Sola Scriptura per James White

James White is an adherent of the Baptist Confession of Faith, and he probably is its most able living defender. Thus, it is expedient to make an inspection of James' defense of Sola Scriptura based on the Baptist Confession of Faith. James' arguments boil down to four simultaneous propositions. They are:

1) The bible is infallible and contains all Christian doctrine (aka "Material Sufficiency").

This proposition is identical to the Catholic proposition which states that the bible contains all the material we need as Christians to formulate our faith. This idea goes by the name of "Material Sufficiency." Thus, James White is indeed an adherant of Material Sufficiency.

2) "Those things which are necessary...for salvation are so clearly propounded in scripture...that the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto an understanding of them [things necessary for salvation]."

This quote comes from article 7 of the Baptist Confession of Faith which James White adheres to. James has not given a formal definition of what the phrase "due use of the ordinary means" refers to. However, it evidently means that an uneducated man with nothing more than a vernacular bible translation, much reading and guidance of the Holy Spirit - will eventually correctly understand the bare necessary biblical truth concerning salvation such that he can find salvation without the help of any other human.

3) The bible claims to be the only infallible authority for a Christian.

4) The bible does not point us toward any infallible authority outside of the bible.

Items #3 and #4 virtually say the same thing. Yet, in this discussion, item #4 will not be addressed.

Now, as has been stated, Catholics don't have any problem with item #1. However, item #2 is kin to a principle known as Formal Sufficiency. This doctrine extends the Material Sufficiency principle (item #1) by stating that the bible's message on any topic is by design so sufficiently clear that confusion regarding its meaning is impossible. James, however, does not adhere to this strict Formal Sufficiency principle. According to article 7 of the Baptist Confession of Faith - ONLY biblical doctrines NECESSARY for salvation are clear enough that an unlearned man may attain their understanding "through the due use of the ordinary means." This, therefore, at best should be called Semi-Formal Sufficiency or SFS. Both James White and Catholics reject Formal Sufficiency. However, Catholics also reject SFS because we do not believe that even biblical doctrines essential to salvation are by design always so clear that any and every "unlearned man" will come to the truth "by the due use of the ordinary means."

Catholics do not deny the possibility that a student of the bible may, with the aid of the Holy Spirit and no outside help, be so blessed as to come to the proper understanding of salvation. What we deny is that this is God's normal way of divesting his truth. We deny any supposed promise in the Bible that an "unlearned man" will obtain knowledge of salvation "by the due use of the ordinary means" (viz. a bible, copious reading, and requests of the Holy Spirit for aid). James White would rebuttle this claim by noting the Scripture saying:

2nd Timothy 3:15 the sacred writings are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

To this Catholics respond that "an algebra text is able to instruct you for equation balancing through simple arithmetic." This statement is true. But it is not a promise that an "unlearned man" will be ready to perform equation balancing without any teacher to guide him. Nor is it a promise that the algebra text will be sufficiently clear as to be understood by the mathematically ignorant. James may claim that Catholics are rationalizing away the significance of 2nd Timothy 3:15. Catholics rebuttle by noting the Scripture saying:

2nd Peter 3:15-17 Our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. There are some things in [his letters that are] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction as they do the other Scriptures.

So, just as an algebra text is "able to instruct" yet may yield bad results due to the "ignorance" of the reader, so to can the Bible. Thus, the Bible does not promise that doctrines necessary for salvation will be accurately obtained from its pages without the help of another man.

Furthermore, Catholics note that between any N different bible students, there may be N interpretations regarding doctrines of salvation. Perhaps one of these students attained the correct understanding of doctrines necessary for salvation. But the next student (N+1 for mathematicians) to come along has to either start from scratch and hope that he comes out with the correct understanding (even though the bible gives him no promise that he will succeed), or he must get help from one of the previous N students. Now, how does this student determine which of the previous N students was correct when all of them sound quite convincing?

James White would be distressed by such reasoning. Why? He claims that the verses immediately following 2nd Timothy 3:15 (already cited) do indeed give us a promise that fulfill items #2 and #3 of his confession and thus Catholics waste time by such concerns. These verses say:

2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NAB)

James would now have us dive into the original Greek and note the terms "artios" and "exartizo" corresponding to "adequate" and "equipped" respectively. Some lexicons define one or the other of these terms as "sufficient" or "perfect." He also notes that "exartizo" has "artios" at its root and thus the two words echo eachother with a possible amplifying effect. Thus, James would say that the NAB translation above is misleading, and the following translation would be better:

2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every good work. (prospective James White interpretation)

Now, James argues that if the Scriptures are "profitable" for making the man of God "completely and perfectly" equipped, then item #2 of his confession is upheld by Scripture. Why? Because a "man of God" who is "perfectly equipped" needs no other agency (including another man of God) to accurately ascertain the necessary doctrines of salvation from Scripture. Furthermore, if no other agency is necessary, then these doctrines necessary for salvation must ipso facto be reasonably unambiguously taught by Scripture. Thus, Catholics are wrong in denying James' #2 confession.

