EPIC Debate on Sola Scriptura w/ Patrick Madrid & James White
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- I'm doing something different today.
I want to share with you a debate between Patrick Madrid, host of The Patrick Madrid Show on Relevant Radio and Protestant apologist James White on the topic of Sola Scriptura.
This debate took place in 1993-I was just 10 years old!!
Watch as James White argues that Christians should view the Bible as the sole, infallible rule of faith. And then watch as Patrick Madrid counters with the Catholic view on the Bible's role in our faith lives.
This debate sent SHOCKWAVES through the Christian church in 1993, and I think it's just as powerful today as it was back then.
Big thanks to Pat Madrid for letting us share it.
🔴 Check out Patrick Madrid's assessment of the debate in this article: www.catholic.c...
Get Patrick's excellent book Why Be Catholic?: store.patrickm...
Check out The Patrick Madrid Show: relevantradio....
Enjoy!
----------------------------------------- SPONSORS -----------------------------------------
Hallow: hallow.onelink...
Covenant Eyes: www.covenantey... (use promo code: mattfradd)
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/...
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
------------------------------------------ MY BOOKS ----------------------------------------
Does God Exist: www.amazon.com....
Marian Consecration With Aquinas: www.amazon.com....
The Porn Myth: www.ignatius.c....
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Book me to speak: www.mattfradd.....
--
Website - mattfradd.com
Facebook - mattfradd/
Twitter - mattfradd
A BIG thanks to Pat Madrid for letting me air this debate (usually for sale). It's from the 90's but is the best debate on this topic I've ever heard.
Dang, I thought it was a new debate! Grateful nevertheless. It's great seeing James White vs Akin, Sungenis, Horn, Madrid etc.
At some point James White always descends into Ad-Hominem and conjures up a caricature of the big baddy "Roman" Church.
Thanks for airing this great debate once again. James White had his wins, particularly when debating Father Stravinskas or Mitch Pawka, but Pat Madrid hit a home-run on this one.
By the way, if you want to read the best Catholic-Protestant debate ever, check the link below. It was an overwhelming win on our side. It was a written debate between James White and the great Dave Armstrong. Absolutely overwhelming to the Reformed position, with some of the best arguments on the Catholic side. At the end James White threw the towel
www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/DebatingJamesWhite.htm
This is going to be fun! Thanks Matt!
HDM James White may have overall out-debated Fr. Mitch Pacwa, but at one point when I was listening to one of their debates as a Protestant, Fr. Pacwa made a point that was the first crack in my Protestant wall. And Fr. Pacwa continued to make cracks in my wall throughout the rest of that debate and others.
@@joeb5502 great comment. would you mind elaborating on what the crack was? just curious to see what it is that eventually gets protestants to take the glasses off and see the truth.
I'm a former James White fan. After studying the church fathers and re examining scripture for myself, I came to embrace Catholicism. I was confirmed 3 weeks ago and am thrilled. James white is a fantastic debater. However, when one actually digs deeper into the sources, you find Mr. White's theology is not present. He is very dangerous, he misconstrues the sources he uses. You will only catch this if you study for yourself.
Your mistake is that you didn’t become Orthodox ;)
@@MrPillojos haha! To be honest I considered it! Ultimately though, I found the same issues as Protestantism. There is no head authority so everyone has their own opinion. God bless brother! Thanks for commenting.
Kent Adamson Why’d you convert? What convinced you?
Were you a 'Vigil of Pentecost' confirmee?
@@Astro-gf1bm there were many things. However, to narrow it down, Eucharistic theology is what ultimately converted me. I was raised in non denominational church where there were basically no sacraments. Even baptism was just a symbol. Nothing actually happens during it.
I was raised a Catholic but was a lapse Catholic at best, met and fell in love with a Lutheran girl whose family was very involved with her church and starting attending there. 25 years later I find myself fascinated with this argument and although through my wife's church helped me solidify my relationship with Jesus I find myself being drawn back to the Catholic Church.
Just curious? Why? What is drawing you back? “Solidify my relationship with Jesus but find myself being drawn back”! Something doesn’t sound right !
Ty Shiroma I took no interest in the history of the church but as I investigated the reformation and the theological differences the Catholic Church made more sense to me. One example being the Lutherans believing the Bible is 100% true while the Catholic Church allows interpretation and the role of science
@@aljay2955 does the bible it self teach sola scripture. And how do u think the church managed during the first 2 centuries. With few letters
@@aljay2955 what I want u to know i s that when Jesus was going he did not leave them any book. Only the church. The church gathered the book. And not all they gathered did they put in the book
So when u say sola scripture there are things u do today that is not in the bible. Now the Catholic church respect the bible more than any church. Watch how the priest kiss the bible after the gospel. So the itself can never be the only means of guidance. And Jesus did not cease to give us message
What kind of Lutheran? LCMS?
Used to be protestant but felt it was spiritually dry and my theology wasn't deep. Then started to study, and ended up finding Orthodoxy. Now a Catechumen. God bless everyone!
How do you reconcile the following Scriptures with basic Catholic/Orthodox teachings?
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-- by grace you have been saved-- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. -Ephesians 2:1-10 ESV
43 Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
-John 6:43-44 ESV
1 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. 3 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done. 4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). 5 He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him. 6 For he held fast to the Lord. He did not depart from following him, but kept the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses. 7 And the Lord was with him; wherever he went out, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him. 8 He struck down the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city.
-2 Kings 18:1-8 ESV
9 And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God." 10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
-Revelation 19:10 ESV
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
-1 Timothy 2:3-6 ESV
@@elijahyoung11
Your anti sola fide argument fails because it is a straw man. Antinomianism is a heresy that the Apostle Paul rejects explicitly throughout his writings, including
Ephesians 2:1-10. He says that we are created for good works.
James 2 is the most abused passage in the New Testament by synergists.
Read verses 14-26, that is the whole context. The point is that "Faith without works is dead." The Apostle James was emphasizing the other side of the coin that the Apostle Paul emphasized. Also, James was using the Greek word for Justification ambiguously because this was long before Systematic Theology.
Furthermore, a synergistic interpretation needlessly establishes contradiction between James on one side, and Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians 2:1-10 on the other.
@@elijahyoung11
The invocation of saints, angels, and such is idolatry. See the quotes from 2 Kings 18, and Revelation. Likewise the veneration of objects.
The dulia/latria distinction of the 7th "ecumenical" council is a distinction without a difference.
Religious art is not idolatrous, otherwise there would have been no Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant.
@@elijahyoung11
I just checked out your channel, you have great taste in music!
Why not Talmud and Kabbalah?
8:14 - James White opening statement
27:18 - Patrick Madrid opening statement
46:31 - James White rebuttal
56:21 - Patrick Madrid rebuttal
1:06:39 - Cross-examination
1:41:30 - James White closing statement
1:53:29 - Patrick Madrid closing statement
These timestamps are so helpful, thanks.
Ml
Thank you sir
Thank you
Awesome
I was protestant then my girlfriend challenged me to read the church fathers, she's now my wife and we attend mass with our children every week.
this is based
W wife
“Read the church fathers” how about you actually read the scriptures and see how much Catholicism leaves biblical Christianity. Example they preach a false gospel. It’s is Ephesians 2:8 We are saved by God’s Grace through faith alone in Jesus alone not of works. Catholicism has sent more people to hell than atheism
@@edgardelgado8753 have you been to a catholic church? everything from the mass is straight from the gospel. dont speak on subjects you have no idea of.
we literally read the gospel in the mas… multiple times.
@@hippiebeetle I grew up “Catholic” buddy was baptized as a baby etc etc. I know exactly what Catholicism teaches and it’s not from scripture specifically THE GOSPEL. We saved by God’s Grace alone through FAITH alone in Jesus alone, Ephesians 2:8 which Catholicism rejects this.
I noticed James White consistently shifted the burden of proof and resorted to anti-Catholic rhetoric when he was not able to answer Patrick Madrid. He couldn't even use Sola Scriptura to affirm it. It was a continuous distortion of Sacred Scripture due to not being read in context.
protestantism is exclusively made of that stuff
@@silveriorebelo8045 Thats why Protestantism is lame.
@Prasanth Thomas the adjectives refer to White's arguments, not the person. White's arguments are silly. He even didn't realize that the bible he so adamantly used to attack the catholic "man-made traditions" is a written TRADITION handed down to Christians. So ironical.
The problem is that you papists use a STRAWMAN when it comes to sola scriptura and like the moron Madrid does, attempt to burn that strawman down. White was gracious enough not to point this out explicitly, but was all along pointing that out implicitly.
@Prasanth Thomas I’m sorry to hear you no long practice your faith. Its always sad to hear when we lose a brother or sister in Christ. Anyway I pray God bless you and keep you and your family.
this debate is absolutely devastating for the Protestant position. Specially when Dr White asks Pat to show ANY tradition that is binding on Christians and Pat replies, showing the bible, "here you have it Mr White, the New Testament canon...this came through the tradition of the Church and is binding on Christians". That was it for me. Done deal. Pat had the Holy Spirit on him. The victory was overwhelming.
I’ve heard about this. It was devastating for the arguments for Sola Scriptura
Amen!
True. White’s answer to this was that Madrid’s timing was off and that it was and that the Bible was canonized in the 4th century. This would only push Madrid’s point, further proving that the tradition of the church gave us the canon we have today through the Holy Spirit
@@ryandem2370 Good point, and also saw that the timing was his reply. BTW, have you heard White talking about the Canon from St Athanasius? I think he is using that argument to counteract the fact that we need a magisterium to give a final saying about the canon
This was one of the crucial factors that helped me convert over to catholoicism from protestantism. Plain and simple the canon of scripture is not found in the bible but rather it rest on tradition and the church. Case closed. 😎
I'm a Protestant and James White's usage of Tertullian was embarrassing and lacked a total knowledge of the Catholic argument. Tertullian was arguing against the Gnostic heretics who claimed that Christ and the Apostles taught secret doctrines to a select few. The Catholic traditions James White is arguing against never claims to hold secret doctrines unbeknownst to the early Church, but doctrines that were taught more or less publicly (less because some doctrines might have become more developed later on, such as the Immaculate Conception) to the early Church while not being explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Notice that Tertullian's claim is not that all the public teachings of Paul are found in Scripture, merely that they had all been taught publicly. Expressing fairness towards your opponent's argument is key to having an honest debate and his usage of that quote seems to be telling that he was not trying to engage in an honest debate.
@J Shy very good point. I missed that
Brother I had the exact same thought as he was saying that
This is why I don't understand White's appeal. It's either that he really is so biased, that he CONSTANTLY unconsciously misunderstands all the patristic period anachronistically -- or he is a mendacious misrepresenter of texts for his argument. Whichever, why should I care about him?
@@claymcdermott718 He has a big reach and tries to lead people away from the Church. I think that's enough of a reason to take him serious - even if some of his musings on the Bible may look irritatingly ignorant to you. Most Protestants don't care that much about coherent doctrine (I think), because they've never been educated about its importance.
Yup. I picked up on this too. A little astounded by White's argument here.
I think Patrick Madrid did give a very good defense for the Catholic Church's stance on Sola Scriptura. It's definitely one of the best debates I have ever heard.
Pat Madrid is a Catholic treasure honestly. I had never seen this video before. This is great, thank you.
I would have walked out of there converted.The argument was intense and razor sharp. I would have walked past Mr. Madrid and his catholic arguments and straight to Mr. White and said,”Thank you for this debate and thank you for making me Catholic.”
Yay!!!
Yep
😂😂😂
amen
may your eyes be opened to the truth
The Catholic apologist is clearly the winner to my satisfaction. They wouldn't be having this debate if the Roman Catholic Church hadn't decided on and preserved the canon.
@Eric J. May That is technically true but the council that institutionalized the canon to the grand scale church was the Council of Trent (1545) , Luther had already pinned his 95 theses (1517). There were smaller councils such as the Council of Carthage (397 and 419) and the Synod of Hippos (393) but, as Craig Allert notes, they only reflected what the local church believed and didn’t really influence the wider church in the West. “The church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church” -Bruce Metzger
The Church does not believe that the canon is closed and could add to it if by some miracle we were to find an epistle of book written by an apostle, we’ll gladly add it.
@@eddiep6369 The Ecumenical Council of Florence already canonized the Scriptures before Trent and Luther.
"Most firmly [the Council] believes, professes and preaches that [...] one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament - that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel - since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
As for Metzger, the canon the early Church agreed on always included the deuterocanonical books, and they cited them as Holy Scripture, even with "as it is written," as did, even, the Rabbis in the Talmud once that I know of:
Baba Kamma, 92b
א"ל רבא לרבה בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי מטייל ואזיל דיקלא בישא גבי קינא דשרכי אמר ליה דבר זה כתוב בתורה שנוי בנביאים ומשולש בכתובים ותנן במתניתין ותנינא בברייתא כתוב בתורה דכתיב וילך עשו אל ישמעאל שנוי בנביאים דכתיב ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים רקים ויהיו עמו ומשולש בכתובים דכתיב כל עוף למינו ישכון ובני אדם לדומה לו
Raba said to Rabbah bar Mari: Whence do people derive the saying: A bad palm tree wanders about seeking a grove of barren trees? Who said to him: This is written in the Torah, and repeated in the Prophets, and is repeated again in the Writings, and we learned it as well from an oral tradition, and from yet an extra source of tradition. It is written in the Law, as it is written: And so Esau went to Ishmael [Genesis 28]. It is repeated in the Prophets [Judges 11], as it is written: And some foolish men gathered themselves around Jephthah, and they went with him. And is repeated again in the Writings, as it is written: All fowl will resort unto their kind, and a man unto another like to himself. [Sirach 13; 27].
Many patristic translators and scholars who are or were Protestant agree that the early Church considered the deuterocanon Scripture.
The fathers also used the word 'canon' differently for some reason, as is clearly evidenced from various facts. That is, they used canon and Scritpure differently. I suspect the word canon meaning 'rule' they referred to the Jewish Old Testament as somehow more 'sure rule' because the Jews held it. Based on a mistaken conception of the role of Jews post Christ - who still had no settled canon...
Mishnah Yadayim, 3:5
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר ... כל כתבי הקדשׁ מטמאין את הידים. שׁיר השׁירים וקהלת מטמאין את הידים. רבי יהודה אומר, שׁיר השׁירים מטמא את הידים, וקהלת מחלקת. רבי יוסי אומר, קהלת אינו מטמא את הידים ושׁיר השׁירים מחלקת. רבי שׁמעון אומר, קהלת מקלי בית שׁמאי ומחמרי בית הלל. אמר רבי שׁמעון בן עזאי, מקבל אני מפי שׁבעים ושׁנים זקן, ביום שׁהושׁיבו את רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בישׁיבה, שׁשׁיר השׁירים וקהלת מטמאים את הידים. אמר רבי עקיבא, חס ושׁלום, לא נחלק אדם מישׂראל על שׁיר השׁירים שׁלא תטמא את הידים, שׁאין כל העולם כלו כדאי כיום שׁנתן בו שׁיר השׁירים לישׂראל, שׁכל הכתובים קדשׁ, ושׁיר השׁירים קדשׁ קדשׁים. ואם נחלקו, לא נחלקו אלא על קהלת. אמר רבי יוחנן בן יהושׁע בן חמיו שׁל רבי עקיבא, כדברי בן עזאי, כך נחלקו וכך גמרו
... Rabbi Judah says ... All Holy Scripture render the hands unclean. Song of Songs renders the hands unclean. Rabbi Judah says that Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean, but about Ecclesiastes there is dispute. Rabbi Josei says Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean, but about Song of Songs there is dispute. Rabbi Simon says that with regard to Ecclesiastes the school of Shamai is more lenient, and the house of Hillel more strict. Rabbi Simon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day they appointed Eleazar ben Azariah over the college that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs render the hands unclean. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man of Israel has ever disputed that Song of Songs renders the hands unclean. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which Song of songs was given to Israel: all the Books are holy, but the Song of Songs the Holy of Holies; if there was ever a dispute, it was about Ecclesiastes. Rabbi John ben Joshua, son of Rabbi Akiba's father in law, said in accordance with words of ben Azzai: so they disputed, and so they reached a decision.
...just as the Christians didn't agree entirely on the canon until the fourth century, as is proven from history.
God bless.
@Adrian Pritchard Well if you don't want purgatory you gotta throw out Maccabees.
The did not Canonized scripture God did before the ages the church just recognized what God had already spoken. This what the catholic church does not want to admit. If I recognize a king does that give me authority over the king no so like wise just because the church recognized sripture does not have authority over scripture. And for those here who ran back to the catholic church you were never set free by scripture from the beginning I encourage to read the parable about the seed and the farmer.
Never really understood the Catholic Church till I actually read and studied the early church. The Catholics have been doing it for 2000 years
Doing it inconsistently.
@@colepriceguitar1153 Nope….infallibly
@@johnyang1420 The Catholics have switched on doctrine so many times that they cannot claim infallibility.
We are still here!! 2000 years later!!
@@colepriceguitar1153 Can you name any instance?
This was amazing, thanks Matt!! Can’t wait to see Mr. Madrid on your show!
The opposite of James White is Jack Black
Hahahaha
Lol
The opposite of Patrick Madrid is Spongebob Cairo
And James Brown if you feel good.
@@adastra123 Jimmy Brown*
I thought that Madrid was losing this debate (despite my agreeing with his position) up until he got into the questioning period where he pushed on the issue of the cannon. Watching James White continuously dodge the question showed that he didn’t have a good answer for how scripture is defined by scripture.
Same here
That is a bad argument, and he did lose the debate
@@dustinnyblom7835 yet I have yet to meet a Protestant that could answer the question how do you know what is scripture? 😊
@@Pecky04 that’s pretty simple actually. Gods purpose is for his sheep to hear his voice, and so we are lead to hear him in his word where he speaks
@@dustinnyblom7835 Yeah? Those are claims made by the Book of Mormon and for the Quran. Not to mention the books that didn’t made the cut. Tell me how do you know ?
This debate just gets better and better the longer you listen. By the halfway point, any and all nice, euphemistic language drops away. The clear, unapologetic debate of radically different theologies, by very intelligent people, is absolutely riveting.
Looking forward to getting to that point of it. I'm still in Dr. White's opening statement.
So, if Protestants have such an issue with tradition as opposed to Sola Scriptura...do they simply throw the Bible in front of their kids and say "have at it!" Or do they guide their kids to an understanding of Scripture? Would this then not be a form of tradition? They are, after all, passing on their own understanding (i.e., tradition) of Scripture to their kids, no matter whether it is based on their own personal errors or those of James White, Martin Luther, John Calvin or Pastor Bob at the local Bible church.
I love that "yes, we should work together and learn from each other, but it's not ok to just gloss over real difference". I'm in Orthodox catechism and it's the same message. Sure, you can be saved as a Protestant, but that doesn't mean Protestantism is ok. Still figuring things out...
Sola scriptura was the last straw for me when I decided to become Catholic. It was pointed out to me that the Church was the authority that recognized the Canon and I realized in order to continue to recognize the Scriptures I had to recognize the authority which attested to the Scriptures.
Sola scriptura literally means 'scripture alone', there is no place for the Church there, that is the very idea the reformers rebelled against. Madrid was right. You can't infallibly tell what the Bible is without the infallible authority of the Church. This led some protestant to say that the 'Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books' which makes the Bible fallible. God bless you Alain!
@@bartleyrector4845
Absolutely the Bible is God breathed word but it is not the only God breathed word. It is only the written God breathed word which is completed by God breathed oral Word: Apostolic oral tradition.
Jesus never sent anybody to write anything. He sent his apostles to teach the word. Some of this teaching was put down (we re grateful for that) and many other things were taught orally. And only a few apostles wrote , but all apostles preached the word. The Church s authority comes from Christ himself who founded it. It is not man made. The Church preceded the Bible as you know it. People were not lingering around, wondering what to believe, they had the Church to teach them. God is not confined to the Bible which is just one way (a significant one) he reveals himself to us.
@@bartleyrector4845 Man you sound angry. If you re gonna argue at least do it charitably, maybe my Church' authority got it right there.
There were disagreements among the Jews about what constituted the canon of the old testament . Jewish sects had different canon of the old testament. This is almost unanimous among church historians. You can research on it. So I don't know what criterion you followed to assemble your Old testament. If I agree with a different canon of the old testament from one the Jewish sects, I wonder from what authority you ll tell me that your canon is right and not mine. The Bible does not authenticate itself, it does not come with a table of inspiration. To find out whether it is inspired or not, you have to rely on something outside of the Bible i.e: the Church. This goes against sola scriptura. If you want us to follow the bible as sola source of Christian doctrine, at least tell us for sure what the bible is.
You all examine the bible, under the same Holy spirit and yet you can't agree. The results speak for themselves: more than 40000 protestant denominations which are all correct in their own eyes. Is that a good testimony? That s pitiful.
The Bible itself does not claim to be the only deposit of faith.
If you want to find out what Catholics really believe in, then take the trouble to learn from Catholics. I can recommend a few titles if you want. Stop screaming rubbish i.e cannibalisms because we don't believe in such rubbish.
@@bartleyrector4845 The Center for Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is evangelical Protestant, estimates that there are currently 47,000 denominations.
Why don't you just do a quick google search to see for yourself?
Even if there were only 5 protestants denominations, that is still a problem that testifies to the scandal of protestant disunity.
I invite you to do a serious study of catholic theology. Put aside your deformed and preconceived anticatholic ideas, that s ridiculous. You can start by reading some former protestant theologians and pastors to have an idea of how to go about. Check out Steve ray, Scott Hahn, Karl Keating etc
@@bartleyrector4845 I can suggest too some rebutal videos, we ll go back and forth at this.
I think the way out is for you to put aside your emotions ( I guess you Love our Lord Jesus Christ as he is presented to you by your particular denomination) , do your own investigation ( watch as many videos as you can by protestants, read good protestant books, check also some good Catholic authors, read the Church fathers), examine the arguments objectively and make your own conclusions.
Many protestants hate the Catholic Church for what they think it is but a few only or none hate it for what it really is.
Learn Catholicism from catholic theologians, from official Church documents , you ll see how different it is from what you ve culturally learned about the Catholic Church or from your second hand knowledge about the Church.
Thanks.
It’s funny when James White been reading the church traditions, the books which Catholic canonized yet he’s not yet a Catholic himself. He isn’t debating against Patrick Madrid, he’s debating against himself. Spiraling to the same assumptions that he’s interpretation of the bible is correct. If all the early church fathers think like James White, we wouldn’t have the bible today, because we will only rely on our personal interpretation.
As hominem
You should probably learn about the canonization of the Bible outside the Catholic talking points. As if anyone needed to wait 500 years to discern scripture. Its the equivalent of Al Gore saying he invented the internet.
@@ministryoftruth1451 but Al Gore did invent the internet.
Al is similar to Ai. Ai run the internet. It's the same thing
@@ministryoftruth1451 As what some Catholic apologetics said in their videos before, Catholic don’t need to wait for 500 years before the canonization of scriptures because they already have it since then, the key point is “when dispute arises from heretics, that’s when the church needs to define things so people would understand about it”. It make sense because when you look at a family rules perspective, each family has their rules as to how they want their children to obey their parents, parents need not to tell other people about the rules they set for their children to follow, it is only when other people trying to question why they are doing it or what their rules are within the family or to the extent on disputing whether rules are humane or not.
@@Yoboyambassador Yes, but this already happened in the first century when heretics like Marcion attempted to make alternate claims.
Again, no need for the Catholic church to claim such a historical inaccuracy.
The question about the canon (that James White refused to answer) really is relevant. Growing up a Presbyterian, I was never taught anything solid about this. I decided at a young age that I had to have faith that the Bible was correct because I truly believed in God and could not just throw the Bible out. I’m so thankful God led me to his true church where this and many other questions have been answered.
Dr White is an expert avoiding those tough questions. In his debate with Dave Armstrong he was continually pushed to answer the question: when did the Catholic Church became apostate (something Dr White asserts)? but he said: "why do we need to know? do we care when the Pharisees became corrupted?. The funny thing is that in another debate in the protestant camp, they are pushing him very hard on this question and he also has refused to answer. He avoids those things that clearly make his position look incoherent.
Throughout the comment section it’s Presbyterians that apostatize from the faith. Why would you leave the finished perfect and complete work of Christ for one that isn’t?
@Salvador Burce Jr. Is not a self refutation because the point of the debate is not the Scriptura, which we all believe, but the SOLA. I believe in everything scripture says, and I am bound by it. But in reading scripture I let myself be guided by the Church that Christ instituted.
Now, Sola Scriptura is not a good position for you because of 4 main reasons:
1. you believe in the canon of Scripture but that is not revealed. It was given to you by the Church, and to the Church by God. So, here you have something you believe but was not revealed in Scripture.
2. Nowhere the bible says that what we are supposed to believe as Christians is *only* in the bible. This is your assumption but is not proven by the biblical text.
3. Nowhere the bible teaches clearly and unequivocally Sola Scriptura. You have to go to extrabiblical sources and argue that some entry you find in a lexicon means what you want it to mean.
4. Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles or any early Christian believed in this doctrine. This is a tradition of men invented in the XVI century.
Dylan Wagoner maybe because Presbyterians are often studious and biblically well-read? Converting to Catholicism is definitely not apostasy. 😅 Catholic Christians affirm the apostles creed same as Presbyterians.
@@fluffymoonhair If you read the book of Galatians, Paul pronounces anathema on a group of people who could say amen to everything in the Apostles Creed. The issue was that they added to the gospel, just as Rome does, which makes it an non-saving gospel. There is only one work presented on behalf of men and that's the work of Christ. Christ is the only savior of sinners and the ONLY mediator between God and man.
Although I’ve found him extremely arrogant and rude at times, James White has been a warrior for the Christian Faith by upholding the “Forgotten Trinity” and destroying false Christians and Atheists. My absolute respect for both gentleman. I wish we weren’t so divided on these fundamental principles 😞
I don't see that at all...
He regards Catholics as sub-Christian, refuses to shake hands with Catholic debaters, has actively slandered the Church as a cult and Babylonian-like deciever and made it a large part of his mission to get Catholics to leave the Church. Not sure what part of this warrants "respect". One drop of poison spoils the whole chalice and James White offers a poison in abundant supply with his "Reformed" Theology.
Agreed, his work against Mormons, JW's, other pseudo-Christian sects, Muslims, and KJV-only Protestants are all great.
Jozo Kulis oh wow I didn’t know that. Thanks!
@@hughmungus9739 Excellent comment !
Some overly sympathetic comments about James White. He has been rabidly anti-catholic and inflammatory for a long time considering Catholicism sub-Christian and cultists, often refuses to shake hands with Catholic debaters. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire when it comes to such manifest heresies and the unrepentant who espouse them to poison the hearts and minds of the faithful.
His sister Patty Bonds crossed the Tiber many years ago. www.catholicconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Story%20Patty%20Bonds.pdf
@@aadschram5877 yeah and he attacked his own sister for it too.
If you check out how he treated Robert Spencer in their debate on Islam, it is telling.
Also, he treats Dr. David Wood (a REAL doctorate holder, unlike White, from an accredited University, Fordham) very badly. White seems to attack Christians harder than Muslims.
I didn't even know he debated Catholics, but when I've seen him debate or talk about others I have found that his attitude is foul. I think he is smart and has much good to say, but his attitude can be foul.
King Baldwin IV hahah his doctorate isn’t accredited? I gotta look that up
Dr White, God love him, he's just ughhh. He'd make a hell of a Catholic if he got over his pride and dislike of the church
Tru
Imagine if we all fasted and prayed for the conversion of James White?
We need to pray for him. I think all the debating may have got him questioning his beliefs about Canon and predestination, but he still ardently rejects Marian doctrine, denying her importance and even falsifying Papal sermons from the early church in his book about Mary.
James White uses eloquence, sophistry and obfuscation to defend his positions.
I've seen his opponents intercept him with strong arguments but he cleverly goes round them while engaging in further sophistry, misrepresentation and baseless denials of facts or doctoring of the same.
He cannot get over the fact that the doctrines he's defending such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are basically indefensible. So he does some clever stretching and twisting of biblical verses and church history to fit his theology and belief system.
He strongly believes he has to defend his doctrines by hook or by crook.
Catholic apologists have to be on the offensive and see through his tricks.
In his debate with the assertive Gerry Matatics, White was forced to admit that neither Christ nor the apostles practised Sola Scriptura and also that the Bible did not teach Sola Scriptura as a sole rule of faith. That was "game over" for White.
@@salvadoralmeida7294 spot on
The fundamental issue that I realized during all my process of searching objective truth in all Christianity is this: Without the Church and the Apostolic Tradition that goes all the way back to Jesus himself, who founded this Catholic Church, we couldn't even had a Bible at all.
And to make this more shocking, the most impressive fact that I found is that the canon of Scripture was not established until the Council of Rome in 381-382 by the solemn declaration of a Bishop of Rome, the Pope Saint Damasus I.
It was in this way that I concluded that I trust the Bible because this and only this Catholic Church gave it to me. Otherwise if I reject the Catholic Church as corrupted nothing more is left for me. I don't have a minimal reason to trust the Bible.
That's why I think that is the worst irony to see non catholic Christians attacking the Church with the Bible that the Catholic Church gave to them.
All argument or false accusation against the Catholic Church plays against every protestant because is this Church the only one that compiled the Bible for the world.
Am I being clear?
Crystal! ❤️
So the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible. Not God. All glory to the Catholic Church. Got it.
@@glasspreacher8436 It was God but through the mean of the Catholic Church. They don't exclude each other. Spiritually speaking obviously it was God (through the life and teaching of Christ and afterwards with the Holy Spirit) but historically and in a material way it was through the Catholic Church (the Church that Christ founded in Peter and the apostles and in which came upon the Holy Spirit to inspire the Sacred Scriptures).
@@Arfaxad2207 Gotcha. So what do we do with someone who adds to the Gospel? Does what the established word have to say, stand in correction of this person? For example, the bodily assumption of Mary.
@@glasspreacher8436 look this is a complex debate and a never ending one. But I'll just say that there's no addition to the Gospel with that. The Assumption of the Virgin Mary is an ancient Apostolic Tradition that wasn't passed on in a written way in the Gospels but is a part of the ancient Christian faith.
The vital difference between Catholics and Protestants is about the revelation and its nature. We Catholics believe that revelation was handed down to the Church in written and an unwritten form, while protestants restrict revelation only to the written form.
But ancient christianity has always had both ways the written and unwritten form as ways that the revelation or word of God has been handed down to us.
I am currently leaving Protestantville, and before I even thought of Catholic...I was thinking about Sola Scriptura as one of the things that didn't necessarily make sense to me, but like Mr. Madrid pointed out to James White, who told him that the NT was the word of God?
Anyways, it was a good discussion.
Likewise, who defines what the Word of God is?
The Holy Spirit tells you the Word of God is
@@Adam-ue2ig Yeah. That's true. But Jesus didn't appeal to the Holy Spirit when debating with the pharisees, he always referred back to the OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE when making his case. The NEW TESTAMENT would hold no legitimacy unless it was built upon the OLD.
Check out vaticancatholic.com for important information. It can save your soul. Being Catholic is necessary for salvation
The Bible claims that it is from God (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Church RECOGNIZED that it was from God because it wss written by Apostles and Prophets (who were invested with divine authority)- it did not DECIDE what books were God's Word. See Ephesians 2:20. Please don't misunderstand the Protestant position - which I think you have. The Church has authority but not ULTIMATE authority. The Apostles and Prophets who wrote Scripture do.
Mr White wanted to bring up all old anti Catholic talking points as long as he does not have to talk about sola scriptura.
Why would not he not go on the offensive of Catholic presuppositions. Many times the Catholic is pointing the finger at the Protestant while he has three fingers pointing right back at him. The goal post doesn't get to be set in a different place for a Catholic. The BURDEN OF PROOF must be demonstrated for the Protestant position and the Catholic position as well. If a Catholic rejects SOLA SCRIPTURA, then on what basis does he do so?
@@jaimearviso4642 sola scriptura is a positive claim, hence the attendant burden of proof. Catholics just need sufficient evidence to accept the claim.
@@justinlovern1902
Of course it is a positive claim. But so is papal infallibility and SOLA ECCLESIA. The difference between Protestants and Catholics, is we try to make our appeal to evidence, reason, logic, exegesis, and scripture. For Catholics, the appeal is to Church Authority. Only they have the right to interpret. That's setting two standards, one for Catholics and one for Protestants.
@@jaimearviso4642 The debate was sola scriptura, not any of the other things you mentioned. Hence Patrick doesn't need to address them. You and White both appear to have difficulty staying on topic.
@@justinlovern1902 Not necessarily. Because they are related. The issue, when debating Catholics, is that there is no way to convince a Catholic because of circular reasoning. Catholics will say, scripture gives us and only us the infallible ability to interpret scripture. So anybody who is tasked with the burden of proof can in no way shape or form convince a Catholic as non Catholics lack the ability to interpret.
It's not that hard to understand.
James White is an excellent debater with a lot of knowledge. He does good job defending mere Christianity, but from my point of view his arrogance and biases keep him away from the Catholic Church.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us, James White and those who study these issues!
PRIDE is a PROTESTant's Achilles heel. They have baked in bigots.
It's interesting to think that the Pharisees accused Christ of arrogance and pride for his strong stance against their legalisms and hypocrisy. For someone to be interpreted as arrogant has nothing to do with whether they actually are or whether they are correct regarding their views.
@@jackjones3657 yes, I know, that's an ad hominem. I'm not saying his views are wrong because he is arrogant.
You just asked A dead man to pray for you. where is that in the Bible?
@@indielast5273 even if people tell you the verses from the Bible you will still approach them from your protestant point of view.
This debate was paramount in me choosing to study at Holy apostles college and seminary! Mr. Madrid teaches there. Currently an undergrad in theology!
How's your study ongoing?
@@Gabsboy123 Finals week has always been tough but the courses and online format work well for me. I am learning so much, but also learning how little I know! So much Catholic knowledge out there! Cant wait to finish next year!
@Bob Smithtruly intellectually and spiritually engaging! hopefully I can teach someday as well! Thirteen courses left...so still a ways to go yet. God Bless!
I remember listening to this years ago. It lead me to be convinced of the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
which version of the Bible?
@@truthseeker9163 Maybe the one that Luther took books out of
@@Malygosbluesahh yes. Luther. The father of Protestantism who teaches faith alone. No wonder the man who said “love God and sin boldly” taught faith alone and wanted to remove books from the Bible and was the inspiration for a certain German guy with a little mustache.
Obviously. I'm surprised to hear that this is considered a favourate for Catholics.
@@truthseeker9163 The one with 66 books in it, i.e. the original version.
It made me smile when Matt mentioned his debates with Cameron Bertuzzi, we know how that ended 😊
I think, the most convincing argument against sola scriptura, is that there was no bible for 400 years so how can sola scriptura be your absolute belief.
I don’t understand, there was a Bible. Peter even references Paul’s writings as scripture while still alive. The. Pencil of Nicaea used the Bible to defend Jesus as fully God and fully man early 300’s. Most books were recognized as inspired/scripture by 200 AD.
Great to know you are Australian, brother. Praying for you and for your apostolate. God bless you, Greetings from Brazil.
I was marveled at Mr Madrid commanding position throughout the debate. Political correctness was literally left at the door and I think that most contemporary debates pale in comparison to this apologetics masterclass by Mr Madrid. BRAVO Patrick!☝🏻✨
I heard after this debate he retired or refrained from further debates with Dr White. Im sure I know why since he was thoroughly embarrassed by his challenge and the debilitating rebuttal by Dr white!!! Great job Dr White!!! Lol
Madrid won on all counts. Doesnt matter if he didnt debate again. Jesus started Catholic church. Take RCIA and join!
@@ttshiromalol deluded.
Thought this was definitely thought-provoking. Despite being a Protestant, I disagree with the idea of sola scriptura due to the schizophrenic attitude it promotes and is evidenced throughout Protestant denominations and churches. This consequence alone leads me to reject the idea and is something I hadn’t considered thoroughly until you brought it up with CC, Matt. A question that would be good to ask is if Mr. Madrid has had any thoughts about the debate in hindsight and if any new evidence/arguments have come around that he would pose to those who still adhere to the idea.
Here's his post-debate hindsight: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-white-mans-burden
How are you a protestant but disagree with sola scriptura?
How do you confirm the correct interpretation of scripture?
Billy G I am also curious about this
@@billyg898 that’s how you know it’s another,... unfortunately,.. dishonest Catholic posing as a Protestant. I’ve seen many who make similar statements but their qualifying follow up comments don’t relate to Protestantism. In seriousness at least they’re not good liars. Yet they are immune to Scriptures when the thoughts of the papacy, Sola scriptura, transubstantiation and the whole 1950 Mary come lately fiasco etc. Just to name a few. Excuse the abrasiveness ! Apologies.
Jesus started Catholic church.
This was a fascinating debate. I recently converted to Catholic faith with my wife and daughters, just completed RCIA and had our confirmation and first celebration of Eucharist together as a family last Sunday. Anway, I grew up in reformed protestant tradition (Presbyterian) and still count protestants as brothers and sisters in the faith. But I always had a problem with sola scriptura and that this central plank of protestant theology is grounded in such flimsy evidence with so few direct scriptural passages, let along the problem of explaining what consistutes the canon of scripture without referring to tradition. Pat Madrid basically keeps hitting this point and White really has no convincing response. Indeed, in argument I experienced many fellow protestants basically referencing tradition (Calvin's Institutes, Westminster Confession of Faith etc) to hold up this position, never seeing the contradiction here. They have their own sources of authority that many of them hold in reverance close to the authority of the Catholic church, just don't acknowledge it as such which I find a little disingenuous.
But for me the more fascinating issue, framing the entire debate, even how to engage in debate, what the rules of logical argumentation are, the appeals to this in an effort to demonstrate 'truth' of the respective positions is basically shared and is fundamentally Greek philiosohpy going back to Plato and more especially Aristotle. Both preexisted Christ and were also not especially influenced by anything like the Abrahamic Old testament faith even. Both positions are incredibly influenced by this preChristian philosophy and never really acknowlege it, as provides the very rationale frameworks through which they think. It is a tradition that is definitely outside of Scripture and they both rely on and assert it constantly in regular references to fallicious and non-fallicious reasoning (eg circular reasoning or beging the question) ...... It is the very sea in which their thinking and assertions float.
Before Abraham WAS,...I AM! If there is any hint of morality, philosophy cannot stand on its own and had to borrow one way or the other of the Judeo/Christian view. Jesus I guess did not create everything that was ever made! Please call Dr. White on the dividing line as i would like to hear his response to your argumentation or assertion? Blessings.
@@bartleyrector4845 Jesus started the Catholic church. That is a fact. You are not in the Catholic. There is no salvation outside the Catholic church. You have lost your salvation. Why would you do that?
Madrid says your Presbyterian brothers and sisters are going to hell. Any objection to that?
White did answer the question (about how he knows what the Bible is and what belongs in it). The early Church (RCC it did not exist yet) recognized/discovered, under inspiration of the Spirit, God's word. Not to Madrid's satisfaction of course but that's different than saying he didnt answer.
The thing Madrid assumes, without argument unless I missed it, is that the early Church was the RCC. (Therefore we are all indebted to the RCC for giving us the Bible.) NOT!
And yes, we all use Greek logic. All truth is God's truth. Logic is intrinsic to God's nature.
@@kurtgundy Catholic church says that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, so Patrick basically states that. St Ignatius of Antioch in a letter to Smyrneans in 107ad states that where Jesus is, there is the Catholic church. Refuted!
Read the early church Fathers and they talk about real presence of Jesus in Eucharist, confession, and priests. Sounds Catholic? It is because it is Catholic. Refuted again.
At least you're enabling comments unlike James White's "Alpha and Omega Ministries"
When you are continuously spammed by anti-theists (not atheists) then he has good reason to not allow comments.
@@computationaltheist7267 He turns of the comments for Catholic Protestant debates too e.g. The Sungenis debate on Justification
@@fiveadayproductions987 Your comment suggests that he doesn't turn off comments for any other debate.
@@computationaltheist7267 What I'm saying is that he turns of them for all videos which is wrong; a debate on Justification isn't going to really draw that much comment from "anti-theists" but more Catholic Protestant discussions.
As a general principle for debates I feel comments should be kept on by the uploader unless there's excessive, abusive comments etc. Turning off all comments stifles the audience expression and conversation.
Furthermore if there are individual abusive comments they individually can't be removed
William Lane Craig also disables comments, unfortunately. I think he finds it against the spirit of debate, but I think we should be able to have discussions, especially if we timestamp a specific part of the debate and respond to it.
Thank you so much to both Mr Matt and Mr Madrid I’ve been a struggling protestant contimplating the overwhelm of arguementative force for the Catholic Faith even justified in scripture. But, this debate really has helped me feel relief and that I’m on the right track in heavily contimplating to convert to Catholocism!
Isn't this the debate that lead J. White's sister to become Catholic?
Woah, is that for real?
@@justinharnett I'm not sure if it was the debate but she certainly converted to Catholicism; and sadly James White was very harsh regarding this.
I think for her it was less of an argumentative reason. Idk though, I only saw her testimony a few years ago.
No.
You can read her conversion story in great patricks book "surprised by truth"
@@TheJason909 Thank you, I did find her already, in particular on Steve Ray's website.
White doesn’t exude “man who knows the love of God.” More like, “Man who is consumed by hatred and bitterness after his sister conceded to Catholicism”. Stark contrast to Madrid, who is usually soft-spoken and confident in the truth. When you have the truth, you speak it; when you’re just an angry Baptist, you screech at anyone who reminds you of the “betrayal” of your sister
He doesn't believe in mere Christianity. I believe he is wrong. In either case, from his point of view, I don't think he hates Catholic people only Catholic doctrine. Not sure why the Catholic Church itself would consider Protestants their "sisters", considering there is only "ONE TRUE INFALLIBLE CHURCH".
@@jaimearviso4642 most Catholics don't. And then act like protestants are continuing the division lol
Someone can be softspoken and confident and also be wrong....
@@icanfartloud It is also used to show his supposed piety.
Anyway I can't remember once when James White raised his voice or became angry. I don't remember whether it was this debate or another, were a planted audience member asked the question about James' sister(which obviously had nothing to do with the debate) Madrid pounced and used this to prove his point. I suppose we should telly up the number converted in either direction and then declare truth to the one with the largest total. mmmmmm
@@icanfartloud Madrid is right though. White never answered the Canon question.
The “Authoritative” argument Patrick brings up to James of why anyone should trust the New Testament as being the Word of God reminds me of the “Morality” argument Christians propose to Atheists.
Patrick to James:
How do you know the New Testament is the Word of God?
Christians to Atheists:
How do you know rape is always wrong?
James:
I don’t know but the scriptures are the Word of God and thus self-evident.
Atheists:
I don’t know but we are biologically programmed to preserve the human race thus harm to other humans is against our biological programming.
Patrick:
What’s stopping you from making your own New Testament since you read a “version” of the Bible assembled by the Catholic Church you believe to be the whore of Babylon?
Christians:
What if my biological programming told me that rape was the best way to procreate?
Patrick:
...
Atheists:
...
Patrick:
We need an infallible Authority here on earth that can discern these kinds of issues otherwise there would be thousands upon thousands of different views on how to practice Christianity and no one would be able to say the other is right or wrong. Look the Catholic Church is backed up by these scriptures in the Bible and the historical lineage of the early Christians.
Christians:
We need a transcendent moral standard outside of ourselves otherwise each individual would have a different set of moral codes and could kill and rape and no one could say that those actions are objectively right or wrong. Look this argument is backed up by deductive logical and philosophical reasoning.
James:
WE DONT NEED AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH TO KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS WORD OF GOD
Atheists:
WE DONT NEED GOD TO KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG
At least that’s how I thought about it in my head
😂 this is amazing
nice observation
I was thinking the same thing
It reminds me that at the end of the day, as we are spirit-body composites (as Jesus is both fully God and Man) - if I got to choose between a church that claims authority and has historical, mystical, miraculous and theological evidence to support it - and James white's argument relying on his personal interpretation of a single verse in the bible that could go either way.... I think I'd be more fully fed by the Catholic church.. also - communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, Eucharistic communion, all the sacraments in their full integrity... So under-rated!
the most protestant countries became the most atheist countries. go figure.
The Bible plainly says preaches oral tradition & offices of the Apostles are to be eternal as in the time of Jesus 90% of people in the Holy Land & in most of the world was ILLITERATE, a singular chain of authority was AND still is mandatory to hear what wasn't printed.
James White was actually holding his own in this debate until Patrick pressed him on the issue of the Canon. That’s when the debate shifted dramatically in favor of Patrick. Scripture Alone just gets more and more ridiculous the more you ponder it.
@Infinite Adriann hmmm….yeah, you’re right. James White actually wasn’t holding his own at all in this debate.
@Infinite Adriann I’m afraid I missed the irony. Care to explain?
The issue of the canon isn’t an issue of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura has to do with authority not the canon.
@@joshuaflippin791the issue of the canon is prior to Sola Scriptura. You can't appeal to the authority of scripture until you actually have scripture. Without scripture, you have no authority to appeal to that gives you the canon. You are left as either a Protestant believing the KJV was dropped out of the sky by God, or you appeal to church tradition as an authority prior to scripture. Once you appeal to tradition, you've punched a hole in the Sola Scriptura boat and you're taking on water
I love how Matt Fradd cleverly used the spinning cube as the visual background of the debate. I see it spinning in one direction but a blink of my eyes and it would look like it was spinning the other way. Two points of view of one image.
I always see it spinning towards the upper left. That is clever though.
Sola Scriptura would be looking at the cube from one side only and insisting that it's a two-dimensional square
Same thought about it.
@@Gabsboy123 Alternatively, Catholic tradition is like trying to add extra sides to the square and saying that it was necessary to have it be truly square.
@@TheRoark except they said cube and you just misrepresent them
I had to press pause after Patrick Madrid's first talk out of nervousness on how James White would respond. That was intense.
Thanks for leading me here, Joshua T Charles. And thanks for posting, Matt! Excited about Trent’s upcoming re-do!
Did you see the recent James White vs Jimmy Akin on Sola Scriptura. It was excellent.
I believe sola scriptura is self-contradicting. But I shared Patrick's frustration about James White not answering the question about how he knows what books belong in the bible.
How is it self contradicting? First provide the a definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA so I know what you are talking about.
@@jaimearviso4642 It's self-contradicting, because Scripture itself does not say Sola Scriptura. As for the definition, I see no reason to reinvent the dogma as its been understood for 500 years; Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture alone, is the sole authority of the Christian faith.
@@J..P.. The scripture doesn't say trinity either. It also doesn't say SOLA ECCLESIA. It's called EXEGESIS.Your doctrines are extracted from scripture whether explicitly stated or implied through demonstration.
And the principle of appealing to previous revelation for the justification for newly revealed revelation is well established. DEUT 13 was given to the Jews. Jesus and the disciples constantly appealed to the old testament to justify their new claims (especially when arguing with the Jews who appealed to their ... WAIT FOR IT .....traditions).
Yeah, the definition is that scripture, an artifact of revelation, is the sole authority. And you know why, because is the actual revelation of God to man. Essentially, it is "THUS SAYETH THE LORD" and/or is God Breathed.
Now, if the Catholic Church can demonstrate that any of its teachings are God breathed then by all means demonstrate that. The problem is, Catholics have disagreed on many things throughout its history.
When the Catholic Church is cornered, they appeal to traditions. The problem is traditions cannot be traced back to the first century for the many controversial doctrines out there.
@Asaph Vapor
Sola Scriptura is a pure invention of Luther, Calvin & Co. They already were for example in dissent about the meaning of the words of Christ's institution of the Eucharist. Luke 10,16 says: "He who HEARS you hears Me", so it is important to be in the unbroken succession of the disciples who sent Jesus. This apostolic succession is given in the Catholic (and also the Orthodox) Church. If Sola Scriptura would be veracious, then Jesus ought have told us a prophecy in the Gospel about the Protestant Reformation to come. Instead, Jesus prays intensely for the unity of his Church (John 17,21).
Read also 2 Tim, 13-14: "What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you-guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us." This explicitly contradicts "Sola Scriptura". Otherwise Paul shouldn't have strongly recommended to Timotheus to keep in mind Paul's oral teachings. These oral teachings of the Apostles are transmitted in the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church and together with the Holy Scripture in the Canon of 73 Books preserved from error through the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium of this Church, His Church.
lorem is right! Asaph is wrong! Asaph is wearing his tin foil hat today! Dont listen to anything Asaph says because he is from the church of Asaph!!!!!!!!!
Great work Matt. I also had this in mind last year, but I had no way of contacting Mr. Madrid. Love that you posted this. God bless!
Do you want to see Sola scriptura tested and debunked once and for all?
Get a Baptist pastor, a Lutheran pastor, a Methodist pastor, an Anglican pastor, a Presbyterian pastor, a Pentecostal pastor, a non denomination pastor, a church of Christ pastor, and give them a single Bible that contains 66 books and ask them why they all don’t believe the same things!
Just ask them about infant baptism and they'll all yell at each other bringing up Bible verses to prove that their side is right
That was terrible, you clearly don’t understand that the differences come from within the variable not the constant. The variable is man, these issues arise from NOT practicing Sola scriptura. That’s how you come up with Mormonism, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, and most especially Catholicism with its various dogmas and doctrines that both contradict scripture and are not found in it. I get why you guys have to deny sola scriptura, because you know that indulgences, Marian dogmas, purgatory, your view on justification, the magisterium, all of that you know does not come from scripture and is not apostolic. The entire theology Catholics have hangs on the denial of sola scriptura, listen to the Protestant side more carefully and I pray you come to the truth
Edwin Nunez the Bible came from tradition, not tradition from the Bible. Jesus never spoke about a Bible, he talked about a church. The church decided to compile a Bible with books about 300 years after the church began. Before the Bible was even created people were evangelizing what they were taught either by word of mouth or by scripture aka the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn’t considered holy scripture until years and years later. If scripture is the only rule of faith needed, shouldn’t it say that within the Bible? And wouldn’t Jesus give us a Bible? No, instead she gave us a church. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth according to the Bible. So if you believe in sola Scriptura, you’re disagreeing with the Bible Bc the Bible doesn’t say to put the Bible above all else. Instead it says the church is the foundation of truth.
He***
@@ashleyjuliet100
How did Peter convince the 3000 Othodox Jews in Acts. 2 that Jesus was the Messiah what tradition did he appeal to?
The contradiction between Protestants doctrines is the fruit of a bad tree. Jesus is too big to be contained in a book. Sola scriptural is obviously false. Bravo Mister Madrid🎉
This was absolutely thrilling to listen to.
Madrid: I reject Scripture Alone because I love the written word of God. I don’t want to see it undermined.
If you hold to Madrid’s position then the comment he makes at 45:30 is incoherent.
Patrick madrid nailed it. Very strong presentation
Very good debate. The clear truth was presented by Patrick Madrid. Although, I was surprised that the Scripture , First Timothy 3:15 “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” was not cited.
"But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one should act in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."
Why didn't he just trust to tradition to tell them?
1:41:05 thank you moderators of this debate (held in 1993 i believe) that made it so that there is no applause throughout the debate. It really improves the quality.
Patrick Madrid did an excellent job proving Scala Scriptura is false. I am a cradle Catholic & was given the Bible to read on my own when I began high school. Of course, the Church formed me through education through the Mass & the readings & CCD classes. I did learn from Patrick Madrid. The Catholic Church is very blessed to have Patrick evangelizing. God continue to bless your work, Patrick.
God bless you!
Only a roman catholic can listen to this debate and think that Madrid had a valid and logical argument
Regardless….Madrid won. White never answered canon question.
exactly
Before I reverted to the Catholic Church, I was a Reformed Presbyterian. The Sola Scriptura issue was the first crack in the edifice that finally came crashing down. If Sola Scripture were true then it would follow that Protestantism would speak with a unified voice verses the 30,000+ disparate groups that we see today. A book that was enlightening for me was "The Bible Made Impossible" by sociologist Christian Smith. He approaches the issue from a sociological perspective rather than theological thus presenting a refreshing and enlightening perspective.
Nice
It’s amazing that a Catholic could speak of a ‘unified voice’ being necessary. You do realize who the pope is right? The one that said atheists can go to heaven? Etc, etc, etc. The question is what is the ultimate authority: scripture or the church? If you say the church then you are placing it as an authority above scripture.
Ex Calvinist here. I can agree with that sentiment.
@@dylanwagoner9768 Thanks for your reply. What you said is something that I believed for many years until I researched the subject more. They Deposit of Faith as handed down from the Apostles onward and through the Church councils etc. and expressed in the creeds, canons, and decrees really has to do with the infallible sacred magisterium. This is the infallible teaching of the Church as revealed and protected by the Holy Spirit. It cannot nor has it changed. There is also the fallible ordinary magisterium. This includes opinions, theological or social, that a pope may make in public. These opinions as such are opinions and do not carry the weight of infallibility although they may agree with the Deposit of Faith. If they contradict the the Deposit of Faith, which I agree that this pope has done many times, that does not change the overall teaching. The fact that Judas (and I am not calling this pope Judas) betrayed Jesus, did not invalidate the college of Apostles nor the teachings of Jesus. There are many examples of bad popes and bishops throughout history. In fact Dante has many of them in Hell in the Inferno. One man not a doctrine make. There are Cardinals that have called the Pope out on his errors recently. The good part about the Catholic Church is that there are mechanisms for calling the clergy back to orthodoxy while maintaining the unity. In Protestantism, whenever there is a disagreement occurs, it is usually followed by fracturing the unity and starting a new group. Destroying the unity of the church as Martin Luther did is a very very serious sin. In 1 Corinthians 3, St. Paul talks about those who would fracture the Body of Christ and says, "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person. Dr. Brad Gregory has a book called "The Unintended Reformation" which clearly shows that the fracturing of the Church eventually led to the Enlightenment which eventually led to the secularization of the West. I think that he has a sound thesis. You should check that out. He also has a shorter book on Martin Luther.
Rest assured that the Pope's errors will eventually be corrected and come into line with the Deposit of Faith as Pope Honorius's errors were posthumously by a church council. This brings up another point. Up until 1517, Doctrine was always clarified by a plurality of ordained men in church councils. Martin Luther took it upon himself to as a sole individual, to change church teaching. That left the door open to private judgment in Protestantism where every individual Christian becomes in essence a pope, thus leading to the continual fragmentation of the church. Finally (and thanks for you patience if you have actually read this far!), the doctrine if infallibility in the Catholic Church, like any important topic, is nuanced. There are actually four levels of teaching, the first three carrying the weight of infallibility. As a Protestant, I always believed the caricature of the church that the pope could singlehandedly determine or change church doctrine. That is simply false. For more info on that, see www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/four-levels-of-the-churchs-teaching-12242 and for an open letter to the Pope by over 1500 Catholic scholars and priests calling him out on his errors, see www.documentcloud.org/documents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html. This shows how we correct errors without breaking the unity, very important. The Protestants, on the other hand, have errors, but no way to correct them but by increasing the disunity even further which is historically proven as true.
I enjoyed reading and responding to your comment. Please let me know what you think and God bless!
Ron Gaudio Yes. RCs believe that they Catholic Church over time’ is an authority above scripture and is infallible. I see no good reason why a Christian should believe that. There is no evidence that the apostles ever taught such a thing. Paul(in Acts) taught that wolves would come into the church and teach false doctrine. He pointed believers to the scriptures. Jesus judged precious traditions long held to be from God by the authority of scripture. Rome teaches many things. By what am I to judge? I think Jesus and the apostles would say the word of God. There is much more unity among different denominations of Protestants that truly believe and teach Sola Scriptura than Rome will ever have. It’s just a fact.
You can talk about being able to deal with disagreements in the RC church all you want. But you have a man, whom you claim is the ‘vicar of Christ’ on earth that believes atheists can go to heaven and many other heretical things. You’re telling me he sits in Peters seat?? It’s sad that many people believe such a thing.
This is the best! I'm a big fans of Patrick Madrid because of this debate
As a Christian with many questions, I find my roots in the Roman Catholic Church to hold me up when storms blow.
As a Christian with many questions and answers, I find my roots in the Reformed Lutheran church to hold me up when storms blow.
@@ghostl1124 nice Mike lol.. yeah I have good friends in the Lutheran Church.. pretty close to us in many ways. I just don't see how a Christian can pick and choose their denomination when Catholicism offers the fullness of faith and the support to back it up.. much love!
@@sloanjackson8 Hi Mark. One of the leaders of my mission says this: Catholicism is a step in the right direction. But, his conclusion is that it is only a step, and the fulness of faith is actually taught by the Scriptures. And thus a complete Christian faith is found outside of Catholicism. His conclusion is the best I have found to be true. He is neither Catholic, nor Lutheran. However, a Lutheran probably would be satisfied worshipping at his church long-term. That's my "take-on-it".
@@ghostl1124 who is it? Have any resources? And it's interesting how we come to the same conclusion about two different things.. Catholicism relies on scripture and tradition, putting it in my opinion, in a "fuller" position. I think often Protestants want to pin Catholics as anti scripture but I don't see that to be the case. I see scriptures being interpreted every which way without a historical organization with systematic processes to interpret scripture using the native languages as the text, and having close contexts using the church fathers, tradition, and what we know from the mass being practiced in the first century
Amen! Stay strong!
Took me a couple of days to finish this. I would say that this was indeed a wonderful debate and I do feel like, it does come down to fides et ratio. I really enjoyed this and I do totally agree with the R.C.C. and Madrid's points and stance. Though Mr. White's were very well put and quite convincing, if I do say so myself. Though I am not a debater, I find debates are very much for entertainment and very seldomly change hearts without prayer. However, the last bit really hits home and begs God and I think that is what will change hearts here and bring them to the one true apostolic Faith. God Bless you Matt for sharing this with us all.
Ryan...you are on the right track! Check out the book Why We Are Catholic by Trent Horn. You might like it! God bless you!
A Protestant here. There is an ultimate epistemological debate begging to be had under all of this debate and no one is having it. If I hear one more unsatisfying, begging the question response to "how do you know?" questions I might turn to nihilism!!!
White cant assure us that his interpretation is correct and he doesnt know which books are in New Testament!
What do you think is the fundamental question they are skipping?
@@alexis_says_hi I think it's less one question that is being skipped than an agreed epistemology. They don't agree on how things can come to be known or what is known and therefore aren't able to provide any relevant attack upon their opponents propositions.
@@brandonkemenymusic Maybe you have a better explanation but that seems like something people could discuss forever. Don't we have to make the assumption that we can know truth in order to discuss anything?
@@alexis_says_hi they both agree that we can know truth. But they have different understandings of what warrants something being considered good evidence to justify any truth claim, particularly about scripture.
How can anyone think White won that debate? He refused to admit that it was the Apostolic Tradition, Sacred Tradition, of the Catholic Church that decided what a bible was. Then White kept trying to divert the topic. For example he mentioned the Apochrapha books of OT several times. He also in my opinion , lied about no Apostles having used those books. The Septuagint was the bible of the Apostles, the Septuagint contained those books. Jesus celebrated the Feast of Dedication, Hannaku, which is only found in Maccabees. Madrid destroyed the heretic with his man made opinions
The bible was never alone it was with the church and magisterium.
Plus d.
What do you mean? The Bible was finished before the first century was done When did the magisterium develop? Research how the ROMAN church began, when an authoritative papacy began and how paganism entered the church under Constantine. When did infallibility become doctrine? How do you justify the goddess worship? I suspect you’ll say because the RCC said so.
@@kkdoc7864
**”The bible was finished before the first century was done”**
Please do some sufficient research before making rubbish claims. The bible did not come into existence until the 4th century. The Catholic Church canonized the Bible itself and decided which books were appropriate to include from the Old & New Testament.
@@kkdoc7864 Roman Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church, the true church
@@mattharazin5578 you need to research the history. It only became that once Constantine established Rome as its power center when that was never the intention of the early church. No one church that was established whether in Ephesus or Corinth or Thessalonica was ever more important than any other. Research how the papacy REALLY began, how corrupt self serving “popes” that “arose within” the original church began teaching doctrines of demons as both Christ and Paul predicted. How do you think Constantine was able to take a completely pagan Rome and meld the church with paganism so that no unrest would result. You know darn well the pagans would not just switch beliefs which means the church had to make a great deal of concessions. Peter was never the ROCK Jesus built His whole church on anyway. The verses leading up to Matthew 16:18 clearly show that. It was the amazing declaration of WHO CHRIST IS upon which the church is built. That’s why Jesus said, “ upon THIS rock” not upon YOU.this rock. Peter, like all the apostles followed by all true believers of the original gospel are little stones that build upon Christ who is the ROCK, the chief cornerstone.
I heard this debate 1997, I thought Patrick won the debate.
2020...Patrick still won because he speaks the truth!
@@johnyang1420 you notice this video and added discussion has to be replayed to claim victory on its own self merit? Lol
White is still waiting because he knows Truth will stand the test of time!!!
Scriptures is Sufficient! 🙏👍🏼
@@ttshiroma Where does bible say it must be in the bible? You are the loser. To be a winner, become Catholic.
I didnt replay video.
You are going to hell. Thats your problem. You can change but probably wont.
This debate reminds me of two brothers claiming that Mom loves me most? 😅
Love you Matt ... in Jesus Christ! I'm a protestant. I have to admit that I have a hard time regarding the way the CANON was established. James Wright answer this question (Mr Madrid insist that he did not) but I wouldn't say he convinced me.
Regardless of whether James' answer is satisfactory or not, it's kind of obvious that he won the debate!
Mr. Madrid's closing statement, particularly the last words, was fantastic.
Thanks for sharing this!
Mr. Madrid : Mr. White, how much is 1 + 1?
Mr. White: Vienna is the Capital of Austria, it's hot today, It's snowing in the North Pole
Mr. Madrid: Mr White how much is 1 + 1?
Mr. White: I like your shirt.
Mr. Madrid: Why you are not answering my question?
Mr. White: what do you mean? I am answering your question.
Conclusion: To Mr. White answering means saying words just that
Lol...exactly. jimmy's answer on madrid's question of who wrote tge gospel of matthew and how he knew mathew wrote it is so embarassing. What a heretic if not super hypocrite.
Instead of making jokes, you should respect both debaters.
You forgot the part where White resorts to mocking and ridiculing his opponent.
Where at did something like that happen ?
Doug8521 Patric Madrid, “language doesn’t matter” game, match, set. 😯
I agree with you Matt, this the best presentation by Mr. Madrid I have heard. Sola Scriptura is nonsense. Mr. Madrid did well in pointing out some the assumptions Mr. White holds and some of the inconsistencies. Example, that there were over 20 Protestant sects even before the death of Luther and thousands more today refutes the ‘self evident’ claims that the Sacred texts interpret themselves. Mr. White never refuted this fact. I would challenge the reality of the early Christians in general and the reality that those early Christians converted to faith, and often died for it, without access to the Sacred Scriptures. The Apostles traveled to China, India, Spain etc and many converted, without the Sacred texts. How is that possible? Even in out own lives, how many begin to believe before they can even read, let alone start to make sense of the texts? How about people that disabled and either can’t ever read or do not have the capacity to fully grasp and argue the points of faith? Is there no salvation for them? Of course there is because they put there trust in their loved ones who share the true faith that is based on the God-Man Jesus Christ. There are three groups that are, ‘people of the book.’ The Catholic Church is not a ‘people of the book.’ We, through baptism, are people of the man, the God-Man. Or more fully, people of the Living God.
Also how many could read then. Literacy rates went up phenomenally due to the printing press and universal schooling. Which were a long time coming in 36AD.
May I know why was The Bible is canonized? What is the importance of the canonization?
Joe....detemined which books to be included in bible.
100% Father.
Catholic Mariology convinced me to leave the Catholic church, the last nail in the coffin. Once I read this I ran out of there once and for all. I know all the arguments and are not convinced in the slightest:
But here is the Mary of Roman Catholic theology, from the prayer recited by Pope Pius XII at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiori in Rome on the opening of the Marian Year:
“
Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, O Immaculate Mother of Jesus, and our Mother Mary…. We adore and praise the peerless richness of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you above every other mere creature from the moment of your conception until the day on which, after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe.
“O, crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O, fragrant lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume. O, conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell.
“O, well beloved of God, hear the ardent cries which rise up from every heart in this year dedicated to you. Bend tenderly, O Mary, over our aching wounds; convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed. Comfort the poor and the humble, quench hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity and protect the Holy Church….
“Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications and, above all, obtain for us that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne, that hymn which is sung today around your altars, You are all beautiful, O Mary. You are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people.”
Dr. Walter Martin continues: "I want to point out that in the opening verses of the Biblical record concerning Mary, and in every verse of Scripture which is applied to her, never once is she ever removed from the category of the “handmaiden of the Lord” who rejoiced in the God of her salvation.
Yet today, after nineteen centuries, I make bold to say that the Roman Catholic Church and its theologians have unhesitatingly applied to her sacred titles alone given in the Bible to God the Father Himself and to Jesus Christ, Our Lord."
So Patrick Madrid started his first speak with James white went to the early church fathers, and that they were not there to prove from the early church fathers but scripture. But I listened to James White. He brought up mostly scripture . So Patrick Madrid totally ignored the scripture James White went to.
Haha funny how Dr.White always goes for sensational rhetoric when he can't refute arguments.
Give me an example of where he does this?
That's his whole modus operandi. He's a very dishonest debater.
@@jaimearviso4642 whenever he's asked to support the Bible's cannon with the very doctrine of sola scriptura. It is because it doesn't exist a straight answer away from this, he just happen to self contradict himself with a sort of James White's very personal magisterium before acknowledge that he can't build a canon with scripture only doctrine.
@@danielu.4957 I think you didn't listen very well to his answer. If by him saying that the canon is God's limitation on what He has revealed and man's recognition of that canon(set of revealed books).
Having been Roman Catholic for many years and finding it's constant, repetitive sacraments of no value to me as the promise of change never materialized. It is an endless chain of empty words and actions. I remember distinctly being told that after confirmation you would be a changed person once that arch-bishop laid his hands on you. Waited for this change to occur, nothing happened. It is a treadmill of emptiness providing no surety of you place as child of God.
By the way I found Madrid rude and condescending, never giving a straight answer and always appealing to the audience.
@@jamesarendse9739 Even though you tried to defend White's refusal to answer you still can't present a canon from sola scriptura, because sola scriptura is just an excuse to cherrypick some doctrines from the Bible and other doctrines from apostolic traditions.
Could you please have Dr. James White on the show???
@rufo dsouza Uh, no, Dr. James White is still alive.
@@Emper0rH0rde lol probably he meant that james white will die before coming on the show!
Baised lot.
Marcus Low that’s probably the case lol
James White doesn’t appear to be drawing people to Christ but drawing them to James White.
Sorry but, I love Dr. White and I don’t see why so many people are slandering him in these comments. However, I don’t understand why it’s so hard to read the Bible for yourself and not having a second party breathe over your neck to interpret it for you. Reading the Bible alone, would not give you Catholicism. The idolatry in Catholicism alone is grounds to dump it, but the deterioration of theological doctrine over the years from the 1 century on, is seriously a slap in the face to Catholic’s who claim reformed theology is “unstable”.
hmm.. may i interest you in some Catholic teaching? Accusing Idolatry seems a stretch since i am assuming you do not know Catholic Doctrine.. if you may.. look for Catholic Answers, its another channel that handles these misunderstandings :) have a good day!
Pierluigi I actually do know the doctrine, as I was a catholic from birth. But I’ll still look into the source you gave me, I want to see from actual Catholics what they believe now. But still what Dr. White has recently said is that the new RC isn’t the same as it was hundreds of years ago. They add and take away doctrines. And the newer Roman Catholics describe their new doctrines in such a different way than before.
Dr. White is very effective in the initial presentations as he always is in debates. However, when Mr. Madrid keeps resolute in asking him questions, Dr. White does not have answers. Up until that point I would have to say that Dr. White was ahead in the debate but showed the weaknesses of his arguments when trying to give answers to questions.
Need to sleep...5 more minutes. This was GOOOOOOOOD
Patrick Madrid answering James White’s question at about 1:34:00 digs his own grave. He spends the whole time laughing at how subjective James White reasoning is and then gives a list of subjective reasons about why he believes the pope is infallible. Even if an angel comes from heaven and teaches anything other than the apostles doctrine (the gospel) no one should believe it. Know what the Scripture says and build your life on it (which implies obedience of course).
We will all find out one day!
Patrick Madrid said we should reject Sola Scriptura as a tradition of men.
I thought we needed the “tradition of men” (i.e. church tradition, papal authority) because the Scripture was not sufficient.
This was said in the same breath in which Madrid said Sola Scriptura was self-refuting.
I'm with Madrid on the points of:
1) Since the "Reformation" there have been endless multitude Protestants that disagree amongst each other, yet hold fast to Sola Scriptura
2) Without a guide (a Church) to educate a person to read the Bible, how can anyone understand it correctly. - That has been the biggest reason why I have dreaded reading the Bible, because even as a Catholic I don't know how to accurately understand each verse.
You should read it, pal. But use the Catechism to guide you, and also the Denziger-Hunermann (about the Church documents)
Master Chief, thank you for the encouragement and suggestions!🙏🙏🙏❤
Protestant here. We do not promote solo scripture. We promote reading personally and in a church. We promote sola scripture.
Denis Dominguez I am refuting his point in #2.
Protestants? 33,000 denominations and going strong! All conflicting with each other! What a big confusing mess!
Just got to the end and heard your request, perhaps part of the issue is the Catholic understanding of Sola Scriptura, either way James won the debate. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the church is useless and the Holy Spirit is useless.
Sola scriptura literally means 'scripture alone', there is no place for the Church there, that is the very idea the reformers rebelled against. Madrid was right. You can't infallibly tell what the Bible is without the infallible authority of the Church. This led some protestant to say that the 'Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books' which makes the Bible fallible.
As a Roman Catholic for 35 years, i was stunned with the contents of the Bible. Reading the entire Bible is our responsibility before God. He will hold us all accountable for its contents. May Grace and Peace be multiplied to you.
“Focusing on what we agree on, not dividing the body of Christ!” 3:30
It is obvious as to what the real issue is:
The authority of the Catholic Church has authority over the Holy Spirit within those who are truly redeemed from the power of sin, born from above, and sealed by the Holy Spirit. Albeit, the word of God does not in any way support this line of thinking.
If the authority of the Catholic Church does (and it surely sounds like Mr. Madrid says it does), then the Lordship of the Holy Spirit has been made an auxiliary person who only exists in the background of the follower of Jesus ; if not verbally, most definitely in deed.
Only those who are born of God's Spirit can truly interpret the Holy Spirit-breathed word of God. This is why Jesus said, "The flesh profits nothing, it is the SPIRIT that gives life."
Good challenge. No wonder no one followed.
@@Nolongeraslave
To simply follow only Jesus is an affront to the religious, human ego. This is why Jesus said, "Truly I say unto you, unless you be converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."
@@dannisivoccia2712
🤔 I am trying hard to make sense out of your comment.
Your initial reply to my original comment concerning this video made me think that I was challenging the contents of what the video expressed, and that no one really cared. However, there is a reason; thus, my reply to you to your first comment.
You need to read more on Catholicism
To say the Bible is the soul authority because the Bible says it's the soul authority is circular reasoning. Many reasons to reject sola scriptura.
Unless the Bible treated as a historical document (not God breathed.) Showed that Jesus saying the scripture would be the sole guide after the instant authority proclaimed it. Or if scripture itself said it. In both those cases it would seem that the inerrant Church would be a temporary authority until scripture was established.
@@nics4967 The Bible is historical. And the word of God. The Bible plainly states the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church decided what Books belong in the Bible. The Bible came from the family not the family from the Bible.
Patrick Madrid just smacked mr white down. Mr White couldn't answer simple questions asked by Madrid whereas Madrid responded so clearly and the answers were so convincing. Catholicism is the truth.
Madrid showed good debating prowess here, especially in cross-examination, and raised some strong objections. Interestingly, though, he never developed a strong counter-exegesis of 2 Tim 3:16-17 that could significantly challenge the core of White’s biblical argument. Much appreciation to Matt for posting, and to both contenders. Very helpful interaction!
The answer is to not use the Bible as an encyclopedia. Paul was writing a letter to Timothy and on several occasions he commented Timothy on his upbringing and his steadfastness to what Paul handed down to him. Paul was constantly referring to his teachings and his life to be an example and used it to counter the ongoing abuses coming from those mentioned on the beginning of the chapter who can be taken as abusing the teaching office by deviating from Paul's doctrine (given to him by the leadership in Jerusalem). Paul is reminding Timothy that scripture is useful, but tells him to remain steadfast to what he learned from Paul. Scripture and tradition.
White also failed to show how he knows what is Cannon, and Madrid showed he was reading in a meaning into 2 Tim 3:16-17 that isn’t there. I’m still wondering how he can claim he has a verse to teach sufficiency. Also he couldn’t admit he follows tradition to decide what is scripture.
The material sufficiency vs formal sufficiency really defangs White's argument from Timothy. Catholics agree with material sufficiency but not with formal sufficiency, and Timothy can be read that way. Madrid should have conceded the Greek vocabulary to White. Protestant disunity on scriptural interpretation I think disproves formal sufficiency of scripture. Everyone agrees this bible is a bike but no one agrees on how to ride it.
Womderful debate. I like the material and formal sufficiency explanation of Mr. Madrid. Very true. There is rhe Church which Christ instituted and left to us thru Apostolic succession His teachings which we hold on to until today.. And truly, the compilation of the God-inspired books of the Bible is part of that tradition. It will always be, holding fast both to oral and written tradition. And not simply sola scriptura, resulting to hundreds of denominations today, not agreeing on issues. Lets continue praying for each other. God bless and stay safe.
Where is the bible Succession?
Loved it! Madrid did so well consistently keeping Dr White accountable to answer the Canon question which Dr White could not or would not. Thanks Matt for putting this up!
Madrid got thoroughly embarrassed at the challenge and continued to deflect and misrepresent the established definition of Sola Scriptora! How many Catholic Apologists need to debate the same subject with Dr White? All losses, don’t fool yourself.lol
Wow. This seems to be a common assessment and I find it most surprising since White provided a legitimate response to the canon question by recourse to the OT (i.e., the same way Jews/Christians knew that was Scripture). And yet, somehow, that point is entirely missed by Madrid. I'm not as concerned about the soundness of White's argument as I am that Madrid never explained why it wasn't sound, and how it is that his audience can find his non-response a strength. I don't expect Madrid to agree with White. I do expect him to give some evidence he actual understood the implications of what White was arguing. And here we are, somehow one of the more embarrassing oversights of Madrid gets championed as a victory. Very strange.
@@ttshiroma Madrid won. There is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Ty: Im outside the Catholic church.
@@ttshiroma Catholics win every time because the truth is on their side.
@@johnyang1420 hey genius the church does not dispense Salvation! Is that what your being taught? Salvation comes through Faith in Jesus the Christ. No wonder these are easy victories!
Love the gloves off approach of these old giants. No niceties, just brutal rough truth about an important topic. I used to be a prot when I first listened to this way back. I then found White more persuasive. I am a Catholic today and find my champion Madrid to be stronger!
Funny how things change.
Heard so many debates and still not convinced at all with RCC.
I never had to listen to White or Catholics on any of these topics to understand what Roman teaches and what the bible says. All you have to do is read Roman and her dogmas to know it isn't the word of God.
These guys let their education get in the way of the simple reading of scripture. I agree with White, but his argument wasn't in scripture. Scripture can prove itself if you just let it.
Prov.18 :17- Patrick Madrid's EPIC intro before he states his case🤣😂🙃 @27:20
Just saw your video on Eucharist Conference! It was so good! Thank you for sharing!
Thanks for sharing this. I am a protestant christian and stumbled upon your channel from your recent shayne smith interview.
This took me down quite the rabbit hole to explore catholicism.
This debate leaves me content with sola scriptura. However, I took a lot of notes and plan to listen to the full debate again.
I recommend the interview matt grass posted with Pat Madrid he talks about this debate specifically
I also recommend you watch the James White debates with Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn.
Please read the apostalic fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters (look at the letter to the Smyrneans), Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement etc.
White is very good at running away from answering the question, I’ll give him that.
Patrick Madrid clearly won the debate. We cannot understand the bible by our own, the bible itself confrims this.
How do we know the bible confirms this? Wouldn't we need someone to tell us that if we can't understand it? Lol. That's extremely self contradictory. White clearly won the debate.
@Nigel Butt The methodology for canonization can be demonstrated with the old testament. Jesus never appealed to authority only scripture as well.
@@6.0hhh St. Peter himself says: "At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual."
2 Peter, 1:20.
@@6.0hhh Did you just agree while disagreeing?
Jaime Arviso
Jesus appeals to authority a lot, namely his own. This is seen in the Sermon on the Mount in MT 5:22,28,34,39. This was even recognized by the crowd (MT 7:29).
I think Mr white will have no hesitant whatsoever to argue with St. Peter or Paul or any of the apostles themselves or even all of them combined.
Thanks Mr Madrid for shining the light.
It seems like White kept going back to refuting the Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition. Madrid kept trying to bring him back to proving where Sola Scriptura was in the Bible and White just kept deviating from the very topic he claimed the debate was going to be about. Perfect example of how even the most well-read Protestant knows that their belief in Bible alone is false.