I came across the above video in which James White is discussing and commenting on another video hosted by Candace Owens, in which two people are having a conversation about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. On the Catholic side is George Farmer, who is Candace Owens’ husband; and on the Protestant side is Allie Beth Stuckey. That video can be seen here. James White obviously takes the side of Protestantism; but apparently he feels that Allie Beth Stuckey hasn’t done a good enough job of refuting Catholicism; so he is adding his own bit to finish the job! It is about an hour and a half long, so I will briefly comment on a few highlights. The main argument that he brings against Catholicism relates to sola scriptura (scripture alone). At around 12 minutes into the video he begins to argue in favor of that as follows. I am going to skip some of the context in the interest of brevity:
“Okay so here Allie Beth was asked, ‘What is your hang-ups? What are the main problems you have with Roman Catholicism?’ And so it started off. And every debate I have done, when you push far enough, it will come back to sola scriptura; and what we need to recognize is that 99% of the time Rome has a positive claim it itself is making; but they don’t want to put that one out for examination. They want to put the onus on everybody else to prove their ultimate statement; and then if they feel they successfully refute that, then their ultimate statement becomes the default. Let me say something: I believe in sola scriptura. Scripture is the soul infallible rule of faith for the church, because it is the only example of theonustos―God breathed Revelation―in possession of the church. Since the church is a bride of Christ, she wants to hear the voice of Christ. The only place she has the voice of Christ, is in scripture. So the nature of scripture is what makes it absolutely unique. There is nothing in Tradition, or in church teaching that is theonustos, that is God breathed. That is very, very, very important. … So anyways, we are talking about the issues of what sola scriptura is, and what it is not; and what you need to understand is that Roman Catholicism has a positive position: I call it sola ecclesia―the church alone. And they say, no no no no … a three-legged stool. … Please listen, think with me for a moment. In Roman Catholicism, what is the ultimate authority in determining what is and what is not scripture? The Magisterium of the church. In Roman Catholicism, who has ultimate authority for interpreting what is in scripture? The Magisterium of the church, headed by the Pope. In all Catholicism, who has the ultimate authority of determining what is and what is not Tradition? … Magisterium of the church. Who gets to interpret that tradition? Magisterium of the church. So you don’t have three legs, you have one leg. The church determines what is and what is not scripture, and what scripture does and does not mean; what is and what is not tradition, and what tradition does and does not mean. That is sola ecclesia. That is your ultimate authority. You can’t question that. There is no way around it. … And that they will not defend; but that is what they will always argue. And no matter how hard they try to argue against that definition, they will end up proving it.”
There are two issues with that. The first is, scripture is capable of more than one interpretation. If two or more people disagree on how scripture is to be interpreted, who decides which one is right, and which one is wrong? Protestantism is “free for all”. In Protestantism, there is no ultimate authority to make that decision―hence Protestantism has splintered off into thousands of sects, each having their own “private interpretation” of scripture―and each of them claiming that they are the right one. The Bible tells us that scripture is not for “private interpretation,” but that “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:19-21). Catholicism is superior to Protestantism, because it does have that authoritative central body that can arbitrate such disagreements. The Protestant churches can’t all be right. Jesus established one church, not 5,000. He told his disciples to be one (John 17), and his church likewise was meant to be one fold, and one shepherd (John 10:16). Protestantism is the opposite of that. The concepts of Protestantism and sola scriptura actually promote division, disunity, and “private interpretation” within Christianity, because it makes everyone his own private interpreter of scripture, with no central authority to arbitrate between the disagreements. It is the very antithesis of that “unity” that Jesus required of his disciples and of the church. That makes Protestantism a heresy, and not ordained of God.
