September 11, 2008

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341 And now with today's topic here is

James White Good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line heading out to Santa Fe, New Mexico tomorrow morning

Those of you in that area look forward to seeing you at the discern. Oh eight conference

I'll be speaking on the reliability of the New Testament documents and one of the major sessions doing two workshops

One on Islam and the other on the Marian dogmas

So hope to see you there and then the next weekend as we have on The website you can get this information there three debates two against Osama Abdullah and one against Farhan Qureshi I was looking over Osama Abdullah's website and I was looking at his information about the lie of the crucifixion and things like that and I Just have to note some of these things.

It's amazing to me For example, he says the New Testament confirms that only

Peter witnessed the crucifixion. Did you know that I? Thought the women and John was there

But only Peter witnessed and the New Testament says that and he he quotes Peter's denial that he went out and wept bitterly as the only evidence the only

Peter Witnessed crucifixion and I'm just sort of left going really Okay.

All right, that's Interesting and then he talks about third -party narrations in the

Gospels the New Testament demonstrate they're not real and so If if it makes reference to the author in the narration that demonstrates that's not real.

So for example For John was not yet cast into prison John 324

Of course, that's John the Baptist not John the Apostle So you got stuff got a bunch of them like that and this is the record of John when the

Jews sent priests Levites and Jerusalem to ask him who art thou of course at the ends different Different John and then we have the apocalypse of Peter be the whole almost the whole.

I think the whole thing is reproduced here and He is absolutely insistent that this was given to Peter directly word -for -word

The problem is the apocalypse of Peter's from the 3rd century, which means Peter had to be at least 250 years old when he croaks

It's a it's a Gnostic work of fiction and everybody knows it but and then he doesn't even understand what it's saying because it's

Actually is dualistic and it does say that the man Jesus was crucified but the

Spirit Christ was up above the cross and you can't crucify spirits and It's gonna be an interesting weekend.

Oh, that's all I can tell you is it's gonna be a very very interesting weekend in dealing with that and I've listened to Farhan Qureshi is a debate with Nabil Qureshi no relationship directly anyways same last name, but other than that and So, like I said, it's gonna be an interesting

Really really is. Oh, that's right. I was gonna mention we're gonna go back to the Madrid stuff here, but I was gonna mention

It is Amazing to see the the worst of the Jehovah's Witness arguments from years years gone by refuted many many times

Being picked up by these guys and repeated that you can tell they ransack

The JW websites to come up with their arguments. It's great. I love it and They're not used to running into too many people who know as much about Jehovah's Witnesses as yours truly does

And has been dealing with that for that long so as soon as I started looking through this and seeing Hugh J Schoenfeld's translation and Moffat being translated

I'm going man I've had stuff on on this topic on our website since the well we had it in print and then in the 1980s

And then it went up on the website as soon as the website was available to put a website on But you know all the same old stuff

Psalm 82 and exes 7 -1 just almost taken verbatim right off of Jehovah's Witness websites but being used by Muslims without really proper attribution

I would say To the people that they're stealing that stuff from but I remember saying a long time ago

Back before the debate with the Homs Abdul Malik. I said this is just bad Jehovah's Witness argumentation

It's really it's just it's not even as good as the Witnesses come up with it's just bad JW argumentation and with of course you throw in a lot of Arabic in the process and there you go

So it's going to be It's gonna be a very very interesting Experience coming up, but again people say well, then why are you debating these folks?

I mean you're gonna be doing Zulfiqar Shah Lord willing at Duke University in November and and here's a scholar and and yeah,

I want to debate the scholars I want to debate Zulfiqar Shah and and people like Shabir Ali Take on the best they have but the fact of the matter is in lands where the persecuted

Church the minority Christian population is Under the persecution of Muslim authorities.

It's not the Islam of the scholars That is being yelled at our brothers and sisters on a daily basis

It's this kind of stuff And so to respond to that that's why it's different that's why it is different from the standards that we use and we talk about Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses or Roman Catholicism and who we wish to debate in those contexts in this instance because the persecution of the church in other lands we go ahead and we deal with these

Types of presentations that are not scholarly at all That are that are very poor just just filled with errors from right to left and easily documented but you still need to deal with them because that's the stuff that's being thrown out there and So that's why we do it.

So we continue on with our review of The debate from 1993

With Patrick Madrid we are getting right near the end of his presentation

In fact, I'm looking at the waveform here and you can sort of tell about how long things go from Just looking at waveforms sort of like the people in the matrix, you know

They can see what's going on the matrix from stuff like that But so we're getting right toward the end of his opening statement.

So let's continue on with Patrick Madrid a few examples John the Baptist testified and he testified authoritatively to Jesus Christ the

Word of God But John the Baptist did not have authority over Jesus Christ Same in the same way the church as the

Bride of Christ Recognizes Christ's voice and serves as an accurate faithful witness to it

But that does not mean and Catholics do not claim that the church has authority over the

Word of God Now remember as I said last time I closed the program out or at least closed the review portion of the program out

We had a little discussion later on about Joel Hemphill, but I Pointed out that that while the

Roman Catholic may want to try to avoid openly recognizing the role of the church as The one that determines the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture, even though she doesn't do that very often

We haven't been able to find that inspired commentary yet. Sure would be nice to get hold of that thing I hope they publish it soon.

But As well as defining what is tradition what is not tradition what tradition says if you are the sole infallible

Determiner of the extent of Scripture in the meaning of Scripture in the extent of tradition the meaning of tradition don't tell me you're under Their authority.

It's just not possible. Those things cannot correct you once you make a decision even if it's a wrong decision

How can you be corrected in that type of situation? That's what they're trying to avoid here number five

Many say we can't have more than one ultimate authority On the surface that might sound convincing but notice that it's false when you when you look at it more carefully the four

Gospels Matthew Mark Luke and John are equally ultimate and equally authoritative now

Think about that one for just a moment put your thinking caps on how would you respond? If you are a fellow

Non -roman Catholic, how would you respond to Patrick Madrid's argument there? And in fact, what is presupposed?

by Patrick Madrid's argument there Think about for just a moment before I mention it the four

Gospels and They're equal with one another doesn't that show us that the church can be equal with without lording over Scripture But what are the four

Gospels? Well aside from the fact they're all Scripture. They're all the honest off and If you'll listen to Patrick's argument the only way

For the argument to have any meaning at all is if he is in fact asserting that the church is the honest offs

It is God breathed But where does he get that the God breathe Scriptures don't say the church is

God breathed So the Parallel doesn't exist

There is no parallel between books of Scripture and the church and the Scripture unless you're going to identify the church as in fact being

The honest offs and one gospel does not subjugate the other gospel The same with the prophet

Isaiah and the prophet Jeremiah here were two prophets of God walking the earth at the same time Delivering inspired oracles of God for his people.

He didn't subjugate one prophet over another They were both ultimate authorities in their own way and yet there was no subjugation.

They worked harmoniously together Well again, you're talking about two inspired

Authors and so the only way this could be relevant To the idea of the church is if you're making the church itself inspired

But if the church is of a completely different nature, it's not revelatory. It receives revelation

Unless you're gonna say the church in essence receives revelation and that revelation is the honest offs, but it doesn't

Come into existence outside of her or something like that. These arguments are irrelevant. They involve basic fundamental category errors

Mistake number six, which we have already heard tonight the attempt to shift the burden of proof

Sometimes less scrupulous and honest Protestant apologists will attempt and that's the end of that particular recording

So we continue on with this one. It was not read in your hearing, but I'll read it for you, but you might go Oh, I know what happened it in shoulder gun off of Deutsch I think

I zoomed in on this one. And that's why aha Aha, aha.

Aha. My apologies. I had that zoomed in and that's why It went to where it went.

Let me see if I can find where in the world we were there my apologies a little bit of a malfunction here on the

Slide that over but it looks different on this Okay, I'll see if we can find something in here, let's see in various ways mistake number four

Some Protestants argue that if we're only at number six, weren't we sometimes less scrupulous and honest

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

Catholic much prove the Catholic position on tradition the Catholic Church can Demonstrate the biblical grounds for this doctrine, but tradition is not on trial here tonight

Unless you use tradition your understanding of tradition as your main argument

And of course again, I simply point out why haven't we heard Roman Catholic apologists defending this position?

I have challenged them over and over again when I challenged Patrick. He's just a debate junkie and You know, all they want to do is they want to go after sola scriptura

They do not want to apply the same stance their own position. Why I assert because they can't

Because if they applied the same standards their own position, it would be self refuting and then that would be obvious to everybody and So they avoid that very assiduously

It is my assertion that the standards that the average Roman Catholic Apologist uses against solo scriptura would be just as effective against his claims in regards the authority of the

Roman Catholic Church And that is why they only want to debate sola scriptura They don't want to debate the subject of tradition, but he identifies that is unscrupulous on my part and that's a nice big word

So what mr. White may tell you sola scriptura is on trial if you don't believe me then go get the flyer that mr

White produced which says does the Bible teach sola scriptura? That's the issue

Don't forget that don't let him try to fool you If he tries to shift the burden of proof onto my shoulders saying

I must prove the Catholic view I don't have to I don't have to prove the Catholic position on tradition

Mr. White or infant baptism or the papacy or even bingo The question is does the

Bible teach sola scriptura? Yeah, like I said Patrick was just nasty in this debate

He was he was not a nice person And I think if people want to use the same standards that I was used to identify as me as a mean terrible horrible nasty person then they're gonna have to identify him as a mean terrible horrible nasty person as well because It's pretty much he was pretty aggressive and unfriendly in many ways and all

I'm saying again is if you're going to Assume the Catholic understanding of tradition as a part of your argument, then guess what?

You're gonna have to defend it and it is awfully strange That so many of my opponents when they attack the

Bible whether it's Muslims or Roman Catholics. They want to come in as atheists. I Have nothing to defend at all.

I am NOT here as a Catholic. I am NOT here as a Muslim I am NOT going to allow you to to hold me to a consistency of the use of sources or Argumentation.

I want to be free to throw everything including the kitchen sink at you It doesn't matter if I'm refuting myself

I don't need to be consistent in my worldview now, you know If you want a food fight,

I guess that's what you can do. But if you actually want a serious Debate where you're actually willing to be consistent in the argumentation you use and that's what

I do I Never knowingly or purposefully I might out of ignorance

No one's ever pointed out to me, but I might out of ignorance use an argument against another position That would be self -refuting of my own

But I do everything in my power to avoid doing that now Could I come up with lots of arguments that would sound good to shallow thinking people?

but that would be Self -refutational, of course, that's sadly what a lot of people do

But why do we debate if you're a servant of Jesus Christ you debate to his honor and glory he who is the truth?

Therefore you have to have the highest standard of truth in your service to him, right? well, that's just what's got a that's what's got to drive the

Drive the agenda and the way you engage in debate Mr.

White uses the pen analogy. I find that very intriguing He argues that to prove there is no other pen like this pen

He would have the impossible task of searching the entire earth all the bookstores all the pockets

Now, let me remind you what I had said. I had gotten out my cross medalist pen I don't have one with me today, but I've got a

I'd have a pen here But it's a has a laser in it. I can shoot rich with it through the window there

And I got a pen I had said look What I'm saying is this is the only if I said this is the only pen there is and I'm saying scripture is the only example of say

Anastas revelation we possess and I said this is the only pen there is Then the way to refute me is to hold up another pen identical to it right next to it

It is Irrational to say well unless you can prove that there's no other pen just like it then by default there is

See, that's where the Roman Catholic is trying to play a game here

He is trying to play a game where? He's gonna say well if the

Bible doesn't say by name It doesn't say this isn't a revelation. This isn't a revelation

This isn't equal, and that isn't equal then well, maybe something else is and by default we claim that our tradition is that which is necessary and established by God and blah blah blah blah and So it would seem to be easy wouldn't and I asked my

Roman Catholic listeners. I know you're out there Why can't your guys walk up with the identical pen

Why can't your guys remember remember Mitch Pacquiao mentioned us last time father

Pacquiao Can you name a single word Jesus spoke? Paul spoke any of the

Apostles spoke Peter spoke a single word That the Roman Catholic Church has dogmatically defined

That does not appear in the canon of Scripture anything You keep telling us you've got all this stuff anything and father

Pacquiao was Very honest and saying well. No no the church has not defined a single word

That Jesus or the Apostles spoke outside of the canon of Scripture So why can't you do that?

Why can't you bring that other pen forward? To show us yeah this this other rule of faith if you can't give us another infallible rule of faith

Then if solo scriptura is Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith Isn't that the debate?

You would think that it is the whole earth you have to visit the moon You have to search all the planets in the solar system

You would have to search the entire universe to make sure that no other pen like this pen existed. No mr.

White Tonight this Bible is your universe.

This is what you have to search. You don't have to go to any other planets tonight, mr. White I invite you to stay right here on planet earth and simply show us where in the

Bible the doctrine of sola scriptura is found I'm so sorry for defining for folks what the proof of universal negative is

Now in our remaining moments, let's examine some key scripture passages that are frequently brought up Let's turn immediately to 2nd

Timothy 3 16 verse 17 pardon me 3 16 and 17 which mr.

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

But I do want to quote from his book This is on page 42 of his book answers to Catholic claims

I Believe that the case for sola scriptura is so flimsy that if you want to find how flimsy it is

You can just go right to mr. White's book answers to Catholic claims Which purports to deal with the sufficiency or the formal sufficiency of Scripture Wow, okay.

There you go now again Fine go ahead and say that you know, but when

I say that Roman Catholic apologists and Catholic answers as a whole produces shallow flimsy

Argumentation that we have refuted over and over again And they don't bother to listen the refutations and rehabilitate themselves as keep repeating the the already refuted arguments over and over again

Oh, you're terrible. You're uncharitable and you're mean and and oh, we'll have nothing to do with you

We're so offended and blah blah blah blah blah. Hey, if you can dish it out like Madrid did during this debate

Why can't you take it is basically a simple question that someone would ask you Why why are

Roman Catholics so thin -skinned and yet they'll still sit behind this kind of rhetoric?

I hadn't used that kind of rhetoric in my opening statement But Madrid wanted to so that's fine if he thinks that my arguments are so Shallow, let's find out if he actually deals with him

Remember we went all the way through the debate on veneration of Saints and angels looking for the painfully obviously stuff

We never found it. We found that Patrick Madrid could not handle the text of Scripture He can't do exegesis and every time we got into the text scripture.

He lost badly That's just the nature of things now. He's gonna try to get into the text of Scripture and guess what?

He's gonna get his head handed to him on a platter why because Roman Catholicism isn't scriptural that's why and That's what's being demonstrated this book.

I think shows how flimsy that case is. Mr. White says 2nd Timothy 3 16 and 17 literally screams sufficiency

Well this verse is screaming But it's only because of the way mr. White is twisting it and his attempt to shoehorn sola scriptura into it 2nd

Timothy 3 17 does not teach the formal sufficiency of Scripture folks It simply doesn't it teaches perhaps material sufficiency, which

I would be perfectly happy to go along with but just because Scripture contains all the necessary Equipment remember

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

King James for every good work every Catholic says amen to that There's no argument, but just because it will give you all the equipment that you need doesn't mean that it will necessarily

Make you able to use that equipment properly Let me demonstrate Scripture says we must rightly divide the

Word of God that means that some people can wrongly divide it They can wrongly use it some of you here tonight will think

I am wrongly using the Word of God so that in effect proves what I'm saying some people will use it correctly others won't and Some people will use the dogmatic hands and creases a

Catholic Church correctly and some people won't that is the nature of a written document, and it is once again the demonstration of the

Shallowness the flimsiness since that seems to be the term of the day of Patrick Dridd's argumentation that he does not realize

That again if you're gonna make the argument well someone someone could misinterpret what the Bible says therefore

You need something else well, then it follows someone could misinterpret what the Catholic Church says therefore You need something beyond the

Catholic Church right if you use arguments that refute your own position those arguments are irrational and by using them

You are demonstrating that you do not hold the truth. You don't understand it You don't think clearly you don't think rationally and that means you lose the debate

But just having the Bible alone is not enough to fully equip the man of God in the sense that he may have all the raw

Materials he may have all the equipment, but he may not know how to use it properly Which is a different?

Definition of course of Sola Scriptura than the one I've presented or the Protestants have presented because obviously the whole idea of using

God's Revelation is Not the point in this context Riding the bike isn't the point in this context and so he's trying to shift

The the definition there to one that is not even really relevant to Sola Scriptura Mr..

White used a very quaint example about a bike store And how the bike store can outfit him thoroughly give him everything

He needs bike tires inner tubes helmets and all the various things that he might need, but what about what about mr.

White if you don't know how to ride a bike The whole point is that we're talking about the man of God you made a man of God by the work and spirit of God We're talking about Christians here the man of God in the church, and if he's going to teach rebuke reprove and exhort in godliness

What is the source that he is to go to he is to go to the inspired scriptures? That is the only source that he is directed to go to to Function in that way and Rome can't have that because to teach

Roman Catholic theology You can't go to the Bible alone. You have to add these other things to it so again

We're clearly missing the entire context that is actually being presented and that is speaking of the man of God What is the source what has

God given to the man of God in the church to teach God's truth? It is that which is the honest office that which is

God breathe it is the scriptures There is nothing here in regards to how to learn to ride a bike or anything else is irrelevant to this particular point

In the presentation they made But what if you don't know the rules of the road But what if you don't know the proper way to handle a bike in difficult terrain or in bad weather?

The church and sacred tradition which the Bible does talk about and we'll show later tonight Is in that support role sure the

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

That's where the church comes in and sacred tradition those Yeah, and again, what has been defined on the basis of this alleged sacred tradition the how of riding the bike no the stuff of theology papal infallibility and purgatory and Transubstantiation and priestly absolution and all the

Marian dogmas and all the none of this is about riding the bike We're talking with forked tongue here.

Oh we come along and we we hope you had to see how to use these things No, you don't you add things to it things that are clearly not there.

Oh, well, it's implicitly there But see, you know when angels say Kakar to many We can build entire buildings of theology out of that because that's what the church that's riding the bike

That's what you're getting told here for the ways that the church helps to guide The man of God in the proper use of sacred scripture.

Don't forget that point The proper use of sacred scripture ie to teach what we tell you to teach

Even when those things are were not even believed by anybody in your early church whatsoever And that's of course has been what

Rome has done in these last doctrines that she has defined and defended We have a caller online about the subject

I'm gonna see how much farther Madrid has to go before we were going to get Wrapped up and that would be a natural place to take the call.

So let's continue with them Finally, how can mr White assert that Paul has in mind the formal sufficiency of scripture when in the very same epistle in 2nd

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

Actually a second to the two to says to Timothy that he is to pass on to men who are capable of teaching those things that he has heard from Paul in the presence of many witnesses and as I will say in my closing statement and I will criticize myself

For my closing statement. I did not do it Well, I had all the stuff I wanted to get to and I decided to get to it in the closing statement

It's not that it wasn't relevant It's not that I broke any of the rules debate anything else. I should have summarized the issues and refocused instead

I tried to get I was still in that Until 1993 and I had a conversation with somebody.

I don't even know who it was I was still in the get as much as you can into the presentation mode of debating and not so much recognizing that you know

Sometimes you just can't get everything you want to get to and so what I do in the closing statement I'll criticize myself for this a closing statement.

I hit second Thessalonians 215. I agree with everything I said about it was important to say But I should have just summarized it and not gone into detail at it and I got into this text as well as I recall and I quoted

Tertullian I think I'm going off top my head here but I believe it quoted Tertullian who used this text against the

Gnostics and the interesting thing was the Gnostics were saying that the Apostles had a secret doctrine a

Doctrine that was not written in Scripture that was passed down outside the can of Scripture and that this secret doctrine was where they were getting their interpretations from and Tertullian said no no no this passage tells us that what is passed down is not secret

It's public. It's known to everybody it has been presented

Timothy knows by Paul in public and Therefore you can't say that there's this other stuff that you have to go to to be able to understand the scriptures

You would have to be able to demonstrate that the early church that these Christians have always believed these things

And that's the very thing Rome can't do with their tradition That's the very reason that Madrid's trying to Retreat the material sufficiency viewpoint rather than the pardon pardon viewpoint is because he knows

That he cannot even begin to demonstrate that what Paul said of the Thessalonians was

Mary's bodily assumed to heaven of course he would argue that Mary hadn't died yet So that's why isn't but that Mary is the

Queen of Heaven That Mary was a was immaculately conceived and all the rest of this stuff because that's not what the early church

Believed you can't trace it that far back It just wasn't a part of this alleged tradition that does not find its place in Scripture, and I will bring that up as I said later on in the debate oral tradition one other point

Mr.. White places a very heavy emphasis on Greek and Greek grammar and all okay now listen to this listen to this

I mean You really got to tune in here if you've sort of been doing something else. I'm like listen

To this representative of the Roman Catholic Church Which claims to be the sole infallible rule of faith songs or what have

I what did I do in my presentation? Since Madrid and Keating had been hammering away on Bill Jackson and Ron Nemec Where does the

Bible say? Sufficient where does the Bible say they just hammered away on it?

And I'm I'm gonna you know put out the plea to everybody if anybody has that debate Let me know let me know how to get it digitize it for me

Do something because I would really like to get it because I'd like to play some sections where they were just Hammering away on this saying show us where it says this shows us where it says.

It's over and over and over again and so They've been going at this really really hard and So what do

I do I? Provide them with the very thing they were demanding just 40 or 50 days earlier to be given to them and What's his response well you're you're listening to those other fancy ways of studying

Scripture But they're irrelevant tonight for tonight's purpose because we can take mr.. White Let me play it over again because I I think you really need to hear this whole thing

To really Remember this is irrelevant one other point

Mr.. White places a very heavy emphasis on Greek and Greek grammar and all those other fancy ways of studying

Scripture But they're irrelevant tonight for tonight's purpose because we can take mr. White's Principle his interpretive principle and apply it to another passage very similar and find out if it works mr.

White says in effect Because the Bible says it will make you perfect and complete lacking in nothing or perfect and complete fully equipped

Therefore you don't need anything else it excludes everything else now

Not quite what I said was that for what the man of God is doing that is teaching rebuking exhorting

When the man of God wishes to teach God's truth That which is the anus toss is sufficient for him to do those very things

That's what I said didn't say you don't need anything else as in That's just all there is to it and now what happens is you don't need the spirit

You don't need the church. You don't need any the rest that stuff You just just got to have you and your Bible out in the woods didn't say that but that is the common type of presentation

That people make let's apply that for example to James 1 4 James 1 4

Paul says here Let your perseverance be perfect and complete Let your perseverance be perfect so that you may be perfect and complete lacking in nothing

Now what does that mean? Mr. White does that mean that if I persevere that I'm perfectly complete therefore

I don't need the Bible does that mean I don't need fellowship. I do not need prayer now notice what he's doing

I had never said he's mixing categories here He's doing exactly what I said.

He was going to do He's misrepresenting what I said in regards to the sufficiency of that source of Scripture So the man of God may do what the man of God needs to do, right?

So I didn't say that the church wasn't important or fellowship wasn't important or prayer was he's he's completely misrepresenting that point and he then is completely misrepresenting the original language which at this time in 1993 he could not read and hence blunders badly at this point as I will point out in my

Rebuttal I don't need to do the good works that Paul talks about so often as those that accompany saving faith

What does that have to do with my argument absolutely positively nothing total waste of time?

Because nowhere did I say that well as long as you have the scriptures and you're teaching and preaching then the

Bible says nothing else Sanctification it says nothing else about the Fellowship of the Saints says nothing else else about anything at all

Obviously, that's not what the debate's about or even relevant to the presentation that I made what about those?

I do need all of those But if the Bible is to be sufficient if it's proved to be sufficient from 2nd

Timothy 3 17 simply because it will it says it Will make you complete then the Bible proves that perseverance and by the way the context in James 1 and 2 is perseverance in good works

That perseverance in good works will make you perfectly complete lacking in nothing now What would be even ignoring all the other stuff all the other errors that were just made in category errors and things like that?

Ignoring all of that What would have to be the underlying presupposition of this argument?

