Debate: Catholic vs Protestant - Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? Patrick Madrid vs James White

[Music] My name is Roger Wagner. I'm the pastor of Baby Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and it's a joy to welcome all of you here tonight, uh, for this debate on the, uh, question of, does the Bible teach *sola scriptura*? Uh, before I introduce our speakers, let me give you an idea how, uh, the program is going to go tonight.

Uh, first of all, each of the speakers will give a 20, 20-minute, uh, presentation, an opening statement of their position, and then each of them will have a 10-minute, uh, rebuttal presentation. Then we'll take a break for about 15 minutes, give everybody a chance to get some lemonade and, uh, stretch their legs. And then when we come back, there'll be a second rebuttal period of 10 minutes each, and then a time of cross-examination. Each of the two speakers will cross-examine one another. They'll have 30 seconds to frame a question which they'll direct to the other speaker, who will have two minutes to answer the question, and then one minute, uh, by the, uh, questioner to, uh, offer a rebuttal, and then another minute for, uh, a second rebuttal by the person asked the question. So, and then there'll be a total of four questions along that format during that period of time. Then each of the speakers will, uh, be permitted, uh, 12 minutes for a closing statement.

We're not going to, uh, invite questions from the floor. That, uh, often becomes, uh, a time-consuming operation, and, uh, I'm told by people who go to these things all the time that everybody in the audience wants to make a speech rather than ask a question. So this is not a democracy. You're not going to get a chance to ask any questions in the program, but you, uh, will be invited, if, uh, you want to stay around for a little bit at the end of the debate, talk with either one or both of the speakers. Um, uh, they'd be happy to, uh, to hear from you for a little while after the program. So that's, uh, the way it's going to go, and I want to introduce both of the speakers so that they can, uh, come and, uh, Mr. White will speak first, and then Mr. Madrid, and, uh, then we'll go on from there.

Um, let me introduce Patrick Madrid first of all here, uh, sitting on the right side of the table, left side as you face us. Uh, he is the vice president of Catholic Answers, a, an apologetics organization, uh, uh, presenting Catholic Answers, as they say, to thoughtful inquirers. It's headquartered here in San Diego. Uh, he has been active as an apologist for Catholicism, giving seminars not only throughout the United States but in other countries as well. He's written several articles in defense of the Catholic faith. Uh, he studied at Queen of Angels Seminary in San Fernando, California, and he, his wife, and their seven children live in Southern California. James White on your right is the director of ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona. Uh, he studied at Grand Canyon College in, uh, uh, in Phoenix, and, uh, has, uh, in recent years been involved not only in apologetics ministries, uh, but also in teaching theology and church history on a high school as well as a college level. He, his wife, and their two children live in Phoenix. Uh, so we're glad to have these two gentlemen here to present, um, their opposing views of this question, uh, does the Bible teach *sola scriptura*, or that the Bible alone is the authoritative rule of faith and practice for the church of Jesus Christ? Before Mr. White comes and gives his first presentation, let's bow in a word of prayer and ask the Lord to bless our evening together.

Lord, you are the one who has said that you are the author of truth and the enemy of falsehood. And so, the fact that we can have a debate and try to, uh, wrestle with true and false answers, uh, presupposes the existence of that truth in yourself and in your revelation of yourself. We know, Lord, much of our world wouldn't care one way or the other because they have surrendered to a relativism that says nothing is really true and nothing is really false. We pray that you might, uh, open our hearts to your word and spirit that we might be taught by you, even as these men set their arguments before us, and we seek to bring every thought captive to your lordship. We pray that you will sustain them physically on this warm evening, and we, as well, as we, uh, try to give them our careful and thoughtful attention. We thank you that in your providence you have brought us together, you give us this opportunity to strive to understand the truth and live in it, uh, much more fully. So we pray your blessing upon this time that we have together this evening. In Jesus' name. Amen. Mr. James White will address us first of all.

[Music] Good evening. It's good to be with you. I am very thankful to, uh, the church for allowing us to be here. I need to thank all of you, uh, San Diegans. Uh, I understand there's a big push on to make this a very friendly city, and I think it's very friendly of you to bring in Phoenix weather just for me while I'm here. Very kind of you. Except in Phoenix, all of our buildings have air conditioners, and you need to sort of put those two things together, and that'll make things a whole lot easier.

There have always been those who have refused to give the scriptures their proper place. There have always been those who wished to add to scripture their own authority and the unique teachings that set them apart. Indeed, Basil of Caesarea ran into some of the same problems long ago in replying to his opponents who appealed to their customs and traditions as relevant and authoritative. He said, "If custom is to be taken as proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired scripture decide between us, and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." And so we gather this evening to debate the same question. Is the Bible, the sole, an infallible rule of faith for the church? Or must we have other revelation from God? Do we need the Book of Mormon or the writings of the Watchtower or Mary Baker Eddy or the so-called apostolic unwritten traditions of Rome? Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith of the church?

Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of *sola scriptura* does not say. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks of the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John or in fact in any book in the world, because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas's eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the apostolic band for the, the scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith of the church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. The truth is in Jesus Christ and in his word. The church teaches truth and calls men to Christ, and in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The church does not add revelation or rule over scripture. The church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet the apostles proved their message from scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2 and 18:28. And John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be apostles. Revelation 2:2. The apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament. And finally, *sola scriptura* is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the church.

What then is *sola scriptura*? The doctrine of *sola scriptura*, simply stated, is that the scriptures, and the scriptures alone, are sufficient to function as the regular *feday*, the rule of faith, of the church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith of the Christian church. The scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church, or council. The scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian church looks to the scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the church is always subject to the word and is constantly reformed thereby.

Now, given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid. *Sola scriptura* is both a positive and a negative statement. Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God. Hence, logically, I must do the following things. First, I must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that it is a rule of faith for the church. Secondly, I must demonstrate the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. That is, I must demonstrate its sufficiency, or in the language used in the New Testament itself, that the Bible is *artios*. And thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible, as a sufficient rule of faith, does not refer us to any other rule of faith. Absent a demonstration on Mr. Madrid's part of some other rule of faith, the proceeding is sufficient to establish the fact that the Bible teaches the doctrine of *sola scriptura*.

Now, some opponents of *sola scriptura* have engaged in what can only be called cheap debating tricks in attempting to force the defender of scriptural sufficiency to prove a universal negative. That is, the less honest debater might attempt to force me to prove the non-existence of another rule of faith. Since I am saying that scripture is unique in its function as the rule of faith of the church, some might challenge me to demonstrate that no other rule of faith could possibly exist. To illustrate this, I call your attention to my pen. Yes, to my pen. If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement, "There is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses and all of your shirt pockets and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and and looked through all the houses and all over the the planet Earth and the moon and the the the planets in the solar system and the entire universe looking for another pen like this. And of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out and get a Cross medalist pen, walk up to up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See, another pen just like yours," and he's won the debate. In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand, or he must demonstrate the existence of the other pen. That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote: "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand." End quote. Hence, I shall demonstrate that the Bible teaches its sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. And if Mr. Madrid wishes to attempt to show us some other rule of faith, I will gladly respond to such an attempt.

Now, the doctrine of *sola scriptura* is based upon the inspiration of scripture. Our primary passage this evening, I hope you have your Bibles with you, will be found in Paul's second letter to Timothy. The gentlemen from Catholic Answers have made it a practice for years to assert that Protestants cannot provide a single verse that teaches *sola scriptura*. Yet, they are quite mistaken in this, though they have been corrected a number of times in the past. And let us examine the passage to see if this is the case. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work." We begin by knowing that scripture is *theopneustos*, God-breathed. The term is very strong. I refer anyone who wishes a full discussion of this term to B.B. Warfield's excellent treatment of it. That which is *theopneustos* has ultimate authority, for there can be no higher authority than God's very speaking. All scripture is God-breathed. It is common for Roman Catholic apologists to follow an error made by John Henry Cardinal Newman with reference to this passage. Indeed, Karl Keating, Patrick's associate at Catholic Answers, makes the same mistake in his book *Catholicism and Fundamentalism*, and he repeated it again only recently during a debate on this subject in Denver during the papal visit. Newman said that if this verse proves the sufficiency of scripture, it proves too much, for Paul is talking here only about the Old Testament, which would leave the New Testament as an unnecessary addition. But such is not Paul's point at all. Scripture, Paul's point is, if it is scripture at all, is God-breathed. Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon but the nature of scripture itself as originating in God. All scripture then, including the New Testament, is God-breathed. Because scripture is God-breathed and hence represents God's very voice speaking, it is profitable for the work of the ministry in the church of Jesus Christ. We are told that the work of teaching and rebuking and correcting and training in righteousness can be undertaken due to the nature of scripture as God-breathed. What is Paul's point? The church is not left without the voice of God. For when the church listens to scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to her. The authority of the church then in teaching and rebuking and instructing is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from scripture itself.

Now, Mr. Madrid will certainly disagree, for addressing this very passage less than 50 days ago in a debate on this topic, he said, speaking specifically of verse 16, "I defy you to show me where it says sufficient. In your remarks, you said when you cited 2 Timothy 3:16, you said sufficient, but that is not what the Bible teaches." Of course, no one asserts that the term "profitable" in verse 16 equates to sufficiency. When his opponents referred him to verse 17, Mr. Madrid said, "Well, 17 doesn't say sufficient either. 17 says that so the one that belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work. That does not teach sufficiency. Where does the Bible teach that it is sufficient?" End quote. Is Mr. Madrid correct here? Well, let's see. Verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. The fact that the church has God's voice present with her in God-breathed scripture means the man of God, specifically here, of course, Timothy, but I doubt anyone would disagree that these comments refer to all those who belong to Christ and who are a part of his body, the church, might be complete, fully equipped for every good work. The first term to examine is the adjective translated "complete." The Greek term is *artios*. We note that it is related in its root. The second term we will examine, the verb which is translated "fully equipped," that being the verb *exartizo*. Paul is here providing us with a play on words, the verb compounding and emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective. Now, the term *artios*, Vine tells us, means fitted, complete. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich tell us the term means complete, capable, proficient, that is, as they say, able to meet all demands, giving the specific citation of 2 Timothy 3:17 as the reference. One of the newest lexical resources, Louw and Nida's *Greek-English Lexicon based on Semantic Domains*, uses the term "qualified" as well. The great Greek scholar Richard Trench, in his *Synonyms of the New Testament*, said with reference to this term, quote: "If we ask ourselves under what special aspects completeness is contemplated in *artios*, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that completeness, but involves further the adaptation and aptitude of these parts for the ends which they were designed to serve." The man of God, St. Paul would say, should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed. End quote. I pause only long enough to note that Paul here asserts that the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient, and qualified because he has available to him always God's inspired scriptures. Surely here Paul would have to direct us to any and all other rules of faith that we would need to be complete, but he does not. But Paul was not satisfied to merely state that the man of God may be *artios*, complete. But he goes on to define what he means: "fully equipped for every good work." The term is *exartidzo* here in the perfect passive participial form. The prefix *ex* having, as Robertson noted, the perfective force. Vine tells us that here in Second Timothy it means "to fit out, that is, to furnish completely." Bauer, Gingrich, and Danker express this with the term "equip." Hendrickson makes reference to a related term, *katartizo*, and its use at Luke 6:40 where it is translated "fully trained." We see here then that Paul teaches that the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work. Now, what does it mean to say that one is fully equipped, if not to say that one is sufficient for a task? I've recently taken up long-distance bicycle riding and I found a lovely little bike shack, uh, a bike store where they are able to give me everything that I need: the clothes and the gloves and the helmet and the bike and the tires and tubes, which you need a lot. They are able to fully equip me for the task of riding a bike. Does that not mean then that they are sufficient as equippers for their task? Most definitely it does. We further see that the scriptures can equip the man of God for every good work. Now, Mr. Madrid, do you not believe that it is a good work to pray to Mary? Yet the scriptures nowhere teach this. Do you not believe that it is good to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? Yet the Bible does not teach this. Do you not believe that the man of God should teach in the church that the Pope in Rome is infallible in his teaching office? Yet the scriptures know nothing of such a concept. We see then that the Roman position is contradicted by that of the apostle, for he knew of no other rule of faith that was necessary so that the man of God could be equipped for every good work. No other rule of faith that is, than the scriptures.

