I'm one of the elders here at breath reform Baptist church and we want to welcome you on behalf of breath reform Baptist Church uh thank you all for coming uh to this conference uh we look forward to the events that are going to be taking place today and we're so happy uh that you guys will uh be involved and and what's going on uh the event topic is uh why is God important again a little little heavy gain on that the topic is why is God important and that's an important question I think and I think it's a question that uh the skeptic and even the believer the Christian can answer or should answer uh it's an important question that we should wrestle and establish the importance uh for God and what we wanted to put forward with this event is a way to not only evangelize and uh introduce those who might not understand the importance of God to the importance of God but also to encourage the believer in in helping the believer understand uh the the the importance and the value of understanding our great God um as we go through uh this the day's events uh what you are participating in currently is the first block of today's conference which we will have a debate as you can see we're set up and ready to go for that uh the debate will go until 12:30 at which point we will take a break uh the lunch break as we're calling it will give you an opportunity to leave go grab some lunch in the area there's plenty of places around here for you to grab a bite and there should be plenty of time because we won't come back until 2: p.m. and when we come back at 2: p.m. uh you're going to hear a series of talks on uh various aspects of the uh of of the importance of God and then uh Dr White will join us at the end of that session the end of that block uh to uh let us know why God is important here and now for today's society um I want to first uh give a a thank you to all of our breather Baptist Church volunteers uh who are who are helping around with the event if you see anybody with a badge that says volunteer uh you can ask them any questions about our church uh how to get involved how to plug in any activities or anything like that we'll be happy to answer any questions that you have uh if you have any questions about the facilities where to go um if you want to know where to go for lunch we can hopefully help you out with those types of questions but thank you to our volunteers and we're happy to to help you in any way I also want to give thank you to uh The Inferno men for co-sponsoring this event uh they provided the refreshments that you guys had as you walked in and uh they also provided the opportunity for Alex to come out for this debate as well so I'm sure most of you guys are here for this debate this greatly anticipated debate that was put together uh rather quickly uh but nevertheless uh here we are uh it relates to the overall topic of the conference of why God is important uh because we think think it's important to discuss the important aspects of God one of those important aspects is his word one of those important aspects is the Authority for the church and so we wanted to discuss that Under the Umbrella of why is God important uh for this debate and uh the debate topic and all that stuff will be uh introduced to you by Mike when I call him call them up here in just a moment um I mentioned some difficulties getting this de debate going uh there there was several other opponents that we were trying to get out to uh debate Dr White we already had an agreement to have him come out and and uh do an event for us um but lo and behold we have Alex who uh I mean he's he's stepped up to the plate he he was very very easy to work with and uh you know he made it happen and I I know he's grateful to be here we're grateful for you being here as well and then of course uh Dr White um you know there's a whole story behind the way that we connected and stuff I'd love to explain that to you all so please catch me during the lunch or something like that and it's it's a great story for the way we connected but uh on behalf of myself and and our church and I'm sure most of the folks here uh everybody here I would hope uh thank you for being here Dr White and uh gracing us with your presence so um I want to pray for the event and uh get us going our heavenly father uh we are so grateful for who you are are and what you've done we worship you God because you are the most important thing you are important God you are the one that establishes value in order to enable importance in anything so we worship you now we lift you up we adore you for who you are for the grace that you provide for each and every one of us we thank you for your son Jesus Christ uh who died on the cross for the sins of those who would put their faith and trust in you we thank you for the hope of eternal life that is grounded uh in the resurrection and we just ask God that you would uh allow this this debate and this conference as a whole uh to establish Clarity uh to answer questions that we might have Lord we pray that uh this conference would be edifying to you that it would bring you glory in every way father we uh pray over this debate portion and uh we just pray the same thing that you would um allow these men to to speak clearly uh that you would allow them to uh give their their ideas and uh and their arguments in a in a defined way Lord that helps us to understand their position and ultimately helps us bring us closer to you um we thank you for the audience who are here and ask that that they would come with a a willing heart an open heart and a just a spirit of wanting to to learn and understand we see why you're important we know why you're important Lord that's why we're here we ask that you would just make that ever more so clear for us and then I would ask you guys uh to uh pray with me uh the way that Jesus instructed us to pray Our Father in Heaven hallow be your your name your kingdom come your will be done on Earth as it is in heaven give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors and lead us not into temptation but Deliver Us from Evil we thank you Lord for your grace it's in Jesus name we pray amen ladies and gentlemen I want to introduce to you now our moderator uh for this debate his name is Mike dill and if you come forward now welcome good morning ladies and gentlemen uh welcome to debate today's debate on the topic of solo scriptura uh I'm Mike dill and I'll be your moderator for this debate I'm excited to do this because I have a Protestant dad and a Catholic mother and I was raised going to a small Baptist Church for Sunday school every every Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. and we'd open the word of God and we'd fall in love with Jesus Jesus and then as the Protestants went upstairs at 11: for their worship uh my family we would go across the street for Catholic Mass on the other side of the street uh at 11:30 and so uh if you want to hear how that uh Saga has turned out in my life you can find me later uh but but you can psycho analiz why I might be interested in a debate like this and uh why it's so good to be here among Christian brothers and sisters so we'd like to extend our heartfelt thanks to our sponsors of course breath reform Baptist Church for hosting and all the volunteers and The Inferno men for making this event possible uh and thank you for both of our Debaters who have both taken road trips from out of state to be here uh long miles in the car thank you gentlemen uh this morning's resolution is the Bible teaches Catholic Authority not Sola scriptura uh for clarity the definitions have been stipulated and they are in your program if you want to look at those uh this topic is significant because it affects uh what we believe and how we follow Jesus in fundamental matters of faith and Doctrine uh so the purpose of this debate uh is to promote char truth and unity we don't want to sacrifice uh either of those in the wrong order uh we want the world to know that Jesus is Lord uh so by doing our best to embody these Divine attributes all parties will avoid what Paul wrote about to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:23 when he said uh foolish avoid foolish ignorant controversies because you know that they breed quarrels the environment will also require humility uh which is defined as a willingness to learn by making an honest appraisal of what needs needs to be renewed within our own Hearts minds and churches uh I invite you to come with that attitude and you'll see it there in Psalm 259 and Proverbs 15:33 and so while we might not achieve perfect Unity today uh if we have Clarity on the truth and the humility to change our minds uh we can have hope for the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 our debate our debate will follow this structure which is also found in an insert uh in your program each speaker will give a seven minute opening statement starting with the affirmative who is Alex today and moving to the negation which is Dr White and then well those opening statements will be followed uh directly by our first round of rebuttal 7 minutes each starting with Dr White and this will be followed immediately by a second round of rebuttal again 7 minutes each and again with Dr White going first following that we'll have a 15-minute break around 11:15 a.m. and please be sure that you have submitted your questions before the break so that our teams can consider and pick from your questions in fact they are monitoring that right now so if you already know a question you want to ask you're welcome to get it in there following that break when we return each debator will control 10 minutes of cross-examination time where they are able to ask questions directly of their opponent and gentlemen I ask that we're cordial and respectful of each other uh so that I don't have to get involved moderating that Alex will go first followed by Dr White and then after cross-examination um I will read out four audience provided questions back and forth to each debater and if time prent permits uh and if we can select one I'll ask one question for both uh Debaters to answer and these answers will be limited to 3 minutes each last we will conclude with five minute closing statements first from the affirmative Alex and the last word goes to Dr White the debate will conclude promptly by 12:30 p.m. uh and after the debate of course we'll break for lunch and you're welcome to stay in and chat here if you'd like for the audience this is our role uh as respectful listeners during the debate if you hear a point you like please write notes uh but don't be applauding or hollering in agreement uh we want the arguments to speak for themselves uh we will welcome our speakers with Applause at the beginning and then please hold all your applause or comments till the very end uh and there'll be time to thank both speakers and I'll prompt us for that uh our our speakers have agreed to respect each other and your respectful listening will add to the positive atmosphere we have this morning to submit questions for our speakers uh use the QR code in your program uh we'll select questions from these submissions during our Q&A session so again make sure you've submitted them before the break um at this time please ensure all your mobile devices are silenced uh there'll be a few sounds that you'll hear uh for the for the debate uh when time is coming low uh when there's just 30 seconds remaining uh Bennett's going to help me you're going to hear two wooden claps just like that and when time is up you'll hear a bell ring there you go and so uh our speakers will be aware of when their time is up so if there's uh yeah so at this point it's my pleasure to introduce our speakers uh first to speak in the affirmative I'm going to read both bios right now uh we're going to welcome them both with Applause and then we'll get on with our debate uh our first speaker is Alex Alex is a lifelong Catholic who has always been passionate about sharing the faith he quickly became known as a Teenage Prodigy in his local community after becoming a catechist and apologist at age 16 teaching not only other teenagers but even adults in parochial Faith formation in 2023 Alex applied his Knowledge and Skills to the the world of social media and is now popularly known as the voice of reason he quickly amassed a large following on Tik Tok and Instagram voiceof reason unor clips and on YouTube at voice of reason today's debate will be only his third ever public debate and his first one in person our second speaker is Dr James R white Dr White is a Christian apologist author and theologian he is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix Arizona and is the pastor of uh apologia Church home of the end abortion now Ministry Dr White has authored more than 24 books including the Roman Catholic controversy the scripture alone and scripture alone he is a professor and accomplished debater and has engaged in public debates with leading proponents of world world various various worldviews Dr White has also host the dividing line a webcast dedicated to theological discussions today's debate will be his 190th public debate uh James has been married to Kelly for 42 years and is a grandfather with five living children with five living grandchildren andless I botch the name how do we pronounce your church name Dr White apologia I was on point not how it should be pronounced but they did that before I got all right my wife said apologia is what it should be and that's a running joke between me and everybody there so I I eventually gave up you got the record straight from the horse's mouth so here we are so um let's welcome our two Debaters at this time so we're excited for the debate to begin uh Alex the floor is yours for your opening statement thank you everybody for being here this morning yes I am only here because five other guys said no so but that's okay I'm so happy to be here today we are here to discuss what the Bible has to say about just what exactly is the ultimate Authority for every Christian believer for the church as a whole this answer is actually a simple one and it's one that both sides of this debate wholeheartedly agree on all of us here today whether Catholic or Protestant believe that God is the ultimate infallible Authority we all believe that God fully revealed himself in Jesus Christ and that this fullness of Revelation was given to God's people who preserved it to the present day we also agree that any other infallible authorities outside of God can only have such Authority if it comes from God himself self we also agree that infallible authorities cannot contradict each other or contradict God so what do we disagree about we disagree about how many other infallible authorities God gave us we disagree on how God's revelation was contained and who can definitively interpret it the solar scriptural position is that God's revelation is contained only in the writings of the people who received the Revelation the Catholic position is that it is contained in what these people wrote In also in what they preached solo scriptura says that there is no need for a human infallible interpreter Catholicism says that God's church is the infallible interpreter so the Catholic side says scripture tradition and the church and the Protestant side says scripture alone thank God we have common ground so we can solve this issue since we all agree about the authority of scripture we can turn to it and see what it has to say about this matter upon Examining the Scriptures closely and honestly we can come to the conclusion that the Bible cannot be the only infallible Authority because the Bible clearly teaches that there are indeed other infallible authorities outside of it the scripture comes from the apostles the word Apostle means one who was sent with the authority of the one who sent him this is why Jesus himself says to his Apostles in Luke 10:16 whoever hears you hears me and whoever rejects you rejects me we can't know or obey Jesus without obeying his Apostles so we read the writing so that we can know how to obey them but when we read their writings which all have God's Authority behind them we discover something remarkably unsettling there are at least 10 problems that we run into if we go by the Bible Alone number one the Bible calls 18 different men Apostles and even alludes to there being more Apostles than just those than just those 18 but of those 18 we only have writings from six of them now we can reason our way around this we might say that all of the Apostles received the same message from Jesus so even if we don't have the writings of most of the Apostles we still have the fullness of Revelation in the writings that we do have from Apostles but this hypothesis actually doesn't hold up when it runs into the other nine problems number two when we read the writings we do have from Apostles we see that there are important teachings that one Apostle wrote down that are not found in any of the writings of the other Apostles for example in the writings of Matthew and John we find many of the the important teachings Miracles and events of the life of Jesus Christ that are never mentioned At All by Paul Peter James or Jude and we have many important teachings from Paul that are not found in the writings of any of the other Apostles what this means is that the totality of the content within the deposit of Faith was not completely recorded by any one single Apostle so even with all the writings of the six Apostles put together how do we know if there weren't other important teachings from the other Apostles that weren't recorded in the writings that we do have and this dilemma is only made worse when we run into the third problem which is from the Bible alone we know that there are writings from Apostles that are missing in 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul makes reference to a prior letter he had written to the Corinthians and in Colossians 4:16 he instructs the Colossians to read an epistle that he had written to the Lans we do not have either of these writings when we consider the previous problem I outlined how do we know that there weren't any important teach teachings that were unique to those missing letters and that leads us to the fourth problem which is that the Bible alone doesn't give us the entire Canon of scripture in order for solar scriptura to be true we need to have the scriptura first but there is nothing in the scriptures that give us the list of writings that belong in the Bible what this means is that we must rely on a source outside of scripture that can identify the cannon for us but if there are no infallible authorities outside of scripture that means that it's possible that we could be missing books or have extra books or both would God allow his people to find themselves in such an epistemological dilemma number five the Bible often makes reference to important teachings in an elusive way with coded language and without telling us the plain meaning of what is being referenced for example Mark 1314 says when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be let those in Judea flee to the mountains the text doesn't tell us what this is referring to but the author here actually inserts a parenthetical comment in this verse in this verse which is let the reader understand so Mark does not tell us what this means but he expects the reader to understand it in 2 Thessalonians 2 St Paul talks about the man of lawlessness and in verse 5 he even asked the Thessalonians if they remember what he had told them about this man when he was with them in person in verse six he mentions that they know what is restraining this man but he doesn't mention what he's referring to in these verses Revelation 13:18 John mentions the famous Number of the Beast 6 66 but he does not tell us what or who this is referring to in fact John says in that verse that in order to know this what this means one needs two things wisdom and understanding there's that word again understanding which actually leads us to our next dilemma number six the scriptures can be twisted misunderstood and misinterpreted 2 Peter 3 says that the scriptures can be hard to understand which the ignorant and unstable Twist of their own destruction in Acts 8 we read about the Ethiopian unic reading the prophet Isaiah and Philip the Apostle asking him if he understood what he was reading the Ethiopian unic responded by saying how can I unless someone guides me then Philip guides him so how do we know that we are not personally guilty of twisting the scriptures due to our own false understanding can we judge ourselves to have more understanding than the Ethiopian unic do we not need someone to guide us this actually leads to the seventh problem scripture actually forbids private definitive interpretation in second Peter 120 this actually makes sense when we consider that Jeremiah 179 says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt and Proverbs 3:5 tells us that we should not lean on our own understanding can any one of us honestly say that we have the right interpretation of all the scriptures all the time in light of what the scriptures say about our own personal fallibility number eight the six apostles who did leave us writings tell us in those writings that they didn't even record all of their teachings John tells us in his Gospel of account that there are many things about Jesus that he didn't write down the writings of Peter James and Jude are so short that there is no way that was all they ever taught in their long careers as Apostles and none of them mention almost anything at all from the gospel accounts or from the writings of Paul acts 20:35 even gives us a Verbatim quote from Jesus that isn't even found in the gospel accounts the very short book of third John ends like this I had much to write to you but I would not rather write with pen and ink I hope to see you soon and we will talk together face to face so how do we know that we have all of Revelation in the scriptures since not everything is recorded in them number nine God's people never held the solar scriptura even during the times of Jesus and the apostles the New Testament makes multiple references to ancient Jewish beliefs that are not found in the Old Testament 1 Corinthians 10:4 mentions a supernatural rock that followed Moses and the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness that belief is nowhere in the Old Testament but it is is in rinic Tradition 2 Timothy 3:8 mentions Janus and jambus opposing Moses but those two names are nowhere in the Old Testament Jude n mentions the Archangel Michael contending with the devil over the body of Moses that belief is nowhere in the Old Testament but it is in the Book of Enoch John 10 mentions Jesus observing the Feast of the dedication also known as Hanukkah but that's not in the Old Testament at least not in the Protestant Old Testament it is in the Catholic Old Testament book of First mccabes in Matthew 23 Jesus himself affirms the seed of Moses is an authentic teaching Authority this Authority is found nowhere in the Old Testament but it is in rinic tradition which tells us that uh those who sat in the seat had the authority to teach and interpret the scriptures in a way that was biting for the Jews John 11 mentions that the high priest at the time caiaphus was able to prophesy precisely because of the office of the high priesthood which is a clear example of a teaching Authority that is infallible outside of the Hebrew scriptures also the New Testament gives us at least four formal verbatim quotations from the Old Testament scriptures that are nowhere to be found those these quotes are given in Matthew 2:23 John 7:38 Ephesians 5:14 and James 4:5 none of these quotes can be found in the Old Testament our problems are about to get worth the 10th the 10th issue the Bible tells us that we're supposed to follow the teachings of the Apostles that were not written down St Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that we must hold fast to the traditions of the Apostles taught either by letter or by Word of Mouth he even commends the Corinthians for observing the Traditions he gave them but he doesn't tell us in his writings what those Traditions are and this is in his first letter to the Corinthians meaning he had already taught them and gave them these Traditions before he wrote what we consider to be First Corinthians what does all of this mean does this mean the Bible isn't enough is it insufficient of course not the Bible tells us that it is sufficient and indeed the Catholic Church agrees we can be a um but how can it be sufficient when we consider all of these problems scripture gives us the answer by attesting to something outside of the scriptures that has the answers the church this is where we discover the wisdom of God Ephesians 3:10 says the wisdom of God is made known through the church Matthew 16 tells us that Jesus established a church which makes the church a Divine institution it's visible because of its many members and because of its visible head the Apostle Peter who Jesus declared to be the rock the church is built upon he also puts Peter in charge of the other Apostles in Luke 22 and even and even over the entire flock of Christ in John 21 we also read in the gospels and in Acts that Peter speaks for and represents all of the uh Church which is why Ephesians 220 says that the church is founded upon all of the Apostles and Prophets we see that this church was given Authority by Christ because in Matthew 16:18 it says of the church what you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven what you loose on Earth will be loosed in heaven so church pronouncements have Heavenly ratification The Binding part of this Authority includes Doctrine the church can bind her subjects to belief and doctrines and Heaven ratifies this this would be NE this would necessarily mean that The Church Must Be infallible when it comes to its binding teachings because we know that heaven would not ratify anything that would be an error but we can come to this conclusion not just through necessary implication but because Jesus himself tells us in John 14 and6 that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth and we know the Holy Spirit would not allow the church to bind itself to any falsehoods this is why the church is called the Pillar of Truth in first Timothy 3:15 the church is just as essential as the scriptures themselves which is why Hebrews 13:17 commands us to obey our leaders and submit to them for they are keeping watch over our souls but how do we know which leaders to submit to and does any person with the Bible qualify as a leader who has the authentic authority to carry out the functions of the church such as disciplining the church's subjects the way Matthew 18 outlines the Bible gives us the answer in this as to this as well in Acts one we see that the Apostle Judas was replaced by maias after the apostles laid their hands on him so that he could take judas's office the Greek word for office here is episcopa which is transl ated in many bibles as episcopate or Bishop Rick that's why the Bible calls many uh other men Apostles because it uses the broader meaning of the term to refer to the successors of Christ's Apostles as well these Bishops were Barnabas Silas apollis and Timothy and these men received Apostolic Authority through the laying on of hands to not only teach but to also to ordain other men to Ministry through the laying on of their hands this is all outlined in Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus which make clear that this line of apostolic succession will always continue There is no indication whatsoever in Scripture that this Apostolic succession will end and that's how we can know today which leaders to follow and Obey we follow and Obey those leaders who are ordained through the laying on of Hands In The Unbroken chain that goes back to the apostles and who are united to the visible head who is Peter these are the Ministers of the Catholic Church Apostolic succession also fixes the 10 problems with solar scriptura not only do we have the writings of some of the Apostles but we have the successors of all of the Apostles and it is these successors whose job it is to teach and interpret the apostolic deposit of Faith as well as to bind and loose the subjects of the church to their pronouncements Paul says to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2 what you have heard from me before meing Witnesses in trust to Faithful Men Who will will be able to teach others also this instruction tells us everything we need to know the teachings of the apostles were primarily taught orally they were heard by many witnesses and they were entrusted to men that they ordained who in turn passed it down to other men that they ordained Paul didn't say to his successors that they would have secret hidden esoteric teachings that no one had ever heard of or even verbatim quotes from him or Jesus or any of the other Apostles he says that their teachings were public and heard by many witnesses and indeed the teachings of the Catholic Church are these publicly proclaimed teachings that can be found in the writings and public proclamations of the successors of the Apostles from the very beginning of the church's life but these teachings are not what this debate is about today this debate is not about purgatory indulgences the Maran dogmas or any particular teachings of the Catholic church this debate is about whether or not the Catholic Church even has a god-given infallible authority to pronounce binding doctrines in the first place this debate is about if solar scriptura is true if solar scriptura is true then it must be found in the scriptura now let me be clear we are not demanding that the exact words of the definition need to be formally or even explicitly in the scripture we just need something anything that would even implies Sol scriptura to be true for example if the Bible said something like all of divine revelation is fully contained in the written scriptures or all authorities on Earth are subject to the scriptures or only the teachings of scripture are irreformable then solar scriptura would be true but the Bible doesn't say any of these things or anything else that would carry that necessary implication we can look for it in every page of the Bible but it is nowhere to be found meaning that Sol of scriptura fails its own test and is therefore a false Doctrine the Catholic Church however is exactly what the scriptures themselves direct us to as the infallible Authority that preserves and definitively interprets the apostolic deposit of faith thank you all very much for your [Music] [Applause] attention well good morning it is uh AB hear me pretty well okay all right just want to make sure you can hear me well uh because my voice is not nearly as booming and uh liable to be sued by Sylvester Stallone as uh as Alex is is so uh I just want to want you to know I am not going to be standing up here talking about