This line of reasoning has two problems. The smaller problem is that if James is Correct, then 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 is a promise that ALL doctrines, not just those for salvation, are "reasonably unambiguously taught" or "clear." Yet, it has already been seen that Scripture claims that all one needs to be destroyed by false doctrine is just a bible and one's own "ignorance" whether or not one has asked the Holy Spirit for guidance.

The larger problem with the conclusions that James is drawing is evident from a 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 semantic parallel:

All modern copiers are technology inspired and are profitable for copying, faxing, scanning and color printing that the man of business may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every enterprise.

What does this statement tell us? Does it say that a business man does not need secretaries, accountants, product developers and a host of other human and material components for his enterprise? Using James' mode of thinking, the above statement DEMANDS the interpretation that a copy machine is the ONLY thing a business man needs. Yet James' interpretation is not demanded by the text - nor is it the best possible understanding. Nevertheless, lets look at another example:

All modern copiers are profitable for scanning and color printing that the man of business may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every enterprise. Also, telephones are profitable for business transactions and instant communication that the man of business may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every enterprise.

Now, there are two nearly identical statements in the above paragraph. Does one contradict the other? No. Neither statement is demanding that a copier or a telephone is the ONLY thing needed for business. What is being stated is that both products are PROFITABLE for making the "man of business" completely sufficient. Lets look at this again in still a different way:

Is a tire-jack "profitable" for being perfectly equipped for a road trip? Yes. Is a tire-jack "sufficient" for being perfectly equipped for a road trip? No. Is an extra tire "profitable" for being perfectly equipped for a road trip? Yes. Is an extra tire "sufficient" for being perfectly equipped for a road trip? No.

It should be clear that it does not matter if the Greek terms "artios" and "exartizo" mean "sufficient" and "perfectly equipped." What matters is that Scripture is called "profitable," not "totally self-sufficient." James, however, is an astute gentleman and will elect to find a terrible flaw with my above analogies (the modern copier, the telephone, the auto extras). Each object I have described was "profitable" for a part of the duties attended by the completely sufficient component. For example, "copying, faxing, and color printing" is clearly only PART of what a "man of business" may do. But what does 2nd Timothy 3:16 say Scripture is profitable for? It says "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." James would note that unlike my examples, these actions represent the whole gamut of what a "man of God" is responsible for. So, does this mean that 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 actually does teach that Scripture is all that is needed? Lets look at a new example.

All aircraft are air-worthy and are profitable for take-offs, landings, steering and every flying activity so that the pilot may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every flying journey.

This statement has the quality of naming the gamut of what pilots do and are responsible for. But based on this statement, is an aircraft all the pilot needs, or does he need fuel as well? Also, it is true that a man with only an aircraft and no human instruction could learn to fly. But would anyone entrust their lifes to trial and error with an aircraft alone and no outside instruction? Lets take James' confessional item #2 and apply it to this analogy: "the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of [things necessary for flight and piloting]." Again, this statement claims that the unlearned don't need to have another human to teach them how to fly. Indeed, it is true that it is possible (look at the Right brothers) to learn to fly without help. But the important question is: does the above analogy promise that the "unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of [things necessary for flight and piloting]" just by owning and experimenting with an aircraft? The answer is no. Let's look at one last analogy:

All math texts employ proven principles and are profitable for arithmetic, algebra, calculas and every mathematical topic so that the mathematician may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every computation.

This analogy also emphasizes the whole gamut of what mathematicians do. Yet there are two problems with James' understanding of these semantics that come to light in this analogy. Firstly, while it is possible that the "math texts" may be the only things the mathematician needs - the sentence does not DEMAND this interpretation. For example, some "computations" would require millions of man years to complete by hand. Thus, the only way to compute very large problems in any meaningful manner is with a super-computer. Did the above analogy state that a super-computer would not be necessary? No. Secondly, if nevertheless this analogy does demand that math texts are all that is necessary - it then proves that they are sufficient for a mathematician - not an "unlearned man." Again, applying James' #2 confession to this analogy we have: "the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of [the things necessary for every computation]." Now, did the above analogy promise that "the unlearned" would become mathematicians using just math texts and no human assistance? No. Indeed, the analogy offered no insight whatsoever as to how someone becomes a "mathematician" in the first place.

This last point is important because the phrase "man of God" in Scriptures is a term exclusively reserved for prophets, angels, annointed kings and church leaders. It is never used of believers in general. For example:

Deuteronomy 33:1 This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.

Judges 13:6 Then the woman came and told her husband, "A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name;

1 Kings 12:22 But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God:

1 Kings 17:18 And she said to Elijah, "What have you against me, O man of God?

2 Kings 5:8 But when Elisha the man of God heard...

2 Chronicles 8:14 ...David the man of God had commanded.

1 Timothy 6:11 But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.

James has historically always defended his first 3 confessional items using only 2nd Timothy 3:16-17. Again, Catholics don't have a problem with confessinal item #1. But it is clear that 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 does not support item #2 and thus item #3 falls with it. It is tempting, I think, for James at this point to say "you are claiming that the very God-breathed word of God is insufficient - this is unacceptable." I agree with James that it is wrong to say that the Scriptures are insufficient. But I disagree with his conclusions over what Scriptural sufficiency means. For example, James and I would agree that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was all sufficient. Yet, Christ sent the Holy Spirit as a necessary agent for the survival of the church. This does not mean that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient. Likewise, when Catholics claim that an additional authority outside of the bible is necessary to ensure proper interpretation--it is not a claim that Scriptures are insufficient.

A second look at James' arguments

In 1993, James White debated Patrick Madrid on Sola Scriptura. Later, James wrote a post-debate commentary entitled "Catholic Answers: Myth or Reality?" (examined by Mario Derksen here). From this lengthy commentary a few small segments will now be examined. James' words will be in italics:

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which, on the topic of the Scriptures, is word-for-word the same as the Westminster Confession of Faith. We read specifically in chapter 1, section 7:

Here we see James' semi-Formal sufficiency (SFS) principle asserted. He doesn't believe that the whole bible is simple, but any doctrines it holds that are necessary for salvation "are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." But as we have seen, Scripture no where gives this promise.

We are seemingly told [by Catholics] that the Holy Spirit did such a poor job in producing Scripture that while the Psalmist thought it was a lamp to his feet and a light to his path, he (the Psalmist) was in fact quite deluded, and was treading very dangerously.

The Psalm referred to is 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." James' reference to this verse has four problems. Firstly, James is assuming that the "word" referred to here is only the written word. Secondly, when James is confronted with 2nd Thesalonians 2:15, which reads...

Thirdly, the author of the Psalm was King David who indeed was a "man of God." Thus he is precisely the kind of person that the Scriptures "profit" according to 2nd Timothy 3:17. Also, king David was constantly advised by the "word of God" eminating from the prophet Nathan. With these safe-gaurds in place, truly the "word was a lamp" to King David's feet.

Fourthly, James is disgusted with a supposed Catholic position that "the Holy Spirit did such a poor job in producing Scripture" that it is dangerous to read without any outside interpretive authority. James ignores 2nd Peter 3:15-17 which states:

James goes on with a lengthy analogy of his own:

Let me give you an illustration: Let's say James Akin writes the PERFECT textbook on logic. It is completely perspicuous: it is fully illustrated, completely consistent, and it provides answers to all the tough questions in plain, understandable terminology. It covers all the bases. Now, would it follow, then, that every person who consulted this textbook would agree with every other person who consulted this textbook on matters of logic? Well, of course not. Some folks might just read one chapter, and not the rest. Others might read too quickly, and not really listen to Mr. Akin's fine explanations. Others might have read other less-well-written textbooks, and they might import their understandings into Mr. Akin's words, resulting in misunderstandings. Most often, people might just lack the mental capacity to follow all the arguments, no matter how well they are expressed, and end up clueless about the entire subject, despite having read the entire work.

Now the question I have to ask is this: is there something wrong with Mr. Akin's textbook if it does not produce complete unanimity on questions logical? Is the problem in the *textbook* or in the people *using* the textbook? In the real world it is often a combination of both: a lack of clarity on the part of the textbook and a problem in understanding on the part of the reader. But if the perfect textbook existed, would it result in absolute unanimity of opinion? No, because any textbook must be read, interpreted, and understood.

This analogy is self-incriminating. Catholics are not arguing that the Scriptures are flawed. We argue PRECISELY what James has argued here--people misinterpret constantly for a wide variety of reasons. Scriptures make it clear that apostles and prophets are needed to maintain the correct understanding of Scripture. Will this additional authority bring the total unanimity of opinion that James' speaks of? No. But it is a superior mechanism - and is the standard mechanism God uses throughout Scriptures to maintain at least a healthy unity. James continues...

Of course, one could argue ANYTHING [from Scripture] if one is willing to sacrifice context, language, consistency, etc. But are we really to believe the Bible is so self-contradictory and unclear that we cannot arrive at the truth through a whole-hearted effort at honestly examining the biblical evidence?

Two problems here. First, one does not need to sacrifice "context, language, consistency" to distort the Scriptures. Most heresies arise from carefully employing, not sacrificing, each of these domains. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses use original languages to re-interpret John 1:1 as denying Christ's divinity. Mormons use the context of John 10 to prove that we will all be become almighty gods in time.

The second problem is that Catholics are not claiming that the bible is self-contradictory. We merely point out that there is no promise in Scriptures which states: if I make a "whole-hearted effort at honestly examining the biblical evidence" I will know the correct doctrines of salvation. Conversely, the bible does promise us that if someone makes a "whole-hearted effort at honestly examining the biblical evidence" but is ignorant of its meaning - he can or will distort the Scriptures to his own destruction (2nd Peter 3:16-17). James continues...

Paul says the Scriptures are sufficient to equip the man of God for his work as the man of God. The issue is: the sufficiency of the Scripture to equip the man of God for the work of the ministry. When it comes to doing the work of the man of God, he has a sufficient and infallible rule of faith that is God-breathed.

As we have seen before, "sufficiency" of Scripture is NOT the issue. The issue is the "profitability" of Scripture. Furthermore, the "man of God" in the New Testament only refers to church leaders. The reason why their ignorance does not cause them to distort Scriptures is because there is a charism of infallibility and the strength of Tradition to prevent them from "distorting Scriptures to their own destruction." James needs to find a promise that "the royal priesthood is equipped sufficiently by Scripture Alone to properly understand the doctrine's of salvation." No such promise is found in Scriptures. This is why James' confessional proposition #2 fails. James continues...

The Scriptures, we are told, are God-breathed AND THEREFORE are profitable for teaching, that is, for presenting the doctrines of the Christian faith. I point out that we are never told that anything else is profitable for doctrine, are we?

Three things. Firstly, we are told that Scripture is profitable for doctrine. But we are also told that it is profitable for the reader being destroyed (2nd Peter 3:16-17). Secondly, the question "we are never told that anything else is profitable for doctrine, are we" must be answered by noting that the Scriptures repeatedly point us to other sources that are profitable for doctrine - but the problem is that James refuses to accept the significance of the other passages. For example: "[the church] is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1st Timothy 3:15). The words "profitable" and "doctrine" are not in this sentence. For most readers, they don't have to be there for it to be clear that the church must obviously be "profitable for teaching doctrine." Thirdly, if being "never told of another profitable source for doctrine" is a valid argument - then being "never told that the royal priesthood will understand Scriptures without any human help" proves that James' #2 confessional proposition is false. James continues...

The man of God is complete BECAUSE OF the nature of Scripture.

This assertion goes far beyond what 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 is sharing. Is the "man of business" complete because of the nature of a "modern copier?" No. Does the nature of a "modern copier" profit a "man of business" so that he can be complete? Yes.

Moving along, James was told that if 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 meant to tell us that Scripture is "sufficient" so that no outside human interpretive authority was needed, then the word which these verses actually used ("profitable") was a fractional and incomplete way of conveying this. James responds...

Fractional and incomplete? Only if you are seeking to find a nearly creedal statement of something that is already plainly a part of the belief structure of the Apostle and Timothy, that being the sufficiency of Scripture itself.

Wait a minute. If James is referring to the #1 confessional proposition (Material Sufficiency), then we agree. However, it is clear that James is proposing the #2 confessional proposition ("the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of [things necessary for salvation]" without the aid of an interpretive authority). James is thus saying that this notion was "already plainly a part of the belief structure of the Apostle and Timothy." This is a VERY tall claim. Where do we see Paul or Timothy going around telling people that they (Paul and Timothy) are unneeded for interpreting the bible? On the contrary, Paul spent most of his time putting out fires created by those who were interpreting Scriptures for themselves without any regard for Paul's teaching authority. James continues...

And [the man of God] does not need to inquire of the current theological opinion of the majority, either.

What majority? Of the ignorant masses? Of the royal priesthood? If this is what James is referring to, then Catholics agree. It is more probable, unfortunately, that this is James' way of telling us that the council of Acts 15 was unnecessary (a consultation of the "men of God" with other "men of God.").

The Scriptures are dependent upon reliable teachers? Or we are dependent upon reliable teachers? There is, of course, a huge difference. We have a reliable teacher, of course, or should I say Teacher?

Catholics agree that the Scriptures are not dependant on infallible teachers. We also agree that it is people who are dependant on infallible teachers. We disagree that God intended for his Holy Spirit to be the direct agent of infallibility for the royal priesthood or unbelievers becoming Christians. The bible nowhere makes this promise. It does, however, promise the Apostles that they will be led into all truth. Thus, members of the royal priesthood depend on the sufficient Scriptures and the INDIRECT interpretive authority of church leaders to have the truth (the Scriptures) and interpret it correctly (the leaders).

Conclusion