Bible Alone Debate: James Akin vs James White (FULL DEBATE)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- James Akin and James White engage in a disputation on the Hank Hanagraaff Show concerning the issue of sola scriptura. This was recorded via cassette (remember those?) when this was originally broadcast. So, pardon the audio quality.
Did James White really just try to say that Ireneaus used the word *Tradition* in a different way than Catholics do? Ireneaus - the guy who argued that only churches with apostolic succession have authority, and all churches with apostolic succession must submit themselves to whatever Rome teaches?
Taylor Barrett yeah, unbelievable. Protestants really try sometimes on early christians to look like they held on protestant doctrines with some vague out of context extracts while trying to hide the big elephant in the sense these early christians were mostly bishops and priests and their catholic faith was very well documented by people who wrote catalogues of the church fathers in almost every century. Back to Ireneaus, his very own life is the testimony of what traditions he held onto, and of course it's not gonna like Mr. White to discover, the tradition this saint appeals as irrefutable is the very same Church in Rome, which Ireneaus demonstrates the list of Rome's bishops is the guarantee of the apostolic doctrines.
Trent Horn also owned James White apart from the two you mentioned.
@Bob Smith Im disappointed with Gary Michuta who debated James White on Deuterocanonical books, he got a good case but in a debate it goes with technicalities. He looked like a sitting duck there. The problem is if you're a catholic searching on youtube a good reference material on this topic and that pops up...disaster.
@Bob Smith, hi Bob I stopped following him after his lackluster performance in that debate with James White, maybe it was just me expecting much more from him. I checked him out after reading your comment that he became a sedevacanist. he had a podcast uploaded last quarter last year, i did not finish the video though. Im hoping to see some good catholic debaters on dueterocanonical books on youtube. Its not that i love seeing people argue and ofcourse i believe our list of books, id love to see but how strong our case vs protestants' claims of deleting them from the original bible and came up with their version of the bible.
@Bob Smith pls send link if you find one, id love to hear him. Thanks brother!
Great debate. If you think James White won you need to take a course in basic logic and study the Bible and Church history more.
I took a course in basic logic from a Catholic University. I studied the Bible there and also at a Protestant Bible Seminary which allows Catholics (IF they want to study there.) So, from input of both sides, I find that James White both logically and exegetically won the debate. Do you have ANY training in exegesis, and do you accept the historical, grammatical method of studying the history of the Bible and its teachings, along with church history?
Why do you study the Bible when it contradicts tradition it's thrown under the bus
Akin admitted to losing lol
@@amichiganblackman3200 Can you show me where please?
Jimmy Akin does a masterful job of breaking down James White's obfuscations. Everything that James White threw out, Jimmy sent deep to left field. What's amazing to me is that every time Mr. White throws a bible verse to make his position, Mr. Akin has more than just a suitable answer, but really highlights that Mr. White has no answer other than his subjective interpretation, and ultimately is forced to leave the bible on the sidelines ironically enough.
Mr. Akin always has a suitable answer because he does not have to invent and come up with something new. The truth is all that is needed and when you know it you always have the right answer. Problem is that most of us Catholics are not so well read about all these things and if we get a protestant in front of us who knows how to attack us, we don't always know how to counter what they say. We have to delve into our study of Catholicism , which is what I have now been doing for the past two years and it is shocking how many treasures I found.
What almost all of James White arguments were also Jimmy Akin's when he was a protestant. JW views are chained in his protestant lenses but JA explored further thats why his wisdom has more depth.
@@italianoetnico.calabreseve9262 yes it is very important. I am doing some study every day and i am still finding new things which i did not know.
@@italianoetnico.calabreseve9262
John Martignoni did an amazing job with his Bible Christian Foundation. I downloaded most of his apologetics audio clips and listen to them all time when I'm driving. *Very* useful.
@valiant crusader
Who, John Martignoni?
Go for it Jimmy Akin! May our Lord bless you and His Body!!!
@Asaph Vapor hello protestant heretic. Are you pissing off? Lol
@Bob Smith Protestant denying the sacred tradition by creating their own traditions. Hah, make no sense. This protestant heretic should repent and convert to Catholicism.
@@borneandayak6725 please explain How your Catholic tradition became Sacred? If so, why is it not on the Bible? (These so called OTHER sacred writings)”Haah
Really make no sense”!!!! 😅😂🤣😭
Heretic? Sounds just like a Catholic that lost another debate and can’t hack it! Lol
Repent son? Blessings!
@@ttshiroma What is funny about this? May I ask?
@@borneandayak6725 Well Yahweh doesn't exist because earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics and winds by barometric pressure imbalances not deities so technically you should all become Atheists until sufficient evidence of a supernatural anything exists.
Great job, Jimmy Akin. Thank you for calling out the fallacies.
James akin is so great to listen to.. glorifies Christ our savior... God bless the holy apostolic catholic church. The pillar and foundation of truth.
THE UNHOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
the pillar and foundation of the lies IMMORLITY CORRUPT
they preach there own will INTERPRETATION CONTRADICT TEACHING OF CHRIST TEACHING BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE SCRIPTURE
Jun Cab , How can you say these charges against Catholic with out siting your proof? that is non sense! it is easy to say against any group of religions but you should give your proof to have a valid accusation! For with out it you don't know the truth.
Here is the 3 proof why Catholic is the true Church of Jesus.
1. The True Church of Christ was established by Jesus Himself, and not by any human of this earth. And Catholic could not be point to any human being that founded this Church, because precisely this was the one established by Jesus. Unlike the thousands of churches nowadays that they are and were established by men, like Martin Luther, Muhammad, John Knox, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Smith, Ellen G. white, and many other human beings that made their churches. But Catholic is can't be found to have been established by any human being, because it was Jesus Christ who established it.
2. This Catholic Church was the product of believers of Jesus from Jerusalem in particular, and Israel in general, because Jesus began His ministry in Israel alone, not in America, not in Europe, not in Asia, or Africa, but in Israel alone. Unlike other religions that they started their religions in different countries of the world outside Israel!
3. Catholic Church began in the first century and recorded Simon Peter as the first Pope and no other religion can claim Peter as their first leader. And no other religion contested Catholic as Peter being its first leader.
So believe that Catholic is the the authentic Church of Christ and be with in it, so you have the salvation that Jesus wants for you to have an everlasting life! Thanks and God bless you and your family!
@@ezekielabuda1123 No the Catholic church was founded by a man. End of story. Yahweh doesn't exist because earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics and winds by barometric pressure imbalances so even if Jesus was a historical figure he was just human. Bad luck.
@@sagittarius6638 Jesus started Catholic church. You are against it.
@@andrewharper1609 Jesus started Catholic church.
I Love listening to Catholic Answer. I think James White was always boasting about his knowledge. And He is always talking about how he thinks. Not how he studied or He does not want to accept the truth that theyre Protesting against Catholics.
Unfortunately this is so, not to mention his reference to the Church as the "Roman Catholic Church". Which is obviously unhistorical and illogical.
It's unhistorical because Rome was the only one standing of the original 5.
It's illogical because although the Latin Rite is the most popular rite, the Church includes somewhere around 20 rites.
+Cacasilo Adventures,
Being a baptist and trying to maintain an open-mind to what's being said on both sides....I have to admit that Dr.White offered a great response [in my opinion] to Mr.Akin starting @ minute 20:25. And, I enjoy watching and listening to Mr.Akin speak as well. BTW, while having disagreements with some of the teachings of the Catholic Church, I have never expressed personal animosity towards it or those who practice the Catholic faith. We are not your enemies....at least I'm not.
No, he is NOT always talking about how he thinks. Some of the traditions and and some teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are such atrociously awful teachings against the Bible, that it is not surprising that Luther and others finally left the Roman Catholic Church. White's books are some of the most well documented and researched books that are on the market of serious Christian scholarship. Open your scholarship to Sola Scriptura, Catholic friends, and sincerely look to be justified by faith in Christ alone.
@@seanavp ..thank you! Tim Staples from Catholic answers was a Baptist..I'm not positive but he may have been a pastor.
@@ghostl1124 Luther has left the church,God and the true Religion given us by the Lord ! Luther has faked the Holy Bible,Gods word!! He grounded a sect of heresy and blasphmy,like his life!! Now he is by his Idol the revoluzzer Lucifer in hell,where all haeretics go!!
Rather than trying to answer every comment against the Catholic Church, I will just say that Protestantism is eternally wrong.
George Pierson Amen to that...
Yes, Protestantism founded with grave errors by a renegade and disobedient priest, Martin Luther, initiator of the Deformation...
That's why they argue with eachother over every verse, just like Calvin and Luther.
@wayne DIOR
Yet they bow down to self proclaimed pastors.
@pinkah boo ...so when Jesus said if you can't settle it between you, then take it to the "church"...he didn't really mean it?
What James White does not understand about Catholicism is that what is important is NOT what some "Roman Catholics" in America believe or what other Catholics around the world believe about Sacred Tradition. As a Protestant his concern is always about what "men" think or what "people" believe about this issue or that. That is not how Catholicism exists now or has existed from the beginning of church history. It does not matter what individuals or groups of Catholics do or don't believe about Catholic doctrine. There are dissident Catholics to be sure. There are many Holy Orders and different opinions in the Catholic Church on a variety of issues. The real issue is what the Church has infallibly taught from the beginning which is contained in the Catechism, historic Ecumenical Councils (Council of Nicea, for example), and "ex-cathedra" statements of the pope on faith and morals. Sacred Tradition is the echo of Christ’s voice which on in the Church in a variety of ways. In addition to Sacred Scripture, Tradition is the Word of God. Opinions of the church fathers or religious doctors of the church or individual Catholics may be helpful, but these are not Sacred Tradition. This is the same error that Luther and Calvin made.
@valiant crusader begone heretic troll! It's crazy how many comment sections you are in trolling 😂.
@valiant crusader You just called me a child of sin and said it's funny how heretics project their own condition on others😂. Bro get outta here. You don't even know where the Bible came from, cause if you did you might not be so salty.
@valiant crusader I'm not gonna lie, I'm intrigued by you. I've never met a troll so dedicated to trolling 😂. You never debate, you just pop up on every comment thread calling everyone sinners. Are you even a Christian? If so what denomination? Also I'm really curious if you are willing to actually discuss whether or not Catholicism is true intellectually. I firmly believe Catholicism true because of its superior origin founded by God himself in Jesus Christ 33 AD.
@valiant crusader This is a quote from Irenaeus who was Bishop of Lyons after he was ordained by Polycarp who was Ordained by John the Evangelist, who was Ordained by Jesus Christ. He said, "The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles." That about settles the matter in my book.
