A Response to Jimmy Akin on Pope Francis

[@SteveWV]

The Bible never changes but the Popes have and has many times in the past. Thank you Dr White

[@ClaimingChristianity]

“Let’s debate whether He [Pope Francis] is the infallible Vicar of Christ in Earth.” That’s a debate id love to see!!! That’s a Debate the Roman Church needs.

[@ChandraAnandInChrist]

yes brother

[@KEP1983]

As a Catholic, that's a pretty easy debate. I fully believe every infallible statement that Pope Francis has made from every ex cathedra statement and every council he's called. Outsid of that, he can be fallible just like any other bishop. So the next question is, how many ex cathedra statements or councils has he called? Luckily the answer is zero. Pope Francis is "infallible," yet he can be an evil person, write fallible things, and can even go to hell. He's only protected by God from teaching error when he gives an official ex cathedra declaration or a binding universal teaching from a Council. God protects His official teachings, not because Pope Francis is so good (in fact, Francis can even go to Hell), but instead, God protects Him and Councils so that the laity aren't lost and tossed about through every pastor or theologians personal interpretations. We don't have to wonder if Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli were right on various topics. God protects the Church when giving dogmas so that we lay people can know what is true and what's false. The "Holy Spirit Protection of Interpretation" is for US LAITY, not to show how good the Popes or Bishops are, since we know from the Church Fathers that many bishops themselves even go to Hell. Protestants simply don't get, or simply refuse to accept, that we believe the Pope is fallible outside of those circumstances, which is frankly the majority of the time. Protestants are always trying to equate personal statements or writings of whatever Pope with an infallible ex cathedra statements or dogmas from councils. If you're an American, that would be the equivalent to comparing an official statement from the Constitution or decision from the Supreme Court with a personal opinion of a judge or a President. One is binding and the other is a non-binding personal opinion. As pe the analogy, the Constitution would be Scripture and 1st century apostolic teaching, and the Supreme Court would be our application of the 1st century apostolic teaching , which God protects ONLY in councils or ex cathedra statements. That is, the only exercise of the authority of the "Supreme Court," and the only thing protected by God, is dogmas from Councils and ex cathedra statements. To continue the analogy, we believe that God allows the "nation" of the Church to operate freely, and He only intervenes when something gets to the Supreme Court and an official statement is given, which is when He protects the Supreme Court from error (i.e. council or ex cathedra statement). Outside of that, the Congress can do all sorts of ridiculousness which never involves the Supreme Court's officially protected declarations, and the statements of Congress can be incorrect (i.e. Pope's personal opinions, Pope's personal writings on topics, bishops conferences, etc). So yes, I accept all ex cathedra declarations made by Pope Francis and all dogmas from Councils called by Pope Francis. Which he's never done either of those things.

[@josephmyers9843]

@@KEP1983 Alright!!! Keep posting!!!

[@josephmyers9843]

@@KEP1983 Thanks!

[@ibatan7243]

@@josephmyers9843 Ok, they are ready to debate you Mr. Muhammad James White and your favorite god allah (your moon god)

[@danielomitted1867]

Whats funny is this is basically the last interaction I had with a catholic in a nutshell. The guy loved going on about sola scriptura but would never defend his own presuppositions. Its very easy to attack when you dont have to worry about defending anything. Cause then you don't have to worry about pesky concepts like consistency or even standards.

[@linda2468lou]

"My scriptures don't change, your pope does!" Love, love, love it. Great, precise, response. You ALWAYS rock. Please know how much we appreciate your work at constant, consistent defense of God"s Holy Words. Your gift is well used. Many blessings, L.

[@bastionofthefaith92]

His scripture changed when the Deformation removed books from the canon to suit their theology

[@KEP1983]

The text doesn't change, but their interpretation of it sure does. Unfortunately you can't separate infallible interpretations from fallible interpretations. Every interpretation of a Protestant preacher is just another set of interpretations. You can't turn to pastor Bob's interpretation of John chapter 2 and say "well, this is theological speculation and is not infallible and protected by the holy Spirit. But when there's a council of pastors then we know that God protects it." Nothing is ever protected from error. This isn't true as Catholics, since we can differentiate when a pope is just speaking his own opinions and when the Holy Spirit protects the church when giving official interpretations. People like James White try to conflate the two and present personal opinions as if they were official interpretations. He knows better, but he apparently thinks misrepresenting the other side is acceptable if it will bring people to what he believes to be the truth.

[@KEP1983]

@@linda2468lou "[we don't] need a pope or councils of men to interpret scripture because [we] walk in the spirit." If Protestant James White and Protestant theologian Bob both believe they are in the Spirit and the Holy Spirit gives them their interpretations, both believe their interpretation was guided by the Holy Spirit, both know Greek and Hebrew, both delve deep into exegesis, etc, but yet when both interpret a particular scripture, both come to very different interpretations. How do you know which interpretation was guided by the "Holy Spirit" if both believe they are walking in the Spirit and their theology and interpretations were guided by the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit give them contradictory truths? lol. Either one of them is wrong or both of them are wrong, but both Protestant theologians believe their interpretations were guided by being in the Spirit.

[@infrasonica]

@@KEP1983 Do you not think the Holy Spirit will guide the children of God into the truths of Scripture in their reading or hearing, but that He will only will guide Popes or Pastors in their teaching or preaching? And what room is there for a Pope or any infallible interpreter of Scripture in cases like Romans 14:1-12? Why would Paul say one believes this, another believes that, but "let each one be fully convinced in his own mind"? Ought he not to have simply said "Let us consult the blessed Peter, our first Pope"? Why did the church hold any ecumenical councils at all? Why did they not simply consult the Bishop of Rome when those disputes arose? And why did the Bishop of Rome not simply assert his authority to settle the question and end the whole matter every time an ecumenical council was proposed?

[@infrasonica]

@@KEP1983 How do we know that we have correctly interpreted popes and councils? If we can't correctly understand the Scriptures without a Pope telling us what it means, then how do we know we can correctly understand what the Pope means when he speaks? Shouldn't we likewise have an infallible interpreter of the writings of the Vicar of Christ on earth? And if we did have an infallible interpreter of papal bulls and decrees, how would we know we have correctly understood that infallible interpreter? Ought we not have an infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures, to make sure we correctly understand it?

[@williamstdog9]

Ah man the 2nd time listening to this is even better than the 1st ... what an awesome rant. May God grant grace to change these hardened Catholics hearts that are steeped in tradition and proudly rejecting the beautiful, simple, and Biblical definition of Faith.

[@AKdon68]

There is an old debate "Jimmy Akin Vs James White" on channel "Pints With Aquinas".. Please watch it!! White is actually denying requests from Jimmy Akin..

[@CornerTalker]

"Scripture doesn't change - Popes do."

[@AKdon68]

But Protestants removed more than 7 books from the Bible in 1600 by Martin Luther because it did not fit his theology.. So for protestants Scripture has changed but for Catholics it is the same for 2000 years..

[@tylerworrell4446]

@@AKdon68 not even the people who wrote the apocryphal books viewed them as Canon. Even many of the popes were quite clear in saying they didn't view these books as scripture. The view that the apocryphal books are inspired is a later tradition that did not originate with Christ or the apostles. The catholic church added these books in and canonized them. Luther simply removed books that were never part of the scriptural Canon to begin with and church history attests to this since we see many of the catholic popes denying the inspiration of the apocryphal books until a certain point in history.

[@AKdon68]

@@tylerworrell4446 Hi brother, in Christ. I will give you a brief history. I hope you are open 😊 Till the 2nd Jewish Revolt in AD 132-135 different Jewish sects had different canons - 1. Sadducees and Samaritans had only 5 books in Bible, 2. Pharisees had kinda like a protocanonical version, 3. Essenes had few books more than the Catholic Bible, 4. Greek Jews had the Septuagint version which is equal to the Catholic Bible and used by the Apostles. After the revolt all sects were wiped out except the Pharisees and the Christians. (Pharisees hated Jewish Christians because they didn't join the revolt) It was only after the revolt Rabbi Akiva formed a single normative text in AD 135 with rejected Deuterocanon and the Gospels as heretical because Jewish Christians followed it (Septuagint version). They wanted separation with the Christians. Akiva's list becomes their formal canon in AD 200 and with the help of Simeon ben Gamaliel and Judah the Prince we get the Mishnah. Rabbi Akiva writes - "The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of ben Sira and all other books written from then on, do not define the hands" (Tosefta Yadayim 2:13) "do not defile the hands" means "not sacred" Christians had problem with evangelizing Jews now because now they had different books and many even did not know it. You can read the early Church Father's like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc all in the first and second century mentioning the Deuterocanon. Even Protestant Bible scholars agree this. Even the 1611 edition of King James gives many many references to these books in the New Testament in the bottom page. I will give one from King James - James 1:19 - Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" Sir 5:11 - "Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering" If you need more for your research, I can help with reference materials. Thank you, brother 😊

[@supersurgelawncare]

Catholics love to say jimmy slaughtered James in that old debate. It shows how some people only listen to one side of things may God keep us from doing the same thing

[@wishyouthebest9222]

Someone attacked protestants as 'enemies of christendom' for preaching a false gospel, for believing faith alone and quoted Act of faith as I asked him to summarize the gospel in short. "O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God, in three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; I believe that Thy Divine Son became man and died for our sins and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived." The gospel stays the same even without the catholic church. How is that a different gospel? LORD have mercy on us... Please pray for him. GOD bless you all

[@kurtn652]

James....you smoke everyone with the sword of Yahweh. Thank you.

[@MatchObox]

The intellectual dishonesty from Catholic answers is incredible. Thank you Dr. James White and brother you bring many blessings in clarity to the church

[@ibatan7243]

Muhammad James White is so upset as every time he debates muslims, he loses. So, to make enough money (in addition to the undisclosed money that he receives from islamic organization financed by petro-dollars) is to challenge and debate real Christians such as Catholics.

[@AKdon68]

There is an old debate "Jimmy Akin Vs James White" on channel "Pints With Aquinas".. Please watch it!! White is actually denying requests from Jimmy Akin..

[@MatchObox]

Catholics are intellectually dishonest. There is a big similarity between what liberals do to our language in redefining language, and what the Vatican has done with Scripture. I can give just one example. Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” A football is a likeness of what is in a football stadium. A fish is a likeness of what is in the ocean. A judge is a likeness of what is in a courtroom. Mary is a likeness of what is in heaven. Yet Catholicism deny that clear language and make unto themselves images of what's in heaven.

[@Choraldiscourse]

Jimmy Akin says he has new arguments against Sola Scriptura but won't accept new arguments (related to Pope Francis) against Roman Catholic authority.

[@AKdon68]

There is an old debate "Jimmy Akin Vs James White" on channel "Pints With Aquinas".. Please watch it!! White is actually denying requests from Jimmy Akin..

[@AKdon68]

Please debate Jimmy Akin.. I heard you are denying the debate requests from Jimmy Akin.. There is an old debate "Jimmy Akin Vs James White" on channel "Pints With Aquinas".. Please watch it!!

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

Pastor White, Why is it so important who wins or lost in debates? If the purpose of debates is not to win souls for Christ, what is the purpose? When you preach from a pulpit, you are one of the most moving preachers I have ever encountered. Preach the gospel Pastor. It will expose the darkness (Is. 55:11; 2 Tim. 4:2-4). I thank the Lord for your outreach! God's best to you all.

[@josephmyers9843]

How does one win souls for Christ and reject His Spouse-the Catholic Church?

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

@@josephmyers9843 The RC Church is steeped in idolatry. How is it that you see this abortion as the bride of Christ? Repent and be born again; then you will be a part of the true body of Christ. Until then, you have no part of this body that makes up the true bride of Christ.

[@James22426]

I have no idea why Catholic debaters are reluctant to debate Dr. James White. Controversy has always existed in the Catholic Church going back to Biblical times. But the Scriptures, the Magisterium (which includes the Pope), and the Traditions, have always settled the controversy. In the end, the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Chruch from teaching an individual's heretical belief as dogma even if the individual is a Pope. Example, around 300 AD, the majority of the clergy believed in Arianism but by the grace of God, the Catholic has never taught Ariansim as dogma. The teaching of the Chruch cannot be changed by a mere statement in an interview or answering a child's question who was in tears mourning and begging for consolation that his father was in heaven.

[@James22426]

@Eli Sheets what specifically do you need scriptural proof of?

[@James22426]

@Eli Sheets what specifically do you need scriptural proof of?

[@James22426]

@Eli Sheets Does the Bible show us the process of how the church determined which books are Biblical? Does the Bible show how a a congregation selects their preacher or pastor? Does it show that they have to interview the pastor? Does the Bible teach what the dimensions of a church building. Does the Bible show what songs to be sang in choir? Does it tell us that we have to go to Bible study on Wednesdays? Does it tell us to celebrate Christmas on Dec 25? Not every detail of how a church conducts itself will be in the Bible. The details that you see in the chruch is based on Biblical principles. Biblical principles such as the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, etc..... But your question is a red herring because my contention was that Catholics Apologists were hesitant to debate Dr. James White regarding Chruch Conroversy existing in the Church.

[@James22426]

@Eli Sheets why do say I do not obey Torah? Again the points you raise has nothing to do with my contention that Catholic Aplogists do not want to debate Dr White about existence of Church controversy

[@AKdon68]

There is an old debate "Jimmy Akin Vs James White" on channel "Pints With Aquinas".. Please watch it!! White is actually denying requests from Jimmy Akin..

[@AKdon68]

Hi brothers and sisters, in Christ. I will give you a brief history of the CANON in 1st and 2nd century from my research. I hope it helps you all😊 Till the 2nd Jewish Revolt in AD 132-135 different Jewish sects had different canons - 1. Sadducees and Samaritans had only 5 books in Bible, 2. Pharisees had kinda like a protocanonical version, 3. Essenes had few books more than the Catholic Bible, 4. Greek Jews had the Septuagint version which is equal to the Catholic Bible and used by the Apostles. After the revolt all sects were wiped out except the Pharisees and the Christians. (Pharisees hated Jewish Christians because they didn't join the revolt) It was only after the revolt Rabbi Akiva formed a single normative text in AD 135 with rejected Deuterocanon and the Gospels as heretical because Jewish Christians followed it (Septuagint version). They wanted separation with the Christians. Akiva's list becomes their formal canon in AD 200 and with the help of Simeon ben Gamaliel and Judah the Prince we get the Mishnah. Rabbi Akiva writes - "The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of ben Sira and all other books written from then on, do not define the hands" (Tosefta Yadayim 2:13) "do not defile the hands" means "not sacred" Christians had problem with evangelizing Jews now because now they had different books and many even did not know it. You can read the early Church Father's like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc all in the first and second century mentioning the Deuterocanon. Even Protestant Bible scholars agree this.. The 1611 edition of King James gives many many references to the Deuterocanon in the New Testament in the bottom page. I will give one from King James - James 1:19 - Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" Sir 5:11 - "Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering" I hope this helps someone there.😊

[@HendrickAlbina]

You said in your debate with Akin that Pope Francis has stated that homosexuals "live out the gift of love". Why are you perpetuating this lie? Was that predestined? In the book "Pope Francis: Life and Story Through History" page 218-219, the Pope never said that "homosexuals live out the gift of love." Rather, what he said was "In this context, I imagine a mother church who embraces and welcomes everyone... GOD LOVES EVERYONE ESPECIALLY SINNERS." (p. 218); and then he goes "Civil unions are another matter, and on this subject I have said on many occasions that it is right that THESE PEOPLE WHO EXPERIENCE THE GIFT OF LOVE should have the same legal protections as everyone else." (p. 219). Context: These people (who are sinners) who experience the gift of love (from God who embraces and welcomes everyone) - this is Pope Francis talking. "who experience the gift of love" is NOT "homosexuals live out the gift of love" (referring to their homosexual relationship) - that's the liberal media talking. There you are.

[@ChandraAnandInChrist]

Nice video brother!

[@jake6132]

Mr. White, I don't understand why you'd want to debate about Pope Francis. He is not a doctrine or dogma unto himself. As a Catholic, I'd say he's not the best the Church has ever seen. He's also not the worst. You know that he's not as beloved as St John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Have you ever sought out a debate on the previous 2 pontiffs or any others besides Francis? I doubt it which calls into question your motives. Why Francis? Why now (or 2 yrs ago)?

[@Henry._Jones]

I have some respect for Akin generally, but he's way of the mark in that characterization of how White debates. White does not debate that way at all.

[@findingtruth7323]

Why don't you debate Jimmy Akin, are you scared?

[@findingtruth7323]

@M J He is leteraly scared tho, why would he say first give out the arguments so i can prepare lol, if he is so sure in his position why would he need to say that? or be scared that Jimmy can actually have good arguments that he can't refute. But hey Jimmy already beat James in debates so i'ts understandable fear

[@trudy-annbrown3650]

Let’s be fair!! I am a catholic and I don’t think that he is scared! Dr white has debated NUMEROUS of Catholic apologists and speakers for over 30+ years! He is the least scared of debating a Catholic.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

James, there is a split within the Catholic church since Vatican 2, between traditional Catholicism and modernists who since the 1800s infiltrated and now own the papacy in Francis. The traditional Catholics acknowledge this, even though the mainstream apologists you mention don't. Many trads cite Bellarmine to doubt whether he is even legitimately the pope even while they may decry sedevacantism). However, this crisis seems like a new, unique historical phenomenon, which hints strongly we are in the last days. What do you think?

[@PhthaloGreenskin]

But I thought the Roman catholic church was utterly perfect and without error?

[@djpodesta]

Anti-Sola Scriptura proponent: ‘Sola Scriptura is false and I have the *scriptures* to prove it.’ Forked tongue Roman apologists. Lets have 3 different Popes, all ex-communicating each other again.

[@thebasedbaptist8114]

Not siding with the RCC, but James’ scriptures actually do change with some degree of frequency. He’s a critical text proponent.

[@tarhunta2111]

Let em have it Pastor White.Expose their hypocrisy and perfidy for all to see.Deep down everybody knows you are right.

[@onesneak7668]

Hey, go check out a youtube channel called "how to be Christian" and check out the ones on James White.

[@josephmyers9843]

Maybe Taylor Marshall would suffice?

[@richardligthart1664]

After decades of missional ecumenism, inter-religious dialogues, and debates with Romans, the result has been confusion and syncretism upon Christianity...not to mention the disrespect for Luther, other reformers and those martyred through the centuries for questioning Romanism. I deeply appreciate White's insights and responses...but as time has proven from Council of Trent...which means Christians must invite Romans out from Romanism...there is no reforming it.

[@bastionofthefaith92]

Luther deserves no respect, even from Protestants. He was a vile little creature

[@rldlrldl]

@@bastionofthefaith92 I invite you to let go of sacerdotal salvation.

[@bastionofthefaith92]

@@rldlrldl I invite you let go of a religion that is simply a mix of the various ancient heresies and the musings of arrogant blasphemers.

[@bastionofthefaith92]

@@rldlrldl You are aware that Protestantism is riddled with gnosticism and Nestorianism right?

[@josephmyers9843]

@@bastionofthefaith92 He sure was vile! He even stated that some of his "truth" came from his bathroom breaks. Sick!

[@rvasquez111]

You do understand that the Pope is not a dictator of the faith right? He stands in for Christ here on earth. He is not Christ Himself. Anything that is considered infallible coming from the Pope is under strict conditions. It is through faith that we believe he is guided by the Holy Ghost in those situations. He will be unable to teach error in those particular situations. The authority of the Pope and The Church comes directly from Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is still more United in its teachings than Protestants could ever hope for.

[@ChiliMcFly1]

Pope Francis is the Fourth head of the Leopard.

[@elijahochoa8431]

The bible itself debunks sola scriptura

[@bastionofthefaith92]

If you use logic then yeah, but these people don't. Sola scriptura literally can't apply to the churches that Paul wrote to

[@shooterdownunder]

Based on what definition of Sola scriptura does the Bible debunk that

[@stevew2996]

How? Explain how the Bible debunks sola scriptura.

[@bastionofthefaith92]

@@stevew2996 it presupposes a fixed canon and correct interpretation. Sola scriptura is sola your interpretation

[@shooterdownunder]

@@bastionofthefaith92 no, Sola scriptura is not what you just stated. Sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the first and final authority.

[@MarkHernan]

The original 73 books of the Bible were giving by the Holy Catholic Church to be inform and to instruct, and NOT, it didn't come down FROM HEAVEN, Paul talks about it. In the bible NEVER says, whoever reads the Bible is saved. The FISRT Pope was CHOSEN by God Almighty, Matthew 16:13-20, when Jesus says: Flesh and blood DID NOT reveal this to you, THIS MEANS that when Peter says those words: "You are the MAESSIAH, THE Son of the LIVING God", THIS WORDS; were put to Peter's mouth by God Almighty, and all Jesus did was to change Peter's name from Cephas to Peter. This passage shows us that Jesus knew it all along that there were going to be thousands of denominations, "scholars", "academics". And He had to settle once and for all, so there won't be any mistake. Now Peter has the KEYS of the kingdom of HEAVEN, and the devil shall not prevail against it." 2000 years later THE CC still the same, NOTHING has changed, but the devil since he has nothing to do with God THE creator, uses the protestants, evangelicals, "academics", "scholars", and do what the devil does: to speculate, divide and even to go against the Holy Father, the Blessed Virgin Mary, they don't pray the Holy Rosary( God's and Jesus' DIVINE WORDS ) they read an incomplete Bible,(as God is happy for people who do that), they don't like the crucifix, sing and symbol of God's VICTORY over the devil, they don't even make the sign of the cross, and to top it off: THEY DON'T BELEIVE in Jesus' REAL and DIVINE PRESENCE in the HOLY Eucharist, although the satanic do believe. So, the protestant and evangelicals, think they deserve to go to heaven for all they do against God and His Holy Church.

[@nikolakrcic1021]

The only decent thing white said was "catholics need to defend the vicar of christ" i agree. The rest of what james said was a rant and master strawmaning that he does best!

[@zebblensheick8694]

Jimmy slaughtered James in that old debate.