The other issue with his comments is that he identifies the Catholic Church as sola ecclesia (church alone), which also is incorrect. I am not a Catholic, and I don’t claim expertise in Catholic theology; but as far as I know, that does not define their theological position correctly. The Catholic Church recognizes the authoritative nature of scripture (and tradition). What the Catholic Church does claim is to have the final say in matters of dispute, controversy, or disagreement that should arise in the church on how scripture should be interpreted―which is not the same thing as the accusation he brings. And the number of instances in its history that the Catholic Church has intervened to arbitrate in such disputes have been very rare. The way James White has expressed it, makes it sound like the Catholic Church is standing over people’s shoulders as they read the Bible, and tells them how each verse should be read, understood, and interpreted; which of course is not the case. The Catholic Church intervenes only when there is a dispute, or a serious controversy concerning an interpretation of scripture―which it has every right to do―and the instances where it has done that has been very rare in the history of the Catholic Church. So the Catholic theological position on that is a “three-legged stool”―Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. His theological position, on the other hand, has no “stool” at all! It is a “free for all!” He likes to call it “scripture alone;” but who’s interpretation of scripture? Who says that his interpretation is the right one, and not somebody else’s―including that of the Catholic Church? Moving on, at around 26 minutes into the video he starts a discussion on the subject of the Trinity, of which the following is the initial transcript:
“The trinity is a biblical doctrine. I have written a book called The Forgotten Trinity. My entire thesis was, we believe this because we believe all of scripture. We believe sola scriptura, and tota scriptura … you will believe the doctrine of the Trinity. The Roman Catholic argument has always been that you need to have the church to believe in the Trinity; and so I am extremely sensitive to any compromise on that subject, where you say, well you know, the Trinity is not found … actually it is, it is forced on us. The Trinity teaches plainly the truth that there is one true God. It teaches plainly that there are three divine persons identifying each as Yahweh; and then it distinguishes between those divine persons. That is the doctrine of the Trinity. Those are the three biblical doctrines that create the doctrine of the Trinity itself. And so I think we need to be very, very careful that when we talk about sola scriptura, we are focusing first and foremost on the nature of scripture, its uniqueness, and hence its authority in the church. And the Trinity is a biblical doctrine forced upon us by the Bible. The terminology is used to express biblical teaching to people, so it will be understood. But the doctrine itself is very, very, very much a biblical doctrine.”
That is a rather misleading and deceptive argument. The Bible does indeed talk about the beings of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But neither the word Trinity, nor the Trinitarian theology that he likes to associate with it, is found anywhere in the Bible. The Bible tells us that there is such a thing as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It also tells us that they are united together as “one”. But it does not attempt to describe how they are united as “one”―which is what his Trinitarian theology attempts to do. The Bible tells us that they are united as “one;” and then it goes on to say that his disciples are to be made “one” with them, in the same way that the Father and the Son are “one” with each other; and then it goes on further to say that they are to even inherit the same identical glory that the Father and the Son have, in order that they may be made “one” with them:
John 17:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
No distinction is made between the oneness of the Father and the Son, and the oneness of the disciples with them. That knocks a massive hole in his Trinitarian theology which it cannot recover from. The Bible teaches that the Father is greater than the Son (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 6:38; 14:28; 20:17); that the Son prays to, and worships the Father; the Father does not worship the Son (Matthew 14:23; 26:36, 39, 42, 44; Mark 1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 11:1; 22:42); that the Father is God over the Son (Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:2-3, 17; 5:20; Colossians 1:2-3; 1 Peter 1:3); and that this is true even after Jesus’ resurrection, glorification, and ascension to heaven (John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:27-28). That makes God the Father a distinct being from the Son; and the supreme Deity over all, including over the Son―now, and for the rest of eternity to come. It is worth quoting these verses in full:
John 20:
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
1 Corinthians 15:
27 For he [the Father] hath put all things under his [the Son’s] feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [the Father] that put all things under him, that God [the Father] may be all in all.
All of that completely wrecks his Trinitarian theology irredeemably―with nothing of it remaining.
Moving on, at 31.45 minutes into the video he gets into a discussion of what constitutes scripture, and who gets to define the canon of scripture. What he has missed there is that there is overwhelming evidence within the Bible of missing scripture in the Bible. I have already discussed that at some length in an earlier blog post which can be seen here.
At around 1.19.39 minutes into the video he starts discussing, or promoting, the Calvinistic heresy of “faith alone,” quoting Paul. That is another topic which I have already discussed at some length in numerous previous blog posts, so I will be brief, and give it a short response here. There is a long answer to that, and short one. The short answer was given by Peter, in these words:
2 Peter 3:
15 … even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
That says it all! No need to add much more to that. The Calvinistic heresies of predestination and faith alone etc. are derived almost exclusively from a few misconstrued writings of Paul―to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible (including the words of Jesus himself), that teach something different. And in Psalm 32, the psalmist is not saying that God forgives sins unconditionally. All sins are forgiven on condition of genuine repentance, as explained in Ezekiel 18:30-32; 33:10-11. Here is a short quote from the video transcript, commenting on Psalm 32:
“Here is what I want you to see: ‘Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account’. Here is my question for any Roman Catholic, or anyone else: ‘Are you the blessed man … ?’ no Roman Catholic can say he is.”
I can’t speak for a Roman Catholic, they will have to speak for themselves. But my answer to that question is Yes, because I have believed in Jesus Christ and repented of my sins, and fulfilled the requirement for obtaining a remission of sins. It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that. And by the way, I have just watched the original video hosted by Candace Owens, and found it quite interesting. That also raises some interesting points that are worth commenting on, which I may do later on when I get the chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment