Saturday, January 4, 2020

James White Admits 2 Timothy 3 Cannot be Used to Support Tota (and therefore, Sola) Scriptura


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: