
Jimmy Akin / Catholic Answers Dr. James White / Grace Bible Theological Seminary
CV NEWS FEED // Following the two-evening debate between Reformed Baptist Dr. James White and Catholic Answers’ apologist Jimmy Akin, Catholic author Casey Chalk wrote an op-ed examining “who won” the first evening’s sola scriptura-focused debate.
Chalk is the author of “The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity” and “The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands,” and comments on religious dialogue in several outlets.
Akin debated White in Louisiana on April 24 and 25. In an op-ed published by Crisis Magazine on May 2, Chalk reviewed the first evening’s debate on the question of sola scriptura, which he describes as “the question of whether or not Scripture is the infallible rule of faith for the church.”
White opened by arguing that only Scripture, the inspired Word of God, is infallible (without error). He criticized the Catholic Church’s magisterium for not having the authority to teach infallibly, arguing “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,” Chalk wrote.
When Akin responded in his opening, he pointed out that White himself had previously asserted “that sola scriptura is not in effect during times of revelation,” Chalk explained:
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.”
Akin moved to defend Tradition, Scripture, and magisterial authority. He also highlighted several examples that “[demonstrated] that Protestants already do what they reject in the Catholic position—namely, accept post-biblical apostolic traditions as authoritative.”
Chalk observed that while Akin’s arguments were less stylistically impressive than White’s, Akin stayed on topic and attempted to find common ground.
On several occasions, White veered away from the Scripture-focused debate and contested other topics such as Catholic teachings on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
“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,” Chalk noted.
Chalk wrote that these two differing approaches to the debate–Akin’s common-ground seeking, and White’s powerfully-ranged rhetoric–left him pondering the point of religious debates in the first place.
“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,” Chalk wrote.
Citing Pope St. John Paul II, Chalk remarked that ecumenism needs to prioritize dialogue that comes from a place of both charity and prudence. In conversations, ecumenical dialogue, and debates with non-Catholic Christians, the Catholic faith must be articulated in an accessible and understandable way.
“This is the challenge of religious dialogue, and even debate as performed by White and Akin,” Chalk wrote, noting that social media often rewards one side for “‘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,” he continued.
Chalk observed that the premises White used to argue in favor of sola scriptura also necessitated that his personal interpretation of Scripture is the correct interpretation, which is another, new claim that must be proven.
“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),” Chalk concluded:
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?
To read Chalk’s full, in-depth review of the debate, click here.
