During a debate with Robert Wilkin, an advocate of “no-Lordship
salvation,” James White said the following:
Dr. Wilkin has admitted his view
of Sola Fide is not historical, is not what the Reformers believed, is not what
Protestants have believed, it is, in fact, has been condemned, over and over
again by those very groups. Now does this make it wrong? No! Does that
make it something other than our churches have believed down through the
centuries? Yes!
This again shows that Church history, even Protestant history, and
the creeds and confessions thereof, have no real binding authority on the
Protestant. The very fact that something can be condemned by the “unanimous
consent,” if you will, of historic Protestant theologians and confessions and
could still, in theory, be true, shows how Protestantism is completely
subjective (even if there are varying levels of subjectivity therein). This also smacks of potential "ecclesiastical deism."
James White: Protestant History, Creeds, and Confessions having no bearing on doctrinal truth
Further Reading:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Update: a certain retard (no other term best describes them) does not seem to get the point of this post: it shows that, functionally, the Protestant appeal to history is a charade. Anyone with an IQ of more than 70 will get this. There must be something in the water in E. Haven Avenue.
