Can anyone critique a James White essay for me

[Catholic4aReasn]

Wow! What a long article! He sure took a long time to say very little.

What stuck me as most interesting was this:

“The constant refrain was, ‘sola scriptura is not biblical, nor is it historical. I just can’t believe it anymore.’ I could not get her past that one issue. She refused to hear any counter-argument; she refused to apply the same standards to Rome she was applying to the Bible and Protestant churches. It was like it was a mantra—not really a cohesive thought, but a feeling, a chant, something that must be true. I had seen the same kind of look and experienced the same kind of responses when talking to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when we would touch on one of their “pet” doctrines. They just have to be right about that, for if they are not, the entire system crumbles.

What James White doesn’t seem to realize is that he’s simply reversed the sola Scripturist’s mantra which is, **Sola Scriptura MUST be true, for if it is not our entire system crumbles. **Everything hinges on this mantra. Without it there simply is no Protestantism.

---

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[John_Taylor]

sorry…I addressed my posts to Eriann when I was answering Big Turkey’s post

 

[jimmy]

Catholic4aReasn:

Wow! What a long article! He sure took a long time to say very little.

What stuck me as most interesting was this:

“The constant refrain was, ‘sola scriptura is not biblical, nor is it historical. I just can’t believe it anymore.’ I could not get her past that one issue. She refused to hear any counter-argument; she refused to apply the same standards to Rome she was applying to the Bible and Protestant churches. It was like it was a mantra—not really a cohesive thought, but a feeling, a chant, something that must be true. I had seen the same kind of look and experienced the same kind of responses when talking to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when we would touch on one of their “pet” doctrines. They just have to be right about that, for if they are not, the entire system crumbles.

What James White doesn’t seem to realize is that he’s simply reversed the sola Scripturist’s mantra which is, **Sola Scriptura MUST be true, for if it is not our entire system crumbles. **Everything hinges on this mantra. Without it there simply is no Protestantism.

---

In Christ,
Nancy

Hahaha, I thought the exact same thing when I read that line. I thought Luther made that exact same statement concerning Sola Scriptura.

 

[Eireann]

John Taylor:

sorry…I addressed my posts to Eriann when I was answering Big Turkey’s post

Yes I did wonder about that, not to worry.

 

[BigTurkey]

Thanks guys for all the (name removed by moderator)ut. After I posted this thread, I went back through the essay of Mr. White’s more carefully, thinking about his arguments and his blatantly insulting language. I no longer found anything in the article that bothered me. And all of your posts certainly helped. Thanks again

Micah

 

[Malachi4U]

JMJ

Gods peace be with you theophilus (friend of God) Micah,

If you’ve ever seen James in action or studied up on how he debates or thinks, you’d know what I am about to tell you is true:

“James is the GREATEST debater on earth - IN HIS OWN MIND!”

Did you look at the end of James’ tirade? I quote: “The story is fictitious”! James puts fictitious debates and whatever on his sight to lure in the easily misled. Why debate with a “real” person who may know the truth about Catholics and be able to disprove James’ facts. Inventing people who say exactly what you want to lead people to your conclussion is so much easier. Don’t let facts or truth get in your way.

James claims to have WON every debate with a Catholic. I have listened to his some of his debates and he clearly LOST everyone I heard. James is one reason I am going to be fully Catholic someday (Catholic by “DESIRE” for now). I listened to his debates while I was still attending the Baptist sect and before I decided to come home to Rome. He was influential in my decision to become Catholic. How?

When you listen or read what James says or writes, try to prove every point he makes true or false. Use His sources, other Protestant sources and Catholic sources. Use unbias sources too if you can find them. All roads lead to Rome and so do all the facts, when you can find them. James and other Protestants like him quote each other as sources but often fail to have an “origional” source.

As an example I recall from another website at jesus-is lord.com it claimed the upsidedown cross was a pagan symbol on the popes chair. While I was still a Protestant I decided to look for where that source came from. One website listed another til finaly the last website listed the first one I started with! It was an endless “DO-LOOP”. They all used each other as source and non was an origional source. They simply made it up? I refused to look at Catholic sites in those days so I broke down and finally did. I should have sooner. After weeks/months of not finding a source I looked at a Catholic site and found out that the pope sits in St. Peter’s chair (authority). St. Peter, the first pope, was crucified upside down. Catholics remember St. Peter with an upside down cross on his chair! It took all of a few mintues to learn the truth on the website of the “anti-Christ” after weeks and months of lies on what I thought were “Christian” sites. What I thougth was the truth as a Protestant was nothing more then lies by anti-Catholics and Satan misleading us from Christs true Catholic Church.

