Robert,

You wrote that , although the Church hasn’t defined what Trent means, She has understood “OR” in the exclusive sense because the CCC referenced Trent by a footnote. On geocentricity one can likewise say that, with John Paul II’s apology to Galileo, the Church has decided that heliocentricity is correct. CCC’s 1257’s footnote 60 lists Trent with merely the council’s year and Denzinger 1618 which doesn’t relate to Trent nor Baptism. Seems that Trent is referenced to provide authenticity to the novelty of the next sentence’s truism implying that Baptism is necessary only for those who have heard the Gospel and asked for it. If it is as you conclude that we are left with only the exclusive sense, how then can any sacrament be valid if one doesn’t desire it but received it anyway? As far out as it now seems I can at least hope that for Here sake the Church will soon affirm the infallibility of Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree and also declare True Faith and Baptism “absolutely” necessary for salvation.

Warren Goddard

R. Sungenis: Warren, allow me to respond to some of your points.

Regarding Trent’s use of “or” in reference to Baptism, I not only mentioned that the CCC referenced Trent in its footnote, I also gave three additional paragraphs from the CCC to defend the exclusive interpretation of “or.” Now, you may not regard the CCC as an infallible document (and neither do I) but my argument didn’t rest on the CCC’s infallibility but on the fact that it was the Church’s only and most recent official statement as to the meaning of “or.” I also said that unless this interpretation officially changes in the future (but which is not likely) then the CCC will remain as our only official statement on the meaning of “or.” Hence, the burden is on those who interpret “or” differently than the CCC.

Second, in order to safely reject the CCC’s official opinion on “or,” you would need to provide an interpretation of “or” from some previous official document which says that “or” is to be understood inclusively. To my knowledge, there is no such official document. All we have heard from the St. Benedict Center is ipse dixit interpretations that “or” must be inclusive based on what the St. Benedict Center believes was the traditional interpretation of “or.” But this only begs the question, since they are using as proof the very thing they are trying to prove. Moreover, they also ignore evidence from tradition that “or” was interpreted in the exclusive sense (e.g., Aquinas).

Third, your analogy with heliocentrism and John Paul II is, I believe, mixing apples and oranges. John Paul II’s speech to the PAS in 1992 was by no means an authoritative statement of the Church’s official stand on heliocentrism. It was merely John Paul II’s unofficial opinion, and in a speech written by someone else (Cardinal Poupard). The speech itself made no definitive statement on whether heliocentrism or geocentrism was the correct cosmology, and was satisfied to say that the whole thing was a “misunderstanding” based on our knowledge of relativity. Not so with the CCC on Baptism. The statements showing that “or” is exclusive and not inclusive are official and definitive, and are not contradicted by any previous statement officially released by the Vatican on this subject.

You ask: “If it is as you conclude that we are left with only the exclusive sense, how then can any sacrament be valid if one doesn’t desire it but received it anyway?”

The answer is, a sacrament is never valid if one does not desire it but receives it anyway, but that is not the specific issue being discussed when Trent uses “or” in Chapter 4 of Session 6. Trent was concerned with times in which water was not available, not with whether one who received water did not also have the desire to be baptized. Trent already assumed that the person receiving the water also had the desire to be baptized. Hence, the answer to Chapter 4’s specific question is: the desire for the water will suffice in instances in which the water is not available.

This is the crux of the whole issue. The St. Benedict Center has wrongly concluded that Trent adds “the desire thereof” in order to fill in the contingency of faith. But Trent and the Church’s other official documents have already stated that faith (e.g., the “desire”) must be present when the individual is baptized, otherwise the Baptism is not effective. Having already covered the issue of the necessity of faith at Baptism, when Trent then comes to Chapter 4 it is now dealing with another issue, that is, the issue of whether water itself is absolutely necessary if no water is available. The answer is no.  The need for water is not absolute. The desire for the water can suffice in cases where water is not immediately available.

