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

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.

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

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.

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.

God bless James White!

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

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.

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!

thank you

- 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.

Dictionaries, lexicons, and thinking, oh my!

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

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.

Amen✝️❤️🙏

Thank you for this.

Perhaps it should have been named Prima Scriptura

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

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.

Haha I read that comment!!

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?

Which is your preferred Bible to study from ?

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

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.

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.

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

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"

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."

Ad Fontes

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.

Human being is theonosos?

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

"That wasn't real sola scriptura"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.