James White Debate

[AngelicDoctor]

I have written all that I have wanted to write on this topic, ad nauseum (I am sick of reading myself). I would like to bow out of this debate, however, I know that I will not be able resist the urge to clarify my responses, correct their distortion, or answer charges of logical fallacies if they arise.

Tentatively, thanks for your participation Coach. Forgive me if my sarcasm was ever pungent or unChristian.

 

[fulloftruth]

By Fulloftruth:
I can show you where God breathed on the apostles…Sounds Like the term God Breathed is not restricted to the Printed page but to an Act of commisioning the Church and endowing them with power to do something that was before restricted to God alone, the power to forgive sins, the greatest Act of mercy ever done by God.

By Coach:
Nowhere do I deny this. Let me be clear: No one who holds to sola Scriptura denies that the teachings of the apostles were inerrant and binding on those who heard them. Moreover, if it could be demonstrated from Scripture that the exact words or full sense of what the apostles taught orally was to be preserved without error through an unbroken line of bishops then all Christians would be bound to these oral teachings.

I guess the question then is, since you agree with what I said about the commission and authority given to the Apostles and Peter, that is the power to forgive sins, the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth, to preach to all nations, to tend his sheep, and feed his lambs, where in scripture does it say that all of these gifts of the Holy Spirit, and all of this authority would die out in one generation, and how would the church have grown to what it is today without such authority. Why was Judas replaced, Where is his “office” today.I guess the question is if God could set up such a Church, endowed with his authority and power, why wouldn’t he protect it for all eternity.

By fulloftruth:
I hardly think that only the generation that was alive at the time of Christ was to recieve this great gift.
By Coach:
So you believe there are still apostles? How would you begin to demonstrate this?

No I don’t think there are still apostles, but I do think just like Mathias was not Judas, but was numbered one of the twelve, that successors were picked by the Apostles and there closest diciples, and with the help of the Holy Sipirit, some of thier authority, just the right amount was handed on and down through the generations so that you and I could recieve the same Gospel and bread of life that was given to the first Apostles. The Church did not set up the rules of how the Church would be ordered and how she would physically manifest herself over the ages, God did. The Church does nothing without the seal of Gods approval, it is He who gaurantees her teachings to be true in every age, not man. I think you have forgotten that this is not a man based church but a Christ based Church, her teachings are not hers but his. When we Honor His Mother we are simply imitating Christ in Heaven. When the Sacrafice of the Mass is re-presented every day, it is not a new sacrafice but the same sacrafice in perpetual offering for every generation until the end of time. That is why a Holy Priest hood must be kept and Apostolic succession must be maintained in order to fullfill Christs commission to make diciples of all nations, until his return. To keep and guard the faith from well meaning people like yourself, who, with good intentions fall astray

 

[fulloftruth]

By fulloftruth:
This is why you cannot claim to disagree with one moral teaching of the Catholic Church, because she is the only church that holds fast to all moral truths and will do so until the end of time.
By Coach:

How one could demonstrate such a lofty claim is beyond me. Especially in light of the contradicting Church Fathers and councils.

How about answering the question, what moral teachings do you disagree with? I find that Protestants don’t like the package but find the goods to be utterly inspiring. Take away all of the Hierarchy and you have exactly what most protestants are looking for, The truth being proclaimed without shame. Put your secular mind on hold for a bit and try to see that This Church is the Church that Christ started. That He, as the Son of David, came and perfected the Old Kingdom of Jerusalem into the Heavenly Jerusalem, and reinstituted the main characteristics of Authority, Christ as the King, Mary His mother the Queen, and Peter is the Prime Minister, with his successors, so that the Church could live in perpetuity. This is the heavenly model of the eternal kingdom threaded through out Scripture. Your church does not even come close to representing the Church described by Christ.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

Sola Scriptura

does not apply when Scripture is being revealed. But it was in effect 20 years before Christ was born, so I wouldn’t say that SS started after the New Testament was written.

When and how DID is go into effect?

Well, I would part ways with you here. One doesn’t need an infallible canon to say that Scripture is infallible.

How can Scripture be free from error if there are books in the bible that are not Scripture? The canon itself must be infallible or else it’s possible that there are books in the bible that are not, in fact, Scripture.

How did the Jewish man twenty years before Christ know what was Scripture and what wasn’t? He didn’t have an infallible canon then, and yet Scripture was still infallible, correct?

Sure they had an infallible canon. Without the canon being infallible the possibility is always there that books have been included that are not, themselves, Scripture.

Actually, the canon wasn’t “infallible” (from the Roman Catholic perspective) until November 1546, when Trent officially made it so. One can have an infallible Bible without an infallible canon.

Nah. The Council of Trent was simply reiterating that which had been decided at previous councils in response to Luther.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

Excellent questions AD. The Church is authoritative in its teachings, after all it is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), it’s clear that Christ established the Church for our benefit.

How do you believe the Church functions as the pillar (upholder) and bulwark (protector and defender) of the truth in the 21st century?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

God gave us the Church to help us believers come together in fellowship

Is that the only reason you believe God gave us the Church? If so, do you have scripture reference? If not, why else do you believe God gave us the Church and how does the Church function in that capacity in the 21st century? Include Scripture references please.

and he puts Pastors over us to help explain the Bible to us.

How can we be infallibley certain that what our pastors are preaching to us is truth, since Pastors preach conflicting and contradictory ideas to be true?

I don’t follow. I can say “This Bible is infallible” and not have to be infallible myself. Do you become infallible when you tell your friend the Pope is infallible?

One does not “become” infallible, but one can certainly “speak” infallibley when stating that which is infallibley true.

I believe the Bible teaches that it is infallible in many places, but the clearest place is 2 Tim 3:16-17 which tell us that all Scriptures are God-breathed (infallible) and are able to fully equip the man of God for every good work.

I think all Christians believe that scripture is inerrant (which is slightly different from “infallible”). However, in order for the books that are in the bible to be inerrant the books in the bible must be God-breathed. How can you be infallibley certain that the books that make up your bible are all God-breathed?

I’m not sure why someone would need authority to recognize that we only have one God-breathed rule of faith.

Because if the idea that we only have one God-breathed rule of faith is, itself, God-breathed, it would HAVE to be in included in the one God-breathed rule of faith, no? If this idea requires no God-given authority doesn’t that open up the possibility of each believer making up his own ideas and simply calling them “God-breathed”?

That’s like asking me to say when this “doctrine” of the Trinity was formulated. It’s a truth that has been true since God left us with Scripture, any Scripture.

I disagree. The trinity of the doctrine has been true for all eternity, not simply since the time God left us Scripture. Does didn’t suddenly become a triune God upon the writing of the Scriptures. Doectrine doesn’t become true upon it’s definition. It has always been true but revealed and defined at some point in time.

Remember Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their “traditions.” Traditions that the Pharisees felt were handed down from Moses and were divine.

Are you sure? I thought that Jesus condemned them for allowing their own traditions to supercede God’s. As it’s presented in Mark 7 Jesus accused them of finding loopholes for getting around God’s laws, (such as with qorbon). I don’t recall the Pharisees claiming that their own traditions were of divine origin. Of course, I’m not a scripture scholar. Do you have a scripture for that so I can check?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

---

Sola Scriptura

*** is often understood to mean that it is the only authority. But that’s missing a word…it is the only infallible authority.

---

In order for this idea NOT to be self-refuting wouldn’t it have to be in scripture? Scripture clearly presents itself as infallible, and as AN infallible authority, but it never presents itself as the ONLY infallible authority. How/when was the leap made from scripture being AN infallible authority to the ONLY infallible authority?

---

Is the doctrine of sola Scriptura, itself, God-breathed?

Sola Scriptura

• allows us to read and often submit to all these other authorities, but forbids us from believing that which contradicts Scripture.

We don’t need sola Scriptura for this. The Church teaches that no teaching can contradict scripture.

These other authorities are relative

to Scripture and must find their roots in Scripture.
Chapter and verse please.

Nor are we to add to Scripture like the Pharisees did when they required many rituals that weren’t in the Bible. Jesus scolds the teachers of the law: And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

(Luke 11:46)

Their crime? Adding requirements to Scripture that weren’t there. Requirements that they supposedly thought were divine traditions, like Rome feels hers are today.

I disagree. In this passage Jesus was comdemning the Pharisees for observing the letter of the law without also observing the spirit of the law. As usual, he was condeming them for being hypocrites. It had nothing whatsoever to do with adding to scripture.

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

–Hebrews 13:17

By listening to my pastor and submitting to the authority of my church I am not violating sola Scriptura. I allow that my pastor and church and her creeds are some rules of faith for me…but they are not infallible rules of faith and could and will err. Where these other rules of faith contradict the Bible, I will accept the Bible.

Could your pastor, or you, err in your understanding of scripture?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

First, the Christian Church has always had a written Bible. When Jesus walked among us, the Old Testament formed the God-breathed Scriptures. And as the apostles wrote letters to the Churches and the Gospels were written, the Bible expanded.

The apostolic letters and the gospels didn’t expand the bible. Many apostolic letters weren’t God-breathed while some non-apostolic letters were. Some of the gosples were God-breathed while others were not. It’s simply inaccurate to lump all early writings together and call it the bible. The writings that didn’t get included in the bible were not first scripture and then not scripture later when they didn’t make the cut.

In 68 A.D., Peter referred to Paul’s writings as being included among the Scriptures. Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18. So it’s not as if the Christians were wondering around without a Bible until the late fourth century.

True, but again, not all of Paul’s writings were God-breathed. It’s not as though all of Paul’s letters were scripture at one point and later, after the canon was decided upon, some ceased to be scripture.

Yes, the Christians were wandering around with the OT and lots and lots of Christian writings until the late fourth century, but to lump all these together and call it “the bible” is really inaccurate.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

sola Scriptura

would say that the Apostles didn’t teach the early Church orally. The point in contention between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals is whether or not these oral teachings were preserved infallibly outside of Scripture. The mere mentioning of “oral teachings” is irrelevant to the topic, unless a passage teaches that these oral teachings were recorded infallibly somewhere else.

Why is that? Where does scripture indicate that ALL that is God-breathed has been or would eventually be “recorded infallibly”?

If God can inspire fallible men to write what is true why can’t God protect fallible men from officially teaching what is false? Seems the second one would be even easier than the first.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

**
The thrust of the passage is the origin** and resultant nature of Scripture, not the extent of the canon! It’s saying that that which is God-breathed is able, by its very nature, to give us the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That’s evidient where it says “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 3:15).

It also says that Scripture is able to make the man of God “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Do you agree that the New Testament is God-breathed?

I assume you would agree with me that yes, the New Testament is God-breathed (theopneustos in the Greek).

When you raise the argument that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is only referring to the Old Testament, are you saying that the Old Testament is adequate for the promises in 2 Timothy 3, but the New Testament isn’t?

If you agree with me that the promises of the passage apply to the Old Testament and the New Testament then your argument loses it value.

This is a great example of why sola Scriptura doesn’t work. There are Chrisitans who claim that it is “clear” that scripture teaches, in this passage, that the OT IS adequate for the promises of 2 Tim. Nothing in scripture contradicts this idea so scripture alone has no authority to tell those Christians that they are incorrect. There MUST be a God-ordained, holy-spirit protected authority, outside of Scripture, to ensure an inerrant understanding of scripture. Without one, their belief that the OT alone is adequate is every bit as valid and correct as your belief that it is not.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[c0achmcguirk]

I admit it. I can’t keep up. Too much to respond to.

Sorry guys. I may peek back here and respond later, but I think the topic about James White has been exhausted.

All the people claiming hatred and nastiness have retreated (not to level the same charges somewhere else, I hope).

AngelicDoctor, I appreciate your thoughtful posts. I take deference that you say I do not want to fairly address your posts–I do, that’s why I’m here. But what can I say–let the reader decide.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

JohnDep:

Note, too, that he says profitable, not sufficient.

**

But the Greek verb exartizo

**, means “be fully equipped” and adjective artios means “fitted, complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands.”

A wise man once told me the story of a bike shop. A bike shop that could thoroughly equip me for every single bike trip I could embark upon. It had water bottles, pedals, new seats, helmets, gloves, US Mail Jerseys like Lance Armstrong wears, and spandex as far as the eye could see. It had bar ends, toe clips, clipless pedals, and everything else you could imagine a biker to need. It was able to fully equip me as a biker.

Now, if this bike shop, could fully equip me for every good single bike-related activity I could possibly do, wouldn’t it be sufficient for me as a biker?

And similarly, if 2 Tim. 3:16-17 tells me that the Scripture can fully equip me, making me complete for every good work, does it not follow that Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith?

You’re mixing up the analogy. If you pair up the elements “scripture” in 2 Tim would be the “bike shop” in your analogy and “good works” would be “biker”.

Now, the bike shop might be useful to fully equip you to be a biker but that doesn’t mean that it will have everything that is available to bikers. You might be “fully equipped” but not necessarily “perfectly” equipped. You may have enough to go biking, but perhaps, due to space or money, there were some things that you didn’t have that could have helped you be a better, more perfect biker. I could enter the Tour de France with a tricylce. I’d be fully equipped, but I certainly wouldn’t be perfectly equipped.

Likewise, scripture is useful in fully equipping the Christian for all good works, but it is not all inclusive, which is what the sola Scripturists claim.

Notice in your analogy that “biker” is equivelent to “good works” not to “faith”. Faith is not the topic of 2 Tim 3 but rather Christian behavior (good works). This passage tells us that scripture is useful (not all- inclusive) in equipping us to behave as Christians. It in no way, shape, or form, has anything to do with scripture being the sole rule of faith.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

c0achmcguirk:

Before you run away with what 1 Tim. 3:15 is trying to say, stop and ask yourself, “What does a pillar do?”

It holds a roof up. So a pillar is not a roof, just like the Church is not the truth.

Do not commit the exegetical fallacy that so many RC apologists make and confuse the Church with the truth itself. Protestants love and affirm 1 Tim 3:15, and I agree that the Church holds up the truth. But we don’t take the logical leap to say that the Church is the truth. You just can’t read that into the text.

The Church is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23). Since we know that Christ IS the truth (John 14:6) we can also conclude that the Church is the fullness of the truth.

As to 1 Tim 3:25, that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. What does a pillar do? It holds something up (not necessarily a roof in this context). What does a bulwark do? It offers protection and defense. So, according to scripture, the church is the upholder, protector and defender of the truth. How do you believe that church functions as the upholder, protector and defender of the truth in the 21st century.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

**Coach: AngelicDoctor, I appreciate your stab at this. I have to admit, however, I remain unconvinced that the Catholic rule of faith is definable. It is a hodge-podge of teachings and documents that sometimes contradict each other **

No officially defined teaching of the church that is binding on all Catholic believers has ever contradicted another officially defined teaching.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[TobyLue]

to Catholic4aReason

re: your post #186. Your replies to c0ach were answers to his replies to me. I was going to reply to him however I see where you have done a much better job than I would have. Many many thanks:thumbsup:

The supporters of SS always ask for one Christian believe that is not in scripture and since some SS say that they will not believe unless specificially stated in scripture, I gave him an example of a Christian tradition that is not recorded in scripture and its “infant baptism”. Even though it is STRONGLY implied those words are not found. However, we find many writings by the Early Church Fathers and wrote that it was an Apostolic Tradition. Which of the apostles said it? The Church Fathers write “the Apostles” and not an apostle, or some of the apostles.

Also the Canon of the Bible is another one of those Traditions not recorded in scripture. My understanding is that the Books that comprise the Bible is a result of Tradition. There were hundreds of books written but if they didn’t comply with tradition, they were rejected.

I shall bow out of this thread.

Thanks and God Bless all.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

“AngelicDoctor, I appreciate your thoughtful posts. I take deference that you say I do not want to fairly address your posts–I do, that’s why I’m here. But what can I say–let the reader decide.”

Coach: Actually, I do think you were dodgy on some questions, too quick with the table-turning and the logical fallacy charges. However, I certainly do not doubt your sincerity. I also respect and appreciate the time and energy that you put into answering this forum, and also your points helped refine the argument for everyone involved (it always helps to bring light to a complex issue–and the best way is through debate between people of both sides).

Thanks and God bless,
Docta’

 

[flameburns623]

c0achmcguirk:

Those who reject sola Scriptura have disagreements among themselves, too. Roman Catholics aren’t the only ones who deny SS:*** Anglicans***, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and almost any other cult out there reject SS. In each one of these groups people disagree with each other vehemently on core issues . . . .Catholics disagree among themselves on which papal decrees, council rulings, teachings, etc. are infallible and binding and which aren’t. A Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, and an Anglican may claim to follow the church or tradition, but he isn’t able define exactly what that is. He can’t cite something comparable to the evangelicals 66-book canon of Scripture.

Just to disabuse anyone who might have not spotted this: Anglicans and Episcopalians DO NOT ordinarily deny the doctrine of sola scriptura as per the Articles of Religion VI:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necssary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation . . . .(1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America).

There are some disagreements among individual Anglicans of course: ‘high-church’ or ‘Anglo-Catholic’ Anglicans are more apt to have a fairly high view of Christian Tradition with a captial “T”; low-church Anglicans will scarcely acknowledge such tradition by capitalizing the word. Modern Episcopalians, especially within the Anglican Church of Canada or the Episcopal Church, USA, are apt to deny even the infallibility of Scripture. By the way–not even the Articles of Religion are deemed infallible but are simply a summation of those things accepted and believed by the whole Episcopal Church.

 

[Maccabees]

Yeah I pointed that out earlier Anglicans do beleive in Sola Scriptura. But this just demonstrates another weakness of the protestnat postion they define sola scriptura differently than a Baptist or fundamentilaist would. They don’t even agree on what is sola scriptura!

 

[CatholicDude]

I’ve chatted with Dr. White several times, and have observed his behavior for the past two years. He *can *be very nice (e.g. in my case), or he can *also *be very arrogant and hard-headed (e.g. in Dave Armstrong’s case). I do believe he is consistent in some of his arguments, but woefully inconsistent in others. For example, he claims DA is afraid to orally debate him, and hence, why he “hides behind a keyboard.” But DA has challenged White to a *written *debate for years. But White says written debates aren’t as good as oral debates, yet he had a written debate with Dave Hunt (Debating Calvinism)! So, I ask myself, why does he refuse to debate DA in written format, yet do so with Mr. Hunt?

In any case, Mr. White is not as bad as his harshest critics paint him out to be, nor is he the saint his adoring fans paint him out to be – he’s in between.

– CatholicDude

 

[CatholicDude]

As to James White coming on Catholic Answers Live. Well, it turns out, Dr. White has proposed the idea several times, but thus far, to the best of my knowledge, neither Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating will debate him. Now, I don’t think that neither Mr. Akin or Mr. Keating are “afraid” to debate Dr. White as Dr. White claims. Perhaps it’s a personal issue, I don’t know. And I wouldn’t blame them. All Dr. White has done within the past fourteen years or so is have taken swipe after swipe at Catholic Answers (one need only look at his web-section dealing with Catholicism). That being the case, I don’t find it too difficult to understand why some Catholic apologists refuse to debate him

– CatholicDude