<< Any comments are appreciated. I would love a clarification on this by James. >>
There is at least one “White protege” that used to regularly post that can probably answer, CoachMcGuirk something.
I don’t get any of it, gets too philosophical for me. This “fallible decision” stuff. Seems to confuse “certainty” with “infallibility” as Cardinal Newman pointed out long ago.
"It is very common, doubtless, especially in religious controversy, to confuse infallibility with certitude, and to argue that, since we have not the one, we have not the other, for that no one can claim to be certain on any point, who is not infallible about all; but the two words stand for things quite distinct from each other. For example, I remember for certain what I did yesterday, but still my memory is not infallible; I am quite certain that two and two make four, but I often make mistakes in long addition sums. I have no doubt whatever that John or Richard is my true friend, but I have before now trusted those who failed me, and I may do so again before I die.
“A certitude is directed to this or that particular proposition, it is not a faculty or gift, but a disposition of mind relative to the definite case which is before me. Infallibility, on the contrary, is just that which certitude is not; it is a faculty or gift, and relates, not to some one truth in particular, but to all possible propositions in a given subject-matter. We ought, in strict propriety, to speak not of infallible acts, but of acts of infallibility…I am quite certain that Victoria is our Sovereign, and not her father, the late Duke of Kent, without laying any claim to the gift of infallibility…I may be certain that the Church is infallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise, I cannot be certain that the Supreme Being is infallible, until I am infallible myself…It is wonderful that a clearheaded man, like Chillingworth, sees this as little as the run of everyday objectors to the Catholic Religion…” (John Henry Newman, Grammar of Assent , 224ff)
And James White clearly did teach in his books (Answers To Catholic Claims, and RC Controversy) and a couple of debates that Sola Scriptura is taught (or at least implied) in 2 Tim 3:15-17 while at the same time admitting (both in print and a later debate) that sola scriptura is not true and is not valid “during times of inscripturation” while Jesus or His apostles were still alive. So which is it? Sola Scriptura (definition: the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith) suddenly “becomes true” once the last apostle dies, is that it? Everyone suddenly “forgets” all the apostles teachings except what was left in writing, and those writings are Reformed Baptist theology?
I don’t really need a clarification, I know it doesn’t make any sense. Plus he’s Baptist for crying out loud, there is no baptist theology in any of the Fathers. Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran theology maybe, but Baptist, come on. How much study of the early Church does it take to realize that? A first read of JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines does the trick. :yawn: