The Confusion Between Sola Scriptura and Exegesis

[@MB-qy1op]

Watching from New Zealand and I am so grateful for your work on Sola Scriptura. Thankyou so much and happy birthday for 30 years defending Sola Scriptura and the reliability of the Bible.

[@donthephoneman7084]

Thank you James white I really enjoy listening to your videos and your debates.

[@voyager7]

One thing I have encountered over and over again in decades of dialogue with (usually) Catholic apologists, is either or both the misunderstanding or the misrepresentation of, the theology with which they object. Close of the heels of this is the rampant use of circular logic and presumptions that enable it.

[@sandina2cents779]

Thank you so much Dr. White for your ministry! A couple years ago when I found you online I had to look up words about every sentence you spoke (solo Scriptura, solo Ecclesia, and many more) but I have learned so much from you from your channel and through watching many of your debates and hope to thank you some day in person, if not in this life then on the other side in glory. God bless you brother in Christ and March on Christian soldier! Ps. If you read this could you tell me in the Lord’s Prayer, what is the best interpretation of the line forgive us our sins, debts, or trespasses. Depending on what church you go to, they say one of those, but they don’t mean the same thing exactly.

[@Emilysafe]

Ahhh 1990 was a great year… the year I was born😅

[@jvlp2046]

St. Paul taught about standing firm and holding on to the Oral/Verbal Traditions and Written Scriptures including Epistles, in the condition that both must not have CONTRADICTION with each other. (ref. 2 Thessalonians 2:15)... However, if there were contradictions, the WRITTEN Traditions must supersede (overrule) the ORAL Traditions... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus. Amen.

[@salvationbygracealone5111]

God bless James White!

[@theservantsresource3565]

Dictionaries, lexicons, and thinking, oh my!

[@Tanjaicholan]

...and translations, oh my, right?

[@askingwhyisfree7436]

Why is sola scriptura or scripture alone important? the nature of credibility. New testament is written by witnesses of Jesus directly and/or lived directly in the lifetime of Jesus and His disciples. It's important for witnesses to say directly "I SAW HIM FIRST HAND!" rather than "oh, I just heard from this guy and this guy." Even Paul was questioned because he didn't directly became Jesus' disciple like Peter but he saw and persecuted the very people whom Jesus taught. Paul lived with the other disciples who directly saw and heard Jesus. This is why the chain of information is very important. We all know as knowledge is passed, it becomes corrupted because one person adds more to the previous message that was originally given. This is the same with the scriptures. All should learn from the very people who saw and heard Jesus!

[@duckymomo7935]

Tradition weakens over time (and gets outdated). The defense of tradition is untenable

[@gch8810]

@@duckymomo7935 The Bible and the Early Church say otherwise. Seems to me that you don’t understand what tradition entails.

[@tomtemple69]

@@duckymomo7935 your anti tradition mindset is dumb

[@snatchednefkin]

​@@gch8810 I'm sure the pharisees would agree with you. There's a place for tradition, but it's not equal to inspired scripture.

[@ThecrosseyedTexan]

I want to know where you got that light in the background there dude! I want to warp engine light LOL

[@christologisch]

thank you

[@nadams8863]

Amen✝️❤️🙏

[@jamessheffield4173]

- As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[@dailytheology1689]

Technically you won’t feel too much of your breath if you’re wearing an N95 😷

[@HillbillyBlack]

Denying Sola Scriptura simply for a lack of Title in scripture is like denying the sovereignty of God because “ the sovereignty of God” title is absent from scripture. We know both to be true from the full council in Gods word. Gods word is revealed no where else. Gods word in scripture reveals these truths. Sola Scriptura is an inferred truth derived from the infallible perfect nature of the word of God. If the word of God were transferred supernaturally human to human by means of belief then it would be “sola Spiritus”. Sola Scripture is the location of Gods word which is the single infallible oldest rule of Faith. The Tora and then New Testament. Much of our faith and tradition from scripture is inferred drawn. Its brought about by a means of connecting the Dots from a big picture aspect of the overarching council of scripture. Eating Deep fried snickers or foods equally unhealthy is no where in scripture yet we can infer the importance of body health Given the Body is the temple of the holy spirit. By scripture implying specific importance in one area, it has created a logical cascade line of reasoning. Sola Scriptura is a cascade line of reasoning, not a topic of Dogmatic clarity. We measure our faith from no other place than the written word of God. We have no further revealed words of God outside of the written word declared by Moses, the prophets and the public teachings of the apostles written in Scripture. Tradition cant survive without the written word. The Written word has traditionally been the foundation of the faith since Moses. Jesus, the apostles and prophets quote “it is written” over 200 times in Torah and New Testament together. There is never a contextual reference point to the importance of Tradition unless tradition is coupled in the context of the written established words of God in Letter. Future tradition outside the 11+ Paul cant survive unless its verified explicitly by scripture. Declarative tradition through a dogmatic lens formed outside the foundation of that which is written collapses on its self. History proves this and todays Church repeats this. Protestant and Catholic alike. To hold anything parallel to scripture, including the church, happens as a result of poor hermeneutics. Such beliefs dogmatically inflate small sections of scripture creating theology from very little wildly out of context sections of scripture. PSALM 119:105 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path. Psalms 119:11 11 I have hidden your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Faith alone is the same argument. “Faith alone” is no where yet is explicitly inferred from “faith apart from works” which is found in numerous areas of scripture. When it comes to being justified by faith alone the mechanism by which we are justified is key. The conversation between James and Paul is not a contradiction, but rather a different conversation altogether. According to Romans, we are justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law. According to James, the conversation is not about how we are justified, but rather the definition of legitimate faith and how faith is justified. We are justified by faith alone, and the evidence of that faith is works. In other words in the grand order of operation, we believe, we are justified by faith, and that faith produces works. We are justified by faith alone, Faith is justified by works. The context of James is the difference between a profession of faith or real faith. Living faith, or dead faith. Romans 5:1 ESV Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a Participle declaration. It IS what is active. Its not describing what one “does” or is “doing”. Its a labeled state of existence proceeded by an outcome. BECAUSE, Therefore, there in. “We have been”. Its already happened. Not we are in a current action. Its not contingent upon anything. Its the starting point. Where as James argument is about an active verb of one CLAIMING something without proof. James 2:14 ESV What good is it, my brothers, if someone SAYS he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? This kind of faith is DEAD. its a false conversion being described. This has nothing to do with how we are justified. Its about how that which justifies us is justified. Its an order of operation. How is faith evident? Its evident by works. Faith is first. Works result. Hebrews 11:1-4 ESV Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [2] For by it the people of old received their commendation. [3] By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. [4] By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. Faith alone is in scripture by definition. By example, by how it works. Sola fide. Sola Scriptura is in the bible by definition. There is no other revealed word of God anywhere else than scripture. Scripture predates tradition AND the church.

[@daveme7]

I always understood that it is more about source of authority. Do I take the Bible and tradition or the Catholic priest or whatever authority you put with the scriptures...the Bible alone is our authoritative standard from which truth from God comes from.

[@josephmyers9843]

The Catholic Priest, if Catholic, can give you THE Word of God!

[@douglasmcnay644]

@@josephmyers9843 Why settle for a middleman who can intentionally or accidentally corrupt the Word of God? Go straight to the source of revelation.

[@gch8810]

@@douglasmcnay644 I could say the same for every Protestant service.

[@CornerTalker]

Perhaps it should have been named Prima Scriptura

[@mikezeke7041]

That term is used by the occasiona scriptura crowd

[@CornerTalker]

@@mikezeke7041 Let's not pretend that we don't listen to voices outside the Scripture - John Knox, CS Lewis, Spurgeon. But let's give primacy to the Scripture.

[@mikezeke7041]

@@CornerTalker did you listen to what White said?

[@CornerTalker]

@@mikezeke7041 yup - not disagreeing

[@mikezeke7041]

@@CornerTalker from what I can tell most sola people really live prima... but it seems many prima people put multiple things above scripture, though so do many who say they believe in sola scriptura

[@JasonLeonPike]

Thank you for this.

[@FormerTrucker]

The holy scriptures to me is the ultimate authority it's beyond anything that is written or beyond any tradition. Paul the apostle said all scripture is given by inspiration of God for all matters of life to exhort to build to rebuke to teach whatever it may be and we also go to scripture to see what is the will of God. So basically if the scripture says it I believe it. The Bible can defend itself the Bible can interpret itself I do not need to know Greek or Latin to be able to defend the Bible I like you Dr White, but God provided his Word he did not leave things missing out of it like meanings and stuff that you cannot interpret without knowing Greek or Latin.

[@Bane_questionmark]

