Back in the day, James White had a debate with a Jesuit named Fr. Mitch Pacwa. This particular debate was on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I didn’t watch the debate but I’ve seen other Sola Scriptura debates with White on this same topic; mainly his debates with Gerry Matatics. In other words, I know his material on the subject.
This clip is his closing statement. He hauls out a bunch of Catholic books for shock value. He brings the Code of Canon Law, the decrees of Vatican II, the decrees of Trent, and a couple other books. He then says that this is just scratching the surface. He couldn’t be more correct. We have a lot of documents.
However, where in the Bible does it say that the Church can’t have a lot of documents? I’m unaware of any Biblical verse that says this. What White is trying to do is ask the Catholic: why do you need all of these books when you can just have the inspired Scripture and that alone? It seems like a fair question.
White would probably concede that there isn’t a verse in the Bible that puts a limit on the amount of documents and decrees the Church can possess. It seems that White is arguing for simplicity over complexity. However, despite having all of these documents, we have remained one Church. The Bible doesn’t limit the amount of documents that the Church can possess but it does say that there is one Church and we must be one in faith.
For example, look at St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Look at the promise of Christ to Peter. Upon this Rock He built His Church. Notice that Church is in the singular. I think the most devastating critique of White’s position comes from the writings of St. Paul in Ephesians. The apostle writes:
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
– Ephesians 4: 3 – 6
Before St. Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria, the name of the Bishop was Alexander. He sent out a letter condemning the Arians. The letter starts off like this.
“To our beloved and most honoured fellow-Ministers of the Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord.
“Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body, and we are commanded in the holy Scriptures to maintain the bond of unanimity and peace; it consequently becomes us to write, and mutually acquaint one another with the condition of things among each of us, in order that if one member suffers or rejoices, we may either sympathise with each other, or rejoice together.
The letter continues and exposes and refutes Arianism. It even gives the names of the Arian heretics which obviously include Arius but others as well.
In conclusion, I’m happy that the Catholic Church has a lot of documents. Dr. White showed them all for shock value but that was the extent of his argument. It wasn’t a Biblical argument at all. The large corpus of documents are a small price to pay to keep the Biblical commandment of one Church.
I would show to Dr. White the books of Calvin, Turettin, Warfield, Goode and all the others, whose writings are unavoidable if one wants to understand what Sola Scriptura really is. I would also show him the 1881 Westcott-Hort eclectic edition of the New Testament, followed by the long line of Nestle/Nestle-Aland/UBS eclectic editions of the New Testament and I would ask him which one is the “autograph” of the NT (after all, Dr. White believes that only the “autographs” of the Bible are inerrant). I would ask him about the hunreds of places in the Greek text that are marked as uncertain (i.e. the textual critics don’t know what was the original wording of these parts of the text). I would remind Dr. White of Bruce Metzger’s writings, considered to be “vitally important” for the task of determining the original wording of the NT. I would also remind him that the first Reformers had only Textus Receptus (or slightly revised versions of it) at their disposal, which means they didn’t have access to “infallible Scripture”, since Dr. White considers TR to be highly defficient edition of the NT. This makes their appeal of Sola Scriptura rather embarrassing, to be honest. Dr. White should also explain why there aren’t any eclectic editions of the Old Testament. Saying “The OT has a textual history that is very different from that of the NT” is not really an adequate answer. Finally, I wonder how Dr. White defines the term “autograph”? The Protestant scholar Eldon Epp (one of the most reputable NT textual critics nowadays) wrote an article in 1998, in which he provided detailed explanation why the term “original text” is much more problematic than it was previously thought. In Antiquity books often existed in more than one original form, and sometimes the differences between the various original forms were considerabale. This puts additional challenges to Sola Scriptura.
In short, White’s question (not to be confused with “the White question”) is rather dishonest, I think.
May God help us all.
Hello Orangehunter,
That is certainly true, but in all fairness couldn’t White turn the tables on us and be rather nit picky and certain things regarding sacred tradition. Just a thought.
