|
F e a t u r e A r t i c l e
FATALLY FLAWED THINKING
By JAMES AKIN
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 7
 July 1993 
|
|
|
MANY people think overt anti-Catholicism
is found only among elderly, anti-intellectual Fundamentalists. Not
so. One younger Fundamentalist author, by no means anti-intellectual,
shows his anti-Catholicism publicly by refusing to shake hands with
Catholic debate opponents or to pray the Lord's Prayer with Catholics.
He has been known to walk off the stage when an ecumenical prayer
is offered by a Catholic.
His name is James White, and he is a Calvinist who directs Alpha and
Omega Ministries, an Arizona-based apologetics group that offers advice
on dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, atheists, and Catholics.
Small as it is, Alpha and Omega distributes some of the more soberly
written anti-Catholic literature published today.[White might protest
that he is not anti-Catholic because he loves Catholics and only wants
to help them, but it is fair to describe his literature as anti-Catholic
since it attacks Catholicism as a "system" and tries to
convince people to leave the Catholic Church.]
White believes Catholics must disown their faith and embrace "true"
Christianity. He does not regard them as Christians, which is perhaps
why he has refused at times to shake hands or pray with them in front
of audiences.[While at home he presumably would be willing to shake
the hand of a Catholic repairman or mailman.] White declares this
belief in his most popular anti-Catholic book, The Fatal Flaw:
"[A]ll who hold to biblical authority . . . refuse to the Catholic
system the name 'Christian,' for one cannot truly own Christ as Savior
and Lord when one denies the complete efficacy and power of his atoning
blood!"[James White, The Fatal Flaw (Southbridge,
Massachusetts: Crowne Publications, 1990), 151. The many conservative
Protestant Bible scholars who regard Catholics as Christians would
reject White's implication that they do not hold to biblical authority.
White might argue that some individual Catholics are Christians, but
only because they do not believe or apply the gospel of their Church
but White's gospel instead. They would be saved in spite of their
Catholicism, not because of it. But anyone who knowingly rejects the
Church's gospel in favor of White's is not a Catholic in the proper
sense, and that means that those who are Catholics in the
proper sense are not Christians in White's view.]
Catholics deny the complete efficacy and power of Christ's blood,
White argues, because they believe in purgatory, the sacrifice of
the Mass, and indulgences. He says these are means of atonement outside
of Christ's atonement, and their existence implies Christ's blood
was not sufficient for us. This is what White identifies as Catholicism's
"fatal flaw." "Here then is the fatal flaw of Romanism:
The Church of Rome teaches a gospel that is devoid of the all-sufficient
and finished work of Jesus Christ and therefore declares that there
are ways of expiation, atonement, [and] forgiveness that are outside
of and distinct from the atonement of Jesus Christ."[White,
156. This is the first time White states the central thesis of his
book. It is disappointing that a book titled The Fatal Flaw
does not give a clear statement of the flaw until two-thirds of the
way through itself. Even then White's claim must be read carefully
to be understood. If taken in isolation, it would appear White thinks
Catholic teaching is "devoid of the . . . work of Jesus Christ,"
meaning Catholics have nothing to say about the work of Christ. But
anyone who walks into a Catholic church and sees the crucifix hanging
above the altar or who looks at the stations of the cross knows the
work of Christ is central to Catholic life and worship. White knows
this too, which is why his claim must be read carefully. He does not
mean Catholic teaching is utterly devoid of the work of Christ, but
that it does not view Christ's work as being "all-sufficient
and finished."]
To back up his claim White must show that the Mass, purgatory, and
indulgences offer "ways of expiation, atonement, [and] forgiveness"
outside of Christ's atonement--that they add to the work of Christ.
His book ultimately fails because White is not able to prove this
point.
To show the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences add to what Christ has
done for us, he appeals to a particular Calvinist doctrine called
"limited atonement." This is the teaching that Christ did
not die for all men but only for the elect--those who will end
up with God in heaven. Limited atonement is the most controversial
of the "five points of Calvinism,"[The five points of
Calvinism are often taught using the well-known TULIP acrostic: Total
depravity of man, Unconditional election by God, Limited
atonement by Christ, Irresistible grace in conversion, and
Perseverance of the saints.] and even many Calvinists deny
it.[Those who deny it are called Amyraldians or four-point Calvinists,
in contrast to five-point Calvinists, who accept all of TULIP.]Since
few Christians believe in the doctrine of limited atonement, the potential
of White's book is diminished. Only five-point Calvinists will accept
one of its key premises,[In personal correspondence with me, White
states he does not care that he has limited the potential of the book,
saying, "It is not my desire to write a 'popular' book that would
find a wide audience. . . . Instead, I desire simply to present God's
truth, even if that truth is not popular in my culture at this time
in history." He adds, "the Reformed understanding of the
atonement is the only view that can properly address the Roman Catholic
concept of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice." This is an
implicit admission his argument against the Mass will not work properly
without limited atonement.] and only they are likely to accept fully
its overall argument.
Furthermore, White's use of limited atonement also limits the number
who count as Christians. He wishes to exclude only Catholics and possibly
Eastern Orthodox from the family of Christians, but his argument requires
him to exclude many more people if he applies it consistently. It
requires him to deny the name Christian to anyone who is not a five-point
Calvinist.
White says Catholics are not Christians because "one cannot truly
own Christ as Savior and Lord when one denies the complete efficacy
and power of his atoning blood!"[White, 151.] By the complete
efficacy and power of Christ's blood White has in mind the standard
Calvinist view that the atonement automatically saves all those for
whom it is offered, so men do not need to add anything such as faith
or love to it to be saved.[White would argue that if anything,
including faith or love, needs to be added, then "works-salvation"
is true. Since works-salvation is not true, White sees this as reason
for rejecting the premise which led to it. He mistakenly assumes that
any action one does, including acts of interior faith, count as one
of the works the apostle Paul says cannot save us. He is wrong. Paul
explicitly states that he is denying "works of law" (Rom.
3:20, 28, Gal. 2:16, 3:2, 5, 10), and numerous references prove the
law he is talking about is the Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:14, 17, 20b, 25-28,
3:21, 28-29, 5:13-14, Gal. 2:14-16, 3:10, 17, 4:21, 5:3). What Paul
says is that we cannot be justified by "works of the Law."
He does not mean to include acts of faith. Christ specifically tells
one woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace" (Luke
7:50).] If men do need to add something, Christ's blood does
not have complete efficacy and power.
This is where limited atonement comes in. White reasons that if Christ's
atonement automatically saves those for whom it is offered, and if
it is offered for all men, then all men receive final salvation. But
the existence of hell indicates not everyone will be saved, so the
atonement must not be for everyone. It must be limited, offered for
some people, but not for all.
Most Protestants deny this and claim the atonement was made for everyone.
Since most Protestants also believe some people will be lost, five-point
Calvinists claim they must say the atonement is not sufficient in
and of itself, that it does not automatically save those for whom
it is offered, and if a person says the atonement does not automatically
save those for whom it is offered, then, according to five-point Calvinism,
he is denying the complete efficacy and power of Christ's blood.[This
is the standard charge five-point Calvinists make against those who
disagree with them and yet believe in hell.]
White says such people "cannot truly own Christ as Savior and
Lord" and therefore must be refused the name "Christian."
It turns out that anyone who denies limited atonement and believes
in hell must not be a Christian. Almost all traditional Protestants[Everyone
except five-point Calvinists.] deny limited atonement, so almost all
traditional Protestants must not be Christians.
That White does not say that only five-point Calvinists are Christians
shows he is employing a double-standard. He has failed to think through
the implications of his argument.[In correspondence with me White
tries to avoid the conclusion that Protestants who deny limited atonement
are not Christians by arguing that they do not add such things as
the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences to the atonement. This argument
does not work because it does not matter what one adds to the atonement.
If one adds anything then, according to five-point Calvinism,
one is denying the complete efficacy and power of the atonement. If
rejecting limited atonement means something must be added to Christ's
work, as five-point Calvinists claim, then those who reject limited
atonement do not count as Christians on White's definition. If his
argument works against Catholics, it works against anyone who, in
White's sense, "denies the complete efficacy and power of his
atoning blood," Protestants included.]
Yet does the Church reject the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice?
No. White himself admits one must have faith and repentance in order
to be saved, so why aren't these counted as additions to the work
of Christ? White would answer they are not true additions because
they are gifts of God. "[T]he truth is that both repentance
and faith are the gifts of God. Man is not capable of repenting
or believing outside of the supernatural enablement of God."[White,
141; emphasis in original.]
In White's view faith and repentance do not count as additions since
the work of Christ makes them possible. The Catholic Church agrees
with this wholeheartedly. The Council of Trent excommunicated "anyone
[who] says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost
and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant
as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon
him."[Decree on Justification, canon 3.]
The Catholic Church teaches that faith, hope, love, and repentance
are gifts of God, so on White's definition they do not qualify as
additions to the work of Christ and the Church is not open to White's
charge that it rejects an all-sufficient view of Christ's work. [White
might respond to this by pointing out that some Catholics, known as
Molinists, claim God's enabling grace does not always produce faith
and repentance in the sinner, meaning God's grace would not be all-sufficient
in this way. But other Catholics, known as Thomists, claim God's enabling
grace always produces faith and repentance in the sinner. White's
argument would at most work against only Molinists but would not affect
Thomists, meaning it would not work against the teaching of the Church
itself, which allows both Thomism and Molinism.]
That the Church teaches love is a gift of God is also important. True
love manifests itself in acts of love--good works--meaning
good works are gifts of God and therefore do not count as additions
to Christ's work.[Ironically, while proving faith is not an addition
to the work of Christ, White quotes a passage which proves love and
thus good works are not additions. White insists "the Scriptures
are . . . plain in teaching that faith is a supernatural action and
the gift of God himself. Paul confessed that 'the grace of our Lord
was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that
are in Christ Jesus'" (White, 143, citing 1 Tim. 1:14). If
this passage proves faith is a gift of God, it also proves love and
thus good works are gifts from God and not additions to the work of
Christ.] White's failure to understand this leads him to make statements
such as this: "The idea that there can be any merit before
God outside of Jesus Christ boggles the Christian's mind."[White,
155; emphasis in original.] And he is right. It does boggle
the Christian's mind--Catholic minds included!
The Catholic Church does not claim there is any merit before
God outside of Christ. Merit is only possible for those in
Christ [For this reason, the Council of Trent states that "nothing
which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace
of justification" (Decree on Justification, ch. 8). See
also Ott, 266f.] because only someone with the grace of God has the
supernatural virtue of love. To quote Augustine, "[O]nly grace
works every one of our good merits in us, and God, when he crowns
our merits, crowns nothing other than his own gifts."[Augustine,
Epistles 194:5:19. The Catholic doctrine of merit is virtually
identical to the Protestant doctrine of rewards. The term meritum
was introduced in the second century as a Latin translation for the
Greek word for reward.] But what about White's charges against the
Mass, purgatory, and indulgences?
White attacks the Mass by claiming that, since Catholics refer to
it as a sacrifice, it must add to Christ's work. Catholics deny this
(which White admits), saying the sacrifice of the Mass merely re-presents
to God Christ's work on the cross. It does not add anything to that
work. To refute this White appeals to limited atonement. "If
Christ's death actually saves those for whom it is made, then obviously
the Mass is in contradiction to the work of Christ for there would
be no need of a 're-presentation' of his death since those for whom
the atonement is made are perfected thereby."[White, 132;
emphasis in original.] But two pages later White admits Christ's work
is still being presented to God. "His work of intercession is
not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation
of the work of the cross before the Father... [B]y presenting
his finished work on Calvary before the Father, he assures the application
of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes."[Ibid.,
134f; emphasis in original. White makes the same claim on pages 150
and 156.]
This shows White's argument, that the Mass adds to Christ's sacrifice,
is wrong. The Mass does not accrue any new merit on Christ's part;
it serves as the means by which Christ's work on the cross is applied
to us, just as in White's scheme it is applied to us through Christ's
intercessory ministry apart from the Mass. The fact that Christ's
merits remain to be applied to us does not mean one is adding to the
sacrifice of the cross, just that the results of the cross are being
played out over time.
The Church agrees that, through Christ's intercessory ministry in
heaven, his work on the cross is presented to the Father. The visible,
earthly outworking of that presentation is the Mass. When Mass is
offered, we plug into Christ's on-going intercessory ministry in which
his work is presented to the Father and its benefits are applied to
us.[It is ironic that White criticizes the Catholic teaching that
Christ's work is re-presented to the Father. He admits Christ is in
heaven presenting his work to God. He thus refutes his own position,
just as he did when he tried to limit Christianity to Calvinistic
Protestantism.]
White also fails when he attacks the Catholic teaching on purgatory.
This doctrine is based on the recognitions that sin makes one subject
to temporal and eternal penalties and that when God removes one he
does not always remove the other. If some temporal penalties remain
at death.
White argues purgatory denigrates Christ's work because it implies
Christ's satisfaction was not all-sufficient. He asserts that when
God forgives a sin he removes both its eternal and temporal consequences,
but he cites no verses to support his claim. As a Protestant he is
bound by sola scriptura and must be able to prove every point
from Scripture alone. Unless he can name passages of Scripture to
prove temporal penalties are always remitted with eternal penalties,
his attack fails.
But he cannot name any such verses because the Bible indicates temporal
penalties can remain when eternal penalties are forgiven.[White
fails to rebut or even mention any passages Catholics cite to show
this, though he is aware of them.] When Nathan the prophet confronts
David over his adultery, we read, "Then David said to Nathan,
'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan answered David: 'The Lord
on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you
have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you
must surely die'" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God indicates he has
forgiven David's sin, even to the point David will not even die a
temporal death for it, but David is still going to suffer the loss
of his son, and he will suffer other temporal calamities as well.[See
2 Sam. 12:7-12 for a list of the particulars.]
Another example of a temporal penalty remaining after forgiveness
is physical death. Even people who have been forgiven of their sins
end up dying, and they die because of original sin. Since physical
death is a temporal rather than an eternal penalty (it is not eternal
because we will all be resurrected), temporal penalties remain even
after forgiveness. Protestants should acknowledge this point since
they in fact teach that physical death is a penalty for original sin.
Catholics have grounds for claiming temporal penalties of a sin can
remain even after forgiveness.[A Protestant might object, as White
does in correspondence with me, that these are intended to teach the
sinner a lesson, making them acts of discipline. There are three responses
to this: (1) Nothing in the text says they are disciplines. (2) A
Catholic can be perfectly happy saying they are disciplinary rather
than retributive punishments. (3) There is nothing wrong with calling
them punishments, since disciplining a child is universally spoken
of as punishing a child (for instance, "My son disobeyed me,
so I punished him by grounding him for a week").] White's claim
that all the penalties of sin are forgiven at once is simply unbiblical.
As Greg Krehbiel, a Protestant who has written for This Rock,
points out in a privately-circulated manuscript, "This is the
error at the heart of the 'health and wealth gospel,' vis., 'Jesus
took my poverty and sickness away so I should be well and rich.'"
James White attacks indulgences by saying they add to the work of
Christ. According to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, the temporal
penalties on one person can be lessened because someone else has pleased
God. Suppose a father prays for his son, who is seriously ill, and
says, "Dear Lord, if I have pleased you then please heal my son!"
The father is asking for healing as a reward for his having pleased
God. Indulgences work on this principle: God helps one person as a
way of rewarding another.
What biblical evidence is there for this? A great deal. We can show
from Scripture that God sometimes lessens a temporal penalty on one
person because somebody else has pleased him. Just as one of the most
apologetically useful examples of temporal punishments remaining
comes from the case of David's and Bathsheba's first son, the one
who died, so one of the best examples of temporal punishments being
lessened comes from the case of their second son, Solomon.
Solomon's heart was led astray from the Lord toward the end of his
life, and God promised to rip the kingdom away from him as a result.
But look at what God said: "Since this is what you want, and
you have not kept my covenant and my statutes which I enjoined on
you, I will deprive you of the kingdom and give it to your servant.
I will not do this during your lifetime, however, for the sake of
your father David; it is your son whom I will deprive. Nor will I
take away the whole kingdom. I will leave your son one tribe for the
sake of my servant David and of Jerusalem, which I have chosen"
(1 Kgs. 11:11-13).
God lessened the temporal punishment on Solomon in two ways: by deferring
the removal of the kingdom until the days of Solomon's son and by
leaving one tribe, Benjamin, under the control of Judah.
God is clear on why he does this: It is not for Solomon's sake, but
"for the sake of . . . David." If David had not pleased
God and if God had not promised him certain things concerning his
kingdom, then the kingdom would have been removed during Solomon's
reign. If not for the sake of David and Jerusalem, God would have
removed the entire kingdom and would not have allowed Judah to keep
the tribe of Benjamin. This is an example of God lessening a punishment
for the sake of one of his saints.[Other examples are easy to think
of. In Genesis 18:16-33 God promised Abraham that if there were a
certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he would defer the destruction
of the city for the sake of the righteous. In Romans 11 Paul tells
of the special place the Jews have as chosen people of God because
of the patriarchs. He says, "In respect to the gospel, the Jews
are enemies of God for your sake; in respect to the election, they
are beloved by him because of the patriarchs. God's gifts and his
call are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:28-29). This concept is understood
in Jewish theology as well. Jewish theologians talk about "the
merits of the fathers" as a way of explaining precisely this
point. The idea is that the patriarchs pleased God and as a result
inherited certain promises as a reward. God fulfills these promises
and in the process ends up treating later Jews more gently than they
otherwise would have deserved. The idea of the merits of the fathers
is essentially the same as the Catholic idea of the "treasury
of merits." Both postulate a class of individuals, the Old Testament
figures on the one hand and Christ and the saints on the other, who
have pleased God and whom God chooses to reward in a way that involves
lessening temporal punishments on others.]
Does God's lessening of one person's punishment as a way of rewarding
someone else add anything to what Christ did? No, since love--the
thing which pleases God and moves him to give the reward in the first
place--is itself a gift of God.[As White acknowledges in correspondence
with me.] Loving actions which please God are not additions to the
work of Christ, but fruits of the work of Christ. The atonement is
not added to if God rewards one person by helping another. Thus the
doctrine of indulgences is not subject to White's claim that it adds
to the atonement.
In the final analysis, James White's book fails because it does not
prove its central claim, that the Catholic Church adds to the work
of Christ. It fails because limited atonement fails. The irony is
that The Fatal Flaw itself is fatally flawed.
James Akin, a convert from Evangelicalism, is as a
contributing editor to This Rock.
|
