|
The Catholic response is in BLUE With reference to the assertion that Protestants habitually misread the text of the Bible, we can only respond by referring to the old saying about the pot calling the kettle black. The history of Roman Catholic "interpretation" of the Bible is filled with the most egregious examples of ignoring context, language, and every other relevant facet of the text. The long history of allegorical interpretation, brought to an end only by the grammatical-historical emphasis of Reformation theology, is more than sufficient to deflect the assertion that Rome somehow approaches the text in its native environment, while Protestants are guilty of eisegesis. In reality, the reverse is the case. All one has to do is look at how Rome defends some of her dogmatic beliefs to see how Scripture is merely putty in the hands of those who claim infallible interpretational authority. ** First, it never strikes Mr. White as strange that God would allow Christians to go for over 1500 years before allowing a more correct "grammatical-historical emphasis of Reformation theology" to come about. Second, how is sola scriptura "historical"? In the first 3 to 4 hundred years there WAS NO Bible, then there was no way of mass-production until the printing press, and THEN an illiterate people couldn't read it anyway! Does this sound like a "historically correct" theology? The very New Testament Protestants and Catholics alike read was protected by the Church for centuries, indeed, the very nature of the NT came from the Holy Spirit's guidance of the early Church. You can't get much more "grammatical-historical" than that. As far as claiming "infallible interpretational authority", doesn't it seem that Mr. White is claiming the very same thing? He implies that his interpretation is better than Rome's; however, if he doesn't even believe the pope is infallible, how is it that Mr. White is given the luxury of an infallible understanding of Scripture? ** But there is more to Mr. Akin’s attempts here. Are we to actually believe that one cannot derive statements of actual truth from the text of Scripture? One might well come to that conclusion on the basis of his assertions. ** Only Mr. White has come to this conclusion, since nowhere has James Akin stated that one cannot derive statements of actual truth from Scripture. ** The real reason Mr. Akin says "Almost nowhere in Scripture does one find technical statements of a truth" is because the passages he is attempting to deflect do in fact contain direct, plain, unameliorated statements of absolute truth. But, these truths are not in harmony with what Mr. Akin is taught as a Roman Catholic, hence, there must be some other way to deal with these passages. ** I doubt Mr. White provided the entire context in which Akin made this statement; however, note that Akin did not exclude the possibility of finding truth, AND he is being very specific about technical truth, not just "true statements" Of course the Bible has true statements in it - Mr. White has misrepresented and twisted Akin's words ** Mr. Akin misses the important contextual fact that when Jesus speaks to the disciples in John 14-17, Judas, who has been with them for the entire length of the ministry, has now left. One of the "branches" has been cast aside, pruned by the Vinedresser, who is the Father. ** Precisely, one of the "branches" that was "in Christ" was removed - Akin missed absolutely nothing here, and his interpretation is quite consistent with the text.** As we have provided a rather in-depth discussion of John 15 and the Vine and the Branches elsewhere (tape #482), we will not re-state everything that we said there. Instead, we point out that 1) the Lord Jesus uses language He used elsewhere to describe surface level or false believers (cf. Mark 4:5-6). 2) It is merely an assumption that outward appearance equals inward reality, that is, that any branch, as long as it has the appearance of a branch, therefore represents one of Christ’s sheep. 3) The branches that are pruned by the Father are those that abide in Christ. ** "The branches that are pruned by the Father are those that abide in Christ" ????? Earlier, White stated that "one of the 'branches' [Judas] has been case aside, PRUNED by the Vinedresser, who is the Father" It appears that Mr. White can't be consistent with what gets "pruned" himself, so how is it that his understanding is more correct? ** Again, this is not an action that comes from the branch but from the vine. That is, those branches that have a vital union with the vine are the ones that bear fruit. The fruitfulness of the branch is a function of the vine, not of the branch itself! ** Agreed - the Church teaches that when God justifies us, he makes us righteous (Rom 5:19) such that "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20, Phil 2:13)** The error of man-centered theology is in thinking that it is the branch that bears fruit by its own effort, while in reality, it is the vine that makes for the fruitful branch. **Mr. White is well aware that the Church dismissed the Pelagian heresy centuries ago (the belief that one can "earn" salvation by his works), but he still claims the Church teaches a "man-centered theology" - this is another dishonest example of White's anti-Catholic bias by misrepresenting the teachings of the Church. ** Most importantly, it is merely the assumption of Mr. Akin (and many other interpreters who attempt to present this passage as one that promotes a conditional relationship between Christ and His sheep) that the branches that do not bear fruit are, by their nature, indicative of true believers. The text indicates otherwise, as only those who abide in the vine can bear fruit, for apart from the vine, the branch can do nothing. Those branches, then, that "do nothing" were obviously "apart from" the vine, apart from Christ. ** The only obvious thing is that the branches were clearly "in Christ" John 15 verse 1 says "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser", verse 2 says "Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away...", verse 4 says "Abide in me, and I in you" . Nowhere does it say that the branches that do nothing were "apart from" the vine and apart from Christ, so it is obvious that Mr. White has inserted an unbiblical interpretation to fit his own personal theology. Furthermore, this is far from an isolated text, see also Heb 10:23-29 Heb. 6:4-6, Col. 1:21-23, Gal. 5:1-4. Incidentally, it is interesting to look at verse 10, with all the recent discussion of man's inability to keep the commandments, because it seems Jesus is saying otherwise, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. ** We also point out that the Lord said that He taught the disciples these things so that they might have joy (John 15:11), and it would hardly bring them joy to have their eternal destiny hung squarely upon their own shoulders so that their own faithfulness became the measure of their salvation. ** Mr. White has no biblical basis for assuming to know the emotional and spiritual well-being of Jesus' disciples to depicted in this manner. Once again, the Church teaches that one's eternal destiny is not "hung squarely upon their own shoulders", yet White chooses to present the Catholic faith this way. Going back to John 15, verse 7, "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.". So God gives us the grace necessary to be saved - clearly something to be joyous about! ** So we see that we can understand John 15 in such a manner as to not in any way suggest that those who are truly united with Christ can ever be separated from Him. Mr. Akin’s presumed interpretation is not found to be the only possible way to understand the passage. Yet, can we find any way of understanding John 6 or John 10 that is consistent with Mr. Akin? I think not. ** Again, if you are a "branch" you are IN the vine, therefore you are IN Christ. Branches (which are are in Christ) that do not produce fruit are cast into the fire. Mr. White does not appear to have an appropriate grasp of basic plant anatomy and physiology :-) ** It is easy to understand why nearly half Mr. Akin’s article is dedicated to basically asserting that you can’t take Jesus’ words at face value. For if we do that here, the result is unmistakeable: The Father is sovereign over men, for He gives a people to the Son. All that the Father gives to the Son will, inevitably, surely, come to Christ. No exceptions. ** Actually, James Akin rightly points out that Jesus lost Judas - here's at least one exception. What about fallen angels? (Gen 6) - another exception :-) James Akin, and all Catholics, take Jesus' words at face value when He says "this is my body" indicating the Real Presence in the Eucharist. ** All that the Fathers gives to the Son will come to Christ, and enter into a relationship with Him, not with anyone else. The "coming" spoken of here is a continuous action-it does not say all who merely confess the name of Christ once in their life, but those who have true saving faith, who are, as a habitual pattern, coming to Christ for their spiritual food and water (John 6:35). ** Mr. White is exactly right. It is a "continuous" coming, and a "habitual pattern" - NOT once saved, always saved. He has contradicted himself and actually agrees with Catholic teaching here.** Now at this point it is common for Arminians and Roman Catholics to say just as Mr. Akin said: Jesus’ words do not "imply that you won’t leave on your own." ** And there is much scripture to support it - see above. ** While most of those who teach that Christ’s work of salvation is imperfect are not aware of it (and what else is it to deny the unconditional position of the elect in Christ than to deny the perfection of Christ’s work?), they are, in fact, saying that it is possible for the Son either to fail to do the will of the Father, or to disobey the Father. ** Another misrepresentation of the Church's teaching, which is that Christ was the perfect sacrifice for the sake of our redemption. If Christ's work was "finished", why is there a need for Mr. White's "sinner's prayer" at all? ** The Son has come to do the Father’s will, not His own. ** It is the Father's will that murder not occur, but it does - this is not the same use of the word "will" that White implies. ** There are no exceptions: Jesus says He is to lose nothing. He must be a powerful Savior to accomplish the will of the Father. ** Again, He lost Judas, the fallen angels, Adam & Eve...... ** What other possible construction could be placed upon these words? They are clear, straightforward words that communicate without confusion. The will of the Father for the Son is tied to the elect, those the Father "has given to Me." Of those who are so given (and who is a part of this group is indeed the decision of the Father, based upon His own mercy and will, Ephesians 1:4ff), Jesus says He is to lose none. ** The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 51 "It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature." CCC 52 God, who "dwells in unapproachable light", wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son. By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity. ** The divine order is clear: the work of God first, the response of man second. ** And this is absolutely consistent with Catholic theology.** What could be more clear? What could be more glorious than to see the power of the Savior who is truly able to save? Yet these words strike at any religious system that gives place to the will of man rather than the will of God. Men, so concerned about their "freedom," trample under foot the freedom and sovereignty of God. ** Yet another misrepresentation among a mulitude of misrepresentations that belie Whites anti-Catholic bias. CCC 143. "By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his WILL to God.[Cf. DV 5.] With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, 'the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5, Rom 16:26)** When the Lord mentions the unbelief of the Jews, He goes on to contrast their unbelief with the belief of His sheep. They "hear" the Master’s voice. There were unbelievers right there who "heard" what Jesus said, but they did not "hear" what Jesus was saying. The play on words speaks to those who see, but do not see; who hear, but do not hear and understand. The sheep not only know their Master’s voice, but they are known by the Master. Jesus says He knows His sheep. This makes Mr. Akin’s position even more untenable, for when the Lord Jesus casts away from Him the ungodly at the judgment recorded in Matthew 7:23 ** He also says that not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 7:21). ** He does not say "I once knew you, but I do not any longer," but instead, "I never knew you!" How could Jesus ever say this to one who was once one of His sheep? ** Notice that Jesus doesn't say that the goats weren't believers, too! The difference, which White neglected to mention, is that the sheep and goats were separated on the basis of their actions, not merely their belief. ** Conclusion Mr. Akin has given his allegiance to an authority outside of Scripture, that being the Roman Catholic magisterium. That authority does not accurately and rightly present the truths Christ and His Apostles gave to us in the Word of God. ** Mr. White has never been able to prove from Scripture that the "Word of God" is restricted to only that which is written; indeed, if that were the case, Christianity would have been lost for the first 400 years. Anyway, CCC 86 says that the magisterium is not superior to Scripture, but is "its servant" The Word of God is not restricted to what was written down, but handed down orally, as Paul told the Thessalonians. White thinks the Bible is the sole rule of faith, but the Bible can't even tell us which books belong in it! Why? Because the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, established what the Bible actually is.** As a result, Mr. Akin, even when faced with these tremendous passages, does not "hear" the message of Christ found in them. Instead, he hears a different shepherd, and follows a different leader. The result is a denial of the perfection of the work of Christ, and the sovereignty of God. ** Mr. Akin follows the Christ and God who established an infallible church 2000 years ago, with Peter as its head (Mt 16:16-18) and promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit forever (Jn 16:14)** back | home | |