I have read this man’s argument apparently for “Sola Scriptura”… I was presented with it by a protestant who doesn’t like my opinion on Sola Scriptura. I am very incensed that this nonsense is being presented as an argument for “Sola Scriptura” when not only does it NOT bother to mount a biblical defense at all(as it logically should) but it entirely slanders the Catholic faith with blatant disregard, and then presents that slander as apparent “evidence for Sola Scriptura”…
I’m sure some of you on this site have already read it. I don’t want to give this man the privilege of a weblink after reading his article about a “debate” he had with a catholic apologist called “Paul” and then reading Patrick Madrid’s rather brilliant account of an earlier debate on the same topic that he had with this man. You can find that article on this site of cause, just search for “James White” and go to the Madrid article called “The White Man’s Burden”(in fact here is the link: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2.asp)
Has anyone else noticed that, after Mr Madrid in 1993 so effectively dealt with his “Biblical” arguments for “sola scriptura” that the man has decided to change tactics?
Madrid really did exceptionally well with the original debate when he continually challenged Mr white to prove it logically from scripture itself in no uncertain terms. So effective was this strategy of debate that White has in the subsequent years changed his tactics from legitimate debate, into “Bait and Switch”, that is set a debate topic such as “Sola Scriptura”, and then ignore the set topic entirely and ambush the Catholic Apologist with a debate on a topic that catholics don’t even believe anyway… “Sola Ecclesia” as they put it.
That is the position that “The church is the sole rule of faith” which is as we all know a fictitious position that the Protestant faith incorrectly believes that us Catholic hold. The fact is the church actually holds 3 rules of faith combined, the infallibility of the Church’s interpretations of Revelation(The Church), the Inerrancy of Scriptural Revelation(The Bible) and the Infallibility of Apostolic Tradition(Oral tradition). As far as I count, that is 3 rules of faith combined with emphasis on the first yes, but not exclusively or by itself(I.e there is always Revelation to back up whatever the pope says infallibly… he is the interpretor, not Author.), unlike the teachings of “Sola Scriptura” which DO hold to “the bible alone”.
I think the actions of Mr White have actually gone very far to proving there is no real scriptural evidence for this doctrine and the man knows it too. It’s man made and he knows it. He has deliberately changed his tactic into changing the topic to an entirely different topic than the one that has been set for debate. In doing this not only does he personally reveal that Sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the bible(something he originally DID try to prove in the Madrid debate only to get exceptionally embarrassed), but he also reveals his blind and ignorant “anti-catholicism at any cost” opinion.
He has even gone one step worse, he has misrepresented the true beliefs of the Catholic faithful on Scripture, it’s own church and on Apostolic Tradition(Excuse me Mr White, but we do have a definition of “Apostolic Tradition” that is inerrant and that has driven the infallible rulings on the doctrine… it’s clear in the Bible from the writings of Paul!). He has then also gone to the extent of presenting on his website an argument “for sola scriptura” that does not present a shred of evidence from the bible and instead in it’s place presents slanderous incorrect opinions about an entirely different topic. Once again he incorrectly says the argument that proves “Sola Scriptura” is saying that “sola Ecclesia” is wrong! NO it’s not the argument for “Sola Scriptura” Mr. White! it’s an argument you’ve plucked out of thin air about an imaginary belief that you think we have…
The argument for Sola Scriptura is logically only going to be found in the Scriptures if it is a true doctrine. Don’t you see, you still have not prooven this is a correct doctrine that the bible teaches and logically, do you know what that means? it means that you cannot prove that doctrine of “the bible alone”.
You can’t prove this and so you have decided to change the topic entirely and make up false lies about the catholic faith’s beliefs so that unknowledgeable protestants have the wool pulled over their eyes whenever they look at our church and the true faith of God!
It is saddening to think that some protestants will actually believe his argument is for Sola Scriptura, when he obviously has no intention of actually debating that doctrine…
And i am absolutely sure I’m not the first person to notice this discrepancy.