James White's argument for Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter runandsew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

runandsew

Guest
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I listened to a James White vs. Patrick Madrid Sola Scriptura debate, and I have a question.

James White’s main argument for the Bible teaching Sola Scriptura was 2 Timothy 3:16-17. He when through all the Greek lexicons and word usage for practically every word in this scripture passage, but he seemed to kind of skip over the word profitable. His argument was very convincing in favor of Sola Scriptura, unless you add in this “profitable” part. Did he just happen to forget to add it to his argument, maybe for time sake or something, or did he leave it out since it hurts his argument that this passage clearly teaches Sola Scriptura.

Profitable (5624) (ophelimos) means useful, profitable, serviceable, helpful, beneficial and refers to that which yields advantageous returns or results.

My question is does the word profitable weaken this position that this passage clearly teaches Sola Scriptura.

To me it does weaken the argument because it is saying that Scripture is helpful, but that doen’t meant that there are not other things that are also helpful.
 
James White talks about it more here.

You should keep the Orthodox in mind when listening to the debate – it makes the Sola Ecclesia argument much less convincing.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Here is Patrick Madrid’s article that James White is responding to.
White Man’s Burden

I don’t have time to read all of James White’s article since I am heading to work, I will tomorrow, but I did want to mention that when James refers to information that Jesus said and did that is not recorded in the Bible, he minimizes what that information might be by saying the following.

“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or, in fact, in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church”
I have a feeling that Jesus taught things a little more important than that which are not recorded in the Bible.
 
I drive a truck for a living, and listen to CD’s alot, I’ll listen to the debate again tonight and give some more comments tomorrow.
James seemed quite convincing the first time I listened to the debate, but after listening to it many times, the weaker I find his arguments.
I think that Patrick could have countered better, but then he is the professional, and I am such an amature that I had never heard of Sola Ecclesia before.:o
 
It says that scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, etc, but it doesn’t say that it’s the only thing that can be used for doctrine, teaching, etc. For example, if I say that eating vegetables is profitable to my health, it’s true, but it doesn’t mean that I get all of my nutritional needs met by eating only vegetables. With this passage it’s the same thing. Scripture is profitable (very profitable and very very important), but it doesn’t say that it’s the only source that can be used for doctrine, teaching, reproof, etc. But that’s just my take, and seeing as I’m not even a Catholic and as such supposedly believe in sola scriptura, I could be wrong. 🙂
 
The concept of “sola ecclesia” is a silly Protestant straw man. Neither Roman Catholics nor the Orthodox believe in any such thing. The Protestant logic would be as follows…

Catholics only accept the authority of the scriptures as they are understood through the teaching authority of the magisterium, therefore Catholics really only believe in the authority of the Church. The scriptures have no authority, because Catholics just tist it unto their own pre-determined theology.

Yeah…right. :rolleyes:

In a sense…well…

Catholics believe in the authority of God alone. But God handed his authority to his Son…who then handed his authority to his Apostles(who authored the authoritative scriptures)…who handed their authority on to their successors.

2Tim 3 proves more than Protestants would prefer. If Paul was really saying that Scripture alone is the only binding suthority, then it would exclude the New Testament all together. Paul was clearly speaking of the Old Testament when he referred to the scriptures.

Peace,

bargar
 
It would seem as if the author of 2Tim 3:16-17 meant that scripture was to be used exclusively then he would have used a word other than profitable. There must be a Greek work for exclusive or something similar.

At the time 2Tim was written there was no New Testament so is White arguing that the Old Testament is all the Christian needs?

2 Thess 2:15 “So then, bretheren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

If Sola Scriptura was believed by the apostle Paul then shouldn’t 2Thess 2:15 have read “…you were taught by us, only by letter.”
 
Sola Scriptura is a belief that states, “All revealed truth from God is contained in Scripture Alone”.

It cannot be true because the list of books of the Old and New Testaments is a truth revealed by God. This truth that God has revealed to man is not part of any one book of Scripture.

Ken
 
What would he say about James 1:

*2: Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials,
3: for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
4: And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. *

Sola Steadfastness?
 
VociMike said:
What would he say about James 1:

2: Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials,
3: for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
4: And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Sola Steadfastness?
Click to expand...
This is what James White said about that verse, because Patrick did compare James 1 with 2 Timothy during the debate.
James White said that in the book of James,the Greek word holokleros for complete,

holokleros:
complete in all its parts, in no part wanting or unsound, complete, entire, whole
of a body without blemish or defect, whether of a priest or of a victim
free from sin, faultless
complete in all respects, consummate

While in 2 Timothy 3:17 the Greek word exartizo is used for complete

exartizo:
to complete, finish
to furnish perfectly
to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete)

He told Patrick that it was a common mistake for beginning bible students to make the mistake of thinking that English versions of the bible would use different English words for two different Greek words.

Patrick responded that yes, different words are used, but the context is the same.

James White mentioned the different Greek words for complete, but he didn’t elaborate on how the difference in words would change the context of what was being said :banghead:
 
After listening to the debate again last night, I have a question.
Is the purpose of a debate to just simply win, or is the purpose to find out what is the truth?
I say this because James White would never really answer Patrick’s question on how he came about knowing the books in the Bible were inspired.
He would never admit that The Church recognized the canon in one of its councils, and that recognition could have been an infallible decision that is binding on the Christian, thus there would be a binding authority outside scripture.
(Plus in this council, it reaffirmed an earlier council, which defined the supremacy of the Pontiff of Rome)
So does a person say this council was only let by the Holy Spirit when it choose the books of the Bible, but not when it said the Pontiff of Rome had authority?
In other words, does the Holy Spirit only lead the Church in decisions, which I agree on?
 
runandsew said:
This is what James White said about that verse, because Patrick did compare James 1 with 2 Timothy during the debate.
James White said that in the book of James,the Greek word holokleros for complete,

holokleros:
complete in all its parts, in no part wanting or unsound, complete, entire, whole
of a body without blemish or defect, whether of a priest or of a victim
free from sin, faultless
complete in all respects, consummate

While in 2 Timothy 3:17 the Greek word exartizo is used for complete

exartizo:
to complete, finish
to furnish perfectly
to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete)

He told Patrick that it was a common mistake for beginning bible students to make the mistake of thinking that English versions of the bible would use different English words for two different Greek words.

Patrick responded that yes, different words are used, but the context is the same.

James White mentioned the different Greek words for complete, but he didn’t elaborate on how the difference in words would change the context of what was being said :banghead:
Click to expand...
That’s interesting, but I sure don’t see where it’s a “winning” argument. First of all, I take it that the words for “perfect” are the same (since you don’t say that JW said otherwise). But only the words for “complete” or “furnished” are different. In that case, I’d say that the word used in James is a stronger word than that used in Timothy. I’d say the goal of Christian life should be to become holokleros even more than exartizo

And of course there’s the troublesome problem that, if scripture is always true, then it would have been true the day that Timothy was written, which would mean that only those scriptures existing at that moment were necessary to make the man of God perfect and furnished for all good works.
 
BrownR said:
Is there some place online to listen to this debate?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I have not been able to find it on a free download, it is available in CD format from James White’s site Alpha and Omega Ministries
#454 - Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? (Audio CD) $10.00

I also found an mp3 format from Alpha and Omega Ministries for $2.50

And it is also available from Patrick Madrid’s site Surprised by truth
Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? (Debate) Mp3 audio download Price: $7.99

I would have preferred a free download, but I paid for the mp3 format download.

The debate that I really want is the bibleanswerman debate with James White and Jimmy Akins, I owned it several years ago, but loaded it out and it was it was never returned, hopefully it is still making the rounds, and not sitting on someone’s self somewhere.
 
runandsew said:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Click to expand...
One point that gets overlooked by people who use this passage to support Sola Scriptura is that when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, what Scripture was he speaking about? Certainly not the very letter he was composing. That makes no logical sense. The Gospel accounts had not even been written yet, so he wasn’t referring to them. He couldn’t have been referring to the letters he and other apostles had not yet written. And, I doubt he would have been so bold as to consider his own letters to the churches and individuals on par with the Torah and the books of the Prophets. He was referring to the Old Testament scriptures and affirming that they were to be used in the context of the new faith.

The Catholic Church later determined that Paul’s letters, as well as those of Peter, James, and John were inspired, but I find it hard to believe that the authors themselves knew that they were composing the inspired Word of God at the time that those letters were written.

Besides, it says “All Scripture…”, not “Only Scripture…”. Paul writes in another letter exhorting the church to follow all his instructions, both those given in writing and those given verbally. So, if one argues that Paul recognized that his letters were inspired at the time of writing, then he clearly intended to set the foundation for written and oral Tradition.

By the way, does Mr. White consider 1 Cor. 11:23-30 equally inspired? Has he done a word by word examination of these passages? Does he wonder why Paul, who was not at the Last Supper, and was given these truths through direct revelation from God (Gal 1:11-20), makes a point to recount the Last Supper in detail and lay out the doctrine of the Eucharist, including the need for reconciliation before receiving? Does he believe that these passages, along with John 6, are “given by inspiration of God”? :hmmm:
 
runandsew said:
Unfortunately I have not been able to find it on a free download, it is available in CD format from James White’s site Alpha and Omega Ministries
#454 - Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? (Audio CD) $10.00

I also found an mp3 format from Alpha and Omega Ministries for $2.50

And it is also available from Patrick Madrid’s site Surprised by truth
Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? (Debate) Mp3 audio download Price: $7.99

I would have preferred a free download, but I paid for the mp3 format download.

The debate that I really want is the bibleanswerman debate with James White and Jimmy Akins, I owned it several years ago, but loaded it out and it was it was never returned, hopefully it is still making the rounds, and not sitting on someone’s self somewhere.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I ended up purchasing the one from Madrid’s website and listened to most of it while sitting here studying this evening which probably wasn’t a good idea because I can’t seem to recall what I was studying… I thoroughly enjoyed it and am of the opinion that Madrid had a much more compelling argument. I thought that White’s rebuttals contained a much greater deal of sophistry and…circumlocution if you will, but I don’t want to comment on it too much further without listening to it again in the next few days. I think there was a good deal of subtlety and finesse to some of Madrid’s points that I need to listen to again and ponder. Overall, it was worth the 8 bucks. I love good debates.
 
VociMike said:
That’s interesting, but I sure don’t see where it’s a “winning” argument. First of all, I take it that the words for “perfect” are the same (since you don’t say that JW said otherwise). But only the words for “complete” or “furnished” are different. In that case, I’d say that the word used in James is a stronger word than that used in Timothy. I’d say the goal of Christian life should be to become holokleros even more than exartizo

And of course there’s the troublesome problem that, if scripture is always true, then it would have been true the day that Timothy was written, which would mean that only those scriptures existing at that moment were necessary to make the man of God perfect and furnished for all good works.
Click to expand...
In case anyone is still interested in this debate, and this rather delphic Greek argument going on between the two, I found this rather enlightening link.

Taken from the above link:
White countered by saying that the Greek word used for “perfect” in 2 Tim 3:17 is not the same word used in James 1:4. That is true (James 1:4 uses “teleios”). And whatever that term of 2 Tim 3:17, “artios,” may mean, Pat Madrid refuted White’s claim by noting that if you join the military, they will also “fully equip” you for your mission, that is, they will give you a helmet, a rifle, etc. Thus, you are fully equipped to take part in a war, for example. BUT: Does that mean all these items make you sufficient to fight? No, because someone has to TRAIN you, has to show you when to throw a handgranade, reveal tactics to you, and so on. Therefore, the term “artios” does not have the effect James White wants it to have. What’s White’s response to Madrid’s rebuttal? There is none. He only keeps pointing out all kinds of lexical resources and whatnot, yet he does not refute Madrid’s argument. Indeed, neither “artios” nor “exartizo” means “sufficient” PRIMARILY. Indeed, it is “teleios” that means “perfect” in such a sense PRIMARILY. Actually, only thirdly or even fourthly. White did not respond to that in the debate itself, but gave a “reply” to that in his article, “Catholic Answers: Myth or Reality?” He accuses Madrid of the following:
Click to expand...
Code: 
[If Mr. Madrid is right, if the Greek lexicons actually say that,] why didn't he bring this out? Reason: he didn't know. He was simply going on his recollection of my own words.
Click to expand...
Now, Madrid IS right. Any Greek lexicon will confirm this. Just look at the Enhanced Strong’s [Greek] Lexicon. “Artios” and “exartizo” are not as strong in emphasis as “teleios” is; and both “artios” and “exartizo” do not have “sufficient” as their first or secondary meanings.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, even if 2 Timothy 3:17 proved the formal sufficiency of Scripture (which it cannot, for that would contradict Acts 8:30-31), then there would still be at least three unsolvable problems left…
Click to expand...
Given that additional information in contrasting the two Greek terms and their contextual correlation with the logic argument, I’m a little disappointed that Madrid wasn’t prepared for this. I’ve read some of his commentaries on his own debate and he brings the Greek issue up, but I can’t help but feel that it really would have made an even greater defense of his position. Given Protestants proclivity for digging around in Greek lexicons, I’d have thought a thorough Greek analysis of their main verse to support “sola scriptura” (2 Tim 3:16,17) would have been warranted. Perhaps his use of the soldier analogy was an attempt to illustrate his point through a medium that most of the audience would be able to follow rather than get weighed down in Greek terminology. In either case, he wins the debate decisively in my opinion, but he really missed a great opportunity to refute White’s greek argument.
 
runandsew said:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I listened to a James White vs. Patrick Madrid Sola Scriptura debate, and I have a question.

James White’s main argument for the Bible teaching Sola Scriptura was 2 Timothy 3:16-17. He when through all the Greek lexicons and word usage for practically every word in this scripture passage, but he seemed to kind of skip over the word profitable. His argument was very convincing in favor of Sola Scriptura, unless you add in this “profitable” part. Did he just happen to forget to add it to his argument, maybe for time sake or something, or did he leave it out since it hurts his argument that this passage clearly teaches Sola Scriptura.

Profitable (5624) (ophelimos) means useful, profitable, serviceable, helpful, beneficial and refers to that which yields advantageous returns or results.

My question is does the word profitable weaken this position that this passage clearly teaches Sola Scriptura.

To me it does weaken the argument because it is saying that Scripture is helpful, but that doen’t meant that there are not other things that are also helpful.
Click to expand...
I’m sure someone has already said this but when this verse was penned down the “bible” did not exist. Therefore, according to the protestant argument all you need in the OT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top