Protestant/Catholic Authority DEBATE, Jimmy Akin vs. @TheOtherPaul

Here's what the debate came down to from my perspective:

Jimmy argued that there was an existing authority structure (Scripture-plus-Tradition) that existed prior to the writings of the NT and that we should assume this paradigm hasn't changed, that is, unless we have good reason to suppose that it has. He challenged Paul to give good reason to suppose that a change has taken place (from Scripture-plus-Tradition to just Scripture). I can't recall Paul directly responding to this argument. He didn't build a case that a change has taken place. What it seemed like he did instead (and I could be wrong about this) was argue that the authority structure Jimmy argued existed prior to the NT is not identical to the authority structure taught by the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic authority structure is more specific/has more properties. Hence, Jimmy didn't actually establish that the Roman Catholic view of authority has continued today.

I have a few thoughts on this objection from Paul. First, notice that Paul didn't address Jimmy's argument. He didn't argue that Scripture-plus-Tradition wasn't the paradigm prior to the NT. Nor did he argue that the paradigm shifted at some specific point in history. All he did was point out that Jimmy's conclusion was too generic. Failing to respond to someone's argument is a big no-no in a debate. Second, even if Jimmy's conclusion was too generic (ie: it didn't uniquely prove that Catholicism is true), it was still highly significant; it ruled out Protestantism. Third, Paul's objection is similar to when atheists claim that the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't get you all the way to Christianity. Like sure, that's true, this one argument doesn't do all that, but no one that defends the Kalam thinks that it proves that Jesus rose from the dead. Rather, they think that it establishes part of the case for Christianity. This is probably similar to how Jimmy sees his argument; he thinks that it establishes part of the case for Catholicism. A full defense of Catholicism will include additional pieces of data and a litany of other arguments.

Given what I've said above, it seems to me that Jimmy had the upper hand in this debate.

I should also mention that Paul wasn't very clear in this video--it's very possible that he made points or responses to Jimmy's argument that I didn't catch. If you think I've missed something, make sure to let me know in the comments below.

The reason this debate was shameful is that Jimmy (from his conduct): 1 preferred the subject to be conducted only on his terms. 2 continuously and rudely interrupted Paul, who consequently lost his train of thought. Shame on him.

As a Protestant considering the Roman Catholic Church, watching this debate I’m extremely impressed with how Jimmy Akin absolutely won this debate. His opponent did not give any real arguments, he simply appealed to vague assertions & he did assume sola scriptura.

I listened to the entire initial presentation of the Anglican trying to understand him in good faith and nothing made any sence. Words come out of his mouth but it’s all just an incoherent babble.

Here is a classic example of the effect of Truth confronting untruth...tailspin and circularity! Common sense alone would tell you that Christ handed on an oral tradition. The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world in 382 AD or thereabouts. So what happened to all the Christians living from 1 AD to 400 AD? How available was Scripture (far less canonized Scripture) accessible to those who could not read or afford to buy a Bible? Clearly, Christ also ensures the continuance of His Church through sacred Tradition vested in the Bishops. Thanks again Jimmy.

Epic smackdown by Akin. TheOtherPaul is way out of his league. He kept agreeing and then disagreeing with Akin.

I see why Dr. White doesn’t debate Jimmy. Jimmy is rude and presents nothing new. He’s brainwashed by Rome and trusts men over Christ

Jimmy Akin looks like a 3rd century bishop with that wonderful beard lol. Great debate!

God bless you all!

Paul, Why all the sniffing? 🤨

Catholics: 1 🥇

Protestants: 0

In my opinion, BOTH sides have some splainin to do.

Your god, according to scripture, intentionally kept his children ignorant (NEGLIGENCE), left them alone, unsupervised where his most formidable enemy could get at them (GROSS NEGLIGENCE), got very angry (LACK OF EMOTIONAL MATURITY), blaming his children for the consequences (DEFLECTION OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY) and cursed not only his children (ABUSE), but their offspring ad infinitum (GUILT BY ASSOCIATION).

IT GETS WORSE…

Generations later, god, according to scripture, forced his followers to torture and murder and innocent man (CULT OF HUMAN SACRIFICE) and then celebrate/memorialize this event macabre by consuming the victims’ flesh and blood symbolically (CANNIBALISTIC IDEATION & RITUALIZATION) in order to be free from the UNEARNED punishment their creator had inflicted upon them in a fit of misdirected rage.

And finally, this “vicarious redemption” (to put lipstick on a pig) is so all encompassing as to be morally ABSURD because it says Jeffrey Dahmer is in Heaven after accepting Jesus as his Lord and Savior while his victims burn in Hell.

The fact that all of this flies safely under your radar while you judge others harshly is sick and perverted.

I have a major problem with Other Paul beliving that Catholics, or even Orthodox Christians for that matter are not brothers in Christ because we dont hold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and affirm the traditions of the Church we are of. I find that extremely problematic. Extremely. Jimmy Akin is correct in assuming that anyone who is validly baptized, and affirms Christ is a brother in Christ.

"That's part of the problem..."

Brother, you'll have fewer problems if you end your Protest.

Paul presented highly tangential and often fillerbustered to stay away from basic questions. I found always trying to circle the wagons rather than answering question about Solascriptura. When he mentioned that catholics were not brothers in christ until pinned down It revealed to me where he was really coming from.

The other paul makes no sense.. he makes up his own resources?????

I love being catholic!!

Started playing a drinking game every time other Paul said “that’s the problem”

I've never seen someone work so hard to dodge a simple question. Protestants will rail against catholic beliefs with "where is that in the bible?" but God forbid we ever use that question about sola scriptura.

To the "other Paul" I do not buy your argument. You ramble sir... it sounds good maybe to someone that does not know the bible but not for anyone looking for TRUTH.

I would get off the Monster sir... it's not benefiting your health.

Jimmy is an absolute legend

Can you explain why a state like Kansas that is high Catholic, managed to pass laws that a woman has the right to kill her child in the womb (abortion) -- do Catholics not consider abortion to be murder ??

Jesus said that there be but one Church! There is no moral equivalent to this church. I pray 🙏 for others to come home to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Jimmy Akin thank you for keeping your cool during this debate.

This was a tough watch. The other paul was in way over his head with Jimmy. It was like watching a 5th grader debate a college student. Yikes.

I think Paul did his best but he was in over his head. Akin clearly proved his points - Paul floundered somewhat and did not present as good a case for his position.

at least he tried

When did Jesus ever talk about "papacy" "archdiocese" "vicarage" "bishopric" "monastery "eucharist"? these are just words we made up to try to represent the SIMPLE teachings Jesus gave. Where did all this hierarchical structure and pageantry come from?

Would Jimmy agree there were good reasons for the protestant movement?

I listened to the debate(earlier I listened to the history of Catholic Church). It seems when Jesus authorized those to preach his gospel it was quite formal (laying on of hands). Was there a formal authorizing between Peter, and those who would continue to preach the gospel? Do you think Peter was the type to let authorizing people to take the gospel to all the world, slip his mind?
Don’t you think it was more likely those Christian, continued Jesus’s gospel the best they could? Had some success, and some failures. Then as it’s man’s nature slowly imaged themselves having God’s authority.
If I imagine authority was somehow transferred from the Apostles to Deacons, what did the Deacons do with it? I refer back to the history of the Catholic Church . You tell me what good came from God’s authority you say your Church has.
If your Church teaches salvation doctrines, that are in direct opposition to the words of Jesus, would that be a concern of you personally. I would not be apart of that Church,I think I could do better.
A couple of examples, praying to Mary, baptism of infants .

Hey to Other Paul you do realize that the Bible you have is from the Catholic Church correct?

So grateful to he Catholic. Jesus did not say that someday there's going to be 30,000 different churches. The Universal Church that Jesus began with Peter is the church that I will be staying with untill I die. Sorry but the Protestant Reformation is basically saying Jesus had it all wrong and the reformers now have to make tons of more churches with no leadership or structure. I think there's like 30,000 right now. Jesus did not get it wrong.

@otherpaul, say less

Jimmy is arrogant and keeps cutting him off.

Jesus told paul what he bound on warth is bound in heaven, therefore, when he bound his predecessor to assume his position, he created the magesterium

Pray that Jimmy lives to be around for at least 100 years. This guy is awesome

Great debate, bring these guys back on to debate Vaping vs Pipe Smoking

I have been having this pull to become Catholic and I have been studying I’m not sure if the church near me has any classes or how they feel about converts…

Jimmy Akin all the way. TOP made me dizzy and frustrated that he was completely unable to prove or answer anything directly. TOP sorry, you are extremely beight and glad the you are studying and trying to understand the truth, but you need a lot more practice before stepping in the ring with these level of apologists.

This was painful to listen to. It is not that this "other Paul" disagreed with Jimmy Akin. He did not understand the arguments to begin with. Akin asked repeatedly for Scripture texts that show, after the Apostolic Age, that we are to shift to sola scriptura alone. He never answered because he was very confused. Akin asked again and again and he could not answer. I don't think "the other Paul" was being deceitful or dishonest, just not very intelligent.

The other Paul got steam rolled

This guy is "the part of the Problem" 😂😂😂

I wish there was a better debater on the Sola Scriptura side. Jesus said Scripture can't be broken, implying it is infallible. There's no such infallibility statement in the Bible to back up the idea that people can be infallible.

In fact, in Galatians chapter 2, even Peter, James, and Barnabas had implemented church practice that denied the purity of the Truth of the Gospel and Paul called them all out on it.

These are some examples that prove the Bible is infallible, but people and church leadership is fallible. That's why Scripture needs to be supreme above tradition of man.

Why is it that neither of these men talk about the LOGOS (written) word of God, and RHEMA (spoken) word of God? When the Bible says that people live by every WORD of God, and when it says in Ephesians 6 that the Sword of God is the WORD of God, both of these cases use the Greek word RHEMA, not LOGOS. It is also clear from the scripture that anyone who speaks by the Holy Spirit is also speaking the Words of God, and certainly plenty of Christians speak by the Holy Spirit today. I know I have had God tell me many things by the Holy Spirit, and as far as I'm concerned, those things were equal to the Bible. Abraham heard God and obeyed God's voice. When God speaks to me, that is PRIVATE revelation in regard to what I am to do. Relationship with God is a living and active thing, even to this today.