Jimmy Akin Vs James White on Sola Scriptura (Previous Debate)

This is a debate on Sola Scriptura that took place on the Hank Hanagraaff show years ago. But it's excellent. I hope you enjoy it. Thanks to Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers for letting me post it here.
Here is Jimmy's response to why James White won't debate: jimmyakin.com/2...
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Homeschool Connections: homeschoolconn...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd

[@Catechuman23]

Sola Scriptura is a big hangup for me as a protestant. Born protestant, I've only begun looking into and understanding the Faith a few months and have pretty quickly been increasingly attracted to Catholicism. If you see this, would you say a quick prayer for my journey?

[@gwendelynn9875]

Praying that you come home!

[@cainestadler9414]

Thats is Gods Grace in action. Remeber to study early church Fathers and find the true faith in traditional Catholicism.

[@brianbaudoin9771]

Of course! What would be the biggest question you have for Catholics on it?

[@douglasbrodericksr2086]

Prayers for your journey! It’s a shame that so many Protestants are not taking this step. Some topics that are not specifically in the Bible that the Magisterium addresses are Contraception and Abortion. The Church has spoken authoritatively. When you are brought into the Church welcome home!

[@Commandosoap777]

Sola Scriptura just means the bible alone is sufficient for Salvation I don’t even hold to it but I don’t see the argument for it as long as it’s used how luther intended

[@DeeDee-my2tl]

My husband, my oldest son, and I all converted to Catholicism not because we didn't know our Protestant faith. My husband has a Master's in Systematic Theology from a well known Baptist Seminary and has two Masters in Philosophy. My son had a Master's before entering Seminary in Rome, and is now a priest. We did not enter the Catholic Church without a ton of studying and prayer. I find that most Protestants convert to Catholicism through prayer and study, and most Catholics leave for Protestant churches for two main reason: they never understood their Catholic faith, and as a result, they never experienced God in the meaningful and personal way they could/should have. I am overwhelmed with the truth, beauty and richness of Catholicism!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

I've been studying Catholicism for 13 years and I am more deeply convicted of my "Protestantism" than ever before.

[@NorthCountry84]

@@Adam-ue2ig while many good things are in the various Protestant traditions, those denominations, however, don’t reflect much of what the early church looked like as read in the writings of the Church Fathers down to the reformation. The Church fathers are essentially one the main reasons I came back to Catholicism of my youth (which I really knew nothing about when I was a kid) from Protestantism.

[@colegest9742]

I converted to Orthodoxy after reading the Church Fathers

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

The interesting current trend is Jewish "converts" to Catholicism.Those who are familiar with Jewish priesthood and temple theology understand the requirement of a Pope, a called leader of Gods people eg Moses, Abraham. They understand the keys being given to Peter. The keys to the temple in Judaism was never just "symbolic" it was an authority. In David's kingdom the "keys" were given to the royal steward/vizier, he was solely in charge when the King was away and this role had successors as we see in Isaiah22 vs 19-25. In the book of Kings this steward role was always listed next to the King because he held the keys to the temple. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the keys are the keys of the temple and government. In the Talmud it talks about the keys to the First Temple which in the midst of being destroyed the young priests took the keys up a mountain and shouted to God to forgive them for not being able to protect the Temple and they threw the keys towards the sky and a palm reached down and grabbed the keys. Jesus knows the Second Temple will be destroyed, He gives the keys to Peter to show the Apostles and those gathered that Peter is Christs steward/royal vizier, He is preparing them for His death and ascension. After Christ death, Caiaphas renders his garments which effectively ends his role which Cephas (and his successors) now holds because Christ gave him the keys.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

I studied father's and I find the evidence for modern romantic catholicism scant. Some Father's explicitly say Mary was a sinner and so many difference's on a number of doctrines it would take long time to discuss. I don't see many teachings of RCC as apostolic. Thus you have doctrinal development hypothesis by cardinal newman. Now, with Francis the RCC has inclusive small that has gone away from explicit scripture teaching that Christ is the only way to the Father. The more I studied the more inconsistencies and contradictions I notice from pre post Vatican 2.

[@phillipkapler8319]

Both of these fellows are so smart, that they overlook, in my opinion, simple questions that the advocate of sola scriptura simply must be made to answer. 1) If Scripture alone were intended to be sufficient, why did Jesus not write His Gospel message down Himself, since that would have been the surest way to minimize all ambiguity in interpretation? 2) If the written word were enough to resolve all theological and moral issues the Lord anticipated His Church would have to confront, why would he confer interpretive authority on the Apostles exclusively (not all of His disciples), by declaring their binding and loosening authority? 3) If no interpretive authority in a Church leader was needed, why did Chirst designate Peter as such, AND the rest of the Apostles and Paul consider his decisions final and authoritative. 4) When Paul talks about Scripture and Tradition in 2 Thessalonians, how can he NOT be talking about an oral and behavioral tradition, since the Gospels were not written at the time, and Paul was not an eyewitness to most of Jesus' ministry? 5) If the Bible contains all theological truth necessary for salvation, pray tell, WHICH Bible; the one the Catholic Church assembled and has passed on for 2,000 years, or that which Luther invented, or one of the hundred or so others now in circulation? This is similar to the dilemma faced by a modern Muslim, who, if not holding a Koran in the original Arabic, is only holding an interpretaton thereon, not the Koran. 6) Lastly, No, Mr. White cannot go back to the "original" Hebrew or Greek - we don't have autographs of ANY book from the Bible. We have incomplete manuscripts from several hundred years after any book was first put in writing, and whatever version one uses is the product of many transcriptions and translations. Without an unbroken tradition of teaching handed down by the Apostles (Christ's eyewitnesses), escorting the Gospels and other New Testament books through time, across culture, language and generations, in an unbroken chain of successors, what assurance does any sola scriptura proponent have in the accuracy of the Bible they read today? If they argue that the written Word is sufficient, and every believer is empowered to both interpret and teach it, then we have not merely 40,000 Protestant denominations (a telling fact by itself) but in fact, nearly 2 billion different understandings of what the New Testament teaches on one thing or another. Can ANY logical mind conceive that this was Christ's intention when He prayed that we would be as one, just before His glorious Ascension?

[@actuallicensedteacher1846]

God bless you, fellow Catholic kindred.

[@andrefouche9682]

Amazing how James White absolutely ignores statements like what Jimmy Akin mentioned about all Church Fathers interpretation of John 3:5 to be about water baptism.

[@pcm7315]

First I appreciate that James White defends Christianity. However, he will not accede a point no matter how convincingly presented and how much it truly matches scripture as with Jimmy Akin.

[@shawnmarie1912]

I detest it when protestants try to tell Catholics what Cathlics believe

[@paulbrady6988]

Don’t they always. Time and time again the produce the same flawed nonsense where they tell us what we believe and when we correct them they simply ignore what we say and reiterate what they think we believe. They can make up anything they choose to and then demand we explain why we do what they have claimed we do. It is frustrating. Rather than bring a proven issue and look for exegesis they simply make up anything they want to use to attack the church.

[@timetravlin4450]

Can’t the same be said about when Catholics tell Protestants what they believe? I mean really there’s so many denominations

[@Lambdamale.]

I find it equally detestable when Catholics tell protestants what they believe. I find it detestable when anyone tells me what I believe. Anyone who has been around a while and reads should have their own nuances in belief.

[@sandina2cents779]

Sadly most Catholics don’t even know what the Catholic Church teaches. I’ve told Catholics what the church teaches and they have Called me a liar and then looked it up and I was right. Dr. James White knows more about the Catholic Church than most Catholics and if you watch his debates he supplies all the Catholic sources.

[@bryceklassen]

You mean “Romanists”

[@alecfoster5542]

James White took his ball and went home and does not want to play anymore.

[@ibatan7243]

Did you know that he changed his name to muhammad White as lately, he is siding with islam against Christianity and defending them fervently.

[@colegest9742]

I don’t understand the joke

[@liljade53]

@@ibatan7243 do you have proof of that?

[@liljade53]

@@ibatan7243 not saying I don't believe you but I tried to Google it and can't find any information about it

[@ibatan7243]

@@liljade53 Sorry guys but this is called wicked sense of humour. BTW, do not count on uncle google to get you accurate news. He's part of the 'fake news'. Uncle google knows, through their algorithms what you like to read and what you do NOT like to hear. So, they list them for you in the order that you like to read them the most, thus increasing the chances that you read them, thus increasing their ads revenue by placing the ads that you like to watch within the news that you have asked for.

[@groatswerth2073]

It seems the reason James White doesn’t want to debate sola scriptura anymore is because he kept losing, especially with Jimmy Akin.

[@Given119]

Lol!

[@matthewmanucci]

Lol okay.

[@sabagebre8206]

Not only with Jimmy Akin but every debate White is a loser

[@johnyang1420]

I guess if you cant win, you walk home with the football.

[@Given119]

He hasn't lost a single one of those debates. He's pointed out the faulty understanding of those he's debating and shown how they don't even debate what SS let alone how it applies, while at the same time correcting the errors in how RC debators view history and deceptively use quotes from early church writers. RC debators have hardly even challenged JWs points on SS and continue to bring up the same failed arguments, and that's the point. It's fruitless to debate the same thing over and over again when there are far more serious errors that the RCC has to answer for. Rome and RC debators refuse to allow thier position to be publicly challenged because the ones qualified to defend them understand just how weak Romes position is. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@Athabrose]

This was a good dialogue. I think a dialogue between Jimmy and Jordan Cooper on the Lutheran view of sola scriptura would be awesome and beneficial.

[@mikeparker840]

Jimmy Akin trumped the discussion/debate with White. I was a Calvinist for over a decade among Whites camp. James White was one of the guys I regularly listened too. Early church fathers destroyed my belief in Calvinism. Nevertheless Akin and White great discussion and I hope to see a following debate of you two.

[@Justas399]

What are the beliefs of a Calvinist?

[@mikeparker840]

@@Justas399 in a nutshell a true Calvinist will ascribe to the 5 points of Calvinism. "T-U-L-I-P" 1. Total depravity- which means also total inability to use free will. 2.Unconditional Election - which means you are saved only by God's choice predestining you before the foundation of the world. So saved without conditions only God's choice. 3. Limited Attonement- Which means Christ ONLY died for the elect not the rest of humanity just the elect. 4. Irresistible Grace-which means God's grace comes with power that cannot be resisted at all. 5. Perseverance of the saints- which means the Elect will be saved by persevering to the end. The guarantee that you are elect means you do persevere, if you don't persevere you never were truly saved or elect only a pretender or hypocrite. This teaching is derived from one man John Calvin who believed in double predestination that some are predestined for salvation and the rest are predestined for damnation and God is glorified in both they teach. Even though God says He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, a true Calvinist will tell you otherwise and explain away the scripture texts as I did. Hope that helps.

[@Justas399]

@@mikeparker840 God does desire all men to be saved yet not all men are not saved. Hell does exist and many will be condemned. It is true that some men are destined to destruction: You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? - Romans 9:19-22 Election is done by God and not by man. See Ephesians 1:4 If the benefits of the death of Christ is automatically applied to all men, then there is no need of hell.

[@mikeparker840]

@@Justas399 I never argued any of these points you are raising. I was simply responding to the question you asked me on what is Calvinism. You are definitely a Calvinist no need for me to ask you that now but you implied in the question that you weren't. Lol.. All good brother. I never implied that salvation was automatic or that God was not the one who does the saving in salvation. Im just saying that Calvinism has it wrong in interpretation of the Bible. If you read what the early church fathers say you will see the contradictions of Calvinism.

[@Justas399]

@@mikeparker840 how can Calvinism be wrong when it’s grounded in Scripture?

[@augustvonmacksen2526]

There is something powerful in Jimmy's conviction. I credit it to him having a sound understanding of Protestant arguments against Catholic worldviews. Yet he still came home to the church.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

His conversion story is very moving.

[@szilardfineascovasa6144]

Hitler had a lor of conviction, too. I fail to understand how that, or "passion", has anything to do with the truth...yet see it used as some sort of argument liberally.

[@ceelothatmane9421]

@@szilardfineascovasa6144I agree

[@alexchristopher221]

"The Church doesn't come out of the Gospels; the Gospels come out of the Church." - Archbishop Fulton J Sheen

[@anthonytan7134]

RIP Archbishop Sheen, a great teacher.

[@jrhemmerich]

The meaning of “church” is not defined here. If you mean the Apostles’ authority granted to them by Christ then the ancient Catholic and Protestant would agree. If you mean that the post-Apostolic church was a witness to the fact that the Gospels were delivered to to it by the Apostles, then we agree. But if you are saying that the post-Apostolic church was given the authority to decide whether the writings of an Apostles were authoritative, then this is not correct. The Apostles rule the church, by the authority of Christ, the later church doesn’t rule the Apostles. That is the basic problem with the Roman view of tradition, it confuses Apostolic tradition (which Athanasius and the fathers only found in the scriptures as the ultimate authority) with the later opinions of the church. As Ignatius says, they do not command as the Apostles did. This is because the successors authority is not the same as the Apostles. That is all sola scriptura really is, it’s the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic supremacy.

[@anthonytan7134]

@@jrhemmerich Very interesting comment..."But if you are saying that the post-Apostolic church was given the authority to decide whether the writings of an Apostles were authoritative, then this is not correct. ", so which church has the authority to canonized the Bible then ?

[@jrhemmerich]

@@anthonytan7134, thanks for the question. I could have said that with a bit more clarity. What I mean is that the authority of the post-Apostolic church to decide what was scripture, was a historical process of investigation (did and apostle, or an associate under the authority of an apostle write this book/letter). The later churches authority is not one of inspiration itself. In other words, the power to make any book inspired by the church’s decision. This issue is really a question of the grounds or basis for the decision regarding the cannon. What is the standard for determination? And the fact that the church’s standard was: Apostolic authorship/approval, antiquity (also tied to authorship), and widespread use/recognition in the community, shows that the standard was historical not inspiration in counsel by church fiat. I don’t think this point is controversial. It my understanding that this is the Roman Catholic view. What is usually emphasized however is that we need the Roman church’s magisterium to have infallible knowledge of what books are infallible/inspired. This is really a separate question of Apostolic supremacy/sola Scriptura. But it is important too. The difficulty with the argument for the need of an authority to canonize scripture, is that the process we see in history was that the church never had a formal canonization process. Rather this issue was settled by informal custom. We see this in Athanasius’ 39th festal letter, and in Eusebius’ discussion of the opinion of the fathers about what scriptures were Apostolic. The results of reviewing this evidence naturally ends up with the 27 books of the NT we have. The question on the OT was more divided with some wanting the 7 intertestamental books recognized as part of the 39 book traditional Jewish cannon (based upon Josephus’ list and the Talmud). But this remained an open question with many accepting a place for the reading of the Deuterocanon, but not holding it to be of doctrinal weight. This custom was the standard of the church until Trent. Ultimately, the books we recognize are grounded in the historical use of the church which we see in history and are unable to alter without conclusive evidence that they are not Apostolic. Churches today can make official lists based upon their “authority,” but that authority to decide is always linked to the historical basis of the books contents and authorship. At this point the books are not decided upon, they are received. This was the way of it even for Eusebius. He was not sure of 2 Peter or of Jude, but the practice of the church made getting ride of these books impossible. Given what we know today, I don’t think we would change anything about the NT books we recognize. With regard to the OT, I think the pre-Trent standard was sufficient.

[@johnyang1420]

@@jrhemmerichThe church is the Catholic church

[@marountayar2831]

I don`t like James White, because he was predestined never to understand... So why bother with him?

[@Chris-yr8wb]

LOL

[@illumoportetcresceremeaute887]

Sick burn, lol.

[@thereselastname9197]

James White kept trying to get out his points instead of giving Jimmy Akin time to explain more in depth..

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

Hahahahaha.

[@davidszaraz4605]

James White saying Origen didn´t regarded the deuterocanon inspired scripture demonstrated that White actually wasn´t familiar with Origen´s works. I am afraid he is still not very familiar with the works of the ECF. Gary Michuta just did an excellent video on this topic on his channel (Apocrypha Apocalypse).

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

James White misrepresenting facts of history is his whole stick. If he didn’t do that he wouldn’t have much to talk about on his program. In his opening statement he made it sound like the Catholic dogma of tradition and the teaching magisterium is somehow confused. Because liberals want to become more like protestants and are fighting the church, as heretics always have, doesn’t mean the dogma is unclear. It’s because the dogma is so clear that people try to confuse it and fight it. It’s what the devil does.

[@dougy6237]

So wonderful to hear. Thank you Jimmy Akin.

[@professedlife2501]

I'm a conservative Lutheran who regularly listens to Pints, and admittedly, I find James White irritating. I enjoyed the conversation between Jimmy and Jordan Cooper on justification. First, I think James White either needs to put up or shut up. He's an embarrassment. Second, I had rather hear a discussion between Jimmy and Jordan on Sola Scriptura. BTW - Matt, you do a wonderful job with these conversations! You are consistent and fair to both sides.

[@Veritas1234]

I agree. I don't believe James White needs more press.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

Really? He’s debated Roman Catholic scholars on Sola Scriptura several times already. Why do it again? Why not put up or shut up and do the debate he did offer to do on a topic that has NOT been debated. And on a topic that these Papists are scared to touch in debate.

[@professedlife2501]

@@dylanwagoner9768 You are entitled to your thoughts about this, but I disagree because if James White is going to continue to discuss Jimmy Akin’s work, then he should give him a chance to respond. If there is truly nothing else to be said, then why is he still talking about it? Also, I do not accept the comment that there is nothing more to say about the topic. It does not allow for developments in one’s perspective on either side of the conversation. The debate was 10 years ago. I think that there is more left to be said.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@@professedlife2501 Jimmy Aiken can’t respond outside the context of a debate? That makes no sense. James White is an apologist. He is going to speak on a number of issues on his podcast as they come up. That does not mean he has to engage in a public debate on a topic that he’s debated several times now. You watch ANY of his debates with a Catholic and they ALL end up getting to the issue of Sola Scriptura vs. Sola ecclesia. He’s willing to debate on a subject that has not been debated, but which is a critical subject for modern conservative Roman Catholics, why be afraid of it? I think we all know why.

[@abelj5145]

@@dylanwagoner9768 hey dude, hope you're doing well. In all respect, the " i think we all know why" is just so weird, why do we always give bad intentions to people who disagree with us, like cmon we can do better. Also, there's a problem if people keep doing response videos, it gets nowhere. One person says something then another responds then the other so on and so on. One way to solve that would be to have a debate where people can do cross examinations on each other. Not saying debates are perfect they have serious flaws, but they can be useful. Also, if you want someone who responds to James White in the way you're looking for then How to Be Christian is a channel that has a few. All the best in your truth seeking mate, God bless.

[@JohnTSmith-jw2gq]

I’ve never met a non-Catholic wasn’t an expert on the Catholic Church

[@paulbrady6988]

True. I have to say though no two of them will have the same view on what Catholicism is. There are millions of Catholic Churches in the minds of Protestants and not one of them bears resemblance to the real Catholic Church.

[@TexaSurvival]

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” -Fulton J. Sheen

[@RLord017]

You should look for a mormon who has left that religion and have them discuss what brought them toward Christianity or hopefully toward the Church.

[@st.saturninia9179]

Former Mormon Professor Richard Sherlock would be great. His testimony is on the Journey Home

[@bearistotle2820]

I am one such person, and would love to chat with Matt Fradd and/or his team to talk about my experience.

[@RLord017]

@@bearistotle2820 you become catholic from mormonism?

[@bearistotle2820]

@@RLord017 I did indeed!

[@RLord017]

@@bearistotle2820 Can I get your email or something, I have so many questions. I have a lot of Mormon friends and in the long drawn out process of writing an apologetic book for Catholicism and against Mormonism and I know the ins and outs of Mormonism like the back of my hand and would love to get your thoughts once I finish it. But that probably wont be until the end of summer. But I have so many questions for you.

[@EmmanuelGoldstein74]

I heard this debate back then before I returned to the Church. (It occurred back in the late 90s in his pre beard days/hair cut days.)I thought White was going to wipe the flood with him. He didn’t come close to doing it and that’s what got me rethinking the Church. The fact that Akin could mount an effective biblical defense to Catholicism was very disorienting to someone like myself who thought it couldn’t be done.

[@davidbermudez7704]

All that Akin did is put out of context many verses like most Roman Catholics do today.

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

@@davidbermudez7704 who's interpretation?

[@johnnywomack548]

@@davidbermudez7704 Please provide proof.

[@davidbermudez7704]

@@johnnywomack548 Proof for what? Google it yourself

[@davidbermudez7704]

@Eddard Tyrsson Everything has to point back to Jesus and the Apostles. Marian doctrines and Purgatory don’t

[@jkm9332]

No authority higher than scripture? Not even God? What did the apostles do before scripture existed? Sola scripture makes no sense because scripture hasn't always existed.

[@stooch66]

Jimmy Akin has brought far more people to the faith than just about anyone in recent years. Unfortunately, many “rad trads” have decided he is not a true Catholic. These people have never brought one soul to the true Church, but they sit in judgment of this man, who is bringing so many souls home. We need unity in the Body of Christ.

[@theodoremartin6153]

Rad Trad........... Hmmmmm? From my point of view that makes you a vatican employee .

[@stooch66]

@@theodoremartin6153 okay then. God bless you.

[@lonelyberg1808]

Vatican catholic made a video about him

[@lonelyberg1808]

@Dusun Prince I am not a sedevacantist btw, I like Jimmy, he is nice

[@theodoremartin6153]

@Dusun Prince explain please.

[@joehouston2833]

I'm a Devout Catholic 🇻🇦✝️🕎

[@remshot1998]

Jesus wasnt

[@marcuslow1386]

@Empyreal how?

[@thehausen5054]

remshot1998 he founded the Catholic Church.

[@liljade53]

@@thehausen5054 he founded Christianity

[@kainosktisis777]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to as a Christ-denying symbol. Do you mean the menorah or the Vatican Flag?

[@paulcowdery4094]

The turning point for me where I had to leave Sola Scriptura behind was when I realized Authority only goes one direction. Somebody has to tell me which books are actually Scripture (otherwise my Christian faith is really up to any new writing) .. and i was not willing to give that authority to the publisher of the Bible I held in my hand. My reading the early church fathers led me to believe that those men ascended to the authority of the Church on what writings were official scripture, even if they personally would have made a different choice. Luther and later the Scottish Bible Societies and publishers make the infallible decision that "the number shall be 66!" to simply have a Bible I can trust.... I had to ascend that God gave that authority t Luther and those Scotts, or He gave it to The Church from the very beginning.

[@agentjs09]

yes, sola scriptura is kind of self-refuting for this reason among others. Though it is very, very deeply embedded in the protestant mind and kind of a psychological hurdle to overcome

[@cozyboyseb63]

I’m currently a Protestant who was catholic and now considering on going back to Catholicism because of the 7 books that were in fact removed 1500 years after some articles even say the removal came in the 1800’s which is even more troubling considering that in revelations 22:18-19 it says not to add or remove books and what’s most interesting is that in maccabees 2 there is a verse where they pray for the dead this is where I’m currently at today. I’m still not fully sure on going back because of the saints and Mary so please pray for me.

[@veritasmuy2407]

YOU: I realized Authority only goes one direction. *ME: There is no authority in Rome. The Roman hierarchy contradicts Jesus and the Apostles.* See Matthew 20:25-26, Matthew 23:9, 1Peter 5:3, 1John 2:27, 1Corinth 6:4, 1Peter 2:5,9, James 5:16, etc.

[@veritasmuy2407]

YOU: I had to leave Sola Scriptura behind *ME: Jesus was all about Sola Scriptura. Jesus told God's people to SEARCH the Scripture (John 5:39). Jesus told people that Jesus FULFILLED the Scripture (Luke 24:44). Jesus said that God's people ERRED because they did not know written Scripture (Matthew 22:29).* Jesus used God's written Scripture to CORRECT the false doctrines of God's religious leaders (Matthew 19:4-6). *Jesus rejected and disobeyed the ADDED traditions of God's religious leaders not found in Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9).* Jesus even used God's written Scripture to defeat the temptations of Satan in Matthew 4 ("it is written"). *Shouldn't Christians be like Christ ??* Paul says YES !!! (2Timothy 3:15-17, Acts 17:11, etc) Rome says NO !!! Rome's doctrines/traditions CONTRADICT the Apostles/Bible -- Matthew 23:9, Matthew 20:25-26, Revelation 12:1/Genesis 37:9-10, Romans 5:12, Hebrews 2:14/Genesis 3:15, 1Peter 2:5-6, 1Corinth 3:11, 1Peter 2:24, 2Corinth 5:21, Hebrews 9:12,26,28, Matthew 5:19-20/Leviticus 17:9-10, etc -- suggest you start studying written Scripture for yourself instead of being drawn into Rome's deception.

[@veritasmuy2407]

YOU: Somebody has to tell me which books are actually Scripture *ME: GOD Himself decided which books would be in the OT for the Jews, and GOD used sinful men to compile the OT.* GOD Himself decided which books would be in the NT for the Christians, and GOD used sinful men to compile the NT. *The writings of the NT were written, considered Scripture, and being circulated among the churches while the Author was still alive and well* -- 2Peter 3:15-16, Colossians 4:16, 1Peter 1:1, Galatians 1:2, John 20:30-31, etc. *These NT writings were compiled into One Book/Bible in the 4th century in GREECE and in GREEK -- because the Christian Center had moved from Jerusalem to GREECE.* If anyone has the right to proclaim "we are the Original Catholic Church that compiled the Bible" its the GREEK ORTHODOX, not the Roman Vatican. *The Roman Church was the first church to PROTEST and SEPARATE from the Original Catholic Church headquartered in Greece* -- in the 4th century, in an attempt to wrestle church power away from Greece, the Roman Bishop invented the fake church office of a spiritual "pope/papa/father" who would have God's infallible truth -- *oops, contradicts Jesus in Matthew 23:9 (1John **2:27**)* -- and who would be a "lord/boss" with authority over the entire church of GOD -- *oops, contradicts Jesus in Matthew 20:25-26 (1Peter 5:3)* The Roman Church is the first PROTESTANT church -- that's why she's called the Mother Harlot Church -- and all the little protesting/harlot churches came out of her -- Revelation 17:4-6.

[@roymartin1385]

I love how you premiere these in the morning, but tell us to get our beers ready lolol

[@williamswenson3970]

On average, each monk at St Augustine's Abbey drank two gallons of beer per day. Highly doubt they could get that much volume in waiting to start till 5:00PM :) ;)

[@Justas399]

@@williamswenson3970 If that is true they must have been alcoholics.

[@seraphim256]

It's 5 O'clock somewhere 😁🍺

[@williamswenson3970]

@@Justas399 that number is on the high end of estimates, on average 1 - 2 gallons. Realistically though, if you are consuming 256 oz (two gallons) over the course of an 18 hour day (6 hrs of sleep) that's about 14 ounces an hour. Take into account a high tolerance from frequent consumption and the fact that beer in the mediaeval and early modern era was poor in taste and quite light (generally 2-3% abv) due to a lack of modern brewing knowledge, it is likely that they were not drunks. Beer was mostly consumed to provide energy to pray during long periods of fasting and supplement their meals when not.

[@roymartin1385]

@@williamswenson3970 i mean, I'm down for it lol

[@MisplacedTXN]

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, not scriptural.

[@KatanyaTrader]

True fellas. Even apostles never use sola scriptura.

[@solarjudgement4575]

Hersey from hell. Sola Scriptura is Biblical.

[@Azkahamm]

@@solarjudgement4575where does it say that in the Bible?

[@michaelallen1953]

@@solarjudgement4575 Sola scriptura is probably the most indefensible protestant belief. I'm a former reformed Baptist who converted to Catholicism. Not that gives me any authority, just wanted to state it, so that you know I have been on both sides and I'm not some super-biased cradle catholic. Also, I have read the church fathers, I don't know where James White is coming from when he challenges the early church fathers on their unanimous view on the papacy.

[@scottie8365]

Reading through this,I’ve seen “I’m a Catholic” “I’m a Protestant” “I’m EO” “I’m Lutheran,Calvinist,Baptist” etc. Me,I’m just a simple follower of Christ. Sadly,I think this gets lost at times 🙏

[@PInk77W1]

Christ simply said to listen to the church. Christ simply said the church is one. If u ain’t one with the church u fool yourself

[@scottie8365]

@@PInk77W1 I am one with Christ,he is the head we are the body. God Bless my friend 🙏

[@gjshordja]

@@scottie8365how do you know you are one with Christ? Anyone can say that like you but that doesn’t mean is true.

[@vivacristo1000]

James White is a brilliant speaker; he follows a long line of other self appointed freelance Bible interpreters who teach others about Christianity based on his studies of the Bible. He’s amazing and his ability to remember Scriptural passages is incredible. As one of today’s leading self appointed freelance Bible interpreters, he’s having an impact on many people on the Internet with his Alpha & Omega company. The problem is that he’s arguing against the Church. God did not send down a Bible puzzle for people to try to decipher, instead He founded a Church with authority to teach in His name throughout the ages. Read Acts 15 to see how the Church handled the early self appointed freelance teachers who were believers in Jesus yet argued against Paul. The problem is that people stop believing in the authority of the Church because they started believing in themselves. Pride darkens the mind. It won’t take a debate to convince some people that they are teaching false doctrines; it will take prayer and fasting. Even the devil quoted the Scriptures to Jesus.

[@tommychavez700]

Beautifully written my friend!! I am a fan of James White and have most of his books. You nailed it that at the end of the day its personal interpretation on solving the Bible puzzle. God Bless and Viva Cristo Rey!

[@cjr4497]

There are Church of ME people everywhere. There is a deep refusal of self brokenness and sinfulness in protestant communities. Mr. White perpetuates that. He has a dark attitude, and I don't get his appeal. When his arguments don't hold up he diminishes the ability to think of his criticizers instead of further explaining his point.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

@@cjr4497 "Church of Me" wow, amen. three words that really say it all.

[@KSTrekker]

So true! Instead of one Pope and Papal authority, you have a body of believers where everyone is their own Pope and their own authority.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

How's that working out with Francis.

[@pop6997]

Super 'Mr. Akin'..the truth sets you free. Brilliant. Thanks for posting this Matt.

[@MisplacedTXN]

I like how James will make videos called, "What Christians need to know about Roman Catholicism", but he is sure to turn the comments off... is should likely be called What Protestants need to know about Christianity.

[@zekdom]

Between 17:50 - 19:23, so far, I think Jimmy Akin is knocking it out of the park in addressing White’s point about Athanasius and scripture. Based on what I can tell, Akin dismantled White’s Athanasius-point with ease.

[@wessbess]

Jimmy is off

[@TheySt0leMyUserName]

@Daniel Eduardo Lopez aren't aliens and history the same thing

[@thundershadow]

Scripture is either from God and therefore inescapably authoritative or else it is useless.

[@chadbailey3623]

Wow. Jimmy as always did a wonderful job. James White danced around many of his arguments, and failed to address many of them. Thanks for posting this interview, Matt Fradd!

[@davidbermudez7704]

Because Jimmy puts verses out of context to his own destruction(2 Peter 3:15-16)

[@tommychavez700]

@@davidbermudez7704 just like you put 2 Peter out of context. Jimmy used Church Father support and provided Protestant scholar support. So your saying the unanimous decisions on key doctrines by the Early Church and Church Fathers were wrong?

[@davidbermudez7704]

@@tommychavez700 The Church Father writings aren’t inspired by God like the 66 books of the Bible. The early Christian leaders held to the Scriptures higher than man’s tradition. They confirm the authority of the Scriptures! If you only believe in their writings will also believe you need to work yourself up to Heaven.

[@tommychavez700]

@@davidbermudez7704 Correct . The church father writings are not inspired. The Church declared them not inspired. But that doesn't help your case. The church father writings are additional historical support. They show unaimous support for example the Trinity and anyone against it is a heretic. What they NEVER show is sola scripture. It is impossible to prove your claim of a 66 bible canon when that was settled by church councils. What verses show us an inspired table of contents??

[@davidbermudez7704]

@@tommychavez700 I only keep the Word of God not the uninspired early Christian leaders writings

[@PhilVaz]

Excellent classic debate on the subject between then James A. (now Jimmy) vs. James W from 1995 ! The sola scriptura debate has been over for James R. White since about 1997 also: James R. White writes in an online article from 1997 on the Bereans (Acts 17) and Sola Scriptura: "...the doctrine [of sola scriptura] speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? ...You will never find anyone saying, 'During times of enscripturation -- that is, when new revelation was being given -- sola scriptura was operational.' Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is 'sufficient.' It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, 'See, sola scriptura doesn't work there!' Of course it doesn't. Who said it did?" In debate with Gerry Matatics (M) and James White (W) from 1997 the "Great Debate II" we have this exchange: M: Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White. W: I have said over, and over, and over again, that sola scriptura -- M: It's a Yes or No. W: -- is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation. M: So your answer is No? W: That is exactly what my answer is. M: Thank you. W: It is no. M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or No? W: No. M: Thank you. ( available in full from www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=530151041410 ) And then there's Philip Schaff (Presbyterian), JND Kelly (Anglican), and Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran / Orthodox) on the early Church and sola scriptura, see: www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/AnsweringJamesWhite.htm#SOLASCRIPTURA I hereby rest my case, your honor. In the above article I summarize some of the better responses to White's arguments over the years I spent on the Catholic Answers boards (2004 - 2010). The best most recent 'debate' on sola scriptura -- that moves the debate further in my opinion -- took place last year between Brandon Vogt and Michael Willenborg (M.A. S.E.S.) available on my audio page. Willenborg has a degree from Geisler's notorious evangelical seminary that has been cranking out many Catholics in recent years (see book Evangelical Exodus for examples). www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/audio.htm#KarlKeating Phil Vaz

[@domanicvaldez]

This is from 1995... the audio sounded old but it also sounds as if the audio is restored.

[@SowerOfMustardSeed]

Thanks Matt! I would say Mr Atkins’s response was far more comprehensive and relevant than Mr Whytes’s. Mr. Whytes had some good points but were mostly little jabs that didn’t address or acknowledge (and elusive of) Mr Atkins’s valid rebuttal.

[@andrewfeurtado8698]

“There is no authority higher than scripture” - tradition decided which scriptures are scripture 😂

[@HoMegasTaxiarches]

Well…I wouldn’t want to debate Mr. Akin either !! Akin’s style, awareness of history and scripture, and his calm, even presentation of his argument are extraordinary. Excellent discussion thank you.

[@erikascheer7059]

Thank you Matt for posting this.

[@prayerlist9804]

Thank you so much for airing this debate. Would love to hear more on this as my son left the Catholic Church for a Protestant one. Will offer this debate to him to listen to.

[@johnyang1420]

Your son left the one Catholic church that Jesus started. Ignore Eucharist Angel. There is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Have your son read book Why We Are Catholic by Trent Horn. God bless you!

[@matiyah7788]

@@johnyang1420 what Catholics says: "there is no salvation outside [the catholic church]" What protestants says: "There is Salvation only in [Jesus Christ]". Who is your God?the catholic church or Jesus Christ? the bible says that the church is every person whom christ saved. 1 Corinthians 12:12-27

[@bryceklassen]

Praise God

[@samuelaguilar9668]

Roman Catholicism has a lot of errors lols. 🤣 I am glad i left Roman Catholicism. 😌

[@essafats5728]

@@samuelaguilar9668 and where could u go?

[@billmartin3561]

It is so clear that James White shoots an arrow at the wall, and paints the target around it. His theology drives his interpretation of the Bible.

[@virginiahansen320]

Kill shot: If the Bible is the sole rule of faith and contains everything needed for Salvation, then why doesn't the Bible say anything even remotely like that anywhere?

[@joeymolitoris8302]

Great debate! Jimmy Akin crushed it. It seems to me that James White is an expert in twisting things to fit his narrative.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

Kinda have to do that if you only base your arguments upon scripture as it is.

[@adamaprimo9023]

He is a master sophist when it comes to debating formidable Catholics but he does fantastic work against defending the triune nature of God.

[@cfG21]

Every time i see white he seems like an emotional kid that just tries to mskes things fit his agenda

[@jakeracick2301]

Is it just me or is younger Jimmy Akin a little more adversarial than current Jimmy Akin?

[@christianzimmerman9627]

For three years, I have studied early Christianity and the history of the Church. It has led me to the conclusion that the Catholic church is the one, true church founded by Jesus Christ and I am in the process of converting!! Akin crushed him.

[@danviccaro3920]

Welcome Home to the church of Jesus Christ.

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

By the way, if James White see’s this comment. Thank you for leading me to Eastern Orthodoxy from being a Baptist. When I saw the holes in James Whites arguments I started reading the Church Fathers myself and became Orthodox.

[@BibleFanatics]

Brother I love you and this is why I'm saying this. I've known you a long time on KZbin. You know i have not been a yes man to you. But if I have disagreed with you in love I try to bring you back. How are you Eastern Orthodox? Were you not Lutheran like last week? Before that you dabbled in the reformed faith and before that oneness Pentecostal. You have no anchor you are looking to tradition to help you. You are moving away from the perfect authoritative scriptures and casting your faith on things that change over long periods of time. Please listen to me because I know where you are coming from. Seek tje Lord first and seek his word, dont be deceived by this grand idea of Tradition and this is the way it has always been. Man's tradition whether good or bad will change and can not give man assurance. Only looking to Christ and seeing him and trusting him can bring peace and confidence. I know you are a reader so if you would read Menno Simons on these things he shows how scripture is the only true guide and not man's vain and empty traditions. I love you brother of you need someone to talk to please reach out to me. Miss seeing your videos on KZbin. I hope you and your Family are well.

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

@@BibleFanatics is love to talk sometime brother but I’m still attending a Lutheran Church because there isn’t an Orthodox Church near me. I will be attending a Eastern Orthodox Church that’s about an hour from me to become a catechumen starting next month after I work out the travel situation.

[@BibleFanatics]

@@OrthodoxJourney359 Have you read the best of the best on sola scriptura? Have you read Turretin, owen, Gill, the puritans, the anabaptist?

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

@@BibleFanatics sure have, but far as an Apologist I think Anthony Rogers does the best job defending Sola Scriptura.

[@BibleFanatics]

@@OrthodoxJourney359 I will have to look into him. Hace you read the historic anabaptist like Jenn Simons, Conrad Grebal, Felix Manz? They were under the worst and craziest persecution so their testimony to the scriptures I find most credible.

[@billhuntillustration3404]

Maybe the reason Janes White, despite his early comment that rational discussion with equal time is the way to settle these differences was rocked to the core when Jimmy Aiken dropped the mike on the way out of this debate. No one wants to run to a gun fight armed with a butter knife! Fore warned is fore armed. As Matt might say, “Can’t blame him theere.” 😂

[@justinitsthatguyme010]

You've got to give James White credit for actually debating Catholics because not many people do

[@Cato_the_Christian]

Not really this is a decade old and today he refuses to debate.

[@Chris-yr8wb]

ye at least he tried lol

[@justinitsthatguyme010]

Clarification:* he has in the past with guys like Trent horn and jimmy and I believe Tim Staples. In recent couple years he seems to have cowered away from it though, mostly sticking to online banter. I pray for the day James white is a convert and fierce defender of the catholic faith! What a day that would be! Pray y'all

[@firstnamelastname2552]

@Dusun Prince Where are you getting this information from?

[@firstnamelastname2552]

@Dusun Prince Link please?

[@RMed82]

James White just revealed why he cannot accept the Church's authority! He made it obvious he wants to have a say so in the matter and try to correct 2000 years worth of theology with his own understanding of Scripture. Now that's crazy! 😆

[@samuelaguilar9668]

Church's authority? hahaha RC is false lols

[@KSTrekker]

I was a Baptist for 40 years and just converted to Catholicism. The question almost no one ever asks Protestants is this, "So let's suppose Catholics have been wrong and corrupted the faith over time and Protestants are the true church and are right. Which one is right? I mean which one out of hundreds of Protestant denominations are the true church? Is it the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Baptists, or the non-denomns?" I'll take the one over the many. Jesus said that the way to righteousness was narrow and few find it. The path to destruction is wide. I'm not trying to say all Protestants are damned to hell, which is exactly what they teach about Catholics. If you say that the Church that was founded by St. Peter is not the true, apostolic church with the deposit of faith from the Apostles, then you make Jesus to be a liar, when he says in Matt. 16:17-18 that upon this rock he will build his Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[@Mic1904]

You were a Baptist for 40 years and yet you're still pedaling fictional numbers about '30,000 Protestant denominations'? Even if that ridiculous myth were even remotely true, the Catholic and Orthodox churches would make that at least 30,002 Christian denominations. Which of the 30,002 Christian denominations are the true church? You still have to answer the same question, it's just in your case, the one you picked out of the supposed 30,002 was the Catholic Church.

[@KSTrekker]

@@Mic1904 - Even John MacArthur claimed 28,000 denominations. Even 2 is too many, it was Christ’s desire that we be one. I would not get caught up in the number.

[@Mic1904]

@@KSTrekker "Even John MacArthur claimed 28,000 denominations" - then John MacArthur claims wrong. John MacArthur is not the official spokesperson for Protestantism on how many 'denominations' we have. If he claimed Protestants believe 2+2=5, it wouldn't suddenly be true because he said it. "Even 2 is too many" - it is indeed, but humans are fallible, and Scripture itself records divisions in the Church and even instructs separation over error precisely because of the fallible nature of humans. Division didn't start in 1517, division started in the New Testament. It's why there are also divisions amongst those who call themselves Catholics.

[@Mic1904]

@@KSTrekker Also, I've no idea why you claim we shouldn't get 'caught up in the number', when you raised the number 30,000 in the first place specifically as a key leg of your argument...

[@KSTrekker]

@@Mic1904 - Key leg? It’s unimportant, but the point is every time Protestants disagree, they split churches. I’ve seen it first hand in Baptist churches I belonged to.

[@EagleRiderStudios]

I pray all our Protestant friends come home!

[@benbennett5301]

We already are home. And so are you. We are both valid.

[@akc783]

James White seems to twist scripture to say what he wants it to say, but when his inaccuracies are addressed he doesn’t have anything to respond with other than essentially “no you’re wrong.”

[@IHS333]

Jimmy Akin is gifted

[@rovli816]

True

[@theosteven3362]

@Eucharist Angelplease tell me what is CCC 1821 about? haha. Tell me please. And who says catholics rely on good works for their salvation. Lets have a intelligent conversation here, and who stands the last. Respond please.

[@theosteven3362]

@Eucharist Angel 1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end" and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the GRACE OF CHRIST. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved." She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven: 1. didnt u read the grace of christ is put there clearly? there is no accomplishment if there is no grace of christ there in the first place. that is what it is called as SAVED BY GRACE. Catholic teaching clarifies that. U confuse the term saved and justified. Only God's grace saved but our works and faith justify us for the grace, because if not: 2. whats the meaning of WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE JUDGED BY OUR DEED AT THE FINAL JUDGEMENT? what does that mean then? IF U SIMPLY HAVE FAITH, NO NEED FOR JUDGEMENT! THOSE WHO BELIEVE WILL GO TO HEAVEN, AND THOSE WHO DONT, WILL GO OTHERWISE! i am waiting for answer immediately.

[@theosteven3362]

@Eucharist Angel hey, just answer my question. Dont jump in conclusion before u bring me answer, to WHY WOULD WE BE JUDGED BY OUR DEEDS DUH??? If works is nothing, why is it a determination point? I can answer all of that BS u bring beacuse it is repetition, but dont run away from my question!

[@theosteven3362]

@Eucharist Angel where is the answer? U vanished just when i need u

[@brycegray7057]

Dang that John 3:5 example by Akin saying all the Church Fathers were uninamous on baptism until John Calvin was an amazing win.

[@sabagebre8206]

Yes that’s true, I love it. White has no answer for it. The problem with Protestantism is the have no Church Fathers To rely on.

[@heinrich3088]

@Eucharist Angel Oh calm down brother, you are all over the place with these insults! Sorry, but it is an unanimously consensus between the fathers that baptism is the 'washing of regenaration'.

[@footballtraininganddevelop1522]

@Eucharist Angel “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.” ‭‭John‬ ‭3:5‬ ‭NIV‬‬ “and this water symbolizes BAPTISM that NOW SAVES YOU also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3:21‬ ‭NIV‬‬ “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:12‬ ‭NIV‬‬

[@markv1974]

@VDMA LCMS which is funny coz, catholics, orthodox, lutherans, anglicans tend to stick to the same doctrines with a few minor difference but those who abandoned sacred traditions just go off the deep end. Even lutherans and anglicans who are priests can remain priests moving to the Catholic Church (not all catholics are roman/latin). Makes me think all the more that sacraments do work to channel grace and not just scripture alone

[@3leon306]

@Eucharist Angel again, kinda dumb and weird how excited you are

[@danielsell7598]

For those of you disappointed that James White will not debate Jimmy Akin on the same topic of sola scriptura, I recommend reading "The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & Protestants -Do the Differences Still Matter?" by James White. In Chapter 5, James White clearly defines and defends sola scriptura. I'm not sure what new information you would obtain with another debate between James and Jimmy on sola scriptura. (BTW: I am currently reading both the book above and Jimmy Akin's book "The Bible is a Catholic Book.")

[@nametheunknown_]

Great conversation, thanks for providing this.

[@chrispeele3746]

I find James White to be a pretentious, rude and just all around unlikable guy. I am a confessional Lutheran and have seen him debate many times and have always thought that he does not come across as very Christ-like towards those he disagrees with.

[@andrefouche9682]

People who respect James White normally overlook his double standards. He normally accuses people of certain fallacies and then do exactly the same and he is almost never called out on it.

[@antoniorangel8277]

It is hard (impossible) to explain the Sola Scriptura concept through History ... which Sola Scriptura were following the first Christians? Particularly, when it is generally assumed that the Book of Revelation was finished until 95AC ... the Early Church primarily used the Septuagint as the Old Testament ... During the first century, new scriptures were written in Greek about Jesus Christ, two more collections of new scriptures - the Pauline epistles and the Gospels - were accepted as canonical by the end of the second century, a third collection, the catholic epistles, were canonized over the next century. Christians called these new scriptures the "New Testament", and began referring to the Septuagint as the "Old Testament" ... Then, the Council of Nicea in 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 determined which books should be included in the Bible ... Few years later, all were published by Saint Jerome in a single volume in Latin; by then, the true supporters of Sola Scriptura should have had their hands off the Scriptures consistent with their beliefs, but more than 1,000 years later, the Reformation took out eight books from the Bible and even assessed the possibility to remove the Letter of James (a "letter of straw" that undermined "the faith alone" principle), while Martin Luther removed Maccabees (because it supported the idea of Purgatory and prayers for the dead), once they did "the necessary adjustments" to the Bible, arguing innocent translations, Protestantism was ready to claim the "Sola Scriptura" premise as a canon ... However, eighty book Protestant Bibles have fourteen books in between the Old Testament and New Testament in a section called the Apocrypha, but Protestant traditions traditionally teach that those books are useful for instruction, but are non-canonical (did I hear tradition?), so what is the point of having non-canonical books in the Bible, when it is supposed that Sola Scriptura suffices? ...

[@mertonhirsch4734]

I am Eastern Orthodox and my Uncle and his family belongs to the Moravian Church. I decided to read up on the Moravian church. I remember reading about the Hussite Church in college, and it is the same thing basically. What I found to be MOST interesting is that the Moravian's were actually the first reformation church, and yet they do not believe in Sola Scriptura. In fact they may even downplay the essential nature of the bible relative to Roman Catholics. I always felt that the reformation movements were largely a way to reduce the authority of the Pope and Bishops by turning entirely to the Bible, but it looks clear from reading Moravian doctrines and essential beliefs that it was an attempt to stay true to Catholic traditions including sacraments, infant baptism, Bishops, priests and deacons etc., and only sought to reform specific practices relating to indulgences and purgatory which were seen as abuses of the Pope, but did not replace ecclesiastical and traditional authority with Sola Scriptura. Seems to be evidence supporting the idea that Sola Scriptura was a innovation.

[@princekermit0]

@mertonhirsch4734 You stated: "What I found to be MOST interesting is that the Moravian's were actually the first reformation church, and yet they do not believe in Sola Scriptura." Times definitely change. I can't speak to your sources, as I know them not. I can speak to their recent affirmation of sola scriptura. This is a direct quotation from their document: Quote/ Page 1 Guiding Principles of Biblical Interpretation Prepared by the Interprovincial Faith and Order Commission - November 2, 2011 Amended and Adopted by the Southern Province Provincial Elders’ Conference - March 5, 2012 Amended and Adopted by the Northern Province Provincial Elders’ Conference - April 12, 2012 From *the Ground of the Unity* , we affirm the following God’s Word and Doctrine “The Triune God as revealed in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is the only source of our life and salvation; and this Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith of the Unitas Fratrum and therefore shapes our life." End Quote Quote/ Page 3 "... the General Synod of 1914 made it a point to reaffirm the eight cardinal doctrines and also formulated a statement about the authority of Scripture: “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are and shall remain the only rule of our faith and practice.” The Synod also declared that “we are convinced that all truths that declare the will of God for our salvation are fully contained therein.” "After discussion and some adaptation of this statement, it was proposed at the 1994 Northern Province Synod that the former statement in the Ground of the Unity, “The Holy Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament are and abide the only source and rule of faith, doctrine and life of the Unitas Fratrum,” be replaced with, “the Triune God as attested to in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is the only source of our life and salvation and this Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith of the Unitas Fratrum and therefore shapes our life.”

[@mertonhirsch4734]

@@princekermit0 The Guiding Principles statement continues, “From the earliest days of our history, Moravians have held the Word of God in highest esteem. Yet we have always made it clear that the written word points and directs us not to itself, but to the Word made flesh, that is, Jesus Christ. A hymn of the Bohemian Brethren found in the Moravian Book of Worship, expresses that relationship beautifully: The word of God which ne’er shall cease, 
proclaims free pardon, grace and peace, 
salvation shows in Christ alone, 
the perfect will of God makes known.” Guiding Principles of Biblical Interpretation then charts an extensive historical review of the development of the Church’s position on the role of Scripture. This review starts with John Hus and follows the Church through to the 1995 adoption of the position found in the Ground of the Unity featured above. Following the historical review, Guiding Principles continues:
“In more recent years, many Moravians…have written articles, papers, letters and other documents that have addressed in one way or another the topic of Biblical Interpretation. All of these voices, while speaking from different contexts and with somewhat varying perspectives, seem to affirm what has been affirmed throughout our history: that as Moravians, proclaiming Christ and Him crucified as our confession of faith, and believing that the Triune God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only source of our life and salvation, we do not believe that Jesus points us to Scripture so that we can find the answers there, but rather that Scripture points us to Jesus so that we can find the answers in him. As a church we must be attentive to God’s Word (the word of the cross, the word of reconciliation, the word of personal union with the Savior, the word of love between one another), and our faith and order must be formulated under Scripture and the Holy Spirit. Yet, it is not Scripture and our conformity to a particular interpretation of it that unites us, but rather Christ, our Chief Elder, who holds us together by keeping us all close to Him. With this narrative of the history of interpretation of Scripture in the Moravian Church in mind, we offer some guiding principles of scriptural interpretation. Before doing so, we share our hopes for this important task of the people of the Moravian Church in North America. Our hopes for the Moravian Church as we interpret Holy Scripture: That our efforts be grounded in faithfulness to the centrality of Christ, the way of the cross, and obedience to the word of God. That we proceed with openness to the leading and grace of the Triune God, not presuming in advance the outcome of our study and discernment together. That understanding a Moravian way of interpreting Scripture is of value to our life and work and the Moravian church every day, in every situation. More specifically, understanding how we interpret Scripture is critical when disagreement arises among us. That such understanding and work strengthen our Christian fellowship with each other as Moravians (individuals, congregations, provinces), grounded in a recognition that, ultimately, our unity as Moravians is rooted in our affirmation of Christ, our crucified and risen Lord. That we have strength, patience, and love as we live, work, and worship together in community. Guiding Principles for the interpretation of Scripture As Moravians, we understand that Scripture: Points us to Christ so that we can find our answers in Him. Ministers (along with the Sacraments, preaching, etc.) to the divine and human essentials of our faith - that the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creates, redeems and sanctifies us; and we respond in faith, love and hope. Scripture, as a whole, is the sum of many parts. Scripture includes the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament We affirm that not all texts are equally clear. With Zinzendorf, we affirm that scriptural passages have varying degrees of clarity: Basic truths about salvation (that are clear) Matters of knowledge that require historical understanding Mysteries that remain uncertain (even for those with the tools) We note considerations for interpretation: Given our human contexts and experiences, we affirm that every reading of Scripture is an act of interpretation. Scripture is interpreted in a variety of ways: literal, metaphorical, historical, contextual, rhetorical, etc. We affirm that no one way is the prescribed way. Given the diverse witness of Scripture, we believe that any particular scriptural text must be interpreted in light of all Scripture. Our interpretation of Scripture is guided by heart and mind, piety and rationality, doing and thinking. Faithful interpretation acknowledges: The historical context out of which the texts arose. The contemporary cultural and global contexts out of which questions of interpretation arise (including scientific, archeological, and other forms of knowledge). In this work, we affirm the importance to Moravians of relationships to each other and God, and assert that biblical interpretation happens most faithfully in conversation and fellowship with one another, not as individuals (or even as individual congregations or provinces). As we interpret Scripture together, we acknowledge that: Given the mystery of God, we cannot predict in advance the final result of our search for truth. Refraining from starting with a specific end in mind is aided by acknowledging that we come to the text and task with presuppositions. By naming our presuppositions, we deepen our ability to discern meaning and truth in the Holy Scriptures. Even with shared principles of interpretation, we realize that individuals, congregations and provinces of the Moravian Church may draw different conclusions.”

[@mertonhirsch4734]

@@princekermit0 What I will say for sure is that they have no general problem whatsoever with an allegorical Genesis, or with biological evolution. There is no "simple reading". Scripture speaks to the individual and the community, but as long as it leads you to Christ's gift of life and justification then that's all that matters. The bible does not need to be historically inerrant. It doesn't have to be historically non-contradictory. Reading it is basically a sacrament or mystery in itself which depends on the interaction of the reader.

[@princekermit0]

@@mertonhirsch4734 *“the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are and shall remain the only rule of our faith and practice.”* This line... is a sola scriptura declaration. It was superseded by the newer declaration: *"The Triune God as revealed in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is the only source of our life and salvation; and this Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith of the Unitas Fratrum and therefore shapes our life."* > "...this Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith..." < Sola Scriptura in a nutshell.

[@jmmanley]

I am a Protestant who will be joining the Catholic church soon (thanks in no small part to Mr Pints himself!). Many years ago I liked James White and even listened to some of his debates regarding Catholicism. I think it is important to make this observation regarding arguments for sola scripture: 1) Catholics exaggerate the extent to which Protestants are divided on key issues. Yes there are serious disagreements about certain things, even certain core issues, but even the Catholic church experiences this among its members from time to time. The factious nature of Protestantism is not salient to many Protestants. Sola scriptura does seem to get Protestants a lot farther than Catholics will admit. However... 2) This is because in reality, most Protestant groups quietly practice some form of magisterium and tradition. In one way or another, depending on the denomination, Protestants have their official leaders who teach with authority. And, they have their traditions insofar as they inherit, defend, cultivate, and then pass down a particular doctrinal framework (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, evangelical, baptist, etc). In other words, the reason many Protestants don't think they need tradition and a magisterium is because they already have those things and don't know it. So IMO the superiority of the Catholic perspective is simply that it acknowledges that this is a fundamental part of the way things are, whereas Protestants say "sola scriptura" but in actual practice also have their own traditions and magisteriums.

[@johnyang1420]

Welcome home! Hallelujah!

[@jonathanvickers3881]

I think protestants wouldn't disagree with you. Tradition+authoritative teaching is good and necessary. The difference is sola scriptura is a teaching that the word of God is the only infallible source of God's communication with us. It is above the others because it is the only infallible source. Obviously, you probably already knew that. However, I thought it important to point it out.

[@johnyang1420]

@@jonathanvickers3881 Catholic position makes more sense.

[@jmmanley]

@@jonathanvickers3881 Thanks for the clarification. For myself, I gradually developed a sense that Protestants (including myself at the time) were trying to prove the "sola" simply by emphatically pointing to the "scriptura." I began to realize that in many ways what exactly is meant by "sola" was more or less an unexamined question. And once I fleshed it out for myself, I realized that it was about 80% of the way to Catholicism. I actually think ultimately that sola scriptura is a red herring and that most apologist on either side are wrong to spend so much time on it. Maybe a better question is something like "How do the Scriptures properly function in the life of the church, and by what means can we understand them correctly?"

[@jmmanley]

​@@jonathanvickers3881 One serious challenge to sola scriptura would be to simply observe that the idea that God's revealed word can only be found in what is written down is simply a presupposition. There are biblical arguments to make to back up that presupposition, but it is a presupposition none the less. I think this is why a lot of strongly reformed protestants are also cessationists. If scripture is the only place to find God's revelation to us, without exception, then the presence of prophecy, visions, and so on is a threat to that.

[@mattr.1887]

Former Protestant here. Sola scriptura is enough to drive anyone into a state of psychosis. ie, Private revelation is EVERYTHING. All man has to do is write something down, and boom - it magically becomes the WORD OF GOD. Not only does this reduce truth to mere human whim, it also leads to a bizarre and unhealthy emotional relationship with a mere book. Christianity on the whole has its strengths, but I've had to walk away. I find now find God in nature, family, and relationships. Theology is no longer some kind of addictive drug for me. I still have morals and standards, but I no longer need to resort to Christian psychosis to maintain them.

[@JD-xz1mx]

This is tough. I dislike James White a lot, and like Jimmy Akin a lot, but agree with White on Sola Scriptura.

[@janewilmer9276]

Jimmy Akin was outstanding! I have been challenged by a Protestant to listen to James White. I guess he is sure that I will abandon my Catholic Faith. No way! I find it very difficult to listen to James White. Jimmy Akin is a treasure!

[@mosestorres6553]

Thank you for this video! I feel so enlightened by Mr Akin’s responses to Mr. Whites claims.

[@Jake_Fowler]

Halfway in and James White has already used straw man arguments, denied what he previously said just minutes before (in this same recording), and mischaracterized Catholic teaching without stating the proper qualifications and nuances.

[@williamavitt8264]

Examples?

[@Jake_Fowler]

@@williamavitt8264 My comment was months ago…I don’t recall what specifically was said, but if you return to the first half of the debate, and you take with you an accurate understanding of Catholicism (whether you’re a Catholic or not), you’ll recognize what I was referring to at that time. If I have a chance to watch it again, I will reply again with examples.

[@williamavitt8264]

@@Jake_Fowler I have quite the accurate understanding of Catholicism. You know who else does? Jimmy Akin? I'm guessing the person who doesn't here, is you

[@Jake_Fowler]

@@williamavitt8264 Did something I said upset you bro? That comment seemed a tad hostile and rather uninformed given that I’m a stranger to you.

[@williamavitt8264]

@@Jake_Fowler it was neither hostile, nor uninformed. I know all about you I need to from your comments. You made baseless accusations that you seem unwilling to back up, and you're accusing actual Catholics of not actually understanding Catholicism. It's been my experience that Protestants who claim Catholics don't know what their Church teaches, actually don't really know what the Catholic Church teaches. That seems to be you from your comments

[@Earthtime3978]

The narrator, Hank Hanegraaff, left Protestantism and joined the Orthodox Church.

[@patricksmith8262]

I come from a Protestant background and after years of sitting on the sidelines as an agnostic, I'm reexamining my views and faith. The goal should be trying to find truth. There are aspects of human nature which can make us vain and resistant to admitting error. But those are flaws we are supposed to work to overcome. But, at a certain point, a refusal to do so moves from temporary error to intentional malfeasance. I don't say this lightly. But the more James White debates I watch, the more I see questionable, and even arguably dishonest, tactics. And the refusal to acknowledge even what seem to be indisputable errors. I still have issues with some Catholic dogmas, but, overall, I'm seeing far more accuracy (and rationality) from the Catholic apologists than I've seen from Protestant apologists. Still not sure where I stand overall. I see flaws all around. But, despite my concerns over certain dogmas (which is an issue); debate, after debate, the Catholics seem to have the stronger, better supported, positions.

[@gnar1763]

I would like someone to talk with Mike Gendron. He has this book out that's called "Preparing Catholics for Eternity". I have a protestinian friend who has a copy and it has turned into a heated topic between the both of us- I am Catholic and hold The Faith dear to me.

[@CristianaCatólica]

GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH

[@Porklion]

In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture

[@Johnny-xh6lr]

Yes and I miss the good old days when we could burn all heretics (Luther followers) 😂

[@stonwall9065]

@@Johnny-xh6lr Yes kill them all, because your only argument is an appeal to authority. The Catholic dream is never having to defend the faith, but simply anathematize and execute those who disagree.

[@sgal88]

Robert Sungenis destroys him everytime. Search it on yt and you will see it.

[@lukeedison1632]

Suuuuper dishonest introduction. The clip you shared of James White quite conveniently cuts off the rest of Whites explanation. He says he has dealt with the arguments (which he has) he has debated Jimmy on the topic (which he has) and Jimmy, like most Catholics, has nothing new to attack with and refuses to defend his own position (which he does seem to do). As a result, White said unless Jimmy is willing to defend or attack with something new, he is not interested in this topic. Additionally, in the same clip, James reads a quote from Jimmy in which JIMMY is the one who declines a debate (Jimmy refuses to debate the papacy against White) and in response, James also says “I won’t debate you on sola scriptura”. So to summarize, you clipped James’s response, eliminated his full argument, AND eliminated the portion which shows it was actually Jimmy who first ran from a proposed debate. The way you spun this was just slimey.

[@dman7668]

Thanks to both these men for publically defending their views! It takes courage to do that, I respect both of these men. Thanks Dr. White from a Catholic for coming out to debate!

[@veritasmuy2407]

Jesus was all about Sola Scriptura. Jesus said that God's people ERRED because they did not know written Scripture (Matthew 22:29). Jesus used God's written Scripture to CORRECT the false doctrines of God's religious leaders (Matthew 19:4-6). Jesus rejected and disobeyed the ADDED traditions of God's religious leaders (Matthew 15:1-9). Jesus even used God's written Scripture to defeat the temptations of Satan in Matthew 4 ("it is written"). Shouldn't Christians be like Christ ?? Paul says YES !!! (2Timothy 3:15-17, Acts 17:11, etc) Rome says NO !!! There is no authority in heretical Rome -- Matthew 20:25-26, Matthew 23:9, 1Peter 5:3

[@dman7668]

@@veritasmuy2407 Saying Jesus followed scripture isn't the same as saying he followed scripture alone. He didn't do that and he wasn't a protestant in his views on Sola scripture.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@dman7668 YOU: he wasn't a protestant in his views on Sola scripture *ME: maybe you missed Jesus' point that the added traditions of God's religious leaders are worthless -- not to be followed or believed -- because they always contradict what GOD has actually said in Scripture -- Matthew 15:1-9, Mark 7:7-9,13, etc* For example: Rome's added traditions not found anywhere in Scripture is that DEATH entered the world by the woman/Eve, and Mary is the "new Eve" and "co-Redemptrix" that crushes Satan -- *which CONTRADICTS the Apostle who taught that DEATH entered the world by ONE MAN/Adam* (Romans 5:12), *and Satan/Death were crushed/defeated by ONE MAN/Jesus* -- the SEED of Israel, Isaiah 65:9 -- *dying on the wooden cross -- see Hebrews 2:14, Genesis 3:15.* *The APOSTLE taught that the Fall & Redemption of Mankind was ONLY between TWO MEN* (1Corinth 15:21-22) -- *ONLY between TWO ADAMS* (1Corinth 15:45,47) -- *based ONLY on the obedience and disobedience of these TWO SONS OF GOD* (Romans 5:12-21, Luke 1:35/3:38). Yet ROME's added tradition has heretically ADDED two women into the Fall & Redemption, *and out of that heresy comes more Roman heresies -- such as Mary being the "new Eve" and Mary being the Woman of Genesis 3:15, and Mary being the Woman of Revelation 12, etc* -- which are ALL FALSE according to Scripture. *The Woman of Revelation 12:1 is the physical 12Tribes of Jacob/Israel as described in Genesis 37:9-10 -- the Woman can NOT be Mary because the Woman is ON EARTH during the last 3.5 yeas being persecuted by Satan -- Rev 12:12-14.* The Woman of Genesis 3:15 that Satan has hatred/enmity for all thru the OT and history -- and who's SEED is the Jewish Messiah that crushes Satan, is the physical 12Tribes of Jacob/Israel -- Isaiah 65:9. Satan never showed any hatred/enmity toward Mary -- Satan didn't persecute and kill Mary. *Eve is the typology of Believers, not the typology of Mary.* -- Eve was the BRIDE of the First Adam (Genesis 2:24) -- Believers are the BRIDE of the Last Adam (Ephesians 5:32, Revelation 19) -- Eve was of the BODY of the First Adam. (Genesis 2:22-23) -- Believers are the BODY of the Last Adam (Colossians 1:18, 1Corinth 12) -- Eve had dominion with the First Adam (Genesis 1:28) -- Believers will rule with a rod of iron with the Last Adam (Revelation 2:26-27) *Multitudes of false heretical traditions have been added because of Rome's original false tradition that Mary is somehow involved in the Redemption of Mankind.*

[@EdwardGraveline]

To go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant. Saint Cardinal John Henry Newman. So true. Have a friend named William Hemsworth who was a Baptist Seminarian. They told him to research the Early Church fathers. He did and became Catholic. Now he has a website and interviewed Dr. Scott Hahn and Steven K Ray, and Gary Michuta and other great catholics

[@allisvanity...9161]

Newman made that statement prior to the first vatican council; which he initially opposed vehemently because it makes a mess of history. Once papal infallibility was officially pronounced, he submitted to the pope, and formulated his development doctrine.

[@Greasy__Bear]

The more I look into them the more orthodox I become, but close enough, it's still less protestant.

[@allisvanity...9161]

@@Greasy__Bear Read the Epistle of First Clement, it dates to the first century AD, and is very "protestant". It teaches Justification by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone.

[@Greasy__Bear]

@@allisvanity...9161 Im personally not in the business of splitting hairs. I have a feeling there are very catholic authors that if you read them without context you would say the same of them. I have never heard any Christian say we are justified by anything other than faith. The argument is what all the words meant to the author at the time it was written and what comes next after justification.

[@allisvanity...9161]

@@Greasy__Bear The question is, is Faith sufficient. Paul's Epistles, First Clement, the Epistle of Diognetus/Mathetes, Luther, and Calvin all affirmed the sufficiency of Faith. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and such all affirm Faith, and Works. They thereby fall under Paul's anathama in Galatians. Only the Bible is God-Breathed, the Church Fathers are profitable to read, but they are neither consistent with each other, nor are they divinely inspired.

[@adamdouglas7090]

Interesting discussion and the debaters extend civility to their opponent so each could put their view and decide. But from the Catholic point of view the elephant in the room was missed; quite surprising. really. Jesus instituted a Church, not scripture ,nor a a bible; though the Church did compile the bible. Whilst Jesus walked this earth He spoke in the person and with the authority of the Father, but to ensure the living voice of Christ He founded a Church; HIS CHURCH. This is the starting point but it appeared not to be emphasised by Mr Atkin. The nearest the parties got to this point was a reference to Peter being the rock, and what that meant. There was a need to take one step back to what Jesus was doing, not Peter.

[@jamescurtin4412]

Well said

[@truth7416]

If you want to hear an exact description of Satan's Character just read how Calvinist James White describes God! Its a perfectly accurate description of Satan! Calvinist: god delights in destroying most human beings! God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death and are to glorify him by their destruction.( John Calvin Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6) Calvinist: god infict's evil on people he delights in doing so! “Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3) Calvinist: god decides who will be his murderers and theives! “thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5) Calvinist: god commands and forces people and the devil to do evil acts! “The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11) Calvinist: no evil has happened that god didn't command it be done! ”He testifies that He creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which He hath not done (Amos 3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises His judgments willingly or unwillingly.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, Paragraph 3) Calvinist: god forces people not to come to him. he bars access to them “…salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5) You are in grave danger siding with these heretical people you defend. Get out while you can if you have not already been give over completely. I would ask you. Is this the God you worship as described by the Reformed Theologian JOHN CALVIN? TRUTH IN LOVE

[@anthonyfowler2623]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Stand firm and hold fast to the tradition we have passed on to you either by word of mouth or by letter

[@benmiddleton9984]

Wasn't much of a debate honestly. Akin destroyed White. Romans 2:13 John 8:51 Romans 6:16 Hebrews 5:9 James 2:21 1 Timothy 4:16 and more all prove that the only faith that saves is a working faith! Faith alone is found nowhere in Scripture except for in James and in James it's not even referring to having faith alone. We are saved by grace alone through Christ, not faith alone. Even the Apostle Paul said that everlasting life is reserved for good works. Faith without works is dead. Romans 5:1 says that we are justified by faith but it doesn't say by faith alone. Justification by faith alone has never been biblical. For 1,100 years the Bible was untouched until Luther messed around with it and changed everything.

[@petemolenda4893]

Protestants have a Bible. Catholics have a Bible and the Church. Jesus didn't say "You are Peter and I leave you this book".

[@kellykempkilroy]

A wonderful debate. Two gentlemen. Thank you.

[@cynthiax56]

➨ The Bible ITSELF Contradicts Luther's doctrine of "scripture alone" (solascriptura) The Bible tells us that the authority is THE CHURCH: ... ● 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 The pillar & foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH. ● EPHESIANS 3:10 10 His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, ● 2 THESS 2:15 We are to hold fast to the TRADITIONS we have been given, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by the letter. ● 1 COR 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything, and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you. ● JOHN 21:25 Jesus said & did Many other things that are too numerous to be recorded in writing. ● HEB 13:17 Obey the eldars in the CHURCH. ● MATT 18:15-17 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECTS TO HEARTHE CHURCH let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. The True Church is a TEACHING Church: (to Teach means to impart knowledge that is not presently know....not in writing) ● JOHN 14:26-31 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (To TEACH is to impart knowledge that is not presently known....not in writing) ● ACTS 8:31: And he said, HOW CAN I, (understand scripture) EXCEPT SOMEONE SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (The scriptures are not for individual interpretation. They need the guidance of the CHURCH. It is PROTESTANTS who are following the doctrines of a man.) nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Luther's doctrine of "Faith alone" is ALSO False: ➨ WORKS, PENANCE, & PURGATORY (All copied from the protestant version of the Bible by me) ➨WORKS: ● REV 20:12...The dead are judged BY THEIR WORKS. ● JAMES 2:18 Faith without works is dead ● MATTEW 19:17 Jesus tells us if we want to enter into Life, we must keep the commandments. ● MATTHEW 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your GOOD DEEDSand glorify your Father in heaven. ● JAMES 2:24 A man is justified by works, and not by faith only. ● ROMANS 2:6 He will judge everyone ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. ● ROMANS 2:13 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. ● MATTHEW 7:21 Not everyone who says to me: "Lord Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven but only those WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER. ● PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. ● MATT 25:35-40 JESUS tells us to feed the hungry & clothe the naked (good works). He further warns us that those who do NOT will be sent away into the eternal fire., but those who do these WORKS will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. ● LUKE 16:19-30 The story of Lazarus and the rich man shows us that the rich man went to hell for refusing to help Lazarus who was poor and hungry. (He refused to do good works) ● TITUS 3:14 KJV And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. ● EPHESIANS 2:8-11 (KJV) Protestants "prove" their false doctrine of "faith alone" By quoting EPH 2:8-9 and they STOP before they get to number 10: 8 For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (most protestants stop here instead of continuing on to 10): ➨ 10 FOR WE ARE GOD'S WORKMANSHIP, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD HAS BEFORE ORDAINED, THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM. ● 1 COR 9:27 (KJV) (Paul speaking) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away. ● MATT 12:36-37 36 But I say unto you, That every idle WORD THAT MEN SHALL SOEAK, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE JUSTIFIED, and BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE CONDEMNED. (not by yout faith alone) ➨PENENCE: Protestants reject the idea that they must do "penence" (attempt to make up for the sins they have committed) ● Luke 19:8. Zacchaeus told Jesus if he has cheated anyone, he will repay them 4 times over. ● Mark 2:20 Jesus said (regarding his disciples): The days are coming when the Bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. ● Matthew 6:16 When you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrits do ● Acts 26:20 RSV but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance. ● Acts 2:38-40: Do Penance and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN, and to all who are far off who the Lord our God shall call. ➨PURGATORY:. ● 2 TIMOTHY 1: 16-18. Paul prays for the dead Onesiphorus. ● 1 PETER 4:6 The gospel was preached to the dead. ● 1 PETER 3:19 , Peter says that after the crucifixion and death of Jesus, that Jesus "went to speak to the spirits in prison", which means that there is a place people go to after they die that is a prison and not heaven nor hell. ● MATT 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will Not be forgiven, either in this world, nor in the "world to come" This implies that some sins are forgiven in the "world to come" (purgatory) ● also 1 COR 3:12-15 & more in the Catholic Bible: (2 Mace 12:46). “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins”

[@luizfelipemendoncafilho8213]

Great job, Cynthia. Answering the protestants with their prescription: book, chapter, verse.

[@cynthiax56]

@@luizfelipemendoncafilho8213 Thank you kindly, I have even more:..... ➔ All of the following things that Protestants attack can be found in the Bible: Holy images are BIBLICAL and are not "Idols" .... ➔CARVED IMAGES IN THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD, INTERCESSION OF MARY AND THE SAINTS, HONOURING MARY, AND BOWING AS A SIGN OF HONOUR AND RESPECT (All copied from the protestant version of the bible by Cynthia X) Sacred Images are Biblical & mocking & destroying them is a serious sin, an act of blasphemy: ➨ SACRED IMAGES: Sacred images are not idols and it is an act of blasphemy to attack them: ● EXODUS 25:18-22 God commands Moses to make STATUES of Angels. ● NUMBERS 21:8-9 God commands another image to be made, a serpent. ● EZEKIEL 41:18-25 KJV ➔ EZEKIEL's VISION OF THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD ADORNED WITH CARVED IMAGES: ... 18 And it was made with CHERUBIMS (ANGELS) and PALM TREES, so that a palm tree was between a CHERUB and EVERY CHERUB HAD TWO FACES; 19 So that the FACE OF A MAN was toward the PALM TREE on the one side, and the FACE OF A LION toward the PALM TREE on the other side: it was made through all the house round about. 20 From the ground unto above the door were CHERUBIMS (ANGELS) and PALM TREES made, and on the wall of the temple. 21 The posts of the temple were squared, and the face of the sanctuary; the appearance of the one as the appearance of the other. 22 The altar of wood was three cubits high, and the length thereof two cubits; and the corners thereof, and the length thereof, and the walls thereof, were of wood: and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the Lord. 23 And the temple and the sanctuary had two doors. 24 And the doors had two LEAVES apiece, two turning leaves; two leaves for the one door, and two leaves for the other door. 25 And there were made on them, on the doors of the temple, CHERUBIMS and PALM TREES, like as were made upon the walls; and there were thick planks upon the face of the porch without. ➨ BOWING as a sign of honour / respect: ●1 KINGS 2:19 Solomon bows to his Mother. (he HONOURS Her) ● JOSHUA 7:6: 6 Joshua & the elders of Israel tore their clothing and lay prostrate (face down on the ground) before the Ark of the Lord. (an OBJECT) ➨ INTERCESSION OF MARY & THE SAINTS IN THE BIBLE ...INCLUDING BIBLICAL PROOF that SAINTS ARE NOT AMONG THE DEAD: The Protestant claim that we are forbidden to speak to / pray to Mary and the saints is NOWHERE in the Bible. In fact, the following scriptures were copied (by me) directly from the Protestant version of the Bible: ... ➨INTERCESSION of a holy person on our behalf: ● JOB 42:8 8 Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and GO TO MY SERVANT JOB, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and MY SERVANT Job SHALL PRAY FOR YOU, FOR I WILL ACCEPT HIS PRAYER NOT TO DEAL WITH YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR FOLLY; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. ➨INTERCESSION of MARY: JOHN 2:1 At the wedding feast at Cana, it was Mary who asked Jesus to help the wedding party. ➨INTERCESSION OF THE SAINTS: REV 5:8 The prayers of the Saints are offered to Jesus the lamb. ➨The KING Honours his mother's request: ● 1 KINGS 2:20: Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” (Jesus is the Greatest King and he also honours his mother's requests) SAINTS ALSO WORKED MIRACLES: ➨ JOHN 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. ➨ PAUL RAISES A MAN FROM THE DEAD: ● ACTS 20:7-12 9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. 10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.20: ● MARK 6:12-13... 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. ● ACTS 19:12 The Handkerchief of Paul healed sick people: 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. ● ACTS 5:15 The shadow of Peter healed the sick: so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. ➨SAINTS ARE NOT AMONG THE DEAD: AND THEIR INTERCESSION IS BIBLICAL: They share in the ressurrection of Jesus: (Protestants attack Biblical saints while they follow dead reformers) ● MATTHEW 27: 52 -53: When Jesus was raised from the dead Many were raised up with him. 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. ● LUKE 23 v 39-43...Jesus told the good thief "today you will be with me in paradise" ● REV 19 v 14...when Jesus returns he will be accompanied by his heavenly armies of saints. ● 2 COR 5 v 8...Paul tells us that to be absent with the body is to be with the Lord. ● JOHN 11 v 25-26...Jesus said I am the ressurrection and the life, he who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives, believing in me will never die. ● LUKE 1619-30 The story of the rich man and Lazarus show The Rich man, Lazarus and Abraham, all concious and interacting with each other even though they have physically died. ● LUKE 9:30-31 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. (Moses & Elijah were alive, and were yalking with Jesus) ● REV 6:10 The souls of the martyrs are before the throne of God, crying out for justice. (they are conscious and actively petitioning God) ● HEB 12:1-3 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, ● MATT 17:1-13 ...At the Transfiguration of Jesus, he is seen speaking to Moses and Elijah, further showing that Holy ones of God are not among the dead. ➨HONOURING MARY: LUKE 1:48: All generations will call Mary Blessed. We Catholics are the ones who call her the BLESSED Virgin Mary and treat her accordingly. RELICS OF THE SAINTSS ● 2 Kings 13:21 The Bones of Elijah revived a man: 21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet ● ACTS 19:12 The Handkerchief of Paul healed sick people: 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. ● ACTS 5:15 The shadow of Peter healed the sick: so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. ● MARK 6:12-13... 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. (the use of oil, a material substance was used to heal people) ➨NOWHERE does the bible permit protestants (or anyone else) to Scrutinize & monitor the prayers of other people, nor to judge their sincerity or their salvation. Protestantism does not come from jesus. It began with Martin Luther in 1517 & exists Only to oppose the Catholic church which Jesus founded 15 centuries B4 the protestant revolt. They only know & accept the PARTS of the Bible that suit them and they do not have an accurate bible either.

[@jrvegaboston]

As a devoted catholic, I give thanks to God for mr. Akin.

[@anthonytan7134]

James White said that because Rome has final saying about some interpretation of the Bible....Rome's authority is ABOVE Scripture, YET he only is doing the SAME THING !!!! Absurdity of sola scriptura.

[@cliffmorganekitson3971]

I don't know why everybody is saying in the comments that Aiken won the debate. I think Aiken was being fallacious and dishonest when he spoke about the Church's fathers' interpretations of Matthew 16 and about Jerome's view on the apocrypha. Check the sources. He was simply lying... If that's his way of winning the debate, well better lose it and be faithful to God.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

" I think Aiken was being fallacious and dishonest when he spoke about the Church's fathers' interpretations of Matthew 16 and about Jerome's view on the apocrypha." You THINK? You need facts. Do a little research so that you are not guessing. He was 100% right.

[@TonyKeeh]

It may be that you are lying...can you provide sources?

[@jenniferstark7116]

If someone can show me where the Bible teaches “sola scriptura” I’ll convert to Protestantism! Edit: Actually...I probably won’t because I won’t leave the Eucharist...but I’d still like to see someone try! :)

[@mmiles5730]

Jennifer you are so right! Based on Protestants belief... Jesus himself would have had to have said “Sola scriptura!” Jesus never says to read and adhere to scripture only! But he does break bread and pass the cup and say “Do THIS in memory of me!”

[@jenniferstark7116]

@@mmiles5730 Amen!! To me it doesn’t make much sense to say that the Bible is the only source of divine infallibility and truth, when the Bible itself doesn’t say that! Plus, an infallible document is only infallible if it has an infallible interpreter, which is why we need the Church and her tradition! There are so many different ways to interpret scripture and get it wrong or partially wrong...there are tens of thousands of different sects of Protestantism!

[@mmiles5730]

@@jenniferstark7116 Amen!!

[@loremipsum2989]

👌👌An argument more: If Sola Scriptura were right, the Protestant Reformation would have been mentioned in the Gospel as cataclysmic, "salutable" event to come.

[@benh580]

@@mmiles5730 yes, but all you've said is in the scripture.... so you're not really making an argument outside of scripture

[@tomstone8103]

I’d say the debate winner wasn’t even close. I don’t see how anyone can interpret scripture in a way that contradicts, or at least is not supported by church father tradition. The baptism reference highlights one example. The mic dropped after that. Jimmy Akin is brilliant.

[@pwnedd11]

They finally debated in 2024. In case anybody didn't know. Video title (search it on youtube): Catholic / Protestant Debate - Mr. Jimmy Akin and Dr. James White - Night 1 Sola Scriptura

[@cliffmorganekitson3971]

The moderator didn't give time for James White to answer many of James Aiken's claims. He seems to me that he is siding with Aiken.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

Being a Catholic is taking the hardest path. We can't just say, oh i have faith, im saved. When you commit to being a Catholic, you commit to not just having faith, but doing everything he told us to do. To live like how he told us to live. But the one thing that is the easiest apart from all other "Christians", is defending Catholicism. We have continuity. We canonized the Bible. We were the 1st Christians. We learned how to read Scripture from the authors themselves and no one else can make that claim.

[@arikawithana3023]

I just said this to my husband yesterday..we're converts and nobody told us that it would be so much more difficult as Catholics than non-denominational Protestants.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@arikawithana3023 exactly, its about wanting to do the most for the lord, not the least it takes to get into heaven

[@mmore242]

Eastern Orthodox can. ☦️

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@mmore242 I have nothing but love for our Orthodox brothers! I pray we find a way to reunite again someday🙏🏽 But how do you'll explain away this? St. Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 130-202) “But since it would be very long in a volume of this sort to give the successions of all the churches, we will point to that of the exceedingly great and ancient church which was founded and established at Rome by the most glorious apostles Peter and Paul. By its tradition and by its faith announced to men, which has been transmitted to us by the succession of bishops, we confound all those who in any way, by caprice or vain glory, or by blindness and perversity of will, gather where they ought not….For to this [Roman] church…on account of its more powerful principality (propter potentiorem principalitatem), it is necessary that every church , that is, the faithful from all sides [of the world], should come be in agreement, in which the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved by those that are from all parts” ( St. Irenaeus, 180 AD, Against Heresies - Book III, chapter III)

[@mmore242]

@@MasterKeyMagic we acknowledge the primacy of Peter not the supremacy.

[@jaybig360]

😂😂 funny to hear Protestant quoting a Athanasius

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

Why?

[@PInk77W1]

@@caedmonnoeske3931because he believes in the Roman Catholic Church The whole thing.

[@Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture]

I’m a Protestant Reformed Evangelical and listened to James White for years. He flat out lost that debate. I’ve noticed over the years how White speaks certain ways when he’s in trouble. He starts to speak faster when he feels he’s lost ground or always makes it seem as if his opponent is not talking about the same thing he is mentioning exactly, which allows his argument to stand unopposed (or so it seems). He is a master argument twister. I find Whites debates however to be more annoying because he always has to get an edge in, he always has to attack. When Hank asked him to sum his position up, White attacks. White no longer seems to care how this looks or how just answering a simple question simply could be more beneficial to others then his constant having to prove himself right

[@izzid049]

Mr white lost in his every explanation because Mr. Akin have a deeper explanation as he is more knowledgeable in full. It is clear that sola scriptura was /is/will never be a part of sacred tradition.

[@benmiddleton9984]

Catholics do not worship Mary, the saints, or images and statues of them. We ask Mary and the saints to intercede for us on our behalf since they hold a spot in Heaven with God. It is similar to asking family and friends to pray for you because they know your emotions and can relate to what you are going through.

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

You do not need to be a theologian to know that sola scriptura makes no sense. Thousands came to Christ long before the Bible how did they do that if all you need is the Bible? James White doesn't like the Authority of the One Holy Universal and Apostolic church he essentially believes he is the Pope. In other words, his interpretation is the correct one.

[@Justas399]

Can you define what Sola Scriptura means?

[@chrisj123165]

Depends on how you define Sola Scriptura , what Luther promoted and what current protestants promote is completely different. Remember the Lutherans kept the mass and other traditions that are not found in scripture. The Puritans took the idea and ran way too far.

[@jack_skeean]

@@Justas399 Sola scriptura is the idea that the scriptures alone are the inspired and infallible word of God, and are therefore the final authority for Christians. Nobody is debating whether or not the scriptures are inspired and infallible. Every Christian agrees that they are. The question is whether or not God gave us an authoritative structure to correctly interpret the scriptures.

[@Justas399]

@@chrisj123165 So can you define what Sola Scriptura means?

[@Justas399]

@@jack_skeean Ok. Then where did Jesus give this authority to the bishops of Rome alone?

[@agcomique]

I think White got more time explaining, but Jimmy got more a lot of sense.

[@JustinKortuem]

"footnoting idiots" ouch, but someone has to say it.

[@firebat724]

Very dishonest of you to cut out the part of the first clip where James says it's time for you all to step up to the plate and talk about Francis.

[@tonyl3762]

How long ago was this? Jimmy's approach seems to be less direct and aggressive these days. I wish Jimmy would have also contradicted White on the claim that Athanasius stood in opposition to Rome's heresy. I assume White is referring to Pope Liberius (?) who was CLEARLY UNDER DURESS and not freely and intentionally teaching heresy and who clearly supported Athanasius. One can't let White get away with such lies or half-truths. Yes, the war is over because Jesus never meant for His Church to have endless Scripture debates when the Church settles a matter.

[@TheCrucifix777]

Will always be Roman Catholic.. ❤️❤️

[@JonathanGrandt]

18:48 yes yes. Many many heresies use “Sola Scriptura”. TULIP is an excellent example.

[@marountayar2831]

I am going to prove to everyone that James White never did and never will understand anything. I have a simple question for you James White? In Acts 15, who was going by scripture alone, those who wanted to circumcise Christians coming from the gentiles or those who did not want to circumcise them? Thank you

[@Justas399]

The apostles had the authority from Christ to speak with the same authority as the Scriptures. Their writings are Scripture. Notice also in Acts 15 that there is an appeal to the OT Scriptures for the decision that James made.

[@marountayar2831]

@@Justas399 read whatever you want from that chapter, there is nothing nowhere in the Bible especially in the old testament that people will not need to be circumcised. So the Pharisees went by scripture alone but the Apostles did not. James White is exactly like the Pharisees in that chapter

[@Justas399]

@@marountayar2831 it true that men needed to be circumcised to be part of the old covenant but that regulation is no longer required in the new covenant in Christ. The apostles had the authority of Christ not to be circumcised to be part of the new covenant.

[@marountayar2831]

@@Justas399 that's my whole point. The point that I am making and trying to explain to the Muppet James White is that the circumcisions in the Jerusalem council destroys his sola scriptura nonsense

[@Justas399]

@@marountayar2831 how does circumcision destroy Sola Scriptura?

[@randumgaming]

Genuine question. Did James White actually put forth ANY argument FOR Sola Scriptura here? It seems even in his opening statement it was an anti-Catholic jab about the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, infallibility etc., but never once a direct source from the Bible that said anything about why Scripture alone is necessary or required. It was a complete waste of time.

[@daman7387]

my mind is blown 🤯 I love both of these individuals so much