I have been studying Catholicism for almost two years, and one of the theologians that I use as a counter-weight to the Catholic works I read is Dr. James White. Dr. White is a Reformed Baptist elder, and the founder of Alpha & Omega Ministries. Here is a short bio from his website:
Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than sixty moderated, public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more than twenty-four years, and has two children, Joshua and Summer.
I have read his “Sola Scriptura in Dialogue” several times, which, while I disagree with some of his arguments, I think shows some of the flaws of the some of the bad arguments given by Catholic apologists. Of course, I think Catholics have many good argument, but as with any viewpoint, some people present bad arguments for Catholicism.
However, I would like to address an argument given by James White in “Sola Scriptura in Dialogue”. It is an argument I have thought about before, but I think I finally have something concrete to say about it. Here is a quotation from the essay that summarizes the argument that I am interested:
OK, so please tell me: if Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ and the meaning of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ how can she logically be subservient to two things that she in fact defines and interprets?
James White uses this to argue that the Catholic position is sola Ecclesia, as opposed to the Protestant position sola Scriptura. However, I do not believe this is a good argument. To begin with, the definition of ’subservient’ is that one is prepared to obey. I want to quote two passages from Dr. White’s essay to best understand what he means by “defines” and “interprets”.
First, a passage dealing with “defines”:
First, do you believe the Roman Church infallibly defines the extent of Scripture, i.e., the canon?
So, I believe we can safely assert that, when Dr. White uses ‘define’ above, he is referring to the Catholic Church’s claim that it can tell what belongs to the canon of Scripture (and what belongs to tradition) and what does not. I think this is pretty straightforward.
So, now a quotation using ‘interpret’:
And does not the Roman Church have the ability to infallibly interpret the meaning of the text of Scripture?
Once again, it seems safe to assume that, when Dr. White uses ‘interpret’ above, he is referring to the Catholic Church’s claim to decide what is the meaning of passages in Scripture. I know that it seem tedious and pointless to decide what he meant by ‘interpret’ and ‘define’ — isn’t the meaning clear? — but I want to make sure that I am not uncharitably interpreting his argument (though I might still be doing that).
Apparently, Dr. White believes that it is impossible to be subservient to something which you define and interpret. I think the prima facie force of the argument comes from a confusion between the creation of a truth and the discovery of a truth. Both defining and interpreting, in the way Dr. White uses them, is an endeavor to discover the truth. However, that 0ne discovers truth does not mean that one creates the truth. (In algebraic notation: that one comes to know p does not mean that you made p to be true.) In other words, the initial force of Dr. White’s argument is that one is led to think (though this is the reader’s fault and not Dr. White’s) that the Catholic Church decided what the truth is — not discovered what the truth is. It is harder to believe that someone is subservient to commands he makes up than it is that someone is subservient to commands from he did not make up. (However, even here I think one can still be subservient. Can someone be subservient to their own New Year’s Resolution? I think so. So, even if the Catholic Church made up commands, they could still be subservient to them.)
However, the biggest problem about the argument is that whenever we try to be obedient to someone or a command, we must always define and interpret the commands before we can obey them. We must decide what is a command and not (though often this is a very simple, almost unconscious task), and we must endeavor to understand what that command entails. Can we still be subservient to the commands? Of course.
Two examples to help clarify: imagine a soldier in the military who must be subservient to his commanding officers. (I have recently watched Band of Brothers, so the military is on my mind.) To be subservient, he must first separate the commands from his officers from other things that are not commands. It might be as simple as being around the officer when he gives a command, or it might be more difficult, such as if the company prankster tells you that he was to relay a command from the officer to you: you must decide if he is trying to trick you or if he is telling the truth. Second, the soldier must interpret the officer’s command. This might be fairly simple, but a simple case of interpreting what someone says is still interpretation. If the officer tells the soldier to jog up Currahee Mountain, the soldier must know what the officer is referring to as Currahee Mountain. So, the soldier must both separate commands from non-commands and interpret the commands; this does not prevent him from being subservient to his commanding officer’s commands. Similarly, if the Catholic Church distinguishes God’s Word from writings that claim to be God’s Word but is not, and then they interpret God’s Word, that does not mean that they cannot be subservient to it.
The second example is of Dr. White. I would venture to say that Dr. White claims that ability to decide what is God’s Word and what is not. After all, he often debates Mormons, so I imagine he argues that the Book of Mormon is not the Word of God. I also imagine that he argues that the Bible is the Word of God. So, Dr. White defines the Word of God (the Bible is the Word of God and other stuff is not). Also, I bet he interprets the Word of God. In fact, I have read works by him where he exegetes passages of Scriptures. So, doesn’t Dr. White define and interpret Scripture? Does this mean his view is sola James White? If one applies his argument to him, then I believe this is the conclusion.
Anyway, I think this was a bad argument by Dr. White. To be obedient to the truth, one must first know the true from the false and then know what the truth means. The Catholic Church’s claim that it is subservient to the Scriptures even though it defines Scripture and interprets Scripture does not seem to be inconsistent. (Of course, it could be a consistent claim and still be false.)
