WM 302: The Failure of James White's Apologetic in the "Real World": RCC, PA, and Sola Scriptura

This is a review of some snippets from James Whites' Debate with Trent Horn that was held on February 16, 2024 in Houston, Texas.
I suggest that White's apologetic failed in a "real world" encounter with a Roman Catholic who pressed him on why he rejects the PA and how he defines what Scripture is.
My church: www.christreformedbaptist.org
My church’s sermonaudio page: www.sermonaudio.com/crbchurch
My blog: www.jeffriddle.net
My Twitter/X: @Riddle1689
My academia.edu page: pvcc.academia....

[@PeterFendrich]

I think there's two things that really come into focus during this discussion. I remember way back in the day commenting on White's observation that those are dedicated to the traditional text have "no meaningful apologetic" to Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons That is dedication to this critical tradition is actually what strips away the apologetic against anyone who questions the authority of the book we physically hold in our hands. Like hunt points out here, how can you believe in Sola Scritptora if you have no consistent Scriptora in front of you. Then there's the darker aspect of on one hand loudly proclaiming that there's no authority over you or your doctrine but scripture, but then On the other hand undermining the reliability of the easily available scriptures to the church at large. At that point you and your scholarship actually become the only authority over yourself, since you can decide what constitutes scripture based on what you need it to say... Case in point, the argument amongst certain progressive circles that words and phrases within Scripture which clearly prohibit forms of sexual immorality aren't correctly understood because the translation and meaning of those words has not been correctly preserved, so 2, 000ish years of church teaching no longer apply to them and are no longer accurate because they did not have correct scripture to operate from. And that's the truth thing that there's no apologetic against if you take this critical stance. Because what are you supposed to do? They're operating with the same set of tools that you are, and since scripture itself is not an authority, there is no outside standard for apologetic.

[@josealzaibar5274]

How can Sola Scriptura be operative during the Apostles if the apostles were basically canceling a bunch of scriptural Jewish practices as well as defining the correct meaning of passages of the OT vs the Jews? Wouldn't this show that the apostles authority was above or at least equal to Scripture then?

[@molodoychilovek1949]

This was very insightful. Thanks!

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

James White is a clear example of someone who has a quantity of debates without having many quality debates.

[@Justas399]

How many have debates have you watched of his?

[@TurrettiniPizza]

Sola scriptura was in force even in the times of the apostles. That’s why the apostles preached from scripture, appealed to scripture, and even their own teachings were rightly judged by scripture. Never once do you see an apostle merely claiming apostolic authority to shut down a debate; they always reason from the scriptures.

[@aadschram5877]

By Scripture you mean OT?

[@TurrettiniPizza]

@@aadschram5877 Yes. In Paul’s own words, he did not teach anything other than what Moses and the prophets taught. Acts 26:22 KJV Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come

[@AlbertoKempis]

So in Acts 15 what led the council of Jerusalem to their decision? Is it Sola Scriptura?

[@nickdon]

To say that Sola scriptura was in force even in the times of the apostles is a lie...you know it and i know it!.. Please stop making this argument again!

[@iggyantioch]

if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.” The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians-with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

[@Ineedtruth1]

The reason James failed is simply because he’s wrong and Sola Scriptura makes no sense.

[@4jgarner]

Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by that?

[@Ineedtruth1]

@@4jgarner Sola Scriptura is a false teaching that wasn’t held by any of the early Church Fathers and didn’t appear until the 1500s. Further, it doesn’t even make sense before the 1500s because the printing press didn’t exist, so Scripture was pretty much unavailable to the vast majority of people unless it was read to them in Church. Further, it fails to account for the near 400 years before a canon of Scripture was determined by the Church. It’s also never taught in Scripture (in fact, the opposite is) and Scripture itself doesn’t define what belongs in Scripture…. So at the very least you need an outside infallible source of higher authority to even define Scripture for you.

[@mikhailyaremkiv]

You don't know what Sola Scriptura means then. Can you define Sola Scriptura for me?

[@Ineedtruth1]

@@mikhailyaremkiv No, because even its adherents can’t even agree on what it means. When I believed it, I defined it as “Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.”

[@iggyantioch]

Acts 17:10-12). When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as “the people of the book,” in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the “seat of Moses” in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). Steve Ray.

[@EruIluvatar5]

Come home, Jeffrey. Join the One, Holy and Apostolic Church. Praying for you.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

The late Theodore Letis knew that the answer to the question “What is Scripture?” is, in the final analysis, answered by the church. Not by a church hierarchy, or church councils, but by a consensus of believers led by the Holy Spirit who form the Protestant church. It is this church that recognizes Scripture as Scripture, defines and delimits the Protestant canonical text, and formulates its doctrines based upon that text (sola Scripture).

[@wordmagazine]

Given that Letis was a Lutheran I don't think that's exactly right. Aside from this, the Scriptures were being received as Scripture before the canon was even closed (cf. Paul's letter in 2 Peter 3:15-16; Luke's Gospel in 1 Tim 5:18) centuries before the RCC was ever formed or articulated its definition of canon at Trent in the 17th century. If this debate showed anything, it showed just how confused the RCC still is with regard to defining Scripture (cf. Trent Horn's statements on the PA in this debate). The church does not choose its Scriptures, it simply recognizes and receives them in light of their self-evidencing authority.

[@palermotrapani9067]

@@wordmagazine Trent defined the canon with the strongest language to date in the 16th century, not 17th. The Council of Florence in 1442 Session 11 4 February 1442 defined the canon 100 years before the Council of Trent. The only difference is the formulating of the expression in the 2 Councils. The Canon is exactly the same. The Canons defined at Trent in the 16th century and Florence in the 15th is the same Canon defined in the late 4th century by the Catholic Church. Regarding the passages you quote, you will not find every 27 book of the NT quoted in the NT. The timing of the writings takes place over 40-50 years with Saint John's Gospel being written late as he lived, based on the testimony of Saint Ireneaus till the time of the Emperor Trajan (96 AD to 117 AD).

[@wordmagazine]

@@palermotrapani9067 Clearly Trent was THE watershed for the RCC. See the Divino Afflante Spiritu to cinch this point. The main point, however, is that Scripture's authority did not come about by ecclesial decree but by its own self-authenticating nature.

[@pastorpitman]

WOW!

[@palermotrapani9067]

@@wordmagazine Well I don't think it was watershed, it defined nothing different than what was defined since the late 4th century. It only used the strongest Dogmatic language to clearly say what the protestant groups were doing was not correct. I disagree with your notion of self-authenticating, that is a a view that you are using to support your view, which is fine, but that is your view. The ? of the Canon is one that can be examined and studied starting around the time of 100 AD till the time of Councils in the 4th century that formalized what was the Canon. What was key to what was "Canon" was connected to 2 related but distinct points, 1) Was it appropriate to be read in the Liturgy of the Church and 2) Apostolic in origin. Both of those are connected to teaching the faith. God is the author of Sacred Scripture but the Church guided by the Holy Spirit had to discern and determine what was "Canon" and what was not. The formation of the NT canon or the need to define it can be traced to the Gnostic movement of the 2nd century and Marcion who went to Rome and started pushing to not only throw out the OT, but adopt a canon of only Luke's Gospel, Acts and Pauline epistles. He was excommunicated unilaterally by the Pope Pius 1, Bishop of Rome from 140 to 154 AD. I have several works by reputable Protestant Patristic Scholars, Chadwick who is Anglican and Pelikan (Lutheran when he wrote his book, he became Orthodox) who say as much, that is Marcion was excommunicated by Pius 1, Bishop of Rome circa 144 AD. It is not surprising that shortly thereafter the first canonical list that we have from antiquity is produced by the Church of Rome, the Muratorian Fragment which has about 23 of the 27 books that would make up the NT canon. I am familiar with Divino Afflante Spirtu, but it is not saying what you are saying. It is saying that Trent affirmed by solemn decree is that all the Books from the Latin Vulgate, translated by Saint Jerome at the direction of Pope Damasus in 382 AD, contained the 73 book canon that Trent in a solemn decree affirmed. I understand from your point of view it is watershed given Trent's solemn decree was largely aimed at your theological forebearers. But the fact remains, the Canon at Trent defined in more solemn language or more formally is no different than the Canons of the late 4th century. So the Latin Vulgate is an authorized Bible of the Catholic Church, that is true, since it is a Translation from 4th century that attests to Greek manuscripts, most of which has been lost, that Saint Jerome used to translate into the Latin Vulgate. For example, Greek manuscripts in Italy has the Woman caught in adultery in John's Gospel that do not appear in Greek manuscripts in other parts of the Eastern part of the Roman empire. Many of your fellow protestants are pushing to throw that story out of John's Gospel. Having the Latin Vulgate gives us Catholics a translation that is close to the early Church, which even at the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD had not even made its way to most part of Europe North of the Alps. There was 1 Roman-Latin Bishop from France who was present. I have a copy of the Douay-Rheims precisely because it is a direct translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate and thus gives a clear picture of how Saint Jerome translated the Greek into Latin since those 2 languages were both clearly spoken in Italy from Sicily all the way to Rome.

[@Blues.Fusion]

It seems like white is done. His kryptonyte is this point made by Horn. Any future debater just needs to ask white "what's your authority for determining whats scripture?".

[@nickdon]

You Protestants don't understand that It needs the church to decide which books were inspired!

[@4jgarner]

So the church made Luke canon?

[@nickdon]

@@4jgarner Jesus built the church and never asked the apostles to write down what he preached. What do you think " whatever you bind on earth it is bound in heaven means?

[@frederickanderson1860]

Even the jewish rabbis dont accept the apocrypha not inspired .

[@nickdon]

@@frederickanderson1860 even the Jewish Rabbi did not accept the apocryphal writings and Jesus. You sound like an Islamist apologist

[@SugoiEnglish1]

Nope. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

[@stevie6621]

JW apologetic fails cause there is no objective standard to know what the words of scripture is and this is why James's version or idea of Sola Scriptura is inconsistent.

[@mrsamurangx3030]

Correct! James White is consistnet in most topics except for Scripture.

[@drewbydoo4828]

At 24:17 you suggest that the Latin Vulgate is inferior and cite the exclusion of the doxology as an example of its authoritative inferiority. Can you provide a citation that the doxology was a "standard option" in the earliest manuscripts. Thanks.

[@wordmagazine]

The earliest witness is a version of it that appears in the Didache c. AD 100.

[@carsonsnavely4641]

Talk is cheap. Debate Trent yourself

[@Hez0]

This has been a thought provoking video. The sufficiency of the scriptures for the time is an interesting point that I'll keep in mind. Thank you, pastor Riddle.

[@daviddragona1853]

JAMES WHITE PLEASE COME HOME TO THE FULLNESS OF FAITH ALL COME HOME TO THE TRUTH

[@voyager7]

First, you slightly misrepresent what White says of _why_ you can't take the KJV/TR-only arguments _you_ made in the debate with him out into the world as witness, because they are indefensible. Ironically they are predominantly circular as are those of Rome for its "authority". Secondly, Imagine being among the people Israel while Isaiah is alive and declaring to you ongoing prophecy. You're saying you can't understand how in such times sola scriptura may not be held in the same way as it is when Theopneustos has ceased? I'll grant that during the early NT period when the existence of inspired letters and epistles may not have been universally known to each church that the waters are muddied somewhat, but I find this whole effort a bit strange. I take it you will not fall on the side of Horn in any respect so then....is this just a character attack against White? An opportunity to repay for his dismantling of the position you hold/held for your debate???

[@4jgarner]

Calling textual criticism naturalistic was great. Really honest. Showed lots of good faith.

[@oswaldumeh]

Wonderful. Well done, sir!

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

Thank you Pastor Jeff. I have been trying to reach James White on his doctrine of Sola Scriptura. He refuses to respond to me because I do not possess a PHD or some other degree. James White does not know what preservation is. I watched a video of James and Jeff Durbin mocking the book of Revelation. I preach and teach from the KJV, and I know that James White has no faith in scripture. He only believes in that which he can perceive intellectually. At our first meeting, I challenged you in defense of James White. Please forgive my previous acts of ignorance. I have always known the KJV to be God's inspired and infallible revelation to his children. I was drawn by James White's arguments against Ruckmanism, which led me to follow him down the textual critical road called confusion. The Lord has since called me to return to the text of the KJV. I have always been Byzantine priority, but I gave the modern critical text a chance. It failed me miserably. I thank the Lord for calling faithful men like you to proclaim his word to this lost and dying world. God's best to you and yours. May the Lord continue to guide you in all that you say and do. In Jesus name.

[@J40JesusIsLord]

Could you give a link where they were mocking the book of Revelation? If true, that's a serious problem!

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

@@J40JesusIsLord I will try. I do not know how to send links, but I will try.

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

@J40JesusIsLord kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4uUqIhqpd2Lg7Msi=f-r69EAb5x8R7UKm I had a hard time, but I figured out how to use the copy and paste thing. I hope it shows the truth. I was hesitant to share it because I do not want to propagate information that helps the Muslim, but James White is teaching heresy where the book of Revelation is concerned. Now he is post mill, which makes the 8 year old video even more damaging. Do what you will, but please pray for James and Jeff. James was once a trustworthy source for truth... but even that seems shaky when I watch this video. Was he ever saved? James thinks the book of Revelation does not belong in the text. Does that make James a heretic. Christians that trust him are blindly following him into this Post Mill camp. Not good, especially when he is considered a "defender of the faith".

[@SugoiEnglish1]

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

[@Motomack1042]

Hmmm, Not accurate, for example in Acts the church exercised its unique authority in the Council of Jerusalem. No scripture at that time supported that action. The scriptures are a product of and witness to the living tradition in its early stages; and the living tradition of the church faithfully passes on the word of God. The authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the church. This position is clearly supported in the scriptures, while Sola Scriptura is not. The lack of authority within protestantism has caused massive divisions, and incorrect interpretations of scripture. The idea that the individual can be guided by the Holy Spirit into a full and complete understanding is ridiculous. If man is do depraved and sinful, (protestant view) how can he possible interpret scripture inerrant. Sola Scriptura falls apart in so many ways, you can keep trying to figure out how to make it work, but in the end it does not. 30,000 and counting denominations prove the point clearly

[@antiochoreilly6828]

If you know what is scripture because you know what is inspired, how do you know what is inspired? Don't Mormons say the same thing about the Book of Mormon? If you say, well they don't have the Holy Spirit, don't they say the same thing about Protestants? It just seems like question begging in order to justify the Protestant canon, as well as the Protestant assumption of Sola Scriptura.

[@TheDrFernandez]

The problem is not Mr White, the problem is the failure with Sola Scriptura. As a former evangelical , now a Catholic, I can see this problem. This is just Luther’s invention and error, which has been perpetuated by Protestants ever since.

[@marianostaropoli]

👍💯🎯

[@gianthebaptist]

29:57 "The great Protestant warrior against Catholics" 😂😂😂

[@nickdon]

Nah!! Jesus built the church and not the bible!

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

@@nickdon Jesus is the Bible!

[@nickdon]

​@@Pastor-BrettbyfaithJesus is the word of God and not the Bible.

[@joshuamonte1891]

The simple answer that people won’t like. They are on the same team. James white plays for the other team. Matthew 7 will shed light on this. All his work is held in HIGH regard amongst his Jesuit cohorts. The fruits of his work are DOUBT in the body and DEBATES. Neither of those are found in the great commission.

[@molodoychilovek1949]

Glad you trimmed your beard. 😀

[@SunCricket-zs4jh]

Please buy a better microphone. Some of us are hearing impaired and muffled audio is very difficult.

[@SunCricket-zs4jh]

@@wordmagazine Not possible to do if it's in the background. Please invest in a professional microphone. They're not very expensive.

[@rdbrdd1126]

@@SunCricket-zs4jh Send him one then?

[@SunCricket-zs4jh]

@@rdbrdd1126 You can get a decent microphone for under $100. This man has enough money for one.

[@wretchedpoet29]

TH had his foot on JW’s neck the whole debate 🥴 Thank you for this review, Pastor Jeff.

[@aadschram5877]

Jesus did not leave us a christian Bible, but an authoritative Church (Mat 16, 17-19) that gave us the Bible.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Typical dogmatic theological arguments. No Idea about sin or original sin. Jesus encounter with his adversary " it is written, not it was said by whom. Jesus authority on the Torah writings are totally ignored.

[@BereanFellowship]

James white is the devil's advocate.. The KJV is a perfect preserved Word of God.... And I'm a Calvinist!

[@mrsamurangx3030]

Word and God*

[@thomas.bobby.g2918]

James "Wolfie" White is a Gomorrahite working his entire life to destroy the New Testament and lead the Saints to hell. Tasks he can not accomplish.

[@justinjustin4605]

word* Word is Jesus

[@mrsamurangx3030]

They are somewhat synonymous in a sense.

[@Justas399]

If the KJV was good enough for Paul it’s good enough for me.