constant teaching of the church for 2000 years.
Now, Mr. White's going to quote Lenoy and his little survey. I've got 16 fathers that say this, 16 fathers.
Folks, we're going to debate papal infallibility. We don't have the time to get into all those details right now.
But we have clear passages of scripture that teach. One, Jesus said to Peter, thou art the rock and upon this rock
I will build my church. And I will give to you, if you don't even believe in the rock, he gave
Peter the keys, the authority. And everybody knows that is a symbol of authority.
For what? Over the kingdom of heaven on earth. I give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Now, listen, it's one thing for you to say, oh, how can you say that?
How can you interpret passages of scripture like that? Folks, I have scores of fathers of the church, councils like Chalcedon that Mr.
White has misrepresented in Canon 28 and Nicaea, which he misrepresented with Canon 6.
But see, these issues, folks, we need to hash out at another time because unfortunately, we don't have the time to get into them.
But don't tell me that we don't have scripture to support our claim. We've used Matthew 16,
John 21, Luke 22, and we've used the book of Acts. And there are so many other verses of scripture, much more than the one verse of scripture that my opponent has used.
And I say again, you cannot point me to scriptures where Jesus says, it is written, and say that means sola scriptura.
I mean, that is absolutely absurd. There is one verse that he can even twist sola scriptura out of.
And boy, is he resting the scriptures to do that. I again repeat, one verb in a subordinate clause of one scripture to prove a doctrine that's supposed to be the foundation of the
Christian church for 2000 years. I think not, folks. And I encourage you again, get my tapes on the papacy where I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what
Matthew 16, 18 is talking about. Don't listen to his smokescreen about Lenoi's survey.
Three minutes for Mr. White. I've never heard so many lies in three minutes of my life. I'm serious.
Not one line. I cannot believe that Mr. Staples, I cannot believe that Mr.
Staples, do you have this book? Tim, do you have this book? Yes. Then you've read what it says about sola scriptura.
Why do you keep saying I base it on one verse and you know that's not true? It talks about the early church fathers. It talks about the papacy in there.
It provides the direct citations. If you want tapes, pick up the tape and please,
I know a lot of you are his friends. I know you're going to believe whatever you have to say. I'm just asking you to think about what he's just said.
There is no serious Roman Catholic historian on this planet that will say what he just said.
I invite any one of you. Listen, listen, please. How many of you have ever looked into the early church fathers to the interpretation of Luke 22,
John 21? Come on, who's the earliest one to use it? Pick up my debate, six plus hours against Jerry Maddix during the papal visit in 1993 in Denver and find out for yourself.
Mr. Staples is sitting there saying, I prove without a doubt. Is Mr. Staples infallible?
He's not an infallible interpreter of my books, obviously, because he misrepresents them at every turn. He's not infallible interpreter of the early fathers because I can provide you with quote after quote.
And I do right here. Mr. Staples says, well, I do this. Here it is. And I've provided them to Mr. Staples.
I sent them to him in letters months ago. He has never refuted them. Never. And he admitted in a response that he would have to change his presentation on the papacy in light of the information
I presented to him. So I can't believe he would sit here in front of you and say for 2000 years, the church has believed this about Matthew 16.
That is untrue. Let me quote Dr. Jackson. In truth, the supremacy of the
Roman sea, as it has been understood in later times, was hardly at the time of Basil on the horizon.
No bishop of Rome had even been president at Nicaea or at Sardico, where a certain right of appeal to his sea was conceded.
A bishop of Rome signed the Sirmian blasphemy. No bishop of Rome was present to save the world from the lapse of Ariminum.
The great intellectual Arian war was fought out without any claim of Rome to speak. Half a century after Basil's death, great orientals were quite unconscious of this supremacy.
Now, Mr. Staples sits there and says, Mr. White misrepresents the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea. Prove it.
Get it out right now. It's sitting on your desk. He says he misrepresents the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon.
Sit right there on your desk. Prove it. I didn't. I don't in here. I asked for documentation.
If you're going to make accusations, sir, back them up. Back them up. OK, well, then I must. All right.
First of all, the can't. Wait a minute. What's that? First of all, the question was asked to him.
So it's next time for another person. Oh, wonderful. Yeah. The fairness here is wonderful.
He should get double double responses. I like that. You have the priest to defend you, though, so. It seems to me that there's a logical contradiction in your position on the canon.
And I'm wondering, how is it that you can know with absolute certainty that the letter of Philemon, the contents of it, for example, are infallible?
And yet you don't know that the letter of Philemon as a whole is part of an infallible canon.
It's very interesting. I have the exact same level of certainty about Philemon that you have about the church. Mr. Staples just presented an argument for why he believes the church is infallible.
It was based upon what? Well, you look at this, and you look at the history, and you look at that. And if that's enough to prove that the church is infallible, why can't
I have the exact same? And maybe I hope you're able to hear this as you're leaving. But why can't
I have the exact same type of level of certainty on the same basis?
It's an inconsistent response. The canon is given by God. The canon is determined by God's act of inspiration.
That makes it a revealed truth. But it's a part of scripture. Now, I answer the same question.
How can I have infallible knowledge of every bit of content of the Bible? I don't have infallible knowledge of every bit of the content of the
Bible. Sufficient knowledge, just like the Jews that Jesus said, you are accountable for the scriptures.
Mr. Staples says they didn't have any infallible authority, but they were held accountable. Why can't I? I don't understand why people will not deal with this issue other than saying, well, just like my friends in Salt Lake City do.
They say, you can't even know what's in the Bible because you don't have the prophet to tell you. And I say, yes,
I can. Oh, no, you can't. You need to have someone to tell you. You need the golden index.
Now, they don't say that, but I call this the golden index syndrome. And Mr. Staples says, well, Mr. White can't give us one verse that gives us this canon in scripture, and that denies solo scriptura as if the canon was some extra biblical revelation.
I'm really hoping that Mr. Staples will deal with what I said about the canon in here. I sent him the book. It would be nice if he'd respond to actually my position instead of a characterization of my position.
That would be helpful to all of us here. Answer how the man before Christ, he says the man knew by keeping tradition.
Infallibly? I'd like to answer, I'd like him to answer, did a man know infallibly as you asked me? He's got two minutes, probably more, to do that right now.
I already answered that question. And once again, and what I encourage you to do is get the tape, wind it back, and listen to what
I said. I already answered it. But now, as far as your question about Philemon, I am not saying the
Catholic Church does not say that we create the canon. The Catholic Church recognizes the canon authoritatively.
There is a huge difference. We do not say that Hippo in 393 created the canon.
The scripture is inspired, if you say materially, in the order of being, so to speak.
But in the order of knowing, you cannot know that in the way, I mean, what
Mr. White is saying in essence is, well, you just read the Bible and it'll confirm itself in your heart.
And lots of people agreed about it in the early church. He gives you his opinion of what the fathers say, his opinion of, even though I can show you canons from the early church that disagree with the canon that we accept today in the church.
Well, we just know today. How do you know? Well, if you read the Bible and Mr. White has said it, when
God speaks his word, he doesn't need to show you his business card. In other words, that is no different than the
Mormon who said, when he asked, why do you believe? Oh, I've got a burning in my bosom. Folks, that might be lunch.
We need, and finally, folks, the reason why we need more than just an authority, even that the saints in the
Old Testament had, is because the New Testament is a better covenant established on better promises, and we have a greater authority, so much so, that Jesus could say to the church, if they hear you, they hear me.
Jesus does not present us with a gospel that Mr. White does. I don't have infallible authority.
Oh, I don't have infallible authority. We just get in the Scriptures and we dig and we pray to God and we ask
God and we do the best we can, but I don't have any infallible authority. That's not the authority that Jesus Christ established in the
New Testament, folks. He said, if they hear you, they hear me, and Jesus didn't open the floor for discussion when he said, thus saith
God. Neither does his church. I had one last question for Mr.
Staples, since we began with Mr. White, and then we'll have our 10 -minute concluding statement.
So sorry, we're not able to get to all the questions, but I'm sure that our speakers will be very happy to see you afterwards, at least for some time.
But there are 10 -minute concluding statements from each of our speakers. Yes. Mr.
Staples, you've made much of the fact tonight that the reason Protestants are divided is because they don't have a person or a group of persons that they can turn to to say, thus saith the
Lord. My question is, where were these people hiding who were able to infallibly end all of these arguments in 1054 where the
East split from the West? Well, in fact, if you'd pick up, and let me recommend a work to you by Dr.
Warren Carroll. It's an excellent work. I believe he's going to go down as one of the great historians of our century.
He's a professor and founder of Christendom College. It's called the building, the founding of Christendom.
And if you read, if you are even remotely versed in the history of the church, you see that, in fact, exactly that happened.
That is, the church did in fact deal with every single heresy there was. In fact,
Athanasius, whom my opponent is so fond of quoting, says that the Council of Nicaea, if I can find the exact quote here, said that the
Council of Nicaea gave us, the confession arrived at, this is to the bishops of Africa.
The confession arrived at at Nicaea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the church.
When you look at the history of the church, certainly, and Mr. White will point out, and folks,
I get so tired of hearing, and please come to our debate on papal infallibility because I get so sick of hearing about Liberius and Vigilius and Honorarius.
These things have been answered over and over again until the Lutheran -Catholic dialogue, by the way, folks, the largest body of Protestants dialoguing with Catholics, the
Lutherans have concluded, have agreed and said that those do say nothing about papal infallibility.
They have been answered again and again and again. I invite you to take a look at Dr. Carroll's book.
Take a look at Father Most. You can get a synopsis in a couple of pages and we'll be happy to sell you the books right here if you want them at St.
Joseph Radio. But I get so sick of answering these things again and again and again, and I will, but obviously
I can't do it in a couple of minutes here. So I'm going to charge you with the same charge
Mr. White gave you earlier, that is to do your homework, to go home, check out the sources, and here's a novel idea, go to some
Catholic sources. Rather than, I'll tell you what, I get a kick out of this 38 -volume set that I'm working my way through right now.
It is incredible. The Protestant commentaries that Mr. White relies on over and over again are some of the most biased anti -Catholic commentaries on the councils that absolutely distort history.
Now, Mr. White's going to say, oh, Tim, prove that. Yes, please do. Well, we will. Well, do it right now,
Tim. We will debate papal infallibility, and you're all invited to come, and I hope that you will be there.
I've got three minutes, okay? I would never accuse someone of misrepresenting things without being able to back up what
I say. And Mr. Staples doesn't even know what commentaries I use. I'd like to ask him to show me one reference right now.
Here's the book. I can pass it over to you, to these alleged commentaries. Just one, Tim. Come on, Tim, just one.
You mean to tell me you never use these commentaries? They are not commentaries, sir. They are texts. You've never used
Dr. Percival's commentary? No, sir, I haven't. You've never used any of these commentaries by Philip Schapp or any other of the scholars?
Sir, that is not a commentary, is it? Those are the documents themselves. I'm talking the footnotes and the commentaries made.
I'd like you to look at them. These are the Antonicine Fathers. They're available in electronic text in the web now.
You can look at them yourself. You can examine them yourselves. And I quote from the sources. In fact, frequently, sir,
I quote from Minge. Do you read Minge, sir? Patrologia Grechii? The Greek resources themselves?
TLG, the Thesaurus Lingua Grechii? I'm sorry, sir, but this constant accusation of misrepresentation without documentation should not be allowed to go by.
It's unfair, sir. Now you say, well, we'll do it someday in the future. Yes, we will. I look forward to that, but something tells me that when we get to that debate in the future, we're not going to have, quote unquote, the time to document all these alleged misrepresentations.
Now, allegedly, I've misrepresented Athanasius, and yet it's interesting if you will go home and get volume four of the second series.
