Scripture Alone - Not Convinced

[zach_dunn]

I just finished reading James White’s book Scripture Alone. There were some things in there that I felt weren’t proofs for sola Scriptura at all, whereas he gave me a hard time in the last few chapters. I thought I was knowledgeable of the Fathers enough but I guess not.

Things That Weren’t Convincing -

1. 
   *]He spent a great deal of time (about half of a chapter) talking about the importance of exegesis and the evil of eisegesis . . . from what I understand, from the beginning of his life and going into school he always assumed that sola Scriptura was true. Not once did he talk about questioning his assumption, so I think this whole book is a large bit of eisegesis on his part, wouldn’t you say?
   *]I also thought his treatment of the issue of the canon was not very good at all. His argument essentially boils down to this: it was God’s wish for us to know the canon (duh?), so He gradually revealed it to the Church. He attempts to sidestep Church authority by saying the authority is all God’s; which it is, but from my reading of Scripture He has vested His authority in the Church to do such things like unearth the canon, declare dogma, etc.
   *]It seemed to me that throughout the book, he made a great play on sensationalism and feelings. After all, his principle aim in writing this book was not to write a scholarly tome about sola Scriptura but “to kindle a fire in the hearts of God’s people, not only for His Word but for the sufficiency of His Word” (p. 216, emphasis his). Throughout the book it seems like he just wanted me to jump up and scream “All Scripture is God-breathed . . . it MUST be completely sufficient and the only infallible rule of faith, that’s WHY God inspired it in the first place!!!” In any case, if that was his intention . . . it didn’t happen.
   *]The chapters about corruption and contradictions in the Bible I found particularly interesting because his argument against them (especially corruption) is that God wouldn’t let his Word be corrupted like that. . . . The whole time I was reading these sections I was thinking to myself “if He can and did keep His Word from being corrupted, why did He fail to do that with the Church . . . which He actually explicitly promised to protect.” It made very little sense to me but oh well, suum cuique I suppose.
   *]The last thing that I found ‘unconvincing’ are his dialogues. Throughout the book he uses dialogues to show how believers may properly use their knowledge against Catholics, Mormons, Atheists, etc. Aside from the clever names he chose (which I felt fit the belief systems very well. no offense to you believers out there named Dennis!), the dialogues were completely one sided which is, I guess, to be expected. But it gets a little ridiculous when Joshua (the Protestant, named after his son) uses a page to explain something and Robert (the Catholic) comes back with “you don’t seem to like the word tradition” (p. 39, emphasis his). Really? I’ve seen some one sided fictional dialogues in all camps, but nothing quite like this. There is one instance, regarding the canon, where he intentionally writes a dialogue wherein the Catholic essentially ‘wins’, but even then the Catholic’s case wasn’t written well. Overall, I feel as though his depiction of Catholic apologists is inaccurate. Most likely that of Mormon and Atheist apologists as well.
   
   Things That Made Me Think -
   
   Really the only thing that really made me think in this book were his chapters on Tradition, the Church, and the Development of Doctrine (chapter 9) and Scriptural Sufficiency: Nothing New (chapter 11). And within those two it was really his use of the Fathers that got to me. It does seem that a casual reading of them promotes a much higher view of Scripture than many modern Catholics give it today. Also, James’ words on tradition really confused me. I’m not really sure what the ‘point’ of tradition is I guess? I could see how the living tradition acts as an interpretation maybe? But I’m not sure.
   
   Anyway, I’m looking for other peoples views on this book. Do you agree with my assessments? If not, why?
   
   Also, any help and clarification with the Fathers and Tradition would be great, thank you!

 

[fermat]

Things That Made Me Think -

Really the only thing that really made me think in this book were his chapters on Tradition, the Church, and the Development of Doctrine (chapter 9) and Scriptural Sufficiency: Nothing New (chapter 11). And within those two it was really his use of the Fathers that got to me. It does seem that a casual reading of them promotes a much higher view of Scripture than many modern Catholics give it today. Also, James’ words on tradition really confused me. I’m not really sure what the ‘point’ of tradition is I guess? I could see how the living tradition acts as an interpretation maybe? But I’m not sure.

Anyway, I’m looking for other peoples views on this book. Do you agree with my assessments? If not, why?

Also, any help and clarification with the Fathers and Tradition would be great, thank you!

It is true that modern Catholics do not hold scripture at the level should be. I think it was St. Jerome who said that ‘Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ’. I couldn’t agree more.

The tradition of reading the bible at Mass, IMHO, has lead to some complacency. I understand the reasons why this is done, but I think we should be encouraging everyone to do daily reading. My wife and I both start the morning at the USCCB website for today’s readings. It has made a big difference in the three years I have been doing it. They also have a video reflection. You can also sign up to have the pre-recorded versions of the reading sent to you.

 

[HickmanJosh]

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html halfway down the page is a bunch of church Father Quotes

 

[WesleyF]

And within those two it was really his use of the Fathers that got to me. It does seem that a casual reading of them promotes a much higher view of Scripture than many modern Catholics give it today.
Also, any help and clarification with the Fathers and Tradition would be great, thank you!

It should be noted that Catholics do hold to a position that’s called the material sufficiency of scripture. We believe that scripture is sufficient!! But it is only materially sufficient, not formally sufficient, which is the Protestant position.

An excerpt from Patrick Madrid’s debate with James White on Sola Scriptura -

Mistake #1 (if you have your notepads out, I’d ask you to write these down). Mistake #1: Confusing formal and material sufficiency. This is a crucial point in tonight’s debate. It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call, “the material sufficiency of Scripture.” This means that Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they’re all there.

Formal sufficiency, on the other hand, is the position that Mr. White is attempting to prove. Formal sufficiency means that Scripture contains all necessary Christian truth, and (and this is a very important “and”) that Scripture’s meaning is so clear that the Church and Tradition are not necessary to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the meaning of Scripture.

In the course of this debate, Mr. White may make the mistake of assuming that the Catholic Church rejects the material sufficiency of Scripture. It doesn’t. What it does reject is the error of the formal sufficiency of Scripture. As a Catholic I contend that all Christian doctrines are at least implicitly present in Scripture. But that doesn’t mean Scripture is always sufficiently clear so that every Christian doctrine is explicitly and conclusively evident.

The entire debate can be found here -
vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

I am quite sure that the quotes that James White must have used from the Fathers actually had the fathers talk about the material sufficiency of scripture (the Catholic position) and not the formal sufficiency of scripture (the Protestant position).

 

[Crumpy]

There are formal arguments for and against sola scriptura.

I’m getting old and I appeal to the intuitive arguments against SS.

The Catholic Church says its teaching is based on scripture, tradition, and magisterium.

Whatever else tradition (or Tradition) is, it includes how we understand scripture. THAT is the practical Tradition that the CC has.

Protestants have different understandings of the Bible, and that is their “tradition.” They claim that they don’t have tradition, but they do. That denial is their glaring mistake.

They say they don’t need the Church and its teaching authority. So, they have somebody in the place of the pope who has authority to teach. So, again, their denial is silly

EVERY Christian denomination has the Bible, tradition, and magisterium. Christianity Today admitted to the tradition part in an article, maybe 16 years ago.

Protestants dodge the real and essential question, which is the correct “tradition” (interpretation of scripture) and where is the correct teaching authority. Their formal arguments dissolve into their simply refusing to accept the CC.

Example. There are heresies that cropped up after apostilic and NT times, and it was the Church which opposed them. Scripture alone was not enough to refute these errors. It took a NEW LOOK at the scriptures by church leaders FOLLOWING THE HISTORIC TRADITIONS to oppose the new heresies.

Now, I’m way out of my realm of knowledge, but I don’t see that these heresies were refuted by SS.

 

[DianaCC]

if He can and did keep His Word from being corrupted, why did He fail to do that with the Church . . . which He actually explicitly promised to protect.

LOL I never thought of that.

 

[zach_dunn]

It should be noted that Catholics do hold to a position that’s called the material sufficiency of scripture. We believe that scripture is sufficient!! But it is only materially sufficient, not formally sufficient, which is the Protestant position.

An excerpt from Patrick Madrid’s debate with James White on Sola Scriptura -

Mistake #1 (if you have your notepads out, I’d ask you to write these down). Mistake #1: Confusing formal and material sufficiency. This is a crucial point in tonight’s debate. It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call, “the material sufficiency of Scripture.” This means that Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they’re all there.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I guess I had been raised a little how Protestants are raised, trying to be as far away from the opposite camp as possible. This is probably why I was taken aback by the idea of Material Sufficiency . . . I kinda like it though

I’m still confused about Tradition though. I’ve read some protestants ask us to give direct words of Jesus or the Apostles that aren’t found in Scripture, but I know that’s not how Tradition is. I guess if I believe in the concept of Material Sufficiency, Tradition is essentially the correct interpretation of Scripture? But then what is the Church for . . .

It’s all a bit confusing I suppose.

 

[zach_dunn]

There are formal arguments for and against sola scriptura.

I’m getting old and I appeal to the intuitive arguments against SS.

The Catholic Church says its teaching is based on scripture, tradition, and magisterium.

Whatever else tradition (or Tradition) is, it includes how we understand scripture. THAT is the practical Tradition that the CC has.

Protestants have different understandings of the Bible, and that is their “tradition.” They claim that they don’t have tradition, but they do. That denial is their glaring mistake.

They say they don’t need the Church and its teaching authority. So, they have somebody in the place of the pope who has authority to teach. So, again, their denial is silly

EVERY Christian denomination has the Bible, tradition, and magisterium. Christianity Today admitted to the tradition part in an article, maybe 16 years ago.

Protestants dodge the real and essential question, which is the correct “tradition” (interpretation of scripture) and where is the correct teaching authority. Their formal arguments dissolve into their simply refusing to accept the CC.

Example. There are heresies that cropped up after apostilic and NT times, and it was the Church which opposed them. Scripture alone was not enough to refute these errors. It took a NEW LOOK at the scriptures by church leaders FOLLOWING THE HISTORIC TRADITIONS to oppose the new heresies.

Now, I’m way out of my realm of knowledge, but I don’t see that these heresies were refuted by SS.

If, as you say, Tradition contains how we understand Scripture, what is the function of the Church?

Confused.

 

[zach_dunn]

LOL I never thought of that.

It’s a pretty interesting thought. Although White would probably say something along the lines of “God never intended for the Church to be corrupted . . . that privilege is reserved for His Word Alone.”

There will be no winning with Mr. White.

 

[WesleyF]

I’m still confused about Tradition though. I’ve read some protestants ask us to give direct words of Jesus or the Apostles that aren’t found in Scripture, but I know that’s not how Tradition is.

Of course it doesn’t work that way, or else it would be written tradition (scripture), not oral tradition. We can only say that the apostles taught us to baptize infants. That teaching was the word of God. But we do not have a written account of the exact words they spoke when they gave that teaching, and we do not need to. It is the word of God put into practice.

This is why Origen said

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

I guess if I believe in the concept of Material Sufficiency, Tradition is essentially the correct interpretation of Scripture? But then what is the Church for . . .

It’s all a bit confusing I suppose.

If you’re given the book of Law and also told how to interpret it, does that mean that you don’t need the authorities to actually implement that law?

Also, whenever a heresy comes up or a new private revelation comes up (like Fatima) who will decide whether it is true or false? We need a church for that!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi Zach,

My question to YOU is this: does White EVER address the issue of PASA GRAPHE (i.e. “All Scripture as a whole” versus “Every individual Scripture” of 2 Tim 3:16a)? (I’d be surprised if he did)

Also: What were the key Biblical proof-texts he used to prove SS from the Bible?

I just finished reading James White’s book Scripture Alone. There were some things in there that I felt weren’t proofs for sola Scriptura at all, whereas he gave me a hard time in the last few chapters. I thought I was knowledgeable of the Fathers enough but I guess not.

Things That Weren’t Convincing -

1. 
   *]He spent a great deal of time (about half of a chapter) talking about the importance of exegesis and the evil of eisegesis . . . from what I understand, from the beginning of his life and going into school he always assumed that sola Scriptura was true. Not once did he talk about questioning his assumption, so I think this whole book is a large bit of eisegesis on his part, wouldn’t you say?

1. 
   I haven’t read the book, but this is very common with Protestants. Sola-Scriptura is first assumed to be true, then defended; but never is it assumed false until proven true (ironically, a self-refuting proposition).
   

   I also thought his treatment of the issue of the canon was not very good at all. His argument essentially boils down to this: it was God’s wish for us to know the canon (duh?), so He gradually revealed it to the Church. He attempts to sidestep Church authority by saying the authority is all God’s; which it is, but from my reading of Scripture He has vested His authority in the Church to do such things like unearth the canon, declare dogma, etc.

   I’ve read some of his stuff on this before as well, and neither he nor any others have a reasonable answer - because there is none.
   

   It seemed to me that throughout the book, he made a great play on sensationalism and feelings. After all, his principle aim in writing this book was not to write a scholarly tome about sola Scriptura but “to kindle a fire in the hearts of God’s people, not only for His Word but for the sufficiency of His Word” (p. 216, emphasis his). Throughout the book it seems like he just wanted me to jump up and scream “All Scripture is God-breathed . . . it MUST be completely sufficient and the only infallible rule of faith, that’s WHY God inspired it in the first place!!!” In any case, if that was his intention . . . it didn’t happen.

   This is predictable and stems from creating a false dichotomy by making the issue about those who accept Sola-Scriptura must “like” Scripture (Protestants) versus those reject SS must “hate” Scripture (Catholics) or hold it to less-than-inspired regard.
   

   The chapters about corruption and contradictions in the Bible I found particularly interesting because his argument against them (especially corruption) is that God wouldn’t let his Word be corrupted like that. . . . The whole time I was reading these sections I was thinking to myself “if He can and did keep His Word from being corrupted, why did He fail to do that with the Church . . . which He actually explicitly promised to protect.” It made very little sense to me but oh well, suum cuique I suppose.

   That’s not nearly as bad as what famous Reformed Baptist Pastor John Piper said recently.
   

   The last thing that I found ‘unconvincing’ are his dialogues. Throughout the book he uses dialogues to show how believers may properly use their knowledge against Catholics, Mormons, Atheists, etc. Aside from the clever names he chose (which I felt fit the belief systems very well. no offense to you believers out there named Dennis!), the dialogues were completely one sided which is, I guess, to be expected. But it gets a little ridiculous when Joshua (the Protestant, named after his son) uses a page to explain something and Robert (the Catholic) comes back with “you don’t seem to like the word tradition” (p. 39, emphasis his). Really? I’ve seen some one sided fictional dialogues in all camps, but nothing quite like this. There is one instance, regarding the canon, where he intentionally writes a dialogue wherein the Catholic essentially ‘wins’, but even then the Catholic’s case wasn’t written well. Overall, I feel as though his depiction of Catholic apologists is inaccurate. Most likely that of Mormon and Atheist apologists as well.

   Not surprising. Plus, I’ve not seen him address the best arguments Catholics have to offer.

 

[ajcstr]

If, as you say, Tradition contains how we understand Scripture, what is the function of the Church?

Confused.

My 2 cents

Well think about how the canon was developed. By what gospels/letters agreed with/conveyed tradition. So Tradition pre-dated the Bible. That being said, now you have the Bible, well what does it mean? You have to look for the answer in tradition.

For instance, the earliest Christians celebrate the Eucharist, then they accept the gospel of John as Scripture because it reflects this Tradition. The gospel says “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” You can’t now go back and read that passage and ask what Jesus means by his body. Is he speaking literal or figurative? You have to read it in light of the Tradition that preceded it.

Michael Barber has an excellent series on the Bible as a Catholic Book. he points out that if the Church selected the books of the New Testament based on Tradition, how can you later say that Tradition does not agree with the Bible.

 

[ajcstr]

White is an EXCELLENT debater. Very quick on his feet and very skilled. I have listened to debates where I thought he whipped the Catholic’s butt, but then when I listened a second or third time, I notice, he leaves a question unanswered here or there, throws out a red herring, or uses some other tactic to win the debate.

 

[WesleyF]

White is an EXCELLENT debater. Very quick on his feet and very skilled. I have listened to debates where I thought he whipped the Catholic’s butt, but then when I listened a second or third time, I notice, he leaves a question unanswered here or there, throws out a red herring, or uses some other tactic to win the debate.

I hope you’ve seen his debates with Sungenis!

 

[ajcstr]

I hope you’ve seen his debates with Sungenis!

I have listened to the predestination and one about Mary. The predestination was one of the ones I initially thought went bad until I listened to it a couple times.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Not surprising. Plus, I’ve not seen him address the best arguments Catholics have to offer.

On the flipside, many have seen him not address the best arguments Catholics have to offer with the panache of many a politician…

 

[zach_dunn]

Of course it doesn’t work that way, or else it would be written tradition (scripture), not oral tradition. We can only say that the apostles taught us to baptize infants. That teaching was the word of God. But we do not have a written account of the exact words they spoke when they gave that teaching, and we do not need to. It is the word of God put into practice.

This is why Origen said

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Thank you for that, that’s very comforting to know! Do you know of any other teachings we know come from Tradition?

If you’re given the book of Law and also told how to interpret it, does that mean that you don’t need the authorities to actually implement that law?

Also, whenever a heresy comes up or a new private revelation comes up (like Fatima) who will decide whether it is true or false? We need a church for that!

This works, I guess I just thought that the Church was more than just an implementer of the Law . . . wait, it is more than that! It’s the giver of the Sacraments, too. I almost forgot!

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi Zach,

My question to YOU is this: does White EVER address the issue of PASA GRAPHE (i.e. “All Scripture as a whole” versus “Every individual Scripture” of 2 Tim 3:16a)? (I’d be surprised if he did)

I’m not sure what you mean here. Is it along the lines of “The Greek actually means every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable, etc., etc., so that if they claim it means sufficient, it proves to much. Namely that every book, chapter, or verse is sufficient in and of itself”. Is that what Pasa Graphe means?

Also: What were the key Biblical proof-texts he used to prove SS from the Bible?

He used 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Matthew 22:29-32; and Luke 3-4. Mind you with these passages he is attempting to prove the nature of Scripture as God-breathed. His main argument for sola Scriptura is not really based on the Bible but on the idea that it is the most sure way of knowing God’s will and the idea that God wouldn’t give it to us if it weren’t to be sufficient.

This is predictable and stems from creating a false dichotomy by making the issue about those who accept Sola-Scriptura must “like” Scripture (Protestants) versus those reject SS must “hate” Scripture (Catholics) or hold it to less-than-inspired regard.

You’re right on the mark, constantly throughout the book he talks about those people who lack “the highest view of Scripture” (everyone but Protestants), constantly attack the Bible, it’s inerrancy, etc., and they always have some “traditions of men” or some external authority that tells them what to believe. And many of those things are contrary to God’s Word.

It was getting seriously annoying. To say the least.

 

[Tiberius1701]

He used 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Matthew 22:29-32; and Luke 3-4. Mind you with these passages he is attempting to prove the nature of Scripture as God-breathed. His main argument for sola Scriptura is not really based on the Bible but on the idea that it is the most sure way of knowing God’s will and the idea that God wouldn’t give it to us if it weren’t to be sufficient.

I’ve never understood how people can think this way. As soon as I heard the Catholic teachings about Apostolic Authority, I could easily see that it provided far more assurance of Truth than resting our knowledge thereof on every person’s private interpretation. Papal infallibility is the most sure way, not the anarchy of interpretive relativity.

 

[zach_dunn]

My 2 cents

Well think about how the canon was developed. By what gospels/letters agreed with/conveyed tradition. So Tradition pre-dated the Bible. That being said, now you have the Bible, well what does it mean? You have to look for the answer in tradition.

For instance, the earliest Christians celebrate the Eucharist, then they accept the gospel of John as Scripture because it reflects this Tradition. The gospel says “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” You can’t now go back and read that passage and ask what Jesus means by his body. Is he speaking literal or figurative? You have to read it in light of the Tradition that preceded it.

Michael Barber has an excellent series on the Bible as a Catholic Book. he points out that if the Church selected the books of the New Testament based on Tradition, how can you later say that Tradition does not agree with the Bible.

I thought they based which books were in the canon off of whether or not they were written by an apostle?