SOLA Scripture = false man made doctrine. (Protestants had no choice after the "DE"formation but to invent this one in the 1500’s.)

There was NO Bible till the 4th century, did 400 hundred years of Christians simply go to hell? Did Jesus leave them without leadership and authority?

Most people on earth cannot read, will they go to hell because they don’t read the Bible? Same in Europe in the past too?

Where does the Bible say it is the source of ALL authority? Any authority? Or is it just ‘good’?

The Bible does say the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation!

Where doe the Bible say the Bible (not just the OT) is inspired? It doesn’t, the Catholic Church does because the Church is the pillar and foundation. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible!

Go to the Comming Home Network to see the conversion stories of countless Baptist clergy (and others) becoming Catholic when the ‘scales’ were taken from their eyes. EWTN airs the shows too. By the way, I think they have the conversion story of James’ sister and her husband there?

An early welcome home to the visible body of Christ on earth, His Catholic Church.

A prisoner of Christ,

 

[John_Taylor]

Malachi4U:

Go to the Comming Home Network to see the conversion stories of countless Baptist clergy (and others) becoming Catholic when the ‘scales’ were taken from their eyes. EWTN airs the shows too. By the way, I think they have the conversion story of James’ sister and her husband there?

I had heard that James White’s sister had embraced the Catholic Faith but never thought to look up her conversion story. Turns out her name is Patty Bond. Reading her conversion story I’m struck by her courage and openess to the promptings of God.

chnetwork.org/pattybondsconv.htm

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[volzcpa]

You could also try Tim Staples’ 4CD set called “Twisted Scripture.” This is a pretty in depth rebuttal against Sola Scriptura.

 

[RobNY]

I sighed

and said nothing at first.

“I know all these things” he said with a heavy sigh

.

“I doubt you will be overly surprised to learn they want to discuss sola scriptura

” he said with a bit of a sigh.

Sorry, but White’s writing style sours on me. I think he is trying to hard to make it conversational and not hard enough to put raw argument in. Mr. White, you’re under arrest for crimes against the English language.

“Believe me, I know” I replied

.

“Please do” I replied

,

“It would be my pleasure” I replied

.

“I’m sorry you think that is what the doctrine states” I replied

matter-of-factly.

“I’m sorry, sola ecclesia

?” he replied quizzically.

“Oh?”** I replied**

. “I thought I just heard…

“Material sufficiency” he replied

in a rather less than excited voice.

Indeed” I replied

, “the appeal to alleged…

“Well, I am surely not in and of myself infallible” Paul replied

.

Really, it is souring on me much.

I know this seems petty but-- eeeh.

Just from reading a little bit of it, though, and scanning, it seems like he’s very clever, but I see little substance in most of his objections. Surely, he can demolish the wonderful characters and dialogues that he inserts into this, but it’s all so stilted and unreal. He ironically says that he doesn’t want personal testimonies, but his article seems to be short on raw argument and long on his supposedly clever turnarounds of Paul’s arguments.

 

[RonRule]

Don’t know if anyone still checks this thread, but here’s a response to that article from Jacob Michael:

Lumen Gentleman

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey BT,

My two bits:

White says:

But * sola scriptura* does not teach what you are saying it teaches. Let me get the definition clear before we discuss its truthfulness. Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.

The version of SS proposed by White is the classical notion of it, and it is the most defensible form. But it is still vulnerable to many of the standard criticisms.

If folks are honest, SS is ultimately based on a negative argument, namely that the Church hath erred so we have no choice but to ascribe ultimate authority to the book that has come to be recognized as the Bible. IOW, the bible is the best authoority we have given that the church has proved herself fallible. Honest Protestant apologists will also admit that the bible we have is itself a fallible source given that we don’t have the original writings, just copies. But we still have more confidence in the bible than we do the church, even though the bible was delivered to us via the Church.

What then should we believe given that it has to be conceded that there are so many ways to interpret the Bible and human interpretations are fallible? The implicit assumption of all Protestantdom is that there is core of belief upon all christians of good faith will agree, and this is the only binding dogma. Everything else is not essential for salvation. But ask them to agree on what the essential are and see what happens.

So in the end I don’t see even the most reasonalble version of SS to be workable or very satisfying.