what can be unburdened by what has been the fact that all of you didn't laugh there means some of you are not keeping up with current events so we we need to work on that it is good to be here this morning and I appreciate Alex being here I'm not sure we went through five people before you are not but um uh I'm very thankful that you have made the trip from Albuquerque and that we're going to have this conversation at the same time I have to say you can say this debate isn't about all of these dogmas the problem is that the thesis the debate talks about Catholic teaching Authority and we have to be able to identify what Rome has specific identified on the basis of her own authority and whether those are Apostolic beliefs and so I want to point out that what we're dealing with here is very much a presuppositional situation now I am a presuppositionalist what does that mean when I do apologetics I recognize that there are certain presuppositions that have to be dealt with to be able to engage an atheist for example and their use of logic and reason and things like that we have to have a certain starting place and since we live in God's world uh then we have to utilize the standards that he has revealed for us in our reasoning and argumentation and we all start someplace the problem is having listened for example to a previous debate that that Alex did he has his presuppositions I have mine we need to lay them out clearly and to be able to understand how they are impacting the reasoning that we are using on this subject and so so I could just immediately jump into the 10 problems but I'll I'll wait at least toward the end of my presentation and into the rebuttal period for to be able to do that I want to make sure everyone my big goal today is that when you leave this room you will have a clear understanding of what solar scriptura is even though that's not the specific uh issue it says not solar well I'll Define that for you but you'll be able to understand what Alex is position is because I would argue that in many of these areas I don't think Alex represents the current pope I think he may have represented the previous Pope more than the current pope and there's part of the problem is that the current pope is fundamentally different in his teachings and the head of the decter of the faith the old Inquisition is even more different in his beliefs and in his definitions than well for example the the Pope that was on the throne of Rome when I started dealing with Roman Catholicism many many years ago the first debate I did in August of 1990 with Jerry mattics on the subject of solo scriptura we're going to have a different conversation why because Rome has changed since then the beliefs have changed I didn't bring it with me but I have the big one volume Jerome Bible commentary that just came out fairly just within the past what about two years or so that that big huge one and with a forward by Pope Francis the perspectives represented by everyone Pope Francis has put on the papal biblical commission sort of important job you know the perspectives represented by those Scholars are not the perspectives of the Catholic apologist that I debated in 1990 things have changed in fact I remember very very clearly Catholic answers used to challenge everybody how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew I submit to you that every single person on the pap biblical commission today would say we don't know Matthew wrote Matthew in fact we don't know who wrote almost anything in the New Testament well that's changed how did that change what's going on here how is it that there are many Roman Catholics today that are saying we are in a crisis we are in a crisis the current pope is purposely seeking to fundamentally change the church fundamentally determine who is successor is going to be and with fedua supplicant being less than a year old and only being a few years since the pope changed the teaching in Universal Catholic catechism on capital punishment I submit to you I submit to you that Pope Francis and Cardinal f if they had held the positions that they teach today as the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the year 1600 without repenting they would have been burned at the stake by the Inquisition in 1600 now if that's true and I think there are a lot of Roman Catholics that agree with me on that if that's true how do you have something called Apostolic tradition how are you guarding a a supposedly Apostolic positive faith if you have the ability to have these changes taking place I suggest to you that the real crisis that we see today within Roman Catholicism the only way to solve that crisis is to embrace Sol of scriptura because scripture is the only infallible Revelation 1990 I debated a wonderful man by name of Mitchell Paca most of you know father Mitch uh the sole conservative Jesuit on the planet and uh we debated in San Diego guess what solos scriptura yes I've debated it many many times and I asked Mitch during the cross- examination can you give us a single word that Jesus ever spoke that has been infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church that's not found in scripture and he said no I said can you give me a single word that any Apostle ever spoke that has been infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic church and he said no at the end of that debate I walked up to the podium and I I laid out the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent and Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 and the commentaries and the code of canon law and all the rest of that stuff and I said what we're being told tonight is that this stack of books makes it easier to understand Romans 51 therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ I say to you these books do not clar ify Romans 51 they muddy Romans 51 God has given us his word with sufficient Clarity to know what it says and so what am I claiming I am claiming that scripture is ontologically unique it is theonas it is God breathed there is nothing else that is God breathed the Roman Catholic Church is not God breathed Peter was not God breathed as an individual in fact you read Peter's short Epistles and what does he do he quotes from the Old Testament over and over again just like all the apostles did the scriptures are unique because they're God speaking when Jesus refuted the Sadducees he said have you not read what God spoke to you saying and then he quotes from words that have been written 1400 years earlier and he held the man of his day accountable for what had been written 1,400 years earlier as if God had spoken it directly to [Music] them now how' they know that with scripture there were no infallible councils in fact the Jewish people rejected the Apocrypha books that 1,500 years after the crucifixion of Christ were dogmatically added to the Canon by the Council of Trent a 8 1546 first dogmatic definition of the can of scripture so how could they have even known if you require an infallible counsel to know what scripture is you don't need an infallible counsel to know what scripture is Jesus said to those men God spoke to you in what he wrote and you need to believe that that's why Peter and that was this reference was brought up uh by by Alex was when Peter said no scriptures of any the I guess translation is using private interpretation this is talking about the prophet he says scripture does not come from any prophet's desire to just I'm going to sit down and write scripture today no instead men spoke from God as they were being carried Along by the Holy Spirit that's Peter's view of scripture men spoke from God as they're being carried along by the holy spirit that does not happen in Rome today that did not happen when fedua supplicant was promulgated that does not happen when the Pope says homosexuality who am I to judge well scripture judged a long time ago and I can guarantee it's not happening in the sinon and cidality when you have a bunch of people in there lecturing the Bishops on how they need to be inclusive how did Rome get to where it's gotten because it doesn't have solo scriptor once you believe in the infallibility of the Pope you have the church in monologue with herself there's no there's no longer any objective way of correcting the church because she's claimed her own infallibility you want to know what Apostolic tradition is my friends there it is every bit of it everything the the Holy Spirit want us to have is right there this happens to be a Greek New Testament so I could grab the nice big black Bible right there and we have everything all of scripture has been given to us in these books this is sufficient for us this defines the offices of the church there are two of them Elders which are also presor overseers it's all the same office according to Apostle Paul and deacons and we're given the qualifications of those offices where are the qualifications of the pope what are the qualifications of cardinals what's the qualifications of the multitude of offices that have been introduced into Roman Catholicism we don't have anything from God on that you have to go to the church on that so what we have today is solar scriptura versus Sola Ecclesia the scriptures as a sole infallible rule of Faith versus the church as a sole infallible rule of Faith the problem is what we see today and I could sit here and I could have gotten up here and I could have fired off I could have read from Von Dollinger and run through all of the stuff about honorius and liberus and and all of the problems in the history of the Roman Catholic church but you see this is a presuppositional argument because then Alex is going come up and he's going to interpret that information in light of the pre-commitment he already has to the infallibility of the Pope and the the infallible authority of the Roman Catholic Church the idea of apostolic succession Apostolic tradition the deposit of Faith etc etc but that's why we have to look at this presupposition we have to look at where we are starting and the fact of the matter is we only have one thing that we agree literally comes from God and that has the impr premature shall we say of the Lord Jesus himself because when you boil it right down this is an issue of what was Jesus's view Jesus did not make Peter a pope no one in the early church believed that that develops much later there are far better interpretations of Matthew 16 Luke 22 and and and John and and all the other passages we may end up looking at and that we have looked at in debates that I've done with Mitch Paca and things like that on the papacy the fact of the matter is Jesus's view scripture is very clear it is God speaking to us it has a unique Authority and therefore when we look at Rome's claims when Rome tells us you must believe that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven as a part of the Gospel when I can debate Roman Catholic apologist like Jerry Mantic and he will literally stand in front of an audience and say we have just as much warrant to believe in the bodly Assumption of Mary as we have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ I say that claim must be examined in the light of scripture and Rome says you can't you just simply have to believe could weing your time okay all right that was a pretty good trick there I must say all right we continue on so when Rome makes these claims when Rome defines dogmas as part of the Christian faith we have the right to compare what Rome says to what the apostles taught and Rome says no you can't do that you can't even know what the apostles taught outside of our Authority that's what the issue is it's presuppositional it's presuppositional now let's look at some of the uh claims that were made because there were 10 of them and the rebuttal time is never nearly as long as what you need so many apostles but we only have a certain amount of right yeah there are lots of prophets in the Old Testament we don't have all their writings either that didn't change Jesus's view of the Old Testament as being final and authoritative in all of his citations number two the apostles do not address all topics nor did they need to nor did the Lord Jesus Christ have to address all topics in everything that he said God is going to give us what he wants us to have the New Testament does not give us an exhaustive account of every word Jesus ever said that is not an argument against solo scriptura because solar scriptura is not claiming that we have everything that that Jesus said or that we need everything that Jesus said third we do not have all Apostolic writings and he quotes for example Colossians 4:16 the Epistle of leosia that was probably Ephesians Ephesians was a circular letter being distributed but it doesn't matter um Paul probably wrote down a grocery list a few times we don't need that just because an apostle wrote it does not mean that God intends it to exist within the Canon of scripture the Bible does not provide a Canon nor or does it need to again Jesus held men accountable to the Old Testament Canon without any infallible counsels that had met without any an angels coming down and the reality is that the only difference we have on the canon in regards the Apocrypha and go listen to the various debates we've done on this subject if you want to but the issue there there basically let's put it this way the more early writers knew about the Old Testament and the Hebrew language the less likely they were to agree with Rome you have popes that rejected the the apocryphal books molos Sardis origin uh Jerome did not believe in in the can in those he did translate them because he was told to he did not believe their Canon scripture because he knew the Jews had never accepted them along those those uh lines either and to say well but we can tell you what the Canon is and we defined it April 8th 1546 man let me tell you something the greatest threat against the early church was gnosticism and man could they have used an infallible Cannon against agnostics Rome gave him nothing nothing so with that that's just the beginning of the responses that can be given to the claims of authority that Rome makes but remember keep in mind this is a presuppositional discussion will Alex give you the foundations of these claims that's what we've got to deal with for the next period of time together thank you very much for your attention you just always wanted to ring a bell haven't you DR why you can stay up there because you'll have the first time of well minutes hold on just a second there you don't you don't talk and then immediately start talking again so Alex would you keep up writing all those notes I tried I tried I was having a hard time with you too so just were okay let me reset my clock here what uh how much time we got seven minutes all right okay so we continue on with where we just were uh we were told that uh the Bible uses coded language a a reference was made to Mark uh which actually comes from prophetic language same thing in the Book of Revelation but here's here's the issue okay where does Roman infallibly Define any of those texts where I have asked my Roman Catholic apologist friends over and over again you complain that we need to have an infallible interpreter where is the infallible commentary on the Bible is it the Drome Bible commentary and you'll all go no no no no no no no because I have that and it's leftist liberal tripe that would not that would have caused their authors to have been burned by the Inquisition in the year 1600 so what has been infallibly uh interpreted I've been told well there's like seven verses but even then the seven verses that have been infallibly interpreted are interpreted in such a way they say but it could have other meanings we're just saying that this is one meaning you have to believe after 2,000 years if you think it really is the role of the Roman Church to provide infallible interpretation where's the entire set of commentaries it doesn't exist and it can't exist because there is no quote unquote Apostolic tradition that has been passed down from the apostles through the episcopate that gives you the interpretation so you can say well there's tough things to interpret in the Bible there's a whole lot of tough things to interpret in everything Francis says you're not getting anywhere here you're just increasing the confusion and without infallible interpretations this is not an argument the scriptures can be twisted Peter said you know well there's some stuff that Paul wrote untaught and unlearned men can twist their own destruction what does that mean that means that taught and stable men can handle it correctly right so if untaught and unstable can twist it then taught and stable men can handle it correctly which is why Paul said to Timothy those men that you've observed who've heard my teachings in public entrust these things to them not to priests aren't any new testament priests in that sense not to popes not to Cardinals to them they're the elders in the local churches that's how the Holy Spirit set these things up as I mentioned second Peter 1:20 is not about private interpretation it is about a a prophet simply deciding to write scripture and in contrast to that it is men spoke from God as they are carried Along by the Holy Spirit it's not in any way uh a Prohibition or a saying to the people of God you can't go to the word of God to hear what God himself has said um we are told that they didn't record everything solos scriptura does not say that the Bible is an exhaustive revelation of Everything Jesus ever said we are not told what color the apostles eyes were we don't know what the apostolic menus were there's all sorts of things like that and that has nothing to do with solo scriptura zos scriptura is that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of Faith which means god gets to determine what goes in the scriptures and if he doesn't want to tell us those things guess what he doesn't have to tell us those things and he hasn't um but I just have to point out in passing Rome doesn't tell us those things either Rome doesn't answer any of those questions and in fact the modern Roman Church is moving farther and farther away from being able to answer those questions I mean let's remember Pope 6 the 5th gave us an infallible Vulgate it only lasted for like a year and a half uh before it was sown to be filled with errors but he said in an Apostolic Constitution this is the final Authority at least he thought there was a final written Authority I don't think Pope Francis believes that so we're going the wrong direction here at least for these arguments to have any type of meaning he said the God's people did not hold solar scriptura well if you mean during periods of inscript of course not you have to have a scriptura to have solo scriptura and so if you're saying well when the prophet Isaiah was alive no one said you can't do that because of solar scriptura that's not that's not our claim we all believe that there are no more Apostles at least I hope we do any Mormons here anyway um that leads to real problems so we don't have any Apostles uh to be giving scripture or anything like that that so the question is what has been given to the church today after the last Apostle died what did they have and we are not saying that the church had no Authority at all that's not the question the church's Authority is always underneath what is God breathed when I stand before the people of apologia church and I proclaim the gospel and I say to them if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ your sins have been forgiven you've been adopted in the family of God you have eternal life I say that with the authority of God through the scripture not because I'm an ordained Pastor in a church we can talk about there's an unbroken chain believe you me Anyone who reads history knows there is no unbroken chain not unless you're just going to close your eyes the pornocracy and the Babylonian captivity the church and all the rest of that there is no unbroken chain the only meaningful unbroken chain you need to worry about today to the apostles is do you teach and preach what the apostles taught and we only know that from what's right here that's the only way to know that's the only way to know um mention the seed of Moses yes he did Jesus didn't overthrow the synagogue worship but that did not mean that he he was saying that the synagogue had some kind of infallible Authority interpretation of scripture he says don't do what they do he corrected them on that very very issue uh the high priest did not have infallible Authority just because God used the high priest that had been put there by the Romans to prophesy against his will he didn't know what he was saying in that sense does not mean that that high priest had infallible Authority and finally next time I get the opportunity to speak I want to have you open your Bibles we'll look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 because I was wondering when I came here is is Alex going to go that direction and I'm glad he did I just didn't know beforehand and so I couldn't make it a part of the presentation but we're going to spend some time walking through 2 Thessalonians 2:15 making sure we understand exactly what is said there I think I got through all 10 of them thank you for your time let's see if you can talk that fast oh man let's see if I can talk that fast challenge accept number one he said Pope Francis and uh that the things that he has taught are fundamentally fundamentally different from what the Catholic church has thought over the last 2,000 years I challenge Dr White to provide one magisterial statement from Pope Francis on matters of Faith Andor morals that has ever contradicted any other magisterial statement of the Catholic church he can't do it um number two papal biblical commission and what they believe about who uh was the author of Matthew the papal biblical commission is not the magisterium they have no magisterial author Authority so whatever they say is not binding on any Catholic whatsoever number three fushia suant in capital punishment I challenge do white to quote something from F from fuia suon that actually contradicts anything the Catholic church has thought in the last 2,000 years he can't do it because it's not there capital punishment a lot of people get this wrong people think that Pope Francis changed the church's teaching about the morality of capital punishment he did not changed the church's teaching about the morality of of capital punishment what Pope Francis did is that he said that capital punishment should not be used he said it is inadmissible not that it is all of a sudden immoral and you know who else had that same position St Augustine St a St Augustine said that capital punishment was moral in principle but that it should not be used so that people who uh who are uh convicted that they have time to repent find Jesus Christ and die in Grace the next thing solar scriptura can fix the the problems in the church well I think we all are aware that that's not true something that I found very interesting is that just across the street of this reformed uh Baptist Church there's another Reformed Church a Presbyterian Church I don't think they're in communion and I think that they actually have different beliefs for example I understand that this church and I might be wrong doesn't believe in infant baptism but the church across the street another Reformed Church they do believe in infant baptism but if they go both go by solar scriptura uh why would they have come to different conclusions so no solar scripture doesn't fix any issues it actually creates more issues and thousands of more Den denominations um he also said uh did the church ever um uh Define a single word of Jesus Christ for the apostles well I mentioned that in my opening statement the Catholic church has never said that it has to Define any words of Jesus or the apostles in the same way that Dr White has said that the Bible doesn't have to record what the apostles had for lunch or breakfast or their laundry list or anything like that um so so why is Dr White using different weights and different measures for two different things that doesn't work it is inconsistent as and as I believe a wise man once said inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument um and then he also said uh a stack of books to clarify the scriptures well Dr Wright has written many books there's about 24 books that he's written I could collect all of those books stack them up and I can say Dr White are you telling me that I need all of these books to be able to understand what the scriptures say so why is his stack of books different from the stack of books that the Catholic church has produced over 2,000 years um and then he says uh scripture is unique guess what the Catholic Church actually agrees with that scripture is unique this is not about the antology of scripture this is about the epistemology of scripture how do we know that scripture is indeed scripture um and he also uh said he you were talking really fast and my handwriting got really sloppy let me see he said oh when Pope Francis gave that famous line in an airplane when he said who am I I'm all right I'm all right I'm not there yet when he said who am I to judge well I would ask Dr White if uh airplane interviews that the pope does or interviews that he does on CNN on 60 Minutes if those are magisterial teachings of the church they're not and when Pope Francis said that who am I to judge he was actually referring to one specific person it was a priest that he was asked about a priest who was living uh celibate obviously and he wasn't engaging in any sexual activity and he said who am I a judge if someone that has the inclination to same-sex activity is not falling into that inclination and not behaving on it who am I to judge if they're actually trying to follow God that was all he said and it's not magisterial um also um so he also said things about let me read this really quick so he said that Jesus held the Jews of the day to the scriptures but that doesn't prove solar scriptura especially when you consider how Jesus also held them to the other authorities outside of scripture I already mentioned the seed of Moses and Dr White has one interpretation of the seed of Moses but the Jews at the time in rabic Tradition had a different interpretation of the seed of Moses was that whoever sat in that seed had the authority to interpret infallibly and bind the Jews to those beliefs and then um how did the ancient how did the ancient Jews know what the scriptures were well not all of them did and we know this from the Bible and from Jesus himself the Bible tells us that the Sadducees rejected the belief of the resurrection of the body but how could they reject such a belief if it's clearly and explicitly taught in the Book of Daniel well we get our answer to this in Matthew 22 which is where we read about the s Jes challenging Jesus on this belief how does Jesus reply to them he did not say to them have you not read the Prophet Daniel no what he did tell them was you do not know the scriptures he then proceeds to quote uh the Hebrew scriptures to them but he doesn't quote from Daniel instead he quotes from the law of Moses from which he draws out a necessary logical implication of the resurrection of the dead but why would Jesus just quote from uh uh why would Jesus not just quote the explicit passage from Daniel well a ancient Church historians tell us that the Sadducees only accepted the law of Moses and no other writings that explains why Jesus responded by telling them that they didn't know the scriptures and why he didn't quote from Daniel uh because the Sadducees didn't accept that book of scripture and this also disproves the idea that the Jews in Jesus's day had one defined Cannon of scripture uh which we know is just not true and then also um oh theas how you know can't leave that one out how much time do I got so Dr white demands actually I'm going to save that for later I think I got something else I'm going to save that for later not enough time for that one oh one of my favorites Trent defined the cendet of scripture Dr White claims that the Catholic Church didn't infallibly uh teach the C of scripture until the Council of Trent in the 16th century this is false the cannon of scripture had already been infallibly taught by the ordinary and Universal magisterium as early as the 4th Century what Dr White is referring to is that the Council of Trent is the the first time that the canet of scripture was defined by the extraordinary Universal magisterium and had anatos attached to it against anyone who would reject the cannon also the Council of Trent isn't even the first time that an ecumenical council lists the cannon the entire Cannon was listed at the Council of Florence in 1431 over 100 years before the Council of Trent and Dr White also said a whole bunch of other things uh the qualifications of Pope and Cardinals popes and Cardinals are Bishops so their qualifications are in scripture too I think that's all I got for now woo thank you we going to have to do it at Double speed Dr White just press the the option on your could we could we wipe off the podium here um yeah the Blood Sweat aners [Laughter] Right um before you before you start that timer um Alex I'm enjoying this and I really really appreciate you thank you so much this is one of the biggest honors of my life I've been watching this man for almost 10 years and the fact that I'm on stage with him I'm going to cry this is uh I'm very spoiled so thank you guys so much yeah I started doing this before he was born so before was born like and I'm and I'm enjoying it but we both have back problems so at least we're we both talked about it all right hope you don't mind I'm going to slow down a little bit um turn in your Bibles please second Thessalonians 2:15 2 Thessalonians 2:15 therefore Brethren stand firm State and hold fast to the Traditions which you were taught in two ways dialogu by Spoken Word or de epistolas through an epistle the written form what is Paul doing here is he saying that there is a Unwritten body of tradition because at the Council of Trent this was a big argument there is even a draft version of the final statement on the issue of scripture that said that scripture is given to us partly in the written and partly in the oral but that wasn't the one that was finally used and that argument has continued today is that what Paul is saying no this is second Thessalonians so the epistolas through epistle was first Thessalonians what then was Diago the preaching that Paul had given to them when he was with them so he's what's he talking about here what does it say it's about the gospel look at verses 13 and 14 and then followed up afterwards what he's saying is hold to what we have delivered to you both when we are with you in preaching and what I have sent to you hold firm hold fast to that there is nothing in this text that even hints at the