Who Won the Akin/White Debate?

On April 24th and 25th, Catholics Answers’ Jimmy Akin and the Reformed Baptist Dr. James White squared off in a two-night debate at First Baptist Church of Livingston, Louisiana. The first evening addressed the question of sola scriptura and the second “How Does One Find Peace With God,” or the doctrine of justification. The debate featured two of the most prominent apologists from the Catholic and Protestant sides—and was not their first rodeo against one another. This article will only address the first night’s debate, which was framed on the question of whether or not Scripture is the infallible rule of faith for the church. 

White went first, arguing that sola scriptura is the “default biblical position” and offering several biblical pieces of evidence in favor of this position. This, White claimed, does not mean that there are no other Christian authorities but that they only possess authority inasmuch as they are faithful to the Bible. He then pivoted to attack the Catholic position, critiquing Catholic ecclesiology (bishops generally, but also the preeminence of the bishop of Rome), as well as the Catholic concepts of Holy Tradition and the magisterium. He also noted that there is no official Catholic magisterial infallible interpretation of the Bible and that the magisterium did not define the canon of Scripture until 1546.

In his opening comments, Akin went in an unexpected direction. He observed that White, in remarks made in 1999, had acknowledged that sola scriptura is not in effect during times of revelation. Why does that matter? Because if that’s the case, then it would mean that in the post-resurrection apostolic era, during which times the books we now recognize as the New Testament were written, the meaning of White’s proof texts must have meant something to their original audience other than an articulation of sola scriptura. Thus, assessed Akin, White’s position is based on a “post-biblical premise.”

Instead of sola scriptura, Akin proposed what he calls the “apostolic paradigm” of Scripture, Tradition, and magisterial authority, one which he argues has biblical credence but is also the position held by all of the other ancient churches, not just the Catholic Church (e.g. Orthodox, Assyrian, Oriental). Moreover, Akin observed that both Catholics and Protestants submit to many apostolic traditions not found within Scripture, of which he cited four: there are no new apostles; no new public revelation; no new scriptures; and the contents of the New Testament. It was an impressive rhetorical move by Akin, demonstrating that Protestants already do what they reject in the Catholic position—namely, accept post-biblical apostolic traditions as authoritative.

Obviously, there was much more to the debate—it went for almost two hours!—but I want to stop there and make some broader observations, ones I hope are helpful for Catholics (and Protestants). The first is that White—who, admittedly, has a more polished style than the almost-folksy Akin—has a tendency to pepper rhetorical jabs that can, in the moment, seem overwhelmingly powerful. Thus, in the course of White’s segments, listeners find themselves hearing not only arguments for sola scriptura but also references to the 2023 declaration Fiducia Supplicans, Pope Francis’ views on homosexuality, the synod on synodality, and the Marian dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. Akin perceived this, accusing White of “overloading,” which has the effect of putting one’s interlocutor on his or her heels. 

In the context of a formal debate, White’s approach can be (and often is) rhetorically effective because he is able to push his opponent into areas he or she is unprepared to discuss. It’s also, fundamentally, a distraction. As Akin noted, for this debate he was not asked to argue the Marian dogmas or Pope Francis but sola scriptura. Indeed, it’s fair to ask White’s reasons for Akin to comment on the current pontificate’s understanding of the biblical use of the Greek word arsenokoitai, which is typically translated as those engaged in homosexual activity. 

This, at least for me, provokes a deeper question: What is the point of such religious debates? Are they about point-scoring? Are they about embarrassing one’s opponent? I’m not per se accusing White of doing this, but observers of the White-Akin debate might be forgiven for scratching their heads during some of these rhetorical excursions.  What is the point of such religious debates? Are they about point-scoring? Are they about embarrassing one’s opponent?Tweet This

Early in his excellent book Sources of Renewal: The Implementation of the Second Vatican Council, St. John Paul II discusses the importance of faith and dialogue. Dialogue, the Polish pope explains, “signifies an exchange of ideas” focused on the truth, an obligation that binds all men’s consciences. “Truth can impose itself on the mind of man only in virtue of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power,” he writes. He cites Nostra Aetate: “The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions.” And he cites the teaching of Unitatis Redintegratio: that Catholic belief must be explained “in such a way and such terms that our separated brethren can also really understand it.” 

This is the challenge of religious dialogue, and even debate as performed by White and Akin. Aggravated by our distracted, digital age, it is easy to fall prey to modes of communication that prioritize and celebrate one side “owning” the other with the most devastatingly quotable statements or “hot takes.” Yet Christians of good will must eschew that type of interaction, especially when it comes to ecumenical debate and dialogue. We must always seek to properly understand our opponents, avoid caricatures or “gotchas,” and proceed in good faith. 

Akin, to his credit, I think largely avoided the temptation to point-score. Patiently, though perhaps with increasing degrees of frustration, he kept pressing White to respond to his very specific charges regarding White’s own position on Scripture. Akin showed that White’s position is a form of question-begging and thus circular reasoning, since White is using the Bible alone to prove that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. White’s only counter to that observation was that since the Bible is a supreme authority, it can only appeal to itself, and thus cannot avoid circularity. But that dog don’t hunt. 

One problem with White’s position is that many Christians, apart from Catholics, simply do not subscribe to White’s interpretations of various pro-Protestant proof texts. Thus, White must not only prove sola scriptura but his particular interpretations of the Bible. And that, in turn, demonstrates that as much as White claims that the Catholic position obscures God’s Word by placing a magisterial authority between God and man, his position also necessitates an intermediary authority between the Word and the people of God: namely, White himself. 

Moreover, the claim that all appeals to an ultimate authority are circular amounts to nothing more than fideism, the idea that faith is not informed by reason but is simply an exercise of the will. Yet if all arguments are mediated to us through our intellects, they must be evaluated based on reason, which is composed of the human powers of intellect and will. Granted, there are things in the Western philosophical tradition called “first principles”—foundational propositions or premises that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or premise, at least not directly. These include such axioms as the whole is greater than the parts, or that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. To argue otherwise would be self-defeating for rational thought. Belief in Holy Scripture as an ultimate authority that operates in the same way as reason, as White posits, is by extension also self-defeating. 

The reason I am focusing on this particular, seemingly tangential part of Akin and White’s debate is because, per the above reflections by John Paul II, religious discussion must proceed in prudence and charity in ways that identify common ground and then illuminate differences and the reason for those differences. And, as White’s comments reveal, the entirety of his arguments vis-à-vis sola scriptura rely upon question-begging assertions not only about the Bible but about the very process by which man acquires knowledge of the truth. Therefore, his arguments can appeal only to those who presume the same underlying premises as he presumes. 

Who “won” the Akin-White debate is, then, I propose, less important than what it revealed about the nature and content of Catholic-Protestant discussions (though I certainly think Akin held his own quite well). Such religious debate must ultimately be based on shared premises, lest they go helter-skelter in hundreds of divergent directions that fail the test of both prudence and charity. Akin, to his credit, structured his arguments in such a way that they appealed to premises that Catholics and Protestants share in common. White, at least in the examples cited above, did not. My question for White (and all Protestants) would be, can he?