Personally I don’t know if I would go down this road. It’s interesting, no doubt but I’m not as read up on this stuff as you are.
God bless,
Allan
Speaking of “the White question”, I’m just curious how would you respond to it. The question was first posed in a 1993 radio debate between James White and the Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics on the OT canon. During the debate White asked Matatics something which later became known as “the White question”: “How did the believing Jewish person know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture 50 years before Christ?…You don’t have a Magisterium to answer that question at that point of time. Jesus plainly held men accountable to what was in Scripture. He (Matatics) can’t go “Jewish Magisterium” because he knows the Jewish Magisterium never accepted what Trent accepted as canonical Scripture. So, then you have a contradiction between two allegedly infallible sources.”
I see several flaws in White’s argument, but I’m curious what would be your take on it.
In response to the White question, I say:
They didn’t know. They only knew that the five books of Moses were scripture since they believed it to be the actual words of God from Sinai. All of the rest is writings from individuals. Things worked differently depending on which side of Christ you’re on. I don’t see how this refutes the Catholic position since things worked differently depending on which covenant you were under.
When Christ called them accountable, it was only ultra-forceful when referring to the Torah and he only quoted Scripture to people who believed in the same books as he did. When he talked to the Sadduccees he refuted them with the Torah because that’s all they believed in. If someone believe in the Prophets he’d quote that to them but for Christ and all Jews the Torah was the supreme authority.
Sorry I have not had time to interact with this. James White said much more than just “the Roman Catholic Church has lots of documents”. LOL –
He was making the point that the RCC over centuries has made the message of salvation / justification/ redemption / how to get right with God / forgiveness – too complicated – those documents show how complicated the Council of Trent, canon law, Vatican 1 to Vatican 2, etc. that no one can really understand outside of RC seminary training – and yet Romans 5:1 is clear that we are justified by faith / saved by faith in Christ alone (alone, apart from works, no prayers to Mary or other Mediators or good works through penances – alone = apart from the merit and pre-conditions of works – Romans 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 5:24; 3:16; 20:30-31; Luke 24:46-47; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9)
The RCC system depends of the development of priestly sacerdotalism, purgatory, treasury of merit, almsgiving, submission to the Pope, prayers to Mary and other saints, taking the RC version of the Eucharist (Transubstantiation) and confession to a priest, etc. All of those doctrines developed later, from 500s onward to Trent, etc. to Vatican 1, and then Vatican 2 changed things, (a real contradiction to “Extra ecclesium Nulla Salus” (No salvation outside of [the Roman Catholic] Church)etc.
Athanasius’ statement means the universal church, not the later Roman Church with Popes, and those doctrines mentioned above. The statement in Ephesians 4 “one body” does not include any of those things either – so conservative Evangelicals have a closer understanding and application to Ephesians 4 that the Roman C. church does. It is a different entity that has morphed and changed from around 600 AD to today.
Well, asserting that those doctrines are late doesn’t make them late. I can find proof long before 500-600 of those things. Also, they have a Biblical foundation interpreted by the apostolic Church at the time. Yes, we believe that the church decides how the Bible is interpreted.
Also, regarding the quote from Alexander(not Athanasius) which other Church was he talking about? When did the “universal church” become the “Roman Church with Popes”. There were Popes in the days of Alexander and I would argue that they had the same authority as the medieval Popes. I would recommend reading the Church history of Socrates of Constantinople which I’m just finishing off now. He lived in 400s. He writes:
“Neither was Julius, bishop of Ancient Rome there, nor did he indeed send a representative; although the ecclesiastical canon expressly commands that the churches shall not make ordinances, without the sanction of the bishop of Rome.”
– Book II, Chapter VIII
I would also read Book II, Chapter XV and XVII. There actually was a group that opposed the Pope’s authority. It was the Arians. Ken, I’m finding that a lot of the things that Protestants believe were believed by the heretics of the early church if you read Socrates. The Manichaeans denied free will(Book I Ch XXII), the Novatians denied confession to a Priest(Book I Ch X), and the Arians denied the universal authority of the pope(Book II Ch XV).
Ken, let’s cut to the chase though. Can Protestants honestly claim to have “one faith” as Ephesians 4 says? When St. Paul writes to all these churches do you think St. Paul thinks its okay if one believes in pedobaptism and another credo baptism? One believes in free will and one believes determinism. Ones teaches eternal security, one teaches you can lose salvation. One has a Zwinglian eucharist while the other one has a Lutheran eucharist? Do you think St. Paul would allow his churches to have such a wide range of beliefs as long as they all believed in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura? I think not.
You are right about the quote being from Alexander, bishop of Alexandria – I saw Athanasius and thought the quote from him.
There is no proof of those doctrines or dogmas before the 500s, except if you are counting side comments and some seeds of opinions on some of them. I realize that there are “seeds” of some of those issues earlier. (Newman’s acorn to oak tree slowly growing throughout history, etc.) There is nothing about Marian dogmas or Papal dogmas or the system of Purgatory with treasury of merit with it – there are, in your Church’s claim – to be seeds of some of those things, but upon examination, they are not there – for example – Tertullian’s comment on wishing refreshing for the dead / (where we get the term refrigeration from) is the exact opposite of Purgatorial fires, etc.
Anyway, Alexander’s comment just means what the NT means – “one faith” – the true universal faith that is able to spread into other nations, languages, cultures, peoples through proper Biblical teaching, evangelism, church planting, discipleship.
The Roman Church corrupted things by those doctrines, practices, and dogmas that were developed later, especially from the 500s AD onward.
Because the RCC guts the gospel by the Council of Trent’s condemnation of justification by faith alone, Purgatory and treasury of merit and penances, prayers to dead saints, statues, pilgrimages, trafficking in relics – from 600s onward; Transubstantiation – developed from 800s to 1215 and then defended since that time, etc.; and the dogmas about Mary (553 PVM, 1854 ICM, 1950 BAM, and the late dogma of the Pope (1870 ) read back into early history about the bishop of Rome, area bishops, etc. – because of the seriousness of these violations of Biblical truth, it does not matter to me if Protestant churches disagree on the issues of baptism, Calvinism, perseverance, eternal security, etc. Those issues are minor compared to your churches wrongs in doctrine and dogma and practice. (relics, statues, icons, prayers to the dead, genuflecting in front of bread, etc.)
I would be happy to argue for these doctrines from Scripture and the early Church. You believe in development just as much as I do. You just pick the doctrines you want to apply it to. For example Christology. Where was two wills of Christ in 300 AD? It wasn’t there save in embryo form. It doesn’t come about until the 630s to counter people that said Christ had one will. At this time the Assumption of Mary was believed because of people like Bishop Modestus or Jerusalem. By 717 AD we know that the Assumption was in the liturgy because the Muslims withdrew their assault on Constantinople on Aug 15, 717 AD and they thank the Virgin because it was the Feast of the Assumption. Keep in mind if this is in the liturgical calendar, the whole Church believed it. Obviously it wasn’t put in in 717 AD, obviously it was before then. You don’t allow Mariology to develop, only Christology. So yeah, we both believe in development. I just admit that I do and you’re selective on what you want.
“Transubstantiation – developed from 800s to 1215 and then defended since that time, etc.; and the dogmas about Mary (553 PVM, 1854 ICM, 1950 BAM, and the late dogma of the Pope (1870 )”
Just because something is made official doctrine in 1870 or 1215 it doesn’t mean it was invented then. That’s like saying that the Trinity was invented in 325 AD. I have no problem arguing for Papal Infallibility(or other doctrines) from Scripture and the early Church.
“Those issues are minor compared to your churches wrongs in doctrine and dogma and practice. (relics, statues, icons, prayers to the dead, genuflecting in front of bread, etc.)”
I’m beginning to think that you have never studied Church history. Let me recommend two books. The Church History of Socrates of Constantinople and the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede.
http://allanruhl.com/the-impressive-venerable-bede/
“it does not matter to me if Protestant churches disagree on the issues of baptism, Calvinism, perseverance, eternal security, etc.”
So St. Paul’s words of “one faith” don’t matter to you?
Thanks for your response Allan.
The two wills of Christ are in Scripture – in the garden of Gethsemane – “Not My will but Thy will be done” – Luke 22:42-44 – shows that His human will had to wrestle and submit to the Divine will of His Father. The Divine Will of Jesus is in perfect unity with the divine will of God the Father. He voluntarily came to be the sacrifice for sins.
The apostle Paul’s “one faith” means what Scripture teaches, and there is nothing about Pope or bishop over all other bishops, even the Lord’s supper is clear that it is a remembrance, and baptism is only for someone old enough to make a credible profession of repentance and faith in Christ – understanding their status as a sinner under the wrath of God and turning from that state of being to Christ, for God to save him. Mark 1:15; Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8, Acts 17:30-31; Acts 26:20. “one faith” has nothing to do with your church’s external emphasis on statues, relics, praying to Mary, saints, etc. – there is nothing in “one faith” about purgatory or treasury of merit or the finer points of condign merit and congruous merit, etc. The Council of Trent gutted the heart of the gospel of grace by condemning faith alone – Romans 4:1-16 – verse 16 –
“For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,”
Your church’s rejection of justification by faith alone also means it guts “grace alone”, since a person has to constantly be on the treadmill of the penance system to maintain their justification and sanctification until the end of life. There is no peace in that system. It is dependent on the external, physical system of your penances, priests, masses, relics, Popes, bishops, confessional, prayers to Mary, etc. – NONE of that is in the “one faith” that Paul teaches in Ephesians 4.
There are other church history works that are better, but have to be supplemented with several volumes because no one has everything under “one book cover”. But none get it all under one book cover. Modern Church history works sometimes lack depth in what we need. Nick Needham’s series is good – 2000 years of Christ’s power.
Development of Mariology was wrong. period.
All that is right is in Scripture. She and Joseph had a normal marriage after Jesus was born. (Matthew 1:18 (before they came together) and 1:26 – “until” ( heos hou) ‘εως ‘ου
“Theotokos” was about Christ, not about Mary. “Mother of God” gave wrong impression to Muslims, along with icons and statues and prayers to Mary, the true religion was corrupted and misunderstood, even to this day.
The other dogmas about Mary are clearly late and wrong.
Nothing about her in the “one faith” accept the virgin birth of Christ, clearly laid out for us in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2, in harmony with John 1.
Pope Francis is clearly a Universalist, a heretic.
Therefore the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope is wrong.
Therefore RCC is wrong.
It is really clear here:
Starting around 41 minute mark. (from a Zenit article)
Pope Francis’ words at the Zenit article:
https://zenit.org/articles/during-pandemic-pope-prays-for-families-closed-up-in-homes-decries-domestic-violence-full-text/
“This “all” is . . . the vision of the Lord, who came for all and died for all. “But did He die also for that wretch who has made my life impossible?” He died also for him. “And for that brigand?” He died for him, for all. And also for the people that don’t believe in Him or are of other religions: He died for all. This doesn’t mean that one must engage in proselytism: no. But He died for all; He has justified all. ”
“no proselytism” = he does not believe in evangelism
“He has justified all” = everyone is already going to heaven
@KenTemple
“a person has to constantly be on the treadmill of the penance system to maintain their justification and sanctification until the end of life. There is no peace in that system.”
1) Even assuming for the sake of argument that it is true that “there is no peace in that system”, this would hardly be an argument against it, since “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away” (Matt. 11:12)
2) More importantly, your accusation strikes me as disconnected from reality. I know several fellow Catholics who go to confession regularly, and the last I can say is that there are not particularly restless or desperate.
By the way, the council of Trent (and today’s Canon law, canon 989) demand that sinners go to confession … once a year. Does that sound like a totalitarian requirement to you ?