James White

[Apolonio]

Jason: As I said before, you don’t have to be certain in order to be confident.

Response:
I am not talking about certitude though. I am asking you to prove your assertion which you have not. Your “best argument” is no argument at all since you have not argued for it.

Jason: When a historian writes about Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians being the only extant document we have from Polycarp, he’s making a statement of historical probability, not certainty.

Response:
Again, I wasn’t talking about cerititude. All I was asking is to argue for your argument. You said that’s the best argument for sola scriptura and all you do is say, “well, I don’t have to do that. I’m just confident”. By the lack of your interaction and substantial response, I have shown that that argument is not an argument at all. You haven’t even shown that Sola Scriptura is more probable than any other theories simply because you haven’t eliminated any other possibilities. The fact is that you used the argument from “process of elimination” and you haven’t eliminated anything.

Jason: He hasn’t searched the world, reading every document, doing archeological research on every part of the earth, etc. to eliminate all possibility that there’s another document in existence written by Polycarp. He doesn’t have to prove a universal negative.

Response:
I would say that a person cannot say that his letter to the Philippians is the only document of Polycarp. He can take an “agnostic” position saying that he doesn’t know if there are other writings though. However, what you maintain is that “Sola Scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith”. You haven’t given any positive argument for it. I challenge you to provide reasons for your “best argument”, but you haven’t.

Jason: The fact that there’s a theoretical possibility that one of your historical conclusions is wrong doesn’t keep you from being confident about that historical conclusion.

Response:
But I am not the one making an argument from “process of elimination”. I do use the argument that my conclusions are more probable and you probably do too. However, you haven’t made an argument for your case.

Jason: If an atheist came into this forum and raised the theoretical possibility …

Response:
No, I wouldn’t lose my confidence simply because my belief is more probable. However, you haven’t even showed that your belief is more probable. And again, I never made the argument from process of elimination. You have and as I have shown, it lacks substance. Your argument is no argument.

Jason: If a church was to follow 20 books of scripture as its rule of faith, then what would you call such a view if not sola scriptura? Not having all of the books doesn’t change the fact that their rule of faith consists only of scripture (sola scriptura).

Response:
But how can a person practice Sola Scriptura is they don’t have all scripture? The Protestant argument has been that all scripture makes man fully-equipped and therefore sola scriptura. But if a person doesn’t have all scripture, then the scriptures he has cannot make him fully-equipped. Therefore he cannot practice Sola scriptura.

Jason: You believe that a person would have to have all of the Roman Catholic rule of faith in order to be fully equipped

Response:
Yes. The Catholic rule of faith is organic and living though. It has a Magisterium. And if you are following the Magisterium, then you are following the the rule of faith.

Jason: You believe that the bodily assumption of Mary and papal infallibility, for example, are part of the apostolic deposit of faith. If they are, then how can you claim that a church father was following the Roman Catholic rule of faith if he didn’t accept every element of it?

Response:
Following a rule of faith and a doctrine are distinct. One can still be following the rule of faith without following a particular doctrine. The Church Father still had the Magisterium, Tradition, and Scripture. Therefore he was still following the rule of faith. However, the “sola scripturist” does not have “all scripture” and therefore he couldn’t have followed sola scriptura.

 

[Apolonio]

Jason: You as a Catholic believe that 2 Timothy 3 is correct about scripture equipping people. If you must be fully equipped by a rule of faith in order to be considered a follower of that rule of faith, then how could people like Melito of Sardis and Jerome have been fully equipped by the Roman Catholic rule of faith in light of their rejection of your canon of scripture?

Response:
First of all, I’m going to assume your assertion of Jerome for the sake of the argument. To answer your question, Jerome was fully-equipped because he was following the Church, Tradition, and Scripture. You are failing to distinguish between doctrine and rule of faith. Also, it is not I who said that “you must be fully equipped by a rule of faith in order to be consistent a follower of that rule of faith”. What I am saying is that Protestants use that logic and reasoning when they argue from 2 Timothy.

Jason: I’ve already answered both questions. Nobody who remembered such oral teachings would follow sola scriptura, nor would they follow the Roman Catholic rule of faith. And they would be correct in rejecting both.

Response:
So Sola Scriptura actually means, “Sola Scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith unless you remember what the Apostles taught orally”?!?

Now let’s take your statement “Nobody who remembered such oral teachings would follow sola scriptura…And they would be correct in rejecting both.”. Now, that person doesn’t follow Sola Scriptura because he remembers the oral teachings of the Apostles. Now, what happens when he passes on his memory to another person? Can that person hold on to the teachings of his teacher and not follow Sola Scriptura? If a person doesn’t follow Sola Scriptura because he can remember what the apostles taugh, then I don’t see why a person would practice sola scriptura if he was taught by that contemporary of the apostle since he also received the Word of God when he was taught by that person.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

If you, AugustineH354, and other Roman Catholics were as critical of your hierarchy’s claims as you are of the writings of men like James White and David King, I don’t see how you could remain Roman Catholic.

Because there is no other option.

It isn’t enough that you “prove” the Catholic Church wrong. That’s only step one. Step two is proving that what you propose is true. You haven’t done that and have nothing concrete to propose except for perhaps an as yet unformed man-made church.

Christ is head and foundation of the Church. It is guided by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that the Protestant view is that the Church, like the Titanic, sprung a slow leak and went down, with the various Protestant groups popping-up like flotsam. Each Protestant group, acting like a lifeboat, beckons Catholics to join them.

It apparently never occurs to the Protestant how, if Christ really is the head, the Church could have gone down in the first place.

I, for one, would never leave the Catholic Church for any other Christian group. Nope. If it could ever be proven to me that the Church in fact went down, I’d be far more apt to conclude that Christianity is false. Perhaps time to consider something else entirely.

 

[JasonTE]

Apolonio:

I would say that a person cannot say that his letter to the Philippians is the only document of Polycarp. He can take an “agnostic” position

The issue is whether the letter to the Philippians is the only extant document of Polycarp, not whether it’s the only one he wrote. Given that there have been hundreds of years to find another document of Polycarp, that many sources have agreed that only his letter to the Philippians survived, etc., we can be confident that his letter to the Philippians is the only document extant. Thus, a scholar such as Graydon Snyder will write that “Polycarp wrote several letters to neighboring congregations, but only the letter to the Philippian Christians is extant.” (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 934) Unless they have reason to add something to Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians in the future, scholars will continue to refer to his letter to the Philippians alone (sola). The possibility that there are other letters somewhere doesn’t keep them from limiting themselves to the letter to the Philippians and doing so with confidence.

Apolonio:

You haven’t given any positive argument for it. I challenge you to provide reasons for your “best argument”, but you haven’t.

I have given arguments for it, such as on the web page I linked you to earlier and in the rest of my debate with Phil Porvaznik.

how can a person practice Sola Scriptura is they don’t have all scripture?

By following the scripture they do have. I would ask, again, a question you haven’t answered. If a person follows 20 books of scripture as his rule of faith rather than the full 27, what do you call his rule of faith if not sola scriptura?

Apolonio:

if a person doesn’t have all scripture, then the scriptures he has cannot make him fully-equipped.

Why does he have to be fully equipped in order to be following sola scriptura? You can criticize him for having a wrong canon, but how can you accuse him of not adhering to sola scriptura?

Apolonio:

The Catholic rule of faith is organic and living though…if you are following the Magisterium, then you are following the the rule of faith.

If a person’s understanding of the Roman Catholic rule of faith can develop over time, why can’t a person’s understanding of scripture develop over time? If people like Melito of Sardis and Jerome didn’t need to have developed an understanding of the correct Old Testament canon in order to be fully equipped by the Roman Catholic rule of faith, then why would they need to have developed an understanding of the correct New Testament canon in order to be fully equipped by scripture?

Apolonio:

One can still be following the rule of faith without following a particular doctrine. The Church Father still had the Magisterium, Tradition, and Scripture. Therefore he was still following the rule of faith. However, the “sola scripturist” does not have “all scripture” and therefore he couldn’t have followed sola scriptura.

Let’s say that a person is following a 20-book New Testament canon rather than the full 27-book canon. Why would he qualify as having “Scripture” as part of his rule of faith in Roman Catholicism, but not in Evangelicalism?

Apolonio:

Also, it is not I who said that “you must be fully equipped by a rule of faith in order to be consistent [considered] a follower of that rule of faith”. What I am saying is that Protestants use that logic and reasoning when they argue from 2 Timothy.

I don’t know what Protestants you have in mind, but I don’t make that argument, nor do I recall ever seeing any other Protestant make it. Many Protestants fail to be fully equipped by scripture because of their own faults, yet they’re still considered to be adherents of sola scriptura. I fail to be fully equipped by scripture every time I sin.

Apolonio:

If a person doesn’t follow Sola Scriptura because he can remember what the apostles taugh, then I don’t see why a person would practice sola scriptura if he was taught by that contemporary of the apostle since he also received the Word of God when he was taught by that person.

A judgment would have to be made in each case individually, and the same is true of Roman Catholicism. If Papias passes on oral traditions about the millennial kingdom to other bishops after him, as we know he did, and those traditions aren’t being taught by the Roman Catholic magisterium that allegedly existed at that time, then judgments would have to be made about the reliability of those traditions. You as a Roman Catholic would have to make the same sort of case-by-case judgments that anybody else would.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

It apparently never occurs to the Protestant how, if Christ really is the head, the Church could have gone down in the first place.

I didn’t say that the church “went down”. I said that the church isn’t the Roman Catholic Church. Just as the people of God in the Old Testament era survived without an infallible institution with an unbroken hierarchical succession, so God’s people have survived in this New Testament era without the RCC. As I explained earlier, the term “church” can be defined in a variety of ways, and multiple types of church have survived since the time of Christ, without an infallible RCC. Instead of just assuming that “the church” is equivalent to your denomination, and that anybody who disagrees with your denomination’s claims about itself must therefore believe that the church “went down”, why don’t you interact with other definitions of the term “church”?

SPH1:

I, for one, would never leave the Catholic Church for any other Christian group. Nope. If it could ever be proven to me that the Church in fact went down, I’d be far more apt to conclude that Christianity is false. Perhaps time to consider something else entirely.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the church did cease to exist. I don’t think it did, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument. How would such a fact result in the conclusion that Christianity should be abandoned? Would it do anything to change the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection? No. Would it do anything to change the historical evidence for Jesus’ many fulfillments of prophecy? No. Would it do anything to change the historical evidence for the miracles performed by the apostles? No. Instead of abandoning Christianity, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider the possibility that God never promised to preserve the church in the manner you’re assuming? The fact that you can refer to “other Christian groups” outside of the RCC ought to tell you something. Your denomination isn’t as important as you suggest it is.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[Apolonio]

Jason: The issue is whether the letter to the Philippians is the only extant document of Polycarp, not whether it’s the only one he wrote.

Response:
Scholars don’t refer to the Philippians alone simply because there are other sources where they can read about Polycarp. Since they know that there are other letters, they can know that the letter to the Philippians is not self-sufficient for them to know his thoughts. So you have shown a bad analogy.

Jason I have given arguments for it…

Response:
Read it. I’m challenging you for it. Even you admitted “I don’t have to.”

Jason: I would ask, again, a question you haven’t answered. If a person follows 20 books of scripture as his rule of faith rather than the full 27, what do you call his rule of faith if not sola scriptura?

Response:
The question I asked was how they can practice sola scriptura if they don’t have all scripture.

Jason: Why does he have to be fully equipped in order to be following sola scriptura? You can criticize him for having a wrong canon, but how can you accuse him of not adhering to sola scriptura?

Response:
First, let me quote to you Julie Staples commenting on 2 Tim.:

"The word for “inspired” here is the Greek “theopneustos”, which means, “God-breathed”. Literally, the passive tense indicates God breathed into Scripture. Furthermore, it is because of this that Scripture is fully sufficient, as Paul indicates. He goes onto stating that their inspiration then makes Scripture “profitable” for the functions of the Church (teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness) and therefore in verse 17, makes the man of God equipped for every good work. The word adequate puts the final seal onto inspiration and sufficiency. The Greek word used is “artios” which is translated by Strongs as “complete, perfect”, and by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker as “complete, capable, proficient”. The God-breathed Scriptures are profitable due to their inspiration, and therefore “adequate, complete” etc. Dr. James White adds:

“I pause long enough to note that Paul asserts that the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient, and qualified, because God’s inspired Scriptures are always available to him. If another source of authority was necessary, surely Paul would have directed us to it in order that we might be complete, but he does not!”

What White and Staples are saying is that since the Scriptures makes them fully-equipped, then no other source is necessary. However, what 2 Tim says is that all scripture makes them sufficient, fully-equipped. But if they don’t have all, then there it is not sufficient, fully-equipped.

Jason: If a person’s understanding of the Roman Catholic rule of faith can develop over time, why can’t a person’s understanding of scripture develop over time…

Response:
Again, because they followed Church teaching. Also, I am not the one who uses that kind of logic/reasoning on fully-equipped or sufficiency.

 

[Apolonio]

Jason: Let’s say that a person is following a 20-book New Testament canon rather than the full 27-book canon. Why would he qualify as having “Scripture” as part of his rule of faith in Roman Catholicism, but not in Evangelicalism?

Response:
He would be qualifying as having Scripture, but not all scripture. I’m not saying that the Evangelical doesn’t have Scripture. What I’m saying is that according to the Evangelical logic, he cannot be practicing sola scriptura if he does not have all scripture.

Jason: I don’t know what Protestants you have in mind, but I don’t make that argument, nor do I recall ever seeing any other Protestant make it. Many Protestants fail to be fully equipped by scripture because of their own faults, yet they’re still considered to be adherents of sola scriptura. I fail to be fully equipped by scripture every time I sin.

Response:
See above on the argumentation of Staples and White.

Jason: A judgment would have to be made in each case individually, and the same is true of Roman Catholicism. If Papias passes on oral traditions about the millennial kingdom to other bishops after him, as we know he did, and those traditions aren’t being taught by the Roman Catholic magisterium that allegedly existed at that time, then judgments would have to be made about the reliability of those traditions. You as a Roman Catholic would have to make the same sort of case-by-case judgments that anybody else would.

Response:
Let me quote Webster/King Volume 1 in their definition of Sola Scriptura:

“Scripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is ‘either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture’…”

Notice the word “Scripture alone (quantitatively)”. But as you have said, a person who remembers what the apostle taught him does not have to practice sola scriptura. If a person remembers what he has been taught, then it shows that there is another certain, infallible norm. Now, if that same person passes his “memory” on to another person, then the other person, then the person has another infallible norm, and so on. Now, we can debate by a case to case basis. However, the fact is that since you have admitted that a person does not have to practice sola scriptura if he remembers what he was taught from the apostles, then there is another infallible rule of faith which he can hold. If there is another infallible rule of faith, then Scripture is not the only infallible rule of faith. Therefore Sola scriptura is false.

 

[JasonTE]

Apolonio:

Scholars don’t refer to the Philippians alone simply because there are other sources where they can read about Polycarp. Since they know that there are other letters, they can know that the letter to the Philippians is not self-sufficient for them to know his thoughts. So you have shown a bad analogy.

I didn’t choose a bad analogy. You changed my analogy. I didn’t refer to information about Polycarp. I referred to the writings of Polycarp.

Apolonio:

Read it. I’m challenging you for it. Even you admitted “I don’t have to.”

If you’ve read the material I linked you to, then how can you claim that I haven’t made an argument for sola scriptura by process of elimination? I make an argument in the debate I linked you to. You quote me saying “I don’t have to”, but I made that comment in regard to eliminating all possibilities of apostolic material outside of scripture. I don’t have to address every potential possibility in order to be confident in my conclusion.

Apolonio:

Jason: I would ask, again, a question you haven’t answered. If a person follows 20 books of scripture as his rule of faith rather than the full 27, what do you call his rule of faith if not sola scriptura?

Response:
The question I asked was how they can practice sola scriptura if they don’t have all scripture.

You still aren’t answering my question. Again, what do you call it if somebody follows 20 books of scripture alone rather than 27 books alone as his rule of faith? What do you call it if not sola scriptura? How does the subtraction of 7 books change it from sola scriptura to something else, and what is that something else?

Apolonio:

What White and Staples are saying is that since the Scriptures makes them fully-equipped, then no other source is necessary. However, what 2 Tim says is that all scripture makes them sufficient, fully-equipped. But if they don’t have all, then there it is not sufficient, fully-equipped.

Then that person would be practicing sola scriptura with an incorrect canon. It would still be sola scriptura, however.

Apolonio:

What I’m saying is that according to the Evangelical logic, he cannot be practicing sola scriptura if he does not have all scripture.

I don’t make that argument, and I don’t know of any other Evangelical who does. You claim that your quotes of Staples and White support the argument, but neither quote does. To the contrary, White has argued for sola scriptura in the writings of Athanasius, for example, even though Athanasius didn’t include Esther in his Old Testament canon.

Apolonio:

However, the fact is that since you have admitted that a person does not have to practice sola scriptura if he remembers what he was taught from the apostles, then there is another infallible rule of faith which he can hold. If there is another infallible rule of faith, then Scripture is not the only infallible rule of faith. Therefore Sola scriptura is false.

You’re misrepresenting the issue under discussion. The issue isn’t whether there theoretically could be material outside of scripture at any time in post-apostolic history. Rather, the issue is whether there is such material extant today.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[Karl_Keating]

This thread is now closed.

It no longer has much to do with James White. It has turned to other themes, and so it is mistitled.

Those wishing to discuss Mr. White’s theology may begin another thread, as may those wishing to discuss the themes found in the latter portion of the thread.