@valiant crusader You are right in saying Christ created no denominations. I believe that Ekklesia you mention at Pentecost is the Catholic Church. The reason I say that is only the Catholic Church can trace her Apostolic roots back to those very same Apostles at Pentecost and ultimately to our Savior Jesus Christ who died and rose for our sins. Ekklesia just means Church. When Christ built the Church on Peter and the Apostles he made his Church Apostolic and he prayed that his Church may be one, and spread throughout the whole world. The term Catholic comes from the Greek word Catholikos which means Universal. The early Church Father's identified with this Catholic or Universal Church that drew from it's Apostolic Authority to claim the Supremecy of Christ over heresy. This again is exemplified by what Bishop Irenaeus (guy ordained by Polycarp who was Ordained by John who was Ordained by Jesus) said,"The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles."
Jimmy Akin won
One need to study the church history which most of the protestenats deny. The church came first before the bible. So sacred tradition is very important.
The thing most people miss is the fact that the bible is merely tradition written down...and the oral tradition is the interpretation of what has been written down.
Show me a single person who was at the council of nicea who believed in the assumption of mary. Your traditions are just whatever Rome has made up over the years.
Um....no!
Rodrick Evans that’s the OT not the Bible lol
@Rodrick Evans Which Old Testament? the one in the protestant bible is newer then all the Gospels and Letters then the New.
The Protestant Old Testament was rewritten after the third revolt against Rome by the Pharisee Rabbi in 137AD whose messiah was Simon Bar Kokhba Not Jesus. The Jewish Catholics who was in the millions was ejected from the synagogue for non-support of all three revolts, in 137AD. Your Old Testament was selected by Luther when he told the German Emperor he would convent the Jews to his New Christianity. The Jewish rabbi rejected Luther and he wrote in his hate "The Jews and their lies" in 1541AD. Luther preached the Jews should be locked into their synagogue and burnt to death. The Catholic Old Testament is from 220BC. So the church did come before the Bible.
The Hebrew scriptures were written over a period of centuries during most of the first millennium BCE. The Scriptures proceeded from the Oral Tradition. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant innovation of accommodation.
Protestant denying the sacred tradition by creating their own traditions. Hah, make no sense. This protestant heretic should repent and convert to Catholicism.
@Asaph Vapor you should repent and convert to the Catholic Church bro. Don't waste your time with your man-made protestant church.
The Bible is the gold standard. The NT was written in Greek not Hebrew. They were completed by 95AD. When Paul talked about their tradition, he included the ones that agreed with the gospel before scripture was finished, not after. 2Tim 4:3-4. Jesus actually condemned manmade traditions. Mat 15.
There HAS to be a source of truth that every teaching that comes along can be compared to. We all agree the Bible is God inspired. (example by the Bereans). You cannot say that about teachings of men that are not in scripture.
ALL TRADITIONS AFTER THE APOSTLES and scripture are man made. That’s the problem. Gal 1:6-9.
Maryology is a perfect example of a new man made tradition that was brought into Christianity after centuries of no mention. (Except in pagan religions). And the very way of salvation of the RCC completely disagrees with the biblical way which is a huge problem.
@@borneandayak6725 if bible says there is one mediator,would you says there is other? lol! you need to mentalize everything for that,Keep worship mary,and you will be in hell
@@borneandayak6725 go away from your man made church tradition
Jimm akin is so calm and humble. I remember seeing him on the journey home that he only started to to look into Catholicism was to dissuade his wife who had shown a interest in Catholicism. He thought as someone who studied Protestant theology and had been offered a Protestant ministry this would be easy, but no.
he arrived at truth and the arguments that white has were once his, so he as you can see easily dealt with white without breaking a sweat.
James white us just in the air without any specific point to put up. James Akin presentation is crystal clear
Asaph Vapor
@Asaph Vapor haha, protestant heretic is pissing off. Their core doctrine been exposing.
@Asaph Vapor ups, it is the protestant was the real pagan church, because this church is just been made in 16th century.
Asaph Vapor you are a follower of a FAKE church, your would never exist without the BIBLE. YOU and your CULT pagan church should shut! Shame on you say to us Catholics.It is your Protestant who keeps changing! Your just exist just because of the Bible. The Catholics has been in existence centuries before the Bible! So that make a pagan, a CULT, an advocate of LIES, you are all son’s of Luther, IGNORANT, read your elementary history. Thats is not what the history says! ignorant!
I am pretty sure this sums up both of their arguments.
White: God-breathed scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. The authority of Rome is circular, and it places itself above scripture. Jesus (And Athanasius of Alexandria) when confronted with traditions, appealed to what scripture says, so we must also confront our traditions with the text of scripture.
Akin: Jesus was talking about the traditions of men, not the traditions of God. Jesus is not against all traditions. Paul says to hold to all of the traditions that were delivered, either in his epistles or not.
Reading the bible alone allows for twisting and misinterpretation, which means we must have the authority of the Church to guide us.
Anyone know what the painting is that's shown?
I don't know, but I'm guessing the Catholics are the ones on the right.
Brilliant, Mr. Akin!!!!
@Asaph Vapor
James white teaches that you can be condemned before you were even born or done anything in this life that is a satanic doctrine.
It sounds so good to say "let us let Scripture be the judge of controversies". After all, Scripture is infallible. But it never seems to dawn on these people that there is a problem with this approach. What is the problem? WHOSE INTERPRETATION? Oh, they will say that this issue can be resolved by letting Scripture interpret Scripture and letting the difficult passages be made clear by the clearer passages. Amen, amen. But that is not the question. It is not HOW we are to interpret Scripture, but who is to be the judge, for when each person uses this method, they still disagree. The next move is to appeal to the secret inspirations of the Holy Ghost. And this seems so reasonable. Yes! Let us have God Himself decide. But the problem here is that the secret inspirations of the Holy Ghost are not perceptible to anyone else. Millions claim the secret inspiration and they still disagree. So, we really need a visible infallible Church. Otherwise, it is everyone and his Bible and chaos is the result.
James Akin clearly is more knowledgeable than James White! He continuely corrects him more than debating him! If I never heard of catholics or protestants I would put my trust in James Akin!
You should put your trust in God, that is the main problem with a Majority of Catholic, they put their trust in Saints. Having said that Jimmy Akin is great theologian.
I have never heard James White get his ass whipped in a debate!!!!!!! Jimmy I bought 2 of ur books, heard this and now I am buying every book u write.
Timothy G. You gotta see him and Trent horn then. Trent horn takes him to town
@@jonhowerton2537 haha yea that's for sure. Tent Horn destroyed him in that debate.
@Richie Rich Air tight? I don't think so. The RC church is a mess now.
Protestant denying the sacred tradition by creating their own traditions. Hah, make no sense. This protestant heretic should repent and convert to Catholicism.
White should pay matriculations to Akin. Gosh, he learned a lot today!
And the winner is Akin
Yes!
It seems to me that James Whites major mission (and income stream?) is to denigrate the Catholic Church rather than defend his false beliefs in Calvinism and other doctrines. Armed with an incredible knowledge of scripture, Jimmy Akin on the other hand, rather than attack the false doctrines of his former denomination, articulates the many reasons why he converted to Catholicism.
One only has to look at the many videos of White trying to justify and distance himself from Ravi Zacharias (RZIM), to see why the doctrine of eternal security an predestination are heresy. I have always been an admirer of Ravi as an apologist and preacher. No one can spend several decades of his live bringing many people to God and Christian fellowship and not feel the real presence of God in his life.
Yes for a decade or so, it has now been revealed Ravi had lead a sinful, double life. So the only excuse a Calvinist can make is that he was never a true or committed Christian in the first place. Ex pastor Dan Baker among others, was another who claimed at one time "I am saved," but now apparently, is lost also??
The Catholic position is plainly simple, no one is saved until they are saved, until they "have fought the good fight, right to the end...." Only then will they be judged according to their works Matt 16:27 Rev 20 12, 22:12. 1 Peter 4:7 (No wonder Luther hated James, Hebrews and Revelation)
In John 15 we must freely remain in God for him to remain in us. BUT we pray and hope in t Ravi's case he made a deathbed confession (somewhat like the thief on the cross).
James White says the Bible alone
Then quotes 20 Greek scholars not in the Bible. Proving the Catholic position
Mr. White along with every Sola Scriptura apologist, makes the error of thinking that when The Church says only they can infallibly interpret Scripture that the Church is saying it’s aboveScripture. What the Church is actually saying is that it’s above lay theologians who want their own doctrine
Nope, only Jimmy Akin studied and is thoughtful on this debate. No doubt about it!
➨ The Bible ITSELF Contradicts Luther's doctrine of "scripture alone" (solascriptura) The Bible tells us that the authority is THE CHURCH: ...
● 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 The pillar & foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH.
● EPHESIANS 3:10 10 His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
● 2 THESS 2:15 We are to hold fast to the TRADITIONS we have been given, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by the letter.
● 1 COR 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything, and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you.
● JOHN 21:25 Jesus said & did Many other things that are too numerous to be recorded in writing.
● HEB 13:17 Obey the eldars in the CHURCH.
● MATT 18:15-17
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECTS TO HEARTHE CHURCH let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
The True Church is a TEACHING Church: (to Teach means to impart knowledge that is not presently know....not in writing)
● JOHN 14:26-31
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(To TEACH is to impart knowledge that is not presently known....not in writing)
● ACTS 8:31: And he said, HOW CAN I, (understand scripture) EXCEPT SOMEONE SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(The scriptures are not for individual interpretation. They need the guidance of the CHURCH. It is PROTESTANTS who are following the doctrines of a man.)
---------------------
Luther's doctrine of "Faith alone" is ALSO False:
➨ WORKS, PENANCE, & PURGATORY (All copied from the protestant version of the Bible by me)
➨WORKS:
● REV 20:12...The dead are judged BY THEIR WORKS.
● JAMES 2:18 Faith without works is dead
● MATTEW 19:17 Jesus tells us if we want to enter into Life, we must keep the commandments.
● MATTHEW 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your GOOD DEEDSand glorify your Father in heaven.
● JAMES 2:24 A man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
● ROMANS 2:6 He will judge everyone ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.
● Romans 2:13
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
● MATTHEW 7:21 Not everyone who says to me: "Lord Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven but only those WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER.
● PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
● MATT 25:35-40 JESUS tells us to feed the hungry & clothe the naked (good works). He further warns us that those who do NOT will be sent away into the eternal fire., but those who do these WORKS will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
● LUKE 16:19-30 The story of Lazarus and the rich man shows us that the rich man went to hell for refusing to help Lazarus who was poor and hungry. (He refused to do good works)
● TITUS 3:14 KJV And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
● EPHESIANS 2:8-11 (KJV) Protestants "prove" their false doctrine of "faith alone" By quoting EPH 2:8-9 and they STOP before they get to number 10:
8 For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (most protestants stop here instead of continuing on to 10):
➨ 10 FOR WE ARE GOD'S WORKMANSHIP, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD HAS BEFORE ORDAINED, THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM.
● 1 COR 9:27 (KJV) (Paul speaking) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away.
● MATT 12:36-37
36 But I say unto you, That every idle WORD THAT MEN SHALL SOEAK, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE JUSTIFIED, and BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE CONDEMNED.
