The following is my response to James
White’s article:
I focused primarily
with the following dialogue between Paul, a fictitious Catholic, and a
protestant (which in this case is White), so I cut out parts of the beginning
and the end. My words are in bold
“Yes,
well, sola scriptura is the belief that the Bible alone is to be our
guide. That we are not to hold to any traditions.”
“I’m
sorry you think that is what the doctrine states” I replied matter-of-factly.
Paul
was definitely not used to being on the defensive. “Well,” he smiled,
“given that there are 28,000 different denominations out there, I’m sure there
are about as many definitions of sola scriptura as there are
denominations.”
“Oh,
I thought the new number Roman Catholic apologists were using was 33,000.
I’ve heard so many grossly inflated numbers it is hard to keep track. If
there are 250 meaningful denominations with any substantial historical or
numerical presence I’d be surprised, not counting non-Christian religions and
the like that are often lumped into such a survey number, like the Mormons, but
even then, those who actually hold to sola scriptura and who seek to
consistently practice it would be an even smaller number. But the fact
remains that no meaningful historical Protestant denomination has ever put
forward the definition of sola scriptura that you just did.”
White makes the claims
that protestant denominations that hold to sola scriptura are very low. It would’ve been good if he can provide some
documentation on that. In any case the
Catholic raised a valid argument which White obviously ignores altogether. The fact is there’s a bunch of denominations
in Protestantism due to the fruit of sola scriptura. Whether the number is 28,000 or 33,000, or
250, or even 20, denominations are technically contrary to what God desires
considering Jesus prayed for unity (John 17:10, 17:21-22) and Apostle Paul even
says that, “That there should be no schism in the body” (1 Cor
12:25). One may argue that this is out
of context, which it is, but the basic principle is applicable: “There should be no schism in the body of
Christ” Another related argument can be
said of Rome’s schism with Eastern Orthodoxy, the Church of England and some
other schismatic groups like SSPX. But
these groups did not separate due to sola scriptura, which swiftly brought
about doctrinal division within the protestant world. Here’s what Luther had to say about doctrinal
divisions as a result of sola scriptura:
There are almost as many sects and
beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects
the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present
one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is
not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be
inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his
ravings and dreams.
Quoted in Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher,
(Rockford, IL: TAN books, 1976), 22
And Luther also said
the following:
If the world lasts a long time, it will
again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given
to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of the councils, and take refuge in
them, in order to preserve the unity of the faith.
(Martin
Luther, Epistle Against Zwingli.)
Reformer Theodore Beza said the following
concerning the ‘fruit’ of sola scriptura:
"Our
people are carried away by every wind of doctrine. If you know what their
religion is today, you cannot tell what it may be tomorrow. In what single
point are those churches, which declared war against the Pope, united among
themselves? There is not one point which is not held by some of them as
an article of the faith and by others is rejected as an impiety."
Apparently, in Luther’s
day, many couldn’t agree on which doctrines to believe due to ‘fruit’ of sola
scriptura. Although White may be right
with the 33,000 denominations thing, White seems to clearly duck this
legitimate point: sola scriptura paves
the way for doctrinal schisms! And unfortunately,
Paul (the Catholic) doesn’t continue to raise the issue…then again White’s
writing this article…
“I
have talked to many who accepted that very definition” Paul insisted.
“No
doubt you have, which may explain your success in confusing folks on the topic,
actually. But sola scriptura does not teach what you are saying it
teaches. Let me get the definition clear before we discuss its
truthfulness. Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are
the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not
say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions,
that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the
only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all
other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or
anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by,
the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal,
nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos,
God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of
necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your
definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.”
It’s clear to me that
White doesn’t seem to think there’s a problem with his
definition which says: “Sola scriptura teaches
that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church”. But there’s a HUGE problem with that: Scripture is not a teacher. The scriptures are certainly God-breathed and
useful for teaching (2 Tim
Roger turned from Paul to the others in the room
and asked, “Is that not what I have preached from the pulpit and in this very
classroom all along?” They nodded in agreement.