How do you think the Bible was even translated into English? It was by men who understood Greek, Hebrew, likely Latin and other ancient languages. No one has said you HAVE to know Greek or any other language to understand the Bible (beyond needing to read a language the Bible has been translated into). Of course the basic message of the Gospel is clear from reading a (good) translation in any language. I don't know more than a little bit of Koine Greek and mostly read in English (KJV in fact as I'm guessing you do too but maybe I'm wrong) but when I want further clarity and context on a passage I will look at the Greek (or Hebrew and Greek if it's Old Testament) and multiple English translations to get a fuller picture of the meaning. Greek is in many ways a more nuanced language than English, so a lot of the time it's difficult to capture the full meaning of a Greek word or phrase in a way that also reads clearly in English. If the translators decided to use an existing English word or term it may miss part of the meaning, and if they more literally translate it may not be as clear to an English reader without outside explanation. One example of this Dr. White gives in this video, the greek word theonoustas is often translated "inspired", which kind of gets the point (though many modern English speakers won't know that the "spire" in inspire means breath so the translation is less clear than it even was originally), vs. the more literal translation "God-breathed" which is probably an unfamiliar and thus less clear term requiring outside explanation. I'll give an example. There's a Greek word that is borrowed closely in English, the English version is "Eunuch". In modern English this word pretty much only means a man who has been castrated. It can mean that in Greek, but it can also just mean a man who chooses to abstain from sex or marriage, it originally meant a man who would guard a princess/queen etc. in her bedroom and thus were often castrated or took vows of celibacy. There was an early church figure I don't remember his name, who misinterpreted a passage containing this word and castrated himself believing it to be a command from Christ, and he was early enough to have spoken the Greek of the New Testament. There would be no way to know all of this if you were just reading an English translation, you'd need some kind of study resource explaining the nuance of this word or to look into the Greek word yourself. I actually know all of this about this word because a non-Christian brought up this passage as an attack on the Bible, saying Jesus commanded that we castrate ourselves. I wasn't sure how to defend this passage using only English texts even after looking through multiple translations (they were all very similar), so I went to the Greek and the proper interpretation became immediately obvious. I didn't have to know Greek myself, I just looked at one of many online free resources that lists all possible meanings of the word. The Bible is the word of God, and that word was delivered inerrantly in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Translations serve to deliver the message of the Gospel to people who do not speak these languages, such as the Greek Septuagint from the Hebrew Old Testament or the many translations of the Old and New Testament into many ancient and modern languages. Good translations are accurate, but they are not inspired in the same way that the original authors writing in Hebrew and Greek were inspired. Either you study Greek and Hebrew yourself, or you rely on other men to study Greek and Hebrew for you and deliver you translations in your own language plus other resources on the nuances of these languages that don't cleanly translate into English. If you think God inspired an inerrant translation, why do people only ever mention the King James Bible? Is there an inerrant perfect translation into French? Russian? Japanese? Navajo? Many languages only have one translation of the Bible, do you think that single translation is inspired? If not, people who only speak that language have the problem of needing to learn a new language to know the true Word of God. I bet most of the people writing translations for new languages looked to the Hebrew and Greek to make sure they got as full of the original meaning as possible before trying to put that into the new language. Not doing that would be like trying to translate Shakespeare's plays into Russian, but using a French translation of the plays as your starting point. Shakespeare's works are only truly written in their original language, translations may be excellent but always fall short. The Bible is no different. Sorry for the very long comment, thank you for reading all of it if you did. I just love God's Word and I want you my brother in Christ to study it in wisdom. Again no one is saying you have to know Greek or Hebrew, but don't say there's no point or benefit to doing so. You will learn more about the Bible if you study it in the original languages, that's a fact. The men who translated whatever English translation you read from would agree with me 100%.

[@gch8810]

A book cannot interpret itself.

[@FormerTrucker]

@@gch8810 Actually that is the very interpretation of hermeneutics the Bible interpreting the Bible you let scripture interpret other scriptures.

[@EricAlHarb]

@@FormerTrucker nope a book cannot interpret itself which is why we disagree.

[@FormerTrucker]

@@EricAlHarb You are incorrect when reading and interpreting the Bible we use the law of first mention and hermeneutics. Hebrew 1:20 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[@Sunrise_Priapism]

Wasn't this clarified in 2 Timothy? Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:10‭-‬17

[@thuscomeguerriero]

Of course, this would exclude the writings of the New Testament since Paul is referring to Scripture Timothy has known from early youth. Based on that one could plausibly make an argument that the New Testament is no different from sacred tradition insofar as it adds to authoritative teaching established in the Old Testament.

[@josephmyers9843]

Prior to the King James, is the Douay-Rheims. It is actually....all scripture, INSPIRED OF GOD, is profitable, e.t.c.. So, the truth is that there is something outside of Sacred Scripture that means INSPIRED OF GOD. The Church is the Authority for faith. Not Scripture! I challenge you to get a Douay-Rheims and read it for yourself! Even if it is the purpose to prove Catholics wrong.

[@ManlyServant]

@@josephmyers9843 Pope says Apocrypha is not scripture

[@urawesome4670]

The person who asked the question must not know the English versions are a translation of the original languages.

[@davidszaraz4605]

How do we know INFALLIBLY which books are God breathed? Where do we get the infallible list of God breathed books from? And how do we know which is the correct meaning and interpretation of scripture? There are many denominations interpreting the bible differently, how do we know which one is right?

[@gregkotoch2765]

How do we know the church got these things right? The question of "how do we know what we know to be true" is a problem for protestants, Catholics, muslims, mormons, atheists, scientists, and on and on.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@@gregkotoch2765 by apostolic succession

[@gregkotoch2765]

@@davidszaraz4605 Apostalic succession, does that mean he who was given the leadership of the church in Rome, after Peter, had the same apostalic authority as Peter and was not just the pastor of the church?

[@ManlyServant]

@@davidszaraz4605 Dont confuse Sola Scriptura with the origin of scripture

[@ManlyServant]

both protestant and catholic BELIEVE that their book is the word of God,and God-Breathed,even if they had difference,so the question is not "which book you believe" but "Did you believe That book is infallible or is it because it is OPENLY against your human tradition"? never forget that the same scripture of catholic and protestants which also the 4 gospel actually ever been used to against someone's Man Made Tradition,read Mark 7:8

[@Future_looksbright]

Haha I read that comment!!

[@rileyb.franklin5975]

Dr. White:" until the EMP hits..." What is that?

[@45acpauto]

Electronic warfare. We started using it in Vietnam to jam radar. Today it is so advanced it can fry anything electronic!

[@fritzd2116]

EMP? Isn’t that a KJV term? 😉😉

[@shooterdownunder]

Electro magnetic pulse. That would be an attack that would come from a nuclear blast from high in the atmosphere and it would effectively fry out the circuits of all electronic devices and take down the power grid.

[@philblagden]

Men make errors. God doesn't. Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible is authoritative with regards to doctrine and tells us everything we need to know about doctrinal issues. 2nd Timothy 3 says scripture is God breathed, that it makes people wise for salvation, that it leaves the man of God complete and equipped for every good work. In other words Scripture is without error, it shows the way of salvation and teaching for discipleship, and it leaves us fully equipped in this regard so that we don't need anything else.

[@gch8810]

But Sola Scriptura is an untenable position. Scripture does not interpret itself. You may not like it, but interpretation is deeply connected to Sola Scriptura.

[@philblagden]

@@gch8810 Is scripture written in an alien language too difficult to understand or interpret? Why did God delegate the teaching of the Torah to the head of each household? Why not leave it to the priests? Why are there so many exhortations in scripture to meditate on and study God's word for ourselves? Early fathers believed in the clarity of scripture. That it's message was clear. If not Sola Scriptura, then what? Sola Ecclesia? Papal Infallibility? These cannot be true. Men will always fall into error. God never promised to keep the church free from error or to uphold any sacred tradition. Jesus and Paul told us the opposite. It is the God-breathed word of the living God that corrects us and keeps us on the right track. That's exactly what Paul is telling Timothy in 2nd Timothy 3. He could have told him "trust the church that I have established" or "trust me and the other apostles". Instead he says to him that he should stay grounded in scripture that he learned from his youth and be corrected and equipped by it. That is not to say we don't respect elders who watch over our souls and respect the authority that God gave to them. But their authority is dependent on their faithfulness to scripture. Even in the first century multiple errors were creeping into the church. Every generation has to contend for the faith. There is no higher authority than God himself and the words that he breathed out and moved men to write. If the authority of scripture is made dependent on the authority on a man to flawlessly interpret it then we are making God's authority subservient to this person. Are not his ways much higher than ours? This is what Augustine taught, that all men are fallible and make errors and that we must test what they say by comparing it to what God's word teaches. This is what the Bereans were commended for doing.

[@tomtemple69]

@@philblagden so no one interpreted the Bible properly before you?

[@philblagden]

@@tomtemple69 Did I say that? Scripture is clear in what it teaches. "For we do not write you anything that is beyond your ability to read and understand. And I hope that you will understand us completely." 2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul is speaking to lay people here btw. Men misinterpret scripture because they bring their own preconceptions and ideas and agendas or they fail to look at all of what scripture teaches on issues. Nowhere does the bible teach that scripture must be interpreted as part of a wider tradition through infallible magesteriums. Jesus refuted this idea himself and rebuked the Pharisees for using their traditions to nullify what God's word was teaching. The churches that elevate oral tradition to the same level as scripture are behaving just like the Pharisees and the same pride is the motivation for doing this.

[@philblagden]

I will add that church history and the writings of the Church Fathers are useful and we do not ignore what they said but we recognise that they also looked to scripture as the ultimate authority. However, certain non biblical or extra biblical doctrines have developed over time. Some of these so call traditions are not apostolic or early but it was a progression and resulted in doctrines that are not only not scriptural but in some cases that contradict the clear teachings of scripture.

[@mr3817]

This video is a bit obtuse and semantic... and never gets to THE TITLE of the Video(!!!???) Sola Scriptura means exegetically that Scripture Interprets (Exegetes) Scripture. This myopic view of James White misses the forrest for the trees and creates Reformed Baptist pastors who have literally told me they dont understamd why theyd bring in other scriptures to exegete scripture on the same topic (thus REJECTING THE ESSENCE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA)... because of an obsession with lexical "exegesis"

[@Georgios_Kakouris]

It's completely acceptable that the Scriptures should be seen as a whole. But when it comes to different disciplines (like Orthodox Christianity) that have, let's say, ten more books in the Old Testament in contrast with the Protestant Bible, in that case the Scriptures remain still a whole, but is it a "fuller" one? A more divinely inspired one since it has more books? Why that happens? What's the Christian point of view in cases that concern the wholeness of the Scriptures? Thanks in advance.

[@JC-li8kk]

The New Testament is far more valuable since it is the gospel of Christ that leads to salvation. Rarely ever refer to Old Testament unless using it to support doctrine from the New Testament. I’d be interested in seeing what those 10 extra books say but more for my own curiosity than actual practice.

[@tomtemple69]

" Orthodox Christianity" it is not orthodox, and i hesitate to call it Christianity it is eastern "orthodox"

[@johnsteila6049]

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. To compare it to “Exegesis”, is comparing apples to oranges.

[@ChiliMcFly1]

Which is your preferred Bible to study from ?

[@nate9601]

He reads the original Greek

[@josephmyers9843]

@@nate9601 GREEK from WHAT platform?

[@ManlyServant]

@@josephmyers9843 dont confuse platform with sola scriptura

[@shooterdownunder]

@@josephmyers9843 he uses logos Bible software. It has an excellent library of commentaries that come from all denominations from the early church fathers to today. Highly recommended and is available for Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern orthodox.

[@James22426]

Regarding 2Tim3:15-17, i noticed Prots stress the qualifiers attributed to the man of God ("complete" and "fully" and "every") but fail to stress the qualifer attributed to Scripture which was "All". The qualifier "All" leaves open the possibility of other things being inspired of God. Stressing the qualities of the man of God does not teach Sola Scriptura. Let me give an example: All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty. The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more. Prot only source of Truth is Scripture and yet don't even understand basic grammatical logic. 2 Pet 3:16 "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

[@joshuaflippin791]

Sola Scriptura does not exclude the authority and usefulness of other sources. Like the church fathers, pastors, teachers, confessions and creeds, tradition etc. Sola scriptura deals with the claim of authority. Those other things I just listed may carry some authority, but they are not infallible. The bible alone is the only infallible source of faith and practice.

[@James22426]

@@joshuaflippin791 I understand that is what Protestants believe but how does that refute my argument against Protestant use of 2 Tim 3:16-17 to defend Sola Scriptura?

[@joshuaflippin791]

@@James22426 You’re argument started with the faulty reasoning that we Protestants don’t believe others things are useful and necessary in the Christian life for our growth and sanctification. You’re arguments doesn’t deal with the Protestant claim of authority but rather creates a caricature of what classical Protestants have held to.

[@James22426]

@@joshuaflippin791 what part of my argument makes a caricature of Protestantism? Please provide a quote from my argument.

[@dailytheology1689]

Ad Fontes

[@Future_looksbright]

If you believe the Bible is the word of God it seems to me you would want to use all the tools you can at expounding it’s meaning and message accurately. Tools of Exegesis are not more authoritative, but rather a tool to utilize in furthering your understanding. Whoever snubs at things like this is most likely just finding it easier to criticize something they don’t understand rather than actually trying (and wanting) to LEARN.

[@mlwilson2956]

The problem I've always had with sola scriptura is what is "scripture?" Scripture was determined by church councils. So there has to be some authority outside of Scripture.

[@Tanjaicholan]

Take your time to understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura! Watch both videos. Thanks. kzbin.info/www/bejne/goe5g5mrZsp_ibc kzbin.info/www/bejne/pmPYoX6hlJp1ns0

[@danielomitted1867]

Scripture isnt scripture because some council decided it is. Scripture is scripture because it was inspired by God.

[@CookInTech84]

@@danielomitted1867 Someone decided which would be, led by God over 6 centuries, in the canon. They didn't drop out of the sky. Counncils of Godly men were used to work that out like with Acts 15.

[@danielomitted1867]

@@CookInTech84 I have no idea why people think its appropriate to conflate a council that had living apostles in it with others that came centuries later that didnt. If you believe the canon is the canon just because some council somewhere said so and that works for you then ok. That doesn't work for me.

[@Bane_questionmark]

Both major communions which claim "Scripture was determined by church councils" are referring to the same councils yet have differing canons of Scripture. If we have to then determine which church's authority and tradition is accurate, by your logic there must be an authority outside of the church to determine that it has authority. Many converts to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have through research determined in their eyes that those churches have unique authority, does that mean that those converts are in authority outside of those churches? Determining that something has authority is not itself authority. The Scriptures do not have authority because men determined that they have authority, they have authority because they are breathed out by God Almighty for the special revelation of truth. Imagine that you received the Scriptures not as Scriptures but as the audible voice of God, then see what it really means when you say that there is authority outside of that. The Scriptures' authority IS God's authority, it's that simple.

[@gch8810]

No one is confusing Sola Scriptura and exegesis. The fact of the matter is, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and exegesis are linked. For this reason, if there are multiple interpretations of Scripture, which there are, then this has ramifications on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, whether you like it or not James White.

[@siesoonki1746]

Human being is theonosos?

[@Elcarbonero1003]

No, not the human being. The Bible, as it is the Word of God air-go “God-breathed”.

[@skippy8696]

@@Elcarbonero1003 'air-go' 😂 The word is ergo...

[@HendrickAlbina]

Let's all pretend that we are in the early second century; we have Catholics and the rest. Who is going to tell us what belongs to the New Testament and what does not? James White, the Bishop of Alpha Omega Ministries? No way!

[@HillbillyBlack]

- Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3) - Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) - Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.) - Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16) - John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians) - Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician) We live in the Church age. The church age has the God breathed holy scriptures in place. Tradition is from scripture. Its not from some apostolic verbal transfer. Never was. Tradition outside scripture is just extra. Nothing wrong with extra so ling as its in keeping with scripture. But MOST early fathers held the written scriptures to high standing and the Truth that the pillar and foundation was bound to.

[@HendrickAlbina]

@@HillbillyBlack Where can you find in scripture that Tradition is NOT an Apostolic Verbal Transfer? Or Saint Paul was just joking.

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@HendrickAlbina paul affirms the tradition as it pertains to the beliefs of the Gospel. Not extra-biblical practice. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you WERE (past tense) taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our LETTER. tradition here is the firm stance of the Truth of Christ. Not ceremony or ritual. Its past tense vs expandable. Pauls writings are very consistent. 1 Corinthians 16:13 ESV Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Tradition is ALWAYS in ref to the Gospel teachings. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ESV Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. Walking according to set tradition is the same as walking in Christ. Obedience. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 ESV And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. The issue is the definition of Tradition. The biblical definition is the obedient adherence to faith in Christ.

[@HendrickAlbina]

​@@HillbillyBlack let me answer you point by point: 1.) Paul affirms the tradition as it pertains to the beliefs of the Gospel. Not extra-biblical practice. Answer: It is true that at least some of Paul’s letters were likely written before the Gospels. The church existed before the New Testament was written as we know it today. Tradition here refers to the truth preached by the church, whose preachers were none other than the apostles themselves. So, for example, when Paul asks hypothetical questions like "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" [1 Cor. 10:16]; he is not assuming that the Christians must have read that from a verse in the New Testament. It was, rather, lived and practiced. Thus, tradition, either oral or written, was first experienced and witnessed by them. Sola scriptura would simply be absurd and impratical in this case. Tradition in a more concrete and substantive sense is the handing over what Paul also received: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). 2.) 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV - "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you WERE (past tense) taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our LETTER." Answer: Capitalizing all the letters for the word LETTER does not erase "by our spoken word". The idea that just because it is spoken, it is therefore not a firm stance of the truth of Christ is absurd. The truth does not live in the past and so must be left behind. Ceremonies like the Eucharist are not just mere rituals created out of fancy whims; they "re-presence" the event of Christ's ultimate sacrifice at Calvary. It happened in the past, but it is still very real and true up to this day because Christ's act is God's act, and God's act is not bound to space and time. It surpasses space and time. So, to understand exclusively "tradition" as a mere stance that highlights the written tradition in the past undermines the firmness of the living tradition that still works in the present. Both must be emphasized. Tradition means either "by our spoken word" or "by our letter". Through these means, Paul and the apostles convey the message of Truth. 3.) 1 Corinthians 16:13 ESV - "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." Answer: Remember that prior to this verse, Paul informed his friends, "I shall stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, because a door has opened for me wide and productive for work, but there are many opponents." They were preparing for Pentecost despite the danger from opponents. They celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit. They were indeed faithful, doing their best to act like men or soldiers of Christ, and were strong, but that does not mean that they have never lived the faith as a community in terms of confession (James 5:16, John 20:23), intercessions and constant prayers - night and day (2 Timothy 1:3), Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23-26), imposition of hands (2 Timothy 1:6), anointing of the sick (James 5: 13-15), and etc. Wait, there's more. How about the Canon of the Scriptures? Jesus did not leave us a complete New Testament book. Again, we will be guided by the living church, whose life is so united in the life of Christ that it even determines which texts in the New Testament were inspired and not inspired. The Bible is silent about its Canon. The Bible does not give us its table of contents. It was the living tradition of the church, through its liturgies, rites, and prayers, that helped us know whether certain books or scriptures were inspired or not. Didache is waving. Clement is waving. But the church said no. You are practically unaware that what you consider to be the Canon of Scriptures in the New Testament is a product of that living tradition. Congratulations! You're a Catholic. Hell no. 4.) "Now we command you, brothers..." wow sounds tradition to me. 5.) "with the tradition that you received from us." simply the best! 6.) The issue is the definition of Tradition. Answer: I do not have any issue with the definition of Tradition. You just destroyed sola scriptura. 7.) The biblical definition is the obedient adherence to faith in Christ. Answer: That's you speaking. Why should your interpretation of the bible be the infallible statement of the scriptures? The biblical definition of tradition is the "handing over" of the teachings of Christ through his apostles either be "orally" or by their "epistles". Straight to the facts bro.

[@robertknight3354]

​@@HendrickAlbinaCan you rephrase this question as a serious matter? You're asking questions like Where can you find in scripture where Jesus said "I am God."

[@patquint3291]

The Bible states the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church. Which church? One of the ones founded by protesters in the 16th century up through today according to White. So why do they all believe in different “truths”? God’s intention was NOT confusion. Maybe we should just “study harder” to understand it, according to John MacArthur. And the Catholic Church holds Scripture in THE highest esteem. Jesus did not give us only a book. Jesus gave us a Church, Mt. 16.

[@sandina2cents779]

And John MacArthur believes that the Roman Catholic Church is a false,fallen, lost church that does not teach the true gospel. Watch what he has to say about the Catholic Church.

[@patquint3291]

Sandina 2cents That’s just my point. What John MacArthur SAYS are LIES.

[@sandina2cents779]

Pat Quint I did misunderstand you but you say John mccarther lies, prove it! You can’t, because what he is saying is the biblical truth. The Catholic Church holds herself to the highest esteem. When you prove that half of the Catholic Churches beliefs aren’t not in the Bible they claim tradition. That puts whatever the church says over the Bible yet they won’t say exactly what is everything in tradition because if they define it then they can’t add more as they go.

[@patquint3291]

Sandina 2cents Two foundations of protesting “churches” are sola scriptura and sola fide. Sola scriptura is a man made doctrine. Sola fide is a man made doctrine. Well, I’d say for Protestants they are considered dogmas. A dogma is something that MUST be believed to be Christian. Since neither sola scriptura nor sola fide were believed or taught anywhere in Christendom before Martin Luther came up with the idea in the 16th century and neither dogma is in the Bible, either implicitly or explicitly, that must make both doctrines/dogmas not just UNBiblical but ANTIBiblical. Where does that leave Protestant “Christians?” So, YOU prove to ME, how do you justify believing in two dogmas that were never believed or taught before the 1500s A.D. and are not in Holy Scripture.

