I bought and read this book because I wanted to gain some insight into how Catholics understand future salvation. In particular how they relate the concepts of judgment and salvation together with respect to faith and works using bible verses.

• Link: Amazon
• Length: 154
• Difficulty: Easy-Popular
• Topic: Topical, Salvation
• Audience: Mainstream Christians
• Published: 2001

I didn’t get what I was hoping for. I wrote a post on salvation in the New Testament, but I will continue to do some more thinking on my own.

Otherwise the book gave me some more understanding of various Catholic beliefs and practices. From this point of view I found it helpful just to be reminded to slow down and not jump to conclusions. I learn’t about other passages of the bible I might not be aware of, etc.

This post is one of my book reviews.

Contents – Overview

• Introduction: On Words and Word-Fights
• 1. Salvation Past, Present, and Future
• 2. Temporal and Eternal Salvation
• 3. Two Other Kinds of Salvation
• 4. Doing Penance
• 5. Indulgences
• 6. A Tiptoe through TULIP
• 7. Resisting and Cooperating with God
• 8. Faith, Works, and Boasting
• 9. Justification and Ecumenism

Main points

The book starts of discussing salvation with respect to various tenses. Past, present and future. I’m in full agreement. My blog series on apostolic mindset covers this.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2.8-9)

Akin highlights two different ways people are punished for their sin. Temporally and Eternally. Punishment in this world and in the world to come. Again I agree. I’ve seen this concept in Romans in addition to the passages he quotes. God expresses his wrath at sin now by giving people up to their sin (Rom 1.24,26; cf. Rom 1.18). He also will express his wrath in the future (Rom 2.8; 5.9; cf. 1 Thes 1.10).

The main issue I see here is that our suffering is not always a direct result of our own sin, rather that we live in a fallen world. We may think it is because of our sin, but that may not be the case.

Further to his argument, Akin uses the concept of temporal punishment to expound the idea of temporal salvation and atonement. I’m uncomfortable with the idea that anything other than Christ’s death can atone for sin and take care of the punishment we deserve. Still, I have to account for this verse.

6 By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil. (Prov 16.6)

In the next chapter he talks about something called ‘middle salvation’. He uses a number of passages like the one below to show people have a role in other peoples salvation. Of course! Evangelism!

22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. (1 Cor 9.22)

Akin says the language ‘rubs many Protestants the wrong way’. Not in my experience. Then he talks about ‘general salvation’. On face value he seems to be using the concept as a catch all for everything he hasn’t defined already.

Akin says the whole idea of the Catholic practice of penance has to do with their concept of temporal punishment, not eternal punishment. This is a read my lips comment, ‘Catholics are not trying to pay off the eternal debt of their sins by doing penance. Christ paid all that off in one fell swoop almost two thousand years ago. No more payment of the eternal debt of our sins is needed. No more payment of the eternal debt of our sins is possible.’ Catholics do penance to improve their ‘fellowship’ with God, to attempt to alleviate temporal punishments and to express grief at their own sin.

I’m uncomfortable with this topic, but here we go. ‘Indulgences are party of the Catholic Church’s official teaching’. ‘An indulgence is the Church’s lessening of the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins may be forgiven.’ The tradition is based on these principles:

1. Sin results in guilt and punishment (Full agreement).
2. Punishments are both temporal and eternal (I agree, with above noted issue).
3. Temporal punishments may remain when a sin is forgiven (I’m uneasy with this. I think it better to keep the two inseparable).
4. God blesses some people as a reward to others (I think there is an issue of God’s justice to consider here. There may be exceptions, but there is the rule).
5. God remits temporal penalties suffered by some as a reward to others (Above and here comes purgatory).
6. God remits temporal punishments through the church. (I will never accept any man, woman or church to act as an intermediary between me and my God. He called me personally. I believe in my heart Christ’s death has secured direct and free access. Period. I’ll never settle for anything less or encourage others otherwise.)
7. God blesses departed Christians as a reward to living Christians (Again the justice issue).

I think I need to highlight once more the main issue I see here is that our suffering is not always a direct result of our own sin, rather it could simply be a consequence of living in a fallen world. We may think our suffering is because of our sin, but that may not be the case. I think this leads to a key distinction between how Catholics and Protestants think.

When a Catholic experiences suffering they are prone to think it is because of their own sin. They may think their eternal punishment is dealt with on the cross, but they are likely to do penance and get some indulgences to reduce their temporal punishment.

The Protestant is less likely to establish a casual link between their suffering and their sin.  We live in a fallen world. S#&% happens. God’s using is to grow us. Or whatever. The idea of temporal punishment not as likely to come into their mind. The Catholic practices of penance and indulgences even less so.

Akin has a chapter devoted to TULIP. He discusses Calvinists and Arminians. According to Akin Catholics are likely to agree with Total Depravity. I have issues with the concept myself, but okay. Catholics may or may not agree with Unconditional Election. Limited atonement. Akin seems to tend closer to the Calvinists here. Catholics agree with irresistible grace. Catholics affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation, yet do not go on to final salvation. He has a Thomistic version of TULIP.

The next chapter is on cooperation. Ever heard of the terms ‘monergism’ or ‘synergism’? I found his discussion here on the scriptures use of the synergize word group quite illuminating. It is often rendered ‘working with’ in English.

6 Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Cor 6.1)

Do a word search in the NT and have a look to see how it is used. Synergism is biblical, but I’m not so sure Paul uses it as Akin’s seems to here when he relates it to cooperating with God for a persons own salvation.

Akin has a little look at ‘faith’, ‘works’ and ‘boasting’ language. The Roman Catholics sure seem to have picked up on the New Perspective interpretation of ‘works of law’ and variations of our interpretations of Romans 1-4 and Galatians 2. He looks into the relationship between James and Paul on justification.

Akin’s last chapter runs through the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic church and the Lutheran World Federation. They are not best of buddies, but I’m grateful they made some moves towards communicating with one another and reconciliation for past grievances.

Recommendation

At lot of the book uses ‘Catholics this’, ‘Protestants that’ rhetoric. He frequently highlights that Protestants have really misunderstood what the Catholics are talking about when they speak about salvation. I think he is right.

I see the primary value of this book is to learn what Catholics really believe and particularly to see what bible verses, passages and concepts are used to back themselves up.

---

Copyright © Joshua Washington and thescripturesays, 2016. All Rights Reserved.

Save

Save

Save