idea of apostolic teaching that was going to be allegedly passed down through the episcopate for 2,000 years if that's the position that Alex is taking then he would have to be able to provide evidence that the very dogmas that have been defined by Rome on the basis of alleged Apostolic tradition can be traced back to the church at thessalonica and they can't do it that's the what's Reed Newman Reed Newman's responses to Von dullinger I know this is historical stuff and that's why I didn't want to get into it necessarily today because let us talking this fast if you've not read these things but take the time and recognize that a fun fundamental shift took place when John Henry Cardinal Newman presented the development hypothesis it was an abandonment of the of the field of Battle in History read read George samon's book uh the infallibility of church excellent discussion of these things but the point is it was basically saying we don't have to find these things Newman said we the early church didn't function on the basis of an infallible papacy but it developed over time and it's good that it developed over time that's the argument and that's really what Rome is left with today so if the claim is going to be this text actually presents a body of Apostolic tradition then you're you're need to show me somebody in the first century the second century the third Century the 4th Century that actually believed in the things that Rome has defined on the basis of Apostolic tradition and the easiest way to do that you're going to have to do that based upon you're have to prove the immaculate con ception bodily assumption and the infallibility of the Pope and you're not going to be able to do that that's why Newman did what he did he had to do what he did it's just simply not there um now think about for a second something that Alex said I'm only going to deal with magisterial statements give me one magisterial statement you need to understand how is Francis changing the church it's not by saying we are going to become inclusive I mean read what the Bishops the sinat of CID Al said as they came out of the last sessions he said they're having people lecture us on the goodness of inclusivity on homosexuality now they are not going to come out with some kind of statement that says homosexuality is good that's not how the movement has worked it's done one little bit one little step at a time and he said those those papal the papal biblical commission is not authoritative the papal biblical commission is going to be the Touchstone as to what the material is being taught to the next generation of priests is going to be that's exactly how you change the church and most effectively that's exactly how you do it and Protestants hold a much higher view of scripture than anyone on the papal bibl biblical commission what does that mean think about it yes you can change the church but if you want to do it with without causing immediate Schism you do it slowly and carefully and that's what Francis is doing and I am as a pro you may go you're a Protestant do you have any idea how many Roman Catholics agree with me on this and have said so openly they say they've been redpilled yeah there are a lot of them doing that I guess there's a Presbyterian Church along the way any anybody from the Presbyterian Church along the way because you see the Presbyterians are unless they're liberal Presbyterians would agree with everything said so far and I'm going to be doing a debate I've got two more debates to do on this trip how would you like to have two more debates to do in the next 10 days oh would have mercy see so I'm debating an open theist uh next week uh and he has no idea how that's going to go because his God doesn't either but anyway sorry um he's a nice guy too so but three day four days after that I'm debating a presbyterian on the nature of the New Covenant now does this prove Alex's point no it doesn't you know why because you know what the essence of that debate's going to be he and I are going to be digging into the Greek New Testament primarily in the book of Hebrews and we both believe that what is in here should be enough to cause either one of us to agree with what the other one is saying now in this life does that mean that there's going to be perfect agree you know what no you know why because we live in a sinful world and we live in a world where people have Traditions that they will place over the scriptures but he and I are not going to be going to outside authorities we're going to be going to what the word of God says and that's how it should be and that's how I wish Alex and I could be with each other but our divisions are bigger as yet I pray someday that they will end thank you very much [Applause] slow down take a breath I love it here please have me back as many times as you'd like I love this all right so let's see time is already going um Dr White said um he brought up oh honorius and liberus really quick the same Council that uh condemned honorius as being a heretic as uh the uh second Council third Council of Constantinople is the exact same Council that teaches papal infallibility so they condemn Pope and orus for having a private personal uh belief that was heretical but he never taught that in his magisterium which is what we're debating here and Pope liberus he was the one that SED the heretic he signed the heretical Aran document in the 4th Century well Pope liberus was kidnapped by the Roman Emperor taken somewhere else he was punished and he was tortured he was under the arrest and he was s he was forced to sign that document while he was under torture and saying that the nations of Alexandria actually defends Pope liberus for this and says what he signed you guys can ignore that because that's not magisterial because he signed it under duress and then Dr White says that no one believe in the early church no one believed that Peter was the pope well I have a list right here of 16 different sources and different Church fathers from the patristic age that all say that Peter was indeed the pope and then he also says um that the apostles uh didn't need to address all topics well he's correct they didn't need to address all topics they only needed to address the topics that they wanted us to know that we are bound to know and they addressed that in their writings and also in what they preached and what they handed down to the men that succeeded them um oh he also brings up uh the issue with uh L the his Epistle of the Le Deans and Dr White says that oh the Epistle of Leo Deans that's probably just Ephesians what does the bible say that it doesn't say that if Dr White wants to hold of that he has to go outside of the scripture rures to be able to know that the epistle to the leans was just uh the epistle to the Ephesians under a different name the Bible doesn't say that um also um oh he also gave a list of a bunch of people in the early church who uh rejected the seven dudal canonical that's actually not true because every single list every single name on the list that he gave you can actually find quotes from every single one of them including Pope Gregory including St Jerome including all of the people that he listed that actually site and quote the dudal canonical writings and they cite and quote them as scripture as God's word so that's not true he also says uh oh that gnosticism he said that uh gnosticism was one of the early heresies in the church and that Rome gave them nothing to combat gnosticism nothing the apostles themselves were combating gnosticism we see in the Epistles of John that they were combating nosism are the apostles nothing what about the successors of the Apostles again 2 Timothy 2:2 Peter uh Paul tells uh Timothy what you've heard from me preached publicly that you're going to take and you're going to uh teach it yourself and you're going to hand it down to trustworthy men that will also be able to teach it to others so no the church didn't give us nothing the church gave us Apostles prophets teachers evangelists and all of the different Ministries that St Paul uh uh outlines in his Epistles in 1 Corinthians and then um oh the pornocracy and the Babylonian in captivity of the church that that right there uh does Away With The Unbroken chain that's actually not true because The Unbroken chain of of Bishops and of Popes are going all the way back to the apostles has always been intact even uh during the pornocracy which is when we had naughty popes and just in case you guys didn't know don't be scandalized by this we've had a few naughty popes in history I've actually counted all of them it's about nine okay we've had 266 popes 267 if you count the other guy but only nine of them were naughty okay I think that's a pretty good track record only nine naughty popes but guess what those nine naughty popes not a single one of those n nauy popes ever ever promulgated any authoritative magisterial teaching that contradicted any of the previous teachings of the magisterium or any of the teachings of scripture as a matter of fact there was one or two of those really naughty popes that actually it's kind of weird they wrote like really really really beautiful theology that has also influenced Protestant ISM as well yeah naughty popes were able to do that because they're not the ones who are in charge it is the holy spirit that leads whoever the pope is uh and the church as a whole universally also um when uh Dr White brings up how Jesus when talking about the seed of Moses in Matthew 23 he says do not what they do well yeah that doesn't touch on what we're talking about today what we're talking about today is what do the uh the people who are in Authority what do they teach it's not about what they do because we're all Sinners what do yeah if we have uh uh bad Bishops uh bad priests bad popes bad Cardinals am I supposed to be surprised by that no because we're all Sinners but what is it that they are teaching that they are binding me to believe that is what has always remained intact and I would challenge anybody to provide just one instance of something flipping something changing it does not happen but we do have multiple instances of uh actual teachings official teachings of different products and denominations actually uh flipping and contrad predicting previous teachings um the uh high priest was not infallible well again that has to do with his actions and what he did the high priest played a role in putting Jesus to death but that is an action that has nothing to do with the actual teaching that he gave in John 11 where he says Jesus Christ he doesn't name him but he says one is going to die for the sins of many that is what we call a magisterial teaching and it doesn't matter what he did after that it's what he taught in a definitive way um oh and he says that I would have to provide evidence about the Thessalonians believing these Catholic dogmas well here's the beautiful thing we actually can provide that evidence we can because the Church of thessalonica has successors the Bishops successors of the Apostles that exist you know to this day you can actually still go to the Apostolic Church in thessalonica right there's the Catholic there's the Orthodox you know obviously but every single one of those churches guess what they believe they believe what the Catholic Church teach teaches dogmatically they believe all of those things they indeed do you can go to those churches and they believe all of the things that Dr James White would reject um how much time do I have um oh Cardinal Newman and doctrinal development a lot of people he brings this up as if Cardinal Newman uh invented doctrinal development no doctrinal development was explicitly taught by um uh St Vincent of Loren in the 5th Century he was the one that talked about doctrinal development it was not invented by Cardinal Newman in the 19th century and Cardinal Newman did not say that the papacy was an invention or a later uh development that has no basis in the early church um oh liberal Presbyterians if they accept solar scriptura why are they liberal because they know that's all I got if they're liberal they [Applause] don't all right ladies and gentlemen we have arrived at your favorite time the uh the break actually no I think we been enjoying all of this let's give one more round before you'll have 15 minutes and this time I want to turn the clock around so you know when to be back in your seats so we can start the next uh cross examination uh the debater gets to control the time and ask the questions um but of course allow a response uh but if he wants to change questions and and uh direct the conversation he can do that and then the same difference is given um by each so with without further Ado I think I think I will put this up so uh well now I'm going to keep facing this towards you gentlemen so you can see your time and I'll do the same uh 30 second clap towards the end and here we go after this we'll have audience Q&A so with that Alex the floor is yours to ask questions before we start my microphone is on right everyone can hear me yes okay all right I I can sort of hear you yeah you can sort of hear me now very good very good um give me one second I need you to identify what is in that one no never mind it's zero sugar Gatorade this is uh I was being factious watermelon Splash okay and I will if you guys want me to I will take a drug test I know I'm talking really fast but that's how I really talk like you can ask some of the people here my patrons that they do Zoom calls with me I really talk like that all right okay um so Dr White you do agree that the Bible does tell us that the apostles did leave successors to oversee and lead the church correct I wouldn't use the term successors they established two offices in the church um Bishop overseer um Elder they're all the same office according to the Apostle Paul and deacons uh so successor sounds like further Apostles and I don't believe that they're further Apostles uh they established and in fact the scripture says in Acts to strengthen the churches they appointed Elders in the churches and and you do agree that many of these uh Bishops Elders are also called Apostles in the New Testament as well such as Timothy Silas Titus um there is a lot of discussion as to exactly how the term Apostle is used in the New Testament um and the differentiation between an apostle who is a witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and someone who is sent as a messenger say to Gentile churches there is a a difference in the terminology that is used okay and Dr White it is your position that Sol scriptura uh came into play after the death of the last Apostle correct well uh I I would say that it was uh the default should have been the default and would have helped if it had been the default uh during the inter testamental period uh because much of the problems that developed within intertestamental Judaism were because they used non- inspired sources uh but yes the scriptura must exist and because of its nature once it comes into existence it is the ultimate Authority so Dr White uh would your position be then that after the death of the last apostle that the early church the immediate Christians used scripture held the Sol scripture in the sense of recognizing the ultimate Authority obviously there's a whole period of time for example Justin Martyr doesn't even seem to have Paul's Epistles so uh just as there was a period of De development uh in the canon in the inter testamental period it's about 200 years before Christ before the books we have in the Old Testament not the dudal Chronicles were laid up in the temple and considered holy there's about the same time period before the muroran fragment about 187 um where there are people in early church that did not have the entire Cannon right so what in what century would you say Dr White that the church was able to recognize the entirety of the cannon well um certainly uh athus gives us his 39th fesal letter in 367 which gives us pretty much with small variations primarily due to Greek manuscripts um so it's pretty much the same time period you have in the inter testamental Church uh where you you have and the uh Gnostic conflicts and the Aryan conflicts help to give clarification these things uh because you had to know what sources you were going to be drawing from to answer these questions so does that mean that solar scriptura didn't come into play until around the time of athanasius well when you say come into play uh again there is a time period that we don't uh we we live in a day where when something happens across the world uh we find out about it instantly I don't know about the rest of you but what happened last night in Paris is something I didn't want to find out about instantly um but but I did do you did you see that by the way I I heard it I didn't see it but I about it that is disgusting don't even go there it's disgusting you I should team up and just go take care of them well yeah okay um my point my point is um it took time for scriptural books to be copied and distributed and especially during the Roman suppression and especially the major period between 303 and 313 where thousands of manuscripts were destroyed it took time for these these books to be distributed and for Community to become familiar with them it was a it was a process that goes much slower in the ancient world than it does today okay so can you point to any particular maybe Church Father around the time when the church had uh recognized the entirety of the cannon that would have believed solar scriptura oh sure I mean athanasius in his uh writings against the Aryans says the scriptures are sufficient for the establishment of the truth and his arguments against the Aryans he didn't particularly like the term uh hosius uh he was stuck with it because that's what had been used to the council but anyone who has seriously and I've dealt with unitarians Jehovah's Witnesses people like that for decades and reading athanasius's responses against the Aryans is just wonderful and when he uses the term Apostolic tradition it's always subbi biblical in other words it is a belief derived from scriptures not a belief derived from an oral tradition outside of scriptures which I'm not sure if that's what you were meaning in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or not we'll have to clarify that later so Dr White your position you would say that say the nation held the solo scriptura there is a quote from him where he says um had they and he is referring to this is from Orion 3 where he says had they dealt with the thoughts of the had they dwelt on these thoughts and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith they would not have made shipwreck of the faith so he's referring to the church so St anthus was saying that the church is an anchor for the faith um could you say that the church according to aanus would be a definitive rule of Faith um he didn't use definitive rule of Faith he said it's an anchor of the faith which all of us believe I I believe that the scripture in fact when the scripture says the scripture is the pillar and foundation of the truth I believe that the problem is when Paul wrote that he was talking about the local church he wasn't talking about Rome and when athanasius defends the deity of Christ against the condemnations of multiple councils uh even and you were right liberas was under pressure there's no question about that but so was athanasius and athanasius did not give in and so the point is the principles that athanasius used to defend the deity of Christ and was eventually victorious in are the principles that I believe and that is that scripture is the final Authority he did not submit himself to counsel after counsel after counsel and many those councils had more Bishops in them than NAA had and uh you are aware that St anthus himself makes a defense for Pope liberus in his writings yes okay and uh so when dealing with the Aryans s atan also said this let the Aryans tell us from what teacher or from what tradition they derive those Notions concerning the Savior so uh scious here is asking them to say what teacher did you learn this from he doesn't tell them to appeal to the scriptures because as you know Dr White the Aryans were appealing to the scriptures to uh try and prove arianism have you read Contra aranas all it the vast majority of it yes okay M um I would just suggest everybody because athanasius is a a favorite of mine um read athanasius's response against the Aryans and ask yourself a question what is his fundamental source of argumentation and what is the ultimate Authority and the ultimate Authority is all of scripture yes he will say they are going against what earlier people taught and in many instances that was true but that doesn't change the fact that the foundation of the deity of Christ he finds in the god inspired scriptures well let's go ahead and move on Dr W just because we have a very little time um does Scripture tell us what or who the number of the beasts is referring to in Revelation 13:18 uh in fact uh not only does it not uh give us every does not give us an interpretation of every symbol in the Book of Revelation the earliest reading of that passage in Revelation 13 isn't 666 do you know what what it is it's 616 in the right absolutely yeah that's exactly right and I think that's the Hebrew and the Greek versions of Nero okay so Dr White did um are we able to know what this verse refers to using scripture Alone um well as far as God would have us to because what does Scripture say why was Revelation written the way it was it was written it was written so that you had to understand its deep very deep rooting in the Old Testament scriptures and that this is Judgment that is being spoken of in the Book of Revelations so yes I would say so if you're saying can you figure out every question that could ever be asked I say no and Rome hasn't answered those questions either so you would agree that the the the Bible doesn't tell us that 666 or 616 refers to uh neuro Caesar not in those words I'd say that that is a very uh historically rooted and grounded interpretation that I know people disagree with and if hey please don't start throwing uh copies of Left Behind at me so Dr White so this uh this understanding and interpretation you have to go outside of the scriptures to know what it is correct no uh I'm not saying that there is some Revelation outside of scripture that tells me I am looking at what the scripture is saying and I'm reading it in its historical context and I recognize when I open the Book of Revelation quote after quote after quote after quote coming from the Old Testament and so I'm looking at context and if you're saying well uh but you have to know what Nero's name is or something like that that's not violation of Solo scriptura in any way shape or form because Nero's name is a part not a part of the Canon scripture um can we come to objective moral truth from scripture alone yes uh does Scripture alone allow for Morality to change does Scripture alone allow morality allow for Morality to change no I I really wish that we would go back to God's law today if solar scriptura protects against immorality and relativism why did ritually all Protestant churches go from rejecting artificial contraception as immoral to accepting it in 1930 can I go ahead and give my full response here uh sure okay thank you um the best answer to that particular question is not to limit it just to artificial conception but it is to recognize that the vast majority of Protestant churches that for example are now affirming gay marriage and things like that abandoned solos scriptura long long ago and in fact the vast majority of Protestant churches do not believe in solar scripture okay oh okay all right Alex I said that I believe this is a presuppositional argument would you agree with me that you are committed to Rome's claim of ultimate epistemological Authority uh yes Dr White I agree that this is a presuppositional argument and in my opening statement I actually outlined that by saying that the presupposition is God himself that God is the ultimate infallible Authority and that any other authorities outside of God that we have would come from him and that includes scripture tradition and the church that he that he established but would you recognize that Rome's epistemological and ecclesiastical claims of authority exist on a different level than the epistemological authority of scripture being God breathed yes Dr White because that is what the Catholic Church teaches if you read day verbum or one of the documents from Vatican 2 it says that the church is not above scripture that the church is subservient to scripture which is why 1 Timothy 3:15 3:15 says the church is the pillar of the truth the church can't be above scripture because pillars have to be under whatever it is that they hold up that's true but my focus is upon is is it not do you do you do you see a difference between my claim that scripture because it is God breathed is sufficient and your claim that scripture teaches the papacy and the magisterium and therefore is authoritative isn't there a fundamental difference in where that claim's coming from no Dr White there isn't a fundamental difference because scripture actually teaches that the church itself is also God breathed in Acts chapter 2 as you know Dr White uh in Acts chapter 2 we read about Pentecost which is when the the Holy Spirit the ruak in Hebrew which literally means breath the Breath of God fell down upon the entire church and the entire church was God breathed also the apostles themselves were uniquely God breathed in John 20 when Jesus who is God breathed on them so uh scripture attests to other things outside of scripture as being God breathed well theas is a Hina right correct yeah it's only used one time so you are making a connection between someone being indwelt by the spirit and they are that but Paul would have viewed them as theonas uh yes Dr White that's what the Sacrament of Confirmation or chrismation is everyone who receives that Sacrament is ofas I didn't get a chance to go over this during my rebuttals but um Dr White if you would demand that the Catholic side of this debate uh provide like any examples of something outside of scripture that the scriptures call the abnos well remember what I said in my opening statement about demanding exact words this in this insistence of about uh demanding foros to be uh shown to refer to something else that's like when Muslims say that we have to show them where Jesus say I am God worship me in those exact words so you are correct Dr White that that exact term that exact Greek term Theos isn't applied to anything else but what it means uh God breathed or God breathing is applied in the scriptures to the churches to the apostles specifically even to Adam in Genesis God breathed life into Adam So Adam was God breathed and yes Dr White every single person who receives the sacrament of uh confirmation or crism is God breathed that's what that Sacrament is has Rome defined that dogmatically uh in regards to the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 about the defin the dogmatically about what what theas means and that simply being indwelt by the spirit me means you are theop because i' I've never heard that before well Dr White Dr White the church has defined aut atically that when you receive the sacraments you are receiving the Holy Spirit and and the church has actually never um felt the need to define the way that the term Theos is used in 2 Timothy 3 and I would also like to point out that none of the church fathers ever interpreted that word in 2 Timothy 3 to mean that the scriptures are the only thing that we have as a rule of faith not a single Church Father ever said that well uh so well we we could get into that if you wanted to so I'm just really really uh confused here because it sounds like you're saying that scripture is no different in its epistemological Authority than a baptized um Catholic who's received the Holy Spirit because you're saying they're theonas in the same way scripture is well actually Dr White that's not what I'm saying what I'm saying is that everyone who receives a sacraments is God breathed but the point that I'm making is that being God breathed that alone doesn't make you an infallible Authority because again the early church fathers used that Greek word tabos used it to apply to other things outside of scriptures such as like sermons homilies um good works good deeds all of those things the church fathers call so the interpretation of that word it doesn't mean what many Protestants try to make it mean to mean that the scripture is the only thing that is uh an infallible rule of Faith okay so and I'm I'm pushing on this because this is to me is what the Rel is absolutely absolutely um you've read Warfield work on theas uh yes I have how many different languages is it written in warfield's work on theas yeah I don't know how many I only speak a few languages Dr White I don't know how many It Was Written in but well it okay okay all right um you just said you just made your interpretation 2 Timothy 3:16 based upon Church fathers that you didn't identify I I haven't read here Dr White I can show them to you okay but but the point is are you saying that every interpretation of a scripture from a patristic source is authoritative I'm sorry can you repeat that that every defense so so I mean I can point to all sorts of interpretations in the early church fathers that Rome would reject today oh I love this question ask the question so I can answer it so yeah so so it it sounded to me like you were saying well there were certain early church fathers that I haven't identified that interpreted the term theas a certain way where is the infallible interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 that would tell us that the reason that Timothy is able to do every good work asked of the man of God is because well is because scripture is theas so why why would why would Paul even say that since Timothy is indwelt by the holy spirit so he sayos too what's what's the big deal yeah and and Paul actually does say that he says that everyone who uh receives the Holy Spirit when you receive the Holy Spirit you areas Acts 2 says so let me explain talk I'm sorry I'm sorry you you've got to show me you know that term doesn't exist there so what do you mean that every believer is theonas where has Rome dogmatically defined that theonas simply means indwelt by the Holy Spirit or is this just your opinion no this is actually what the church teaches again Dr White I've pointed out with the church teaches that every the sacraments that you receive you are receiving the holy spirit in the sacraments and the spirit meaning Ru in Hebrew God's breath when you receive the sacraments you receive God's breath the holy spirit so you are God breathed God God has breathed upon you but now let me actually answer your question about the interpretation um your interpretation what this has to do with is the ordinary and Universal magesium if your question is about what interpretations can we find in the early church that maybe don't fit with what the cath because you said that there are interpretations that the Catholic Church would reject that is an easy question to answer the infallible teachings of the uh Catholic Church are those teachings that were held in common by all of the successors of the Apostles so if we find one or two Bishops here or a couple of Bishops there that had a position that was unique only to them and it's not Universal across the entire church then that unique position is not an infallible uh interpretation or an infallible teach of the church and who gets to determine that uh the the church exactly exactly the so the church gets to determine what in the early church yeah is infallible and what is it well actually Dr White what the what the church does get to do is actually just look at the history and look what are the universal teachings that were held by the uh Church fathers and that those Universal teachings those are uh the infallible teachings and if we have a couple of teachings here and there that are unique then those can be discarded then why did then why did Newman have to do what he did prior to Vatican 1 well what was it that Newman did Dr what well he recognized the ancient church had not functioned on the basis of the definition was to be offered so he had to and his development hypothesis is not Vincent of Len's development H at all but why would he have to do that if in fact it was the universal belief all along why why did he have to come up with the idea that yeah okay they didn't function this way but there's development over time it's like an acorn in the tree and all the rest of why do you have to do that if if what you're saying is true why did it what is it that you're referring to Dr White what's what teaching specifically specifically he recognized that the the the Prine Church did not function on the foundation of a papacy oh well I don't think uh I don't think that Cardinal Newman actually ever uh said that but we actually have the evidence from the Prine church that actually I have it right here Dr White that actually shows that before the Council of NAA the uh Church did indeed believe the Roman Catholic papacy as to find today yes wow okay [Music] absolutely all right we're gonna move where did you get that then we're gonna move on to uh I've had people bring all sorts of but never a never a fight Bell before how long have you willowing to do this huh all right so we're going to move on to the Q&A come on you can you can join in it's the fight oh we've had this uh if you ever want to come out to third space coffee about uh every other month we have something called John 17 Fight Club we actually have a Protestant Catholic or sometimes uh Catholic uh atheist debate and you bring that and it's fighting for Unity yeah and so we bring a a a fight Bell so thanks for joining in the fun yes definitely thanks I didn't want to take your time with questions so you guys each have three minutes to answer these questions that are from the audience and I'll make a point if you don't if you're done with your question we can save that time and hopefully get to a fifth question uh that both of you will answer both ways okay on that were submitted these were submitted through the app and I'm going to give you the first question to you Alex you'll have three minutes and if you want to yield any of that time it may save us uh to be able to have time to answer so the one that's addressed to is the only one that addresses it yeah so you'll have three minutes and then you'll have three minutes if if we if I yield my time to Dr White would you permit him to or if not I'm sorry trying to catch on time so we have question that both of you can answer so there'll be four unique questions to each we have time we'll get that fifth question in here we go problem all right so your question how would you approach Alex how would you approach if a situation if the pope made an infallible declaration that you felt clearly contradicted the Bible such as if one day they approve gay marriage which authority is higher your clear understanding of the Bible or the Pope's statement if the uh Pope or the uh Universal magisterium of the church ever came out and said that gay marriage was moral then Catholicism is false so it's very easy to falsify it that's all the pope would ever have to do would say we allow gay marriage now we'll have gay marriages gay weddings at our churches and if the Catholic church ever did that Catholicism is false so look out for that for anybody here that wants to prove Catholicism false that's all you have to look out for but it hasn't happened in 2,000 years and it will never happen um because I believe in Trends and if you go 2,000 years without messing that up it's probably you know not going to happen um so yeah that would be a way to falsify uh the Catholic church but we don't have to worry about that cuz that would not happen because it hasn't happened um what more could I say I think that's all I got okay all right uh Dr White the next question is for you and forgive me as I fiddle with this all right so the next question if solo scriptura is true what did the early Church use or do for the first few hundred years before the New Testament was assembled couple things uh I've taught development of trtic theology uh the old Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary years ago and one of the things that we noted as we worked through Ignatius and Clement in the original languages uh was the prevalence of the citation of the Old Testament scriptures and I think it sort of throws a few modern people off because we don't spend nearly as much time as we should uh in those scriptures but um just as the citation of the Old Testament scriptures was the final Authority when Jesus would say it is written it is written have you not read that was his view it's ultimate Authority the early church had that and then as the apostolic witness the written Apostolic writ the gospels very early on very early on I I can't think of a single early writing we have whether it's the epistle uh to dagnus Clement the diday they all are quoting from the gospels so the gospels very very early on are functioning in a fully authoritative fashion um but especially we you can understand why this would be if if Paul writes um to the church at thessalonica it's going to take time for a church hundreds or even a thousand miles away to eventually obtain that writing and so for example it's not till the year 200 that we have manuscript p46 which contains all of Paul's major Epistles and by the way it also contains Hebrews just for the fun of it to to know that um but but it didn't have the minor Epistles in it and so yet because you didn't have the internet you didn't have printing presses uh you didn't have super highways uh it takes time for written documents especially because possessing them is illegal and could get you thrown to the Lions uh to be transmitted around the Roman Empire and so there's a period of time when there are certain people who are writing like Justin Martyr that don't have the Pauline Cannon how would your theology be impacted if you didn't have Romans think about it that's one of the reasons I say when you read the early church fathers you have to interpret them for who they were when they were and what they knew um and I would say unfortunately Rome because it has now dogmatically said that its beliefs especially on the papacy are the constant and Universal faith of the church the Roman Catholic interpreter of these people has to find in those writings the things that Rome has told them to find and I think that really really causes some major major problems so they have their Elders their Bishops who have been taught that's not some external Revelation they have the scriptures and as more and more of the apostolic um witness becomes available they have that as well I told you I never go over all right Alex the next question is for you in the 4th Century during the Aryan resurgen did the church ever make any binding teachings that were in error or contrad Victory to the scriptures no and let's say we didn't have the scriptures because that's something that Dr White had mentioned just now what if we how would your theology look like if we don't have if we don't have Romans right well St araus actually said this St araus in the 2 Century he said um it's right here I just had it one second oh said what if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches this isn't his work against heresy so s said that even if we don't have the scriptures that's fine because we have their successors and they are the ones that are in charge of protecting the deposit of faith and uh we know that we can trust that they will because the Holy Spirit leads the church so uh to tie it back to that question uh in the 4th century No the Catholic Church never defined any belief and any Dogma that would contradict the scriptures if they're referring to liberas is because he said the Aran controversy that's the only thing that I could think of um liberians did sign a document that and and here's the thing that document that he signed it can actually be interpreted in an orthodox way um but even then it doesn't matter because he signed it under the arrest while he was being tortured so it's not uh binding on anybody because the pope has to be able to make these decisions um of his own free will not because someone is forcing him to do it because the whole H Spirit uh protects the the the Pope the church the magisterium from uh teaching error the Holy Spirit doesn't protect the Roman Emperor from kidnapping a pope and uh you know uh torturing him and forcing him to sign some document so all right Dr White the next question is for you um you're complete yeah I'm done thank you all right uh how can Christians claim doctrines such as the Trinity as essential and necessary rather than just best guesses that can be disputed without an infallible interpreter one of my favorite questions in fact one of the things that has offended me the most I'll be honest with you and I want don't want to sour the kind relationship we have here one of the things that has offended me the most over the years since my first debate with Jerry mtic in 1990 is when Roman Catholics say you couldn't know the Trinity if you didn't have the church Church um fact of the matter is in regards to what was just said there were numerous councils had more Bishops at them than the Council of NAA that condemned homus during the Aryan Resurgence after the Council of NAA how could you if you lived at the time of the Council of serium how could you have known which one was right because the bishop of Rome isn't going to be able to tell you and aanus is arguing from scripture the New Testament is a trinitarian document if you apply any kind of meaningful exegetical rigor and consistency to it it teaches the doctrin of Trinity it's the only way to even understand how the New Testament writers can speak about and and it makes perfect sense the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed in history between the last words of Malachi and the first words of Matthew in other words the fundamental proof of the doctrine of the Trinity is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the holy spirit that happened in history and that means every writer of the New Testament is a functional trinitarian that's why they can speak the way they speak I believe in the doctrine of Trinity I have defended it in mosques in South Africa against unitarians against Jehovah's Witnesses Mormons at the University of Utah and I have never had to apply and appeal to any Authority outside of this book accurately interpreted and the reality is I can be more certain in the interpretation of Colossians 2:9 rasos for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form than anything the pope has ever said about the same subject you don't have an infallible interpretation of Colossians 2:9 from Rome I can give you a consistent interpretation that takes all of this into account and I believe say this is the only God breathed thing and I being a spirit dwelt Christian am not God breathed God breathe is the so is where something comes from when I when I speak like this I can feel my breath in my hand that's what God breathed means the scriptures are absolutely unique and when you apply meaningful exegetical standards and honor this as the whole then you get the doctrine of the Trinity with Clarity I don't have to go it's because somebody over here said it is somebody over us there said it especially when they end up contradicting each other all right good news we do have time for the last question here that's going to go to both it is still why is it doing that forgive me all right okay there you so we'll have three minutes each and the question that both Debaters get to ask I'm going to ask at Alex first then you'll have time as well start with the young guy the old guy might fall asleep but is does the very existence of the Canon of scripture suggests extra biblical Authority does the New Testament authenticate itself uh the answer would be no the New Testament does not authenticate itself um because again the New Testament doesn't give us a list of the writings that belong in the New Testament so for example we know that the writings of the Apostles uh that they are inspired because the apostles themselves are inspired they God breathed and anything that they teach publicly to The Universal Church is going to be infallible because that's the charism that they have well we also have other writings in the New Testament that don't come from Apostles like the gospel of Mark the Gospel of Luke uh the um the book of Acts you know the Epistle of the Hebrews as well um and I know that uh there are writings that the that the of the Apostles where they quote you know Mark and Luke but I don't as far as I know and Dr White maybe would know more than me I don't believe that there's any writings from Apostles that ever quotes the book of Hebrews so if we believe Hebrews and and Dr White brought it up earlier that Hebrews is in p150 in the6 p46 thank you in p46 um so we believe that it's part of of the cannon but uh the apostles never wrote anything to say this book belongs in the Bible then for us to hold this Hebrews to be part of the cannon that means that we'd have to look to something outside of the writings of the Apostles to tell us that Hebrews um is part of the Canon so the Canon doesn't authenticate itself and then also on top of it um you also have certain SC certain Scholars that will say that um the uh author to the of the three Epistles of John wasn't the Apostle John that it was John the Elder that it was a different John um I called that it was the Apostle John but even if that were be true and it was a different John then that leads to even more problems you say okay how why would this random John John the Elder why does he have the authority to be able to uh to to write scripture why did Mark and Luke have the authority to write scripture when they themselves weren't Apostles either and the reason that they Mark and Luke were able to write scripture is because the apostles who are inspired uh told us were able to tell us that these guys yeah their writings are inspired scripture as well and um for the solar scriptura case you can actually you're good when it comes to Mark and Luke but not with the book of Hebrews because again as I mentioned I don't think that Hebrews is mentioned and I could be wrong I don't think Hebrews is quoted anywhere else in the and I'm sure Dr White will correct me I don't think Hebrews is quoted anywhere in the writings of the actual Apostles um because we know that Hebrews wasn't written by one of the Apostles and um what was the question again does the very existence of the Canon of scripture suggests extra biblical Authority does the New Testament authenticate itself yeah yeah it doesn't authenticate itself you need something outside of it to tell you what the New and Old Testaments consist of yeah that's all question repe one time you just did so I'm good okay okay in answer to the question I say no and yes no it does not indicate an external infallible Authority anymore than the Canon existing and being known amongst the Jews uh required an infallible Authority the Sadducees whether they did or did not accept that that's a disputable thing whether they did or did not re restrict things doesn't really matter we know what books have been laid up in the temple uh and they were not the apocryphal books they were the books that we have in What's called the Protestant Canon uh the second part of the question uh is uh was uh does that uh does the New Testament authenticate itself yes because it's theas and theas does not mean you're indwelt by the Holy Spirit uh it means it's God's actual speaking many years ago I debated Jerry mtic at Boston College on the subject of the apocryphal books and we then did a radio program few days later on weze in Boston uh during that radio interview I asked Jerry mattic a question it eventually became known as the white question and I didn't name it that the Roman Catholic apologist did um the white question was this how did a believing Jewish man know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles was scripture 50 years before Christ now I've heard all sorts of different answers had some people said they could only appeal to the urum and the thumm uh and cast The Sacred dice would be the only way that they could know um other people say well the Jewish magisterium the problem is Jewish magisterium rejects the Roman Catholic Canon from 1546 so that doesn't work um it's a very difficult question to answer because when we're talking about the Canon what we're talking about is not an object of Revelation it is an artifact of Revelation let me explain that because most most people don't even think about what this this is about the Canon comes into existence the first moment that God inspires any writing and he knows it perfectly he knows it perfectly because it's an artifact he knows in his mind I have inspired that book and then as more and more books are written he knows everybody on Earth could be ignorant of it but the Canon still exists because God knows what he has inspired God has inspired some books but not all books and therefore a Canon exists and God knows it infallibly the question is does God have reason to make sure that we would know what is say onas and what is not and would he guide his people to come to understand that and how would he do so if you follow the Old Testament Paradigm you can't accept the Roman Catholic claim that you need to have an infallible ecumenical counsel to come up with this kind of a of a concept cuz there was none but Jesus still me held men accountable have you not read he said said how could why didn't anyone ever say we didn't know that was scripture they never did they never did all right that concludes our Q&A it's a reflex action I guess I'm not sure it transitions us to the next stage which is uh closing statements uh first from Alex followed by Dr White you have five minutes each and I'll begin when you begin with your remarks well I have had such a blast being here with all of you today I want to thank every single one of you for coming out today um it it I would literally like five guys said no to this and then that's the only reason I I'm here so I'm sorry guys you know you could have had other people but it was me instead but um I'm just so happy and honored that you guys came out here thank you all all all everyone that has come up to uh to talk to me I'm sure I'll talk to more of you guys uh after the debate um but today's debate was about Catholic Authority and what the Bible has to say about Catholic Authority and as I laid out in my case I laid out all of these you know the the the 10 problems there was actually an 11th one that I didn't put in there because I wasn't going to have time for it in the 17 minute time time frame there was another one um maybe I could have thought of more but I was only able to do 10 10 is a nice round number right um so there are problems when you go just by the scripture Alone by the Bible alone you run into all of these all of these issues especially when you realize that the scripture does attest to something outside of it that attests to the apostles to the men that they ordained in Ministry and that in the in the Bible it says that those men that they ordained that they have the authority to to uh teach and publicly Proclaim what they themselves had publicly Pro proclaimed and uh in Paul's epistle to Timothy it even says that it goes down to the second third generation and there's no indication that it that it doesn't end so we have a paradigm here which is the apostolic Christian Paradigm that you know Catholics and Orthodox hold to which is you know Apostolic succession and then we have the other par Paradigm which is scol scriptura which is what Protestants hold to which is just scripture alone but you can see serious problems with scripture alone of Dr White just a few moments ago Dr White held up the Bible and he said this is all I need when I go to South Africa and I debate Muslim and mosques and I debate unitarians and I debate Mormons and and by the way Dr White is the man Dr White debates Dr White debates every Dr White is the man How brave do you have to be to go to a mosque to a mosque to defend the Christian faith this is the man right here um but he held up the scriptures and he said this is all I need to go to to prove these things but then he said something else he kind of caught himself and he said oh properly understood that is the issue today how do we know that the Bible that we all hold to how do we know that we have the proper understanding of it because Dr White just said he agrees that it has to be properly understood how do we know that we have it properly understood well the scripture tells us how we can know if it's properly understood he gave us a church he gave us a church that God breathed upon in Acts chapter 2 and he gave us ministers in that church by the way second uh 2 uh Timothy 3 16 and 17 tells us about what scripture can do for the uh for the man of God if you go to Ephesians 4 Ephesians 4 11-15 actually says the exact same thing about the ministries of the church but go go and read it on you know I'm not going to read it right now but when you go and read it it actually says way more about what the ministries of the church do for uh for individual Christians than even what second Timothy 3 says about what scripture can do for for the man of God um so Dr White um you know he he says that you know the cannon is something that God knows and we completely agree with Dr White God creates the cannon no church creates the cannon the Catholic Church did not create the cannon God created the cannon and God knows what the cannon is but the question here isn't how does God know what the cannon is we all agree that God knows what the cannon is the question is how do we know what the cannon is cuz I'm not God he's not God nobody's here God how do we know well thank God that He gave us an inspired church that can tell us what belongs in the cannon and what doesn't um and I just want to say something really quick too I have never I like I said I've been watching Dr White for close to 10 years now I don't think I have ever seen him uh and maybe he has in in debates that I've seen I don't think I've ever seen him like reach over to shake his opponent's hand in the middle of a debate and hug him and embrace him the way he did to me I just want to say right now that that means the world to me Dr White thank you for um your charity and your kindness and uh I'm like a kid in a candy shop right now I got to debate this man that I've looked up to for so long Dr James this is Dr James White I got to debate this man I got to debate him because five other guys said no and I just kind of I was like the last resort but I got to debate this man right here this is an honor and I want Dr White to know that I'm very honored to be here and I want uh this beautiful Church to know that I'm very honored to be a guest here and I want all of you to know that I'm very honored that you came out to watch thank you guys and God bless Alex let me tell you something you're GNA make me cry I think this is my seventh or eighth debate on solo scriptura and I can honestly say that I think the people in this audience have heard more relevant and useful back and forth on the key issues in this debate than the ones before so I thank you being okay I really really do um I love this guy and I'm looking forward to Future opportunities to do things with him but I still got to correct him out a bunch of stuff I hope you don't mind um I think Alex was writing too fast he misunderstood what I said when I was talking about what Rome did in regards to narcism what I had said at that point was that there was a massive need for an infallible cannon in light of the gnostics producing the gospel of Peter and all the rest of this kind of stuff Rome did not during that Gnostic period provide the thing that was needed until 1546 that's what I was saying then he took that and and and went ran with it a different direction notice he also quoted from irus problem is look more closely I've written an entire chapter uh in a book called solar scriptura that deals with the early church I have SE entire section on irus I defined what Apostolic tradition for irus was and it is sub biblical it is under scripture it is basically the statement there's one God who created all things that's Apostolic tradition for irus he did likewise elsewhere say that the apostles had taught him that Jesus was more than 50 years old when he died that was because of his recapitulation theory that's the earliest reference to Apostolic tradition in all the patrici writings and nobody believes it today keep that in mind Alex also talked kept talking about an unbroken chain folks that's the presupposition there's the presupposition Alex starts with a certain authoritative presupposition and he reads history in that light I listen to his debate with Luigi on the Orthodox stuff and again over and over again they're going to the same sources and they're interpreting them differently presupposition because of where they have started that's the key issue to me that we need to be thinking about and that I would like Alex to think about now he just said and this is very important how I I held up my my beautiful Jeffrey Rice rebind M all in 28th edition of the greatek New Testament little advertis on there how do we know that we are properly understanding this I said in regards to the Trinity how do we know that we're properly understanding this with all due respect please Roman Catholics in the room hear me I've done numerous debates defending the Trinity I remember one I was I was defending the trinity in in against a Muslim and I had a whole little row of little catholic ladies who came out to support me um and when I asked them why they said because you're defending the faith and you do it with Clarity well how could I do that I could do that because the scriptures teach the doctrine of the Trinity and when someone says how do you know you're properly understanding these things well I could argue that I could go back and I could look how various early church fathers did exod Jesus I could do all that kind of stuff but here's the issue and this is what I've got to say to my Roman Catholic friends do you really believe that Francis and Cardinal Fernandez are going to show you how to accurately handle this don't sit there and go well they haven't made magisterial statements what do they believe what is Liberation theolog theology why are they putting the people into the ranks of the Cardinals and into the places of teaching that they're putting into those places that don't believe this is the word of God they don't believe it's consistent with itself they don't believe it was written by the people we believe it was written by why is that happening and what will be the long-term effect Alex you said in front of this group and I watched a bunch of people when you said it you said if Rome ever approves of or practices homosexual marriage it's a false church and I said save this tape cuz you're young enough I I won't see it because I don't think it's going to happen that fast but it's moving that direction and believe you me the United methodists who now believe all that stuff didn't believe that at all 60 years ago what's what's the only bull workk that can stop that what has caused all the conservative denominations to stand firm on that that issue solo scripture solo scripture thank you for your attention this evening thank you sir for engaging with thank you Dr White the honor was mine Dr White thank you so much this was such an honor for me Dr it was such an honor thank you for thank you so much for everything thank you don't mess up your sunglasses oh thank you so thank you so much I was going to ask you to give one last round of applause to our debaters and our audience and even our online audience but it sounds like we've gotten that uh in a resounding way I just want to conclude this by uh giving where you can learn more about all those who are involved in this and uh please correct me if anything's wrong but breathe church.org is this local church that's hosting us thanks again to our hosts uh inferenced myself and Alex to be here uh to have this Lively debate aom men.org a n.org is Dr White's website and Alex's handle is voiceof reason you can find them on YouTube and Instagram uh but let's not let that be the last word let's let the word of God be the last word and if you'll just um if you'd like to turn with me to Ephesians uh we will end this was not by Alex's prompting but I just wanted to bring us to a close uh and listen to God's word uh Ephesians 41-15 I'm going to read from and uh we'll just take this as our final prayer uh listen for the words Unity knowledge Truth and Love and may this be our prayer uh what Paul wrote to the Ephesians and he gave the apostles the prophets the evangelists the Shepherds and teachers to equip the Saints for the work of Ministry for building up the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith and to the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ so that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of Doctrine by human cunning by craftiness and deceitful schemes rather speaking the truth in love we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head into Christ from whom the whole body joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped when each part is working properly makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love the word of the Lord amen be to God thank you so much for coming everyone