Jimmy Akin vs James White: Sola Scriptura

This debate was held at First Baptist Church of Livingston, Louisiana, April 24, 2024

0:00 - Introduction
0:40 - James White Opening Statement
15:25 - Jimmy Akin Opening Statement
31:12 - James White First Rebuttal
38:15 - Jimmy Akin First Rebuttal
45:29 - James White Second Rebuttal
49:35 - Jimmy Akin Second Rebuttal
54:46 - James White Cross-examination
1:05:37 - Jimmy Akin Cross-examination
1:16:19 - Audience Questions
1:46:54 - James White Closing Statement
1:51:59 - Jimmy Akin Closing Statement

[TravisBringsIt]

Nobody:

James White: "I don't have much time so I'll get right to the point and reiterate what I told Father Michael Schmichael when we debated in 1987 in the 2nd floor conference room of the Ramada Inn in St. Louis; now, keep in mind it was extraordinarily humid, my alarm clock malfunctioned (it was made by GE and I haven't bought anything from them since) so I woke late and had to skip breakfast, and the entire room smelled like cigarette smoke because you could still smoke indoors in the 80s..."

[bman]

Jimmy embodies knowledge, temperance, gentleness, and clarity all at once.

[gabeavakianorona]

I'm a protestant, and I have been thinking deeply about these issues. I have been nudged towards Catholic Church lately, as I have been reading Jimmy Akin's books. He is such a thoughtful, intelligent person who shows good epistemic hygiene and seems like a very kind soul. I would love to have a convo with him.

[Lay_Theologian]

Every James White opening statement:

"I have an incredibly short amount of time to cover an enormously complicated topic"

*Spends the first three minutes telling a vaguely related story about a debate he did in the 90s*

"Well I have so much more to say but that's my time"

[brianearts]

Excellent debate! James White is great. I owe him a lot! He played a pivotal role in my conversion to Catholicism! 🙂 Oh, you played a pivital role, as well, Jimmy! Keep up the great work. 🙂

[INAA]

Instead of defending sola scriptura, James White used his time attacking Catholic teachings that are not the topic of the debate.

[tobiasruck]

As a Catholic, I really tried hard to be on James side, but almost immediately I was “no, that’s not convincing” and “that’s just mean and off-topic”. Also attacking Jimmy for using slides just seems weak.
Huge props to Jimmy for staying calm and sticking to the debate!
I did learn one thing though from James: How did the Jews know what made up the Old Testament?
Jimmy’s answer “they don’t” was spot on, and that’s how I realized what a great gift from God the Magisterium is.

[mosestorres]

My dad taught me that when one starts verbally attacking the other, it’s because his argument has been dismantled by the other guy. Congratulations Jimmy Akin!

[susand]

I do not understand how James White can think that Sola Scriptura is a source of unity for Protestants! My Protestant family has concluded that there is no church that holds the fullness of the Gospel. Each of my nephews attends a different church, with different doctrines, and they can all quote scriptures to support will those contradictory teachings -- sometimes by very circuitous reasoning, like James White's assertion that Hebrews 1:1 teaches that there will be no new Apostles!

But that tactic of over-loading, while not strictly correct as a debating technique, is very effective for swaying the listeners!

For the other commenters, I will list the two things that irked me the most, that James White brought up, which were too far afield to respond to during the debate:
1) In "Fiducia Supplicans", Pope Francis and the Magisterium said NOTHING that James White would not agree with about the welcome the Church MUST give to people struggling with same-sex attraction and how we as Christians MUST pray for them -- which is the meaning of the term "bless" when speaking of persons.
AND Pope Francis reiterated that homosexual ACTS are sinful, and the ACTS (the UNIONS) cannot be blessed, in the sense of approval. (To be fair, James White did murmur something about "I know" when you, Jimmy, gave him a little correction that the Church is not supportive of same-sex marriages.)

James White made an erroneous claim that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was declared a heretic by 4 popes (I think that's the number he gave). In point of fact, no pope considered Pope Honorius I to have been a heretic. The Council of Constantinople III (680) found Pope Honorius I to have been in the wrong for failing to stop the Monothelite heresy. That same council affirmed that no pope had ever taught heresy.

This debate was certainly enthralling! Thank you so much!

[Netomp]

The nervousness of James White during the cross examination reflects clearly how bad he was responding, Jimmy is a Beast

[mitchjones]

Im a protestant (non-denom) pastor and I have some issues with some of the teachings of the Catholic church - that being said Jimmy is one of the best spoken and most rhetorically consistent catholics I have heard.

[verdespickles]

I have learn so much about the catholic church thanks to you Mr. Akin. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.

[jaymullinix]

Im an Eastern Orthodox Christian but I never tire of watching and listening to Jimmy. He is a textbook master class on how to engage in conversation and debate with clarity, humility, and charity without sacrificing any conviction. Mr White has long been an example of someone who lacks these traits in his public interactions and discussions.

[IsidoreUzor]

Thanks Dr Jimmy Akin. You are a treasure to the Catholic Church

[joserp]

James White has no true argument for sola scriptura so he attacks the Catholic church. Even if the Catholic Church and the Pope is false that still wouldn’t prove sola scriptura.
He says sola scriptura is true today, but not true at some point in the past. You also have to go outside of sola scriptura to prove its own doctrine.

[NotablySped]

For such a temperamentally gentle and nice guy, Jimmy is a ruthless debater 😂 great job, Mr. Akin! Keep up the good work

[followerovchrist]

Notice how Mr. White is accusatory and semi snarky while Mr. Akin is just calm cool and collective.

Behavior like that really helps to show who's right, or at least show who's more sure of themself.

[TheRealAbeMahoney]

White spends most of his time vilifying Rome rather than defending the preposterous 16th century idea of Sola Scriptura… good job Jimmy from an Eastern Orthodox brother

[box]

Keeping notes here:

James White referencing debates from before I was born count: 10 times! I knew he was a little stuck in the past, but this is absurd!

White opening: Entirely spent on making a negative case *against* the Catholic church instead of making a positive case *for* sola scriptura. It seems kind of gish-gallop-y, and I have a hunch that he's going to whine later on about how none of his "points" were addressed (because they had nothing to do with the discussion at hand).

Akin opening: This feels like it should have been the opening. Akin's opening makes a negative case against sola scriptura by making a positive case for a competing paradigm. White's opening attempted to dismiss this before it was even said, but such a case cannot be simply dismissed like that. With this opening, Akin denies White's attempt to default-ize sola scriptura by using scripture. I do not think White will take this kindly, but I will have to see. The bit at the end utilizing White's weak definition of sola scriptura against him is a point that I predict White will backtrack on - he's probably going to quibble about "teaching" specifically. Also - Akin going over on time! Naughty naughty!

White first rebuttal: As far as I'm aware, the Bible does not say that the *only* teaching taught orally by the Apostles was the Gospel. This equivocation point is invalid. Then he tries to poison the well by saying "look at how evil my opponent is! dont listen to him!"; this is a bad look. Now he's requiring Akin to make a positive case for Catholicism instead of a negative case against Sola Scriptura - Mr. White, this is not the debate topic! The point about the Pharisees thinking their traditions were 'apostolic' is fair, but Catholics do not think that traditions are above scripture as the Pharisees did so it's a false comparison. Catholic Tradition does not contradict scripture, as the traditions of the Pharisees did. James White says Sola Ecclesia v3258249856e34; false dichotomy fallacy that attempts to show the only two options as either his or a strawman. More poisoning the well. The slight dig at Akin going over his time was probably meant to put Akin off, but from what I've seen of him, it likely will not.

Akin first rebuttal: White's gish gallop is called out, thank God. The clearing up of whether or not Sola Scriptura is a doctrine per se is important, but I certainly know protestants who would call it a practice rather than a doctrine - not sure on this one. The idea that Christians should believe anything that is true, regardless of whether or not it is enscripturated is certainly true, and often is not stated enough. Acquiescing the the requirement of making a positive case against Sola Scriptura rather than a negative one, even though it's not required, is classy. Nice.

White second rebuttal: Whining about the accusation of gish gallop even though his points were unrelated to the debate is not a good opener. Prediction in my analysis of White's opening comes true here. The slide point would be valid - it basically seems like an extended Akin opening - if White had actually added anything of substance to dispute. White then equivocates Tradition with the Gospel (a novel definition), and then accuses Akin of equivocation when Akin is using the original definition! Smooth, but dishonest. Again, White is getting hung up on making a negative case against Tradition rather than making a positive case for Sola Scriptura. If White would actually make some points in his arguments, there might be something to talk about.

Akin *second* rebuttal: Akin covering the irritation equivocation of Tradition and the Gospel is nice. I'm pretty sure Thessalonica is pronounced with a hard i, not a soft i. Negative evidence of Tradition being more than just Gospel is handy for the listener, but not useful in this debate. I'm noticing that the things that White covered in his second rebuttal are addressed on these slides - is Akin really fast at making slides, or is White just that predictable? This second rebuttal was short, but to the point.

White cross-exam: White really seems to care a lot about proving the Catholic structure wrong instead of proving himself right. I kind of appreciate that Akin is humoring him and is basically treating this cross-exam like an episode of Catholic Answers; White is doing an awful job of making a positive case.

Akin cross-exam: White seems very nervous to define when exactly Sola Scriptura came into effect. "That's a nonsequiter and it's my question time actually" hilarious. White trying to defend that he can assume his position to find his position is... interesting to say the least. He says "I'm not assuming anything; it's explicit" and then referring to not that is funny. White listening to a point that Akin makes and then going "nuh uh" is also kind of funny. White repeatedly saying "no you have to use my novel equivocated definition of tradition instead of the correct one" is funny, but irritating. At the end, White goes "no that's a false dichotomy" and then continues on to talk about something unrelated. This seems to be a recurrent thing that White does - does he struggle to understand subject matter, or does he just have other things on his mind that he is more worried about addressing? It's either those two options, or dishonesty, but I don't want to assume dishonesty where other options are present.

Q&A: The artifact/object distinction on the question of Scripture from Tradition is odd to me - what's the point of this distinction? Saying that there is massive consistency between those who take Sola Scriptura seriously is laughable on it's face - just look at the many points of difference between Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, for a very limited study. White continues to assume his position as default, although saying that is practically beating a dead horse at this point. White's argument that every Protestant that disagrees with his exact position is just not following Sola Scriptura hard enough is pretty funny, but also extremely arrogant (although this is not necessarily out of character for White!). White using 2 Thessalonians to support Scripture and Gospel being equivocal words is absurd on it's face.

White closing: Yes, Mr. White, we have heard assertions - specifically, by you! White has asserted multiple things without proof, chief among them his definition of Scripture that equates it to Gospel. He badly wants the takeaway to be the reverse of that, but it simply is not. White asks for inspiration outside of Scripture, when (as per Akin's second slide) that is not the resolving factor in the discussion. Furthermore, it's simply rhetorical, as Scripture is defined as anything that is inspired by God to be written. White returns to his irritating gish-gallop at the end, of course, but that is to be expected (as I predicted from the start). White uses several false arguments, subsequently, which would require far more writing than I care to do here to prove, but fortunately these are just my notes so I don't have to prove that to anybody but myself (which I already have). White yet again asserts that Akin has not defeated his argument in one specific way, while Akin has defeated it in other, equally effective ways (perhaps Sola Other Example rather than the trifold structure of Other Example, Self Inconsistency, and Logic).

Akin closing: The point about White adding extra criteria at the end is accurate, and irritating. Why can White not remain on the debate topic? He chose it, after all!

Final thoughts: From looking at comments on Twitter and on various videos on this debate, I thought Akin might have had a poor performance and potentially even lost it. I now see that those comments were wildly incorrect, and that Akin was the clear winner. White did not stay on topic, did not defend his case, and resorted to sneaky fallacies to make points. Akin kept a clear presentation, resoundingly deconstructed his opponent's position, and used strong logic throughout.

[ChristIsLord]

Jimmy you handled this debate so well Sir. Very nicely done. You speak very well and I thank God for Catholics like you who defend our faith. God bless you always sir