James White, Sola Scriptora, and the ECFs Beleived in it

[Montie_Claunch]

I had gotten a list of debates on mp3 and one of them was between James White and someone whose name slips me at this moment I will look it up and get back with the name asap. But, in the debate Mr. James White states that the Early Church beleived in Sola Scriptora .Does anyone know if he has any actual quotes he uses or is this just a scare tatic of “The Early Church beleives…” where he doesn’t have anything in mind? If he does have ECF quotes, how should one reconcil it with other ECF quotes which differ? Thanks and God bless.

 

[runandsew]

I am not sure on the particular quotes he uses, but I know when he debated Patrick Madrid on this subject, and James began to quote the ECF’s, Patrick pulled out a 52 page list of the ECF’s quotes that they didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I don’t think James brought up anymore quotes during that debate, and said that he didn’t want to play those silly games.
You can google many of these quotes, but when an ECF quotes the authority of the Bible, and such, it is also what Catholics believe, plus these same ECF’s also quote the authority of Tradition and the Magisterium, which the Catholics believe, but Protestants don’t believe.

I wish I had that document that Patrick slammed down on his podium that night, it would be useful.
I think that the ECF that I have heard him quoted the most is St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I had gotten a list of debates on mp3 and one of them was between James White and someone whose name slips me at this moment I will look it up and get back with the name asap. But, in the debate Mr. James White states that the Early Church beleived in Sola Scriptora .Does anyone know if he has any actual quotes he uses or is this just a scare tatic of “The Early Church beleives…” where he doesn’t have anything in mind? If he does have ECF quotes, how should one reconcil it with other ECF quotes which differ? Thanks and God bless.

I can share with you a number of quotes that he most likely used if you would like?

 

[corrgc]

.Does anyone know if he has any actual quotes he uses or is this just a scare tatic of “The Early Church beleives…” where he doesn’t have anything in mind? If he does have ECF quotes, how should one reconcil it with other ECF quotes which differ? Thanks and God bless.

Greetings Montie!

Imagine this scenario:
A communist journalist discovers a letter written during the Cold War. The letter is from Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher. In the letter RR writes…"…I invited Gorbachev to share his ideas with us." And in another paragraph RR writes “…communist citizens are noble in their desires for equal distribution however doomed the economic system really is…”

The communist then publishes a paper that states Ronnie and Margie were truly communist that looked to Gorbachev for answers and were supportive of the Communist system, but understood it just needed some tweaking to make it globally attractive!

Obviously it would be a fallacy to those who lived during that time period or new American History. It would be obvious to all that the communist writer took RR OUT OF CONTEXT. He “cherry-picked” quotes that SUITED his own PHILOSOPHY, disregarding the fact that RR and Margie spent their lives denouncing the communist sytem.

I know this is a crude example. But the simple fact of the matter, a fact Protestants cannot avoid is that the ECF’s were primarily CATHOLIC CLERGY! If you see a quote from an ECF that appears to teach a non-Catholic doctrine - please compare it to the rest of their writings and the writings of their contemporaries.

One final word, thank the Lord Holy Spirit for his guidance of the councils. Even if a ECF disagreed with a doctrine, the councils declared the final word.

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

 

[6glargento]

I can share with you a number of quotes that he most likely used if you would like?

they are all out of context and totally biased. if you looked at what hoes same church fathers said on tradition you would probally see that both were viewed as authoritative. also another problem that james white has is that thoes same church fathers that he “quotes” would dissagree with him on, baptism, the eucharist, mary, the saints ect.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

they are all out of context and totally biased. if you looked at what hoes same church fathers said on tradition you would probally see that both were viewed as authoritative. also another problem that james white has is that thoes same church fathers that he “quotes” would dissagree with him on, baptism, the eucharist, mary, the saints ect.

Define them as you wish, nonetheless they are the written words of the ECF’s.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I had gotten a list of debates on mp3 and one of them was between James White and someone whose name slips me at this moment I will look it up and get back with the name asap. But, in the debate Mr. James White states that the Early Church beleived in Sola Scriptora .Does anyone know if he has any actual quotes he uses or is this just a scare tatic of “The Early Church beleives…” where he doesn’t have anything in mind? If he does have ECF quotes, how should one reconcil it with other ECF quotes which differ? Thanks and God bless.

Two points:

1. Many Protestants “cut and paste” from the ECF’s in an attempt to bolster their arguments. This is disengenuous.
2. Many Protestants fail to understand that “if and when” an isolated ECF or two seem to hold a position that is counter to the Church’s current teaching, this is not proof that the doctrine is false but only that the ECF’s were fallible and that understanding became clearer with the passage of time.

