Answers to James White

[Church_Militant]

I listened to that DL today myself. Somehow Dr. White thinks that if we haven’t agreed with him yet, it must be because we haven’t taken the time to hear what he has to say and understand it. Actually, the truth is much simpler: We have listened, we have understood, and we reject it.

Exactly!

 

[EricFilmer]

I listened to the posted program of Dr. White’s and saw that he quoted and responded to a number of our posts in this thread. He commented on what I stated in Post #20 and said that he actually dug up and re-read the email I sent him back in December of 2011. He correctly told his audience that I invited him to come on CAF. In the linked program, White stated that he only has a staff of two, and that his schedule is full of traveling, teaching, preaching, debating, writing books, doing his program, etc. He then said…

"Ask yourself the question, ‘Does this man have the time to go to the Catholic Answers Forums and deal with the flood of stuff that would be sent him by people who will not take the time to listen to, or read anything, that I’ve published or produced before?’ The answer is obviously, ‘No!’

…And even if I had a staff I don’t know that I could keep up. And I can guarantee you that the moderators of the Catholic Answers Forums are not going to want me posting multiple posts everyday filled with references to my materials. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen.

So he wrote to me and my point was not that I should have the right to respond to the Catholic Answers Forum, my point was that what’s said about me in the Catholic Answers Forums just demonstrates a mindset that’s absolutely absurd. But you know the other bad, bad, horrible, nasty thing that Eric Filmer pointed out was? That I was being…my being aggressive and rude? He wished me ‘Merry Christmas’ and I didn’t return his wish of Merry Christmas in my response to his email. There you go. Someone actually said, ‘Well, he doesn’t think you’re a Christian so why should he?’ No, actually, um, I was just responding to the fact that he was missing the point of my blog article. And you can go on the internet and read it yourself."

Well, assuming that Dr. White is still monitoring this thread, here is my response:

“Does this man have the time…?”

In your blog article of Dec. 12, 2011 you stated that the “denizens” of CAF are “truth starved.” I understand that you’re busy, but what I don’t understand is that if you consider the Catholics on CAF to be so “truth starved” then why aren’t you interested in feeding us? Why are all those other people more deserving of your time than we are?

“And even if I had a staff I don’t know that I could keep up.”

You already have a staff here, Dr. White, at least in a manner-of-speaking. As I pointed out to you back in Dec. of 2011, you have many supporters actively participating on CAF. Are you of the opinion that the only people who post on CAF are Catholics? You would have lot of help here on the forums in covering the various posts.

“…the flood of stuff that would be sent him by people who will not take the time to listen to, or read, anything that I’ve published or produced before?”

If you look up your name in the CAF search engine you’ll notice that lots of people have debated your published material in the past. People here are very knowledgeable of it, so your dire prediction is demonstrably false.

“…the moderators of the Catholic Answers Forums are not going to want me posting multiple posts everyday filled with references to my materials. Ain’t gonna happen.”

And yet in the past the moderators have left in place plenty of other links pertaining to your material. Like I said, you have quite a few supporters here. So what’s is the basis of your prediction?

But you know the other bad, bad, horrible, nasty thing that Eric Filmer pointed out was? That I was being…my being aggressive and rude? He wished me ‘Merry Christmas’ and I didn’t return his wish of Merry Christmas in my response to his email. There you go.

And for the record, I wished you and your family a “Merry Christmas” twice (which you failed to mention to your audience). And my exact words were, “Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but I think it was supposed to be an intentional slight” (yet another thing you failed to mention to your audience). So, did I say or even indicate that this was (as you put it), a “bad, bad, horrible, nasty thing”? No, I said it came across as “an intentional slight,” and it still does.

“I was just responding to the fact that he was missing the point of my blog article.”

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You did not thank me for the invitation, and you did not return my sentiment in twice wishing you and your family a “Merry Christmas”. But such actions are not impolite or intended to be a slight because (I guess) if someone comments on a blog but misses the point of it, then the blog-writer is excused from practicing good manners. Hmmm… I’m kinda having a hard time working that one out…

And it looks like you missed the point of the initial email as well. The question was not whether or not you had a right to post on CAF. The invitation was for you to come on CAF to directly address people you chose to criticize in two of your blog articles (one of whom happened to be my brother). Yet again, you failed to point this out to your audience.

 

[Trebor135]

No…

Plus, he misunderstood and/or misrepresented me in more than one way (further comments on his show in a later post). White also failed to realize or point out that I’m becoming Eastern Orthodox (as per my “Religion” field); he treated all of us as if we were Catholic.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Plus, he misunderstood and/or misrepresented me in more than one way (further comments on his show in a later post). White also failed to realize or point out that I’m becoming Eastern Orthodox (as per my “Religion” field); he treated all of us as if we were Catholic.

I doubt he is actually reading our posts, then. No surprise there.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7706

 

[Apologist78]

I’d really appreciate some help in response to a lot of James White apologetic output. My husband is really into him, and I am finding it hard to respond to a lot of what he says. I’m still really interested in Catholicism and want a coherent answer for the things he comes out with. Is there a Catholic apologist who has addressed James White comprehensively?

If you are looking for good material to read, the website “Called to Communion” is a good website. The website is run by converts to the Catholic Faith from Reformed tradition, which is the Tradition White is from. This is important, I think because I find those from the Reformed Tradition usually are the most scholarly and intellectual in their theology. Whenever I hear that someone has converted to the Catholic Faith from the reformed Tradition I am always intrigued. From my view Called to Communion is one of the better websites.

While I am Catholic and I disagree with White on many counts, I can and do admit that he is one of the better apologists for the Protestant cause. Given that he comes from the Reformed Tradition this should not be surprising. He is a good debater, he is well researched, and he is well prepared when he debates.

I think the problem with White is the same problem most Protestants have: they do not understand Catholicism because they miss the forrest for the trees. Catholicism cannot be understood in its parts, it must be understood as a whole. In other words White and the like tend to isolate the doctrines from each other rather then seeing how they are part of the whole.

For example: The Immaculate Conception as a Doctrine presupposes a developed and understood theology of Original Sin. It also presupposes a fully developed, clarified, and understood Christology. It took the Church at least 700 years just to clarify and define the formal doctrines regarding Christ. The doctrine of Orignal Sin likewise. Knowing this, and we should not be suprised when reading the Early Church Fathers we don’t see much in the way of a formal reference to an Immaculate Conception, since we can’t understand who Mary is until we understand who Christ is, and we can’t understand the Immaculate Conception without first understanding what Original Sin is. In short the “theological scaffolding” has to be in place before a doctrine can be formally defined. White fails to grasp this. Wondering why the ECF does not formally reference the Immaculate Conception is like wondering why Newton does not talk about a Theory of Relativity and suggested that Time is constant.

That is just one example, but this example can apply to most every modern development such as the papacy, Purgatory, etc.

White also tends to take a “Propositional Model” of Revelation as evidenced by his constant demand to “Produce a list or lists or all the Traditions not contained in Scripture” Vatican II does not operate on such a model. He seems to reduce Revelation to nothing more than the utterance of Divine Propositions that can be examined and parced with the modern tools of Theology. Revelation is far broader and far bigger than a bunch of Divine Propositions that we intellectually assent to through Faith. His “Produce a list or lists of all the Traditions not contained in Scripture” also misunderstands Tradition. Tradition is the whole of the Faith, life, and worship of the Church. The Bible is Tradition, it is not something other than Tradition. The Bible is that aspect of Tradition that is “Theopneustos” which makes it unique in the life of the Church. To refer to the BIble is not to refer away from Tradition but to it. Likewise to refer to Tradition or to the Church is not to refer away from the Bible, for the Church as a whole embodies the Word of God in her life, worship and devotion. Hence the worship, life, and devotion of the Church is a reflection of Tradition much the same as the Bible is, the only exception being that the Bible alone is that which is Theopneustos.

For the Church, the question of Scriptura Sola is not a question of the Bible’s Inspiration (which White tends to want to reduce it to) but a question of HOW the Faith is transmitted. Protestants claim the Faith is transmitted in the Sciptures alone, Catholics that the Faith is transmitted through the Scriptures, the worship, the prayers, the life and devotion of the Church which includes the writtings of the Fathers–for again, the Church embodies the Word of God. That is why Catholics can say “We do not derive the certainty of the Christian Faith from the Sciptures alone.”

White while intelligent seems to fail to grasp these subtle nuances.

In any case check out “Called to Communion.” There is a ton of information on that site.

 

[pablope]

If you are looking for good material to read, the I think the problem with White is the same problem most Protestants have: they do not understand Catholicism because they miss the forrest for the trees. Catholicism cannot be understood in its parts, it must be understood as a whole. In other words White and the like tend to isolate the doctrines from each other rather then seeing how they are part of the whole.

For example: The Immaculate Conception as a Doctrine presupposes a developed and understood theology of Original Sin. It also presupposes a fully developed, clarified, and understood Christology. It took the Church at least 700 years just to clarify and define the formal doctrines regarding Christ. The doctrine of Orignal Sin likewise. Knowing this, and we should not be suprised when reading the Early Church Fathers we don’t see much in the way of a formal reference to an Immaculate Conception, since we can’t understand who Mary is until we understand who Christ is, and we can’t understand the Immaculate Conception without first understanding what Original Sin is. In short the “theological scaffolding” has to be in place before a doctrine can be formally defined. White fails to grasp this. Wondering why the ECF does not formally reference the Immaculate Conception is like wondering why Newton does not talk about a Theory of Relativity and suggested that Time is constant.

That is just one example, but this example can apply to most every modern development such as the papacy, Purgatory, etc.

White also tends to take a “Propositional Model” of Revelation as evidenced by his constant demand to “Produce a list or lists or all the Traditions not contained in Scripture” Vatican II does not operate on such a model. He seems to reduce Revelation to nothing more than the utterance of Divine Propositions that can be examined and parced with the modern tools of Theology. Revelation is far broader and far bigger than a bunch of Divine Propositions that we intellectually assent to through Faith. His “Produce a list or lists of all the Traditions not contained in Scripture” also misunderstands Tradition. Tradition is the whole of the Faith, life, and worship of the Church. The Bible is Tradition, it is not something other than Tradition. The Bible is that aspect of Tradition that is “Theopneustos” which makes it unique in the life of the Church. To refer to the BIble is not to refer away from Tradition but to it. Likewise to refer to Tradition or to the Church is not to refer away from the Bible, for the Church as a whole embodies the Word of God in her life, worship and devotion. Hence the worship, life, and devotion of the Church is a reflection of Tradition much the same as the Bible is, the only exception being that the Bible alone is that which is Theopneustos.

For the Church, the question of Scriptura Sola is not a question of the Bible’s Inspiration (which White tends to want to reduce it to) but a question of HOW the Faith is transmitted. Protestants claim the Faith is transmitted in the Sciptures alone, Catholics that the Faith is transmitted through the Scriptures, the worship, the prayers, the life and devotion of the Church which includes the writtings of the Fathers–for again, the Church embodies the Word of God. That is why Catholics can say “We do not derive the certainty of the Christian Faith from the Sciptures alone.”

White while intelligent seems to fail to grasp these subtle nuances.

In any case check out “Called to Communion.” There is a ton of information on that site.

Well said…and explained. Hope you do not mind me borrowing some of your explanations on Tradition and the life of the church…

 

[Trebor135]

Before I forget–and it comes as something of a surprise that no one has brought him up yet–I have to mention that Robert Sungenis of The Bellarmine Report has done some splendid work to counter James White. Please see “Romans 4:4”, “James White and Romans 4:8”, “Response to James White’s Comments on Our Debate Concerning Predestination/Free Will and the Assumption of Mary”, and “Second Rebuttal to Dr. James R. White on Predestination”.

For more material against Calvinism, please see “Rebuttal to Michael Horton on Justification”.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well, I listened to the part where he mentioned me, and James addressed my two posts (#2, #3), and yet he didn’t really address them at all.

In the first, he (for some reason) left off the last sentence: This is because texts like 2 Timothy 3:16f applied during a “time of enscripturation,” it couldn’t have been teaching SS without falling into the fallacy of anachronism (that is, reading back into a text a historically impossible detail).
And this sentence is key to what I was saying. So whatever the reason, he managed to quote everything else I said, but not the last sentence. I’d bet if his listeners heard him quote this sentence, they might start to ask some inconvenient questions.