(not by yout faith alone)
➨PENENCE: Protestants reject the idea that they must do "penence" (attempt to make up for the sins they have committed)
● Luke 19:8. Zacchaeus told Jesus if he has cheated anyone, he will repay them 4 times over.
● Mark 2:20 Jesus said (regarding his disciples): The days are coming when the Bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.
● Matthew 6:16 When you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrits do
● Acts 26:20 RSV but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.
● Acts 2:38-40: Do Penance and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN, and to all who are far off who the Lord our God shall call.
➨PURGATORY:.
● 2 TIMOTHY 1: 16-18. Paul prays for the dead Onesiphorus.
● 1 PETER 4:6 The gospel was preached to the dead.
● 1 PETER 3:19 , Peter says that after the crucifixion and death of Jesus, that Jesus "went to speak to the spirits in prison", which means that there is a place people go to after they die that is a prison and not heaven nor hell.
● MATT 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will Not be forgiven, either in this world, nor in the "world to come" This implies that some sins are forgiven in the "world to come" (purgatory)
● also 1 COR 3:12-15 & more in the Catholic Bible: (2 Mace 12:46). “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins”
1 Peter 1:17
Excellent comment!
@@halflight3236 Thank you.....(curtsey).....
If Jesus himself came to tell James White hes wrong, he will even argue with Jesus. James White has to many obstacles, the main one is his big fat EGO.
that clownish bow tie...
"If Jesus himself came to tell James White hes wrong, he will even argue with Jesus." His conduct is extremely pharisaical. The Pharisees studied the scriptures their entire lives, and they knew them inside out and backwards. Yet they didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, when it was Jesus whom the prophets were talking about, from Genesis to Daniel. James White does not know the real Jesus. All he knows is his systematic theology.
True, and James White's own fallible interpretations that he places above Holy Scripture! Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, is " My Body ". ( Matthew 26:26). James White tells Jesus, "No it isn't!". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior!
James Akin wins the debate!
Now I see why James white ducked for so long and has refused to debate Jimmy again after repeated requests.
Thank you to both of you Mr.James Akin and Mr. James White for enlightening things. But we will be bias toward our own views without being humble to let the Bible speak for itself rather than the church to interpret with a spin.
Dohn Labalaba the Church existed before the Bible did. The bible is a product of the efforts of the Church and Church, therefore. They have
The Authority on how to interpret it.
@@ilonkastille2993 The old testament existed before your church. In Luke 24:27,44 and 45 Jesus used the O.T bible interpret itself. The Word of God does not belong to your church it belongs to God. Through the help of the Holy Spirit when we submit to guide us, he will lead us to all truth.
@@ilonkastille2993 The Bible [O.T] existed before the church of the New Testament. The church is not the mother of the bible and did not give birth to the bible to interpret it through higher criticism and through the tradition of man. Through Christ's example in Luke 24:27,44 and 45 by letting the bible interpret itself, that is for the church to follow.
The bible is not the product of the church but the guide, the road map, the letter of God love to the church that contains the hidden treasures of salvation to humanity that we may know Jesus and to take him by faith as our personal Savior. That one day he will come again to take us home, that is the assurance, the promise Jesus gave to his disciples. Believe in him now and take him as your personal savior [James 5:12] and eternal life is your now, today!
@@dohnlabalaba9470 yes, the Scriptures of the OT existed before the Church but it was not in a Bible. They were loose manuscripts, written on all kinds of materials, from skins to papyri.
The New Testament was not written before the Church either. The TRADITION was ORAL , to teach people. When Jesus came, he referred to the old prophets who prophecied His coming and all the events that go with it.The New Testament fulfils the prophecies of the Old Testament. Before Jesus died, HE Himself told His Apostles how to establish His Church , in all the details of the hierarchy and teachings for the road to Salvation which is it's ultimate goal. One leader and one people. One Shepherd and One flock. The Church is an institution of Christ Himself , who continues His teaching of Salvation, which He came for . It continues, after the physical absence of Christ and therefore we call it and it is, the Mystical Body of Christ with the 7 sacraments which He left us. He is present in these sacraments , so still with us. He consecrated his apostles during the period of his resurrection and his Ascension , to have the power through the Holy Spirit to heal, to forgive , etc, in the NAME of Jesus. They were our first priests and till now every priest and only a priest has this power , in the name of Jesus, not by himself because they are only humans.
When the Church was established in the 1st Century, after the death and Resurrection of Christ, the Church had to live in the catacombs for the first 3 centuries because Rome was Pagan and they persecuted the Church . When Constantine became Emperor in the 4th century, he converted and became a Christian. It is only then, that the Church became legal and persecution was not allowed. He then asked for the Council of Nicea so the Church could officially declare their truths and teachings, in order to counter the heresies. The protestants say that he became the head of the Church , which is a lie. He never became the head of the Church, he just became a Christian, through his mother Helena who had converted.
To counter the heresies even before that, the Church was preparing the Bible out of the OLD and NEW Testament Scriptures. It was a huge job because there were tens of thousands of documents and only the ones who were considered "inspired" were included into this Bible. Therefore to say that the Bible is the project of the Church is the truth and nothing else because nobody else did it.
@@ilonkastille2993 The OT is in the Bible but the council of Trent wanted to destroy it including the the NT, not to be in the language of the commoner. John 14:6 (NKJV) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Salvation is through Christ alone not through the 7 sacraments. Salvation is by grace through faith is Jesus. 1 John 5:12 (NKJV)
"He who has the Son has [a]life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." Everlasting life is yours now by faith in Jesus alone and does not need the institution of the church of Rome.
1 Peter 2:9 N I V "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." Individual christian becomes part of Christ's royal priesthood having access to Jesus without human intervention.
Isaiah 8:20 (NKJV)
"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there[a] is no light in them."
Heresies originated in the church as spoken by the priest John Wycliffe in England and the priest Martin Luther and since the church could not stop them a counter reformation was chartered in the council of Trent to sabotage Protestantism through the Jesuit the society of Jesus and where tradition was elevated above scriptures.
Truth does not contradict... Jimmy great job
Much more cordial than the famous debate between White and Madrid--it helps to both be in a comfortable studio rather than a stifling unairconditioned Church. This suffered a wee bit because of time considerations, but overall Aiken came off the better in challenging White's inaccurate claims.
It is crazy how much influence Calvin has among Protestants yet they claim the only use the solas, but technically they follow the interpretations of Calvin or Luther, Helen white, etc....
They write and sell all this books and places where they are going to preach but CLAIM to use Sola scriptura....
Great job Jimmy Akin...absolutely great!!!
The Catholic church is absolutely necessary and I can give you a proof of this in about 30 seconds.
For a Protestant, the Bible is their starting point but unfortunately the Bible is simply not sufficient by itself. How do we know this?
The Bible does not actually give you a list of books that belong in the Bible.
That had to come from an external Source - it came from a church which called itself Catholic and had Bishops and priests and deacons and prayed to Mary and the Saints and believed that the Eucharist that they celebrated with the actual body and blood of Jesus.
They're the ones who gave you the list of books that belong in scripture and if that list of books is infallible, it's because *they* - that church--are infallible and you should heed them still (ie you should be Catholic)
If they were mistaken, if they were not infallible, then the entire list of books you have in your Bible is itself fallible. Which means you have no reason to believe that any of the 27 books in the New Testament what's a 46 or 39 books that are in the Old Testament or actually inspired.
You can accept as true that all scripture is inspired by God and God breathed Etc, but if you can't answer the simple question "is this book scripture?" then you have no Bible. You have at best good spiritual reading, like Augustine's Confessions.
The bible is sufficient and the Church teaches this.
@@jamesrooney2167
Spot the error.
Premise 1: Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian.
Premise 2: the Canon of scripture is not found in Scripture.
Therefore: The Canon of scripture is fallible and you could have erroneous books included.
In fact Luther was pretty sure that multiple books from the Old and New Testament were erroneous. He succeeded moving to deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament, though he did not succeed in tossing out James and revelation.
@@JustinWest Justin is right. James is wrong.
The only place where you have a cut distinction between the apocrypha and the non-apocrypha is Josephus. He makes the arguments similarly to Protestants.
White’s view about Jews’ canon is ahistorical. The reason a distinction arose over time is because those books were only EXTANT in Greek. As over time Jews grew more hostile to gentile culture, the Greek books were shunned. But even the Talmud for example calls some of the books Scripture.
The idea that first century Jews held to a distinct separation between “the Tanakh” and “the Apocrypha” is not the case.
Even in Josephus’ quote, he doesn’t list all the books of the Tanakh. If Jews held such a clear view, why does he seem unsure.
From a historical point of view it’s easier to see why the Jewish canon developed in such a way. It was not the books themselves that were shunned, but the Septuagint itself. As the Masoretic became the dominant text, the non-Hebrew books became slowly neglected.
I think debates like these helped Hank Hanegraaff and his decision to convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. God Bless him on his journey of faith.
Easy victory by Aikin.
Mr Akin corrected most of Mr White 's non factual issues being presented,otherwise sounded true for a regular listener.
By James White's reasoning, the Bible precedes Tradition.
@valiant crusader “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” Protestant theology, So protestant don't believe in reason nor it seems time, Bible precedes Tradition, So Luther found Jesus personal KJB bible buried in the sands of the sea of Galilee, his words was in Red.
@valiant crusader So why did Luther replace the Septuagint 220BC in 1531AD when he promised the German Emperor he would convert the German Jews to his new Gospel using their own scriptures which date sometime after the Simon bar Kokhba revolt against Rome in 134-137AD, and when he was rejected by the Jewspreached the Jews should be locked into their synagogues and burnt to death, isn't changing the old testament from what Jesus read and the temple used to a post temple rewrite of the word of God? Word is actually Logos Which in John 1 1 is Divine reason and creative order as seen in the universe, Not Word or Bible. John 3 16 in Klonie Greek is Obey perfect tense not Believe. The Bible is Klonie Greek not English.
@Asaph Vapor Hebrew disappeared in the exile in 585BC, the Jews Wrote in Aramaic the Babylonian language not Hebrew. Israel was conquered by the Greek Empire around 336BC and was a Greek speaking province even under the Romans who also spoke Greek. The Jews while 7% of the empire was special and were given special rights under the empire because of the respect Romans had for the age of Judean worship. The Jews being traders in a Greek world lost their Aramaic and had their scriptures translated into Klonie Greek approximately in 220BC in Alexandria. The Dead sea scrolls match the Septuagint used by Jesus and the Apostles plus the synagogues and temple. NOT the later scripture you claim as original are actually rewritten to remove the Greek by the Pharisee Rabbi far after the death of John in 99AD. The scripture you claim as original Hebrew are Post Temple 70AD, and post the Simon bar Kokhba revolt against Rome 134-137AD, the same time the millions of Christians were banned from the synagogues. The conquered learn the language of the conqueror always.
