In a recent
episode of The Dividing Line, James White (unwittingly) admitted that Sola
Scriptura cannot be taught from the Bible, including 2 Tim 3:16-17. In response
to Jay Dyer, a former Calvinist who was a Sedevacantist and Feenyite before
embracing Eastern Orthodoxy said the following:
So when you hear
that, what is the assumption that you need to identify? Well, first of all, it
is not Paul's intention to be addressing the canon of scripture in writing to
Timothy. He's writing to Timothy during a period of inscripturation. Was Titus
written after this? Did Paul even recognise which of his books, because we know
he wrote other letters, did he himself know which would be in the canon of
scripture if he even was thinking of a canon of scripture? There's no way he
could even be communicating with Peter or with Jude or with John or with
Matthew or Mark, or Luke (well, with Luke he could). So he doesn't know what
the apostles, he didn't go say [on phone] John, where are you, just working on
Colossians here, alright, thanks [off phone]. That wasn't a possibility.
Couldn't be done. So he's not talking about the canon of scripture. So, if you
use 2 Timothy 3 to establish canon of scripture, you would be in error. And
what they're doing is they're making you defend that by the way they make the
statement. Now, that is what Karl Keating did, and I just saw so many
Christians getting pushed into defending something, that's something what
happened when Gerry [Matatics] and I debated the Papacy in Denver and Keating
and Madrid debated two Fundamentalist Baptists the same night. (beginning at the 1:31:43
mark)
Why is this
the end of the debate for proponents of Sola Scriptura? According to proponents
of Sola Scriptura (e.g., David King; William Webster; James White himself) Tota Scriptura (“all of Scripture”) is
necessary for Sola Scriptura to be
operative as the final/ultimate/formally sufficient rule of faith. In other
words, all of Scripture (exhausted
by the 66 books of the Protestant canon in Chapter 1 of the 1689 London Baptist
Confession of Faith) must be inscripturated, and there is an admission that,
during times of special revelation (e.g., during the time of Christ and the
authoring of the New Testament), other sources (e.g., apostolic teachings that
were in oral form at the time) were en par with the authority of inscripturated
revelation.
During the cross-examination period of a debate between Gerry Matatics
and James White on the topic of sola scriptura, the following exchange took
place, showing that White has previously admitted that, for Sola Scriptura to
be operative, all of Scripture must
be inscripturated:
Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in
Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?
James White (W): I have said over, and
over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the
normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.
M: So your answer is "no"?
W: That is exactly what my answer is--it
is "no"
M: Did the apostles practice sola
scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no
W: No
M: Thank you; did the successors to the
apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim
3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?
W: Eh, what do you mean? The first
generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?
M: Titus . . .
W: Again, as you should know as a graduate
of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a
straw-man--it [sola scriptura] speaks of times after the inscripturation of
Scripture.
M: Thank you Mr. White
W: So I am glad to affirm everything you
said.
M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that
Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .
W: I asserted it
M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles
do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience
that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are
sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .(From “The Great Debate II: Sola Scriptura” [1997])
In other
words, the Lord Jesus and the Apostles could not have taught Sola Scriptura. Indeed, as one critic of the
doctrine noted:
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. (Robert A. Sungenis, “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 Publishing, Inc., 2009], pp. 101-53, here p.
118 n. 24)
2 Timothy 3 cannot if one wishes to engage in
exegesis, not eisegesis, be used to support Sola Scriptura, even according to
defenders of the doctrine who appeal to it to make their case(!)
For more on
the evidence against this doctrine,
see:
