Sola Scriptura I (White vs Matatics)

Good evening. We'll get underway now. My name is Vic Stevenard. I'd like to welcome all of you here this evening for this debate. I would like to see all of you back again tomorrow for the seminars and again tomorrow night for the debate and again on Sunday.

For those of you who are not familiar with the schedule, just ask at the table and you can find out what's going on here this weekend. Some of you may have just found out about tonight. Before we begin, I think it's important that we begin in a spirit of prayer.

So I would like all of you to please bow your heads in prayer with me. Dear Lord, we give you thanks for this day, for the beautiful weather that you give us, the opportunity to come together on a cool night in a nice warm room.

We ask you to watch over all of those who are not so comfortable this night, those who are lonely, depressed, those who are in need of some care. But Lord, mostly we ask you to come here and be with us this night, that your truth might be heard and that truth might set us free.

So Lord, we ask you to bless these two men. Help them to speak only from their hearts and from their minds and from their souls, the glorious praises of your name. All this we pray through Christ our Lord.

First of all, I need to go over the house rules. You're allowed to laugh about it at that level. You're allowed to enjoy yourselves. But we'd ask you to please not shout out. It's very distracting to them.

It's very distracting to those next to you. We'd like for you to hold your amens. We'd like for you to not rattle your rosary beads, whatever. In other words, be as respectful as you can because these two gentlemen have come here to try to share with you their knowledge of how God has moved in their lives.

But in particular, tonight the debate is on the topic, is the Bible the only infallible rule of faith? I would like to discuss the debate rules a little bit with you so that you've got some idea as to what we're going to be doing tonight in addition to those house rules.

This evening, the Reverend James White will begin the evening in this debate with a 25-minute introduction. That will be followed by a 25-minute introduction by Jerry Madatix. Then James White will come back and give a 12-minute answer or rebuttal to the 25-minute introduction by Jerry.

And then Jerry will come back and give a 12-minute rebuttal to James. Then we'll take a break for about 15 minutes. I would ask you to please try to watch your watches and make it a 15-minute break so that we can get back here and get started again for the second half of the debate.

As we begin that second half of the debate, there will be a seven-minute response to the rebuttal by each of them so that you can kind of get set and have in mind what they had talked about in the beginning of the debate.

And then we'll begin with questions from each of them. Each of them will ask two questions. We're going to be alternating who comes first, so we'll take care of that. You just enjoy the debate. Then at the end of the question period, there will be a 10-minute closing statement by James White followed by a 10-minute closing statement by Jerry Madatix.

After that, you may submit questions to be asked. We would like for you to submit those questions on a three-by-five card and give them either to me or to someone who looks like they know what's going on around here.

And then I will read those questions. I know that you may wonder why we're doing that. It's for the sake of the speed of the night. We'll also pause right before we read those questions so that those of you who do need to leave to go home may do so if you wish not to stay around for the question and answer period.

Okay? Perfectly clear, right? Let me introduce the two gentlemen who are on the stage with me right after I shuffle through 43 pages of notes. First of all, James White is the Director of Ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona.

Mr. White holds a B .A. degree in Bible from Grand Canyon University, formerly a college, and a master's degree in theology from the Fuller Theological Seminary. He has been teaching church history at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix for the past few years.

He is the author of several books, The Fatal Flaw, Answers to Catholic Claims, Letters to a Mormon Elder, and Justification by Faith. Mr. White is considered an articulate and polite opponent of Roman Catholic teaching and has engaged in numerous debates with Catholic apologists on such issues as justification by faith and the privacy of the papacy in the Christian church.

He is also a persistent critic of Mormon teaching. With that, let me introduce Mr. James White. Oh, my fault. Mr. James White, please stand. I got flustered there for a second. Too many pieces of paper.

Jerry Matitix. Gerald Christian Matitix, an ordained minister and theologian in the Presbyterian Church in America, until he, together with his wife and family, entered the Roman Catholic Church in Easter of 1986, the first minister of that denomination ever to enter the Roman Catholic Church.

The story of his conversion became nationally known through his work as a full-time apologist with Catholic Answers writing for This Rock magazine and traveling around the country speaking at churches and conferences, engaging in debates and appearing on radio and television.

He graduated from the University of New Hampshire in 1977, the only undergraduate ever to complete four years of study in two years. He received his Master of Divinity with a concentration in systematic theology from Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary in 1981.

He is currently completing his doctoral dissertation on the Book of Revelation for a Ph .D. in Biblical Interpretation from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has taught on the faculties of Westminster Theological Seminary and St. Joseph's University of Philadelphia, the University of San Diego, the Notre Dame Pontifical Catechetical Institute in Arlington, Virginia, Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee, and Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia, where he served as Assistant Professor of Theology for three years and was also Dean of Students.

He is now Director of Biblical Foundations, a non-profit organization he founded to help Catholics more effectively explain their faith and to help non-Catholics more thoroughly appreciate the scriptural case for Catholicism.

I would like for you to give a warm welcome to Jerry Matitix. And now we begin the debate. Remember the format. We will begin with a 25-minute opening statement from each of the gentlemen. We'd like to begin with James White.

Thank you.

The Council of Nicaea, Arianism, and Scripture as the Rule of Faith

It is good to be with you this evening on a rather chilly evening outside. You need to remember that in Phoenix it has not been this cold in probably about 3 ,000 years. But I enjoy it. The air is clean and it's good to be with you here in Omaha.

I want to take you back, as we discuss Sola Scriptura this evening, to the period following the Council of Nicaea in 325. You may recall from your church history that the Council of Nicaea, the full deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, was affirmed by the Council that Jesus Christ was not a creature, he was not a created being.

Yet you may also be aware that in the period that followed the Council of Nicaea, for the next number of decades, Arianism reigned supreme in the church. For example, Athanasius, the great bishop, was driven from his sea five times during the period of time following Nicaea because of the political activities of the Arians.

During that particular period of time, Athanasius, writing to his friend Adelphius, against the Arians, wrote the following. Please listen closely. Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men, speaking of the Arians.

But our faith is right and starts from the teaching of the apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the prophets say, Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us.

But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the flesh? While the apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, for as much then as Christ suffered for us in the flesh, and in what Paul writes, looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Now, why do I bring this to your attention? Well, first of all, if you read Athanasius' letter, he argues solely from the scriptures as the rule of faith against the Arians. He argues that this is what defines what Christians are to believe.

In fact, if you listen to the passages that he cited, for example, Titus 2 .13, a passage that I have often cited in dealing with modern Arians, and there are many of them out there today, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, individuals who deny the deity of Christ.

Titus 2 .13 is one of the passages that I have frequently used as well. He uses those same scriptures, and he defines the apostolic tradition by the words of scripture. Apostolic tradition, in this letter for Athanasius, refers to the scriptures.

And that may explain why this same writer, Athanasius, said, for example, The holy and inspired scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth. And he also said, These canonical books are the fountain of salvation so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them.

In these alone the school of piety preaches the gospel. Let no man add or take away from them. When the early church father, Basil, was attacked by his opponents regarding his beliefs about the Godhead, he replied much like Athanasius.

When his opponents talked about the customs that they had, he responded, If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here.

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

In favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. Now we have come here this evening to discuss sola scriptura. But what does that mean? Well, first I'd like to start with the negatives. What it doesn't mean.

Because I've discovered there's a lot of confusion about what it does mean. Let me tell you some of the things it doesn't mean. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. It is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.

The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. In John 21 -25 we read that if everything that Jesus said or did had been recorded, the world itself would not be large enough to contain the books that would be written.

But it does not have to be exhaustive either to be the rule of faith of the church. We don't need to know the color of Matthew's eyes. We don't need to know the menu of each of the apostolic meals for Jesus by the Sea of Galilee to have a sufficient rule of faith for the church.

Curiosity that goes beyond what God has revealed is not godly. Secondly, it is not a denial of the church's authority to teach. 1 Timothy 3 -15 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth, of course, is Jesus Christ. And how do we know Jesus Christ? We know Jesus Christ from His word. The church teaches truth and calls men to believe in the truth, calls men to believe in Jesus Christ.

But the church does not add revelation or rule over the scriptures. The church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the word of Christ, which is found in the God-breathed scriptures. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's word was at one time spoken.

Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself, yet the apostles proved their message from scripture. You'll note, for example, Paul's example in Acts 17 -2, or Apollos in Acts 18 -28, demonstrating the consistency that existed between the message that they preached and the Old Testament scriptures.

And remember also that John commended those in Ephesus in Revelation 2 -2 for testing those who claimed to be apostles, and how would they have done that if not by the scriptures? And finally, number four, it is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the church.

It is in no way a denial that the Holy Spirit is absolutely positively necessary for anyone to have a full understanding of the scriptures because they need to be spiritually discerned. What then is sola scriptura?

Well, the doctrine of sola scriptura simply states that the scriptures and the scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith for the church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in scripture and in no other source.

That which is not found in scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith of the Christian church.

The scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church, or counsel. The scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating.

The Christian church looks to the scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the church is always subject to the word and is constantly reformed thereby. Now, I want you to recognize that I am emphasizing the doctrine of sola scriptura is based upon the inspiration of scripture.

Now, that term inspiration that we will find, for example, in 2 Timothy 3 .16 is really not the best way of rendering the term. The Greek term theanoustos is best rendered as God-breathed. In fact, in the New International Version, that is how it is rendered.

In 2 Timothy 3 .16, we read that all scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

We learn from this that scripture's authority is God's authority. You don't have scriptural authority over here than God's authority over here. You don't have different authorities in the church. The authority in the church is one, God's authority.

And when God speaks in scripture, that carries His authority. Notice, for example, from the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 22. When He is talking with the Sadducees who denied the resurrection, He says, You are in error because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God.

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God spoke to you, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?

Please notice that from the Lord Jesus' perspective, that which was found in scripture was God speaking, and He held those men responsible for what God had said to them, even though what was spoken had been written a thousand years earlier.

Scripture is God speaking to man. It is theanoustos, God breathed. Note as well Peter's words in 2 Peter 1, 20 -21. Knowing this first of all, that no scriptural prophecy ever came about by the prophet's own personal interpretation.

For no prophecy ever was born by the will of man. Rather, while being carried along by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God. That is why the scriptures can function as a rule of faith for the church. Because they are God breathed.

What God says is the final authority for the church. The great reformer of Geneva, John Calvin, said concerning this,. This then is the difference. Our opponents, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, locate the authority of the church outside God's word, that is, outside of scripture and scripture alone.

But we insist that it be attached to the word and do not allow it to be separated from it. And what wonder if Christ's bride and pupil be subject to her spouse and teacher so that she pays constant and careful attention to his words.

For this is the arrangement of a well-governed house, that the wife obey the husband's authority. This is the plan of a well-ordered school, that there the teaching of the schoolmaster alone should be heard.

For this reason, the church should not be wise of itself, should not devise anything of itself, but should set the limit of its own wisdom where Christ has made an end of speaking. In this way, the church will distrust all the devisings of its own reason.

But in those things where it rests upon God's word, the church will not waver with any distrust or doubting, but will repose in great assurance and firm constancy. Now, I think I can speak for Jerry to say that he does not deny that the scriptures are inspired or inerrant.

In fact, we spoke about that on the phone this week. He does not deny that. Now, I have to bring that up because there, unfortunately, are many Roman Catholics today who deny the inerrancy of scripture and the full inspiration of scripture, just as there are many liberal Protestants who do the same thing.

I believe that Jerry Matytix will agree that the scriptures are a rule of faith of the church. They are part of the rule of faith of the church. But Mr. Matytix denies that the scriptures are the rule of faith for the church alone.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that there is something missing from the Protestant understanding. Something needs to be joined to scripture that when you put the two together, it gives you the complete picture.

According to Roman Catholicism, what is missing is oral tradition. Oral tradition, the spoken word of God and the written word of God together making the whole word of God, sacred tradition with a capital S and a capital T.

For most Roman Catholic writers, sacred tradition is made up of both the written tradition, which is scripture, and the oral tradition, which the Council of Trent defines as follows. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following then the examples of the Orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books, both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both.

Also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession. Though it has changed with time, Vatican II said, it is clear therefore that sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in according with God's own most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others and that all together and each in its own way, under the action of the Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

She has always regarded the scriptures together with sacred tradition as the supreme rule of faith and will ever do so. Sacred theology rests on the written word of God together with sacred tradition as its primary and perpetual foundation.

Now this assertion of a second inspired source of God's truth has led, I feel, to some tremendously false beliefs. For example, John O 'Brien, author of the popular work The Faith of Millions, wrote in a pamphlet entitled Finding Christ's Church, quote, Great as is our reference 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.

That is certainly not what I believe to be the faith of the Church historically or in any other way. As time permits this evening, we shall see that such was not the view of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, the prophets of old, or the early fathers.

But right now I want to focus our attention on what this debate must be about. To defend sola scriptura is, in a sense, impossible. Why? Well, because sola scriptura is a negative. It is a statement that there is no other source of authority for the Church.

Let me give you an example. If I pull out this pen here and say, This pen is absolutely unique. It is the only pen like it in all the world. How do I prove that? How could I prove that this is the only pen like it in all the world?

I would have to go to every desk drawer, to every store in all the world. I'd have to get on a spaceship and go to the moon and to Mars and to every planet in the cosmos and search everywhere to find out if there is another pen like this.

I couldn't prove it. But if I came in and made this assertion that this is the only pen like this in the world, it would be very easy for Mr. Matitix to win that debate. You know how? He gets in his car, he goes down to the local business store or a stationary store, whatever it is, goes in and gets a cross-medalist pen and he brings it in, he stands up at the podium and he puts it next to this one and he says, See?

There's another one just like it. And the debate's over. The debate's over. The uniqueness of this pen has been shown to be false. Well, the Roman Catholic position must demonstrate that the, quote, oral tradition, end quote, that is supposed to exist, not only contains revelation from God that differs in content from what is found in the New Testament, but that this oral tradition is theanoustos, that is, God-breathed, inspired.

Without such a demonstration, the denial of sola scriptura is empty and meaningless. Remember the title of the debate. We're talking about an infallible rule. Is the Bible the only infallible rule? And the only way to demonstrate that's wrong is to point us to another infallible rule that when placed next to scripture shows that scripture is not unique in being God-breathed, inspired revelation from God.

That is the task that lies before us. Now, when the Mormon people, for example, claim that they have revelation outside the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the teaching of the living prophet in Salt Lake City, I challenge them on the basis of the inconsistency between the pretended revelation they put forward and the scriptures themselves.

They teach two different things, so obviously the Holy Spirit is not the author of both. In the same way, I challenge the Roman Catholic claim that there is an additional revelation from God, this mysterious oral tradition that supposedly needs to be added to the scriptures to have all that God would have us to have.

Now, to win this debate, since Mr. Matitix already agrees with me, I believe, that the Bible is inspired and hence authoritative, he must demonstrate that there is an oral tradition that is both unique in its contents, that is, that it contains revelation other than what we have in the New Testament or the Old Testament, and that it is inspired on exactly the same level as the New Testament, that is, that it is God-breathed.

If not, if it is on some lower level of inspiration, if it is not God-breathed, then obviously you cannot unequally yoke it with the Bible. It cannot be an equal authority. Oral tradition must be inspired in exactly the same way as the scriptures for it to function as Rome has claimed.

Now, how would we go about looking at this subject? Well, I hope I noticed that the flyer said, bring your Bible, and so I hope that you did. I'd like to ask you to look with me at Matthew chapter 15.

Matthew chapter 15, verses 1 through 6. Matthew 15, 1 through 6. I'll begin, as time is fleeting, with verse 3. Matthew 15, beginning at verse 3. Jesus replied, And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

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

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You're probably familiar with the background, the Corban rule, the rule that allows you to dedicate your material possessions to the temple and hence not have to support your parents in their aging years.

It's not my intention to go into the background so much as to point out the principle that is here presented to us. The Jewish people believed that their traditions were divine in that they had been given to Moses and passed down to that current generation.

Now I don't know if there's anyone here tonight who believes that. I don't, and I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees or the Sadducees were in point of fact divine traditions that had been handed down from Moses to the time of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But the point is that that's what they believed and so what did the Lord Jesus do? What did he tell all of us to do? To test that teaching, that tradition, not just corrupt tradition, any tradition, on the basis of the scriptures.

Thus, verse 6, you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Obviously the word of God does not fall into the category of tradition in that passage, does it? And yet it does in so many Roman Catholic writings as a part of sacred tradition.

Tradition is tested by scripture. Now one of the most important passages we need to look at is 2 Thessalonians 2. If you'll turn with me there please. 2 Thessalonians 2, verses 13 through 15. 2 Thessalonians 2, 15.

Let me read just verse 15, I'll read verses 13 and 14 in a moment. Verse 15, Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught either by word or by a letter of hours.

Now it is alleged by Roman Catholic apologists that here you have a positive command to pass on the oral tradition as a separate tradition, separate from the written. That this is to be passed on to the church down through the ages.

But is that what we have here? No, this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers. There is nothing future about this passage at all. He says to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that will be delivered?

No, already have been delivered to the entire church, not just the Episcopate, not just the bishops, but to everyone in the church at Thessalonica. This single body of traditions was taught in two ways.

Was taught in two ways. First, orally. That is when Paul was personally with the Thessalonians. And by epistle, that being the first letter of Paul to the Thessalonians. Now what does the term orally refer to?

For the Roman Catholic to use this passage to support his position, two things must be established. First, that the oral tradition that is spoken of here, the oral element, refers to a specific passing on a revelation through the power of the Episcopate.

And secondly, that what is passed on is different in substance from what is found in the New Testament. With reference to the first issue, we note that the context of the passage is the gospel. Note again the verses which immediately precede verse 15, verses 13 and 14.

But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren loved by the Lord, for God chose you from the beginning for salvation by the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through faith in the truth. Unto which he called you by our gospel so that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The traditions of which Paul speaks are not traditions about Mary or papal infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul is talking about is simply the gospel message itself. Note what he said in his first epistle to the Thessalonians about what he had spoken to them, 1 Thessalonians 2 .13.

And for this reason, we also constantly thank God that when you receive from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Now, in 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, Paul says to stand firm, the Greek term stakite. He also uses that term in 1 Corinthians 16 .13 when he says, Be on your guard, stand firm in the faith. Be men of courage, be strong.

What Paul is saying in 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 is that we are to stand firm in the gospel message which has been preached to the people. There is nothing here about immaculate conception or papal infallibility or some second source of inspired revelation whatsoever.

In the brief two minutes I have left, please turn with me to 2 Timothy 2 .2. But you, my child, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses.

These things entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others. Join in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. Now, did Paul teach something different in the presence of many witnesses than he taught in his epistle to the Romans or the Galatians?

Certainly not. The deposit that has been given to Timothy is not different than what we have in Acts, Romans, or Galatians. And I'm not the first one to argue that. I will close my presentation by reading from the early church father, Tertullian, who addressed this very passage when refuting those false teachers of his day, who claimed that the apostles had two different teachings, one which was open and known to all and a second secret doctrine known only to a few.

He says,. But here as we have said the same madness, and there allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing and preached not any doctrines which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly into all the world, whilst they disclosed others only in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy.

O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee, and again that good thing which is committed unto thee, keep. What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be characterized as a new doctrine? Or is it a part of that charge of which he says, This charge I committed unto thee, son Timothy.

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

Now what is the commandment and what is this charge? From the preceding and the succeeding context, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about some far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other doctrine than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly before many witnesses, is his phrase.

I agree with him about that, and as time allows this evening, we will continue to look at what the Bible says about the concept of tradition and the sufficiency of the scriptures. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for coming out this evening and sharing with us in this debate.

I want to thank my esteemed colleague here, Mr. James White, for being willing to come and to debate me again. We have had some debates before in the past, and he pays me a compliment in being willing to debate me again.

And I would like to finally tell all of you why, very briefly, I was willing to come out here and to engage in this debate. I do so primarily out of the motive of love. Love, first of all, for you, and love including, of course, therefore also my friend and fellow human being, Mr. James White.

He is someone for whom Christ died, as are each one of you, as I am. And Christ, who loves us so very much, came into the world, as he said to Pontius Pilate, to bear witness to the truth. Jesus Christ believed that the truth is something that you and I can know, can be sure of.

And he said, if you continue in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide his disciples into all the truth. And that's the second, and perhaps the more important reason that I want to have this debate with Mr. White tonight.

Not only out of love for my fellow human beings, for my neighbors, as God commands, but out of love for truth, which is really ultimately out of love for God, who is truth himself. And I believe that if you came tonight, you believe in truth also.

You believe that there is such a thing as truth, with a capital T. And that this truth can be known. And you believe that if a certain proposition is true, such as the proposition that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith in practice, then the opposite proposition must be false.

You believe, in other words, in what we call the law of non-contradiction. If you don't believe in the law of non-contradiction, then ultimately, I think you would have to conclude, if you reason it out, you don't believe in God.

Or at least you don't believe in the God that Christians worship. The God who is truth, as opposed to error. The God who affirms right, as opposed to wrong. The God who says, for example, that if murder is wrong, that if the preservation of life is right, then murder, the taking of innocent life, is wrong.

That if a certain style of life is correct, then the opposite, the distortion or the perversion of that kind of life is wrong. The Bible speaks of truth and error, right and wrong, light and darkness.

And it commands us to give ourselves every day of our lives afresh to God, and ask Him to show us the truth and to give us the courage to stand for the truth and to change our opinions. When God in His mercy, in His undeserved grace, shows us that what we formerly held to be true was wrong.