“Well,
OK” Paul said as he attempted to recover the initiative. “We can use that
more specific definition, if you wish. The fact remains that it is a
human tradition, not a biblical teaching, and it was unknown before Martin
Luther…or at least Jan Hus.”
“Which
of those two erroneous statements would you like to deal with first?” I asked.
Paul
seemed taken aback by my direct question.
“I
mean, shall we demonstrate that the doctrine is biblical first, or demonstrate
that it was taught and preached long before Jan Hus met his death at the hands
of the Roman Church at the Council of Constance?”
“You
are prepared to mount a historical defense of sola scriptura?” Paul
asked, almost incredulously.
“I
see you have not read Goode or Whitaker or Salmon or Webster and King” I said,
smiling. “Yes, I surely am. But I think it better if we begin with
the biblical issue first. You said the doctrine is unbiblical, correct?”
Paul
again looked a little dazed at the turn of events, but pressed bravely
on. “Yes, I said it is unbiblical. The Scriptures teach us to hold
to the traditions we were taught, whether by word of mouth or letter from the
apostles, in 2 Thessalonians
“So
are you admitting that your proof against sola scriptura is found
primarily in your positive assertion of sola ecclesia?”
“I’m
sorry, sola ecclesia?” he replied quizzically.
“Yes,
the other position being presented here this evening,
I thought White was
about to address the issue about the unbiblical teaching of sola scriptura and
the statement about Martin Luther and Jan Hus (?)
“Gracious”
Paul laughed, “we don’t believe that!”
“Oh?”
I replied. “I thought I just heard you defending that idea, or at least
getting ready to. But I think you do, indeed, believe that, and in fact,
I think you will confirm that when I ask a few simple questions. First, do
you believe the Roman Church infallibly defines the extent of Scripture,
i.e., the canon?”
“Yes,
of course, I was going to be getting to that eventually.”
“I’m
sure you were, and I look forward to that. And does not the Roman Church
have the ability to infallibly interpret the meaning of the text of
Scripture?”
“Well,
I’d prefer we refer to the Catholic Church, not the ‘Roman Church,’ and yes,
Christ gave that authority to His Church.”
“I’m
sure you would prefer that, but I refer to the church that is centered in
“Yes,
that is true as well, since in reality, Scripture is just tradition
written. It is the written portion of the Word of God.”
“OK,
so please tell me: if
White probably doesn’t
realize what he’s saying because the exact same question could be asked to
White:
‘To what extent does
the individual determine the meaning of both scripture and ‘tradition’, how can
the individual logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines
and interprets?’ He may say that the
individual doesn’t determine based on one’s own intellect or conscience, but
again, someone has to interpret the scriptures correctly.
I copied and pasted the
following comments a friend:
THERFORE,
the issue really boils down to this: "has God placed the teaching of the
Christian faith in the hands of every individual as he/she deems fit, or in the
united leadership body of the Church?" The answer is, plainly, in
the leadership body of the Church. We see this all through the NT.
Very FEW are to seek out the Teacher office (James 3:1), for teachers are the
ones responsible to indoctrinate the flocks of God and are, thus, accountable
directly for the results of their labors (James 3:1). Also, why has God
placed the special charism-based office of "Teacher" in the Church,
if everyone is supposed to be their own teacher (Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:28-29; 2
Tim 1:11; Acts 13:1)? Why did Timothy get orders from Paul to forbid
certain men IN THE CHURCH from teaching if every man is to determine the true
doctrine from his own authority? (1 Tim 1:3,7; Tim 2:12). There is no
question that the TEACHING of the faith is in the hands of the leadership of
the Church.
White is
arguing that if the Church is the agency responsible for determining the
interpretation of scripture, the scripture no longer "speaks for
itself." Therefore the scripture has no say on matters, except for
whatever the Church says the scripture says. This means the Church's
interpretation of scripture is the final authority, which White cannot stand.
Yet protestants must admit that there is always SOMEONE'S INTERPRETATION
of scripture that is suggested--always. In White's view, interpretation
is ultimately up to each individual. So in White's position, the
individual becomes his own ultimate authority. In the Catholic view, the
Church has the ultimate authority for interpretation.
White may also cynically believe that the entity in charge of telling everyone
else what scripture teaches will exempt itself from the necessity of obedience
to the teaching. The authority may see itself as "above the
law" so to speak, or choose to interpret in a self-advantageous way.
Yet again, this applies equally to White's position where individuals are
responsible for interpretation of scripture.
Paul
seemed taken aback. “Well, that’s an interesting way to put it, but
surely you realize we do not put it that way.”
“Of
course, but that is what sola ecclesia is all about: the Church as the
final authority in all things. That is the position you hold, if you are
a faithful defender of the orthodox Roman Catholic claims to infallible
teaching authority. And that is what I meant when I said your citations
from Scripture were showing me that you attack sola scriptura so as to
establish sola ecclesia. It is vital that everyone see that there
are two positions being presented, and that the standard of proof
demanded for one side be demanded of the other as well.”
“I’m
sorry, but how did my noting 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 23 lead you to that
conclusion?”
“Two
things: this isn’t the first time I’ve spoken to a Roman Catholic apologist on
this topic, and I know where you are going” I said with a smile. “Second,
the only meaningful interpretations of either of those two passages you could
possibly offer that is relevant to your reason for being here this evening both
require us to embrace an infallible teaching authority in a church—the Roman
Church, of course—so you seem to be teaching that the Bible, rather than
teaching sola scriptura, teaches sola ecclesia. That means
you’ll need to meet the same level of proof that I must meet, as you are
presenting a positive position, just as I am.”
Paul
chuckled uneasily. “No, no, I’m not presenting anything like that,
really….”
Hmm….White still hasn’t
addressed the 2 erroneous statements he said he would address…
“Oh?
Let me see if that’s true: you cite Matthew 23 to imply that the ‘seat of
Moses’ mentioned there is not only an extra-biblical tradition, passed down
outside of Scripture, as it is never mentioned in the Old Testament, but you
also will tell us that Jesus binds men to this non-biblical authority,
hence establishing, or so it is assumed, a precedent for your own
extra-biblical traditions having divine authority. Correct?”
“Basically,
yes; it shows that Jesus did not function on the basis of sola scriptura.”
And he’s right. Jesus taught orally, he didn’t hand out
bibles to random individuals and say, “the Holy Spirit will guide you”. Some would argue that John 16:13 refutes my
claim, but John 16:13 is a promise of the Holy Spirit to the apostles, who were
(again) commanded to teach the truth (Matt 28:20), not random believers.
“Which
begs the question, of course, since sola scriptura refers to a period of
time when the scriptura exists and when revelation is not being given,
i.e., the normative state of the church as she exists after the apostles of the
Lord have passed from the scene.
Ok this is
strange. White is claiming that sola
scriptura refers to a period of time when scriptura exists and when revelation
is not being given. Now I hold that
(public) Revelation ended with the last apostles, but this is not the case with
private revelation (as in prophetic words, or words of knowledge). And we know that the NT scriptures were not
canonized until 300 years after Jesus’s day.
So White is saying that sola scriptura refers to some sort of era after
70 AD or after 380 AD. Which is it? And one big assumption he seems to make is
that when the bible was put together, the Church somehow lost her interpretive
authority, as if he’s saying that the teaching office of the five fold ministry
doesn’t exist any longer (Eph 4:11).
Another related point
is how sola scriptura refers to that period of time after the canonization of
the bible: Where is that written
anywhere in the Bible!? Apparently,
White doesn’t realize how unbiblical it is to say that scripture refers to a
time period after the canonization of the Bible or the ceasing of public
revelation. This sounds a lot like the
typical cessationist argument. Here’s a
question White must address: Where does
the bible say there is a time when sola scriptura would be put into effect after
the bible would be canonized? Or another
question: Can White prove that the
interpretive hand of the Magisterium ended with the canonization of the bible?
But
your problem is this: even if we were to assume, against the best evidence,
that the idea of ‘Moses’ seat’ came from, say, Moses, you now have to explain
how it is that the Jewish ‘magisterium’ could infallibly pass on that
tradition, but fallibly pass on the Corban rule Jesus attacked in Mark
7:1-13? They claimed divine authority for that tradition as well—a
tradition the Lord Jesus subjected to Scriptural correction. But even
beyond this problem (all of which assumes many erroneous things about ‘Moses’
seat’ in the first place), the implicit assertion being made on your part is
that if there existed an external authority that could pass on such a binding
tradition then, there must be one today as well, and almost
magically, that authority is assumed to be held by the modern Roman Catholic
hierarchy. That’s a bit of a tortured path, but that is the argument, is
it not?”
If White is to use that
argument he must acknowledge that the Jewish Magisterium in fact HAD authority,
since Jesus specifically instructs the disciples to follow what the Pharisees
were teaching, but to not do what they were doing (Matt 23:2-3).
And the problem with
the ‘traditions of men’ is very simple:
The Pharisees were following an ungodly tradition. White seems to think that infallible mean
impeccable. But infallibility in the
Catholic church refers to faith and morals, not practice. So the Pharisees were practicing something
that was apart from the word of God (Mark 7:13), much like the malpractice of
indulgences during the Renaissance. The
Catholic Church does not deny that there are ungodly traditions of men. But this is not to be confused with Sacred
Tradition, which White seems to lump in the same category as traditions of men.
“You
have read something more than Jack Chick, obviously.”
“Indeed
I have. And the only way you can sustain your assumed understanding of
Matthew 23 is to implicitly assume sola ecclesia. The same is true
of 2 Thessalonians
White still hasn’t
address Luther, or Hus and the issue with sola scriptura being a human tradition...
“That
is the most troubling passage to me” said the husband. Paul almost looked
embarrassed at the comment.
“I
can see why, if the passage is presented without any meaningful context” I
said, turning to the couple. “But in reality, this passage is in no way
supportive of Rome’s use of it. Let me explain.”
“Well,
I would like to point out…” Paul began.
“No,
let’s let the Scripture speak first, Paul” Roger insisted.
“Let me guess what you have heard,” I said to
the couple. “This passage is normally cited in the context of insisting
that there is more to God’s revelation than ‘just’ Scripture. In fact, it
is normally used to prove that this is a command that we Protestants are
refusing to obey.”
I thought White said,
“let the Scripture speak first”…
“Yes,
that’s exactly how it has been presented to us.”
Paul
looked nervously at his open Bible.
“Indeed,
and it is a command. The errant assumption, however, is that this passage
is talking about written ‘tradition,’ that being Scripture, and then some kind
of ‘oral tradition,’ that being…well, we normally are not told exactly
what that is, but it sounds vague enough to cover whatever
It looks like White
isn’t willing to face the fact that the Catholic Church can authoritatively
transmit godly teaching orally just as Jesus and the apostles did orally.
A
general chuckle went around the room. “But just a few observations show
us just how far off base this use of the passage is. First, the implicit
assumption in the Roman use of this verse is that the substance of this
‘oral tradition’ differs from that in the written tradition. However,
upon what basis are we to make this assumption? What is more, Roman
Catholic apologists who hold to the ‘material sufficiency view’…” I turned to
Paul quickly and asked, “Do you hold to the partim-partim view or to
‘material sufficiency’?”
“Material
sufficiency” he replied in a rather less than excited voice.
“OK,
those who hold to material sufficiency, the idea that all of God’s revelation
is at least implicitly contained in Scripture, really have no reason to cite
this, as they are hesitant to affirm that Paul actually passed on orally any
kind of specific non-biblical tradition. That is, no apologist worth his
salt will try to defend the idea that Paul actually taught the Thessalonians
such things as the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility, both dogmas
based quite fully on ‘tradition.’ So there really is no reason to cite
the passage unless you hold to the older partim-partim view that said
that part of God’s revelation is found in Scripture and part in
‘oral tradition.’
White is obviously
ducking 2 Thessalonians 2:15. In fact he
said the verse would speak for itself, yet he hasn’t quoted it! Here’s what the verse says (in KJV):
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions
which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
It’s clear that apostle Paul taught through letters
AND oral communication. The Catholic
Church teaches material sufficiency to mean that the Bible contains all the
Church’s doctrines explicitly or implicitly.
It’s not like all protestants agree on the trinity, since none of the
first 12 apostles explicitly taught such a doctrine. In fact, I’m willing to bet, without any
understanding of the trinity, many would read the bible and see absurd
contradictions with Jesus being God, with the Holy Spirit being God, or the
Father being God. It was the Church that
developed this implied doctrine, which many protestants hold on to.
“What do you mean, ‘older’?” one asked.
“
White’s finally
addressing the verse, but he hasn’t let the passage fully speak for
itself. Again, Paul said the following:
“Therefore,
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether
by word, or our epistle”
In
context, his meaning is much simpler. When you read the preceding verses,
and take into account the context, Paul’s meaning is simple. Paul had
preached the gospel to the Thessalonians in person. He was now writing to
them. He has just noted the gospel, and he is saying, ‘Hold to the body
of teaching, i.e., the gospel, that I have delivered to you, both in person and
by letter.’ The letter, of course, was what we call 1
Thessalonians. The content is the gospel. We are to hold to the faith,
the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Thessalonian believers were privileged to
learn, at that unique time of apostolic ministry, both from an apostle (Paul),
and from a letter directly from him.
I wonder if White even
realizes what he’s doing: First he makes
a claim that the body of teaching is the gospel. But can White biblically explain that? Of course not! How can he claim that the content of what
Paul said by word is the gospel? Where
is he getting this claim from?
The following is a
response my friend gave me concerning this point:
None of the
NT letters are identical to each other, so White cannot claim that the ORAL
content was somehow identical to written content in any particular epistle.
In fact, John 21:25 shows that there is WAY more information than could
have ever been written down! It is ridiculous to assume that the oral
messages were the precise same content as any particular written letter,
especially given the fact that all NT letters differ from each other.
Also, when White says the "content is the gospel," we must ask: what
exactly is this 'gospel content' in its full, comprehensive explanation?
Did Paul
write down the comprehensive list of content of that gospel? No.
There is no comprehensive list of tenets called "The Gospel"
written down as some "canon" that all were to be subservient to.
In fact, James White's own bible contains a list of 27 letters that he
himself cannot trust as authoritative or infallible if he does not trust that
God inspired the 4th century churchmen to make an infallible determination on
WHAT books were authentic and from the apostles. White may only trust his
own NT bible to the same extent as he trusts the POTENTIAL for infallible
authority in the Church's decision-making process. If White does not trust
in this potential for infallible decisions to come from the Church, then he
cannot claim his own bible is infallible, or even authentic.
Note
even how Paul uses the same term, which we translate, ‘hold fast,’ in 1
Corinthians 16:13, ‘Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be
strong.’ Were you aware of these facts concerning the passage under
consideration?”
“Honestly,
no. None of this was mentioned in the literature we read, the tapes that
were given to us, or in the conversations we have had.”
LOL! White just HAD to rub in the note about
‘literature and tapes’, didn’t he?? How unnecessary! In any case, the reason Paul (the Catholic
apologist) probably never heard of such these things is because White is
probably imposing his own interpretation on 2 Thes 2:15!
I
turned suddenly to Paul and said, “Paul, has
While
Paul
seemed surprised at the sudden spotlight. “Well, that’s a very large and
complex subject…..”
And White probably
can’t do the same if he were asked to infallibly define the meaning of 2
Thessalonians 2:15.
“Surely
it is, but did you inform these dear folks of that when you used that verse to get
them to begin to question the sufficiency of God’s holy Word?”
There
was a deathly silence. “I didn’t feel it necessary to go into such
detail, no.”
“Even
when you knew admitting the confusion that exists in
“You
don’t have to get offensive” Paul said.
“Deceiving
God’s people is offensive to me, sir, and dishonestly undercutting the
confidence of the saints in the inspired Word of God is too. So you are
admitting you knew of these issues, and yet allowed these fine people to remain
in ignorance of them?”
Now it sounds as if
White is claiming to be interpreting God’s word correctly. He doesn’t seem to think that maybe he’s
possibly deceiving others with his non-biblical teaching about 2 Thessalonians
“Well,
I can see this was not a very good idea” Paul said as he closed his Bible with
a thump.
“Did
you ever see Rocky V, Paul” I asked with a smile. He just looked at me,
so I continued, “Remember that line, ‘I didn’t hear the bell?’ I’m not
quite finished yet. I haven’t gotten to the positive evidence drawn from
the nature of Scripture as Paul presents it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I
haven’t addressed Jesus’ teaching on the relationship of any and all
traditions—even allegedly divine and inspired traditions—to Scripture.
And remember, I haven’t even started on the historical material yet.”
I guess White’s finally
addressing sola scriptura, but still no mention of Luther or Hus. But he seems to think that 2 Timothy 3:16-17
is a defense for sola scriptura. We know
that Paul was telling Timothy that the scriptures are useful for teaching,
rebuking, and training in righteousness.
And it says absolutely nothing about whether scripture is the only and
final authority. Is scripture
authoritative? Yes, but not the sole
supreme authority in Catholic theology.
And we know based on
the context (2 Tim
“Yes,
well, you may wish to continue with those topics” Paul said as he slipped his
Bible into his bookbag, “but I really don’t think this is the best forum for
continuing this. I sense a strong spirit of anger in you, and I just
don’t think it is wise to continue this here.”
“A
strong spirit of anger? I see! Do forgive my zeal for the truth as
well as the honor of God’s Word! I believe my questions are quite direct
and to the point. If you were aware of the fact that you were only
offering your own personal, and fallible, opinion of the meaning of the verse,
and that the system to which you were seeking to win these folks does not, in
fact, even give you an infallible definition of what this alleged ‘tradition’
as you interpret it contained or even still contains, how could you, in good
conscience, not make that clear? Surely you realize that your appeal to
the alleged ‘certainty’ of
“But
you have nothing but your own fallible interpretation of the passage yourself,
sir!” Paul shot back. “At least I have the consistent teaching of
Christ’s Church for two thousand years behind me!"
“Two
thousand years? You have a two thousand year old basis for interpreting 2
Thessalonians 2:15 outside of its own context, and reading into it a meaning
that is simply anachronistic, to the point where you can use it to teach that
such dogmas as Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception were actually
taught by Paul to the Thessalonians?”
But again, how do we
know that White’s understanding of 2 Thessalonians in fact refers to the
gospel? How can we be sure that White’s
interpretation of that verse is correct?
And what is the content of the gospel?
Could it be that maybe the gospel involved Mary’s role in bringing about
the savior (Gen 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:31)?
If so, then how did Mary go about giving birth to the Messiah? Catholics say she was preserved from Original
Sin as a pure vessel, to make way for the Messiah. Speaking of which, could the gospel also
refer to Original Sin and how man fell and lost all his dominion/authority over
the world, so Jesus would come and restore that dominion/authority back to
mankind? Would the gospel include the
fact that Jesus’s death and resurrection restored that authority to Christ (Eph
1:20-22), who shared that authority unto the apostles (Matt 18:18, Luke 9:1,
Matt 28:18-20, John 20:21-22) and particularly to Apostle Peter? (Matt
16:18-19) Clearly, all of this would
segue into doctrines like papal infallibility and the Immaculate
Conception. Thus, as I’ve shown, those
two doctrines he mentioned are connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
“No,
no, you need to understand the development of doctrine….”
“Indeed!
So if those dogmas only ‘developed’ long after Paul’s ministry to the
Thessalonians, then it follows that you would not defend that Paul actually
taught those as a matter of doctrine or tradition to the people in
Thessalonica, correct?”
“The
analogy of an acorn and the mature tree has been used, of course.”
“It
surely has, but I am correct that you are admitting Paul did not teach such
developed dogmas and doctrines to the Thessalonians, did he?”
Neither did Paul
explicitly teach the Trinity or Christ’s 2 natures, which were a doctrine that
developed over time.
“I
don’t believe Paul specifically taught those developed dogmas to the
Thessalonians, no.”
“In fact, can you give me a single word Paul
taught the Thessalonians in this ‘oral tradition’ you attempt to identify in
this passage?”
White wants Paul (the
Catholic) to give a single word that was said 2 thousand years ago? Question for White: How do we know that someone didn’t distort
Apostle Paul’s 2 thousand year old letters early on during his ministry? Or what about Apostle Paul’s “first letter”
to the Corinthians? Apparently he wrote
a letter to the Corinthians addressing sexual immorality before he wrote 1
Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9). Is that letter
not inspired, or could it be that it was inspired yet disappeared sometime in
history? Could it be that some the
contents of that mysterious (and possibly inspired) letter refers to some
current Catholic doctrines which were not copied down but eventually orally
passed down?
“A single word? Well, I’m sure he taught
about the structure of the church and apostolic authority and….”
“Has
Paul
paused for a moment. “Not to my knowledge.”
I
turned to the family again. “In your listening to all the tapes that were
given to you, and reading the books, and in having discussions—were you ever
told that Rome cannot tell you a single word Paul allegedly taught in this
‘oral tradition’ in 2 Thessalonians 2:15?”
The
man spoke up, “No, certainly not. I understood them to be claiming that
this oral tradition continues to exist in the church today, and is in
possession of the Magisterium. But I was troubled by the fact that I
never heard any specific discussion of what this tradition actually said, nor
was I given any way of really finding out, outside of simply being told to
believe something on the basis of the teaching of the Church.”
“Indeed”
I replied, “the appeal to alleged certainty by simply signing your allegiance
over to
White’s making an
argument based on what Paul (the Catholic) doesn’t know. It’s possible that there is something which
Apostle Paul may’ve said which the Catholic Church is fully aware of. While I don’t know if apostle Paul’s word are
somehow preserved in oral form, I don’t see why it’s absolutely necessary for
the Church to be able to know exactly who said what in order to hold fast to
the oral teachings. And it’s possible
that Jesus spoke of many things concerning Catholic doctrines like Communion of
the Saints in Luke 24:27.
“Of course, as such is one of the great
unanswerable questions for Protestants.”
“Indeed!
Let me ask, how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew, Paul?”
He
smiled and said, “Surely you know. Christ gave us the Church to answer
such questions. I know Matthew wrote Matthew because the Church tells me
so.”
I
sat forward and pulled out a piece of paper. “Is that why, in 1955, the
Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission granted complete freedom to Roman
Catholics to believe Matthew did, or did not, write Matthew?” I
slid the paper containing the quotation from Roman Catholic scholar Raymond
Brown in his book, The Birth of the Messiah (1993, pp. 45-46) across to
Paul, who scanned the text. “So, Paul, do you now know that
Matthew wrote Matthew, and if so, how?”
A similar question
could be asked to White: How does White
know that the Word of God is truly infallible?
How can anyone know for sure that the New Testament wasn’t distorted
sometime during the first century?
Paul
sat silently. Finally he spoke, “I had never heard anyone address this
before. I don’t know what to say.”
“OK,
well let’s pick up a few other elements of that ‘certainty’ argument. You
are a convert to
“Yes.”
“And
when you chose to embrace
“I’m
not sure what you mean by ‘other choices.’ My studies did not lead me to
believe that there was any other church that claims the authority of
“You
studied the claims of Mormonism, for example?”
“No,
no I did not. Mormonism is not even a Christian religion.”
“I
agree, but Mormons say otherwise, and once a person accepts the ultimate
authority of the LDS prophet, they have no choice but to believe themselves
correct as well. My point is that there are plenty of groups out there that
will offer you an ultimate authority, are there not? And when you chose
“Well,
I am surely not in and of myself infallible” Paul replied.
“Neither
am I. Such is the human condition after the fall. So you admit,
that first choice was a fallible one, right?”
“Well,
yes."
“So,
all the decisions that are made for you after that initial choice cannot be any
more certain, can they? I mean, if you were wrong to choose Rome—if her
claims are shown to be unbiblical and a-historical, her exegesis errant—all the
claims of infallible certainty she might provide you are in fact worthless, are
they not? You would agree with me that the allegedly divine authority
claimed by the LDS prophet is, in fact, anything but divine, and yet a Mormon
who accepts his teaching as his ultimate authority might well claim absolute
certainty that what he teaches is correct. If the basis of such claims of
absolute authority cannot be examined, we have no basis for knowing truth at
all, just competing leaders or groups saying, ‘No, I am right, because I say
so.’ So, your claimed certainty regarding the canon is no more certain
than the authority claims of Rome itself, which are, obviously, subject to all
sorts of counter argumentation.”
The same can be said of
protestants: “I believe doctrine A,
because (what I believe about) the bible tells me so”. Again, the problem with sola scriptura is
the various doctrinal beliefs and thus the various denominations.
White is arguing that
Mormons claim supreme authority of interpreting scripture, just as the
Magisterium claims supreme authority of interpreting scripture. Well, protestant denominations basically say
the same thing about their interpretation of scripture. They’d naturally compare scripture with
scripture (not that it’s wrong) and come to their conclusion based on their own
(possibly errant) understanding of scripture and so White’s argument can be
applied with protestants: One protestant
would say “No. I am right because Scripture says so”, while another protestant
would look at the exact same passage and say, “No. I am right because Scripture
says so”.
“That
hardly serves you very well to point that out, as you claim no infallible
authority to define for you the canon in the first place.”
“But
you see, Paul, all
And for good
reason: The Church was fighting off what
the Catholic Church believed was heretical.
It’s true that the apocryphal texts weren’t dogmatically canonized but
they were affirmed by the Church many times before 1546: Council of Rome in 382 AD, Council of Hippo
in 393 AD, Council of Carthage in 397 AD, Council of Carthage in 419 AD, Council
of II Nicaea in 787 AD, and the Council of Florence in 1442 AD.
“They
were accepted by the councils of
“Of
course, but those were provincial councils, were they not, and hence not
dogmatically binding, right?”
“Well,
yes.”
Regardless, the Church
probably never saw the need to dogmatize the deuterocanonicals until Luther
decided to toss them out. Again, the
Church was responding to Luther’s heresies, much like the Church Fathers
dealing with early heresies which eventually brought about the development of
the trinity. The earlier councils listed
the deuterocanonicals as scripture which was generally the accepted norm in
Augustine’s time. So the Council of
Trent gave a stronger reiteration of what was already said in the past due to
Luther redacting word of God. In other
words, the canon of scripture was never a real issue until Luther broke away
from the Church. Also, the
deuterocanonicals were again reaffirmed in later councils of
“OK,
then, I will present all this historical material, and when we dig through all
the rest of the verbiage, the final argument offered by
And White’s acceptance
of the NT canon is obviously based on Rome’s authority, whether he likes it or
not, unless of course he claims to know every fact concerning Christian history
and can infallibly prove that the NT texts are indeed God’s word. I doubt he can sift through all the early
Christian texts and canonize the NT on his own (assuming he had absolutely no defined
protestants doctrines to help him figure out what’s true or not). Thus, to trust that the New Testament is
God’s word is to trust that the Catholic Church infallibly put together the New
Testament.