As for the next post, he claims that I was dishonest in saying he has never openly and objectively addressed Logizomai. He responded by saying he surely has, in his book on Justification. But if one follows the link I provided, I quote White’s book on Justification, and this is what White says: James White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, pp. 155f; (c.f. The God Who Justifies, pp.112f),
The Hebrew term hashav has some interesting uses in the Old Testament. We need to discover the background of Paul’s use of the term as it is found relative to the imputation of righteousness. … [quotes
Genesis 31:14f and Leviticus 25:31] … All of the examples listed above of this use hashav are translated in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by the very same term [logizomai] Paul uses in Romans 4 when he speaks of the imputation or reckoning of righteousness to the believer! Why is this so significant? Because scholars recognize that Paul utilized the Septuagint as his main source of biblical citations, and his vocabulary is deeply influenced by it. Our understanding of what it means to impute something should take this into consideration.
This is the extent of White’s treatment of a word that appears over 100 times in the OT and 40 times in the NT. White says look at ‘all these examples’, and he quotes a measly two verses! He doesn’t quote a single example from the New Testament. This is what I mean when I say White will not touch Logizomai in an open and honest way - and if he does he and his audience will see that Protestantism was wrong all along.

 

[Trebor135]

Well, I listened to the part where he mentioned me, and James addressed my two posts (#2, #3), and yet he didn’t really address them at all.

In the first, he (for some reason) left off the last sentence: This is because texts like 2 Timothy 3:16f applied during a “time of enscripturation,” it couldn’t have been teaching SS without falling into the fallacy of anachronism (that is, reading back into a text a historically impossible detail).
And this sentence is key to what I was saying. So whatever the reason, he managed to quote everything else I said, but not the last sentence. I’d bet if his listeners heard him quote this sentence, they might start to ask some inconvenient questions.

This argument isn’t necessarily the defeater it appears to be. James White can say, “Paul was instructing Timothy to go by Scripture alone–however much of it was available to him.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

So has he actually gotten around to addressing 1 Tim 2:3-4 and the so-called great apostasy?

I doubt it.

 

[ZackSkrip]

Eruvande - Thanks for posting this!

To be perfectly honest, I had never listened to a full debate by either James White or Mr. Tim Staples, so after reading some of this thread (habitual luker), I thought I’d go and pick up a shorter debate and give it a try.

I listened to their debate on purgatory. I had a hard time finding it on the AOmin website store. Just do a search for “Staples Purgatory” and it’ll come right up. It’s 90min long and costs $1.50. I enjoyed listening to these two men discuss 1 Cor 3. Maybe you and your husband would enjoy sitting down with your bibles and listening to the debate together?

What was quite nice was that there was no “rudeness” on either part. Dr. White may strongly hold the rules of a debate (holding to appropriate times, etc) but he was fair and Mr./Dr. (I don’t know which!) Staples was also quite polite.

All in all, this one debate at least, gives a different image than what I was reading about in this thread.

CA thanks for hosting this discussion!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Excellent!

Here’s some other ways of spelling out general problems regarding sola scriptura =SS].

(1) White’s definition is incomplete, lacking in awareness of the nature of reading a text, and misleading.

His definition is essentially this: “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.”

But the Bible, functionally speaking, is just another book on the shelf–paper with ink stains–until it is read and interpreted. Any text is actualized as communication only in reading and interpreting. So by the very nature of using a written text his definition is really (and cannot be other than) SS means: my interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013 is the only and sufficient rule of faith.

We’re led to the factual question: is this the method God chose to hand down his word authoritatively and normatively through history? Answer: Neither Scripture, nor the fathers, nor the Ecumenical Councils in any way teach this.

(2) In attempting to justify SS they beg the question in two ways.

(a) Stripped down to the bare logical bones, it goes like this. The teachings of Rome go beyond the Bible (i.e., my interpretation of the Bible alone). This is an unwarranted addition to God’s word. Therefore we should go by the Bible alone.

(b) White’s characterization of the CC position (and for that matter the EOC position) in an attempt to refute it and establish SS itself assumes SS. The CC teaching is that Scripture, Tradition, and Church operate in a united and organically-related way to hand on God’s word beginning with the Apostles and Pentecost =STC]. His demand to “Produce a list or lists or all the Traditions not contained in Scripture” assumes that God’s word is handed on to the believer through his interpreting the Bible alone; and added to that is a supplemental list of extraneous traditions.