[@sandina2cents779]

Pat Quint You’re making statements like their facts. How could you possibly know what every human being on the earth knew and believed before 1500s? Are you seriously claiming that? If they read their Bible then they would believe in those two things. Martin Luther was not trying to start a new religion. He got his ideas from studying the Bible directly. He literally risked his life to tell the truth of what the Bible actually teaches. In Fact the church did sentence him to death but they never caught him. Any church that kills people for not convertingare not Christians and not following the Bible. That should’ve been a clue. Of course Martin Luther wasn’t perfect because he still believed in some of the lies of the Catholic Church, but he got the ball rolling back in the right direction. Again, I do not follow a man. I follow scripture and Jesus. When I have questions about scripture then I turn to the church. I’m Not sitting with my Bible alone under a tree. What You don’t seem to get is that if you do not believe in solo Scriptura then any religion can make up anything they want and add it anytime they want and you have no way of knowing if it’s from God or is from themselves. (The Bible warned us that’s what happened and to run from it) You have no foundation to compare what they’re trying to teach. Mormons Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics have done this, and when you add to scripture you fall away from Gods word. If somebody gave you a Bible and you’ve never heard of Christianity you would never come to half of the beliefs of the Catholic Church because they were added later. And the Catholic Church won’t even officially describe what the traditions are because they want to add to them whenever they want. It’s control. Now they want to add that Mary is Co-redeemer and Queen of heaven. That is certainly not in the Bible and is contrary to Scripture. Hey if the pope says it’s OK then he can just add anything he wants. If somethings the truth to begin with then it never changes. How many times have doctrines changed in the Catholic Church? There’s a difference between Vatican one and Vatican two. They changed where babies go when they die and are not baptized. At first it was hell and now it’s the place of limbo. They changed if you can eat meat on Fridays or not. Or even now trying to change if Purgatory is a place of torture or not. If you have the truth, which they obviously don’t, then none of their beliefs should ever change.

[@markrome9702]

Protestants have different definitions of Sola Scriptura, as James White admits. James White's personal definition is one of many, but that doesn't make his the right one. When he debates Sola Scriptura he invariably attacks the other person as not knowing how to accurately define it and then continues to use that as the basis for why Sola Scriptura is correct. He has never won a debate with a Catholic on Sola Scriptura.

[@oracleoftroy]

Well, he is a Reformed Baptist, so he is going to defend Sola Scriptura as defined in the London Baptist Confession chapter 1. If the Romanist wants to argue against a different definition, they are going to miss the point and end up strawmanning White's position.

[@douglasmcnay644]

That last sentence was purely opinion.

[@gch8810]

@@oracleoftroy Like how White strawmans the Catholic position?

[@trlrtrash13]

Here's my problem with what you said, and I'm being sincere here. Yes, Jesus said that scripture is the word spoken by God. However, the New Testament had not yet been written. Hence, when you use that to argue that the New Testament is inspired, you are applying his words in a way he could not have possibly meant them. Furthermore, if the entire Bible is inspired, then why did Protestants remove the apocryphal books from the Catholic Bible? That's removing God's words. Alternatively, if you're conceding that the Catholic Church lacks the authority to compile a cannon and declare it to be God's words, than on what grounds do you claim the authority to do so? It is clear that the Old Testament is God's word, as Jesus himself said. That's authority. It is not at all clear to me that the New Testament is.

[@shnobo9471]

The apocrypha was never considered the inspired word of God by Christians or Roman Catholics until the council of Trent you should research the council of Trent well and see everything that happened during that.

[@trlrtrash13]

The timing is irrelevant. It's still one group of men declaring one grouping of books to be the word of God, with another group of men declaring a different grouping to be such. Both groups, of course, including the same specific text that is then used to establish Divine authority for the compiled work. Because "Paul" said "all scripture", it applies to whatever they compile together with that letter.

[@greenbaybaptist6689]

Steve Parry. Is Romans not God breathed?

[@shnobo9471]

Steve Parry Hebrews 1 helps with this a lot I believe.

[@trlrtrash13]

@@greenbaybaptist6689 I don't personally believe any of the New Testament is. When they say "scripture" in the NT they mean the Old Testament. There was, in fact, no New Testament at the time that New Testament books were written. These were just letters Paul wrote to churches. That is a standard that the church appled to these letters and books after the fact, but not one that it applies to itself.

[@dave_ecclectic]

Why does someone who believes in Sola Scriptura need anyone to explain it? Why do they need you to explain something they themselves can read? Why are other explanations in error while yours is not? "Secondary text" = man made tradition.

[@ManlyServant]

Believing in scripture? better Against scripture and claimed that there is such a thing like Co-mediator and idolizing mary? Nah

[@ManlyServant]

did you even watch the video? dont confuse sola scriptura and the exegesis

[@dave_ecclectic]

@@ManlyServant Yes I watched the video. "English speakers have used the word exegesis - a descendant of the Greek term exegeisthai, meaning "to explain" or "to interpret" - to refer to explanations of Scripture since the early 17th century." I assume you already have a translated Bible? To have someone "explain" or "interpret" it is exactly what the Catholic Church is condemned for doing. if someone who believes sola scriptura and believes the Holy Spirit is guiding their reading why would they then need a man to explain it to them? The very act of exegesis requires you to go outside of the Bible to do your interpretations or explanations. What complicates this further is most of this is greek being translated, explained into english (for us). But greek isn't the original language, it is already a translation. There is no record to go to to exegesis what Jesus actually said and was translated into greek.

[@gch8810]

@@ManlyServant Sorry, but Sola Scriptura and interpretation are indeed deeply connected.

[@kyledefranco6720]

"That wasn't real sola scriptura"

[@Coins1985]

Christ breathed on the apostles as well in John 20, and commanded them to preach the Gospel orally (nothing written)

[@brandonroot7848]

John 20:31 - But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. You probably should have finished John 20.

[@Coins1985]

@@brandonroot7848 I believe the Scriptures were written to testify to Christ's divinity as well - that's the Catholic position

[@Coins1985]

@@brandonroot7848 No one is debating that the Scriptures are "God breathed" and as such, the inerrant Word of God. What you don't see in supporting passages is that that characterization prohibits any other source of truth - namely the sacred traditions the apostles exhort the churches to hold fast to (2 Thess. 2:15)

[@brandonroot7848]

@@Coins1985 that's not the context of 2 thessalonians, the tradition (spoken word) paul speaks of is defined in the previous verses. The thing paul is exhorting the thessalonians about is that there are certain things that must happen before the day of Christ can happen and that it's not something that's going to happen at any moment. So the tradition he speaks about he writes it down. But to apply 2 thessalonians to just all catholic traditions is a very wrong and misleading interpretation.

[@brandonroot7848]

@@Coins1985 I believe scripture was written to get us saved, make us wise about salvation, be daily food, exhort us, be a guide to us, and be a sword for us in spiritual battles.

[@James22426]

Protestant beliefs are contradcitory and self refuting which proves it is not of God. 1)All beliefs must be derived from scripture 2)All scripture refers to the old testament in 2 Tim 3:15-17 3)2 Tim 3:15-17 is not part of the old testament 4)Conclusion, 2 Tim3:15-17 cannot be used to prove Sola Scriptura

[@ReformedR]

You do realise that Paul refers to the gospels as scripture.. Galatians 1

[@James22426]

@@ReformedR Your argument will lead to an illogical and contradictory conclusion. 2 Tim 3:15-17 is sacred scripture 2 Tim 3:15-17 references only OT Conclusion Sacred Scripture is negating itself as sacred scripture. Protestant’s unconscious epistemological assumption that the Bible fell down from the sky complete, leads to false, illogical, contradictory, and self refuting conclusions.

[@skippy8696]

@@James22426 What you just wrote is a faulty syllogism...basically flawed deductive reasoning.

[@James22426]

@@skippy8696 it is logical.... what is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.

[@skippy8696]

@@James22426 It's not logical at all, it's flawed on a number of levels, but it is funny. I don't believe I've heard this argument before 😂

[@jeremebernier8410]

I agree with Dr. White that Sola Scriptural ought to be defined properly by it’s opponents. I would ask Dr. White one question? Who holds to the definition of tradition (whether Catholic or Orthodox) that he put forward? I would hope only those unequipped to define tradition (although I’ll grant he likely has anecdotal evidence to the contrary) . Sadly many would define it the way he did, but they would be in the same category of Protestants that hold to the watered down versions of Sola Scriptura that Dr. White laments. Fair representation ought to be employed by those on both sides of the argument. Dr. White’s definition of tradition needs to be polished up quite a bit before any decent Catholic or Orthodox apologist would recognize it as their own.

[@WasLostButNowAmFound]

Nah.

[@Nolongeraslave]

Can you define tradition properly? Oral tradition in particular?

[@charleskramer8995]

Sola Scriptura is a logical impossibility. The text of the scriptures no where contains a list of which books do and do not belong in scripture. So either there is an infallible authority outside of scripture which defines which books belong in the Bible or there is not. If there is an infallible authority outside of the Bible, then you no longer have sola. If there is no infallible authority, then you cannot be sure you have scriptura.

[@timothyvenable3336]

I see your point, but I disagree. The church used discernment and guidance from the Holy Spirit, and God revealed which writings were to be in the Bible. There might be God-Breathed writings that are not in the Bible, we know that what we have is what God intended for us to have

[@charleskramer8995]

@@timothyvenable3336 so what other extra-biblical teachings did the church maintain under the guidance of the Spirit? By the time the church recognized the canon, she was hardly Protestant.

[@timothyvenable3336]

@@charleskramer8995 I don’t think I understand your question. We don’t know if there is anything outside of the Bible that is inspired by God the way scripture is. There may be, there may not be. But we know with certainty that our Bible is, and that is enough for the church.

[@charleskramer8995]

@@timothyvenable3336 There is no indication that the entirety of the revelation of the New Covenant was written down in the New Testament.

[@timothyvenable3336]

@@charleskramer8995 I agree, and that’s what I’m trying to say! Lol we know there is so much more that Jesus said and did that is not written down, and the apostles probably wrote more than the letters that are in the NT. My point though is that what we have in the Bible is sufficient for the Church. We have everything we need in the Bible, we don’t need anything more. That’s what Jesus promised and that’s what Paul means with 2 Timothy 2:17. We are fully equipped for all we need with scripture