It's right here in the Antonicine Fathers. In Read Athanasius, you'll discover that he defends the
Nicene Creed on the basis of Scripture. What's his ultimate authority? Nicaea? So do I. It was the
Scripture. That is not a lie. That is what... Now, notice something. I defend the Scripture. Mr.
Staples says these things for one reason, because the church tells him to.
He's not acting as a historian right now. He's acting as a faithful son of the church who believes what he's told to believe, and even the church's authority goes to telling him what to believe about history.
I'm so sick, he says, of explaining Honorius and Liberius and all the rest of this stuff. Why should he be sick of that?
Why should he be sick of it? I've never said I'm sick of explaining all the misrepresentations that Roman Catholic apologists use of solo scriptura.
I'm glad to get the opportunity of explaining those things. And you see, if you will simply approach
Honorius as the men at Vatican I did who were most into history, you'll see why many of them had to leave the church and others just closed their mouths and no longer talked about the things they had talked about beforehand.
There are all sorts of errors in regards to papal infallibility and the church's infallibility, but you see,
Mr. Staples can't accept any single fact that can be brought against what? His ultimate authority. Did you hear what he said earlier?
He slipped up. He said, we have authority can say thus saith God, and it's the church.
If you say thus saith God, that makes you the ultimate authority. He just proved sola ecclesiae. He just proved my accusation.
So now we'll have the 10 minute concluding statements, first for Mr. White and for Mr. Staples, and then our emcee will have a few concluding remarks, brief ones, and then a closing prayer.
I'd like to immediately end the rumors that there is going to be a wrestling match between myself and Mr.
Staples after the. The event this evening. Thank you for being here.
You're the faithful few that survived. There were more here when you started. You notice that? There's a few extra seats there.
My friends, I seek in my closing statements to refocus our attention. I ignore everything else that's come before and try to serve you as best
I can as a minister of the gospel to refocus your attention upon why we came here in the first place. Many today seek what
I call the infallible fuzzies. The warm, content feeling, a feeling you have infallible truth and everybody else is wrong except you.
And you've been told by this authority to believe these things. They want the infallible fuzzies.
Yet every one of us sitting here this evening and even those who left is a fallible human being.
He may say he can prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt, but he's fallible too. We are all fallen human beings capable of making mistakes in our decisions and our actions.
I point out yet again that the decision that Mr. Staples made to embrace the ultimate authority of Rome was a fallible decision.
There are many who offer you infallible certainty. Rome, Salt Lake, Brooklyn.
That's where the Jehovah's Witnesses are headquartered. But the decision to follow any one of these ultimate authorities is yours.
And it's a fallible one. One can never have more infallible certainty than is provided by that first decision to accept that ultimate and highest authority.
Mr. Staples' certainty about the doctrines of Roman Catholicism are no more certain than the first decision he made to embrace that authority.
You may say, ah, but Mr. White, you told us to be fair. You told us to apply the same arguments to both sides.
You, too, have your ultimate authority. You have chosen the Bible. That's correct.
You're right. And I'm up front about it. The difference, however, between Mr. Staples and myself is just this.
The Lord Jesus Christ described this book as God speaking.
In Matthew 22, he subserviated all traditions, even those that claimed to be divine, to it, in Mark chapter 7.
Peter said, holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, resulting in this book.
And Paul said, it is the very breath of God. It is theanoustos. And the writer of Hebrews, please, please go home.
Start at the beginning of Hebrews 4. Mr. Staples only read you what came after. Start at the beginning.
Read the context. I think you'll be surprised. Rome is not theanoustos.
Rome is not inspired. It is not infallible. History shows us that the tradition that Mr.
Staples wishes to bind us to has erred many times. He may be sick of explaining them, and I can understand why.
But it has erred all the same. It has erred both in the purpose of the book such as in the case of Liberius Honorius Sixtus, and a host of others, and in the wider councils, such as when the
Council of Constance burned Jan Hus for being an evangelical Christian, or when the
Fourth Lateran Council, as we explained earlier, gave indulgences to those who would take up the sword to exterminate heretics, just as the
Crusaders did. Mr. Staples' tradition doesn't pass the test of being theanoustos.
It isn't infallible. But, as has been demonstrated to a fault this evening, once you accept it for what it is not, you can no longer critically examine it.
All facts brought up against that, simply dismiss. Oh, there's answers to all that.
I know Mormons say there's answers to everything about the Book of Mormon. Dr. Cohen's Book of Great Price. Ah, but we can just dismiss them in 15 seconds.
Every person in this room this evening must make a decision concerning their ultimate authorities.
I choose the God -breathed scriptures. And I stand with Jesus, Peter, Paul, and all the believers down to the ages who have been led by the
Spirit of God to make that choice. You see, if you look at the word theanoustos, what's noustos?
It comes from ne -oh. To breathe, just like nouma, the
Spirit. And the Spirit of God has never ever led any person away from the ultimate and unquestioned, absolute and final authority of the
Word of God, the scriptures. You have a choice to make too.
God holds every person responsible for his truth. You have the responsibility to handle his truth properly and to obey it.
What you will do with that responsibility is up to you. God says in his
Word that we are to be workmen, rightly handling the
Word of Truth. The responsibility is not placed on just one man or councils of men, but upon each one of us.
You can make the choice to hand over your responsibility to someone else, but that does not rid you of that responsibility.
If you are misled by that person or church or group or whoever, you will not be able to say in the judgment day, well,
God, this person told me to believe that or that person misled me. I'm really innocent. I've made my choice.
I'm up front. I've made a decision that this is the infallible rule of faith.
How about you? You've heard all sorts of stuff tonight, some of which I don't know is worthy of your being here for.
Accusations, counter accusations. You do this. No, I don't. Yes, you do. I guess that happens in debates.
You've unfortunately heard a lot of misrepresentations of what Sola Scriptura means. I hope that as the fervor and the emotion of the evening subsides some, you'll have the opportunity of getting the tapes, picking up some books.
Hey, Tim even said, buy my book, take his advice. It's one of the things he's been right about tonight. One of the few, but one of the things he's been right about tonight.
And maybe as the emotion subsides and there's not a bunch of people around, you got a bunch of folks going, yeah, clapping, and the other folks, you got two or three, yeah, clapping, you know, that type of thing.
Once all that's passed, maybe you can sit down and think about it and go, you know, I really thought
Sola Scriptura was something that I guess it isn't. How does my position really respond to what
Sola Scriptura really is? And maybe you'll listen to my opening statements. You'll read the book and you'll go, wow,
I wonder why so many Catholic apologists use a different definition of Sola Scriptura.
You know, there's a lot of quote unquote Protestant apologists running around who use all sorts of weird definitions about what
Roman Catholics believe and I join with you in saying, hey, that's wrong. There's no need to do that.
So, why is it that it happens in reverse so much? It shouldn't happen that way. And maybe you'll have the opportunity to think about what
Sola Scriptura really is and you'll be able to realize, you know, Tim says that Mr. Weiss was trying to shift the burden of proof.
That's exactly what Patrick Madrid said in our debate. And yet in reality, remember what the thesis was.
Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith of the church. We both agree they're infallible rules.
So, what's the key word of the thesis? Only. So, where's this other infallible rule?
Have you noticed that we haven't exactly had these doctrines that I've asked to be traced through history traced?
Where's this infallible rule of faith? I submit to you that in the final analysis, and I'm in a wonderful position here, no matter how hard Mr.
Staples tries, every word he says just proves the truthfulness of what I'm saying. In the final analysis,
Mr. Staples' reading of scripture and Mr. Staples' reading of church history is all determined by one thing.
Sola Ecclesia. The church tells him, this is what you're supposed to find in the Bible. Lo and behold, he looks at Matthew 16, 18, and there it is.
This is what you're supposed to find in the early church. Lo and behold, there it is. That's because it's his ultimate authority.
You have to make that decision too. And I honestly submit to you that if you'll go home tonight and read the 119th
Psalm, and just consider what it says, and think about what we've said tonight and take all the other stuff out of the way, you'll discover the
Holy Spirit of God leads his people to an implicit trust in the final and ultimate authority of his scriptures.
Well, I said I wasn't, but I guess I'm going to have to respond to some of these charges that, forgive me for getting a little emotional and saying
I'm so sick and tired of responding to these charges that have been proven so many times over and over again, not only by Catholics, but by Protestants, to be outdated, bigoted attacks on the
Catholic Church that are not founded in truth. He mentioned Jan Hus.
I answered that on the radio. And any honest assessment of history will tell you the
Catholic Church did not burn anyone at the stake. The Catholic Church turned over because, remember as I said at the outset, we're talking about a culture that believed that mortal sin was a serious, serious crime.
In fact, worse than murder. And guess what? I agree with that. Do you agree that mortal sin, something that will kill someone's soul is more serious than what could kill a body?
I think many of you agree with that point. And you see, we were talking about a Christian culture that believed that to do that was a capital crime.
Did the Catholic Church kill them? No. The Catholic Church was a voice for mercy, but a voice for truth.
And in the case of Jan Hus, she handed him over to secular authority.
That is a historical fact. But is that a proof that the church is not infallible?
Absolutely not. That is not an infallible act to start with. That's an act of, for example, in the church today, our
Holy Father has said, if bloodless means are possible, we ought to use those. That's a little bit of a shift in our tradition concerning capital punishment.
Does that mean we've changed? I'm sure some Protestant apologists are going to be saying that now. Oh, you've changed.
No, we haven't changed. We still objectively believe in capital punishment. But the question is whether it is prudent to carry out at this moment in time, that which certainly,
Mr. White would agree, is taught by God in scripture. There is a time for capital punishment.
If we were to be reduced to anarchy, let's say, and the rule of law is dispensed with and we have to rebuild it, perhaps it would be a good thing to encourage a death penalty once again.
So Jan Hus is absolutely ludicrous as a historical proof that the church has erred.
Liberius. Pope Liberius, in fact, again, I encourage you to read
Dr. Warren Carroll's works on this. Liberius, what in fact he did sign, the
Creed of Sermium, as it's called, or Serminium, was not heretical.
It was ambiguous. And there is no doubt Liberius was weak he gave in to the
Arians and he ought not to have and he also condemned Saint Athanasius. But folks, what
Mr. White fails to point out to you is that Liberius was a defender of Athanasius until in fact he was imprisoned, tortured, he was threatened with loss of life.
He didn't mention that part. So you see, a pope who acts with a gun to his head, that is not a papal act.
Why? Because it must be free in order to be responsible for any moral act.
If somebody holds my hand and forces me to pull the trigger, am I going to be culpable? Of course not. Number one, the
Creed he signed was not, was not, I repeat, was not heretical.
And number two, he was forced to sign. He was also forced to condemn Athanasius. Secondly, when in fact another little fact that my opponent doesn't bring up, when in fact later he was brought another
Creed that was definitively Arian, he did not sign it. Now I'm not saying that Liberius was right in signing that first decree.
No, but I am saying that is not an example of papal error that proves papal infallibility is wrong.
Mr. White is wrong. He is doing what I have told you he does with Scripture and the
Fathers often and misrepresents them. But you examine the facts for yourself.
Pope Vigilius, who condemned the famous three chapters, Theodora, Theodora, and Iba Videsa.
He condemned them. Yes, he shouldn't have. He didn't want to at the outset. The emperor turned the screws and he signed their condemnation.
But guess what? That was not, once again, an infallible act of a pope. But secondly, there was nothing wrong in what he signed.
Why? Because all three of them were heretics. But two of them had recanted and come back to the faith.
So the pope did not want to condemn them. But because of the force of the emperor, he was forced to.
Honorary, I'm about out of time. We could do the same thing with honoraries and all these other charges. But I want to close, folks, by demonstrating to you, number one, he has never answered the original charge to show me in Scripture.
