In an old exchange with Robert Sungenis, James White wrote the following on 2 Tim 3:16-17 and how it relates to the formal doctrine of the Reformation, sola scriptura:
A fuller quote would be, "Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth" (Epistle ad Eustathius).
Firstly, it should be noted that White is wrong; most Patristic authors (e.g., Johannes Quasten) believe that Gregory of Nyssa, not Basil, wrote this epistle.
It is common for White and other Protestant apologists (e.g., Eric Svendsen; William Webster) to proof-text patristic-era authors who spoke highly of the Bible as proof they held to its formal sufficiency. However, one challenge to Protestant apologists would be to show *one* patristic author who (1) held to formal sufficiency of the Bible *and* (2) held to the same doctrines modern defenders of sola scriptura hold to (e.g., forensic justification; baptism as not being salvific but only symbolic; eternal security, etc). They will not find any as not a single one falls under this taxonomy.
Basil himself wrote the following:
Here, Basil clearly accepted and privileged en par with inscripturated revelation, tradition and other authorities external to Scripture. Hardly consistent with sola scriptura.
It is a common error to drag the *extent* of the graphe into this passage: that is obviously not Paul's intention. Paul's point is plain: the man of God can be artios and exartizo only through the work of the graphe.
Here, White concedes that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about the extent (the "tota" of scriptura), but just the nature of scripture. Why is this significant? It again shows that Protestants, to support the idea that special/general revelation ended with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament, will have to go outside of the Bible and privilege such a teaching/tradition en par with the written word to support such a dogmatic view, which is contrary to sola scriptura, as all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to the Bible! Again, this proves sola scriptura to be theological "quicksand" which inevitably traps its defenders as it is actually anti-biblical.
I will reproduce a quote that I have cited many times on this blog, as it proves how apologists for sola scriptura are incapable of proving their doctrine from biblical exegesis:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
White, in an attempt to bolster the weak case for sola scriptura, attempts to use Basil of Caesarea as patristic evidence for the antiquity of the doctrine:
[O]r as Basil said, "Let inspired Scripture decide between us."
Firstly, it should be noted that White is wrong; most Patristic authors (e.g., Johannes Quasten) believe that Gregory of Nyssa, not Basil, wrote this epistle.
It is common for White and other Protestant apologists (e.g., Eric Svendsen; William Webster) to proof-text patristic-era authors who spoke highly of the Bible as proof they held to its formal sufficiency. However, one challenge to Protestant apologists would be to show *one* patristic author who (1) held to formal sufficiency of the Bible *and* (2) held to the same doctrines modern defenders of sola scriptura hold to (e.g., forensic justification; baptism as not being salvific but only symbolic; eternal security, etc). They will not find any as not a single one falls under this taxonomy.
Basil himself wrote the following:
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force (On the Holy Spirit, 27; cf.71).
Here, Basil clearly accepted and privileged en par with inscripturated revelation, tradition and other authorities external to Scripture. Hardly consistent with sola scriptura.
As for the quote White employed, the author is simply doing the same thing many other patristic writers (and even modern authors) were and are forced to do--if one's opponent does not accept all the same authorities as one does, one has no other recourse but to argue the case from the shared authority both parties accept--the Bible. Whenever I engage with a Jehovah's Witness, Protestant, Roman Catholic and the like, I often go to the Bible as it is a shared source of authority with my theological opponent's; such is not proof that I (or the author of the quote [whether it be Gregory or Basil]) accepted the formal sufficiency of the Bible. To claim otherwise, one is guilty of question-begging, as White and other defenders of sola scriptura are engaging in when they abuse this passage.