Trent’s answer to that specific question is very wise. In a religion that preaches the infinite mercy of God above and beyond the material world, how could such a religion base an individual’s salvation – an individual who has already shown his faith in God and desire to do what He requires – purely on whether he received material water or not? This reduces salvation to a mechanical process. Granted, in the normal flow of things, God requires water to be the vehicle of his grace, but when water is not available the mercy of God allows the desire for water to suffice for the express purpose of showing that salvation is not a mechanical process but is, indeed, the result of a willing heart that wants to submit to Him but does not have all the required accouterments to do so. THAT is the religion of Catholicism. Catholicism is not some rigid and unforgiving machine that won’t produce the desired product unless one puts in the proper coinage. That kind of rigidity and uncompromising legalism is exactly the kind of religion that Jesus rejected. It is the world’s religions that live by legalistic rigidity, not Catholicism. As the CCC says, God is greater than his sacraments and thus He will allow exceptions to the rule. As Jesus said for the Sabbath so we can apply it to Baptism: Baptism was made for man, not man for Baptism.

God be with you.

Robert Sungenis

A few months ago I read on your website that for us traditional catholics to request obama's birth certificate I believe I even signed a petition for this. I want to know the reasons (and most importantly the catholic stance behind asking his birth certificate because some tea party activists are calling us "crazy birthers" that some republican already confirmed that obama was indeed born in hawaii and that we are crazy in trying to continue to ask for obama's birth certificate. I did not know what to say or how to defend us that were asking for his birth certificate. Please e-mail me to Ms. Cecilia Narvaez to jesmaryjosprayer@att.net and please explain to me the reasons why we insisted ain getting obama's birth certificate and what I can say in the future to defend us "crazy birthers". Thank you and GOD bless you, and DEO gratias.

R. Sungenis: Cecilia, I don't remember asking our patrons to request Obama's birth certificate; rather, I believe we put a notice up that some Catholics were circulating a petition to do so. We made no recommendation pro or con regarding that petition. Be that as it may, those who were circulating the petition have every right to ask for Obama's birth certificate since the Constitution is clear that only an American born citizen can be elected President of the United States. If there exists the least suspicion that Obama was not born in the United States, then it is only reasonable for loyal American citizens to seek proof of his natural born citizenship since the consequences of him acting as President illegitimately would cause catastrophic damage to our nation, since every act he officially performed would be immediately nullified. To quell this suspicion, only a certified birth certificate from the state of Hawaii will suffice. We have every right to demand this proof so as to safeguard our nation from potential chaos. For those who are against demanding his birth certificate, they should be told that they have nothing to lose in asking for it and everything to gain by obtaining it, and thus their objections are without merit.

Dear Robert,

Thank your for your work on Geocentrism...it is greatly appreciated and you have done a fine job, especially with Volume I.

In my college Physics book "Physics" by Cutnell/Johnson, 3rd edition on Page 905 the connection b/n MM and Einstein is drawn out. I only quote it b/c it might be useful to you:

During the years 1883 - 1887, however, the American scientists A. A. Michelson and e. W. Morley carried out a serious of famous experiments whose results were not consistent with the ether theory. Their results indicated that the speed of light is indeed the same in a inertial reference frames and does not depend on the motion of the observer relative to the source of the light. These experiments, and others, led eventually to the demise of the ether theory and the acceptance of the theory of relativity.

My question is in regards to the "verification of time dilation" and how it is explained with geocentirism:

A striking confirmation of time dilation was achieved in 1971 by an experiment carried out by J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating. They transported very precise cesium-beam atomic clocks around the world on commercial jets. Since the speak of a jet is considerably less than c, the time-dilation effect is extremely small. However, the atomic clocks were accurate to about +- 10^-9s, so the effect could be measured. The clocks were in the air for 45 hours, and their times were compared to a reference atomic clocks kept on earth. The experimental results revealed that within experimental error, the readings on the clocks on board the planes were different from those on earth by an amount that agreed with the prediction of relativity.

Time dilation has also been confirmed with experiments using subatomic particles called muons. These particles are created high in the atmosphere, at altitudes of about 10,000m. When at rest, muons are short-lived, existing for a time of about 2.2x10^-6s before disintegrating into other particles. With such a short lifetime, these particles could never make it down to the earth's surface, even if they traveled close to the speed of light. However, a large number of muons do reach the earth. The only way they can do so is to live longer because of time dilation. Page 909

I don't think they prove relativity, because, these examples seem to prove absolute motion, first of the jet, then the muron. But how can it be explained if time is not dilated?

Thank you!

Rick

R. Sungenis: Rick, we have a section in Galileo Was Wrong, Volume 1, on both the Hefele-Keating (HK) experiment (see Appendix 5) and the case of the muon. It will show you how HK “adjusted” their results to fit Relativity theory. But ever if there was a discrepancy between the two directions, it doesn’t prove Relativity. HK may have thought they measured “time-dilation” because they had already dispensed with ether and replaced it with Relativity. In that sense, HK were begging the question, since they were only using as proof the very thing they were trying to prove. Like everyone else, they interpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment as “null” because they already assumed, without proof, that the earth was moving 18.5km/sec. The reality is, however, that the universe and its ether is rotating around the earth, and as such, the ether will create a slight resistance for the decay of the cesium atoms. The universe is rotating east to west with its ether, so when HK flew their plane from west to east they created a greater resistance to the decay of the cesium atoms than when they flew east to west. Hence, time wasn’t dilated; rather; the cesium atoms decayed at different rates depending on which direction the clock was flown.

As for the muon or meson, here is an excerpt from GWW, on page 176 of the fifth edition:

The problem with this explanation, of course, is that identical to the “A or B” paradox Dingle demonstrated, the principle of role reversal in Special Relativity will not allow its attempt to secure a preferred frame of reference, namely, the ground-based observer. Relativity purports that time is slowed for the ground-based observer but not the meson-based observer, but this would only be the case if it could somehow be proven that the ground or Earth was immobile, and thus the privileged frame, but it certainly cannot. Again, Relativity, by what appears to be a sort of shell game with the audience, appeals to the principle of a fixed Earth in order to support a relative universe. This paradox demonstrates the hopeless quagmire into which Relativity theory is forced. To speak of “moving clocks slowing down” really means nothing of significance since Relativity neither has a means to prove the object against which the clock is supposedly moving, nor does it have a standard clock from which to judge the time of the moving clock.

Interestingly enough, in the article “The ‘Time Dilation’ of Mesons Re-Examined,” D. T. MacRoberts turns the tables and shows the geocentric results of the meson experiments:

The high-velocity experiments on mesons such as those at CERN, are definite evidence of the mesons’ lifetimes functional relationship to their velocity with respect to the Earth, but have nothing whatsoever to do with the “time dilation” of Special Relativity. The experiments also are yet another “ether-drift” investigation with the usual answer: the velocity of the Earth with respect to a fundamental frame is zero.

Dr. Sungenis,

Thanks again for your time.  There are 3 things I wish to clear up about your last e-mail.

First of all, you mentioned that faith was prescribed in the Mosaic Law.  You may be right, but I'd like to check that out for myself.  Can you sight some references?

R. Sungenis: According to the commentary of the personages that occupied this time of history, faith was a primary element in their relationship with God. See Hebrews 11:23-31. The same faith that Noah and Abraham had (Hebrews 11:1-19), is attributed to Moses. There are many more such passages too numerous to list.

Cliff: Also, you said there was a contradiction in the point of view I was expressing.  To clarify, the point of view was that when a person first believes the gospel and trusts in Christ, there and then, without any works of any kind, that person is right in the sight of God.  However, at some point in the future, at the last day, he will be judged by God according to his works.  At that point, due to the works the Spirit has produced in his life, he will be, in some sense, justified by his works.  Do you still see a contradiction in that?  If so, where?

R. Sungenis: Yes, there remains a contradiction.

First of all, you haven’t demonstrated that faith works separately from works in procuring justification. You have merely assumed that position.

Second, if works can be judged and send someone to hell, why is your faith not judged on the same basis?

Third, you say that “he will be judged by God according to his works” but that is not the issue. The disagreement concerns the result of that judgment. You are claiming that the judgment of works determines whether the person goes to heaven or hell. If that is the case, then his faith didn’t really justify him, otherwise his faith would make a judgment based on works superfluous. Your view seems to be that faith only gets one in the door, but immediately after walking through that door, his justification is now based on his works until he dies. In essence, your view of justification is works-based, not faith-based, since faith is eliminated as the only basis as soon as he walks through the door.