But finally, we remember Mr. Madrid's challenge to show him a verse that teaches sufficiency. Mr. Madrid, I would like to direct you to the scriptural standard: "By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a fact be established." I first refer you to Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon, where we encounter the definition given for the semantic domain of *exartizo*. I quote: "To make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something, to make adequate, to furnish completely, to cause to be fully qualified. Adequacy." End quote. They translate our passage as "completely qualified for every good deed." While Louw and Nida give us two witnesses, I wish to direct you as well to the well-known scholarly resource by Fritz Reincker and Cleon Rogers entitled *Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament*. Here we find the following in regards to both terms here in verse 17: "Quote: *Artios*—fit, complete, capable, sufficient, i.e., able to meet all demands. *Exartidzo*—completely outfitted, fully furnished, fully equipped, fully supplied." End quote. Hence, we see the following: Number one, Paul here teaches that the Bible is a rule of faith, for he says the church's function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God-inspired scripture. Number two, we see that this passage teaches the sufficiency of the scriptures to function in this way. And number three, we see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith, but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by his teaching on the ability of scripture to completely equip the man of God. Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of *sola scriptura* is taught plainly in this passage. Mr. Madrid must be able to fully refute the information I've provided to you to win this evening's debate.

Now, one might well ask, is this the only place where *sola scriptura* is taught? Most certainly not, though it is the clearest. For example, we find this concept plainly enunciated in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when coming into conflict with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Note the words recorded in Matthew's gospel, chapter 15: "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat.' Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother," and "Anyone who curses his father and mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift to God," he is not to honor his father with it.' Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Here we find the Lord providing us with the example that we must follow this evening. The Jewish leaders objected to the fact the disciples did not follow the rigorous handwashing rituals of the Pharisees. They identified this as a breaking of the tradition of the elders. They firmly believed that this body of tradition was authoritative. And some even believed that it had been passed down from Moses himself, though this surely is without warrant. But does Jesus accept this claim of authority? Not at all. Instead, he launches a counterattack against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the command of God through the following of their own traditions, specifically in this with reference to the Corban rule. The Lord Jesus holds this traditional teaching up to the light of scripture and finds it wanting. In the same way, we too must hold any tradition up to the light of scripture. For no tradition is on the same level of authority as scripture. Traditions are not God-breathed and hence are subject to examination on the part of the higher authority of scripture. Even though the Jews believed their traditions to have authority, they are held responsible for recognizing that God speaks to them in scripture, not in their traditions. The same is true tonight. While Rome may claim divine authority for her supposedly sacred traditions and even subjugate scripture so as to make it a part of sacred tradition, needing other aspects such as the supposedly apostolic unwritten traditions and the authority, the magisterium of the church, the person who wishes to follow the example of Christ will hold such traditions up to the light of scripture, knowing how fearful it is to be found guilty of nullifying the word of God for the sake of merely human traditions.

And so, my friends, I present to you the wonderful doctrine of the sufficiency of God's inspired scriptures. As a follower of Jesus Christ and a minister in his church, I gladly proclaim to you the glorious grace of God in giving to the church the scriptures so that we can always be assured of hearing God's voice speaking to us. We need not wonder about supposedly authoritative traditions whose origins are obscure and whose teachings are suspect. Instead, we have the certainty of holding in our hands the same scriptures that our Lord Jesus described as the very speaking of the Father himself. This is the firm ground upon which the church can stand in an uncertain and threatening world. This is the rule of faith that constantly calls the church to Christ-likeness. Let us never abandon the firm foundation of God-breathed scripture, the word of God, the Bible. Thank you.

The Bible says in Proverbs 18:17, "The man who pleads his case first seems to be in the right until his opponent comes and puts him to the test." And folks, that's what I'm here to do tonight. I'm here to test the claim of *sola scriptura*. My opponent has just given you a very forceful, a very smooth presentation of the Protestant doctrine of the Bible alone. A case which may seem convincing at first glance. My job is to show you why he's wrong. Mr. White, his appeal, at least very briefly, to the writings of the early church fathers in an attempt to bolster his position, or to, to prepare your, uh, disposition to hear it, claiming that a few of the church fathers taught *sola scriptura*, or at least by giving that implication, I will resist the temptation to bury Mr. White under a mountain of quotations from the church fathers proving they did not teach *sola scriptura*. I have here 52 pages of quotations from the early church fathers, including Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and all the other fathers that James might like to quote, showing that they did not teach *sola scriptura*, and also showing that Mr. White, if he chooses to, uh, refer to them, is misrepresenting their views, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses misrepresent the church fathers on the Trinity, the way a kidnapper might cut and paste a newspaper to make a ransom note. He may try to cut and paste quotes from the church fathers to create the illusion that they believed in *sola scriptura*. This for this ploy would be unfortunate, because what the church fathers believed or didn't believe is not the subject of our debate tonight. The subject is, does the Bible teach *sola scriptura*? What the early church fathers believed is irrelevant. So I won't waste time by raising or responding to any material that's not under discussion.

Now, many of you here tonight are Protestants. You've been raised to believe in *sola scriptura*, the notion that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians. In fact, you probably take it for granted that the Bible teaches this. So my task is to demonstrate that *sola scriptura* is unbiblical. I don't have to prove the case for tradition. Mr. White claims that I must be able to prove every point from scripture alone. So *sola scriptura* itself must be proved from scripture alone, and if it can't be done, *sola scriptura* is a self-refuting proposition, and therefore it is false. Tonight's debate is about truth. The truth Jesus wants for you and for me to stand firm and hold fast to what is the truth about *sola scriptura*. Does the Bible really teach it? Did the apostles teach it? Did Jesus teach it? Many approach scripture with a predetermined conviction that the Catholic Church must be wrong. So they search to find verses which they can cobble together in an attempt to refute a given Catholic teaching. Their hostility to the Catholic Church often makes it very difficult for them to view the Catholic case objectively. I would ask you to please tonight put aside any predetermined ideas you may have about *sola scriptura*, pro or con. Let the Lord speak to you tonight through scripture. You will see, I believe, that the Bible does not teach *sola scriptura*. The apostles did not teach *sola scriptura*. Jesus did not teach teach *sola scriptura*. And I believe that if you want to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus, you must reject *sola scriptura* as the tradition of men. If you don't reject it, God will hold you accountable.

Protestant apologists commonly make several mistakes in their zeal to vindicate *sola scriptura*. My opponent tonight may not make all of these mistakes, but you need to know about them so that you can know how to handle them when you encounter them. Mistake number one, if you have your notepads out, I'd ask you to write these down. Mistake number one: confusing formal and material sufficiency. This is a crucial point in tonight's debate. It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call the material sufficiency of scripture. This means that scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there implicitly or explicitly, but they're all there. Formal sufficiency, on the other hand, is the position that Mr. White is attempting to prove. Formal sufficiency means that scripture contains all necessary Christian truth, and, and, and this is very important, and that scripture's meaning is so clear that the church and tradition are not necessary to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the meaning of scripture. In the course of this debate, Mr. White may make the mistake of assuming that the Catholic Church rejects the material sufficiency of scripture. It doesn't. What it does reject is the error of the formal sufficiency of scripture. As a Catholic, I contend that all Christian doctrines are at least implicitly present in scripture, but that doesn't mean scripture is always sufficiently clear so that every Christian doctrine is explicitly and conclusively evident. For example, the Bible does not say that Christians should baptize infants. Nor does it say that only adults must be baptized. It simply doesn't tell us. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament assumed their readers already knew the answer to this question from observing the practice of the church. So, they didn't see the need to address this issue explicitly. Some people, such as Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians, say the biblical evidence that bapti that babies were baptized in the New Testament is good. So, therefore, we should baptize babies. Others, such as Baptists, Pentecostals, and Jehovah's Witnesses, say the biblical evidence shows that babies were not and should not be baptized. Scholars on both sides of the debate admit that the biblical evidence is simply inconclusive. But if the evidence is inconclusive on this or any other doctrine, then scripture is manifestly not sufficient to give us a conclusive interpretation of everything that it teaches. In fact, scripture itself denies that its doctrines are always clear to all readers. In 2 Peter 3:15 and 16, we read, "Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable people distort as they do other scriptures to their own destruction." So we see here that the Bible warns us that its doctrines can be misunderstood, they can be unclear, and they can be distorted.

Mistake number two: using a hermeneutic of anachronism. Protestant apologists read back into scripture and the writings of the church fathers the particular doctrines they wish to find, and they ignore or explain away what they don't wish to see. Mormons do this in their attempt to prove, so-called, that the Bible and the early church believed in many gods. Since the time the devil used scripture to tempt Jesus in the desert, doctrinal error has always been advanced under the guise of Bible verses. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets who will come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath they are ravenous wolves." Error comes packaged under the wrapping paper of Bible verses. The Arians did it. The Albigensians did it. The Mormons do it. And I'm afraid tonight, Mr. White is doing it.

Mistake number three: thinking that the phrase "word of God" applies to scripture alone. Scripture does refer to itself as God's word, but many other things are called God's word as well. For example, we see Jesus is called the Word of God in flesh in John 1:1-14. The Bible speaks of God's sovereign blessings that he speaks on his people as his word in Isaiah 55:10-11. And the Bible calls the oral proclamation of the gospel the word of God, such as in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, where Paul says, "And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly that in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you have received not a human word, but as it truly is, the word of God." So remember, when you see tonight or hear tonight the phrase "word of God," it doesn't always mean the Bible. We have to be careful to search for the context of this verse in the meaning, or the meaning of this verse in context. Now, Mr. White will only beg the question if he tries to use verses such as Psalm 119:89, where the psalmist says, "Forever, O Lord, your word is settled in the heavens." This verse and the other verses like it, which which describe the attributes of of the word of God, don't prove the formal sufficiency of scripture. All they prove is that there is a certain attribute that the word of God has. And again, we have to know whether it's the written word of God, or the oral word of God, or the Word of God in flesh. The Bible uses it in various ways.

Mistake number four: confusing testimony with authority. Some Protestants argue that if the Catholic Church were the official witness to God's word, it would be over God's word. But this is false. Just because one person serves as a witness to another person doesn't mean that he has an authority over that person. I'll give you a few examples. John the Baptist testified, and he testified authoritatively to Jesus Christ, the Word of God. But John the Baptist did not have authority over Jesus Christ. 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.

Mistake number five. Many say we can't have more than one ultimate authority. On the surface, that might sound convincing, but notice that it's false when you, when you look at it more carefully. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are equally ultimate and equally authoritative. And one Gospel does not subjugate the other Gospel. The same with the prophet Isaiah and the prophet Jeremiah. Here were two prophets of God walking the earth at the same time, delivering inspired oracles of God for his people. He didn't subjugate one prophet over another. They were both ultimate authorities in their own way, and yet there was no subjugation. They worked harmoniously together, as is God's plan.

Mistake number six, which we have already heard tonight, the attempt to shift the burden of proof. 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 must 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. No matter 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*?

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, the whole earth. He would have to visit the moon. He'd have to search all the planets in the solar system. He 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.

Now, in our remaining moments, let's examine some key scripture passages that are frequently brought up. Let's turn immediately to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 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, where he says, 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. This book, I think, shows how flimsy that case is. Mr. White says, "2 Timothy 3:16-17 literally screams sufficiency." Well, this verse is screaming, but it's only because of the way Mr. White is twisting it in his attempt to shoehorn *sola scriptura* into it. 2 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. So 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. 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? Or what if you don't know the rules of the road? Or 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, in sacred tradition. Those are the ways that the church helps to guide the man of God in the proper use of sacred scripture. Don't forget that point.

Finally, how can Mr. White assert that Paul has in mind the formal sufficiency of scripture when in the very same epistle, in 2 Timothy 2:2, which I'm sure he'll get to later, Paul charges Timothy with handing on oral tradition? Oral tradition. One other point, Mr. White places a very heavy emphasis on Greek and Greek grammar and all of those other fancy ways of studying scripture, but they're irrelevant tonight for tonight's purpose because we can take Mr. White's, uh, 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." Well, let's apply that, for example, to James 1:4. James 1:4, Paul says here, "Let your perseverance be perfect and complete, or 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 perfect and complete? Therefore, I don't need the Bible. Does that mean I don't need fellowship? I do not need prayer. I don't need to do the good works that Paul talks about so often as those that accompany saving faith. 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 2 Timothy 3:17, simply because it says it will make you complete, then the Bible proves that perseverance, and by the way, the context in James 1:2 is perseverance and good works. That perseverance and good works will make you perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. No Protestant would accept that hermeneutic principle. I do not accept Mr. White's faulty and shabby misuse of 2 Timothy 3:17.

Mr. White mentioned the verses in scripture, Matthew 15 and Colossians 2. Perhaps he didn't mention Colossians 2, but these are places where Jesus condemns the traditions of men. Fair enough. Traditions of men which are bad should be condemned. But not all tradition is to be condemned. In fact, elsewhere, Paul praises oral tradition. 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. 1 Corinthians 11:2, where Paul says, "I commend you for holding firm to the traditions just as I gave them to you." 2 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. I'm sure we're going to get heavily into 2 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 remember, 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. 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. If you can only remember one of these reasons, please remember this one. The central flaw, you might say the fatal flaw of Mr. White's position tonight is that unless *sola scriptura* can be shown from scripture alone, which he has not done. Simply saying, well, it says you'll be made equipped for every good work, therefore, that means sufficient. It doesn't mean sufficient, folks. No more than James 1:4 means sufficient as far as perseverance and good works. So if he 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. That's why 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 plaything of every individual person who has some idea, whether true or bogus, about how religion should be. 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.

Okay, we've had the first, uh, two presentations, then, of the, uh, formal statement of the, uh, various sides of the question. Now we'll proceed to a first rebuttal, uh, 10 minutes for each speaker. Mr. White will speak, and then Mr. Madrid, 10 minutes in answer to the, uh, presentation of the other speaker. 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 and the meanings of 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 Mr. Kading utilized in Denver using the term complete. Matthew 19:21, Colossians 1:28, Colossians 4:12, and James 1:4 all use the term complete. And Catholic answers like to say, "Well, see here these if if you're going to say 2 Timothy 3 says this, then all these other things make you complete, too." And Mr. uh Mr. Madrid called it faulty and shabby work that I had done on the passage and said that 2 Timothy 3 no more proves solos scriptor than James 1:4.

There's a little problem. None of those passages use the terms used in 2 Timothy if you looked at it in the Greek. It 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. The terms used in Matthew 19:21 is TAS. Colossians 1:21 Tias Colossians 4:12 Tias and James 1:4 Tias and Holoca none of them use arts.

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? Sufficient. And Mr. 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. No other passage in the Bible can be used to deflect what we said about 2 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 and 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 are 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 I've said that in a number of debates in the past in solos scripture. You cannot have two ultimate authorities. The word ultimate does not allow for that meaning. But Mr. 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 the new. 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 is going to have to prove that those oral traditions are theustas 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 of the little bike store that I go to. And he says, "But Mr. White, what if you don't ought to ride a bike?" Well, some people might think that, but the problem is we need to be focusing on the nature of that bike shop because that's what the debate's about. Is it the bike shop's fault who I am when I come in? You say, "Well, well, yes, they they need to teach you how to ride."

There's a little problem here. There's a little problem here. You see, Paul says, "The scriptures are sufficient for whom?" Remember 2 Timothy 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 the we have second Timothy 2:2, the same the very same book that Mr. White is quoting from says something differently."

Well, let's take a look at 2 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 and trust of faithful men who will be able to teach others. Join in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. You hear anything in there denies solar scripture? Well, we're told, you see, well, 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 going to take the time to look at 2 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 contain information like maybe the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary or or papal infallibility. They must contain some different data that is being passed on rather than what's in scripture. There's the problem.

I challenge Mr. Madrid to show us any bit of evidence that anytime that the term tradition is used in scripture where the Christian church is passing it on that it means that what is in that tradition differs from what's in the New Testament. That's the assumption that must be proven by the Roman Catholic for these citations, these passages to be relevant at all. Now, did Paul teach something different in the presence of many witnesses than he taught in his epistle to the Romans of the Galatians? It's interesting that Tertullian addressed this very passage. And Mr. Madrid said he could bury me and held up a notebook. Well, I'm not going to get into stuff like that. It's sort of silly. We can debate that if we want, but Tertullian addressed this very passage when refuting those false teachers of his day who claimed that the apostles had two different teachings. Sound familiar? One which was open and known by all and a second secret doctrine known only to a few. He says, "But here is, as we have said, the same madness in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing and preached not any doctrine which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men. For they proclaimed some openly into all the world, will they disclose others only in secret unto a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy, oh Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee. And again, that good thing which was committed unto thee, keep."

What is this deposit? The Choleian says, "Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine or suppose to character or or is it a part of that charge of which he says, this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, and also of that precept of which he says, I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickenth all things before Jesus Christ, who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment." Now, what is this commandment? And what is this charge? from the preceding and 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. So, Tertullian says, "No, this isn't some secret doctrine. This isn't some some oral tradition that contains some other revelation than what we have in scripture." No, no, no, no. This is all what is taught by the Apostle Paul. And is what's taught by the Apostle Paul the same as what we have in scripture? Well, I'd like to refer you to a passage. Look at 2 Thessalonians 3:6. 2 Thessalonians 3:6. What do we have here? Well, it's interesting. Here's one of those passages that talks about tradition or teaching. 2 Thessalonians 3:6, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idol and does not live according to the teaching or the tradition you received from us." Oh, well, well, here's this oral tradition. This oral tradition we need to keep. Really? No. Look back at 1 Thessalonians 5:14 as well as 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Paul is referring back to the tradition he had already delivered to them, that is in writing. As we will see, the term tradition normally refers to that which was orally preached, but it's the same message. In fact, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, as we will see in the next time we have some time together, it's talking about the gospel. Not oral traditions somehow passed down through the episcopet. Not oral traditions that you have to have to have the completeness of God's revelation. No, we are talking here about the gospel itself, the teaching of the gospel, which of course is found in the New Testament. And so I just simply point out to you, Mr. Madrid did not even begin to refute the information I presented to you. He simply said, "Well, it doesn't teach that." I presented to you the references, the terms, their meaning. I gave you an ex Jesus of the passage that you can follow along. I invite you to look at it. Thank you. Let's go. 20 seconds.

I'm reminded of Jesus's words to Martha. Mr. White, you are anxious and concerned about many things, but only one thing is important that you show us in the Bible where it teaches the sufficiency of scripture. And I'm going to hold you to that tonight. I was going to say I was going to hold his feet to the fire, but that might have bad connotations, you know, with the Inquisition and all that. I'd like to u I'd like to begin my remarks simply by just going through the few points that Mr. White brought up and and try to respond to them as briefly as I can, but hopefully as effectively. Number one, let me point out Mr. White blundered badly into error number one uh for most of his uh rebuttal period by confusing formal and material sufficiency or by perhaps not remembering what I told him and told the audience with regard to the material sufficiency position of the Catholic Church. I'll restate it again so that Mr. White can keep that in mind. The Catholic Church does not need to prove that everything that is in oral tradition is not found in the written tradition. Our position is that everything that is in oral tradition is in sacred scripture. It's in written tradition. Everything. Mr. White brought up the assumption. He could bring up any doctrine he might like. None of which would be the topic of our debate tonight, but at some future point perhaps we could discuss where those doctrines are found. The assumption, for example, since he brought it up, I'll just refer to it. Revelation 12. Mr. White, it's a very commonly used passage for Catholic apologists. I don't know why you would have missed that. The woman clothed with the son was seen not only by modern Catholic apologists as Mary's assumption, but also the early church fathers, which Mr. White is so fond of bringing into the picture. I'd be more than happy in some future point to demonstrate in a different debate how the early church fathers viewed Revelation 12. They exed that passage to mean that Mary had been brought up into heaven in a special way, but that's another topic.

Mr. White is resting his case on the say so of a few Protestant Greek scholars. That to me is not an infallible source of authority, Mr. White. The Bible is. Now, I didn't mean to denigrate the biblical language, and I'm sorry that you took it that way when I said that your argument was irrelevant. What I meant was that you can use all the Protestant biblical scholar citations that you want to show that a word means something. But notice that the the word sufficient came as a third or fourth definition or the third or fourth meaning that was assigned to this word. It was not the primary meaning. I am not going to debate what this Protestant Greek scholar may or may not have said. First of all, they're Protestants, so they're naturally going to give a spin to something that a Catholic scholar might see something different in. Now, Mr. White might respond by saying, "Well, Greek is Greek, Mr. Madrid. You can't argue on the basis of ideology or politics." I'm going to save that for some future point simply because we don't have the time to go into what the Catholic scholars say on that issue. So, I'm not going to go into that now.

Mr. Mr. Dwight says that no other passage can be used to deflect 2 Timothy 3:17. Well, Mr. White, I used James 1:4 to deflect 2 Timothy 3:17. In fact, not really to deflect it, but simply to hold up a mirror to it and show that you're misusing it. You're saying that because the man of God is equipped, and sure, it does use a different Greek word there, but the sense is that you're arguing for an implication here, Mr. White, because he can be equipped for every good work. Therefore, it it implies that he doesn't need anything else. Now, Mr. White failed utterly to interact with my use of James 1:4. He just simply dismissed it out of hand, and he said nothing can be used to deflect it. I want Mr. White to tell us why James 1:4 cannot be interpreted under his principle to mean that uh perseverance in good works and perseverance under persecution, which is what Paul or uh James is talking about. Why that doesn't mean sufficiency? I want him to tell us about that. I didn't say that whis M Mr. White would commit all the errors although he is prone to do so but he has committed a few of them tonight. So I don't want him to uh read too much of u of what I said about the errors into his own personal situation. He mentioned that uh the same old argument about there cannot be two ultimate authorities one subjugating one to the other. If you don't like the example of the gospels then I can move on to a different one. What about Jesus and scripture? When Jesus w was walking the earth, Jesus was and is God, the ultimate authority. And yet, Mr. White would have no compunction in saying that the word of God is the ultimate authority. Well, did the Bible cease being the ultimate authority when Jesus was on the scene? In one sense, Mr. White is going to have to argue, if he wants to make his case stick, even verely, that Jesus constantly referred to scripture as the court of last appeal. Well, that undercuts his position because if Jesus is referring to an authority outside of himself, then what does that say about Jesus? Was Jesus the ultimate authority? I say yes. Was the word of God in that sense that Mr. White wants to assign to it the ultimate authority? Mr. White would say yes. Well, he's got a quandry there then, folks, because I've just demonstrated two ultimate authorities. I also mentioned the prophets Isaiah and the prophet Jeremiah. Mr. White failed to interact with that. Jeremiah and Isaiah were both in their own sense ultimate authorities. He did not address that. He says that my analogy breaks down regarding the bike shop because um the man of God is obviously implying that the man of God in this analogous sense can re can ride a bicycle. Well, if that is does not suit Mr. White, I'd be happy to use analogy of his own choosing. And that would be the analogy that he uses again on page 42 of his book Answers to Catholic Claims. He says, "Yet the rest of the passage, again, here's the screaming verse, literally screams sufficiency. If they are not sufficient, how then can they make the man of God complete, fully equipped in bold print, for every good work? If I have the ability to fully equip someone for a military mission, Mr. White says, then am I not sufficient as an equipper?" Of course, then the objection carries no weight. The Catholic objection. Well, I'm afraid Mr. White has uh dug himself a little deeper in by using that analogy. So, I'll switch to that one if he doesn't like the bicycle one. If somebody goes into the military, and many of you in this room have been in the military, when you get there, you're issued a uniform, a helmet, a rifle, ammunition, not all at once, of course, but you're issued ammunition, maybe hand grenades, maybe you're assigned to a tank unit. You are issued all sorts of equipment. And to follow Mr. White's analogy, you're fully equipped by the US military to carry out a military operation. But the military also has to train the soldier to fire that rifle to know how to throw a hand grenade and when to throw a hand grenade, how to drive the tank, when to duck when the bullets are coming, how to thrust with a bayonet. I could go on and on. I could bury Mr. White in his own analogy. The fact is just because the military fully equips the soldier to carry out his mission does not mean the soldier is necessarily ready to do it. He needs support things also and that is the training and the guidance the military will teach him. This tactic works this tactic does not work. All of that is necessary so that the military man may be truly complete and equipped for every military work. I'll go further. Mr. White is talking about how the man of God, that phrase used there in 2 Timothy 3:17, implies that the man can ride a bike. We'll just go back to that for a moment. But let me ask you, Mr. White, is Pastor Wagner a man of God in your opinion? Do you think he would qualify under that rubric? If he is, then is he rightly dividing the word of God when he baptizes babies? This denomination, Mr. White, baptizes babies. Mr. White's denomination does not. They would say, and I think Mr. White, if he's going to be honest with us tonight, would have to admit that he would see that as a misuse of God's word by arguing for infant baptism. Mr. White is in another quandry here. He says, "Well, sure, it assumes that the man of God will know how to use the word of God." It doesn't, folks. If Pastor Wagner is a man of God, and if James White is a man of God, we've got a problem then. And I'm not implying that neither that either one is not a man of God. Don't misunderstand. I'm simply saying that one argues for the position of infant baptism based on what scripture says. The other one denies that based on what scripture says. So Mr. White's appeal to 2 Timothy 3:17 as just presupposing that they'll know what to do with the word of God falls flat.

Hi, this is Scott Han. For the past 10 years, I've traveled the country sharing the Catholic faith at conferences and in the media. I've witnessed a great excitement and fervor. I believe we're seeing a new Catholic renaissance. The magazine leading the way in this renaissance is Envoy. Envoy will help you explain the faith intelligently, defend it charitably, and share it effectively. You'll learn what Catholics believe and why we believe it. To subscribe to Envoy magazine, call 180055 envoy. That's 180055 VY.

Let me give you another example. What about the Lutheran minister who believes in baptismal regeneration based on what the Bible alone says? Remember Martin Luther, the founder of that denomination said, "Solola scriptor, the Bible alone." So the Lutheran minister is going by what scripture says he believes. Scripture teaches about baptism. He believes in regeneration. Mr. White, I can assure you, his hair will stand on end when he hears that preached by somebody because he is a Baptist is anathema on the issue of baptismal regeneration. He will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration. Well, Mr. White has another dilemma on his hands. Is the Lutheran minister not a man of God? Now, unless Mr. White is going to tell you, well, on every issue that they agree with me on, then they're men of God. But if they disagree with my interpretation of scripture, they cease to be men of God. Or maybe they never were men of God in the beginning. Well, maybe Mr. White is simply wrong in his interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:17. He will admit to you, and if he doesn't, I will be happy to assert it, that he is not infallible. He can make mistakes. How does he know that he's right on this interpretation? He doesn't know. He can only hope. He can only assert. He can only assume. Why should I accept his fallible, errant, human interpretation of God breathed scripture over and above what Pastor Wagner might say or what Pastor Knock might say or the Lutheran minister? Why? Ask yourself that question tonight. Thank you, [Music] Mr. Madrid.

Assuming that teaching that the pope is infallible is something that the man of God would do in the church, could you please explain how in light of 2 Timothy 3:17 that the scripture equips the man of God for every good work. How the scripture equips you to teach this doctrine. Let me ask you to restate it. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your question. Okay, I'll repeat it. Given that uh we would assume that teaching that the pope is infallible is a good work. How in light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it says the scripture is able to thoroughly equip the man for every good work. How is it that the scripture equips you to teach the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope?

Okay, if I understand your question correctly, let me answer by saying that one of the good works that is implied, it's actually explicated there is teaching sound doctrine. And part of sound doctrine, part of the full council of God, Mr. White, is the authority of the bishop of Rome. Now, I know that you do not uh accept or agree with the various Bible verses that can be brought forward by the Catholic apologist to support that position. That simply makes my case. The Catholic is using scripture in its proper meth in the the proper method that Jesus intended in harmony with what the church has always taught and in harmony with the tradition and and authoritative teaching that the church has handed down. Therefore, this uh doctrine or pardon me this verse assists me as a man of God in teaching sound doctrine. I don't have to rely on my own private authority on what I think the Bible means. I could be wrong. You could be wrong. I'm able to look at the context of scripture in the overall life of the church and see how the church interprets it. I'd go further and say that uh the very fact that you asked that question, at least the implication of that question proves my point. You're saying that the Catholic position on the biblical authority of the bish or the authority of the bishop of Rome, the the Catholic position based on scripture is erroneous. You're saying and and I've heard you say it many times in debates with germatics and and in other things that you've done that the Catholic position is simply wrong that these scriptures don't in fact teach that. Well, that proves my point. If scripture were sufficient, formally sufficient, Mr. White, because remember I did say it was materially sufficient. If it was formally sufficient, then there would be no dispute. If scripture could interpret its own meaning for us, there wouldn't be this debate tonight. uh Pastor Wagner would not be uh holding to adoption of infant baptism which you reject. That very fact disproves your question about or your your claim about the formal sufficiency of scripture.

Okay. Well, first of all, of course, the point is the teaching of the infallibility of the bishop of Rome is a traditional teaching. Uh it comes from tradition primarily. It is not found in scripture. You'll never find a reference to the bishop of Rome or anything even regarding that in scripture. The other church didn't believe it and I've debated that and be glad to have more debates on that. But notice what was again just said and I I did address this in what uh you know Mr. Madrid said I didn't but I did. What we're hearing here is if the scripture was sufficient to equip the man of God then there would be what? No difference of opinion. Everybody would just lock step in line. Right? That's what we're being told. Seemingly that not only ignores issues that are not central to the faith, but also ignores the fact that, as I said, the man of God studies the word of God. And men of God have to study the word of God throughout their entire lives, and they grow and they learn, and that's the work of the spirit in their lives. Seemingly, someone wants to short circuit that entire process.

Well, Mr. White, I uh I'm not trying to short circuit anything. I'm simply trying to explain that you uh have you have failed I guess to grasp the importance of your question because it undercuts your position. The fact is God's inspired word does not rely on us for its inspiration. Does not rely on us for the fact that it is inherent and I believe that it is inspired and inherent. But the fact is God gave us the scriptures to be used. Now that presents a problem because you want to use scripture and the only way you can use it is by interpreting it. Now you are fallible. God's word is infallible. The problem is that when you approach God's word and you want to interpret it over against what the church teaches, you are in effect saying that your interpretation should be trusted. What I want to know is why should your interpretation be trusted? You talk about men studying for many years. Of course, Catholics study for many years for the same purpose. The fact is ultimately it comes down to your opinion against someone else's opinion. We know what the Bible says, Mr. White.

Okay. I don't think I've ever said the phrase Mr. White so many times in one space of time. Um, Mr. White, I'm holding in my hands a copy of an early work known today as the book of Thomas the Contender. You may be familiar with it. It claims to have been written by the Apostle Matthew. You probably would not say that this book belongs in the Bible since if I opened your Bible, it would probably not have it there. Given your assertion that scripture is self- authenticating, would you regard this book as self- authenticating? Bear in mind that it attempts to authenticate itself by claiming to have been written by the Apostle Matthew. Thank you.

There are a whole host of course of books that were written primarily in the second century. In fact, almost all of them were written in the second century that were the gnostic gospels and various other sunundry things like that. And we're being asked, well, why don't you accept this as scripture? And this all goes back to the whole issue of canon. And we need to recognize what's being said here. We're being told that, well, you see, without a church authority, you can't know what the canon is. Without an infallible authority, you can't know what the canon is. And of course, I would say, well, how do you know it's an infallible authority to begin with? Because we get on this long big circle that goes around and around, never actually answers the question because you might find another church that claims infallible authority up in Salt Lake City that has a different cannon than that, which Mr. Madrid has. Uh, but they claim infallible authority, too. But anyways, we are told that uh you know you're asking me why don't I believe this is a part of scripture? Well, first of all, I believe canon is determined by inspiration. God is the author of canon. Men are not the author of canon. God is the author of canon. So God is the one who determines the can. So the issue is not whether this is canonical scripture or not. The issue is how do we as human beings recognize what is and what is not inspired scripture. We need to keep these things straight because there are some people who seem to think that the church has the power to create canon and of course it does not. No council that ever sat in the fir in the early church said we by choosing these books are making them canon scripture. They didn't say that. Okay.

But in 18 seconds how do I know it's not? Well first of all it's contradictory to that which is theonustas. And since it is contradictory to that which is the onustas and inconsistent therewith, it is not testified historically. I do not know of any Christians who ever accepted it. And it is contradictory to that which we have. I don't accept it as scripture. As well you shouldn't, Mr. White. As well you shouldn't. I found it interesting though that you part of your appeal was to tradition. That nasty word again. You you said it was not testified to by other Christians. It was not historically regarded as scripture. Here again, Mr. Wife is enga or Mr. White is engaging in filching Catholic tradition, but not admitting that he's actually taking it. He's using it, but he won't admit it. That's what's going on here. Second of all, he says that without an infallible authority, you can't know what the canon of scripture is. Well, Mr. White says, "This is our only infallible authority." So, Mr. White, here it is. Where does the Bible tell you which books belong in the Bible? He can't tell us that. There's no inspired table of contents. It's like a dog chasing his tail. He says, "I believe scripture is inspired. It's the only infallible authority." Well, how do you know that infallibly? Well, because the scripture. Well, where does the scripture tell you that? Well, it doesn't. So, he just has to go around in circles and he won't admit that he's appealing to the tradition of the church. The fact is he has those 27 books in his Bible because the Catholic Church said those were canonical. I have the 27 books in my Bible because the Holy Spirit of God inspired them long before there was ever a man in Rome who called himself the vicor of Christ. No argument. The Catholic Church did not give me that in any way, shape, or form. He says, "I'm filching tradition." No, I love the term tradition. I just don't like the way that the Roman Catholic Church centuries after the early church redefined it to substantiate their own claims to supremacy. The meaning of the tradition in the Bible in the early church is not what the Roman Catholic wants to say it is. It means something completely different. And then he said that I had somehow said without an an infallible authority, you can't know or something. I didn't even recognize what I supposedly was saying. But we go back again to what's being said. Mr. Madrid wants to say, "Well, look, you need some some golden index here, and you're relying upon me to tell you what scripture was." No, I am not relying upon him to tell us what scripture was. In fact, I think what I'll do is in my next question, I'll illustrate exactly how that is. Let me just before we have the second question really [Music] want you to hold your responses to silence and we get an independent debate going the person next to you say that afterward seconds a question and quick answer and then uh hearing what we're saying. So let's try to uh be restraining a little bit longer. We have a second question now for Mr. Right. Uh Mr. Madrid, I've asked you this before. How did the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were scripture? Would you like me to repeat that? Uh no, I think I got that. Okay, thank you. Um well, it was a short question. What can I say? I appreciate that. Um the Jewish man of the 50-year period before Christ knew that that's that uh scripture 1 and 2 Chronicles was inspired because the Old Testament church, the Old Testament people of God regarded it as scripture. It had the the official u the official pedigree of coming from an apo or from a prophet and it had always been regarded that way. So he would draw not only on what his internal testimony was of what those books say, but he would also base what his position was on what the constant teaching of the Old Testament people was as well. As you remember, uh they regarded 1 and 2 Chronicles as scripture. What I'd like to ask you though is and whether we do it now or later is u is your choice later in the debate tonight is you keep going back to this issue of of how does he know? How does he know? Well, that's what I want to throw back at you. How do you know? Let let's take it out of the Old Testament, Mr. White, and bring it back to the New Testament. And let's let's settle once and for all. How you know that those 27 books belong in scripture? How do you know that they are inspired? How do you know Matthew Mo wrote Matthew? What is your authority to know that you if you reject the Catholic Church, that's fine. That's your choice. I think you do so at your own peril. But if you reject the Catholic Church, you have to furnish us with some other source upon which you base your testimony that those words in that Bible in that 27 books of the Bible are God's words. Now, I don't want to give anyone the false impression, as I think you were trying to do earlier, that I believe that the Catholic Church rendered the Bible as inspired. You know that that is not the Catholic position. You know, Mr. White, that the Catholic Church does not claim to have made the the the scriptures canonical simply because she chose those books. That is a red herring. It's false. The Catholic Church recognized the canon of scripture. The Catholic Church received the word that was given to her by her husband, Jesus Christ. And as you well know, the church hears and recognizes the voice of her husband. So, it is the church, Mr. White, I assert, who recognize I have 24 seconds left in two minutes. I have 24 seconds left. uh the the church recognizes uh her husband's voice and she preaches that to the world. You if you reject the church have to fall back on something else. What will it be? The moratoran fragment, the church fathers, uh this or that Greek scholar perhaps your own personal interpretation. You have to tell us tonight what your authority is, Mr. Mr. White.

First of all, in sticking to the actual question that I asked, we're told that the Old Testament church told the man that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were scripture. That's interesting because does that mean the Old Testament church was infallible? That is the same Old Testament church that taught the Corban rule, I think. Yes, same Old Testament church. Oh, that's the same Old Testament church that rejected the apocryphal books and never believed they were scripture. But you say that they are scripture and place someone under the ana doesn't believe those things. So I guess the Old Testament church was fallible, which means you can have a fallible authority to tell you that something's scripture because it's very plain that the Lord Jesus held everyone responsible for reading scripture. In fact, in Matthew chapter 22, he said to the Sadducees, but but about the resurrection of the dead, "Have you not read what God said to you?" And Mr. Madrid keeps saying, "What's your authority?" Listen to what Jesus says. He says to these men, "Have you not read what God said to you?" If God speaks to you, you do not ask him for his business card. God's word is theustas. God breathes. It's his speaking.

Mr. White, the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is beating the wrong dead horse. And I've used that line before. I wish you had learned from it. Uh you keep going around in circles. You're not giving us an answer. You keep saying that when God speaks to us, we know his voice. Well, that's what I said about the church, and you'd have to show me where the Bible teaches that every individual Christian is going to know and recognize scripture in all its parts. You talked earlier about the Mormon. Now, the Mormon claims that God is witnessing to him. So, Mr. White, this is Mormonism that you're putting forth here. You are asserting that it's your burning in the bosom perhaps, if you like that phraseology. It's what you think should be in scripture. I think ultimately you are like a ship cut a drift. You have no anchor. You have no way of knowing other than the fact that you accept the church's teaching, but you won't admit it. My question. Okay.

Catholics and Protestants agree that scripture gets its authority from God and the Holy Spirit witnesses as to which books belong in the Bible whether he does so corporately through the church or privately to each individual Christian. Would you admit that by appealing to the witness of the Holy Spirit and by your earlier admission that you would appeal to the testimony of the early Christians, would you admit that you are appealing to something outside of scripture itself to know with an infallible certitude what scripture is?

It's very interesting that when solos scriptorera is debated against Catholic answers and others when the sufficiency of scripture to function as the sole rule of faith of the church is established the argument very quickly turns away from the actual topic of the debate to the issue of well canon we need to talk about canon they are related issues but they are not the same issues and I'd be glad to debate canon issues with Mr. Madrid too but now Mr. Madrid is saying, "Well, look, you're you're violating solos scriptorera. You're violating solos scriptorura with regards to the canon of scripture itself, and hence you are being inconsistent, Mr. White." Well, you know, it's interesting. We could with much profit point out that Mr. Madrid's argument is completely circular. And in fact, I will do that in just a moment. But am I violating solos scriptorera to say for example with reference to the gospel of Thomas or some other uh gnostic writing of the second century uh that well you look at it and you see that it's contradictory to scripture you see that no one's ever believed that it was scripture and hence you don't believe that it is scripture is that a violation of soul scripture it seems that Mr. Madrid is saying that it is. I am. But is it isn't it interesting that the apostles themselves utilize the very same standards? For example, Paul in recognizing that there is truth outside of scripture, quotes from pagan philosophers. But no one would think that Paul was by say citing a pagan philosopher adding it to the can of scripture, was he? No. He didn't accept it. On what basis? On what basis did did Paul or Peter any of the others not accept the Old Testament pseudapigrapha because Rome said it didn't belong there because there was some infallible Old Testament church? Not at all. They did not utilize the standards Mr. Madrid does.

Well, I guess that's your admission then that you can't answer the question, Mr. White. You you've talked for two minutes about this and that and the other, but you haven't given us the answer to how you know which books belong in the Bible. you still haven't said why or how you know those 27 books Mr. white do have an awful lot to do I think with the issue of soul scriptor because if you want to get in front of this audience and say the Bible alone you better be prepared to tell us what the Bible is and why you accept these books as scripture that's what I want from you sometime tonight just remember you have a room full of Catholics here tonight there are some Protestants but you have a lot of Catholics now is your golden opportunity now you can show the Catholic world how you arrive at this uh infallible certitude about scripture using something outside of scripture to get to it. That's your dilemma. And I'm going to hold you to it before the end of the night.

It's very interesting. God worked with God's people in the Old Testament to bring about the canon of the Old Testament. A cannon different than Romans, by the way. And now we're being told, well, God just couldn't do that in the New Testament. And and Mr. white. If you don't if you don't have some infallible authority, then you can't recognize what God says. Now, he wants to make it sound as if what I'm saying is that I go out and I I I get in the Lotus position and I go there's Matthew scripture and that's not what I'm talking about doing. I believe that God does work with his people. I believe God has always worked with his people. And I do believe that people recognize that which is inspired. But I believe he works with his people as a whole. And they never take that to mean that they have the authority to create canon. But Mr. Madrid, none of this has anything to do with the fact that scripture says it is sufficient to equip the man of God. And I'm going to hold you to that this evening. My my question.

Well, since we're holding each other so much tonight, Mr. All right. Um, I'd like to I would like to hold you to that issue, but I would like to inject another element into it, which I alluded to before. Uh, the Gospel of Matthew nowhere claims to have been written by Matthew, yet you believe it was. Your Bible says that it was written by Matthew. We can select John for that matter or Mark. How do you know that Matthew wrote Matthew? And what is your basis for accepting it? Is it because he was an apostle or because he had the approval of an apostle in the case of Mark or Luke? How do you know and what is your basis? [Music]

Well, again, uh we we stray from the topic, but it is it is a common question that is utilized uh all the time. Well, how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? Well, the question I have to ask is since Matthew doesn't say that Matthew wrote Matthew, do I have to know Matthew wrote Matthew? Where where is where is it said that to be born again you must believe that Matthew wrote Matthew? Uh I haven't found that. And since the book of Matthew doesn't say that Matthew wrote Matthew. Uh I don't recall being told that I had to believe that. Now do I believe Matthew wrote Matthew? Yeah I do. You know why? Well because I study the issue and I go back and I look at history and it's the same thing with what was said earlier on. Mr. Mr. Madrid, you accused me of violating solos scriptor because I executed the passage in the original languages. Look, he's not appealing to the Bible. He's appealing to the Greek. Well, what was the Bible written in? That's what I am appealing to. And so, when we look at John, for example, you can examine the Gospel of John and you can there's all sorts of discussions about pointing out how how the identity of John is revealed in the Gospel of John. But there are people who disagree with that. And it is not something that means that I'm going to call that person a non-Christian if he says, "Well, I'm not really sure that Matthew wrote Matthew." Now, did Matthew write Matthew? I certainly think so. There's a lot of good evidence for it. But does that mean I'm violating solos scriptor to go back and examine church documents and examine church history and examine the text? No, of course not. That's not a violation of solos scriptor at all. And so you say, well, you can't know that Matthew wrote Matthew unless the Roman Catholic Church tells you so. Well, that's interesting because Christians knew or claimed to know that Matthew wrote Matthew long before there even existed a Roman Catholic Church or even existed anyone in Rome who claimed to infallibly speak for Christ. So, I'm not sure how they managed to do that. And if they did manage to do that, why can't I do that tonight? Well, I guess I can't. Can't.

Mr. Dwight, the reason it's a commonly utilized question by Catholic apologists is because you can't answer the question just as you just demonstrated right now. You you don't have any answer for the question. How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? You gave us your your hunch based on your study. Although you've never seen the actual autographs as I have not seen them. None of us in the room have seen them. Uh you're relying by the way on that transmission of an accurate uh transmission of those documents by the Catholic Church. Mr. white by the Catholic Church down through the ages. It can be demonstrated very conclusively. You're relying on that,

But you won't admit it. You say you don't have to know why or if Matthew wrote Matthew. I find that very curious because if it can't be established that this book was written by an apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then why should we accept it at all? After all, this book claims to be written by an apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And you say we should not accept it. And I don't see any substantive difference between your saying we shouldn't accept this one, we should accept this one. The only the only connection is that you don't have an answer for either. I I'm tired of being sad that I'm not answering questions after I answer them. But I'd invite anyone to to take this this book, take a look at it, then read the Gospel of Matthew and and reflect upon Mr. Madrid's recent words that there is no difference in what I'm saying between the two. There most obviously is.

But again, who is the author of canon? I have answered the question. Who is the author of canon? Men or God? Is it Rome or God? It is God. So the question is recognizing that which is inspired, not infallibly determining who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now I would return the question to you. In fact, that's what I'm going to do in just a moment. You keep saying, well, without this infallible authority, Mr. Madrid, how do you know that Rome is infallible? I can show you fallible, fallible, fallible statements over and over and over again from Roman pontiffs. They've made many mistakes. So, how do you know that? You're using an argument that is circular and goes back to what is used by everyone and saying, "Well, I'm the final authority," which is really what Rome is claiming.

I have to I have no idea where we are in this who's asking what question. Okay. And uh we each have one left. Okay. All right. I I think it's three, but I think it's going to work out right now. That's fine. I have I have myself down. I have both of us down as already having asked three. Really? So, I think we're on the third. Yeah. Okay. I have us down as having asked three, but not answered all three. I only have my myself down for having asked two. So, go ahead. Well, we're confused. So, I get to ask one question. He gets to ask one question. Okay. Well, fine.

Well, Mr. from Madrid. I guess I'll just have to ask the question I was just I was just asking. I'm going to turn the question back on you now. I don't think it's necessarily on solos scriptorum. But how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is an infallible authority upon which you can trust?

This is how I know, Mr. White. First, let me move this to two minutes. This is how I know. I can look independent of what I see in scripture. In fact, I'm not even going to treat scripture as an inspired document for the moment, just for the sake of argument. I'm going to look at whether or not a man named Jesus Christ lived. Can I prove that historically? Yes. Can I prove that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead and appeared to many people who as eyewitnesses claimed that he died and rose from the dead? I can prove that in two minutes. I can't prove it for your satisfaction, but I think we would all agree that those things are true. I can demonstrate through non-Christian unbiased sources. In fact, sometimes he actually biased against the Christian position that Jesus Christ instituted a church. We can look at the the writings of these early Christians, not only the apostles but also the men and women in the postappostolic era. I can look at the scripture and see what just independent of whether or not I whether or not I believe it's inspired. I can look and see a description of the church that Jesus established. All of you know the verse in Matthew 16:18. On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Mr. White and I would argue all night long over what the rock is, but the fact is Jesus established a church. The next point is as I look at scripture I see that the church is described as having certain uh functions, certain c or attributes, certain characteristics, certain jobs that it has to perform and I can compare and find out well historically yes I can show that that was done through the writings of the scriptures. So if I believe that Jesus is God, if I believe that his promise is true, that he founded a church, then I have to say this is the next step. I have to say, does that church, is there a church today which fits that description, which is doing all the things that Jesus said. If that's true, if I can find that, and I have, by the way, it's the Catholic Church, then I know that what is described here in this book is the same church that I see today. So when that church tells me, Jesus said in Luke 10:16, "He who listens to you listens to me. He who uh refuses to hear you refuses to hear me. When I hear that church speak, I know that it's Jesus speaking through the church. God's ultimate authority is determined at the end of the longest e most easily uh contested chain of syllogistic arguments. That is how one knows God's ultimate authority is through a a process. You'll find this on pages 126 and 127 of Carl Keading's book. I think very well done by Mr. from Madrid and repeating it that ends with a statement, the Catholic believes in inspiration because the church tells them so. That is putting it bluntly and that same church has the authority to interpret the inspired text. That is where the ultimate authority lies. I could dispute quite easily factually, biblically and historically every single step that he just took. That is that is what's being presented to us tonight as to what's to replace the Christian recognizing that scripture is God breathed and hence accepting God speaking in his word in the testimony of Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority. That's what we're to replace that with. I certainly hope no one's willing to do that.

Well, Mr. White, I think the the essence of this argument boils down to one issue. Uh, in my case, I'm appealing to the church to tell me that that this scripture is what it claims to be, that Matthew wrote it, that it came from the other apostles, in the case of the other books, that it's trustworthy, that it's inherent. I believe all of that because the church witnesses to me that it's so. But I see that you have the same problem. You you in a sense caricature or or have a porative comment for my appeal to authority. Well, you have the same problem, Mr. White. You appeal to this authority independent of its context in the church and say that you just you just know that it's inspired. You just know that it's God's word, but you haven't given us any evidence for that knowledge. You haven't pointed us in any direction other than your own personal studies or your your biblical lexicons that you may turn to. But as we all know, Mr. White, you are fallible. Your opinion on this issue, I'm afraid, is worthless. I want to know with certitude and I would much rather trust the church that has taught for 2,000 years than what you say about the Bible.

Mr. White, you claim that solos scriptor is true or pardon me your claim that solos scriptor is true requires you to say that all apostolic traditions or at least all of them that the church was meant to have are recorded in scripture. Thus far tonight you have merely made this bare assertion but no but you haven't cited any verses to prove it. Please cite for us some texts from scripture requiring us to say that all such traditions which are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and elsewhere that all these traditions must all be written down.

It seems Mr. Madrid you weren't listening to my presentation very closely because I mentioned 2 Thessalonians 3:6. He uses the term tradition. It refers back to what Paul had written in 1 Thessalonians 5:14. There are numerous others such as 1 Corinthians 11:23, 2 Thessalonians 2:5, and 2 Peter 1:12-15 that all make the same point, and that is that what is preached by the individuals who are writing, for example, Peter or Paul, what was preached to them is now consistent with what they themselves are saying. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11, he says that he has delivered to them that which he also received. He has delivered to them in both ways. The second Thessalonians says he's preached it to them. He has written it to them. But I want everyone to notice what's going on here. It is the Roman assertion that what is in these supposed apostolic traditions is different than what we have in the New Testament. Mr. Madrid just said, "It's my job to prove that there's that that what's in the apostolic traditions is is the same." Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Who here is alleging the necessity of some separate source of information? It's Mr. Madrid. And so I want to turn it around to Mr. Madrid and say, "Mr. Madrid, I challenge you to demonstrate on the basis of scripture that what is in your supposed traditions is what is referred to in places like 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or 2 Timothy 2:2. That is a challenge that I have laid before many a Roman Catholic apologists and have not received an answer to. It is the assumption that underlies the position and that assumption must be addressed. The simple fact of the matter is we see in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that the tradition he speaks of there is the gospel of Jesus Christ and you can't tell me that's not contained in the pages of scripture. And hence you show me a tradition sir an apostolic tradition that is binding upon Christians that is not found the pages of the New Testament. Show us that apostolic tradition that we are told we must follow, we must accept, and then we can move from there. You done?

Okay, Mr. White, I uh be happy to take you up on your challenge. And here it is. This cannon of the New Testament is part of apostolic tradition. It's not found in scripture and it is binding. You believe in a closed cannon. You believe that if we add to the word of God, we are committing a sin. You would believe that the Mormons are wrong for adding the Book of Mormon to the word of God. You believe that Revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle. Now, the cannon of scripture is something that I promise to hold you to, which you have not yet addressed. At least you haven't given us an answer. That is one apostolic tradition that is binding, Mr. White, and it's not found in scripture. It's divine revelation and it's binding on the consciences of of Christians who, as you would say, hear the voice of their savior and recognize it. There it is. How do you answer that?

Well, it's quite easy. First of all, an apostolic tradition must exist since the time of the apostles. But Mr. Madrid has been telling us that we had to wait till the end of the 4th century before we knew what canon scripture was. How'd that happen? Remember, apostolic traditions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are what? Already delivered. So, your timing is all all off. Furthermore, uh Mr. from Madrid. The apostles did not believe that the apocrypha was inspired scripture. So you seemingly are going against what you call a binding uh apostolic tradition. And so I say, "No, you have not accomplished this." I challenge a Roman Catholic. Show me where the Thessalonians were taught the bodily assumption of Mary. Trace it through history. Show me where the Thessalonians were taught these doctrines that Roman Catholicism has defined on the basis of tradition. Show me where they believed in the authority of the bishop of Rome as the infallible vicor of Christ. The early church did not believe that. They had no idea of that doctrine. And yet Paul says these traditions were already delivered. Where are they? No, they were not already delivered. Rome has made them up over time.

Okay, let's uh get back in our seats. And we now have closing statements by each of the speakers, 12 minutes each. And uh you know some of these debates I hear uh applause all the way through. I appreciate us not having done that. I don't know whether that's awkward for you not to be able to applaud, but we'll thank the men at the end uh for their able presentations of their positions, but I think it's enabled us to concentrate better not having those breaks. So I thank you for that courtesy. Okay, Mr. White and then Mr. Madrid with their closing statements.

Gathered to debate the issue. Does the Bible teach the doctrine of solos scriptor? And I have in my opening statements and in my comments that came afterwards done my best to make sure that we stick to that subject. But despite my best attempts, we have gone into all sorts of other issues. Uh we've gone into hearing the Roman Catholic say that he believes the Bible's inspired because the church tells him so, which of course is a very circular argument. The church claims to have authority because it appeals to scripture. But it says scriptur is inspired because the church says so. And so it's a very circular thing. They've tried to call it spiral, but it's spirals or circles depending on which direction you look at it from. So it's a very circular argument that's being presented to us in regards to the position taken by Mr. Madrid. And I would like to submit to you, please think about it. All the objections that Mr. Madrid has raised in regards to canon issues so on so forth are if they are valid are equally valid against himself. And an argument that you use that when turned on your own position destroys your own position is not a valid argument. It's not a valid argument. What have we heard from Mr. Madrid in regards to my presentation on 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Well, we've heard, well, you're trusting in Greek lexicans. No, I'm not trusting in Greek lexicans. Mr. Madrid said that uh I brought all this fancy Greek stuff, but Mr. Madrid brought the Bible. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with a little bit of Aramaic thrown in there for good measure. The New Testament was written in Greek and all I did was I went to what Paul said and demonstrated that what Paul said teaches the doctrine. Mr. Madrid has provided us no counter citations. He's provided us no reason to think that the Protestant scholars that I cited were in any way unfair, biased, going overboard. He's provide us with no Catholic scholars. They say, "Oh, no. They're all wrong." Artidzo means he's provided us with none of that. At the beginning of the debate, I laid out what I had to do. I had to demonstrate that the Bible is a rule of faith, that it teaches it sufficient to function as a sole rule of faith, and that in fact teaches that it does function in that way. And I did those three things. So, what was Mr. Madrid's response? Well, he's gone off after every other topic there is to go after canon issues and well well how do you know that type of situations is like well wait a minute let's go back to what the scripture said and the scripture says the scriptures are sufficient for the man of God for doing the works of God. Now, I want to take the time since I promised it over and over again to walk you through a passage I think will help us to understand this. And this is 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I hope you'll turn with me there. Even though it's late in the evening, I hope you'll still turn with me there. Starting at verse 13. But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brother 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. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast the traditions which you were taught either by word or by letter of ours. What do we have here? This is really the primary passage that is utilized by Roman apologists to defend the concept of the oral tradition. We're told, well, see what you've got here is you've got oral tradition and you've got written tradition. The two-fold tradition, just like we've always been saying, this is a command to stand firm and hold fast a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers. There is nothing future about the passage. The Thessalonians have already heard what Paul has preached. This is a single body of traditions that is taught in two ways. orally, that is when Paul was personally with the Thessalonians and he preached to them and by epistle, that being the first letter to the Thessalonians. Now, what does orally refer to for the Roman Catholic to use this passage to support his position? Two things must be established. First, that the oral element refers to a specific passing on of revelation to the power of the episcopus. 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 message itself. Look again at verses 13 and 14 and how Paul speaks of God's work of salvation in the gospel. 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. And for this reason, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 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 but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. This is God breathed revelation. And notice also that if we do a terrible thing and look at the Greek of this passage, the term stake that is translated as standing firm here in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is used by Paul elsewhere. For example, in 1 Corinthians chapter 16:13, 1 Corinthians 16:13, notice what it says. Be on your guard, stand firm in the faith, be men of courage, be strong. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to stand firm in what? In the faith. And that is the context of his statement in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2:15 as well. There is nothing in the passage that even begins to cause a person to think, but well boy, what Paul taught orally, that's when he must have taught them about the oral traditions about Mary and the immaculate conception, the bodily assumption and papal infallibility, even though there probably wasn't even a bishop in Rome at the time. But but he passed it on anyways. And then that was passed on down to the power of the episcopy. That is what we're being asked to believe and I don't believe it and I don't have any reason to believe it. The same thing happens when we look at Matthew chapter 23. Another passage that is frequently used by Roman Catholics in regards to the issue of well here's a passage that violates solar scriptor. In Matthew 23 you have the discussion of Moses's seat. It has been alleged the concept of Moses's seat in Matthew chapter 23 1-7 is the passage that I would ask you to read that is in fact a reputation of the concept of solos scriptor for not only is this concept not found in the old testament but Jesus is alleged gave his appribation to this extra scriptural tradition but is this sound exugesus is this passage being properly understood when used this way first we note that the passage has spawned a plethora of differing understandings among scholars including Roman Catholic scholars but a few items immediately remove the Roman apologist interpretation and application from consideration. First, Moses's seat refers to a seat in the front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading the scriptures. There are some scholars that dispute that, but most say that that's the case. Synagogue worship, of course, came into being long after Moses's day. And so, those who attempt to make this an oral tradition going back to Moses are engaging in wishful thinking. Beyond this, we are here only speaking of a position that existed at this time in the synagogue worship of the day. Are we truly to believe that this position was divine in origin and hence binding upon all who would worship God? It certainly doesn't seem the New Testament church understood it this way because the New Testament church did not adopt it and did not have Moses's seat. We first note interpreters such as Jeremas and Carson view this passage as engaging in biting irony. Read the rest of this passage and it is harsh harsh stuff. The Jewish leaders have presumed to sit in Moses's seat suggested by Merks, Molton, and Z focusing on the use of the aist tense, the verb to sit. They sat themselves in this place, but not not properly. Such an understanding is entirely in line with the context. But I am more prone to accept Gundry's understanding in which he says the following quote. So long as sitting in Moses's seat qualifies the speaking of the scribes and Pharisees, all things whatever does not include their interpretive traditions, but emphasizes the totality of the law. They do keep their traditions. They do not practice what they speak while sitting on Moses's seat. Hence, their traditions are not in view. Though elsewhere, Matthew is concerned to criticize the scribes and Pharisees interpretations of the law. Here, he is concerned to stress the necessity of keeping the law itself. As usual, his eye is on the antonyomians in the church. So, what do we have here? Jesus simply refuses to overthrow the current form of worship that is engaged in the synagogue at this time because there is nothing in it like there was in the corbound rule. Oh, but the Roman Catholic says, "Oh, those are human traditions. Ours aren't." The Jews didn't believe the Corban rule was a human tradition. The Jews didn't believe the Corban rule was just a human tradition. They didn't believe that the the rules in Matthew chapter 15 about washing hands, those were the traditions of the elders. They have divine authority. Well, Rome claims the same thing. And I say to you, we must take their traditions and examine them by scripture just as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 15. For example, the Roman Catholic pontiff has taught the following. I guess this would fall under the concept of sacred tradition. Consequently, we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. That's interesting. There were hundreds of years when there was no Roman pontiff. Oh, you say, "Oh, there's always been a bishop of Rome." Well, that's not actually the case. Sometimes there were three. But the point is, there was hundreds of years when the bishop of Rome never claimed what Rome teaches about him today. So, how could anyone have been saved? I don't know. The point is, you examine what this thing says in light of what? Do you just simply bow down before it and say, "Well, that's my ultimate authority, so therefore I accept it." or do you examine the tradition, the light of scripture and do what the Lord Jesus said to do in Matthew chapter 15? The debate this evening was on whether the Bible teaches solos scriptor, not on canon issues, not on how the church recognizes inspiration. And the reason that I focus so much in my presentation upon that very issue is because basically I knew that's what Mr. Madrid wanted, at least I thought so. Mr. Madrid didn't want to go off into all sorts of church history stuff and so on and so forth. And so I focused my presentation on where the Bible teaches it because Catholic Answers keep saying, "Show us one verse." And when we do, what do they do? What has been the response in showing Mr. Madrid the one verse? The response has been, "Well, that's just Protestant scholars. That's just that's fancy Greek. I brought the Bible. No. My friends, remember the thesis, the debate. Ask yourself the question, has Mr. Madrid refuted 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Matthew chapter 15? If he has not, no matter what other neat things he said, he has not actually engaged the debate. That is where it lies. and I'm going to challenge him to again in his final closing statements focus on the issue and deal with those passages. Thank you very much.

I'd like to close my remarks with a word of thanks. First of all, to all of you for your patience in this warm room, the still air. I know it's been uncomfortable for all of us, but I I'm grateful for your sitting here and and being willing to wade through all of these arguments. I'd also like to thank you, Pastor Wagner. I know that uh hospitality is hard to come by these days, and I appreciate you inviting us into your church this evening. Uh I need to cover a couple of uh points of old business before I move into my formal remarks. First of all, I want to clarify something that I think Mr. White misunderstood. I did not earlier in the debate issue a challenge to him for another debate. And I don't want him or anyone else to make the mistake of thinking that I am thundering challenges to debate. I said earlier that that issue that we had talked about could be debated at a future point, but I didn't specify by whom. So please don't misunderstand that remark because I think Mr. White did. Second of all, I have not gone after all sorts of other issues. If you'll remember, I am not the one who brought up the chair of Moses. I am not the one who brought up tradition. I am not the one who brought up the church contradicting itself. I am not the one who brought up any of those things. Mr. White did. None of those things have to do with whether or not the Bible teaches solos scriptorera. He obuscated, I'm afraid. He brought up issues which he claims are related to whether or not the Bible teaches solar scriptor, but I don't think they are. And yet the fundamental issue that has to on which his his position has to pivot is can you tell me with a certainty what the Bible is and Mr. White has failed utterly failed to give us an answer as to what his reason is for knowing that those 27 books belong in the New Testament. We're not talking about the canon of the Old Testament. Mr. White, we all know that there's a dispute on that issue. Let's deal on the issue that we do agree with. the 27 books of the New Testament. He has not answered that question. Don't forget that. Mr. White likes to uh in his closing remarks uh say that I did not stick to the issue and that I did not deal with his translation or interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-1 17. I did deal with it. And as he's fond of saying, roll the tapes back for yourself and look at what I said and look at how I showed that he was misapplying a meaning. He was he was miss he was seeing a meaning in 2 Timothy 3:17 that's not there that he was saying that it implies that the man of God is sufficient yet he excludes the role of the church in helping that man of God properly use that equipment that he's given. Oh yes I did answer that question. I did deal with that verse and Mr. White can say anything he wants but really the burden of proof tonight is not on me or him. It's on you because you're the one that has to stand before God someday. You're the one who has to be judged on the basis of whether or not you accepted his word or rejected it. You've heard the truth tonight about solar scriptor. You've heard that it's false. You've heard that it can't be established from scripture. No matter all the fancy girrations and all the other things that Mr. White engages in, he simply has not proven the issue. At least he has not to my satisfaction. I don't believe he has proven it to the satisfaction of any honest person in this room who is willing to say, is there a verse which teaches sufficiency? Matthew or 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not teach sufficiency, folks. I think we've shown that. Second of all, I think I think Mr. White, as I listen to his arguments, uh he's very reminiscent of Wy Coyote. You know, I feel like the Roadrunner tonight. Here we have Mr. Mr. White is Wy Coyote springing all these traps for me, trying to trying to bring me down. He's got this acme box of anti-atholic arguments that he can use. But notice that just like Wy Coyote, Mr. White is thwarted at every turn. He holds up the Bible and says, "This disproves Mr. Mitch's position." But he can't even tell us what is in the Bible, whether or not it's supposed to be there. He can't tell us with certainty what the Bible is and how he knows that that is the Bible. He unbelievably spent a lot of time in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. So, in my remaining moments, let me please just address that. Mr. White made a number of errors, a number of blunders. Let me point out a few of them. Number one, he argues that oral tradition must be separate from scripture. No, that's not the case. If he had been listening carefully, he would have heard what I said in my opening remarks that the Catholic position is the material sufficiency of scripture. Everything that is taught in oral tradition is found at least implicitly, if not explicitly, in scripture. Now, Mr. White may dispute the scriptures that I'll bring up to prove those doctrines, but that's a different issue. The fact is, it doesn't have to be separate from scripture. It doesn't have to be different. It doesn't have to be something that's outside of scripture in the sense that he is talking about. Second of all, he asked for examples of revelation which is found which is binding and is found outside of scripture. I gave him several. One of them which he hasn't answered is the canon of scripture. That's an apostolic tradition. The reason it's an apostolic tradition is because the apostles told the church, "Hey, I wrote this book." That sounds to me like an apostolic tradition, Mr. White, and it was preserved by the church. And Mr. White follows it and he accepts it, but he won't admit it. That's the key thing for you to remember. In 2 Thessalonians 2:6 and 7, Paul alludes to something that he doesn't explain. He says that there is something restraining the man of lawlessness. And then he says to the Thessalonians, you know what I'm talking about. I don't think Mr. White could establish from scripture alone what Paul was talking about. That's found in tradition. The early church fathers are very clear that what Paul was talking about was the rule of law, civil law, civil society, and the order that it establishes as holding back the man of sin. Now, we could debate that issue, but that is in fact an apostolic tradition that is preserved outside of scripture. Mr. White says there's no evidence that Paul intended for all traditions to be continued. But Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you have been given." Now, I want to address that because I think that's where Mr. White really fell. Number one, the word that that uh Paul used there is paradosis. That implies handing on. That means handing on. The Greek or pardon me, the Latin uh the Latin cognate for that is trader, the Latin infinitive verb, and that means to hand on. So, the very word that Paul is using implies a continuation of this. Mr. Dwight would be hardressed to in harmonize his interpretation of this passage with Paul's express command to hand on tradition in 2 Timothy 2:2. How is he going to explain that? Paul says, "Hand on this tradition and it's oral." We're not denying that scripture is part of tradition. We're not denying that scripture is part of the tradition that the church handed on. Mr. White is denying that oral tradition plays a part, but he's going smack dab in the face of what scripture says. Finally, Mr. I you made a lot of uh emphasis about the word state and you said that if or at least you implied that this that this means that this oral tradition is not to be handed on any further. It was once for all delivered and that's it. Well, notice the problem with that. If this disproves the continuation of handing on this oral tradition, it also disproves the handing on of the written tradition as well. Because in that passage Paul says stand firm and hold fast to both stake stand there hold on to it. So if that disproves the transmission of oral teaching it also disproves the continuation of written teaching as well. The problem of the canon was brought up many times. Mr. White did not address that. I think that in my closing remarks, I'd like to focus on something that all of you are familiar with and all of you know, at least down in your heart of hearts is at least an indication that solos scriptor is not true. You can open your yellow pages when you get home tonight and look at all the different so-called bibleelving denominations which claim to go by the bible alone. None of which agree on not only the essentials or pardon me not only the non-essential issues but also the essential issues. Salvation, can you lose it once you get it? What about infant baptism? What about the Lord's supper? What about baptismal regeneration, Mr. White? Whole segments of Protestantism disagree with you on that issue? What about tongues and prophecy and miracles? BB Warfield, one of your mentors, wrote viferously against that. Many Protestants hold to it. What about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Luther and Calvin believed in her perpetual virginity. Mr. White doesn't. There's confusion reigning among Protestantism. All of them claiming to go by by the Bible alone, none of them being able to meet entirely on what the Bible means. Now Jesus or pardon me Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:10, "I appeal to you brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. Soloscriptor has been a blueprint for anarchy, folks. Just trace the historical record back to the time of the reformation and look at all the competing sects that have arisen. In my final minute, I want to say that I didn't come here to win arguments. I came here to share the truth. I came here to invite you all to the fullness of the truth which is found in the Catholic Church. And I'd like to use the words of a famous Catholic apologist Edmund Campion who was a priest. He was formerly a Protestant and he converted to the Catholic Church. He wrote this letter and I hope you'll give me a couple seconds over if I if I go over 10 or 15 seconds. 12 minutes left. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I'm Oh, I said it at 10. Okay. Okay. So, I have 2 minutes left. I would like to use his words to make my own tonight because I know that many of you are not Catholic and I know that many of you run the risk of going to hell if you do not accept the truth that Jesus Christ is offering to you. If you leave this room tonight and you suppress the doubt that may be in your heart about what Mr. White is saying tonight or the the questioning that may be in your heart about whether or not the Catholic Church is the true church, you have to answer to God at some point. You don't have to answer to me or Mr. White. I'm inviting you to consider to study to pray about the Catholic position. No, Mr. White, I don't mean that in the Mormon sense of the word. I mean that in the biblical sense of the word. Here's what Edund Campion said. I say this all to all of you and I also say it respectfully and with some affection for Mr. White. Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven for you daily by those Catholics around the world. Those Catholic apologists whose posterity shall never die, which beyond the seas, gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose are determined never to give you over, but either to win you for heaven or to die upon your pikes. Be it known to you that we have made a league all the Catholics in the world whose succession and multitude must overarch all practices of the Protestant world. We cheerfully will carry the cross you shall lay upon us and never despair for your recovery while we have a man left to enjoy your tyburn or to be racked with your torments or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned. The enterprise is begun. It is of God. It cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted, so it must be restored. If these my offers tonight be refused, and my endeavors can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigor, I have no more to say but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, who sends us his grace, and set us at accord before the day of payment, to the end we may at last be friends in heaven when all injuries shall be forgotten. I pray tonight that you don't leave this alone here and that you continue to search for the truth and I hope to see all of you in heaven someday. Thank you very much.

Let's uh thank both our speakers for the presentation. [Applause] And we do thank you very much for coming. Uh it has been a warm evening. Just be polite to the crowd. But uh really this is for your benefit. Both of these men uh spent a lot of time and energy and effort uh on your behalf to lay these matters before you. Uh so let's close with a word of prayer and then uh uh we uh we'll pray for a safe journey home for everyone as well. Lord, you are the one that judges the thoughts and intents of the heart. You are the one who lays us open and bare, indeed wrestles us into submission that we might confess and live the truth. Uh Lord, this particular issue may not be on the top of each one of our personal agendas when we think about our walk with you at this stage, but we thank you for these men who have labored to lay these concerns before us. And that both of them uh have demonstrated an urgent concern not just to win debates, but to persuade people. and we pray that we would be persuaded by you uh and uh that we would walk in the truth. Uh thank you for preserving us even through the course of this evening as we've uh given our attention. Uh we thank you for sustaining these brothers. Uh surely they will be weary after their efforts. And we pray for all of us as we journey to our homes that you will give us your blessing and uh continue to guide us uh as we confess the truth and as we walk in it. And we pray these things in our Savior's name. Amen. You're dismissed. Thank you for coming. The whole evening [Music] you alluded to one of these Yes, Mark. Pleasure. Pleasure. God bless you. Hi, this is Scott Han. For the past 10 years, I've traveled the country sharing the Catholic faith at conferences and in the media. I've witnessed a great excitement and forever. I believe we're seeing a new Catholic renaissance. The magazine leading the way in this renaissance is Envoy. Envoy will help you explain the faith intelligently, defend it charitably, and share it effectively. You'll learn what Catholics believe and why we believe it. To subscribe to Envoy Magazine, call 180055 Envoy. That's 180055 nvy. Hi, this is Patrick Madrid, publisher of Envoy Magazine. You may be familiar with me from my books such as Pope Fiction or Surprise by Truth. Well, I'd like to tell you that Envoy Magazine contains in each issue the kind of information that's going to help you in your life as a Catholic. Each issue of Envoy Magazine will bring you interesting and exciting conversion stories, articles about the Catholic faith, really articles about all sorts of subjects that are going to deal with issues that you face in your daily life. How can you get in touch with Envoy? I'm glad you asked. Just call us at 8005536869. You can order your copies, back issues, or you can subscribe by calling us at 8005536869. You can also visit us on the internet. Go to www.onvoyagazine.com. That's www.onvoymagazine.com. This is Patrick Madrid and I hope you will read Envoy Magazine.