(3) My stock answer to his demand to “Produce a list or lists or all the Traditions not contained in Scripture” is the following. “I don’t have to produce a list for the various protestant groups. They can easily do it for themselves. It’s this: anything that differs from the results of your interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013 is that list.” What White calls Rome’s “self-proclaimed traditions” are nothing more than the Catholic (and EO) teachings that differ from the results of his interpretation of Bible alone.

(4) White makes a point cited above by Catholic Dude: “You will never find anyone saying, ‘During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.’ Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is ‘sufficient.’"

In addition to Dude’s observations I would add the question “If SS didn’t operate in biblical times, how do you justify it?” Handing on God’s word by STC is portrayed and ordered by the NT authors taken as a whole. STC was taught by the Fathers (when one considers all that a given father said on the subject) and the Councils. SS was not. SS has in every case been rejected by the EOC (e.g., Synod of Jerusalem, 1672 AD, the Longer Russian Catechism) as unpatristic and unbiblical.

The standard for proof on this question is:
(a) what is portrayed and ordered by the NT authors taken as a whole;
(b) what was taught by the Fathers (when one considers all that a given father said on the subject)
(c) what was taught by the Ecumenical Councils.

I don’t see how one can claim that the evidence leads of necessity to SS or even that the preponderance of evidence leads to SS, or that SS meets the burden of proof for a claim protesting the preexisting teaching of the CC at the time of the Reformation.

 

[ZackSkrip]

Fr. of Jazz

I’m currently at work and I don’t have enough time to respond to everything, nor the capacity, but as someone who loves hermeneutics, I have a quick question. You state:

Any text is actualized as communication only in reading and interpreting. So by the very nature of using a written text his definition is really (and cannot be other than) SS means: my interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013 is the only and sufficient rule of faith.

I see your point, but doesn’t that prove too much? I mean, wasn’t there a recent writing by the pope that authoritatively interpreted Trent? (I may be mistaken, and if so, I apologize, but my point can stand with any other analogous papal writing). Don’t we then still need an authoritative interpretation of that? How can I “actualize” that writing then without interpreting it? And of course this would go on and on, always keeping us one step away from the text. This is a hermeneutic of distrust, that does not have a real, objective God behind it that truly can communicate with his people.

Protestants believe that while we are stained by sin and will all have our theologies adjusted once we “become like Him for we shall see Him as he is,” God has nevertheless spoken and is able to communicate to sinners like us in a way that we understand. That is why Jesus held the pharisees responsible for what he had revealed to them through the prophets (one of many examples John 3:10). If the people couldn’t be expected to understand the word, then would God be fair in judging them for their lack of understanding?

SDG

Zack Skrip

Edited — Come to think of it, it wasn’t Trent, it was one of the Vaticans. Again, I apologize for the error, but either way the point can still stand. Thanks for your charity.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Fr. of Jazz

I’m currently at work and I don’t have enough time to respond to everything, nor the capacity, but as someone who loves hermeneutics, I have a quick question. You state:

I see your point, but doesn’t that prove too much? I mean, wasn’t there a recent writing by the pope that authoritatively interpreted Trent? (I may be mistaken, and if so, I apologize, but my point can stand with any other analogous papal writing). Don’t we then still need an authoritative interpretation of that? How can I “actualize” that writing then without interpreting it? And of course this would go on and on, always keeping us one step away from the text. This is a hermeneutic of distrust, that does not have a real, objective God behind it that truly can communicate with his people.

Protestants believe that while we are stained by sin and will all have our theologies adjusted once we “become like Him for we shall see Him as he is,” God has nevertheless spoken and is able to communicate to sinners like us in a way that we understand. That is why Jesus held the pharisees responsible for what he had revealed to them through the prophets (one of many examples John 3:10). If the people couldn’t be expected to understand the word, then would God be fair in judging them for their lack of understanding?

SDG

Zack Skrip

Edited — Come to think of it, it wasn’t Trent, it was one of the Vaticans. Again, I apologize for the error, but either way the point can still stand. Thanks for your charity.

Hi Zack,

Thanks for your response.

I would say you see the hermeneutic truth I highlighted, but you missed the point I was making with it.

