James White is a Reformed Baptist Protestant apologist whom I have interacted with in a relatively brief exchange some time back.
More recently, I threw down the gauntlet and openly challenged him to prove the converts at Called to Communion (CtC) wrong on their arguments about the canon. Alas, he has not shown up (nor has his colleague, TurretinFan). I don’t blame them. I never found a refutation for CtC’s arguments, nor did any of the converts at Called to Communion, and they’re a well-read bunch who, like me, had no love for or desire to join–of all things–the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, the challenge remains.
Mr. White’s written a lot of books, and I bought one of them: Scripture Alone. So far I’ve read the introduction and first two chapters. Already I can see the errors being made, but don’t take my word for it, take another Protestant author’s:
White explains his understanding of sola Scriptura and says that the Scriptures are the highest authority; we cannot “pick and choose” what we want to believe but must believe “the Scriptures.”
Fair enough, but another Protestant, Keith Mathison, the author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura, wrote an article where he stated that:
All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.
Interestingly, both Mathison and White warn against that “someone” being the individual and instead say that “the church” (whatever that might be) must be “somehow” involved in the interpretation. Unfortunately (for them), the Called to Communion guys demonstrated that sola Scriptura reduces to solo Scriptura (i.e. the individual interpreter) with regard to final interpretive authority, a conclusion that would make both White and Mathison very uneasy, since they view solo Scriptura dimly. (Mathison himself actually interacted with the post for a while but I don’t think was ever able to rebut it (or substantially respond to it).)
White tries this argument in his book:
[T]he Bible…teaches us that Christ has established His church and organized it in such as way as to provide His people with godly men entrusted with the duty to teach and preach and shepherd and guide.
But what, exactly, is this (lowercase ‘c’) “church” which he speaks of?
And who, exactly, are these “godly men” whom he has set over His people?
Mr. White tells us that he is an elder at a Reformed Baptist church, so I guess he counts himself as one of those godly men chosen to lead us. How do we recognize these godly men? Do they exist in, say, other Protestant denominations? Will those men teach us the truth?
I don’t think that White would tell me to trust other Protestant leaders though, since White has plenty of disagreements with fellow (non-Baptist) Protestants over whether infants should be baptized. Only the radical wing of the Reformation rejected infant baptism; the other wings all accepted it as being in complete harmony with the Scriptures.
Why the fundamental disagreement if the Scriptures are clear on all of these important matters of the Faith? Because the Scriptures aren’t clear on them. Both White and his fellow Protestant interlocutors (e.g. Presbyterians) are faithful Christians earnestly seeking the Spirit’s guidance in understanding divine truth by reading the Scriptures, yet they come to different conclusions on an important matter.
So knowing which men are these godly authorities whom God has chosen to lead us seems a tough dilemma to solve. Mr. White effectively says “trust me to tell you what the Scriptures (clearly) say,” but that’s what Luther and Calvin did as well (both of whom also believed in infant baptism, which White rejects as unbiblical).
I guess I’ll keep reading. This is Lent, and penance needs doing.
Hi Devin,
I want to address a few things here.
One- James White is in London and has been for two weeks. Prior to that he had a tremendously busy schedule. Maybe he will get into it when he returns, maybe not. It seems like you are declaring victory from silence.
Turretinfan did a very thorough job of treating the solo/sola subject- here are the indexed articles in response
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/search/label/Bryan%20Cross
RE: James White ‘versus’ MathisonJW:we cannot “pick and choose” what we want to believe but must believe “the Scriptures.” Mathison:whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.
Both refer to Scripture. Scripture is objective, it can be accessed by anyone- it is outside of us. People who are reading the Scriptures have subjective interpretations of the Scriptures, which interpretations can be compared to the objective words of the Scriptures. When interpretation and passages in question are compared to subjective interpretation, we can use the God given ability to judge whether the person is justified in their interpretation or not. This is different than saying we will reach agreement on these issues.This is the way reality works- we can use reason and judgment and discernment. I expect all who are reading this to not come away thinking that I am writing about how a tractor works- that is not what I am communicating. You expect me to understand your intentions when you write too. Obviously not every interpretation is a valid or good one.
James White is saying that the plain meanings of the text cannot just be taken to mean just anything you want it to, you don’t have that liberty. Mathison is saying that people have to filter information through their own subjective selves. He is further implying that work has to be done to resolve differences. This is implying that you cannot just take it as anything you want either, because in its function as an authority, the work has to be done. Learned men do that work. There are volumes of work that have been written on theological subjects that use careful exegesis of the text to draw the meaning out. People can read these things and judge for themselves what is true there.
God Bless,
Garret
Hi Devin
so I guess he counts himself as one of those godly men chosen to lead us. How do we recognize these godly men? Do they exist in, say, other Protestant denominations? Will those men teach us the truth?
I don’t think that White would tell me to trust other Protestant leaders though, since White has plenty of disagreements with fellow (non-Baptist) Protestants over whether infants should be baptized.
This shows that you want to assume that these are divisions that divide so deeply that Protestants can’t respect each others work at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. He sells works by and has tremendous respect for men such as David T King, who is OPC. His friend Turretinfan is Presbyterian as well. All Biblical Protestants Baptize. If one group did not, there you would have a clearly unbiblical stance on the issue.
It seems that you are under the mistaken impression that perfect theological agreement- or nothing at all- is the norm for Protestantism. This is not an accurate picture at all- of any church in history. As you know, there are many theological issues in the RCC that are not dogmatically defined, so you have freedom there. I marvel at your ability to look past this freedom within (RCC) and expect theological perfection without (Protestantism). You have replaced one authority with another- you did not perform a magic trick that has you infallibly knowing now what you didn’t before.
God bless,
Garret
Garret,
Would James White point me to elders and presbyters in the Presbyterian Church USA as godly men whom Christ has raised up in his “church”?
If not, what exactly is the criteria by which a man (or woman) is considered one of these special godly elders who can be trusted to lead God’s people?
Devin
No. Why? Because any group that compromises clear teachings of the Scripture in order to conform to the pressures of the culture is not obedient to Scripture. That is not practicing sola Scriptura, it is practicing a term I’ll coin just for you- partim Scriptura/partim cultura !
The criteria are found in the pastoral epistles, for one!
God bless- please visit my blog and scope my article, thanks!
Garret
Garret,
Thanks for your response. Allow me to play Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) advocate here.
Ah, so you say that I am conforming to the pressures of culture rather than being obedient to the “clear teachings of the Scripture.” Yet, question for you: do all the women in your church cover their heads, and are they silent throughout the entire service, and do any of them (any at all) have any position of authority over a man?
Because if all the women don’t cover their heads and so on, then I accuse you of the same thing you are accusing me of: you are disobeying Scriptures due to the cultural pressure to let women wear what they want and to let them talk, etc. Why do you disobey the clear teachings of the Scriptures and bow to the culture’s pressure?
Mr. White may not recognize me and my fellow elders of PCUSA as godly men who teach the truth (as he sees it), but who died and left him with divine authority? Why should I accept his opinion as truth, especially since I just demonstrated that he also interprets the Scriptures in ways that render some statements as ignorable and others as still binding?
Devin,
Frankly, the modern Roman Catholic effort to undermine faith in the Scriptures is disgusting. The Fathers used Scriptures with great zeal in fighting off heresies. When heretics presented lists to prove that they had Apostolic succession too- what was the answer? The answer was, its the Scriptures that prove succession, by fidelity to them is your list justified. Tertullian The prescription against Heretics Chapter 32. Heretics are understood to be able to compare their doctrines to Scripture and see that they are not justified. HMMMM. He seems to think that people outside of the walls of his church and Magisterium can do this, that they should compare doctrine to Scripture and see that they are wrong?!? These are the God-breathed Scriptures you constantly attempt to denigrate and undermine. They are sufficient, they are efficacious, they are up to the task that God has given them. They are the Lamp unto our feet. Irenaeus called the Scriptures the ground and pillar of our faith (see my latest post on my blog for the quote). Salvation is found within those words when taken to heart- but you would have me seek the grace of Mary- a grossly unbiblical concept that leads to death, because you cannot link the Apostles to such a concept. That is not part of the Gospel as handed down from the Apostles, the gospel of life.
To answer your attempt to undermine the Scriptures-
Logic my dear man! a great article via google search
http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html
That argument presented by you is not justified.
1. Leadership over the church needs to seek the council of the Bible and discuss these things. My opinion on the matter counts as far as that goes- but I am not in a position of shepherd over a flock.
2. Hermanuetics- why did Paul say those things? Why did Paul write them in his culture, what were the principals there? Woman can teach they do when they evangelize- but WHO can they teach, and in what capacity? Is there a difference between evangelism and gifts of the Spirit, and the role of leadership in the Church?
Women were disturbing the congregation- the principle that anyone shall not disturb the congregation is a good one, is it not? Would a woman who shows up with a covered head in 2010 and telling her friends that this must be done because its in the Bible disturb the congregation and cause a controversy? Answer- yes. Does the claim that there should be women pastors as head over a congregation disturb the congregation? Answer-yes. Is there liberty that is different in quality between covering of the head in service and taking the God ordained roles of man/woman and turning them on their heads? Answer- yes.
Basically the answer to settle the issue is a logical, balanced perusal of the Scriptures.
Garret,
Like you, I love the Scriptures, so much so that 1) I want everyone’s Bible to contain the exact books (no more, no less) which God in his providence inspired, and 2) I want them to be understood as God intended them.
I am asking you to remember yet leave aside momentarily the fact that you and I substantially agree on a large number of moral and theological issues. You are not arguing with me here, primarily, but against fellow sola Scriptura Protestants. Against the PCUSA elders and their millions of Protestant Christian members.
Let’s not go back and forth about Irenaeus on this post–I’ll remind you how he described the vital necessity of the Apostolic Tradition in understanding the Scriptures (vs. the hidden, twisted tradition used by the Gnostics in interpreting them), as well as his references to the Church of Rome, founded by those glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, with which every church must agree. And you’ll continue to press that his statements about the Scriptures indicate a proto-Protestant conception of the perspicuity and formal sufficiency of the Scriptures. Okay we had that talk and disagree. It doesn’t matter because we both think highly of the Scriptures.
The point we disagree about is who, exactly, is the authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures. Protestantism has no answer for that and must deny the assumption in the question itself, claiming (as you do) that the Scriptures are clear enough that anyone with the Spirit making use of “orthodox” commentaries (whichever those are) can come to the truth on the “essential” matters (whichever those are).
But this grand idea runs into a brick wall as I have confronted you with your sola Scriptura Protestant brethren, who also claim to have the Spirit and who believe the Scriptures to be the sole infallible rule of faith and who claim to have godly leaders in their ranks whom Christ has raised up as subordinate authorities in the “church,” just as Mr. White and you claim for your Protestant sub-denominations.
Within Protestantism this dilemma of authority is unresolvable. You and Mr. White have no authority, absolutely none at all, to claim that your interpretations of the Scriptures are true and the PCUSA elders’ are false. All you can do is table-pound and say that, for instance, the passages condemning homosexual acts are still binding while the ones about women covering their heads (which your church has apparently abrogated) are not binding.
You have your hermeneutics; they have theirs. They lead to different conclusions about what the Scriptures say. Are they not Christians, too? Do they not have the Holy Spirit?
The Anglican Communion and Lutheran churches–two of the oldest Protestant Ecclesial Communities, dating back to the beginning of the Reformation itself–are imploding due to these differences, ones which Protestantism by its very founding principles cannot resolve, for in truth the Bible is not the highest authority, but rather whoever’s interpretation of the Bible which you accept is.
The solution is to find the Church which Christ established and has guided into all truth and to enter full communion with that Church.
Let’s hear what an ELCA Lutheran theologian says regarding this very issue. Check this link regarding how a prominent protestant theologian believes that sola scriptura leads to a “rudderless church.”
Devin
Can anyone look me in the face and read Romans 1 and tell me that practicing homosexuals are not sinning and hence disobedient to Scripture? In the name of sanity, no. Words have meaning. Words are spoken as well. Whether written or spoken- plain meanings have plain meanings. This is how we can communicate. This issue of women pastors faces head on into plain meaning as well, as the argument is multi-faceted in Scripture.
This issue of covering the head is (as I recall) once in the Scriptures, and hence liable to be debated away as a cultural artifact rather than a absolute requirement. Modesty was in view there. It is now optional in the RCC though I understand the issue draws fire, right?. The Roman Rite RCC a few miles from here requires head covering for women. The Vatican (St. Peters) makes you wear paper skirts and pants if you are too short, don’t recall head coverings being needed for the ladies.
Whether you accept it or not, there are authority figures in Protestant denominations rit large.
God bless,
Garret
Garret,
I personally wouldn’t look you in the face and deny that the Scriptures say that homosexual behavior is immoral, nor would Christians who think it is moral, since they use the same interpretive idea on those passages that you use on these:
1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
1 Corinthians 11: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
Will you look me in the face and tell me that women follow God when they 1) have authority over a man in the church, 2) speak in church instead of being silent, and 3) don’t cover their heads?
Therefore the Scriptures must be interpreted by someone using some means in order to decided whether certain passages (like the ones concerning homosexual behavior) are still binding while all of these (concerning women) are not still valid.
Authority figures in Protestantism are only authorities so long as their followers agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures.
Devin,
You are right, the CtC article has not been refuted. And talk about penance, I am halfway through re-reading Keith’s book (Shape of Sola Scriptura) AND I just finished reading ALL the replies to the CtC article!
Again and again in those comments the subject is changed from the point of the article, which is there is no principled difference between solo and sola. It is as if peoples intelligence gets the better of them and they can not slow down and FOCUS on a single question. I am still waiting for Keith to respond. (which he strongly implied he would) Also I found it interesting that R.F. White in the comments never even attempts to engage the main point of the article, but instead starts a (interesting) dialogue comparing OC and NC authority. As a Protestant who finds the article completely compelling, I would prefer a mind like his or Keith’s to just refute the article and help me out, instead of dropping out of the discussion. The other comments from protestants just seem to be driving me further toward Catholicism. Turretin Fan in particular seems to be ordained by Christ Himself to drive me by whip to Rome.
David Meyer
David,
I find it confirming that you (as a Protestant) also think that the Protestant interlocutors failed to refute the arguments made on the solo/sola article. I would also look forward to Mathison’s response but am not holding my breath for it because…
I would prefer a mind like his or Keith’s to just refute the article and help me out, instead of dropping out of the discussion.
Ay, there’s the rub. All of the Called to Communion guys (and I as well) searched and searched for refutations to these arguments while still Protestant, looking for the principled reasons that would allow us to remain Protestant, and we never found them. Tom Brown in the Canon Question podcast talks about how he went to three different Reformed pastors asking them to help him understand the reasons for how the Protestant canon can be conscience-binding, and none of them could help him.
Eventually we all unexpectedly realized that Protestantism simply doesn’t have rebuttals that hold water to these fundamental arguments.
Hi Devin
You said Authority figures in Protestantism are only authorities so long as their followers agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures.
Likewise, I point out that Authority figures in Roman Catholicism are only authorities so long as their followers agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures and Magisterium.
Now what? All authority can be ignored for ones own personal opinion. See Tony Blair, a convert to Rome, chastise the Pope for the Churches stand on homosexuality- he expects the Church to conform to his opinion, and he holds his opinion in spite of the Church. It has always been this way.
In Christ,
Garret
David Meyer
The comboxes at CtC are chaotic- even Tim Troutman recommends that discussions happen elsewhere to avoid the bluster and get down to the nitty-gritty.
Instead of patting Rome on the head and telling it how right it is, why don’t you extend the effort and disprove TurretinFan on his articles on his blog against solo/sola found here- http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/search/label/Bryan%20Cross? I don’t see your name there. No one is challenging me on disproving Tom Brown either. I don’t know why. I have spent a lot of time reading the article and responding, and I get nothing. I have invited him there, I get nothing. I am spending hours to research part 4 to offer a response, yet no one is responding to the first parts, so why do that? In the hopes that men on the fence such as yourself see that the modern Roman Apologist is paving new ground- ad hoc arguments that were non-existent, created now for the purpose of following Rome, nothing else.
I challenge you to purchase the three book series Holy Scriptures by King/Webster. It will make you SICK. It makes me sick to my stomach to see how dishonest RC books such as ”Not by Scripture Alone” are- how they misrepresent the early ‘fathers’- and how thoroughly King/Webster refute modern RC arguments. Buy it (at least part two), read it- see if it can be refuted, or if it speaks truth. May God guide you in your search,
God bless,
Garret
A question for you Devin
Jeromes canon is my canon- so how could Jeromes conscience be bound by my canon?