That's not only are the two contexts the same but that the wording is the same and as we're going to point out

The wording isn't the same and that's why Patrick has to go all that fancy Greek stuff when you start hearing somebody talking about all

That fancy stuff. That's generally a really good indication that they can't do it. They don't know it

They haven't taken the time to learn it they haven't gone to school to discover these things to learn these things to learn how to use these tools that are available to you and That's exactly the situation with with mr.

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

Timothy 317 now faulty and shabby Remember, he's the man who has completely ignored categories

He's the man who is deceiving people and he's the man who's ignorant of the original language and has blundered all over the original language

But I'm the one with the faulty and shabby use of second Timothy 316 through 17 keep that in mind folks

Mr. White mentioned the verses in Scripture Matthew 15 in Colossians 2 perhaps he didn't mention

Colossians 2 But these are places where Jesus condemns the traditions of men fair enough Tradition, I think that was

Paul in Colossians actually But that's just a little things of men which are bad should be condemned But not all tradition is to be condemned in fact elsewhere

Paul praises oral tradition What did I say? Did I not point out the fact that the

Jews believed in fact that what they were presenting was divine tradition and Did I say it meant that every oral tradition know what

I said was that every oral tradition is not condemned But every oral tradition must be subjugated to the examination of the basis the higher authority

Which is the authority of Scripture? Why can't mr. Madrid only a few minutes after I've said it accurately represent

What I've said That's good question. We don't have time to go into all of these at the moment We'll save them for later

But just jot these down first Corinthians 11 to where Paul says I commend you for holding firm to the traditions

Just as I gave them to you second Thessalonians 2 15 Paul commands the church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they have been given whether orally spoken or Through an epistle of theirs so in other words tradition is one major category

And there are two subsets in the one category oral tradition written tradition. That's what the Word of God says

Yes That is what the Word of God says But if he would take the time then to look a little bit more closely at what that particular passage is saying

He would see that not only is the context standing firm in the gospel But normally see you got to realize something and it's it's a sad fact of dealing with Roman Catholic controversialists

But they really depend upon their audience Hearing the

Bible in the context of modern Roman Catholic teaching That's why they actually don't want to get into exegesis because when you get into exegesis

Then people start hearing what the original context is and there's a danger Because if they hear what the original context is they might discover that that context is really different Than the modern context the modern spin that Rome has put on these particular texts, so you'll notice there was nothing about the context

There's nothing here. I'm just gonna throw these verses out, and I hope you think that they say what

I'm actually saying And in fact they they don't I'm sure we're going to get heavily into second

Thessalonians 2 later in the night There are many other things. I'd like to say there are many other

Points I'd like to bring up, but I want to mention one thing Tonight we can only cover the peaks and valleys in this debate

There is a mountain of evidence that can be brought forth Biblically and historically although remembers historically is not the emphasis of tonight's debate which can show

That the Bible doesn't teach sola scriptura that the church didn't believe sola scriptura in the early days

Remember he said earlier. He was going to resist the temptation to get into that because that's not what it's about tonight

Yeah, but I want you to concentrate on one point I'll try to give you as many as time will allow as many reasons as time will allow why sola scriptura is false

You can only remember one of these reasons. Please remember this one The central okay now here comes what he wants you to hear.

What does he want you to hear law? You might say the fatal flaw of mr. White's position tonight, but I'm bummed catch that fatal flaw my first book called the fatal flaw.

He did it again in the cure debates I think it was that 94 is 94.

I think it was 1994 in LA. He did that did that again? They like like playing with names a little bit of gale rippling or ask stuff

I think with these guys is that unless sola scriptura can be shown from Scripture alone, which he has not done simply by repairing to Insufficient folks no more than James 1 for means sufficient as far as perseverance in good words

So if you can't show this from Scripture alone sola scriptura is itself unscriptural

That means it's false It's a tradition of men which must be rejected by everyone who wants to be faithful to the teachings of Scripture yeah, so we set up a straw man definition of sola scriptura and Then we deny that that we have to demonstrate the existence of another rule of faith

Even though the Bible claims its rule of faith and the infallible rule of faith And so once you throw put up the straw man and then

Demand the universal negative proving me. There aren't any others then by default we win say that's that's the overwhelming epistemological argumentation of the

Roman Catholic apology I reject sola scriptura because I love the written Word of God.

I don't want to see it Undermined I don't want to see its authority Corrupted or compromised.

I don't want to see Scripture become the private play toy of every individual person who has some Idea whether true or bogus about how religion should be now catch that see there's again the false dichotomy of Rome All Rome wants you to think is you've either got the infallible magisterium over on this side

And then the other side is an individual Christian out in the woods under a tree with his

Bible The idea of a church the idea that we can learn from pre -deceiving generations the idea of scholarship

Exegesis based upon the original languages. Oh, no all of that has to be dismissed because that that more middle ground

Well, they just don't want to have to deal with that kind of thing that is not what Jesus intended for his church

That is not what the Bible says about itself the fact is There are no verses which teach

That scripture is formally sufficient as I'm most confident. Mr. White's arguments this evening will demonstrate.

Thank you All right, so let's let's take a there's now you've heard the two opening statements

I believe not they're only 20 minutes each took us out on how many days to get to them, but the two opening statements and so let's let's see if we can squeeze in our

Phone -caller at this point because it is looks like it's uh, it's relevant

We'll find out here. I honestly don't understand it, but let's talk to Adam and Discussion about interpretation without Rome.

What's up, Adam? well, I was listening to your discussion of this debate from the last time and I also had to for my pentateuch class read through the notes of theological political treatise

And he takes the Roman Catholics to task because of the fact that there are disagreements amongst

Christians as to whether or not Rome is infallible and So what he argues is that if there's disagreements to what

Rome teaches or whether Rome is that authority? how can we then be certain that Rome is the authority we should be following and I got this when

I was thinking about this. I Also, I came up with a question and if we need

Rome's authority To interpret the text of Scripture How would somebody be able to interpret previous text of Scripture if they lived in the time of the

Old Testament? I mean we all believe that the Jews were to live by the

Pentateuch and Jeremiah many times in his book alludes to Deuteronomy and says, oh, well we need to follow what

Moses said here And you know, they're in the book of Deuteronomy. But the question is if there's no Roman Catholic Church, couldn't you just say?

Oh Jeremiah We can't use that as a final authority because we don't have the Roman Catholic Church to tell us what Deuteronomy was actually saying

Well a couple things Actually, there's going to be a similar question to that. I am going to ask what has become known as the white question of Patrick during the cross -examination period one of the questions

I'm going to ask him is how did the believing? Jew know that Isaiah and 2nd

Chronicles were scripture 50 years prior to the time of Christ That's more of a canon question

But it is related to that and I would assume I can you know, I feel free to to ask mr

Madrid himself, but I would assume That the answer he would give would follow the same lines that he has given to this question

And that is by following the Jewish Magisterium What yeah by following the

Jewish Magisterium Roman Catholic Church rejects the authority of the Jewish Magisterium.

Well Yeah, that's the problem. I would say not only that the

Jewish Magisterium has a different canon than Rome has But their perspective basically would be is there's always a

Magisterium and when that Magisterium existed Then that was the infallible authority for them at that time and then when

Jesus comes it changes to the church and they don't follow Jesus therefore they lose that authority and of course they would try to argue that I would imagine they would try to argue

That in fact the Jews did accept these books, which would be a pretty tall hill to climb

But you know, there is nothing too hard to to do to try to defend your ultimate authority.

But anyway I've never found Patrick's answer to that overly compelling or even understandable but I would imagine that that would be his response is that the there was a

Jewish Magisterium at the time and That that would be how you understood how to live out

Deuteronomy the problem of course being Who's to determine who that Magisterium is clearly

Jesus didn't accept this the the scribes and Pharisees They're they're whitewashed walls or white and sepulchres and yet they were the ones that interpreted law

So, I don't know how that would work, but I I'm just telling you what I would assume you would say Don't ask me to defend it because I find it utterly absurd anyways, but that's probably what he would say

I agree and it's interesting to the notes that points out in this book that the earliest rabbis

Did not accept the authority of the Pharisees that the earliest Jewish traditions did not accept many of them did not accept that tradition

Well, there are a lot of differences. There's no question that there are a lot of different strains Channels shall we say of understanding in the intertestamental period that comes to form the groups that we see in the

New Testament and identifying exactly Whether you know what that Jewish tradition was it's a large area of study.

There's no question about that There is one thing that I would say in response to what he was arguing and that is just because people disagree

Over Roman Catholic infallibility doesn't mean that therefore it can't be infallible because people disagree with what the

Bible says It doesn't mean the Bible's as a result is fallible but the idea that Rome presents a a means of understanding scripture that gets us past the problem of language is of course absurd and The fact that Patrick Madrid won't debate gerrymatitics proves it

Because they would be drawing from the same sources And if they can both draw from the same sources that proves

That that does not answer the very quandary that Madrid wants to try to put us in in regards to the interpretation of scripture

Well, and not only that I'd like to in my spare time translate the works of Augustine from Latin into English And I find several don't get out much very much to you

Adam Well, you know, hey when you're a major in Old Testament, yeah, you have to love things like that I know but but Adam, I only have one question.

Are you married? No, I mean, I'm not I go to school here at Trinity just picking on you there, bro

I've got a studio audience today. So I have to Try to pick on you I Understand.

I understand. Hey, I just have noticed that several things Augustine says you could you could take several things as supportive of Rome But you could take several things that just that would absolutely today be just a slap in the face of Rome I mean, oh, yeah,

I mean the way in which he attacked the Roman Pontiff For example, and one of his letters for meddling in you know,

North African affairs with against the Pelagius Oh, yeah, he does I mean so even

I guess if you wanted to take what I've heard, you know people say and I've read Bill Webster and David King's Work, it seems like people have argued even

Roman Catholics that there really is no straight stream of tradition even within the Roman Catholic No, no

No, of course, and you know that also, you know becomes a problem and if there is differences It's the notes that points out and I hate using him because he goes on to say things

Of course, but but at the same time he makes a very good point that if you have this discrepancy as to whether Rome is

The correct view to follow and I would add and you can't interpret the Bible without Rome Therefore the

Old Testament before the New Testament before the church was completely unintelligible The whole thing just becomes a bunch of special pleading

Well, let me let me illustrate how much really bad pleading it is And that is fundamentally

Roman Catholics argue that we needed to have Rome to tell us what is and what is not Scripture You're gonna hear

Madrid as I said wait till his second rebuttal period to throw the can argument out there knowing

That if he gives me enough time to deal with it, it won't be as effective He's gonna throw it out there folks.

When did Roman Catholicism define? Dogmatically with finality for her people the canon of Scripture April of 1546

So if you need to have that word no one could use the Bible in Disputation and to prove the truth until the middle of the 16th century and that is absurd on its face and Yet that would have to be what you would have to say.

So Anyway, well continue on with your translations there brother and every once in a while put a guston down and go out and get a cheeseburger so I Don't want to be blamed for making somebody single at 48, so Go out there and let's let's continue by the first two presentations then the formal statement of the

Various sides of the question now will proceed to a first rebuttal of 10 minutes for each speaker

Mr. White will speak and then Mr. Madrid 10 minutes in answer to the presentation of the other speaker

Thank you, I Wish to immediately respond to some of the things.

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

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

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

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

Matthew 1921 Colossians 128 Colossians 412 and James 1 for all use the term complete and Catholic answers like say we'll see here these if you're gonna say second

Timothy 3 says this then all these other things make you complete to and Mr.

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

Timothy 3 no more Prove soul scripture than James 1 4 is a little problem None of those passages use the terms used in second

Timothy if you look at the Greek Is a common error for a beginning Bible student to assume that a

English translation is going to utilize Different words for different Greek terms and by the way,

I Know that everyone already knows this but I point this out. There is no infallible dogmatic defined definition of second

Timothy 3 16 through 17 by Roman Catholicism That means by necessity anything

Patrick Madrid says about the text is Patrick Madrid's private interpretation and nothing more and So you have a man who doesn't know the biblical languages giving you his private interpretation debating someone who does so What's that all about?

Where is this myth of all this authority of Rome? Anyways, once you start examining it, it's simply evaporate the terms used in Matthew 1921 is

Talias Colossians 121 Talias Colossians 412 Talias and James 1 for Talias and Hala Clay Roy.

None of them use Arteon's Mr. Madrid did not even begin

To address the information that I presented he said it doesn't teach sufficiency and yet I quoted you major lexical sources that said what saw

Shun and by the way, I quote I quoted as one of those sources one that comes from the

United Bible Societies and One of the men who was in the top of the line to become

Pope After the death of John Paul the second is involved in the production of those materials

So he's gonna come back and say oh, they're just all a bunch of Protestant scholars. That is Again, only demonstrative of Mr.

Madrid's ignorance of these particular subjects Mr. Madrid, you don't have the authority to overthrow the meaning of those terms no matter how much you may wish to do so In order passage in the

Bible can be used to deflect What we said about 2nd

Timothy chapter 3 Now mr. Madrid said that I'm trying to shift the burden of proof if you listen closely.

I Presented the position I said now if mr. Madrid wants to recognize that asking someone to prove a universal negative is impossible great fine

We won't talk about that if he attempts to prove this existence of another rule of faith Then we'll talk about that too.

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

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

And yes, I had said that I've said that a number of debates in the past in sola scriptura You cannot have two ultimate authorities.

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

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

Gospels have the same nature. They are say on new stocks They together form that which is

God's revelation and so if mr. Madrid would like to say well You can have another ultimate authority.

You can have these other elements of authority the teaching magisterium the oral tradition Then mr. Madrid's gonna have to prove

That those oral traditions are they on new stocks or they cannot function along with God breathe scripture

Mr. Madrid then said well We can wrongly divide the Word of God and he used the example that I used a little bike store that I go to and He says but mr.

White, what if you don't know how to ride a bike? Well, some people might think that But the problem is we're going to need to be focusing on the nature of that bike shop because that's the debates about Is it the bike shops fault?

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

Little problem here you see Paul says the scriptures are sufficient for whom number seconds in the chapter 3

Who's it addressed to non bike riders? No the man of God you see the analogy breaks down Because to make the analogy work, you've got to be a bike rider to go into the bike den and get your stuff

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

And mr. Madrid said well we have second That's what we have second Timothy 2 to the same the very same book that mr

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

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

Join in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus Do you hear anything there nice old scripture

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

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

You see as soon as you hear all these passages, and we're gonna take the time to look at 2nd Thessalonians 2 15 all the rest of that Here's the assumption that if you hear about a spoken tradition

If you hear about for example here Timothy hearing things in the presence of Paul those things must be contained information like maybe the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary or or papal infallibility and That's where we'll pick up next time on the divine line.

Thanks for listening. We'll see you then. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks