Jimmy Akin vs James White: Sola Scriptura

Hiy folks this is just a reminder that if you like this content you can help me out by liking commenting and especially subscribing to the video and be sure to hit the Bell notification when you do so that you always get notified whenever I have a new video out whether it's Mysterious World or something else these days I usually have several videos out a week hope you enjoy this Mr White has the affirmative that scripture alone is The infallible rule of the faith for the church so since he is at the affirmative he will be

going first well good evening it is uh great to be here this evening we have a very small amount of time to cover a lot of ground I'm afraid uh this is at least the fifth time that I've done this particular Topic in fact I was debating Trent Horn of Catholic answers about two months ago on this topic uh in Houston Texas which isn't all that far from here I drove through Houston to get here so uh it is a subject we've dealt with many many times I want to be very specific and clear this

evening in dealing with solo scriptura how God speaks to each and every generation consistently I say that solar scriptura is the default biblical position it's the default biblical position why well let's think about what the Bible says the Lord Jesus said scripture is God speaking to each and every individual Who reads its words in Matthew 22:31 where he held men accountable for what had been written 1400 years before them as if God had spoken it directly to them Peter wrote that prophetic scripture does not find its origin even in the prophet but men spoke from

God as they were carried Along by the Holy Spirit 2 Peter 1:21 and Paul directed Timothy to that which is God breathed so that he might be thoroughly equipped for every good work 2 Timothy 3:16-17 You will not find any other source spoken of in these ways there is nothing like this about Traditions or magium or anything else this is how God speaks this is the default position of the scriptures themselves if in fact scripture is ontologically the very speech of God then we only have have to ask whether God has given all that we

need for life and godliness through the apostolic witness that is is revelation still taking place and upon answering That question ask this is there anything else that we can meaningfully describe as equal to scripture in nature and hence in Authority if we cannot point to anything else that is the specific revelation of God outside of scripture then clearly solar scriptura is the default position of anyone in submission to that very Revelation so do we find Jesus or the apostles directing us to any other ultimate source of authority Jesus concluded many of his arguments With a

citation of a Biblical text but he never concluded his arguments by reference to Jewish Traditions or any other alleged source of authority are we wiser than the Incarnate Lord this is why we believe scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church it flows there from therefore from this reality that any other religious Authority is subject to scripture for if scripture is God speaking it partakes of God's Authority that makes it the Supreme authority now we do not by insisting upon scriptures uniqueness deny that there are subordinate authorities established by God such as

the churches God ordained officers elders and deacons by the way Elder bishop and overseer are synonymous in the New Testament they are not different offices a bishop is not above an overseer these are all or or an elder these are all the same office likewise Christians can write Documents expressing their beliefs in different context so as to Aid them in their Evangelistic and apologetic tasks but such documents are always secondary and explanatory and have authority only in so far as they reflect accurately scriptural teachings and Norms now it is often said by Roman Catholic Representatives

that theirs is the ancient and biblical Paradigm specifically that God's words have been orally transmitted at times in the Ancient past you know from Adam to Moses for example and that prophets spoke God's word without necessarily writing them down in Scripture and that of course is quite true both sides at least formally admit that the office of apostle or Prophet ended long ago and that Revelation ceased with the last Apostle we can only debate about the situation today not the situation long ago so it is claimed that during the days of the Apostles a certain

Paradigm was established that it is said Rome continues to follow to this day and that those who oppose Rome's Authority claims must prove was changed after the apostles passed from the scene so you have to prove well where does the bible teach that the Paradigm is going to change after the apostles pass from the scene is the challenge that is given this Paradigm we are told is made up of scripture tradition and the magisterium scripture tradition and the Magisterium the problem is this requires a massive use of equivocation to work why is that well let's

consider it the apostolic and biblical pattern of local churches led by Elders slprb cannot realistically be connected to the massive hierarchy of the Roman magisterium Itself by the way a very modern term led by a single Bishop currently Francis Cardinals archbishops and the Myriad of offices and designations that make up the modern Magisterium is far far removed from the authority structure ordained by Christ through his Apostles consider the basic reality that the exam Apostolic Paradigm did not include a sacramental priesthood for example as a basic Point of Departure allow me here to make a brief

aside about the misuse of the Gathering in Jerusalem to deal with the Jewish Gentile controversy recorded in Acts chapter 15 that was a discussion that took place During Apostolic time s and is recorded for us in inspired scripture the reason both Apostles and Elders are included is very obvious this was the greatest danger facing the infant church one in which a split would result in a Jewish Christian church and a gentile Christian Church this is what Paul was so concerned about in writing to the Romans and to the churches of galatia so rather than providing

a template for future quote ecumenical and quote coun ILS with Only bishops and no Apostles present acts 15 only shows that those present were there to provide a consistent testimony to the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the One Singular Body of Christ often 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is misused at this point where Paul instructed the Thessalonians so then Brothers stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions which you were taught whether by word that is orally or by epistle from us but in context Paul is talking About the gospel just look at the preceding two

verses which he delivered the Thessalonians in two forms by preaching when he was with them Acts chapter 17 and by epistle which we call First Thessalonians It Is Isa Jesus at its height to attempt to turn this text into a basis for an oral unrecorded undocumented undefined body of Revelation passed down outside of scripture and known only to the magisterium interestingly back in the 90s Catholic answers was big on pushing the material formal sufficiency argument uh I know that because my first debate in August of 1990 uh was with Catholic answers representative Jerry mattic at

St cyprian's Roman Catholic Church in Long Beach California so but in May of 2022 Jimmy aen doing an open Forum program on Catholic answers live indicated that if he had to choose he would take the Partly partly Viewpoint that is the idea that Revelation has been passed on to us partly in the oral and partly in the written now he gave a much longer discussion of that he can go into that uh for himself as he has the time to do so for our purposes this evening what needs to be recognized is that the challenge

to demonstrate that the apostolic Paradigm of scripture SL tradition slm magisterium has changed is untenable and fallacious tradition is Normally used negatively by the apostles and when it is used positively it is referring to the singular message of the Gospel not to a secret hidden or Unwritten and undefined body of non-public Revelation which has been used I simply point out to you over the past couple of hundred years to Define such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception the pap infallibility in the bodily Assumption of Mary the magisterium of the Apostles was Not made up of popes

and Cardinals and archbishops Etc but of Elders in the local churches it was to these men as Paul demonstrated in Ephesus that the leadership of the church would be entrusted not some extra scriptural body of Revelation indeed as Paul said to Timothy and the things which you have heard from me how in the presence of many witnesses and Trust that's related the term to tradition something and trust These to Faithful Men Who will be able to teach others also 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul specifically excludes secret undocumented non-public content the very essence of the Roman claim

that would have to underly such dogmas as the bodly Assumption Immaculate Conception papal infallibility Purgatory indulgences and all the rest of the things Rome binds upon men's consciences and proclaims to be a part of the Gospel itself if you're familiar with the terminology de fiday Dogma we should likewise keep in mind that Rome's claims regarding a deposit of Faith requires them that requires them to deny solos scriptura has not produced an infallible interpretation of the Bible but a vague claim to have at least defined part of what about six or seven passages in the Bible

mean and one of those Genesis 3:15 has been infallibly defined and then uninf fallibly contradicted by later generations Rome cannot tell us The content of tradition nor can it tell us even how many infallible councils have been F found there's argument about that in fact Rome did not infallibly Define the Canon of scripture until April of 1546 that's a long time after the last last Apostle died so we must recognize that this debate has always been between two ultimate sources of authority Rome claims a tripartite form but in reality Rome is the final Authority period

Rome Defines what is and what is not scripture and when convenient what you have to at least believe scripture says in a few places and what it simply cannot mean in others likewise she pretends to identify Apostolic tradition in the myriads of differing views expressed in patristic sources rejecting the mountain of testimony that goes against her particular claims in conclusion we must also recognize the vital importance of this debate Rome Demands men and women to believe things the apostles never taught as part of the Gospel but you must believe them today and she does so

because she rejects solos scriptura today with Francis seeking to make fundamental changes in the Roman Catholic church we see the inevitable result of the denial of solar scriptura the loss of the ability to restrain such forces I submit to you that the reason we see such havoc in Rome today the Reason you see all of Africa saying nope we ain't we ain't following that no we're not we're not going to do uh that thing over there the reason you see this kind of thing happening is because because since you've denied solo scripture you've cut the

Roman Catholic Church off from the only sure voice of Christ and replace that voice with the church that's the problem in denying solar scriptura to deny solar scriptura Requires honestly the demonstration of Christ ordained Revelation that is God breathed in some Source other than the Bible today not that it existed orally at one point but that it only exists Orly today that can with certainty be demonstrated to have come from Christ and his Apostles no such Source has ever been produced and especially today in light of the papacy of Francis we can say with confidence

that no such source Is in the possession of the Roman Church it is only of scripture only of scripture can it ever be said have you not read what God spoke to you saying and so I want you to think about that Jesus was arguing with the Sadducees and he said to them quoting from the pentat which was written 1,400 years earlier have you not read what God spoke to you saying he didn't say have you not heard he said have you not read what God spoke to you he held men in his day Accountable

to the content of of scripture as if God has spoken it directly to them there is nothing else in the possession of the church that has that level of clarity and Authority because scripture is God speaking that is why scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church thank you very much for your attention looks like we're ready to rock and roll Howdy Folks how you doing now um our resolution tonight as you can See this was picked by uh by James is scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church

and that's helpful but it doesn't really give us a full sense of what solar scriptura is and how it functions fortunately James is here to help us out again because in his 1996 book the Roman Catholic controversy Under The Heading what solar script rura is he tells us the following one the doctrine of solos scriptura simply stated is that the scriptures alone are Sufficient to function as the regula the infallible rule of faith for the church two all that one must believe and by the way the two words in red must and is that's his

emphasis so all that one must believe to be a Christian is found in scripture and in no other source three that which is not found in scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian so let's remember those points now I have noticed in researching this Topic it seems like James has changed his position at least a little bit on one question maybe he has maybe not he can clarify that for us later but in the Roman Catholic controversy he said that the Bible claims to be the full and sufficient infallible

rule of faith for the Christian church but 3 years later in 1999 on his website he wrote that Protestants do not assert that solar scriptura is valid is A valid concept during times of Revelation it's a Canard to point to times of Revelation and say see Sola scripture it doesn't work there of course it doesn't he says so that's a very interesting change uh it would mean that none of the verses that Protestants commonly appeal to in support of solar scriptura actually teach solar scriptura if solos scriptura was not in use in the apostolic period

Then There Are No Verses telling Christians in that period to use it so the Bible doesn't claim to be the sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith for the Christian church instead solos scriptura would have to be a postbiblical inference and we can see that in the uh debate that uh James did a couple of months ago with my colleague Trent horn during part of that he reasoned this way he said they meaning first century Christians had scripture and the Apostles the apostles are gone okay that's a postbiblical premise because the Bible never says they're

going to go away what do we have now we have scripture meaning scripture only well that's another postbiblical premise therefore he concludes they meaning the scriptures form the only infallible rule of faith for the church today well let's talk about how Authority actually worked in the Bible and it's the same for both the Old and The New Testament but I'm going to focus on the New Testament here because I don't have time to go into how it worked the same way in the Old Testament but in the New Testament Jesus gave a bunch of new

revelation you know like when he said uh all the stones in the temple they're all going to be torn down that was new revelation that was not in the Old Testament and since Jesus never wrote anything he gave this new revelation in Oral form but he wanted it past on to others and so he told his Apostles and certain select others to transmit this divine revelation to others via preaching in oral form and he said for example if they hear you they hear me if they reject you they reject me and the one who sent

me also some of this Revelation although as we're going to see it doesn't look like all of it some of this Revelation was later written down in authoritative scriptures so That's how we see things working at the time of Jesus now I notice I know that the term tradition is kind of sensitive in Protestant circles and there's a there's a reasonable basis for that number one because it tends to be used almost exclusively negatively in Protestant circles but also because there are passages in which the uh scriptures warn about tradition where they scripture does speak

of tradition in a negative way and whenever that Happens it is always human tradition that's under discussion it's basically in two passages in the gospel and one in Galatians and one in Colossians and not much else but balancing that there are positive references to tradition in the New Testament and whenever it's positive it's talking about Apostolic tradition not some Jewish tradition from before the time of Christ that Pharisees were into but Traditions that were being passed on to the Christian Community by The apostles so for example Paul Paul commends the Corinthians for keeping the Traditions

just as he delivered them to them he also commands the Thessalonians to hold to the Traditions they were taught whether they were taught orally or in writing and He commands the Thessalonians to stay away from anyone who's not living according to the Traditions that he had given them so when tradition is spoken of negatively you'll notice it's human when it's Spoken positively spoken of positively it's Apostolic but then there's also a question of how do you interpret scripture and tradition because they can be read more than one way for example in the first century there

was a dispute about do you need to be circumcised in order to be a Christian well God willed a counsel to authoritatively interpret previous scripture and tradition as related to Circumcision and Christian identity and we know God willed it because Paul says that he went up to this Council because of a revelation God said you get on up there and talk to the church in Jerusalem but the council included as James admitted more than just the apostles it also included the elders in Jerusalem so this isn't a council limited to the apostles and there's nothing

in the text that says the elders were just there as Witnesses they didn't Get to participate in the discussion doesn't say that now interestingly God didn't give any new revelation during this Council he didn't give anybody a vision he didn't speak to anybody but the Holy Spirit guided the council so that it ended up making an inherent decision and it spoke with Divine Authority that's why at the end of the council the council fathers say it has seemed good to us it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you

No greater burden than these requirements and so this Council was by God's will exercising a teaching Authority or in Latin a magisterium so we see the elements of the apostolic Paradigm that James referred to it in in the first century as the apostles were preaching they Christians were expected to derive their Doctrine from Apostolic scripture which is divine revelation in the form of authoritative writings that The apost OST had authorized and that would include the Old Testament because they said yeah all those Old Testament scriptures those are authoritative also it included Apostolic tradition which is

divine revelation in the form of teachings passed on orally alongside scripture and it included a magisterium a teaching Authority instituted by God to authoritatively interpret the divine revelation in scripture and in Tradition should we follow follow the apostolic Paradigm well the apostolic Paradigm was divinely authorized and what is divinely authorized is binding unless God makes new Provisions therefore any replacement for the apostolic Paradigm must be divinely authorized but as we're going to see solar scriptura is not divinely authorized so we should stick with the apostolic Paradigm today put it another way Christians should follow what

we Know Jesus Will for his followers unless he tells us otherwise Christ will that his church use the apostolic Paradigm and he will that his church extend beyond the post beyond the apostolic age so unless we get a revelation somewhere telling us otherwise we should use the apostolic Paradigm that Jesus Will throughout the history of the church and you know what that's what Christians did do until the Reformation the apostolic Paradigm was Used by Christians in the apostolic age and it was then passed on to and used by later Christians in his February debate uh

James acknowledged that this Paradigm of scripture tradition and magisterium is used by the Catholic Church by Greek Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches by the Assyrian Church of the east and by other Oriental Christian groups now these different groups aren't all in full communion with each other they have differences uh but they are all Maintaining the same basic Paradigm of scripture tradition and magisterium all of these groups have simply maintained the Paradigm they haven't always applied it correctly but they've maintained the Paradigm they inherited from the apostles solar scriptura thus is a rejection of the apostolic

Paradigm that was popularized at the Protestant Reformation well what is the New Testament say about the age we're living In about the post-apostolic age well it says a number of things here are three pertinent ones the first one you could quibble with but most Christians have discerned that when Jesus tells the apostles that the holy spirit will guide them into all truth that that's a promise for the whole church the holy spirit's not going to abandon the church at some point it's going to continue to guide the church what's not debatable is what Jesus says

in the Great Commission Which is that he will guide the church as it teaches unto the end of the world he says Go Make Disciples teaching them to observe everything I've commanded you and behold I'm with you all the days until the end of the world so he's going to guide the church in its teaching until the end of the world and as St Paul is about to die in his last epistle he tells Timothy to take the oral tradition that he has received from Paul in the Presence of many witnesses so it's not some

secret Gnostic tradition and entrust it to other people who will teach other people and so since he's planning to die Paul's envisioning this passing on of Apostolic tradition happening in the post-apostolic age and he names the first four generations of it his own Apostolic generation Timothy's Generation The Generation Timothy will teach and the generation that they teach So the new test expects us to pass down Apostolic tradition after the apostles and guess what they did we do contrary to James's claims we do have extra biblical Apostolic tradition today here are just four Apostolic Traditions that

are not mentioned in Scripture that I've picked because we agree on them first there aren't going to be any new Apostles it doesn't have to be that way um you know Paul was not an eyewitness Of Jesus but Jesus appeared to him and taught him and appointed him an apostle he could have kept doing that all the way through church history but we know as a matter of Apostolic tradition because it's not in the Bible that the apostles stopped also we know there's not going to be any new public Revelation public Revelation meaning Revelation that

is binding on the whole Christian public that stopped with the death of the last Apostle consequently there are not going to be any new scriptures and consequently the New Testament consists of only 27 books we can't add to it now so the claim that we don't have any surviving Apostolic tradition or that Apostolic tradition is unknown to anybody but Rome that's just false there's four points of it that we agree on does God sometimes guide the magisterium into infallible decisions Well uh it's true that in the AP in the mid first century Elder and Bishop

were the same thing but that shifted by the end of the first century as Ignatius of Antioch mentions and later 2 Century figures like yanus of Leon say the apostles were the ones who made that change they instituted the difference and we see that when they met together in councils the magisterium was led by God to inherent decisions like Jesus is God the holy spirit is God Jesus is one person and so forth some of these not being some of these decisions not being made until almost 700 years after the time of Christ so we

see God guiding the church into making inherent decisions hundreds of years after the time of Christ now in order to prove solos scriptura you would ultimately need to show verses that teach it in one way or another solo scripture holds that all teachings must be taught explicitly or implicitly in Scripture RT solar Scriptura is a teaching therefore so if solar scriptura is true it must be taught in scripture but it's not taught in scripture so it's false it's self-refuting James has acknowledged it was not in use in the first century and consequently none of the

passages in the New Testament are teaching it it's a postbiblical inference based on false premises like we don't have any Apostolic tradition anymore so to just summarize the apostolic Paradigm was Jesus's will for his first followers it was never ascended he promised he and the Holy Spirit would guide the church forever the New Testament speaks of passing down Apostolic tradition in the post-apostolic age and God guided the magisterium into inherent decisions centuries later whereas solo scriptura was not Jesus's will for his first followers is never taught in the New Testament is based on false post-apostolic

premises such as we don't Have any Apostolic tradition today and it's self-refuting because it fails to meet its own test thank you very much folks all right now you will notice that I addressed pretty much all of Mr Akin's presentation in my opening presentation and so what we have gotten is a clear example of equivocation let me give you an example uh he said he referred to Apostolic tradition as teachings taught alongside scripture and said that the apostles were referring to this what the Apostles were referring to was the preaching of the Gospel the gospel

is recorded for us in the New Testament and so when the apostles aren't here any longer what they taught is found for us in scripture when I debated Mitch Paca on this subject actually I just realize this is my sixth debate on the subject when I asked Mitch Paca has the Roman Catholic Church defined a single word that Jesus ever spoke that's not found in scripture he said no has the Roman Catholic Church defined infallibly a single word that any Apostle ever said that's not found in scripture he said no so how do we know

what they taught it's in scripture how do we know what Jesus taught it's in scripture solos scriptura is relevant to the church after the apostles because you have to have a scriptura to have a Sola first so as I said in my opening we have to talk about about where we are today not what was happening during the time of the Scriptures which includes the acts chap 15 Council so if you keep a close close attention look at the quote unquote Apostolic Traditions that he talked about uh he talked about uh for example no more

Apostles and no more books of scripture read Hebrews chapter 1 in these last days God has spoken to us by his son he did these things in the past now in Christ we have this conclusion this finishing and that's how the early fathers understood what Hebrews chapter 1 was talking about as well in 2 Timothy 2:2 for example he said that we are to teach these Apostolic Traditions to Timothy and he's to teach it to the next person and the next person so on so forth that's true but these are not Traditions that exist outside

of scripture what did Paul himself say what you have heard me teach in the presence of many witnesses you see folks you need to understand the reason this is important Is that Mr aen represents a religious group that will tell you that you must believe that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven it's a part of the Gospel it's day feay I've debated Roman Catholic apologists who have said you have as much warrant to believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary as you have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that's how certain it is

and he worked for Catholic answers by the way at that time so If that is the case and remember we have the Immaculate Conception Perpetual virginity of Mary uh such doctrines as purgatory and indulgences and uh papal infallibility all these things are they Apostolic Traditions you see Mr Aken gave us the real easy ones how about the ones the apostles really had to teach but the reality is church history teaches us nobody back then knew anything about it no one was preaching about the bodily Assumption of Mary no one believed that the Pope in Rome

was the INF well the Pope in Rome might have thought he was infallible but nobody else did ask Augustine ask cyprien ask a number of people who contradicted that kind of thinking down through church history that's why it's so important that if you're going to say that these Apostolic Traditions were taught by the apostles and not recorded in scripture you've got to give us evidence and Rome can't do it Rome can't tell us what tradition is Rome can't tell us what the deposit of faith is upon which she has defined so many of these dogmas

he said that I admitted for example that there were other well C certainly there churches the uh Eastern Orthodoxy if I was debating an Eastern Orthodox person I'd be talking about their Traditions I'd be talking about the second nyine Council and the absurdities that in it introduced and and how that was Completely contrary to what had come in the hundreds of years before that I'd be using different examples by beholding them to the exact same standard and that is I want to know what Jesus and his Apostles taught and the only way we can know

that today is what is found in scripture we cannot go outside of scripture to get that so uh Mr aen said well when human tradition is referred to yes it's that's a that's a negative thing but you need to Remember something in Matthew chapter 15 and Mark chapter 7 when Jesus talked about human tradition and he said we are to test it by scripture the scribes and Pharisees believed that the traditions that they were following watch this follow this had been delivered by Moses and passed down orally outside of scripture they belied they were divine

Traditions they believe they came from God but that they weren't found in scripture they are passed down orally Through the Jewish magisterium did Jesus bow to that he most certainly did not and in fact he told us to test any proclaimed tradition even from people who say this came from God by what by scripture so what is the apostolic Paradigm is it a magisterium with Peter at the head by the way in Acts chapter 15 in Acts chapter 15 not only do they quote scripture as a foundation by the way did you notice if you

read it Peter didn't run that James Did James made the final decision Peter was not considered the head of all Christians or anything like that this particular point in time but when you look at what is being said in those contexts you discover that the cont the idea of tradition when it is used positively is simply talking about the gospel that's what Paul when he said to the Thessalonians I have taught you one body Of Truth when I was with you by preaching and when I wrote you the epistle and you're holding to that and

I commend you for that how do you and I obey that today by believing in Traditions you can't find a single shred of evidence for for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years and in fact can find all sorts of early writers who contradicted those things you now call Tradition you see it's Sola scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia and when the church decides we get to Define what scripture is what it means what tradition is and what it means you have no way of correcting that you have no way of fixing the problem we

have with Francis today and what's happening in Rome that's what the issue is tonight keep your eye on the ball don't allow freed definition I could go for another 30 seconds because he did but I won't I'll stop thank [Applause] you anytime you want another 30 James I got your back covered so so there's a lot in there that I would love to respond to that I simply don't have time to because James is engaging in a debater tactic that's sometimes called overloading where you just throw one charge after another after another after another and

you make claims about them that your opponent has no chance to respond to so in such a Circumstance the only option for an ethical debater is to not be distracted and to just point out what one's opponent is doing and then move on and stick to basic principles so that's what I'm going to do here are some things that don't prove Sol of scriptura one of them is passages in G that from Jesus or elsewhere in the New Testament that speak of the in scriptures as inspired infallible or inherent because those passages don't prove there

aren't other Things that don't have those qualities also Jesus or the New Testament expects some Jews to know some scriptures well that doesn't prove solar scripture and in fact there are no passages showing that he expected all Jews to know all scriptures in fact there was disagreement among Jews about what the Canon was at the time also it doesn't prove Sol of scriptura if Jesus appeals to the scriptures as authoritative because that Doesn't mean there weren't other authorities or it doesn't prove it if Jesus uh directs some Jews to scripture to settle a question because

all that shows is that scripture is sufficient to settle that question not all questions and as a bonus the claim that Jesus never directed anyone to anything but scripture as a final Authority is false he also directed people to Apostolic tradition such as when he said if they hear you they hear me and if they reject You they reject me and the one who sent me so he was saying you're rejecting God if you if they're rejecting God if they reject this oral tradition that you're delivering to them is solo scripture a Doctrine though that's

an important question now I made an argument earlier if solar scripture holds that all doctrines must be taught by scripture alone explicitly or implicitly then if solar scripture is a Doctrine it's going to need to be taught In scripture alone and James hasn't done anything to counter that and it's universally agreed in the Protestant church that solar scripture is a Doctrine I could cite all kinds of authors for that but I'll just cite three passages from the Roman Catholic cont rsy alone where James himself refers to solos scriptura as a Doctrine and there are dozens

of references to it as a Doctrine on his website furthermore we could approach The subject this way uh is solar scripture is something that Christians are supposed to believe well James himself told us that all that one must believe to be a Christian is found in scripture and no other source that which is not found in scripture either directly or by necessary impc ation is not binding on the Christian so unless solos scriptura can be documented either directly or by necessary implication from scripture it's not going to be Binding on yall and James even admits

that solos scriptura needs to be supported by scripture if he didn't think that he wouldn't be quoting Jesus and other passages trying to support it so if one says well it's not a Doctrine or it's a Doctrine but it's not the kind that needs to be meet its own test then that's just an ad hoc move designed to save an otherwise failing proposal what about Inspiration James made uh has on various occasions talked a lot about inspiration and he sometimes speaks as if being God breathed or inspired is something that is needed for something to

be a binding belief on Christians but this is not true Christians should believe anything that is true not you know anything that's not an error therefore inherent decisions inherent truths should be believed infallibly taught truths should be believed and James even admits this By phrasing our resolution tonight as scripture is the sole infallable rule of faith not the sole inspired rule of Faith so I don't need to show that something is inspired for it to be authoritative for the Christian Community I only need to show that it's inherent or otherwise taught under the gift of

infallibility and I've already done that because I've already shown us four Apostolic Traditions that we agree On that continue to exist in the church but what does God breathe I'm going to be brief about this but in second Timothy it says in a common translation all scripture is inspired by God really all scripture should be every scripture because in Greek that phrase is pasag and Pasa means each every and any when it's an adjective with a noun lacking the definite article so really there should be every scripture is God breathed and scripture is said to

be God Breathed because it carries God's word which is metaphorically carried by his breath just like our breath carries our words so anything that carries God's word is God breathed in the original sense of the term later theology developed a more restricted meaning but in the usage that was there in Paul's day anything that carried God's word was God breathed and so the word of God is God breathed well you find out some interesting stuff if you do a study Of the phrase word of God in the Bible it appears 46 times in no cases

is the phrase word of God a synonym for scripture none in three cases it's used to refer to a message contained in scripture but not to the scripture itself in two cases it refers to God's creative word in one passage it refers to Jesus in 11 cases it refers to a divine revelation newly given in the form of oral tradition or to a past one not limited to scripture and in 29 cases It refers to oral transmission of past divine revelation and all but one of those is in the New Testament so it's referring to

Apostolic tradition overwhelmingly the phrase word of God refers to Apostolic tradition and therefore Apostolic tradition is divinely inspired in the sense that St Paul is talking about so don't look for dodges like show me something else that's inspired I already have I've shown you four talk to you soon Okay um the nature of debate is that you deal with a lot of different topics I resent the idea that I'm engaging in some type of a tactic of overload I just invite you to go back and listen to any debate I ever did with Catholic answers

Representatives if you want an example of overload from the other side allegedly I find it fascinating that Jimmy already has his slides for rebuttal how do you do that if you don't know what the other person is going to Be saying specifically in respon resp to you so instead of engaging with what I'm saying in this debate well you wrote this in a book okay fine I've answered the things that were in my book but the idea of well I'm just going to continue on with my presentation I find very very very interesting uh in

light of the allegation that I'm sort sort of trying to overload someone anything like that I want you to catch how many times Apostolic tradition is being used in an Equivocal way okay so Apostolic tradition is what Jesus teaches the apostles and what the apostles teach that's called The Gospel it is found in scripture it's defined in scripture it's defended in scripture Rome uses Apostolic tradition as the basis for binding dogmas upon your soul such as the bodily Assumption of Mary and Papal infallibility you need to be able to recognize the difference between these things

because it's real easy to defend The the the the easy one well it's you know we all agree that that the revelations ended but we don't all agree that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven do we and yet allegedly it's all based upon Apostolic tradition I say to you the apostles never taught anyone anything about about bodily assumption about papal infallibility about Immaculate conceptions about purgatory about indulgences or any of those other things that Rome has bound day feed day Upon people's Souls and if you want to say they did then you've got to be

able to prove it Mr Aken has not given us any example of something that is theonas God breathed it said well God's word can be this and God's word can be that but what Paul said to Timothy is if you want to be prepared to perform every good work in the church then you turn to that which is theonas and I'm at least thankful I have to thank Jimmy aen for Not using the argument that Trent horn used recently that theonas doesn't really mean God breathed it means life-giving I am thankful that at least he

didn't go that direction that's an improvement from my perspective but it means god breathe it is uniquely found in scripture and you cannot find anything today including in the Vatican anything that is properly described as God breathed and that means that that which is taught by those who are using Sources that are not God breathed and binding those upon Christians I ask every one of you take the time to go back and read the statements that Define bodly assumption Immaculate Conception and even papal infallibility read the statements themselves they will say if you even think

otherwise than this you are anathema you are anathema so this is this is not you can't just simply say well you know if We have something about you know there aren't going to be any more Apostles uh that's the same thing as the apostles passing on this Doctrine and teaching orally outside of scripture there is no evidence that that happened Rome has never defined a single word that Jesus the apostles said outside of scripture only scripture is theonas only scripture is God speaking and that's why it is the default position for any Christian who wants

to to follow what God would have Us to believe thank [Applause] you so come back tomorrow night because you're going to want to know what anathema means in the meantime let's talk about uh James's repeated assertion that when the apostles refer to tradition they're only referring to the gospel okay one passage that is in or one book that is informative on that subject is 2 Thessalonians now Um if you want to assert that Apostolic tradition is nothing but the gospel you're going to need to have evidence for that you can't just make an assertion as

if it's true how do we know that Apostolic tradition contain nothing but the gospel how do we know it didn't include other stuff and how do we know it all got written down those are important questions so looking at what we know about Thessalonica well Paul only spent three sabbaths in in thessalonica he was there for less than four weeks before he had to leave and so he didn't have time to give them a full course of Christian doctrine could he have taught them the basics of the Gospel sure but then he's going to want

them to be receptive to other Apostolic teachings that aren't part of the Gospel itself because there's more to Christian doctrine than just the Gospel did he teach them other things though orally as part of Apostolic tradition that are not part of the gospel and that are not mentioned in 2 Thessalonians yes he did and we can show that because he reminds the Thessalonians that they already know what is restraining the man of lawlessness this prophetic figure and he tells them do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this so

he had told them as part of oral Tradition a prophetic fact that something that he identified is restraining the man of lawlessness but it's not mentioned in scripture he doesn't say what it is and so the famed Baptist scholar FF Bruce says they the Thessalonians because they had been told knew what this was later readers are at a disadvantage compared with them and have to guess because it is not obvious from the text itself now the church fathers got your back they Have some ideas about what this was that they believed had been passed down

to them and maybe one day one of those will be established as true because the magisterium that's part of its job but uh it nevertheless Remains the case that Apostolic tradition is not identical with the gospel and we can show that from the text of scripture itself now briefly let me back up and talk about this other passage in second Timothy where uh Paul is talking about scripture One of the things that James regularly does is he focuses on the final two verses of this passage which deal with scripture but actually Paul is pointing Timothy

to a double appeal to both Apostolic tradition and apostolically approved scriptures he says for you continue in what you've learned and have firmly believed knowing from whom you've learned it so that's Apostolic tradition he got from Paul how from childhood you've been acquainted with the sacred Writings which would be the Old Testament at the time which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ now they won't get you all the way to Jesus Christ unless you hear the apostolic preaching so you need Apostolic tradition in order to be able to correctly

read the Old Testament and apply it to Christ he then talks about how every scripture is God breathed and so forth but notice that's the back half of a double appeal to tradition and a Scripture thank you so much okay everyone we are going to take a five minute break we're going to reset the stage for cross examination you need to turn in your Q&A cards at this time the three pastors if you will come and stand up here you can hand your cards to them at 7:40 p.m. we will resume please take your seat

and we're going to get started so for this portion of the debate it is cross examination in my opinion this is the part of the debate That is the most informative because each questioner gets to question the other so since Dr White has the affirmative he will have 10 minutes to cross-examine Mr Aken and then Mr Aken will have 10 minutes to cross-examine Mr white uh during this time the one asking the questions uh the questioner is just to ask questions and the other is to respond it is the questioner time so if he needs

to move on and ask another question he has the right to do that and If we'll start the 10-minute timer when that happens um you made reference to the restrainer in second Thessalonians and then I think you said maybe someday they'll tell us what it is um so can you tell us on from Apostolic tradition who the restrainer is in second Thessalonians one of the key proposals is that it is the restraining force of Roman law however that's not a guarantee and the magisterium hasn't yet Ruled on that question but that is one of the

one of the uh Traditions that is out there so uh but you don't know infallibly what that passage is referring to no because the church has never had an occasion to infallibly Define it it doesn't do that willy-nilly only in special circumstances and what would those special circumstances be well for example if the man of lawlessness was running around and we needed to identify Him and the fact he had come that might provoke such a response okay uh do you believe that fiducius supplicant is a function of Apostolic tradition um I think that fiducia supplicant

does not when read correctly uh does not contradict any elements of Apostolic tradition but it is a it goes beyond Apostolic tradition it goes beyond Apostolic tradition so the church has The authority to go beyond Apostolic tradition sure like for example um authorizing the use of air conditioners in churches in Southern Louisiana that's beyond Apostolic tradition but the church can authorize that do you really think I think most people are glad it has yeah I would agree but do you really think that that's parallel to fedua supplicant and the tremendous controversy it is engendered in

regards to the obvious reality of the Pope's View of homosexuality I think that the Pope's view I think you're misreading the Pope's view of homosexuality um and I don't understand exactly what you've asked me can you restate the question well it just seemed to me that air conditioners and the idea of blessings of irregular relationships especially in light of the cnot of cidality is a really long stretch that's not appropriate wouldn't you Agree um I think that in both cases we have the church doing something that is not prohibited by either scripture or Apostolic tradition

you may have different valuations in terms of which ones you approve uh or but I don't see a difference in principle in what's happening here and I and I frankly think you're misreading the situation perhaps because you haven't followed the Catholic Press on this closely enough but giving a blessing it's it has been Clarified that this does not involve giving a blessing to a union I know that but to two individuals I understand I understand that uh the uh the pope has also said recently that uh uh two men in a homosexual relationship are living

out their love do I have the right as a Christian holding the scriptures to hold that kind of statement to a biblical standard and reject it you have a right to hold that statement and any other to a Biblical standard you have a right to Reject it if it is actually contradictory right and that would require my interpretation of that which is theas correct you would need to correctly interpret uh scripture and what it requires yes and if I am to correctly interpret for example 1 Corinthians chap 6: 9-1 uh that says that our a

Quai will not inherit the kingdom of God um do you believe there is an Apostolic tradition Outside of First Corinthians that defines what arenoi means no I think the term is fairly straightforward I I I would agree um does it then not bother you that many of the people uh at the C of cidality uh were lecturing the Bishops on the need to be inclusive of lgbtq individuals yes just like it uh bothers me that some people in the southern baptist conference and elsewhere in the Protestant Community have lectured Traditionalists in your communities as well

about how they need to reinterpret various biblical passages do you see those as parallel in light of the claim that the sinot and cidality is a function of the magisterium is it not actually it's not it's not no uh it it its results only gain magisterial Authority if they are approved by the Pope and if the pope who uh chose all the people that are speaking at the sen Cality uh approves that statement uh or whatever would come out of that sinod then it would be a function of the magisterium yes it would be part

of the Pope's ordinary magisterium yes but there are people who I'm sure spoke at the acts 15 Council that were in favor of circumcision being required for all Christians and I would say they were misadvised that Senate as well so just because because you can point to some people at a CID and say oh there are Some people here saying stuff they shouldn't there certainly were at first NAA where the Divinity of Christ was defined that doesn't invalidate this as an overall exercise of the magisterium so but let's say theoretically that the C of cidality

produces a statement um that uh is um well representative of the positions of the people that have been placed there by the Poe s and the pope approves of it uh will you then uh Accept that as a valid interpretation of Biblical scripture well I never comment on uh hypotheticals until I can see what they say um however I can sketch principles and Catholics are required to agree with anything that the church has taught infallibly um the church recognizes that apart from infallible teaching there can be situations where a person is is unable in good

conscience to agree with a nonin fallible teaching and so if the Senate or any other nonin fallible document came out that said something that looked really problematic I'd have to look at it carefully and say okay well verify this is non infallible and it will be because Senate documents are never infallible um but then I'd have to look at it and say does this actually disagree with something that I'm required to believe elsewhere and if it does then I would Have to say well this is this is this is non- infallible it's a mistake in

this case so you are required to interpret uh not only scripture but um ancient Creeds ancient councils magisterial documents do you really think that gives you a higher level of certainty uh than a person who is going directly to the scriptures uh the situations are very disanalogous um I'm trying to do my best to I speaking I'm leaving fiducia supplicant And the sen cality behind okay you're saying you were speaking generally and you were saying that in general uh you have the responsibility and the right to disagree with nonin fallible statements in principle in limited

circumstances yes limited circumstances yeah okay does everyone agree on what is and what is not infallible statements uh Scholars typically have a great deal of consensus on this okay is there a is there an Absolute consensus for example on how many infallible councils there have been in in terms of ecumenical councils that whether or not they exercised infallibility yeah that that's pretty much universally agreed upon in the Catholic church so there's no there you you don't you're not cognizant of any disagreement uh as to whether a certain Council was functioning infallibly there's a list somewhere

that tells you that I'm distinguishing Between the exercise of infallibility and the capacity for infallibility all ecumenical councils have the capacity to teach infallibly not all of them have actually exercised it would you consider indel arum doctrina an infallibly uh defined statement no of course not it's a it's a it's uh the pope doesn't remotely use the language in that necessary this is a document that came out from Paul v 6 in the 1960s okay in regards to the subject of Indulgences but would you accept it as having doctrinal Authority for the Roman Catholic Church

yeah okay um do you believe that you have given examples of something that is theas that is not found well back that that up you heard what I said about Mitch Paca yeah uh would you agree with Mitch Aqua that the church has never defined a single word that Jesus or the apostles ever said that is actually not found in Scripture if by word you mean a Verbatim quotation I would agree if you mean has it ever infallibly defined a teaching that came from them that is not found in scripture I would say it has

done that and you would use the examples you used before among others I use those only because we believe in them right and so very quickly uh do you do you can you point to anything in the first five centuries of the church that gives the reality that the apostles delivered to The Thessalonians the foundation of the modern Maran dogas uh to the Thessalonians specifically or to generally well second Thessalonian says what was delivered to you that was to the church right to the yes but the principles apply to all the Christian churches I as

I said we have very limited Paul spoke spoke to the Thessalonians for only a very limited time and we don't have a complete record Of all he told them but do I have evidence from the church fathers from the first five centuries supporting the basic maryan doctrines absolutely I do look in my book the fathers know best it's up for sale out there on the table all right thas expired for the first 10 minutes I wanted to allow uh Mr Aken to answer that question uh Mr White got it in just before the end of

his time want to give you sufficient opportunity to answer his last question now we'll set The timer for 10 minutes for Mr aen to ask questions of Mr White okay uh so James you've acknowledged that solar scriptura was not operational during the apostolic period when did it become obligatory for Christians in what century when you had a scriptura you can't you can't even have a discussion of solos scriptura or Prima scriptura or anything else until you have a scripa so when did that happen What century well that would be After the death of the last

Apostle which century I'm not asking for I don't think anybody I don't think I don't think John made it to 140 or anything like that so uh that would be at the end of the first century okay so you think that solar scriptura was obligatory for Christians beginning in the 2 Century I believe that Christians recognized that they needed to hear what Christ's voice said and that they found that in scripture yes do you acknowledge that Authors from this period also Rec claim to recognize Christ's voice in the tradition passed down from the apostles uh

depending on what they're making reference to so in in reference to Traditions regarding such things as how to baptize um or you know three times forward or three times backwards or that that goes on for quite some time but there is a difference irus for example when he speaks of Apostolic tradition Defines it as there is one God the maker of heaven and Earth okay now that's obviously a sub biblical let's not get because I want to stay focused on this issue I haven't yet gotten a clear answer from you to was solos scriptura binding

on Christians in the 2 Century do you unless I missed it did you agree to that that it became binding on Christians in the 2 Century well a couple things I think it's very important to allow history to speak here Not everyone in the second century had the entirety of the New Testament sure so Justin Martyr for example shows next to no familiarity with the Apostle Paul I'm not sure what your theology would look like without Paul but mine would be very very different than than what it currently is so there is the same period

of development of understanding of what the apostles have delivered that you have in the Old Testament so uh my my response to that Is you have the exact same situation that was faced by the Jewish people during the inter testamental period and by the time of Jesus Jesus could hold men accountable to what to scripture not to Jewish tradition okay um on your I'd love to explore this further with you but we only have seven and a half minutes um in your in your book and on your website there are dozens of references to solo

scriptura as a Doctrine or teaching just doctrina Is just the Latin word for teaching do you still recognize solo scripture as a Doctrine and would it need to pass its own test in order to be successful of course it's a Doctrine but it is a doctrine that is different than say Resurrection Resurrection is a historical reality and so it's taught in scripture what it meant why it happened who did it when it happened so on and so forth does does it need to meet its own test In order to be binding on Christians so allow

me to to finish the last uh question First Solar scriptura speaks to the the nature of ultimate Authority and so as I said in my opening statement the only passages of scripture that address ultimate Authority where God is speaking place that within the pages of scripture for us today you can make claims that you know during the apostolic period they had access to something we don't have but for us today the only thing That we can identify that is God speaking is scripture now in saying that the only thing we can identify as binding from

the apostolic age I'm not going to bite on godp speaking because I've already shown that that has a much broader meaning in Paul than it does in later Theology and so Apostolic tradition was God speaking including I completely disagree it's complete equivocation yeah um well there are a lot of protestant Scholars like um Bruce Mezer and Bruce Meer did not believe that Roman Catholic Apostolic tradition is the same thing is biblical EP that's a non seor and it's my question time actually um the there are multiple Protestant Scholars including people like Lee McDonald Bruce mezer

and FF Bruce and August lurf who agree with me on inspiration was not viewed as limited to the scriptures and it was broader than that it was regarded by first century and other early Christians as Applying to anything that wasn't manifestly heretical having said that having said that um I was going to ask if that was a question is solos scriptura something that needs to meet its own test in order to be successful uh yes and it does okay where then without presupposing solos scriptura so presuppose the negation of my position I'm not getting into

that kind of no no I'm not saying presupposed the negation I'm just saying don't Assume it without assuming solar scriptura because if you assume solar scriptura then your argument is circular and it doesn't prove anything and if scripture is God speaking that is the ultimate Authority and there cannot be any demonstration of that ultimate Authority outside of the ultimate Authority itself this is an epistemological question if you want to assume that scripture is the word of God I'm all with you so we don't need to Fight about assumtion it's it's teaching but if you're assuming

so tell me this are you assuming that there is nothing outside of scripture that is also the word of God or do you have a basis for that that is not that is not simply your own I am simp say scripture tells meit that scripture is God speaking not just 2 Timothy 3 but Jesus's statement to the Sadducees have you not read what God spoke to you and my statement is there is nothing else that you can point to or anyone else can point to that is God speaking that we do not possess within the

covers of what God has given us in this great gift well um I have to say that I've already done that multiple times like the fact that there is a question I'm setting up a question I get to respond to statements you make in this period and um and I've already done that Multiple times you're just not acknowledging it so let's shift the discussion a little bit um as I mentioned if you assume solos scriptura to prove solos scriptura then your argument is circular and doesn't prove anything so without assuming solo scriptura can you show

me that we no longer have any Apostolic Traditions like the ones I mentioned such as the fact there will be no more Apostles again I believe there will be no more Apostles because the scriptures tell us in Hebrews chapter 1 we can make that application so there is biblical Revelation that we can make that application I don't believe that that is some Apostolic tradition that was passed down if you think it was then identify who the apostle was and who passed who they pass it down to in Hebrews 1 it never even it says God

spoke to our fathers in many various ways but today he's spoken to us by our by his son MH That doesn't tell us that there are not going to be any more Apostles in the future that's something that you're going Way Beyond the text for no I I don't think that it is at all in light of what the book of Hebrews was as an apologetic to tell people there's nothing to go back to the completness of the New Covenant the work of Christ is the very Central aspect of what Hebrews chapter 1 is about

I just think you're not going deep enough into Hebrews 1 I Would invite people to read Hebrews 1 and see whether it even mentions Apostles um say it did I'm sorry I didn't say it did well okay I think that injures your case uh no it does not moving on to another question you are in error um so in 2 Timothy 3 Paul invokes Apostolic tradition when he tells Timothy to hold fast to what he was taught he then says that Timothy knows the sacred writings which means the Old Testament in this case and that

they're Able to instruct him for salvation through faith in Christ so the Old Testament helps support faith in Christ which at the time was in oral form uh so you need Apostolic tradition to correctly interpret the Old Testament regarding Christ do you acknowledge that In this passage Paul is making a double appeal to both Apostolic tradition and to scriptures approved by the apostles no sir you've inserted the term Apostolic tradition about four or five Times times in there where it's not found anywhere in the text whatsoever it's equivocation uh you keep using it you have

to keep using it but it is a U iseal Move that uh really results in a different perspective on the text and it makes it teach something other than what Paul was intending it to teach uh to the Apostle to to Timothy so we know that the apostolic Paradigm was willed by Christ for his first followers and you've admitted that solos scriptura was Not in use in the first century that would mean either that all Apostolic Traditions have to get written down before the death of the last Apostle so that they become scripture or it

would mean they lose their Authority after the death of the last Apostle no which of those options do you support neither one it's a false question uh the it's a true question it I'll go ahead and answer it uh the uh the reality is the content of quote unquote Apostolic tradition is Given to us in scripture they cohere they do not have one body here and one body there that includes marry and dogmas papacy and everything else over here and what we have in scripture over here they cohere and that's why we continue to have

them today all right time has expired for cross- examination um you guys didn't know this Philip and Rusty but you're in the camera shot behind Dr White so you can tell everybody hello who's watching um if uh They've been sorting the Q&A cards for me we have over a hundred cards and so I had to ask for their help I didn't realize there would be so many questions and do the Q&A afterward are you guys finished if they're not done okay well yeah we'll go ahead you and you guys can continue to sort if you

need to so these are for why and these are for Ain okay I'm going to do my best to give equal treatment we do have more cards for Mr Aken and Mr White so if you Guys can get me some more cards for Mr White in a moment and I'll get started with these we'll start with Mr aen uh the question is what is the reconciliation of papal infallibility with contradictory statements or established Traditions between different popes the uh popes have exercised infallibility on a very small number of occasions according to most Scholars there are

only between Six and eight documents where popes have exercised infallibility in order for there to be a contradiction involving papal infallibility it would have to be a contradiction between two or more of those six to eight documents and none of those documents contradict each other they may reject earlier things that were non- infallible but there's no contradiction involving papal infallibility if a pope rejects a prior nonin fallible teaching in order to Generate a contradiction involving papal infallibility you would need two infallible statements contradicting each other and such a thing has never happened and by the

protection of the holy spirit will never happen all right 30 seconds for Mr White to respond seems to me that the whole concept of papal infallibility is probably the most useless Doctrine I've ever heard because fundamentally as I've Debated uh Tim St Roberts and jennis on these issues uh what I heard from them was the pope is infallible except when he's not so when you demonstrate U honorious or whatever else it might be well he just wasn't speaking infallibly the problem is you never know when someone actually is speaking in val there's always disagreement about

that's the problem all right the next question will be from Mr White the question is what source Gave us the New Testament Canon is this Source God breathed this is a number of questions and if not uh does this mean that the Canon could contain nonin fallible writings yeah one minute to talk about the entirety of the Canon I just simply recommend to everybody you go James uh the uh uh I would direct people to a conversation that I had with Dr Michael Krueger at G3 um I think in 2018 where we discussed the fact

that the Canon is a theological Uh issue is it's not a historical issue it is an artifact of Revelation and once you understand that it is the natural result of inspiration taking place uh then you'll understand uh not only the historical realities behind the recognition but also what happened in the intertestamental period with the recognition of what we would call the Old Testament Canon as well and so no uh you do not have to have a quote unquote infallible magisterial Source Rome Didn't get around it until 15 1946 all the major issues had already been

decided at that point but uh it is in fact an artifact of Revelation not an object of Revelation 30 seconds to respond so just commenting on this because James frequently brings up that the Catholic Church didn't infallibly Define the cannon until the 1500s there's a reason for that if you're a Protestant and you're using solar scriptura then what belongs in the Bible And what doesn't having a precise knowledge of that is an urgent priority because if you include even one book in there that's not scripture or omit one book that is scripture then you've got

a huge problem if you're limited to solar scriptura but if God is guiding you overall in ter and you're not limited to solo scriptura this is much less of a priority and so it wasn't until a major group challenging the Canon appeared that the church felt a need to Infallibly Define it all right the next question is for Mr aen the question is how can we trust Apostolic tradition that has been handed down orally when the Roman Catholic church has repeatedly overruled or redefined previous tradition okay well not all tradition is Apostolic tradition we covered

that and so consequently um if the Roman Catholic Church overrules prior tradition in an infallible way well then it wouldn't Have been Apostolic it would have been something else uh in terms of how can we trust it it's because the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are guiding his church Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth and Jesus himself said that as the church is making disciples and teaching them everything he he commanded us he's with us until the end of the age and so that fundamental guidance of the church by Christ

and by the holy spirit is something that gives Us confidence in the authorities that he's instituted in his own church so there's a good example of solar Ecclesia um if the church says it then it's true and we can simply trust that because we say Christ is with us well we believe Christ is with his church but we recognize that Christ was with the Corinthian Church and they needed a lot of Correction and that has been seen down through the history of the church anyone who I teach church history and You could you you see

the number of times that the church has Ed in its Traditions it's all through history next question for Mr White you said that the Canon was not defined by Catholicism until 1546 when was it defined for other Christians how was it decided and who decided it well again it it'd be great to have a discussion of of Canon issues it's it's far too much information in 54 seconds but uh the reality is that there Were two Traditions as far as the New Testament is concerned there was very very very little disagreement yes Revelation had to

fight get in things like that that's true but the major argument and we've done debates on this subject go listen to the debates I've done with with a number of people on this subject of the Apocrypha books uh the major difference between us is in those books and when you look at that there was two Traditions that went all The way to the time of the Reformation you had popes uh you had Jerome you had all sorts of people who rejected those books as the Jews had rejected those books and then you had another tradition

primarily people who followed the Greek septent not knowing the Hebrew background uh who accepted the apocryphal books and then you have with the Reformation you have this finality at the Council of Trent that takes one of those traditions and establishes It so um as uh as I was just mentioning this was this gives me a little more time to expand on this um this was something that was not an urgent priority for the Catholic church because when doctrinal controversies arose it could resort to more than just scripture itself it could resort to Apostolic tradition that

had been passed down it could consult the magisterium if there was a severe problem it was therefore not an urgent Priority to figure out exactly the parameters of scripture but for someone who believes in solos scriptura it is an urgent priority all right the next question for Mr Aken if you believe that there is no more revelation by what source of Truth or authority is the pope considered inherent uh okay so there's a difference between something being revealed by God and something being inherent um the pope Does not receive new Revelations from God instead what

happens is God protects him from teaching error uh it's kind of like if someone gave you a math test and God guided you so that you got every question on that correct well that's not new revelation it wasn't like God was helping you cheat and Whispering answers in your ear instead he guided you in such a way that you didn't make any mistakes and in limited situations that applies to the pope God guides him in Such a way that he makes Lim he doesn't make mistakes in those specific situations which as I mentioned are very

rare now there's actually an open question about how God does that it could be he would recall the pope to Heaven if he were about to make an error but one way or another he protects the pope from teaching error to his church when the pope is trying to engage infallibility 30 seconds recall to Heaven Boom I was being polite about funny way of putting it yeah um I would simply point out that Pope anius was anathematized as a heretic for his teachings by every person who took the throne of Peter in Rome for 400

years by name those people clearly did not believe in papal infallibility all right if you guys will bring me the rest of those cards while I'm asking the next question I'll appreciate that just send them right Here um Mr why the next question is for you who has the authority to interpret scripture and what do we do when differing interpretations are attributed to the illumination of the Holy Spirit uh to to the what illumination Oh I thought said elimination I'm like it's a new doctrine I've never heard before yeah so if we'll reset the timer

for 60 seconds I'll read the question one more time who has the authority to interpret scripture and what do we do when Differing interpretations are attributed to the illumination of the Holy Spirit I got to remember I'm in Louisiana okay so yes well and and this is this is a case of interpreting any written document this is you get look at all the different interpretations just of the recent uh Pap document too you got all sorts of different takes on that um the reality is that I do believe that Christ promised to be with his

church and when it comes to things that define the Gospel we have had great consistency in fact I'll make this argument people who believe in Solo scriptura and seek to practice it are much more united on who God is and what the gospel is than any religions that claim that the Bible is not enough and they bring something else in to help interpret it there is much more consistency between us than everybody else who brings in other authorities outside of scripture and so uh does that mean we all have the same Opinion and everything no

it's not that will come I think eventually 30 seconds well I'm I'm very glad to hear that there's so much Unity between Protestants who um believe in Solo scriptura and take it seriously that's very heartening to hear we're going to hear a lot more about Unity tomorrow night but uh there are some noticeable differences between people who claim to be using solo scriptura seriously in the Protestant Community Concerning salvation like do you need to get baptized to be saved some say yes some say no do you need to baptize babies some say yes some say

no all right the next question will be for Mr aen concerning 2 Timothy 2: two Paul wrote what you heard from me what are the contents of what Timothy heard from Paul outside of scripture well every time Paul was speaking to Timothy on a doctrinal Nature on subjects of a doctrinal nature and wasn't just quoting from the Old Testament he was communicating to him information that is Apostolic tradition and that would include things that are now in scripture but it is not limited to things that are now in scripture as I demonstrated earlier like the

fact they not going to be any more Apostles that's not in scripture but it is something that uh we both recognize also the close of public Revelation is Not there and the identity of the restrainer that's holding back the man of lawlessness is not there but Timothy would have heard Paul preach on these subjects 30 seconds um let let's keep something in mind uh irus uh by the end of the 2 Century said that he had Apostolic tradition that Jesus was more than 50 years old when he died and he fit that in with his

recapitulation theory of the atonement now I don't know anybody who Actually agrees with that today but you have to have a means to look at anything that's written by an early father and examine it to see whether it's actually true scripture becomes the standard for that Mr White a question for you how do you explain all the different doctrines and beliefs that the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations have I love the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations we've debunked that one For a long time according to the very same source that people get the

35,000 43,000 there are like 1,400 Roman Catholic churches too so be careful what sources you're using uh there's there's very very much smaller number uh than that of any type of serious size whatsoever how do you explain that real simple people not following solo scriptura people bringing their own Traditions their own ignorances whatever it might be but yes that is the primary Reason as I said earlier the groups that believe in solos scriptura and practice it are very close in their perspectives with one another especially on who God is I can go out and debate

Muslims with them and everything else the people who reject it and bring in Traditions and Revelations and quote unquote Apostolic Traditions they end up with all sorts of different perspectives that's an important thing to keep in mind 30 seconds so I'm going to please you James By admitting that we need to be careful about exaggerating the number of Christian groups these numbers like 35,000 Protestant denominations and stuff are reckoned according to a bad system of mathematics U they shouldn't be counted that way although I would say it's not 1,400 but 230 different Catholic churches okay

in that Source um so I agree with that and I would also agree that the differences or depending on how you would say this agree that it Is so scriptura that has led to the differences among the different groups because scripture underdetermines certain questions and that leads to divergences of opinion all right time's expired guys if you will bring me some more card cards while I ask the next question because I'm almost out um Mr aen the next question is for you what isn't yeah yeah okay all right what do you say to hear it

I'm sorry I'm trying to hard to multitask these things all Right uh so Mr Aken this question for you what do you say to the pope when he contradicts the scriptures is this acceptable to you well it's not acceptable for anybody to contradict the scriptures and so if any Pope Francis or anybody else was contradict the scriptures uh then and I you know looked at it and said yeah there's just no way to reconcile these statements then I would get them on speed dial and I would say hey bud think you want to walk that

One back finished yep all right 30 seconds I would love to see exactly how that works personally I didn't know you had Francis on the speed dial um and tells me getting hold of him would be a little bit more difficult than that and though you are Jimmy aen and you do wear a cowboy hat I'm just not sure that would be enough uh to actually get you to that point and my point is I if the pope is Functioning infallibly you don't have a way to take that position all right Mr White the next

question is for you you stated that you have to have a scriptura in order to have a solah mhm the Canon of script scripture was not set definitively until centuries after the apostolic age how then is solos scripture not a binding tradition surfacing after the apostolic age well again it' be a great debate to have but I would just like to point to The question I've been asking uh Roman Catholics for a long time especially since I debated Jerry mattics of Boston College in 93 and that is how did the believing Jewish man 50 years

before Christ know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were scripture what was the mechanism because Jesus held men accountable to those scriptures and they never said oh I didn't know that was scripture so how did they know they had No infallible magisterium and in fact the Jews rejected the books that the Council of Trent added to the Canon so how did they know there had to have been a mechanism and I don't believe that the Roman Catholic system can explain how they can know that specifically so there has to be a process of recognition passively over

time not an active definition 30 seconds so I'll answer your question about how they knew they Didn't there was no infallible determination of the Canon prior to the time of Christ and there were differences in the Jewish Community about which books counted to scripture and which didn't so this was a question that simply had not not been answered yet definitively those books Jesus held people accountable to the books that they recognized as scripture but he didn't hold other people accountable to books that they did not recognize as Scripture such as when he debated with the

Sadducees all right um Mr Aken the next question is for you and I don't know that you can do this in 60 seconds but if you can get us a general answer James has been pressed I'll do my best to could you please offer a brief history of the Canon of scripture uh this is just Payback right especially who are you what's wrong with you people I'll pull an RC sproll here let Me let me reformulate the question in a in a way that maybe you can answer in 60 seconds how did the church formulate

the Canon is that your perspective and is so how did it do it so the Canon is intrinsically authoritative because God wrote it but in terms of how he guided the church into a into a recognition of which book books are canonical and which books are not the basic Criterion was what did the apostles approve and that's something that the church discerned by Two a two-fold test involving tradition when they looked at books that were proposed for inclusion in scripture and there were a lot a lot more than most people are aware they asked two

questions the first question was is there a history or tradition of this book being read in the churches if there was a tradition of it being read in the churches that that was a mark in its favor the second question was does it agree with the Traditions passed down From the apostles in other words does it agree with Christian doctrine that has been passed down since the time of the Apostles if the answer to that was also yes then it was generally recognized as apostolically approved and having come from the apostles if it failed either

of those it was rejected 30 seconds Romans chapter 3 uh verse 2 and it says what's the advantage of the Jew it says great and every respect first of all that they were Entrusted with the Oracles of God and so vitally important especially in the one area where the two sides here completely disagree on the issue of the Canon the dter chronical books those books were not accepted by the Jews they were rejected and yet scripture says they were the ones entrusted with the Oracles of God that should be the primary standard Mr White the

next question for you you mentioned Purgatory not being in scripture what about second mccabes 12: 43-46 hey you picked on me now's my turn I think we debated the wrong topic here this evening so uh obviously uh not only do I not believe that this is Canon scripture there were Popes that didn't believe it was Canon scripture either um and what's more these individuals had idols on their bodies idolatry is a and again this is complete anachronism to read categories of venial and mortal sin back into this context it's it's just absurd um but since

it's used this way Uh the reality is that this would have been a mortal sin and the whole concept of purgatory would be irrelevant to pray for them because they were idolators for crying out loud um so again it it it seems to me that um during the issues of the Reformation this got a whole lot more attention than it might have otherwise uh in more calmer periods of time uh but it certainly has has no connection whatsoever to the the concept Of purgatory I'm so glad this question was asked because it gives me an

opportunity to respond something to something you said in one of your rebuttal where I am not allowed to counter rebut um you're supposed to be commenting on the question well I am going to comment on the question because this question asked about SE mccabes and that allows me to point out that James's assertions that the Canon was known by the Jews who Possess the Oracles of God well it's true they possess the Oracles of God but that doesn't mean that all of them had an accurate understanding of what those oracles were in fact the Sadducees

did not there was disagreement and some Jews regarded second mccabes as scripture all right the next question for Mr Aken in regards to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 how do you know that what traditions are spoken of in that text are not either later scripture uh are not either later Scripture uh in inscripturated later yes 6 seconds that's it okay um well I devoted a whole slide to this uh during my presentation um first of all I can't assume one way or another that they are all identical with what's later written down and I can't assume that

they're not I need evidence so I provided evidence by pointing out that Paul did not have time because he was in in thessalonica for less than a month to give them a Full course of instruction in the faith so he can't be talking about that as the Traditions he gave them also I pointed to the fact that he says they already know what the restrainer is because he says remember I told you what the restrainer is but he doesn't record it here and it's not recorded elsewhere in scripture so obviously some of the things that

he taught them in that 3we period were not later written down in scripture so there was Apostolic Tradition out side of what we now have in the New Testament 30 seconds 2 Thessalonians 21:13 says we should always give thanks to God for you Brothers beloved by the Lord because God has chosen you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and faith in the truth it was for this he called you through our gospel that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ so then Brothers stand firm and Hold the

Traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter from us so in context text what is he referring to he's referring to the content of the Gospel that has been delivered to them in two ways Mr White the next question for you if two people are reading scripture and they get conflicting interpretations who are they supposed to go to if you believe in solar scriptura who are they to go to well if They're involved in a good solid Church which this New Testament tells us has multiple elders and deacons in it

and that's the only form of the church the New Testament uh even begins to understand uh then they should talk to their Elders about it uh that would be the first thing uh and what if you have a difference between Elders well then they need to go much more deeply into the text of scripture and I don't have any problem whatsoever in their going Into church history and reading Augustine or or reading gotschalk or or reading whoever they want to read that's fine and dandy as long as you do not invest in their words and

authority and a tradition outside of scripture but the fact of the matter is in this life there are going to remain differences between individuals until the fullness is brought in and that gets into into eschatology and I can't do that with Brian sitting Here yeah we we'll have that debate later Dr Dwight over over some tacos all right 30 seconds I agree with James that in for ordinary purposes um you know we have to do the best we can in our situation and talking to On's the presor the priests or Elders or whatever you want

to call them in your church are is a good first step and speaking from a Catholic perspective if you don't get satisfaction there you can take it up to the bishop and ultimately you could go To the decast for the doctrine of the faith or even the pope but that's very unlikely to happen in a practical case what the Catholic system does have that unfortunately the Protestant system doesn't is the possibility of getting a definitive answer and that's a good thing you don't have tcho on speed dial no I just have Francis oh okay you

just go for the top let's not worry about the lower people okay all right next question Mr aen are Protestants Anathematized according to the Council of Trent o we're spoiling tomorrow night's talk the answer is no they're not uh as I'll explain tomorrow night um the term anathema does not mean what many in the Protestant Community think it does I'll show you exactly what it did mean and I'll show you the status of uh anathemas today the so spoiler warning everybody no Protestants are not anathematized let's hear it for everybody who's not Anathematized so be

happy about that but I want you to come back tomorrow night so I I'll explain explain the reasoning tomorrow but the good news is nobody here is anathematized Dr White 30 seconds well I'd like to join in all the fun but the fact of the matter is uh a steady stream of missionaries came out of the Church of Geneva uh in the 1500s going into Italy to bring the gospel of grace there and every single one of them was Murdered so you can play with the term anathema all you want the historical reality was it

led to bloodshed all right Mr why the next question prior to Luther where does the doctrine of solos scriptura appear in Christian writing I've written uh an entire chapter in a book called solos scriptura that I think is currently published by so Dale Gloria where I went rather in depth into the patristic witness up through I think I stopped with aanus if I recall correctly uh but I provided a number of texts uh that uh present to us a Viewpoint utterly different than what you have in modern Roman Catholicism in regards to not only the

nature of scripture but the sufficiency of scripture uh to uh determine these issues and I would simply point out that when it's said that no one back then was concerned about the Canon uh because they had other things to refer to let me point out that is baldly false the Church is greatest struggle back then was with gnosticism and the gnostics did dispute the cannon and that was in the second and third centuries you bet they had a reason to know what the cannon was 30 seconds so they did when it came to the gnostics

but and they quickly rejected all of the Gnostic writings because they were heretical they failed to pass the two tradition tests that I mentioned so they rejected them but they didn't need to Define everything because There wasn't an urgent priority to get everything defined having said that since you just brought back something else I mentioned um yeah there were some missionaries who went to Italy and got killed there were a bunch of missionaries who were catholic who went to England and got killed so if you want to play that game we can all right anathema

Mr Aken the last question will be for you how does Rome land on such things like blessing same-sex marriage When the Bible directly oses such a thing it doesn't the Catholic church does not support blessing same-sex marriages that's the simple answer to the question okay 30 seconds I agree that's that's not what was said but what was said if we if you've watched how the lgbtq movement has moved through the liberal Protestant denominations it's what's happening in the Vatican you kick the door open just a little bit you open It just a little bit then

a little bit more then a little bit more and a little bit more I just don't believe that anyone can believe that any pope before only 20 years ago could ever have gone where Francis has gone with this they just I just can't believe it all right if you'll give us just a minute we are going to reset the stage for closing statements so if we can get the podium back in place okay each debater has five minutes to make his closing statement This will be the last portion of the debate Dr White 5 minutes

just a second we've got we got wires up here yeah don't start the timer until he begins yeah all right thank you very much well uh I want to uh thank uh the church here for bringing us together providing the opportunity takes a lot of work to put these things together for Jimmy Aken for driving down uh to be here uh and engage this very important subject I want to emphasize that we have Heard assertions that well this is this is what Apostolic tradition is and I know in church history that term has been used

of all sorts of things many of which Mr Aken would not accept as actually having come from the apostles but the reality is we have not been shown anything that is truly theonas God breathed that is outside of scripture nothing and we certainly have not been given anything that would be a Found foundation for the massive developments of theology in sacramentalism in the Maran dogmas in the development of church offices and ecumenical councils and consiliari we've been giving nothing that you could in any meaningful way Trace back to the apostles historically you couldn't do it

it's not possible and so my first assertion remains really literally Unchallenged and that is if you what Paul said to Timothy and Timothy's going to be facing Timothy hard times are coming apostasy coming false teachers are coming just look to Peter in Rome that's not what he said when he met with the Ephesian Elders in Acts chapter 20 what did he say what did he say to them there are going to be many people rise from your very ranks and draw disciples away I therefore commit you to God and to the word of his grace

not to a Magisterium not to Apostolic tradition but to God's word and you can make arguments well but there's a time where you know some people don't know that's fine happened in the Old Testament too and Jesus did hold men accountable every time you can say well the Sadducees he went ahead and just quoted the paduk and there's argument about exactly where they were on that but that's fine how when he cites the book Of Isaiah did someone know it was scripture no one ever responded to Jesus by saying well that's not scripture how did

they know and he said they didn't and I just sat there looking out over you going I'm hoping everyone's still awake at this point because he just said they didn't know Jesus said have you not read what God spoke to well I didn't know God spoke that to you that doesn't work that does not work and so if you've been listening Carefully to the use of the phrase Apostolic tradition you have found that Apostolic tradition as it's been used by Jimmy tonight is a Gumby and some of you are too young to know what Gumby

was and I feel sorry for you I know but Gumby but see well of course you know um Gumby was a was a little figure back in my day that you could stretch all sorts of different directions and he was quite flexible whole lot more flexible than I Am anymore I can guarantee you that but you see for Apostolic tradition to be meaningful and to ground Dogma that you say You Must Believe De Fe day it has to it has to actually refer to something that really came from the apostles and we have been given

no reason to believe that the things that Rome has bound upon men's consciences actually come from any Apostle at all the default if you simply read the scriptures let me ask you to do Something whether you're Roman Catholic or Protestant tonight go home and read the 119th Psalm it's a long one might put you to sleep but read the 119th Psalm and listen to the psalmist speak of the exalted nature of God's law and God's testimonies and realize he didn't have anything in comparison to what we have today he didn't have Ephesians he didn't have

John and yet listen to what the scripture says and ask yourself a simple question is there anything in this world that could be described in the words that the psalmist uses to speak of God's testimonies in scripture in the9th Psalm and the answer is no and that establishes solo scriptura thank you for your attention this evening God bless so James mentioned a number of things that I have provided no basis for Like purgatory and conciliarism and the papacy and the Maran doctrines and all these different things and he said and it can't be done well

not in my last five minutes it can't that's overloading again if you wanted to debate those subjects you should asked for a different different debate topics so I'm going to stay focused on what we're here to talk about tonight which is the principles and in the apostolic age they used the apostolic Paradigm it included Apostolically approved scriptures including the Old Testament it included Apostolic tradition that went beyond what was in the Old Testament and it included a magisterium or teaching Authority that God himself had instituted and was guiding such that they the members of that

magisterium could say it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to announce this decision and we also see the New Testament like in second Timothy talking about how the junior members of the community are to pass on Apostolic tradition after the apostles are dead Paul names four generations to do that his own which began the Apostolic tradition Timothy's the generation Timothy will teach and the gener ation they will teach so the New Testament envisions the apostolic Paradigm continuing in the post-apostolic age and it did I've shown you four Apostolic Traditions that we agree

on that are authoritative in the Protestant Community just like they're authoritative in the Catholic Community I could have shown many more even though there might be differences with some Protestants but I've already shown that these are binding on us today and they also are the Nas they are God breathed because the early church had a different concept of what inspiration is than what James is reading into the text the big Problem with solo scriptura is that it holds that all teachings all doctrines must be taught either explicitly or implicitly in scripture James has admitted it's

a Doctrine solos scriptura is a Doctrine therefore if solar scriptura is true solar scriptura must be taught in scripture but it is not taught in scripture as James has also admitted it was not operational in the first century therefore no Bible verses teach solos scriptura first century Christians were not being told to use it solar scriptura is therefore a post-biblical inference based on the idea that we no longer have Apostolic tradition or a divinely guided magisterium and we've seen that those claims are false therefore solos scriptura fails its own test and we should continue to

use the apostolic Paradigm that the apostles expected their converts to use and just like all of the Christian groups that precede the Reformation have continued to use so in very quick summary the apostolic Paradigm was Jesus's will for his first followers it was never rescinded Jesus promised that he and the Holy Spirit would guide his church forever in its teaching the New Testament speaks of passing down Apostolic tradition in the post-apostolic age and God guided the magisterium into inherent decisions hundreds of years after the time of Christ on the other hand solo scriptura Was not

Jesus's will for his first followers as James has admitted it is never taught in the New Testament either for Jesus's first followers or for his later followers it is based on false post-apostolic premises for example it falsely claims that we don't have extra scriptural Apostolic tradition when we do we agree on it and it is thus self-refuting because it fails its own test I offer this for your consideration thank you so much Everybody and thanks for coming out tonight well thank you to both of our Debaters as we close our debate tonight uh Mr Aken

is going to be at the Catholic answers table in the forer uh Mr White will be up here at the front if you'd like to speak to him I want to close this in a word of prayer let's go to the Lord in prayer father we come tonight thankful for this opportunity for us to interact With one another consider your word and its Authority and Lord I just pray tonight that you would help each of us to discern Your Truth Lord your gu gospel I pray Lord that uh your Holy Spirit would uh truly help

us to uh find your truth and Lord I just pray that you would uh keep everyone safe as they drive home as we come tomorrow that you would continue to bless uh these debates Lord we just thank you so much for all of the um all of the interest in this And this historic attendance at this event Lord we are so thankful and in that we pray in the Lord Jesus name amen and before we go just one more reminder Remer that if you like what you've watched you can help me out by liking commenting

and especially subscribing to this channel I'm trying to grow it and I'd really appreciate your help thank you and God bless