He believes in Sola Scriptura, not me. Where does the Bible say? Where does the
Bible teach that we have 27 books in the New Testament? Mr. White has to go to tradition outside of Scripture in order to prove the point.
Secondly, he cannot give me what are the essentials of the Christian faith in the
Scripture. He never responded to that. Why? He can't. Why? Because if he did, you would be shocked at what he says.
Because he would disagree with the majority of you, my Protestant friends. And you would see how much confusion there is in Protestantism.
Let me close with Saint Augustine, whom my opponent has quoted and uses as an example of a good
Protestant who holds to Sola Scriptura. And I'm quoting from Saint Augustine against the
Manichaeans. There are many other things which most justly keep me in the
Catholic Church. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the church.
So does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age.
The succession of priests keeps me beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter to whom the
Lord after His resurrection gave it in charge to feed His sheep down to the present
Episcopate. Boy, that sounds Protestant. Perhaps you will read the
Gospel to me and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the
Gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe. That's what we've been debating tonight, folks.
How would you respond? I don't know if I'm going to believe that Gospel. And someone asked me that question earlier.
Well, listen to Saint Augustine, this supposed Protestant, Sola Scriptura adherent and how his response is.
For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the
Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the
Gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? I encourage you to read
John Calvin's commentary on this in Calvin's Institutes. I encourage you to read that and then read it in context and you will see the lengths that Mr.
White, John Calvin, and others will go to dismiss what is the obvious words of Saint Augustine here.
Listen. Mr. White asked us to make a choice. Listen to what Augustine says.
So when those on authority I have consented to believe in the Gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice.
If you say believe the Catholics, their advice to me is put no faith in you.
That believing them, I am precluded from believing you. If you say do not believe the Catholics, you cannot fairly use the
Gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus. For it was at the command of the
Catholics that I believed the Gospel. But if happily you should succeed in finding in the
Gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the
Catholics who bid me not to believe in you. And the effect of that will be that I should no longer be able to believe the
Gospel either. For it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it.
And so whatever you bring from the Gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Therefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the
Gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read then some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you, not them, for they lied to me about you.
Nor you, for you quote me the Scripture that I had believed on those liars, on the authority of those liars.
And we could go on, folks. But I'm going to suggest to you folks, Mr. White and the
Protestants have, and I would say he is very good at it, quoting fathers of church like St.
Augustine. You heard him quote St. Augustine earlier. You heard him quote St. Athanasius. And I refuted those quotes.
And we could go down and we could go to Chrysostom and all the others. But the bottom line is this, folks. You do have to make a choice.
The church of the New Testament is not the Protestant church that is 26 ,000 denominations and utter confusion and chaos over the central things, salvation.
The church of the New Testament, folks, is a church that speaks for Jesus. And that means has authority.
Not, well, I don't have infallible authority. I don't know. I'm out of time.
Thank you all. I want to thank you for sticking through all this. And please forgive me. Those of you that are
Protestant, please understand my passion is for the truth. And I want to see, especially those of you who have left the
Catholic faith, please come back to the Eucharist, which is our salvation. All I really want to say is thanks to everyone for coming out tonight.
I know we had a wonderful time and really got some wonderful teaching in tonight. If you would like to pick up a cassette of the first portion of tonight's program, they are already available in the back, thanks to the wonders of technology.
And if you want to hang around for 15 more minutes, we will have the entire question and answer thing on cassette as well.
So that will be in the back. I want to give it back to Father Hugh for a closing prayer tonight. Let us pray.
Oh, Eternal Father, we thank you for the Holy Gospel and for the glorious word which you revealed to us there.
We thank you especially for the beautiful sixth chapter of the gospel according to Saint John, where our
Lord reveals to us the mystery of his love. There, he says, they shall all be taught by God. And the apostle says,
Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting. And you teach us,
Lord, that no one can come to the Father except through you and no one to you unless the Father draw him.
Eternal Father, draw our hearts to Christ, who is the way, the truth and the life.
And grant that we may seek salvation in him and him alone for the glory of your name.
And may the blessing of Almighty God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit descend upon you and remain with you forever.