Is the Pope Infallible?

How it ran

1. 1:02Sungenis defines papal infallibility
2. 5:14White's opening statement
3. 8:39Sungenis on the biblical basis (Matthew 16, Acts 15)
4. 16:30White on the biblical evidence
5. 25:10Sungenis rebuttal
6. 28:38White's rebuttal
7. 31:34Cross-examination, round one
8. 42:37Round one closings
9. 47:51White's opening on Honorius
10. 1:01:19Sungenis opening on Honorius
11. 1:16:35Honorius rebuttals
12. 1:23:28Cross-examination on Honorius
13. 1:47:28Honorius closings
14. 1:54:36White's opening on Zosimus
15. 2:04:30Sungenis opening on Zosimus
16. 2:13:21Zosimus rebuttals
17. 2:20:03Cross-examination on Zosimus
18. 2:31:51Zosimus closings
19. 2:35:53Sungenis topic closing statement
20. 2:39:42White's topic closing statement
21. 2:43:42Sungenis final closing statement
22. 2:50:02White's final closing statement

The key exchanges

James White's point first, then Robert's answer. The time jumps to that moment in the video.

1. 25:10

   1. Bishop of Rome in Scripture

   White argues that the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture and that the church at Rome was led by a plurality of elders well into the second century, so the claim to a singular successor of Peter rests on a long chain of propositions.

   Robert answered that Scripture names the bishop of no city, so its silence proves nothing, and that succession was a separate question from the one being debated.

   “Well, the bishop of no city is ever mentioned in Scripture.”

2. 26:34

   2. Who interprets Scripture

   White argues that Jesus bound men to the Scriptures and never to Peter, and that Paul in Acts 20 and 2 Timothy 3 directed the church to the word of God, not to a bishop of Rome, when false teachers arose.

   Robert answered that Matthew 16 says whatever Peter binds shall be bound, something never said of Scripture, and that Matthew 18 sends a dispute to the church rather than to Scripture. Catholics accept that they are bound to Scripture; the question is who has authority to interpret it.

   “Everyone's bound to Scripture, but that is the key issue, is who has the authority to interpret what it says.”

3. 36:15

   3. Who led Acts 15

   White argues that the Jerusalem council was brought to the apostles and elders, not to Peter, and that James, who gives his judgment in the imperative voice, was the one leading it.

   Robert answered that Peter alone stated the decision that the Gentiles need not be circumcised, that Paul and Barnabas and James agreed with a declaration Peter had already made, and that an imperative such as listen to me does not by itself show authority.

   “If I said to you, James, listen to me, does that mean that I have authority over you?”

4. 40:38

   4. The Berean test

   White argues that the Bereans of Acts 17 were commended for testing even the apostolic preaching against the Scriptures, which places Scripture in the position of determining truth.

   Robert answered that the Bereans did well, but Paul had to tell them the Messiah was Jesus, since the Scriptures never name Him. In the same way Revelation 12 does not name the woman, but the church does.

   “They could have searched the Scriptures till they were blue in the face, they would never have found the name of the Messiah.”

5. 1:05:08

   5. Honorius's letter

   White argues that Honorius, answering an official inquiry as bishop of Rome, wrote we confess one will in Christ, and was condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council, by Pope Leo II and by the papal oath for three centuries.

   Robert answered that Honorius was justly accused of heresy but did not speak ex cathedra: he wrote to Sergius alone, made no appeal to his apostolic authority, and defined nothing and threatened no anathema. Pope Agatho, whose letter the council received as the voice of Peter, is the example of a binding papal decree.

   “We submit here tonight that Honorius was indeed justly accused of heresy.”

6. 1:21:15

   6. Theories and hindsight

   White argues that Rome has no infallible list of infallible pronouncements, so Catholic apologists offer competing theories about which papal statements count, and only hindsight decides.

   Robert answered that the 1870 criteria were drawn up with Honorius in view, and that Protestants likewise offer differing explanations of alleged Bible discrepancies while holding there is no error in the Bible. Differing explanations among fallible men do not undo the church's decision.

   “The church has already decided that there is no problem, it is my job to communicate that to you.”

7. 1:34:34

   7. A mechanism for knowing

   White asks by what mechanism a Christian living in the forty years after Honorius could have known that a papal letter was either non-binding or heretical.

   Robert answered that an undefined teaching does not bind the believer or affect his salvation, and that no one in the seventh century claimed a private mechanism for judging the church; they waited for the church to decide, even if that took forty years.

   “I wait for the church to make a decision, until then it's not binding on me.”

8. 1:52:32

   8. Scripture for two wills

   White argues that Christ's two wills is a logical and proper conclusion from the biblical teaching that He is one person with two natures, as in 1 Corinthians 2:8, and that any creed has authority only as it reflects Scripture.

   Robert answered that White, asked several times for a verse teaching two wills, gave logic, history and Chalcedon but no chapter and verse, which shows the need for an authority that gives answers Scripture does not state explicitly.

   “He gave me logic, he gave me reasoning, he gave me history.”

9. 2:09:15

   9. Zosimus and Pelagius

   White argues that Zosimus, claiming the authority of the apostolic see, declared Celestius orthodox after a mature examination, ordered the African bishops to reverse their condemnation, and then reversed himself when they refused.

   Robert answered that Pope Innocent had already condemned the doctrine, so Zosimus's only question was whether Pelagius and Celestius had sincerely retracted it. He was deceived by their feigned submission, and his later decree to all the churches condemned them.

   “Papal infallibility does not give the Pope the power to peer into the heart of a man and determine whether he is being sincere.”