Dr. James White and Theopneustos

I most readily understand nuances by comparisons. Such as: This is a grayish green rather than a bluish green when you put it up to blue or yellow. The white on the walls looks positively yellow when compared to the stark white of a sheet of paper.

So to help see potential weaknesses and strengths in Catholic or Protestant theology I listen to debates and theological radio call-in shows--often. Pretty much daily. 

If you do an internet search on Catholic/Protestant debates you will inevitable come across Alpha Omega Ministries run by Dr. James White. I think I have listened numerous times to most of his debates. His apologetics against Catholicism are most prolific online, but he is not the best Protestant debater. 

Not to judge his heart, but it does seem that Dr. White is not debating to bring clarity to the subject of theology. Rather his goal seems to be to “expose” Catholicism as an evil, anti-gospel message. His agenda is not to bring glory to God by respectfully listening,understanding and presenting truth, but to win a theological battle. 

Dr. White’s apologetics looks positively grayish-wrong when debating Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sungenis, Patrick Madrid or any of his Catholic opponents.

Dr. White (knowingly or unknowingly) uses verbal tricks that create the idea that he is the trusted authority, the expert, and his

opponent’s opinions cannot be trusted. He will accuse his opponent of using circular arguments as he is making his own. He will denounce his opponent of misrepresenting history when he is in actuality composing his own. He tries to make solidly Catholic early Christian Fathers and scholars and bishops (and even popes!) seem like they are closet Protestants born and enslaved in Catholicism eagerly awaiting the Reformation. While he is claiming we use history and the Bible inaccurately to support our own positions, he is busy twisting the same for his own purposes. 

Dr. White is notorious for setting a false premise and demanding that the opponent argue within that premise.
White will read some ancient document or obscure quote from a malcontent Catholic scholar and then demand that the Catholic apologist he is debating use that quote as an authority and the foundation of the Catholic arguments rather than something from the current official Catholic Catechism.

I must admit, White speaks with such confidence, and even logic that it seems he is right, when he is profoundly wrong.

That Which is Theopneustos

One of White’s continual mantras is that the sole and final authority for the Christian is “that which is theopneustos.” The Greek word means, “God-breathed.” 

White bases this upon the text where Paul is telling his protege Timothy that as a young bishop, he can look to scripture to help him lead the people because:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God (theopneustos), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  2 Tim. 3: 16, 17

Scripture is God-breathed. An excellent and logical choice for one’s final spiritual authority-- "that which is theopneustos,” right?

But White’s demand that his ultimate and infallible authority, theopneustos, is not based upon what the Bible teaches. 

“Wait?” You say. “We just read that the scripture is God-breathed and perfect!”

My reply is: Absolutely. Catholics teach that the Bible is a God-breathed, infallible and a perfect authority. But look carefully at the text. It no where says or even implies that it is the sole and final authority. That is an addition to the text.

This idea of the Bible being the final authority because it is theopneustos is White’s own invented standard, his personal tradition. In fact, the authoritative, theopneustos God-breathed scriptures actually points to something else than itself as Christian’s final authority. Very weird isn’t it? But let’s back up for a Biblical overview.

Is God’s Old Testament Final Authority Theopneustos?

Let’s go through the Bible and see who is considered the authority for God’s people starting in the old testament. Passing up the tribal patriarchal examples, let’s go to Moses.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.” Ex. 7:1

Like God? That is, I would expect, the final authority. However, the text doesn’t call Moses a God-breathed authority. While one might make a good case that Moses was, it is not explicitly nor implicitly in the text.

Could an Israelite go up to Moses and show him scripture and kindly disagree with Moses’ interpretation of God’s Word and opt out of Moses’ flock to be a rogue sheep? Maybe this Israelite might even claim that since Moses wasn’t infallible or God-breathed he wasn’t the true final authority for Israel?

What happened if you spoke against or went against Moses? 

1. You got leprosy. 

When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam--leprous, like snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had leprosy; Numbers 12: 10

2. Or the earth opened up and swallowed you.

Eliab's sons were Nemuel, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram were the same community officials who refused to obey Moses and Aaron. They were among the followers of Korah who refused to obey the Lord. Numbers 26: 9

and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab the Reubenite, when the earth opened its mouth right in the middle of all Israel and swallowed them up with their households, their tents and every living thing that belonged to them. Deut. 11: 6 

This happened because they had not obeyed the LORD their God, but had violated his covenant--all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. They neither listened to the commands nor carried them out. 2 Kings 18:12 

Israel was given the God-breathed Torah that Moses heard and infallibly wrote down on Mt. Sinai but the final authority for Israel wasn’t the written word. Moses wasn’t theopneustos or infallible but he was the final authority for the people of God.

Please notice that Moses had such power he even loosened Israel’s divorce restrictions on his own authority. 

“Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Matt. 19: 7, 8 (See also Mark 10)

Joshua, the Judges (including Samson), King Saul, King David... These men were Israel’s final civil authorities, while the High Priests were the final spiritual authorities. Neither of which were theopneustos or infallible. These authorities were expected to teach and implement the theopneustos and infallible Torah. However, individual Israelites were not allowed to invoke their interpretation of Torah, no matter how sincere, and start a revolt and Reformation.


When Israel fell into corruption and idolatry, God didn’t blame it on the fact that the people weren’t going to scripture, but that the people had no authority. 

In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Judges, 17: 6; 21:25)

Again and again, in the Old Testament, while the Torah was indeed God-breathed and infallible and readily available, God used fallible men to be the final authority for His people. And Christ used the same standard in the New Testament.


Is God’s New Testament Final Authority Theopneustos?


Jesus vilified the hypocritical Pharisees, but before that, He warned those listening to obey them. As corrupt as they were as leaders, these white-washed tombs must be obeyed because of their position as Israel’s leaders.

So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Matt. 23: 3

Look at other fallible, not God-breathed but completely authoritative people in the New Testament scripture.

Parents:
Children must obey their parents as final authority. They cannot appeal to scripture to excuse disobedience. Eph. 6: 1-5, Col. 3: 20, I Peter 1: 14.

Husbands:
Wives are to submit to their husbands. Col 3:18-4:1, Ephesians 5: 24

Masters:
Slaves are to submit to their masters Eph. 6: 6, Col. 3: 22, I Peter 2: 18.


Government:
We must submit to our civic authorities. Rom. 13: 1, 5, I Peter 2: 13

I am not arguing for slavery, just making the point that throughout scriptures, authorities, even final authorities, were not infallible or theopneustos. Since God’s authorities in scripture were not necessarily infallible, why make that a prerequisite? 

Dr. White’s assumption that, “only that which is theopneustos” is our true and final authority just doesn’t stand up to critical examination, especially within the Protestant realm of sola scriptura. For nowhere in scripture does it imply that our final authority must be God-breathed.

Another premise that White may not necessarily say but imply is that anything theopneustos or God-breathed is necessarily infallible. Therefore, since the Bible is God-breathed it means it is infallible.

Yet not everything God-breathed was infallible.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2: 7

We inherited original sin because of God-breathed Adam, so the idea of something being theopneustos must therefore be infallible is incorrect.

Our Final Authority is Not Theopneustos?

I can imagine some readers are aghast! “Are you kidding? Seriously are you saying that man is above that which is God-breathed? We are to look to a fallible, not God-breathed authority rather than an infallible, God-breathed one?” Of course that sound completely irrational! My point is only that it, as a premise, is not found in scripture. That’s the bad news for White. His premise is not Biblical. However, there is good news for all the rest of us.

In the New Testament God doesn’t pit the theopneustos and infallible authority against the fallible, not God-breathed man in the Old Testament--like Moses vs. the Torah.

In fact, our New Testament final authority is God-breathed!

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said , he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain , they are retained.  John 20:19-24

The Apostles were God-breathed. The Bible is God-breathed. We have both!

While White might argue that the Apostles’ were not technically theopneustos because that word wasn’t used in John 20 or anywhere else in scripture. It was only used in 2 Timothy in the context of scripture. (As if the word theopneustos itself had a special type of God-breathing in the Bible that wasn’t for the Apostles.) 

I would then reply that God also used a word to describe the breathe that He gave the apostles that he didn’t give the scripture. Emphusao is also only used once in all of scripture. Emphusao is also the breath of God in the context of the Apostles receiving the Hagios (Holy) Pneuma (Ghost).

The Greek root pneu was used in giving the Holy Spirit to the writing of the scriptures and to the Apostles themselves. The breath of God in scriptures is the theopneustos. The Apostles received the Hagios Pneuma. Pneustos = pneuma. Same thing! Same breathe of God.

Who did God place in charge?


The most important point of all is that Christ did not place the theopneustos of scripture as the final authority but the church.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matt. 18: 15-18

No Bible at all in this scenario. The final authority is the church.


Notice also other texts that place enormous authority in the Apostles: 

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. Luke 10 16 

Remember the words I spoke to you.... If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. John 15: 20

Paul as an Apostle demanded obedience from believers and he was the one who wrote to Timothy that the Bible was theopneustos (God-breathed). Even with the idea of the written Word of God being vital, Paul never implies that the written word carried more authority than the God-appointed leaders.

....to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it. I Cor. 16:16

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 2 Thess. 3: 14 (When writing this letter, Paul did not consider it scripture.)

The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 2 Cor. 2: 9   

And his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling. 2 Cor. 7: 15 

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2: 12

Other New Testament texts that support men as authority:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrew 13: 7 

Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. Rev. 3:3

Dr. White is usurping and replacing who God put in charge (clearly attested to in scripture) with who he believes should be in charge, “only that which is theopneustos.” Why? Because it gives him an excuse for disobeying God’s appointed leaders. 

Protestants misunderstand God. They believe their only authority should be that which is infallible and perfect. The written Word is the only thing that comes near that. Flesh and blood is fallible and they don't like to be subject to anyone who can tell them they are wrong and at the same time be fallible themselves. Black little letters don't disagree with their interpretation. 

So, they come up with their man-made tradition that their authority must be infallible and theopneustos. But that is not Biblical. What they have missed is a great and wonderful gift to the church. The church leaders may not be personally infallible, but they are God-breathed.

IS CHRISTIAN AUTHORITY REALLY BASED ON ANY SOLA?

Catholic: Is the Word of the Father authoritative to the Christian?

Protestant: Of course.

Catholic:  Is the Word of the Jesus authoritative to the Christian?

Protestant: Yes. Both the Father and the Son are God. They are both authoritative.

Catholic: Is the Word of the Holy Spirit authoritative to the Christian?

Protestant: Yes, Christians believe in the Trinity, three persons in one God. They are all authoritative.

Catholic: What if I were to say to you, “My authority is Pater Solus or a Father alone. I don’t go to Jesus or the Spirit. I go straight to the Father. He is my final authority and I check out all that Jesus says or the Spirit says through the Father.” What would you say?

Protestant: I don’t understand the point. Jesus and the Father are one so they are not going to disagree. 

Catholic: But if they do disagree. I’m not going to Jesus, I am going to the Father. 

Protestant: What are you saying? That the Father and Son might disagree?

Catholic: No.The Trinity is our authority. There is no conflicts between them. Even though there are three final authorities, no Christian would see a problem with this.

Protestant: So?

Catholic: So, like the Trinity itself being our final authority, Christians also have three voices or sources of the Word of God that are authoritative: The Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium. All three of these are the Word of God revealed to us. The Bible is the written word, the Tradition is the oral word and the Magisterium is the living word. So, the earthly authority reflects the heavenly authority. It is three working in unison rather than any one or “sola” authority. 

Connecting the Dots Between the Early Church and Catholicism, Part I

Many Protestants think the Catholic church began with Constantine and the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. However, Catholics claim that their church goes all the way back to Jesus giving Peter the Keys to His Kingdom in Matthew 16:18. And this is not an insignificant Christian disagreement.

I have been at a loss to show inquirers how the Catholic Church was the church Christ started. For Orthodox and Catholics it is somehow so assumed, that it would be like my children asking me to prove I am married to their father. Our marriage license, I hope, is back in our storage in Texas as well as wedding photos. It will take a great deal of time, travel, expense and digging for me to prove without a doubt that I am legally married to my husband. (Especially if my kids wouldn’t accept a current copy of an old document.)

That is kind of how I feel about my Protestant brethren’s question. But it is a very valid question that needs to be answered. Yet, I have found few resources that are condensed, in one small volume that I can hand to them that would be convincing. So I will attempt try a short and longer version of connecting the dots from the first century church to the fifth century church (as this is the period when Protestants believe that the church picked up pagan ideas and corrupted the church, thus taking away its authority.)

What dots?

Physical Dots: First we need a physical line of successors: Peter appoints a leader to pass on the faith after he dies and then that guy appoints a leader and so on. That’s a simple task.

Authority Dots: Secondly, we need find out through early church sources who the members saw as authoritative and what the church leaders taught about authority. Did the church see Peter’s successors as having the same authority Peter did? Was there a centralized authority in Rome?

Doctrinal Dots: What did the early church teach? Can we link the early church to the Catholic Church today through doctrines?

Here’s why this is vital to understand. If the Protestants are correct and the church was seeped in paganism to the point of irrevocably corrupting it and God abandon His church before the time of Constantine and a new church formed calling itself Catholic, then we must rationally question the canon of scripture, the Trinity doctrine, the doctrines surrounding the Divinity of Christ. For it was after Constantine that the Bible was compiled and declared infallible. It was the Catholic church (then corrupted as Protestants claim) that met in councils and decided dogmas, doctrines and disciples that even Protestants go by today.

Therefore, if there is sufficient evidence that the earliest church believed much the same things as the church of Constantine and this is what it believes today and it saw Peter’s successors as having authority and there was a centralized authority in the bishops and Rome in particular, then we have, in a sense, connected Peter with whoever the new pope is going to be. Of course, this is not exhaustive but a superficial look into the subject. But it is eye-opening for those who believe that the early church looked more like Protestantism than Catholicism.

If you can trust the first century Christians and show that they were very connected by authority and doctrine to the fourth and fifth century Christians, we can have full faith that the church when it created the New Testament and compiled the Bible. Its Councils were sound. That same Holy Spirit was guiding them as a group, as a Body, throughout the centuries.

You don’t want to read a book and I don’t have time to write one. But here’s a start. First I will show you a quick chart of evidence by half century and then I will source the evidence from the early church fathers below it. If you have any to add let me know. 

The Bride

My brother, John, was having a hard time being a military brat. He was in one of those pre-teen years that he resented everything our mother was doing. She just couldn’t do anything right in his estimation. 

“Dad wouldn’t have done it that way,” John was always complaining. 

It all really started with a list of chores dad sent to him to do “as man of the house.” After that, anything mom asked him to do that wasn’t on the list John would say she didn’t have the right to add anything to the list. (One of the ones he conveniently left out was that he was supposed to obey his mother, but being immature, he kinda skipped over that one.)

He was always arguing with her. Since dad said that he was supposed to mow the law each Sunday morning, John would throw a fit if mom changed it to Saturday when they had to go to mass earlier than usual. He claimed she couldn’t change dad’s rules. And when she said he had to eat his brussel sprouts he wouldn’t because it wasn’t on the list. Then when she hurt her back and needed John to change the baby for her, he said it wasn’t on the list, so he didn’t do it.

Our house was always in an uproar of debates because of him. 

Sometimes I think it would have been easier if dad hadn’t even written him and given John a list. 

One day he ran away.

You can’t imagine how that hurt my mother. There were six of us kids and she was struggling while dad was gone and at times she would get really cranky. I know she made mistakes. But the things he was calling her, the things he was saying about her, it was as if she had never, ever done anything right. Then, while a neighbor took him in for a while so he could cool off,  John started on our little brothers and sisters trying to get them to run away too.

Then he started saying that dad had been married before and that our mom was really not our real mom and so we didn’t have to obey her. I know it was stupid, but to say that to little kids! They started to believe him. Once I even slapped him for calling our mom a bad name.  

Then, one day dad came home on leave.

John found out and came over. When dad and mom pulled into the driveway, John ran up to dad and started in on mom. He really thought he had done what he should have. He had utterly convinced himself that because mom wasn’t perfect that he didn’t have to obey her. So, he went through a list of all the things she did wrong. He even told dad that he found out mom wasn’t his real mother.

Can you imagine what my dad did? My brother really, truly thought he was going to take his side.

Dad made John go get his stuff and move back in. Then he assembled the whole family in the den and then he told us something I will never forget.

“Do you know what I did in order to win your mother? She was a stubborn one to win over but I worked really hard to get her and she is my prize. When I put the ring on her finger,” and he showed us her beautiful gold band, “I promised her that I would love her always, through bad and good, in sickness and in health, forever. I promised that I would never leave her or forsake her.”

“But you did leave her dad!” My brother said.

“No I didn’t. Yes, I was physically gone, but I talked to your mother each night on the phone and we all sent emails and text messages when I could get them. She was always in my heart. We are one.” All of us kids didn’t know dad and mom had a special date each night on the phone. She would tells us that she had talked but I guess we just didn’t really pay that much attention--we had been too busy with our own young lives.

“When your mother spoke and gave you commands, it was the same as if I had--even if you hadn’t understood them. She was put in charge while I was gone. Even if she wasn’t right all the time, even if she made mistakes and even told you to do some things I would never have told you to do, don’t you know that I would have backed her up? I told you to obey her. If you had loved me, you would have obeyed your mom.”

My brother got into trouble for the way he treated our mom, but everything was forgiven. 

Analogy over.

This is how Catholics look at the church, the Bride, the Body of Christ. She is our mom. Many Protestant apologists give us a litany of all the bad stuff mom has done and claims she isn’t our authentic mother. Some Catholics, who are immature in their faith, will follow their brother out and believe that mom’s sins are so great that dad divorced her and just didn’t clearly tell us in any phone calls or letters (Bible).

Men like James White who spend their time trying to “convert” Catholics into real Biblical Christianity need to realize that the church came first. The Bible is a book of the people, we are not a people of a book. We are a Church. We are a family, a real, genuine family with God as our father and the Church, His Bride. We have been born into or adopted as His children. We are in a family covenant of love and respect.

White's and other anti-Catholics continual airing of our Mother’s past sins and never, ever seeing the beautiful things she did is not doing much for fairness or for the cause of Christ in the world.

You think it is your duty to say the Catholic church is preaching a false gospel because in your estimation she added to scripture or doesn’t correctly interpret it. You think when God handed Peter the keys and told him, “whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” and when He went through the passion and crucifixion for His Church and promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against her and that he would never leave her or forsake her and that he would be with her to the end of the age that he is going to divorce or reject her over anything she does?

Please show that to me in the New Testament? Show me where Christ rejects His Bride. It doesn’t happen.

Just as a husband places his wife in charge of the children when he is gone and will back up even her mistakes and misunderstandings, so will God do for His Church, His Bride.

Even if you disagree with the analogy, this is how faithful Catholics see the church, so all your litany of her mistakes only scandalizes the family of God to the world. 

If you want to prove she isn't our mother, that is where you need to spend your time. But you will have to show us Biblically, historically and logically clearly when Christ rejected his Church. Give us a date, an event, something... 

If you can't find a specific event in the Bible which correlates exactly with some historical event in actual time--and prove it, then you need to realize that God's promise to His church is forever. He never did or will forsake her and He is with her to the end of the world.