If anyone gets a comment from some guy called Valient crusader, it's a troll who is on every Catholic UA-cam video trying to start a fight by calling an degenerate unrepentant sinner in Adam or something. Just ignore him and enjoy the Catholic Apostolic Tradition founded by Christ :)
@Asaph Vapor the first example of papal authority was under Pope Clement around 100AD, and this tome was read in mass in the Corinthian church for 100s of years after and in some areas was considered an honorary part of the NT. The Catholic church was not founded with constantine, do some basic research instead of believing anti catholic rhetoric. www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Clement-I
@Asaph Vapor you are correct that pope the title means nothing, I should say that the vicars of Christ have been exercising authority since around 100AD
@Asaph Vapor well everything after 70AD isn't biblical history and is failable history
2nd: any reputable scholar will tell you that clement sent a letter to the church in corinth and your denial of historical fact is worrying
3rd: the church wasn't just invented in the 4th century, the recognition of authority was based on an already held tradition and belief
4th: the only reason the belief of early Christians can be called "simple" is because we don't know much about it and because not too many heresies arose that required extensive theological thought and authoritative declaration.
5th: previous to instituting infant baptism the common practice was death bed baptism in order to be saved, because baptism justified you. And there isn't evidence to suggest that infants weren't baptised in the early church before it was made the norm.
... But as shown by these replies, valiant crusader is by no means the only one!😂
Dont listen to Asaph! He is a devout AntiCatholic!!!!
I wouldn't call this a debate. James White seems like a child asking James Akin, who seems like the father, for the answers. I hope that makes sense.
How can Protestants quote the Bible against the Catholic Church when THERE CAN BE NO BIBLE IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND IT'S COUNCILS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE? If the Church Councils which chose the books for the Bible were not infallible they could have placed the wrong books in the Bible. If the Church Councils were not infallible in choosing the Biblical Canon it would only be HUMAN OPINION and it could be wrong. If God did not give infallibility to the Church and it's Councils we could never know if the Bible has the authentic, inspired writings or merely man-made writings. If the Church Councils were not infallible any criteria which could have been used to determine the authentic, God breathed writings would only be human opinion and we could never know it the Bible is truly the "Word of God" of merely the words of man. The Catholic Church MUST be infallible or there can be no Bible!
Lol funny enough Protestants don't get this simple argument. Idk why. I'm not an apologist or even a bible scholar and it's clear as day to me.
I think it’s a great argument. But catholic answers says the church didn’t infallibly define the canon at the synod of Hippo, so I fear this argument falls apart, correct?
-A confused and wandering Protestant
@@Gruenders
Brother. The RCC did infact decide the canon of scripture through the ecumenical councils. First time being in the mid 400s, then it was reaffirmed 3 or 4 more times( not sure if it was 3 or 4), with the last time in the mid 1500s as a result of Luther trying to take books out of the bible( such as James, since it didn't agree with his theology of Sola Fide).
If one believes that that RCC is heretical then it would presume that they believe that God allowed a heretical Church to put together his holy Bible. If that's the case. Then logically, the authority of the bible itself is in question. Which no protestant would agree with.
Not to mention that Jesus told nothing in scripture about writing anything down, anything about a bible..etc.
In addition, if the bible is the only authority, how come it took nearly 380+ years to put it together and give it to the world? Surely, if that was Gods plan, it would have been in our hands sooner.
Just keep praying, trusting in God and searching. He will lead you. God bless.
@@nathanmarsili5265 thanks! Yeah I’m between Catholicism and Orthodoxy now. Completely disavow Protestantism.
@@Gruenders
If you look at which Church was first. It was the RCC. The early Christians were RC. The fact that the RC put together the canon is honestly what got me, it wasnt the orthodox my friend.
Keep digging in your heart and researching. I would look up the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch (who was an apostle of John and ordained a bishop of Antioch By Peter. He wrote about the RC as early as 107 AD) that should help to. Also, call Catholic Answers when they have an open forum. They have catholic apologist who can help answer you're questions between the two.
Pray for me brother, you're in mine
Christian faith is not a book- based but church based and through the church, the new testament was written and compiled.
@Asaph Vapor Again the Christian is not a book based faith religion. *Jesus didn't left his apostles a bible but a Church as St. Peter their head or what the Roman Catholic Church a Papacy or Pope.* There was no single bible until 400 years after the ascencion of Jesus Christ. The new testament scripture were written by apostles within 100 AD BUT NOT YET YET COMPILED as what we called the bible but through the authority of the Catholic Church, it was compiled. There were many scriptures floating around that time and it the Catholic Church who decided which can and can't be included in the bible. If there was no Catholic Church we didn't have a bible today.
The Roman Catholic Church didn't add books in the bible as I was taught before as a former protestant *_but it was Luther and his group who accused and promulgated that lie and who reduced the bible to support his own belief which is such as faith alone etc._* and even without those books his belief in faith alone etc. *is still weak and no apostolic and not biblical.*
@Asaph Vapor Stop spreading lies though
There is no such thing as “Protestant” tradition or Protestant way for thinking. 35 thousand different Protestant denominations say otherwise.
I think Akin does not have to call it two different things. You can only get the Bible if you have a sacred tradition from which to get it. It's not two different things. No sacred traditions gets you know Bible. That is just a historical matter. You can have an oral tradition without a written, but you cannot get a written tradition without an oral tradition.
James White is deceitful. Often lies on what others have stated, even lying about Church what Councils have said ir claimed. Thanks Jimmy Akin for calling him out on the lies- though, you were too charitable.
Every single protestant carries on the spirit of HATE Luther had for the Catholic Church, and they forget who gave us the bible, and BTW Jesus founded Just ONE church, meaning Jesus IS CATHOLIC not protestant and so is the bible too is CATHOLIC BOOK. What proven history or records have the protestants of their existence as Christians? before the bible?. There is a Eucharistic Miracle done by God through St. Anthony in 1223 for all the PROTESTANTS The Miracle of the Mule, or read how God spared those priests in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the 2 bombs were dropped and killed more than 200,000 people, certified by 200 scientist that not even the radiation affected the priest.
True!!!
In acts 15 the church speaks at council with equal authority to scripture.
I'm sorry. The idea that James White can refute tradition with his argument? It would be like saying Kingdoms have been admonished therefore the Kingdom of God is not biblical. Lol. It's not the thing, but its source!
All of this really comes down to authority. Some do not like Christian authority. Some are envious of who received the keys to the kingdom.
Is this Hank Hanegraaff doing the hosting of this debate? If not this guy sounds a lot like him.
Yes, it is Hank Hanegraaff.
Well Mr James White you can not beat a catholic defender in a formal debate because catholic defenders are truly telling the truth the true catholic faith from Jesus Apostles Bishops and not teaching s of 1500 ad mens teaching sola scriptura. Bible was never alone so you can join the catholics.
James White got destroyed.
Nah. You are overstating Akin's performance
@@kevinevans8892 LOL in what way. How exactly does one defend Sola scriptura?it is indefensible and not even found in Scripture.
@Asaph Vapor The Catholic church predates the bible by 360 years and the entire Roman Empire both and East and West was Christian before the bible. The Bible is catholic.
@Asaph Vapor Why are you calling the man troll? I thought as born again bible believer you would be more respectful.
@Asaph Vapor I already saw your neo-Chick tract you posted on here. The RCC is the truth and if you do not agree with it fine. The pharisees said Jesus was under the power Beelzebub and here you are slandering a strawman of the RC you do not know or understand. Does not matter what I write you will not believe it anyway. Just to point to one example: point 15 is a lie. Muslims believe that the God Abraham worshiped is the same God the Christians and Jews worship. That is WHAT THEY believe of themselves not what we believe about them. God and Allah (the semetic moon god) are not the same. Why do you twist what the vatican said? You trash the Catholics for the crusades and then you trash them again for not waging a war against then. With you guys no one can win. Who cares what the Muslims believe anyway.As to contradiction have you not seen what your brother protestants are doing in having female pastors when Paul forbids it in I Timothy 2:11. Your Sola Scritura buddies do not that. And some of your friends also marry gays too. They probably found the go head in some footnotes in some bible somewhere. The Catholics do not do that. You guys do that. Why don't you go and speak at a Muslim mosque and see what happens. Solo scriptura aka Mea interpretacione.Keep on tithing buddy or you will not get your rapture ticket. The rapture is the worst lie ever to come out of protestanism, but that is another discussion.
i think the static pic of this video is St Augustine vs the Donatists (???) you can see the similarity in scene of the movie "Restless Heart".
Any traditions which are handed down in the church-at-large must always be in the comtext of the Word of God, or else the traditions would be considered by God as traditions of men.
God-breathed traditions coming from the Holy Spirit would never conflict with the written Word of God, because the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us.
It's all nonsense whichever way around you try to cut it. Yahweh doesn't exist because earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics and winds by barometric pressure imbalances not deities.
@@andrewharper1609
It is all nonsense if the account that is in Genesis, given by the Creator to His servant Moses, was a lie. However, no lie can come from the One who is eternal truth.
When man disobeyed his Creator's instruction, sin and death entered into the world.
Therefore, we are fallen creatures living in a fallen realm; and all the terrible/natural disasters which many unbelievers want to point at as to why they don't believe in a Creator, are only the manifestations of a fallen and corrupted realm.
The Creator made each of us to have free will, which He never violates. This is why He extends to every human being this immensely important decree: "Choose this day whom you will serve."
A great exhibition of how White uses bluster to prove his point; but for the knowledgeable, it is all that it is - empty blabber.
Whoah, Mr. White, you are exposed!
I humbly respect Mr J. Akin’s position. He won this improvised debate even though he was in the lions den. Evidently the host is protestant as well Mr White
Many of us, do no need to be experts to make use of common sense. Just think of the books used by Jesus, the Apostles and the first fathers of the church after the year 33. The seven books were eliminated as result of the reform (1517) by the Protestants’ Leader Martin Luther who wanted to also eliminate the books of James, Hebrews and Revelation . Mr Jimmy White with his own traditions and beliefs like many other protestants have created one more of the multiple christian doctrines or sects. Currently there are 60 to 70 thousand are seudo called christian denominations in the world spreading out like cancer at a rate of one per week. Welcome to the anarchy created by your leaders after 1517
Remember Christ founded only ONE church which is the Catholic Church. Mt 16: 13-19.
Absolutely!!!!
Mr. White or anybody who tries have a live debate Mr. Akin has to get his facts rigth and do a lot of homework. Othewise, you will be crushed just like Mr. White has.
I think an apt paraphrase of Matthew 16: 18-19 for many Protestants using their interpretation of scripture might go something like this: "Jesus said, Blessed are you Simon for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but my Father in Heaven. And I say to you, You are my Bubba. And upon you and these other good ol' boys I'm gonna let all of you oversee my church together as best you can. I hope the gates of hell won't prevail against it, but I understand you are all kind of messed up to begin with. So I will take that into account in the end. Good luck, boys! You are going to need it!" To be honest, I prefer the scripture's actual promise. Jesus will protect and guide His Church to the end of time.
"Jesus will protect and guide His Church to the end of time."
Does that include letting paedophiles become priests? Or turning men who may have been good men, into paedos, with the doctrines of devils that prevent them to marry to be a priest? Which incidentally, is totally against what Scripture says.
@@darsom2717 God guided and protected Israel through the time of the Old Covenant while the kingdom was ruled by murderers and adulterers. Pointing out similar flaws in the Church only proves the point.
@@tr1084
Israel are actually in the Holy Scriptures, your imaginary "church", is not.
@@darsom2717 The Church is the universal body of Christ, founded by Christ himself. Even when I was a protestant this was understood.
@@tr1084
I agree, it's not the roman catholic slavery system though. Jesus came to set man free, not to enslave man to a religious system, but to give them a loving relationship with the Son.
By the way, please excuse me if this sounds presumptuous, but you sound like you don't know this fact. In the Holy Bible, the word "church" is NEVER referred to in the sense of a building nor an authoritative organisation, always to the people, you should research it, if you haven't already.
I would also like to say, the protestant churches are no differently, not these days, they've ALL been infiltrated by the evil one, the enemy, don't be a protestant following men either, be ONLY for Christ Jesus.
May the risen Lord Jesus bless you and your loved ones, always and forevermore. Amen.
Akin won this debate.
Seems like James White didn't read enough Early Church writings... I must agree with Akin there; most of them agree how Peter was the rock, and mention the primacy of the Church of Rome several times. To be honest, he would be screwed if they _really_ ended-up observing the letters *on air.* _(and not just in relation to the Primacy of Peter/Rome, but also to the Eucharist, confession, etc)_
just asking. who defined what needs to be included in the canon of scripture? It is Sacred Tradition... Obviously scripture did not define these books by itself
@valiant crusader "it has inherent proof in itself.." where is that written in the Bible? It's a historical fact that the Catholic Church and Pope Damasus compiled the Bible as we know it at the Council of Rome in 382. No Catholic Church, no Bible. Not debatable. Praying for you.
@valiant crusader with all due respect, you couldn't refute my point and refuse to acknowledge history. If what you're saying is true, then every book in the Bible would declare itself to be inspired. Can you cite the verse in every book where it says, "This God-inspired book belongs in the Bible."? Why dont you believe the book of Enoch, the letters of Clement or the Gospel of James to be inspired by God? Because the Catholic Church says so. The church had to decide which NT writings, among literally hundreds, would be included in the Bible and then decided upon 27. Again, this is a historical fact.
@valiant crusader you can keep throwing insults (very anti-Christian btw) but you still have yet to refute a single point that I've made. Christians went nearly 400 years without the Bible. Fact. The last book of the NT wasnt written until around 100AD. Fact. Early Christians had to rely solely on oral tradition regarding the Gospel. Fact. Someone had to decide what was inspired and what wasnt, among hundreds of writings. The Catholic church fulfilled that role in 382. Fact. "The decision by these councils has never been universally accepted." Really? Then why does literally every single Christian adhere to the official list of scripture that was determined by said councils? For over a 1000 years, the canon of the Bible was untouched until protestants ripped out 7 books that they didnt like. You keep quoting scripture that the Catholic church preserved, compiled, and deemed to be inspired by God. If you can't give me a historical argument as to why the Catholic church wasnt the entity solely responsible for the Bible as we know it (which is impossible), then I think we're done here. I'll pray a rosary for you 🙏
@valiant crusader So you're still unable to address anything I've put forward. The idea that the 27 books of the NT were available in the 1st century is 100% ahistorical. Sorry, but you're following the traditions of men. Regarding vain repetition, Christ himself must have gotten it wrong considering he prayed the same exact prayer 3 times in a row in the garden of Gethsemane. Until you're able to provide shred of historical evidence supporting a single one of your claims, my work is done here. Please do some research. Ignatius of Antioch was a direct disciple of John the Apostle and ordained a Bishop by Peter. He was already using the term "Catholic church" around 100AD. With all due respect, the first Christians all believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the primacy of Peter and Rome, Marian doctrine, baptism etc. They were all Catholic. Im praying that you consider everything that I've provided and do your homework on Christian history.
White brings to mind a writer on Grant Woods painting "American Gothic" where the writer like protestants interpret their own views into the painting. Example he writes that the three pane window above the couple is a symbol of American protestant religiosity with each pane representing in order The son, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Grant stated as the Catholic does clearly, No it is not a symbol, this is what I saw and what I painted: a three pane window in the farmhouse. 2 Peter 1:20 is the Church and for me protestant interpretation has been the death of Christianity in Europe, it has been interpreted into a mass of gray overcooked oatmeal and people are sick of this gruel. Nazism and Communism were both EVIL and Protestantism found a verse in both to feel godly and safe. Arbeit Macht Frei is reality and Romans 13 is not an answer when your Jewish neighbor passes under your window to the camp.
To Protestants, Sacred Scripture or the Bible is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. To Catholics, however, both Sacred Scripture and Tradition are Christian’s rule of faith, and are the sources of Christian doctrine.
Here, the difference between Catholics and Protestants is Tradition. What is Tradition? Generally, tradition is the handing down of statements, beliefs, teachings, legends, customs, etc., from generation to generation by word of mouth or by practice. With this definition in mind, Christians should recall that, once finished his public ministry on earth, Jesus did not leave behind a single written word. Instead, he handed down his teaching by words of mouth and practices. So, Tradition (Capital T), as taught by the Catholic Church, is that which Jesus hands down to all generations, until he returns in glory.
What is included in Tradition? It includes all that Jesus teaches us during his ministry and after his resurrection. It also includes all that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the apostles and their apostolic successors, for Jesus says, Jn 16:12,13, (12) I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. (13) But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
Did Jesus follow Tradition? He says, Jn 5:19, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, his Son will do also.” This, clearly means Jesus does only what he sees, or he does only what is handed down to him; thus he follows Tradition. Likewise, the Holy Spirit speaks only what he hears, or he speaks only what is handed down to him; he too follows Tradition.
So since Tradition is not only what Jesus handed down to us through his apostles and their apostolic successors, it is also what both Jesus and the Holy Spirit follow; is it not obvious that the Church which follows this Tradition is the True Church? To the Thessalonians, St. Paul wrote, 2-Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” This teaching applies to us who are true followers of Christ as well.
The Tradition mentioned above, however, is different from ecclesial traditions. Catechism of The Catholic Church, paragraph 83 says: “The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.”
Do Protestants have traditions? Consider the “Scripture Alone" doctrine. Is “Scripture Alone or Bible Alone” written anywhere in the Bible? No, it is not! This means, some person(s) had come up with this teaching and handed it down to his followers; the handing down of this belief or teaching is a tradition. Consider also the number of inspired books included in the Bible. According to Protestants, there are 65 books. Is this number of books written anywhere in the Bible? No! Someone had come up with this number and handed it down to his followers, and it is a tradition. So, those who rejected Tradition and traditions, by believing in this doctrine and in this number of books, they inadvertently believed in traditions. The Catholic Church, however, holds that there are 72 books in the Bible, and admits that she received this number through Tradition. Per Luke 4:16, Jesus went to the synagogue as his custom was, and today, Christians of all denominations follow this custom or tradition by going to church. So Christians of all denominations have traditions.
What does the Bible say about Tradition? John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here, The ‘Word’ was the Spoken Word, for in the beginning, God creates all things by his Spoken Word. This Spoken Word was with God, and was God. This Spoken Word was Jesus who The Father handed down to us as His Spoken Word or Tradition. The Bible also says, Jn 21: 24, 25, “(24) This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. (25) But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” This means our Single Deposit of Faith consists of two distinct elements: Written Word or Sacred Scripture, which is what contains in only 72 books or so, and Un-Written Word or Sacred Tradition, which if it were to be written down, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Sacred Scripture don’t stand next to Tradition, however; instead, it dwells in Tradition. So to reject Tradition is to reject the whole Deposit of Faith.
For more teaching on Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and other form of traditions, see Catechism of the Catholic Church #75-95.
Tuyen Pham the written scriptures came hundreds of years after the spoken words of the apostles and the consecrated generations who replaced the apostles.
Honestly I've never seen james white win against a catholic
Seems to me that sola scripture has major flaws. However, the Catholics have to defend Vatican ii and papal infallibility. Better would be orthodox versus Protestant
Can anyone point to a debate between orthodox and Protestant theologians ?
Papal infallibility is only when the pope speaks excathedra, which has only happened twice in 2000 years.
John Smith
According to you?
@@deanodebo the actual occurrence of an ex cathedra statement is quite rare. It is generally understood to have only occurred twice: Pope Pius IX’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in 1854 and Pope Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950. In both of these cases, the Pope was not teaching something new. Rather, he was confirming and clarifying something that the Church had already believed as part of God’s revelation.
John Smith
But otherwise he’s free to worship other gods and commit heresy?
@Prasanth Thomas
Are you Catholic? Does it bother you, his worshipping false gods?
I don't know y always Protestant great theologians sounds pointless when having debate with catholic simple theologians... Matter of a great concern...
Well, to be fair, jimmy akin is not your average, run of the mill, theologian. He’s pretty badass at his job.
@@RandomPerson-go5sn To be more fair James White is not a great Protestant Theologian.
@@jeremysmith7176 lol🤣
Man, you’d have to be a gymnast to defend Catholicism
Where does one find books from the early church fathers that are unbiased and written by neither Catholics or Protestants?
Perry Good
A lot of the writings of the early church fathers have been preserved. So it's honestly best to read straight from them
You are out of luck because all of the early church fathers were very catholic
Asaph Vapor
Everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches was believed by the early Christians.
We're the only church with apostolic succession after all.
@@zacharynelson5731 Hardly. Look up Pope Benedict IX and you'll begin to see how corrupt the Catholic church is. Also research the Pope during pre WW2 and throughout WW2. There were also early Christians who did not believe as the Catholic did. Apostolic succession is a myth.
Perry Good
Apostolic succession; the "myth" that is spelled out explicitly in scripture?
And tell me again why I should care about the flaws of past Popes. The truth of the Catholic Church isn't undone by their sins; and more so than Christ's death was undone by Judas.
The moderator was too patronizing. Who cares if they punched each other!
I guess none are as blind as those who will not see.
Well Yahweh doesn't exist so you might be on to something there.
James "heretic" white exposed himself as a liar🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Who's interpretation of Scripture is correct then?
Luke S. Simple. The interpretation of the writer themselves, which are the Apostles. Who else knows the interpretation of Scripture better than the ones who wrote them?
But then you may ask, how do we know what the Apostles interpreted? That was centuries ago. “Tradition”. Not only did the Apostles past down written tradition, Scripture, but they also passed down oral tradition. Oral tradition has been existence ever since the Old Testament.
