On September 28, 1993, Baptist apologist James White debated Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid on Sola Scriptura, the Protestant belief that the Bible is the only infallible guide for the Church Jesus founded. You can easily obtain the tapes of this debate from Catholic Answers. In fact, you can even read the script ("Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?") of the entire debate on James White's web site.

The topic of this debate was "Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" The outcome was that James White could not prove his position. Whether Patrick Madrid looked bad in this debate, too, is not so relevant as White likes to think. After all, the burden of proof was on James White (since he had the affirmative position). Personally, I believe Mr. Madrid did a fine job, and, if anyone should be a winner of this debate, it's certainly Pat Madrid, because he refuted White's arguments for the formal sufficiency of Scripture. During the debate, White constantly begged the questions he couldn't answer, asking counter-questions or telling the audience why this or that argument of Madrid's was not valid, or simply by going around in circles, using lots of fancy terminology, but not answering the question. Indeed, White quite often uses his time to show that a question has been asked wrong or stuff like that, rather than answer it. In his debate vs. Madrid, the latter asked White how he knew which books belong in the Bible.

This is White's response:

And Mr. Madrid keeps saying, "What's your authority?" Listen to what Jesus says. He says to these men, "Have you not read what God said to you?" If God speaks to you, you do not ask Him for His business card. God's Word is theopneustos, it's His speaking.

Anyway, James White was to show us where the Bible taught Sola Scriptura. The first passage he came up with was 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Let me quote it from the NAB:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

At this point I want to note James White's own definition of Sola Scriptura, to which he so firmly holds, allegedly: The Bible is the only infallible guide for the Christian Church. Whatever is not in the Bible is not binding on the Christian conscience.

 So far, so good. However, in his opening arguments to the debate, White made a terrible mistake -- he himself made the mistake to state - implicitly - the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as something that it is NOT, something that every Catholic obviously gets wrong: White said:

Is the Bible the sole and infallible rule of faith for the Church? [So far, so good; but now comes the big blunder:] Or must we have other revelation from God?

Anyway, the only two arguments White came up with were these: Matthew 15, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees for getting around the commandment to honor one's Father and Mother; and 2 Tim 3:17, where it says the Scriptures make us "perfect," therefore, they must be formally sufficient.
In response, Pat Madrid cited several other passages that "make a man perfect" to show that the "perfect" in 2 Tim 3:17 does not mean sufficiency, or else there could not be any other verse claiming that something else than Scripture makes us perfect. An example of those passages is James 1:4.

White countered by saying that the Greek word used for "perfect" in 2 Tim 3:17 is not the same word used in James 1:4. That is true (James 1:4 uses "teleios"). And whatever that term of 2 Tim 3:17, "artios," may mean, Pat Madrid refuted White's claim by noting that if you join the military, they will also "fully equip" you for your mission, that is, they will give you a helmet, a rifle, etc. Thus, you are fully equipped to take part in a war, for example. BUT: Does that mean all these items make you sufficient to fight? No, because someone has to TRAIN you, has to show you when to throw a handgranade, reveal tactics to you, and so on. Therefore, the term "artios" does not have the effect James White wants it to have. What's White's response to Madrid's rebuttal? There is none. He only keeps pointing out all kinds of lexical resources and whatnot, yet he does not refute Madrid's argument. Indeed, neither "artios" nor "exartizo" means "sufficient" PRIMARILY. Indeed, it is "teleios" that means "perfect" in such a sense PRIMARILY. Actually, only thirdly or even fourthly. White did not respond to that in the debate itself, but gave a "reply" to that in his article, "Catholic Answers: Myth or Reality?" He accuses Madrid of the following:

[If Mr. Madrid is right, if the Greek lexicons actually say that,] why didn't he bring this out? Reason: he didn't know. He was simply going on his recollection of my own words.

Furthermore, even if 2 Timothy 3:17 proved the formal sufficiency of Scripture (which it cannot, for that would contradict Acts 8:30-31), then there would still be at least three unsolvable problems left:

How do you know which books are inspired?

2 Tim 3 says the man of God will be perfect. Who is a man of God?

How can I be sure that I have the correct translation of the Bible?