My point is not to deny that any text–including ecclesiastical documents–needs to be interpreted. The CC has always acknowledged that they do. My point is to make explicit what SS actually asserts and then to see how the evidence stacks up regarding whether it or STC is taught and portrayed in Scripture, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils. I use these as the evidence to determine what method God established to hand on His word.

Neither was it my intent to deny that Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and to be read with profit for our salvation. My points are: that the CC’s teaching is that God’s word is authoritatively handed on by combined and organically-related process of Scripture and Tradition in the Church; from the beginning the scriptures were written by believers for believers; and, therefore, they were read in the environment of tradition and church, their native hermeneutic environment, which has always been integral to their interpretation; and that SS is a departure from this unified process.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Excellent!

Here’s some other ways of spelling out general problems regarding sola scriptura =SS].

(1) White’s definition is incomplete, lacking in awareness of the nature of reading a text, and misleading.

**His definition **is essentially this: “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.”

You’re attacking a strawman, Jazz.

Though I cannot speak for Dr. White he clearly lays out his definition of Sola Scriptura on page 59 of his book The Roman Catholic Controversy when he states;

*The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, simply stated, is that **the Scriptures alone **are sufficient as the regular fidei, **the infallible rule *of faith for the Church.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

How is that a strawman? What is the difference between White’s definition and Jazz’s defintion?

 

[pablope]

You’re attacking a strawman, Jazz.

Though I cannot speak for Dr. White he clearly lays out his definition of Sola Scriptura on page 59 of his book The Roman Catholic Controversy when he states;

*The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, simply stated, is that **the Scriptures alone ***are sufficient as the regular fidei, **the infallible rule **of faith for the Church.

Hi, Arizona Samson…can you explain what is the strawman that Fr of Jazz attacked:

Originally Posted by Fr of Jazz

His definition is essentially this: “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.”

Dr. White:

*The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, simply stated, is that **the Scriptures alone ***are sufficient as the regular fidei, **the infallible rule **of faith for the Church

Where is the strawman here?

And here is another question: Is Dr.White making dogma with his definition of SS?

Will all of Protestantism follow his definiiton?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

You’re attacking a strawman, Jazz.

Though I cannot speak for Dr. White he clearly lays out his definition of Sola Scriptura on page 59 of his book The Roman Catholic Controversy when he states;

*The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, simply stated, is that **the Scriptures alone ***are sufficient as the regular fidei, **the infallible rule **of faith for the Church.

Ditto. Where’s the straw man?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Hi, Arizona Samson…can you explain what is the strawman that Fr of Jazz attacked:

Originally Posted by Fr of Jazz

His definition is essentially this: “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.”

Dr. White:

*The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, simply stated, is that **the Scriptures alone ***are sufficient as the regular fidei, **the infallible rule **of faith for the Church

Where is the strawman here?

Greetings Pablope,

The strawman lies within many of our Catholic friends mischaracterization of Sola Scriptura, e.g. that all a Protestant needs is their Bible alone apart from the Church.

As previously stated I cannot speak for Dr. White, so I’ll share his own words as stated in pages 27-28 in his book *Scripture Alone *:

Sola Scriptura literally means “Scripture alone.”* Unfortunately this phrase tends to be taken in the vein of “Scripture in isolation***, **Scripture outside **of the rest of God’s work in the Church.” (emphasis mine)

That is not it’s intended meaning; again, it means “Scripture alone is the **infallible rule **of faith for the Church.” As mentioned previously, it is a positive assertion of the nature and traits of Scripture as well as a negative statement indicating that **only Scripture possesses its unique capacities as the rule of faith. A rule of faith is that which governs and guides what we believe and why. One work, placing the phrase in its historical setting ( the Reformation) defines sola scriptura as the "freedom of Scripture to rule as God’s word **in the church, disentangled from papal and ecclesiastical magisterium and tradition."

 

[Bonnie]

Greetings Pablope,

The strawman lies within many of our Catholic friends mischaracterization of Sola Scriptura, e.g. that all a Protestant needs is their Bible alone apart from the Church.

I know, and have known, many Protestants who believe that. Several to the point of starting their own home churches.

So no matter what James White says, there is more than one Protestant interpretation of Sola Scriptura.