@@Bingbongaroo lol, Catholics dont even have an official interpretation of Scripture. Just bits and pieces of Scripture just to try and prove their authority. Hell, Revelation wasn't even considered Scripture for a long time, no way does Rome have a Apostle interpretation of that book. Nice try tho.
Davian James actually no. You are wrong on most everything you said. Nice try bro
@@wickedhenderson4497 Great rebuttal. I learned alot. 👍🏾
Davian James they do have an interpretation of scripture. Also, that is not even the point; Catholics have teachings that they live by which come from scripture and oral tradition. You can literally look up any of these teachings. Easy. Try it. I know it’s hard to trust a group of people such as the Catholic Church: were not asking you to trust the people of the Catholic Church on their own merit, but to trust God that they are the people that God entrusted with authority. If you don’t trust that, then you only trust another person or group (Baptist’s or another group etc.) or yourself. If you trust yourself, then put your trust in yourself, and ROOT it in God. If you do that, then ask God to lead you to the truth, whether that’s your own interpretation, or the Catholic Church or another group. Do this with an open heart, completely okay with any answer God gives you.
Could someone please point me to the apostle, scriptural verse, or early church father (pre-Constantine) who wrote about how Mary was a Virgin her whole life, conceived without sin, and ascended bodily into heaven?
The reason I as is because according to “Sacred Tradition” these things are true and yet they are not found in the Bible and, At least some of, these ideas came after the council of Nicaea.
If we are going to hold to traditions, shouldn’t we hold to the closest traditions of God and disband the Roman Catholic Church to go back to hosting church in small homes and gatherings like they did in the first and second centuries?
1st and 2nd century church was the Catholic church!!!
christians should solve this through councils
Love Jimmy Akin, dont care for James White, he seems angry
Catholics claim scripture plus tradition. Yet not one catholic can give one tradition they can prove any apostle taught that man must have knowledge of to be saved that cannot be found anywhere in scripture.
Nor can any person prove that any of the New Testament books are written by who they claim to be written by......
Scripture (written word of God) proceeds from Tradition (unwritten word of God - the declaration of the Holy Spirit to the Church) John 16:12-13. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth - 1 Tim 3:15 - not the Bible. The teachings of the Church Fathers and decisions of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils are monuments of Tradition. Scripture proceeds from Tradition ( a living memory or continuum of thought). The Apostles preached the word of God before the NT was written in a span of 50 years. This is from Ignatius of Antioch, a former disciple of the Apostle John: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110). See John 6. The Apostles and the nascent Church venerated the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant.www.blessedaboveallwomen.net/2019/01/whence-is-this-to-me-that-mother-of-my.html
I would suggest reading the Church Fathers. St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist for example. (St. Ignatius was taught by the St. John the Apostle). To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.
Oh I don’t know. Logic would suggest the canon of the New Testament would be a tradition man needs to be saved. The canon of the New Testament is nowhere to be taught in the Old Testament...
@Asaph Vapor
Did you read his book whole? Or you just quoted part of it?? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Outside the Church ( Catholic apostolic), there is no Salvation, according to St Augustine.
But God gives provisions for exceptions: what are tolerable, not abominably blasphemous ( against God, the Church, against Holy Spirit, ) unrepentant murderer.
I can see this comment section is loaded with Papists.
As they should be. Jesus started Catholic church.
@@johnyang1420 Catholic as in the the universal or the Roman Catholic Church?
Catholics cannot even interpret Scripture that the Holy Spirit guided apostles interpreted for us! Therefore catholic denomination and their fake pope IS NOT INFALLIBLE! They are not guided by the Holy Spirit!
Proof- Matt 16:18. Who is "The Rock" on which Christ will build His only Church?
Prophecy-Psalm 118:22, Isaiah 8:14-15, Isaiah 28:16. All prophesy of Jesus Christ being "The Rock Foundation "
Apostles Paul AND Peter both interpreted these passages as referring to JESUS CHRIST ALONE! Acts 4:11-12, Romans 9:33, 1 Cor 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6-8.
If the inspired apostles interpreted these Scriptures one way, then catholic denomination interpreted different, both cannot be right. The apostles are truth, catholics are false= catholic denomination IS NOT INFALLIBLE.
They cannot even get this easy fact correct, so far off, catholicism is not Christianity.
Jimmy Akin is a heavy hitter
Sola Scripture always breaks down into Solo Scripture. When one group of Christians disagrees with their congregations doctrines, they leave and form another congregation. This pattern has repeated itself for 500 years. The Reformation has led to a fracturing of the Body or Christ.
Is Christ Divided? May it never be.
The Reformation is Satan's Greatest Victory against the Kingdom of Heaven, the Church we call Catholic.
Welcome to the this Sea of CHAOS and DISUNITY we call Protestantism.
If you believe you are the Church that Christ established on the foundation of the faith of his Apostles and prophets, then take the Zell Challenge and prove it.
If you do believe that your denomination is that Church, please, by all means NAME YOUR DENOMINATION. With this information, I will tell you the name of its inventor and I will tell you when it was invented.
Protestantism has no future. Their doctrines are man-made heresies. In fact, one protestant denominations doctrines are anothers heresies. There is a SEA of CHAOS and disunity in Protestantism which infects every single denomination, cult and sect. The soil is poisoned by an angel of light
Please share this video: The Reformation is Satan's Greatest Victory: ua-cam.com/video/UfOCqTfPXbQ/v-deo.html
R. Zell Christ warned us of the evil one, trying to attack his Church but they would never prevail. In fact by trying to fracture the Mystical Body of Christ, they have fractured themselves. Cardinal Newman said: to get deep into history is to cease being Protestant. He converted into Catholicism from being an Anglican cardinal. He knew what he was talking about. It took him five years to convert. In the end he became a Saint for the Catholic Church.
@Asaph vapor. Those churches you listed were all in communion with each other. They are still one Catholic apostolic church. They all believed in living presence of the Eucharist. Also just because the name of the teaching was not defined right away doesn’t mean it wasn’t taught. Assumption was always taught . Those terms wasn’t defined till later to combat heresy.
Habemus Papem!
3:04
The one thing that ALL false religions and cults have in common, is that they teach their followers, and get them to believe, is that the Bible is not the sole authority by which God has revealed himself to mankind. Then they can get them to believe ANYTHING.
"Listen to the Church" - Jesus
"Submit to those in authority over you (in the Church" - Scripture
"The Bible is the sole authority" - Found nowhere in Scripture....
T F How can you be sure those in authority can be trusted, especially if they teach doctrines contrary to the Bible. I think we both can agree that we are certain that what the apostles wrote is God's Word. I choose to stake my eternal destiny on what John, Paul and others wrote instead of what some fallible man or church says.
1. So you are staking your eternal destiny on the fallible men John, Paul, Peter, James, Matthew, Luke, Jude?
2. Who told you those letters/books are authentic letters/books from actual Apostles or their disciples?
3. Who told you the letters/books written by the Apostles that weren't included in the Bible are not God's word?
4. I have the "pillar and foundation of the truth" to tell me that the 27 books of the New Covenant are God's word. Who told you that?
Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority? Where did the Bible come from? There is no anchor in fundamental Protestantism. Every man is his own Pope and infallible interpreter.
Also why are there 40,000 Protestant denominations? Can you tell me which one is correct? It is horrible to think that Luther and Calvin wanted there to be this kind of shattering of beliefs and if this was their intent, to be their own interpretation of righteousness, this doesn’t sound like the work of the Holy Spirit.
Just go Orthodox
James White did a good job. As a former Catholic, I am so happy that God saved me from the Catholic system and showed me the one true gospel. If anything, Sola Scriptura PREVENTS people from forming other true churches.
ManOfDeath567 prevents it? Sola scriptura has caused the mushrooming of tens of thousands of churches. It is still continuing. Every time someone comes up with a new point of view a new church is created. These are the fruits of the sick tree which Jesus told us about.
ManOfDeath567 by the way , this one true gospel was the work of the catholics and nobody would have had a bible if they had not saved all the original scriptures , copied by monks and bound them into the book which was then called The Bible
@manofdeath. That is so incoherent. Other churches? Protestants have like 40000 denominations
@@ilonkastille2993 We potestants are truly Catholic. Though there be many denominations, and some are false . ( not biblical sound ) if they hold to the 5 solas CLEARLY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE they are a part of the body of Christ.
Anthony Garcia if you are protestant than you cannot be Catholic. because of Sola Scriptura, there are now tens of thousands of different denominations who call themselves’ true christians. Before the scriptures were made into a book ( by the catholic church), the teachings of Christ, from the Apostles onwards, were spread ORALLY. The Book of books was not ready until the fourth century. Remember , the Church Fathers ( all of them catholic) ‘ very learned men, went through the thousands of manuscripts and scriptures , sifting out the truly inspired ones from others , before they could be copied by hand by monks in monasteries ( all catholic) , which takes a long time. Therefore you can never be a real Catholic if you are a protestant because Christianity with it’s universal church started before the Bible was finally there.
Not knowing church history and not teaching the background of everything , not having a teaching authority has led to the schisms and disasters of false teachings. By the way Christ warned us of this from the beginning.
Just reading scriptures by yourself without any teaching authority, leads to so many different opinions . People do not see the context and do not know the background. There is nothing we can do about it , this is the reality of our world and everybody has to live through it.
We are very proud of our great ex protestant theologians who have become so fervent in the faith after having hated the Catholics , they will now defend it with their lives. Weak catholics (weak in knowledge ) can easily be persuaded to go to protestants. Strong protestants, when honest , convert and become very strong catholics.
John Henry Newman , a very intellectual ,learned man who was an Anglican and very anti Catholic because of false teachings, converted to Catholicism . It took him five years . This year he has been sanctified in the Catholic Church . He had become a Catholic Cardinal. He was a theologian before that. One of his famous phrases is : To go deep into history is to CEASE to be Protestant.
Jesus said: There is ONE flock and ONE Shepherd.
I. The example of Jesus: Quoted scripture, never tradition:
A. Jesus defeated the three temptations of the Devil with, "it is written", not "I say". Mt 4:1-11
The Temptation of Jesus: Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: "IT IS WRITTEN" Read it for yourself! If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture. We just with that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches held scripture alone in the same high regard!
Traditionalists have simply not comprehended just how devastating it is that Jesus never appealed to his own authority in his 40 days temptation in the wilderness with the Devil.
Three times Jesus was tempted, three times Jesus replied, "It is written".
If oral tradition, or the authority of the church was valid, then Jesus would have at least one time referred to oral tradition, or used himself as the authority, as the Catholics, Orthodox and JW's use the church organization as an authority.
B. Never did Jesus refer to oral tradition to prove or defend truth.
Never does Jesus refer to oral traditions in a positive way.
Every time he defends truth he refers to the scriptures.
The only times Jesus referred to Oral traditions, was condemning them: 'But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." (Mark 7:7-13)
C. Jesus made over 100 references to scripture. Jesus never relies upon oral traditions but scripture alone. Let's follow the Lord's pattern of relying upon scripture!
"Have you not read" Matthew 12:3
"have you not read in the Law" Matthew 12:5
"Did you never read in the Scriptures" Matthew 21:42
D. Jesus expected the scriptures to be understood by the average man, even his enemies:
"What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" (Luke 10:26)
Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? (Mark 12:24)
But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him" There were any oral traditions as to who the messiah was. All were wrong! Some thought he was merely a king, some merely a prophet, some merely a priest! (Matthew 26:24)
"What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone'? (Luke 20:17)
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me (John 5:39)
"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?" (Matthew 26:54)
Yet, Jesus Christ teaches you have heard it SAID! Plus, Jesus Christ teaches the need to adhere to the chair of Moses, an oral teaching authority outside of Holy Scripture! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I’ve watched several debates like this and I think many of them miss the point in a sense. I respect these men immensely, but think there are fundamental principles that clear the whole thing up.
I want to explain Sola Scriptura as clearly as I possibly can as someone who lives by this belief.
First off, Sola Scriptura is very biblical
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
Notice he writes COMPLETE.
Regardless, consider the following:
The authority given to the apostles in the early church was one of the Holy Spirit, given to them by Jesus, as seen in John 20. Jesus says “Receive the Holy Spirit”, and the apostles are then given the ability to forgive and condemn for sins. (To be clear, all believers have the Holy Spirit in them, but the apostles have a special power to perform wondrous deeds by the power of the Lord)
Ultimately, this is GOD forgiving or condemning, and the apostles are simply the instruments through which such is done. The apostles prove this is God’s authority they are exercising by performing miraculous signs and wonders, as seen in Acts, for example, chapter 5.
No such authority is exercised today. The RCC is claiming to have this same authority from God and then NOT authenticating it with signs or wonders. This is no different than the Charismatic Movement, Mormonism, Rastafarianism, or any other belief system with alleged direct revelation that is unfounded and unverified. Some of these faiths have new texts, such as the Book of Mormon, and some have interpretations of the existing text that are not validated. We have no bounds on which to assume the RCC is producing doctrines that are from our Father in Heaven, except for the assumption that the power given to the apostles was inherited by succession.
But if this same authority was inherited, and were still active today, wouldn’t it, too, be verified by unexplainable, supernatural miracles, the same way EVERY SINGLE MAN in the Bible who spoke directly from God verified the authority as from the Lord in these ways?
The men who received Word from God and verified it miraculously wrote it down in record, and these writings have been compiled as Scripture. The only revelation that verifies itself as the Word of God in miraculous ways is the Bible itself. Therefore, the only infallible interpretation of the Word of God is the very same Word’s interpretation of itself. We have to “ask God” to tell us what His word says, and since He is no longer speaking to us verbally, we have to look to His Word to interpret His Word. Any other human bias is automatically subject to flaw and error.
Many Catholics quote 2 Thess. 2:15:
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
But AGAIN, this is PAUL speaking, an apostle. He is speaking on behalf of the apostles, and what they personally taught to the early church. Their authority was verified through miraculous signs. NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS TODAY, because NO SUCH AUTHORITY HAS BEEN VERIFIED SINCE THE APOSTLES.
Beyond that, we simply don’t have evidence that the teachings supposedly “passed down” from the apostles are the same traditions spoken by the original apostles. Apostolic succession is an assumption, and not laid out in scripture.
To put it simply:
1. The last ones to verify, through supernatural signs, that their message was from the Lord Himself, were the apostles.
2. No such authority was given to anyone after the apostles, because such claimed authority has never, after the Bible was completed, been validated miraculously.
3. Therefore, the verified Word of God was placed in what is now the Bible, which we have, and is complete.
4. Since no further revelation is being validated, this is the only source of authority from God Himself that we have today. The Bible is a compilation of documents where men claimed to have been divinely inspired, and their claims were tested and verified. Therefore, we can only refer to the authentic, “canonized” Word of God as authority, and we must interpret it WITH itself, since it, itself, is the only authority proven to be the Word of the Lord.
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura actually you need to read the entire bible and then you might see your error. Sorry
Jerome absolutely rejected the Apocrypha, simply read Kelly's work on Jerome. He literally called it garbage.
@Anthony Cholagh Gladly.
In his preface Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he states, “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”
Jerome, “Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 492.
He also states in his preface to Samuel and Kings, “so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list [the Hebrew canon] must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and
Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.”
Ibid., 490.
He even goes as far as rebuking those that
“follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the authentic books the Spanish rubbish.”
Rebenich, Jerome, 103.
Regarding your comment on Daniel, etc Jerome actually mentions this in his preface to Daniel:
"I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume."
Jerome, “Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 493.
He specifically marked those books with an obelus because the "fables" are found everywhere... he considered them an appendix. Why? Read his own explanation above in his own preface to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes... he specifically says they are not canonical but are read for the edification of the people. You cannot cite his inclusion in the Vulgate. He specifically marked those books as non canonical and included as an appendix because of "tradition". THAT is the point he was making in your citation. People were bringing charges against him for including them even as an appendix and he defaulted to the Church.
J.N.D. Kelly, probably the most quoted Jerome scholar explicitly mentions Jerome rejected the Apocryphal books (Jerome used the word Apocrypha, not Deuterocanonical) and held that position until his death.
Kelly, Jerome, 161
My citations are explicit. Not canonical. Spanish rubbish. Appendix. Not for doctrine. If you would like to take a swing at providing explicit quotations where Jerome accepted the Apocrypha AS CANON feel free... inclusion in the Vulgate is not conclusive given his other quotations. Luther included the Apocrypha yet did not call them canon, as did the KJV translators.
@Anthony Cholagh Your citation is irrelevant because he is not discussing their canonicity, he is discussing their inclusion as a non canonical appendix. He did not leave it to the Church to determine their canonicity, he explicitly calls Sirach, which you cited above as non canonical and used for edification and NOT doctrine for the church:
"Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon
"
Jerome, “Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 490.
Jerome has already clarified that he does not hold the Apocrypha as canon but DOES hold them as edifying for the church, so he quotes them. Modern Protestant NT introductions quote Maccabees, does that mean they count them as canonical? How would you know they don't? Because they have written elsewhere they don't count them as canonical. Jerome did the same thing.
It's interesting that mere inclusion in the Vulgate is looked at as evidence, yet if you simply read his introductions to the translated books in the Vulgate you would find what he actually believed about those books.
Let's keep in mind that Jerome did not invent the Vulgate, he revised existing editions. Jerome did not consider his duty to completely throw out the books that are being used, so he counted them non canonical in his edition of the Vulgate. Modern Biblical scholars do the same thing today in their translations when they include passages they do not consider to be the original text at the bottom. Look at modern translations regarding the longer ending of Mark or 1 John 5:7. They don't just throw the reading away, the include it as a footnote. Jerome included the Apocrypha as an appendix, not as canon.
We can actually see the tradition that Jerome was following, handed down by giants like Athanasius. Let's look at what Athanasius said about these books:
"But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple
"
Athanasius of Alexandria, “Festal Letters,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry Burgess and Jessie Smith Payne, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 552.
Jerome is consistent with Athanasius, these extra book are appointed to be read but NOT in the canon, as handed down by the Fathers... could it be that the true tradition of the Fathers as cited by both Athanasius and Jerome was that they were appointed to be READ but NOT as canonical and NOT for doctrine?
Captain 007 The early Christians didn’t have a Bible? What graphe is God-Breathed in 2 Tim 3:16 then? They had the OT... pretty sure that counts. If you’re talking about the NT, the teachings (the gospel) of the apostles and eyewitnesses were taught and preached for the first years and within a decade or two they started writing that same gospel down and sending it around. These were carried around as individual volumes until they started compiling them into a codex long before the existence of the Roman Catholic Church. When the Fathers decided on which books to include one of the criteria was NOT what some pope said or infallible declarations from Rome.
Forget the early church, Rome didn’t “infallibly” declare the Canon until De Canonicis Scripturis in the Council of Trent in 1546. Would your position be Christians didn’t have a “Bible” for the first 1546 years, until Rome declared it to be so?
Captain 007 I’m sorry Mr. Captain that’s just not true. You haven’t interacted with anything I said you’re just making assertions. By your logic the Bible didn’t exist until AFTER Luther when Trent infallibly declared the Canon. If that’s the case I’ll stand upon what Christians had for the first 1546 years.
Nobody is trying to make word salad as you so elegantly put it, literally just approaching history the way it actually happened, not as Rome wants you to believe it. I would recommend reading on the ante and post Nicene Fathers and look at how they approach this issue. It’s not how you are approaching it.
Captain 007 Every single one of the books was circulated as authoritative by 165, yes. You seem to be hung up on the idea of them being compiled into codex form, that is not how the earliest church functioned. This 4th century Bible you speak of did not invent the books, they talked about which books were canon, not infallibly confirmed until 1546. Athanasius rejects your canon, he rejected the Apocrypha. In his 39th Festal Letter, he states:
“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness”
He then denies the Apocrypha as canon.
“other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read”
This 4th century Roman fantasy you have doesn’t exist. Athanasius did not use the language of Rome.
This idea of “fully canonised [sic]” isn’t applicable to you either until 1546... invalidating your whole Luther thing that isn’t even historically accurate either.
To understand the other side you should actually understand what they believe first. Protestant systematic theologies do not mention Luther to assert Sola Scriptura, they use the Scripture. I would recommend approaching others with what they actually believe, not what Roman apologists tell you alone.
Ecumenism, the devils reign over priests, and ALL, who practice this!
1Corinthians 10:20 But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.
The pope is not to force himself on those outside the Catholic Church of Jesus, but at the same time, the pope should not bow down, and participate in worship or sacrifice outside the Catholic Church of Jesus. This is the devil's key to priests who attend the worship and sacrifice of services in other religions outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, for a priest loses ALL holiness in just one such pagan service.
Take the prophets of the Old Testament, who proved in contests with pagan priests, that the God of Abraham IS God. It is not so for the priests in the Catholic Church of today, for these Catholic priests of today do not prove that our God IS GOD. Instead, Catholic priests of today compromise and bargain with other religions who sacrifice to devils, in order to bring them into the Catholic Church. A bargain with the devil to attend services of other religions is like King Solomon who defiled himself by following Astarte, the goddess of the Sidonians and Milcom, the idol of the Ammonites. King Solomon’s idol worship is like Catholic priests participating in prayer worship or service attendance in worship of idols that is called “ECUMENISM”. Most Catholic priests of today make God equal to the pagan gods in other religions by saying, “Your god is like my God, and my God is like your god. This is not so, and because of this, Catholic priests are far worse than the pagan priests of the Old Testament, because holy prophets never compromised God in making God equal to any pagan priest’s god, because it was sure death! “Ecumenism” is the devils key that unlocks and destroys the holiness of any priest who even thinks of attending a prayer service of another religion outside the Catholic Church, because these thoughts are mortal sins of the 1st Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”
Lol! Atkins talks about not having enough time to respond to White claims, but then using his time to bring up irrelevant stuff. What a joke!
What is clear, if the studier is totally honest to history and Bible study, is that the Roman Catholic church has made such teachings, as the assumption of Mary, prayer to Mary, and the trumpeting of works to merit salvation, so against the clear teaching of the Bible, that it is easy to see that they are teaching a false gospel.
Wrong again!
catholic embarrassed once again..its difficult to defend a delusion
Lee, James White lost terribly and preaches another Gospel! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 like I said its difficult to defend a delusion..dont forget all the additions to the True Gospel which the Catholic faith is fond of..1cor 15 is its pure form .as for his flesh and blood . pictures symbols. cannibalism isn't allowed . repent trust Christ alone for salvation
@@leevww You are absolutely correct! Faith alone and Scripture alone, are man made traditions! Plus, none of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of Man made Protestant churches even practice Scripture alone, as every Pastor places their own fallible interpretations above Holy Scripture! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Jesus started Catholic church!
@@matthewbroderick6287 only 2 denominations . The first is saved by grace through faith.. and the rest.. who rely on works
James White places his own fallible interpretations above Holy Scripture.
Jesus Christ teaches, the bread, WHEN BLESSED, is "My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). James White tells Jesus, "Not true!". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
It is very easy to completely refute and show the catholic religion's beliefs and catechisms are false doctrine beyond any reasonable doubt with one incident in the new testament scriptures in the gospels. In the last few hours before Jesus death on the cross one incident can sum up all the proof one needs to show the false doctrine of the catholic church/religion. Most everyone knows the part in scripture of the four gospels regarding the two criminals by Jesus side who were being crucified with him. In the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John it is a fact that Mary, Jesus's mother was present at the crucifixion. In particular is the Gospel of Luke where one can refute catholic false doctrine:
Luke 23: 39-43
39One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
In verse 41 the one condemned criminal professes his sin and repents for it. In verse 42 the one criminal professes his belief and faith in Christ Jesus and His kingdom. This was all Jesus needed to hear from this condemned man in that this criminal believed by repenting and professing his faith, and thus his faith alone was sufficient for salvation because Jesus responded to him saying “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
You notice Jesus did not rebuke this man or turn him away and by His statement in verse 42 said the condemned criminal's belief and faith were enough for the man's salvation. If the catholic religion was the true church and religion that God established, then Jesus would have had to say to the criminal "I am sorry you cannot be in paradise with me in paradise today. You have not done your time in purgatory yet nor paid your way out of purgatory with indulgences." Jesus also didn't say "My mother Mary is here as you can see. You have not asked through her whether or not I can save you, so ask her first before you ask me to remember you when I enter my kingdom and then maybe I will let you in." And Jesus would have had to say "You are a condemned criminal and thus you have not produced any good works to prove you deserve to be with me in paradise. Thus your professed belief in me alone in the last hours of your life is not good enough for you to enter the kingdom of heaven because faith alone is not enough for you to do so."
In this one incident alone in the gospels, it is evident beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus did not put any conditions (prayer through Mary for forgiveness, doing time in purgatory, paying indulgences, or by doing good works alone) on this condemned man other than the condemned man's faith in Christ Jesus alone that was and STILL is good enough for his salvation and all of our salvation if we believe by faith. Prayer through Mary for forgiveness, doing time in purgatory, paying indulgences, or by doing good works alone are nothing more than man made traditions and doctrines. Traditions and doctrines made up by a goofball who wears really expensive pajamas with a hat who claims with no proof whatsoever that he is the vicar of Christ. Wake up those of you in the catholic religion before it is too late!!!
Jesus set up the sacrament of penance for His Church. He as God, can forgive any sin, whenever, wherever. He is not bound by His command to His disciples regarding confession..
@@jerrytang8684 Nice try. The sacrament of penance is man made doctrine by the catholic church. It is no where in the bible/scripture. You are trying to imply through your own exegesis that Jesus somehow meant this in his teachings which is patently false. This is also true for Matthew 16: 18 regarding Peter being the "rock" Jesus was going to found His church on. In Mathew 16: 18 Jesus was referring to Peter's faith as the rock, not Peter himself contrary to the claims of catholics that peter was somehow special and going as far to say he was the first pope. Verse after verse in scripture especially as stated by Peter himself NEVER claimed to be what the catholics think he is. Peter said he was simply another member of the other 12 apostles having no special authority above any of the other 11. Not to mention a few verses later in Matthew where Jesus rebukes Peter by calling him satan. Why would Jesus being God himself and perfect place His church in the hands of fallible man who denied Jesus three times?
Mr White was spot on
Thank you James White. The picture of the Roman clergy in clown suits reflects their theology.
At the very end of the discussion, Akin talked about the council of Rome. ---- Why on earth would anyone rely on the council of Rome for what Scripture is? I consider both men to be sincere and respectful, but have found that my Catholic friends have no real idea on how to determine what is the word of God. Especially the dogmas about Mary, and about papal authority --- these are clearly against Scripture. Just my take on it. Full disclosure: I am a fan of James White --- because he earned it by his scholarship, and good character.
Mike Linder - Most people don't realize that the canon of the Bible was determined by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382. The list of Old and New Testament books promulgated at that council are the same as in every modern day Catholic Bible. Nobody challenged the list until the 16th century during the Protestant Reformation. Early Protestant Bibles had the same books (e.g. 1611 King James Bible), but seven of the books from the Old Testament were later removed. The Catholic Church has had the exact same list of books since 382. The same list was reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage (392), Council of Hippo (397), Council of Florence (1431 - 1449), and the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563).
Before the collection of New Testament books was finally settled at the Council of Rome we find that there were three distinct classes into which the Christian writings were divided. This we know (and every scholar admits it) from the works of early Christian writers like Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and a whole host of others. These classes were (1) the books 'acknowledged' as Canonical, (2) books 'disputed' or 'controverted', (3) books declared 'spurious' or false.
If want to learn more about this subject I recommend that you read "Where We Got The Bible" by Henry Graham.
Mike Lindner, who exactly is it that you rely upon to tell you what Scripture is? What is this person's name?
You are mistaken about the Catholic Church. The Church has clearly determined what the Word of God is. James White makes good money doing what he does, but his scholarship is overshadowed by his theology: Calvinism.
Protestantism is 100% tradition of the MAN Luther. Learn some history...the Church Fathers (ALL CATHOLIC)...The Church of living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15
Mike, you are incorrect. I cannot vouch for your "Catholic friends" but as one myself I must say that I have a clearer understanding of the "Word of God" than I ever did as a Protestant. James White is a professional hack, and misleads his audiences with a revisionist history of the Catholic Church. I don't know if I would say engaging in "deceit" is evidence of good character or not. I tend to think it is not. Scripture was not listed and accepted by the Church until the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397, 419 AD). However, this does not mean they were not preserved from the beginning and read at Mass. The problem issue was all the writings which purported to be "scripture." If the early church had been like a Protestant church, we might never have the sacred scriptures at all. It was because of God preserving his truth in and through the Catholic Church that you have a Bible today. Here is a clue- Jesus Christ left us no epistle, no letter, no writing of any kind. What He did leave us was His Church through which the Holy Spirit continued to work (Matthew 16: 18-19). To be "biblical" means to actually follow Jesus, not the traditions of men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, James White, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones. I hope you can discover the fullness of your faith too. Blessings!
Catholics cant make arguments but reading the comments lets me know they can really cheerlead.
The first thing that any protestant needs to explain is why they don't trust Jesus Christ. He said that
- the Church was the pillar of truth
- the Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known
- he promised to lead it to ALL truth
- he promised that he would never leave it.
- he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail.
Protestants trust Jesus when they open their bible and see that the New Testament contains 27 books, no more, no less out of some 300+ early Christian writings one won't find this list in scripture. Rather an authority outside of scripture decided: it was first affirmed exactly as this canon by late 4th century Catholic Bishops. They brought this collection of writings into Church where they celebrated Mass. None professed Sola Scriptura.
That one believes they errored on the latter but miraculously got the NT canon itself right without error, shows a great inconsistency.
And note; those same late 4th c Bishops said the OT was 46 books, not 39. ALL Christians held all 46 books to be scripture for the next 1100 years until a catholic priest with no authority said otherwise: Fr Luther.
Believing that those 4th c Bishops error'd on the OT, but someone without error bo the NT right, is just another.... inconsistency.
Daniel Omitted do you feel hypocritical? You should
@@TruthHasSpoken Which one of those statements from Jesus are we denying exactly? I don't deny any of them. Btw its clear from history and self authentication of scripture what is scripture. I dont need mama rome to tell me what is or isnt because you guys got it wrong.
@@danielomitted1867 "Which one of those statements from Jesus are we denying exactly?"
Keeping in mind that ALL of scripture is inspired by God ...
Luke 12:19; Matthew 26:26
1 Pet 3:21
James 2:24
"its clear from history and self authentication of scripture what is scripture"
Curious,
- can you cite who / when in Christian history first made this statement, that it is clear from history AND that scripture is self-authenticating?
- If it was SO clear, why is it not until year 367 when St. Athanasius - Catholic Bishop of Alexandria - first lists the NT canon exactly as we have it today, the same 27 writings, no more, no less? Keep in mind that no canonical list before then, lists those 27 writings and only those 27 writings. If it is so clear, why was Christendom unable to list these books in the first 300 years exactly as we have them today?
- How could those Catholic Bishops meeting multiple times in Synods in the late 4th c and into the 5th century have error'd so greatly on the Old Testament having 46 books, while getting the NT canon exactly right? Keep in mind, that all Christians held those books to be scripture for 1,100 years until a couple of 16th Catholics in Central Europe with no authority said that Christendom had error'd.
- How could those same 4th century Bishops have error'd so greatly in knowing what was NT scripture - but 100% of them error'd when they brought it into Church, reading it at Mass where they presided, believing that the bread and wine became the resurrected Body and Blood of Christ (just as scripture above states)?
- Isn't it most inconsistent to declare the bible to be the final authority on doctrine, then to defer outside of that authority to another authority to even know what writings are and are not, scripture?
@@TruthHasSpoken faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. How do you think jews knew what was and wasnt scripture when Jesus walked the earth? Did they just not know? Or it is self authenticating as I said. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and another they will not follow". But according to you we need mama rome to tell us what the voice of the shepherd is. No one needed a church father to tell them what was and wasnt canon. Do you honestly think that for first 300 years no Christian had a clue what scripture was? But suddenly Athanasious clears up the issue and everyone agrees? The authentic Christian scripture is written early on in the first century. The gnostic gospels or the mimics come later on. Just because someone lists what they consider canon doesnt mean no one understood it until then. The catholic canon as it exists now didnt exist until the 15th century. Btw I love how you beg the question, shows your intellectual honesty. If you want to have an honest dialogue keep your questions short and to the point.