Let's now go to the second passage White used to demonstrate the Bible's alleged teaching of Sola Scriptura:

Matthew 15:1-6, NAB:

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal." He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.' But you say, 'Whoever says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God," need not honor his father.' You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Unfortunately, White is in grave error here. Jesus is not saying tradition counts for nothing; neither is he saying that only the Scriptures are the infallible rule of faith. He is not even condemning the Corban Rule, Mr. White! (Everyone, go to my essay on the Corban Rule, located here) What Jesus condemned was the application of the Corban Rule, not the rule itself. Some Jews misused it so as to get around their duty to care for their parents when they got elderly.

What Jesus was doing, then, is not even make tradition subordinate to the Scriptures, but COMPARE them. The conclusion was that the application of the Corban Rule was violating the Written Word of God. That's what was wrong. If there were any Catholic doctrine that contradicted God's Written Word, the Bible, then James White could truthfully draw an analogy with that situation and Matthew 15:1-6. But not one of all the Catholic teachings contradict the Bible, provided the latter is properly interpreted.

That brings me to another point. Whenever Jesus condemns Jewish practices, he refers to them as "your traditions" or "traditions of men." This could indeed imply that there must be such a thing as "SACRED Tradition," that is, "Tradition of God." In fact, that's what Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2, which James White has unsuccessfully tried to rebut.

Another thing that White did not respond to: the fact that the "Word of God" does not necessarily refer to the Bible (only). Madrid cited several passages that demonstrated that the "Word of God" did not always (only) mean Scripture. Again, James White failed to interact with that. There was no response. Yes, there was a lot of talking of Mr. White, but simply no arguments.

Now, after that whole debate, Patrick Madrid wrote a follow-up article in the Catholic magazine "This Rock." The article is a summary of the debate and gives some background information to what had happened before the debate and what was happening afterwards. It's entitled, "The White man's burden," and James White has already commented on it in his document, "Catholic Answers: Myth or Reality?"

To this latter essay I would like to say a few things:

James White claims that Madrid had lost the debate, or otherwise his follow-up article would have been unnecessary.
From an argumentative point-of-view, it was James White himself who lost the debate, as I just demonstrated. In addition, Catholic Answers, the organization Madrid worked for at that time, offers the tapes to that debate for less than ten dollars. Now, let me ask you: Why would Catholic Answers sell the tapes of this debate if Pat Madrid had obviously lost it? It wouldn't make sense at all. That alone should suffice to say that White's claim Madrid had lost is erroneous. Sure, White's organization, "Alpha and Omega Ministries," sells the tapes as well. It seems like both Madrid and White are confident that THEY were the winners. In fact, I encourage you to buy those tapes, listen to them a couple of times, and decide for yourself who won and who lost. It is usual that a debate does not have a sure outcome. I personally believe Pat Madrid is the winner. Not because I am Catholic, but because Madrid asked James White several questions he simply could not answer. That shows how erroneous Sola Scriptura is. White cannot tell us which books belong to God's Word, what must be interpreted how, and if infant baptism, for example, is correct or not. These questions cannot be answered by "going by Scripture ALONE." Scripture does not give (clear) answers to that. So, is THAT (Sola Scriptura) the way God fathers his children? That would be an insult towards God!

White often accuses his opponents of misrepresenting the Protestant position, or misunderstanding it. Indeed, he says that the men of Catholic Answers are dishonest. While they MAY have misrepresented or even misunderstood Sola Scriptura at times, Pat Madrid certainly did not when he was debating James White and in his follow-up article in "This Rock." There, Madrid says:

Sola Scriptura [is] the theory that Scripture is formally sufficient for deciding all matters of Christian doctrine and practice.

In his essay, "Catholic Answers: Myth or Reality?" White first tries to rebut Madrid's article, "The White man's burden," heavily. Let me examine his arguments.

Woah! Here comes blunder #1. White feels upset that Madrid called his Alpha and Omega Ministries anti-Catholic. Well, Mr. White, if you're not anti-Catholic (among other things), what are you? Yes, you are certainly a good critic of Roman Catholicism, even if you only talk rather than convince, but that's not the issue. Madrid was pointing out how much you hate Catholicism. That's all.

You know, if you don't like your anti-Catholic attitude being pointed out, Mr. White, then you simply should become a Catholic. That's the best solution. You complain about people giving some background information about you. What's wrong with that? After all, FACTS were presented, not myths (and by the way, you yourself referred to James Akin as "a man who was busily writing notes to Mr. Madrid during our debate" so as to embarrass Pat Madrid). Also, it is simply a temerity to accuse Madrid of attacking your ministry as being tiny, simply because he said that you run a small one. That's just a fact, and readers might be interested in knowing that. If people have background information about you and your ministry, then it's easier to see where you're coming from. For example, if there's a debate with Loraine Boettner, we know that this man doesn't necessarily argue because of REASON against the Catholic position, but because he simply hates it, and thus does anything to "refute" it, as his book Roman Catholicism clearly shows.

Mr. White, I listened to the debate tapes myself. And I came to the following conclusion: You are an intense anti-Catholic who addresses every issue, yet does not always have a counter-argument and try to hide that fact by talking, using all kinds of fancy terminology, not answering the original question. You are truly a "debate hunter," claiming afterwards that so-and-so is "afraid" to debate you. This is the picture I got from you after listening to the debate and viewing your web site.
By the way, let me note that no one ever claimed you have "chased" ALL the apologists you debate. The fact that you didn't even know Dr. Art Sippo does not at all take away from the truth that you "chase" others to debate with you.

Here's a very good example of White addressing, yet not rebutting everything. In his opening remarks, White addresses 1 Timothy 3:15, which says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth, yet does nothing to refute the Catholic claim, namely, that the Church has authority and always teaches the truth.

Next White gives us a good definition of Sola Scriptura. However, all of his arguments fall flat because the Bible is a matter of interpretation, as 28,000 "Christian" denominations prove every day. As his first argument, he says Keating and Catholic Answers have misused 2 Timothy 3:16-17 by saying that the word "Scripture" only refers to the OT, since the NT had not been written yet. White claims that St. Paul was talking about the nature of Scripture in general. White could be right, be it is less likely because Paul talks about the Scriptures that Timothy knew "from infancy" on (see 2 Tim 3:15).

Talking about 2 Tim 3:16-17, White concludes (actually, MISconcludes) that one "need not draw from any other source [besides the Bible] so as to be able to teach sound doctrine." Sorry, James, that's not what it says. It does say Scripture is profitable and all that, but it's simply a misconclusion to state what you state.

I would like to acknowledge the fact that White does not say the Word of God was ever transmitted orally. He believes that. However, he also believes that this is now over, and ALL OF IT has been written down. Mr. White, my question to you: Where does it say that (2 Tim 3 does not!)? Indeed, even if almost all of it should have been written down, the CANON of Scripture could not have been written down, that HAD to be drawn from "other revelation" -- Sacred Tradition, namely. Another noteworthy fact is also that James White NOW claims Pat Madrid had been knocking down straw men, yet did not say a word during the debate that night. I wonder why. Why, Mr. White, did you not say to Mr. Madrid, "Hold on, wait a minute, you got the Protestant position wrong?"

Next comes a typical argument of James White's:
The doctrinal chaos that reigns in Protestantism is NOT a valid argument for the Catholic position.
Did you see that? Instead of White trying to rebut the statement, he looks for reasons why we Catholics should not even have brought up that question or statment. This is ridiculous!

One of the reaosons why this argument is allegedly invalid is that Rome has not offered a good alternative. What an argument, Mr. White! But any way, Rome HAS. Remember, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and safeguarded Her, His Bride against false teaching. Dissenting Catholics, and all non-Catholic Christians, should carefully reconsider their action in the light of the Messiah's admonitions in Matthew 16:18, Mark 16:16, Luke 10:16, John 8:31-32, and so on. The Church only teaches ONE SET of beliefs ("one Lord, one faith, one baptism"; cf. Ephesians 4:5), and that is what has to be believed. What does the Protestant church teach on infant baptism, for example? There is no answer. It depends on what denomination you ask. And who has the authority to correctly define Sola Scriptura? Should we trust James White? Or Martin Luther? Or Billy Graham? Or D. James Kennedy?
Indeed, the ACTUAL question that must be asked if someone claims the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, is "Where does the Bible give the DEFINITION of Sola Scriptura?"
I notified James White of the fact that Protestants do not have "one faith" (because, based on Sola Scriptura, everyone believes things a little different; that's why we have 28,000 denominations) as we must according to Ephesians 4:5, by e-mail, yet he never actually refuted my argument. He tried, but failed utterly. He set up his straw man and knocked him down. He thought the Catholic Church had the same problem, even though I had given him a good argument why this is false. White failed to rebut this argument.

Later in his essay, White says Karl Keating, a fellow-apologist (Catholic), is wrong in saying the Scriptures are not a living teacher; he justifies his claim by citing 2 Tim 3:16, where it says that the Scriptures "make you wise unto salvation." I think White has failed to grasp what is obviously Keating's true point. Keating is not saying the Scriptures can't do anything (that would be like saying the Scriptures are superfluous); he said that the Bible is not ALIVE, that is, it is useless unless it's picked up and READ.

In the question and answer section of the debate, White asked Madrid if he thought it was a "good work" that the Pope is infallible, or the praying to Mary. If so, how come, he asked, it's not in Scripture, whereas 2 Tim 3:16-17 states that WHATEVER NEEDED for EVERY GOOD WORK is contained in Scripture. Madrid excellently answered that by noting that one "good work" is the teaching of true doctrine. That includes Marian intercession and Papal infallibility. White could not refute it; what is more, he even restated the question in his essay.

Near the end of his essay, White says:

[If] men of God disagree with one another, and hold to traditions of men rather than the fullness of God's truth in Scripture, does this indicate an INSUFFICIENCY of Scripture? Of course not!

one cannot know who is a man of God

one cannot know if one is holding fast to a tradition of men or God's truth

It is quite true that we are never told that anything besides "Scripture" is God-breathed (which does NOT equate to "we are told NOTHING besides Scripture is God-breathed"). However, at least the Tradition that says what Scripture IS must be God-breathed, so, again, White's claim reduces to nothing when he says that because nothing else is God-breathed, Sacred Tradition is unlikely to exist.

But even if this argument would truly prove that the Magisterium is not working sufficiently, White could still not uphold his position. We Catholics would be defeated, but so would he. This fact, however, he likes to consider a victory of his, which is fallacious. Basically, what he is saying is this: "I am disproven, but so are the Catholics, so I am NOT disproven."

Mr. White, you ask why Karl Keating has so often declined to debate with you. Even though I cannot speak for him, let me give you some possible reasons:

He has more important things to do than spend time with a "debate junkie" (he knows you and your "art" of debating!)

There are so many issues we could discuss, but only one that's essential: authority. If Protestants have no authority, then all other issues (be it salvation or creation "vs." evolution) are worthless. And authority has already been debated with Pat Madrid, and if you truly believe you've won this debate, then you are blinded by the devil's false light.

So, James White, this *one single verse* that we requested from you that teaches Sola Scriptura has been refuted. Hence, we keep asking all Protestants: GIVE US A SINGLE VERSE THAT TEACHES "THE BIBLE ONLY!"

In one of his later paragraphs, White says Catholics have changed their position. Now they claim that the Bible is materially, yet not formally sufficient. He says Trent did not teach that. His claim is highly questionable, because what he quoted from Trent does not prove his position at all. But, again, that is not the issue either. White had (and still does) to prove the formal sufficiency of the Bible, regardless actually of whether Catholics believe in a material one or not. Surprisingly (or maybe not?), White all of a sudden claims that Protestants did not believe in the formal sufficiency as stated by Madrid. Well, while this is true (White cited the Baptist confession of faith which said some things are not to be recognized on the surface but need further in-depth study) for his Reformed Baptist belief, obviously, it destroys his entire position immediately.

If there ARE admittedly things that are hard to understand and the unstable and deceivers misinterpret (as St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3:15-16), then what reason do we have to even bother to listen to Mr. White and what he claims the Bible teaches? He could be wrong anyway! If Mr. White does not believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, then

he must prove to us that he is not subject to 2 Peter 3:15-16

he must show us why it is his Reformed Baptist denomination that gets it all right

he must prove that the Catholic Church teaches falsehood

Thus, there is no further need to rebut the small rest of James White's article, because all of his arguments depend on either of the choices concerning the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Finally, though, let me point out one of my favorite Bible quotes; for Protestants certainly something to think about:

1 Corinthians 1:10

 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

The belief in Sola Scriptura is Protestantism's foundational error. Your burden, James White, is not lifted.