Just because a car swerves from guardrail to guardrail, that is not the same as plunging into the gorge below.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Two points:

1. Many Protestants “cut and paste” from the ECF’s in an attempt to bolster their arguments. This is disengenuous.
   .

Randy,
My friend are you suggesting that only protestant do this?

If so I urge you to check out what happens later this week when I start my universal authority thread I am composing.
You will see a mountain of disengenuosness.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

1. Many Protestants fail to understand that “if and when” an isolated ECF or two seem to hold a position that is counter to the Church’s current teaching, this is not proof that the doctrine is false but only that the ECF’s were fallible and that understanding became clearer with the passage of time.

.

Soooo, no matter what you’ve created yourself an out, thats what I get out of this.

 

[Lazerlike42]

James White quotes passages of ECFs in which the appeal to Scripture or in which they say Scripture is authoritative, and he suggests by this that because they used Scripture to show something or believed it had authority that they thereby believe that only it has authority.

The interesting thing is that, while he cannot really provide quotations from ECFs which explicitly say that Scripture alone is sufficient, it is easy to provide quotations in which ECF’s explicitly say that Scripture alone is not sufficient. For example:

“Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures, nor must arguement be had on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures did not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on equal footing, the natural order of things would require that this point be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “Who has the very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, was handed down that doctrine that makes men Christians?” For wherever it is found that the true Christian doctrine and faith shall be, there will also be the true Scriptures and interpretations of them, and all the Christian traditions.” - Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics 19; 200 AD

 

[Lazerlike42]

Soooo, no matter what you’ve created yourself an out, thats what I get out of this.

This is not an automatic out, but simply a statement of the necessary truth that even on a point in which there is universal agreement, there will be some who state otherwise. For example, today the Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is immoral. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, yet 500 years from now, it will most certainly be possible to provide quotations from bishops living today which say that contraception is morally legitimate. To find an early Church father who believed in Sola Scriptura would no more be a proof of the doctrine than would this be a proof that today’s Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is morally acceptable.

 

[Contarini]

I know this is a crude example. But the simple fact of the matter, a fact Protestants cannot avoid is that the ECF’s were primarily CATHOLIC CLERGY!

This is a classic case of the fallacy called petitio principii–“begging the question.”

The point at issue between Protestants and Catholics is whether the contemporary “Roman” Catholic Church (I know some people object to this term, hence the scare quotes–but I need to use it in this context) is in fact identical with the Catholic Church of the early centuries. Simple historical continuity does not prove this–the Orthodox have that continuity as well, not to speak of Orthodox Jews, who have continuity with the faith of the Ancient Hebrews.

You cannot simply resolve all issues by saying “the Church Fathers were Catholics so they mustn’t have believed anything we don’t believe.” The point you need to prove is precisely that they were “Catholics” in exactly the sense you mean by it today.

I’ll go further–so far from your claim that they were “Catholic clergy” being irrefutable (in a sense relevant to this debate) the opposite is true. It is irrefutable that the beliefs and practices of the fourth century were not identical to those of *any *Christians today. Catholics claim that their beliefs and practices have organically developed from those of the early Church without a break or contradiction, while other Christians (particularly Protestants) have broken with some part or another of the historic Faith. Now *that *is a defensible claim. But that doesn’t leave you able to say “they were Catholic clergy so shut up.” No, you have to look at the context of these quotes and take them seriously.

The plain fact is that “apologists” on both sides take quotes out of context. White does it, Madrid does it, they all do it. I’m not saying they are all equal, but the problem is endemic to the entire enterprise.

I am the last person to defend Mr. White’s views–I disagree with him strongly on a number of points. But the Church Fathers did teach very strongly that Scripture was the final authority in doctrinal matters. I do not believe that this contradicts the current teaching of the Catholic Church. But it does contradict much of the glib apologetics floating around on the Internet, and it points toward a practical reference for and use of Scripture that does on the whole characterize Protestants more than Catholics. Catholics lose nothing by admitting this, and they have everything to gain by honesty and humility.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,
My friend are you suggesting that only protestant do this?

If so I urge you to check out what happens later this week when I start my universal authority thread I am composing.
You will see a mountain of disengenuosness.

I see I haven’t made the ignore list yet!

I hope you don’t mind crossing swords from time to time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Soooo, no matter what you’ve created yourself an out, thats what I get out of this.

Pretty much, yes.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I see I haven’t made the ignore list yet!

I hope you don’t mind crossing swords from time to time.

I for the most part enjoy conversing with you! You may never agree with me, but at least you read my points completely, then rip them apart or try to…

 

[Atreyu]

Contarini:

But the Church Fathers did teach very strongly that Scripture was the final authority in doctrinal matters.

Edwin, do you think the quote of Tertullian above shows that Scripture was the final authority in doctrinal matters?

I suppose this line of thinking (which I’ve seen you espouse in a couple of threads recently) could be true depending on what you mean by “final”. If you mean that Scripture cannot possibly be wrong (it is inerrant), therefore it is final, then this is something that we can agree on. However, I think in general it is incorrect to say that Scripture is the final authority, because when two differing and contradicting interpretations of Scripture arise, Catholics believe that the living Tradition of the Church through the Magisterium is actually the final authority. As Matthew 18 says, in times of dispute, the final place to go is the Church.

 

[mark_a]

Soooo, no matter what you’ve created yourself an out, thats what I get out of this.

Again, the Church decides.

Man proposes, God disposes (that would be the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church).

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, do you think the quote of Tertullian above shows that Scripture was the final authority in doctrinal matters?

I suppose this line of thinking (which I’ve seen you espouse in a couple of threads recently) could be true depending on what you mean by “final”. If you mean that Scripture cannot possibly be wrong (it is inerrant), therefore it is final, then this is something that we can agree on. However, I think in general it is incorrect to say that Scripture is the final authority, because when two differing and contradicting interpretations of Scripture arise, Catholics believe that the living Tradition of the Church through the Magisterium is actually the final authority. As Matthew 18 says, in times of dispute, the final place to go is the Church.

But obviously a controversy about two different interpretations of Scripture is irrelevant for the question of whether the Scripture is the final authority. Probably “supreme” is better than “final.” I think the problem is that some Protestants really do think that if you just get your hermeneutics right you can solve any doctrinal dispute by figuring out what Scripture said. I don’t believe that for a minute, and that may be what people are hearing in “final authority.”

By “final” or “supreme” I mean “the authority least subject to question, and which serves as a standard for other authorities but is not judged by any other standard.”

Obviously this is true of Scripture only *once *it has been accepted as canonical. Which is why the “final authority” title belongs more properly to the Word of God or Apostolic Tradition rather than simply to Scripture. The reason I defend the title as applied to Scripture today is that once Scripture has been canonized and (at the same time) we have passed beyond the point where plausible chains of oral tradition can be constructed for teachings not found elsewhere (in other words, Pope Benedict is not going to announce some new teaching by saying, “I was told this by John Paul II, who was told this by John Paul I, who was told this by Paul VI,” etc.), Scripture is clearly the fullest and most reliable source for Apostolic Tradition.

The main problem I have with Catholicism on this issue is not the question of genuine oral tradition (I think it’s quite likely, for instance, that infant baptism, prayer for the dead, and the Eucharistic sacrifice were all passed down by oral tradition) but rather the way in which for many “conservative” Catholics (I can’t call you “orthodox” on this point because I don’t think you are) Sacred Tradition seems to blend seamlessly into the Magisterium. Tradition becomes “whatever the Pope says.” That is clearly unorthodox and un-traditional.

According to Dei Verbum and the Catechism, the Magisterium makes decisions *based *on the Word of God. Furthermore, this Word of God is not some esoteric source known only to the Magisterium, but is open to all. So while (in the Catholic view) the faithful must trust the Magisterium, the faithful also have access to the source from which the Magisterium draws its decisions.

As I see it, the process of interpreting Scripture should be one in which all Christians partake, but in which the Magisterium has the final voice. (This is why “supreme” may be better than “final.” To me they mean the same thing, but I think a lot of people think of “final” in temporal terms, and thus if the Magisterium has the power to close a debate about what Scripture means, that gives the Magisterium final authority.)

And here’s another point–the Magisterium itself must be interpreted. Witness the huge debate about whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible. I know that on this board it’s confidently asserted that OS closed the debate about women’s ordination, but I know many intelligent Catholics who believe in good faith that it didn’t.

Perhaps a better example is the debates I’ve seen about Biblical inerrancy. What exactly did Dei Verbum mean when it said that Scripture teaches without error the truths God wanted to reveal for the sake of our salvation? For that matter, is the common translation of this passage accurate?

Or again, what is the status of Mary’s titles “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces.” Does the use of these titles in Magisterial doctrines trump the steadfast refusal of the Magisterium to issue a formal definition? Catholics who believe that Scripture supports these titles are more likely to argue that the Magisterium has spoken in favor of them. Catholics who think it doesn’t will deny this until there is a crystal-clear, undeniable definition.

In other words, interpretation is a two-way street. Modern “conservative” Catholics put the “living voice” so high that it seems as if nothing else really matters. But the “living voice” is not as clear as all that, and has furthermore declared unequivocally that it is *not *supreme. Why not believe it?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[mikeledes]

I would love to see these quotes form the ECFs within their proper context. I have seen St John Chrysostom being used to defend Sola Scriptura despite the fact that he completely contradicts it in another work. It’s important to see what issue they are specifically responding to and their broader argument.

God Bless,
Michael