You can’t cover over this anomaly by then saying “in some sense” he is justified by works, since there is only ONE TRUE sense that a person is justified. By using the qualifier “in some sense” you are showing that you see the contradiction and thus you are seeking some way to lessen the power of the judgment of works to actually justify the person. The upshot is this. If you want to believe in “faith alone” as that which justifies, then you cannot have a judgment of works that also justifies. Either faith is alone or it is not alone. You cannot have it both ways. If faith is not alone in justification, then you are on the Catholic side.

Cliff: Finally, if I understood you correctly, you mentioned that "works of the law" excluded in Rom 3:28 must refer only to works in which people try to obligate God and that it does not refer to any other works.  As evidence to support this, you said that otherwise there would be contradiction in Scripture (which I don't see as I mentioned under point 2) and that Rom 4:4 speaks about grace and debt.  I don't honestly see how Rom 4:4 can be taken to imply that "works of the law" in 3:28 cannot refer to any works done under whatever motivation as long as they are according to something commanded in the Law of Moses.  I agree that we can infer from this passage that we don't earn salvation by putting God in debt, but I don't see how we can infer that this means that when Paul says "works of the law" he must be referring only to works done with a motivation to get God in debt.  Perhaps you can explain more what you are seeing in that passage that I'm not. 

Wishing you well.

Cliff

R. Sungenis: I think you misunderstood me. I said that “works of the law” of Romans 3:28 referred to ANY work a man does to acquire justification. I think I even put “ANY” in capital letters to emphasize that point.

What I then said was, since Scripture also says in various places that works are, indeed, required for justification (e.g., Romans 2:13; James 2:21-24), then this means that the “works of the law” in Romans 3-4 which cannot justify must be viewed differently from the works of Romans 3:28. The context tells us what the different view is. The difference is that the Jews were abusing the requirement to do works by claiming that when they worked God then owed them salvation. But if one wants to base his relationship to God on contract, then God will require that one fulfill the contract to the letter, and if one doesn’t do so, he will be condemned (see Galatians 3:10-11). The correct way would have been to do their works as Abraham and Moses did them, that is, by truly loving God and then doing work to please him, and without thinking in their heart that God was required to bless them for their work, especially since they were both sinners. When God sees this sincere belief and work, he blesses out of his good will. He never blesses because he owes someone, for God doesn’t owe anything to anyone (see Romans 11:35). Hence, we can never come to God on the basis that he owes us something. We must always come on the basis that we are sinners in need of repentance, and that anything we do for God can never demand payment. Salvation cannot be made into a business contract. It is a free gift from a personal God whom we have personally pleased with our faith and works.

Cliff: First of all, thank you very much for taking the time for that response.  (Honestly, I wasn't even sure I'd get any response at all!  You've probably got a lot going on.)  My sincere thanks.

I came to Christ about 10 years ago as a teenager.  I've been going to evangelical churches ever since.  I sense a bit of a disconnect between what many of my peers believe and what I see in the Bible and just wanted to search it out. I wanted to give the Catholic position a fair hearing on the topic of justification and I may just commit to reading some of your book.

In your response, I don't think you've gotten to the heart of my concern about the works of the law. 

R. Sungenis: Cliff, I’ll have to differ with you here about whether I got to the “heart of your concern.” You asked why I understood St. Paul’s statement about “justified by faith and not works of the law” as referring to the fact that we cannot “obligate” God to give us eternal life. I answered that specific question, showing that “works of law” referred to any work we try to do in order to obtain salvation by our own work apart from grace, and that since Paul used the “debt” analogy in Romans 4:3-4 he is referring to “works” as that which obligates God for payment.

Cliff: When I read in Rom 3:28 that "a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law," I'm inclined to interpret that as follows: In order for someone to gain a right standing before God we need to believe in Jesus Christ.  Actually, faith is sufficient to gain us a right standing before God and it doesn't need to be supplemented by any works whatsoever, from whatever motivation. 

R. Sungenis: But this isn’t what you asked in your previous email about why I understood “works of law” as a reference to the principle of obligating God for payment. The issue you bring up now is an additional concern, that is, whether Romans 3:28 is excluding all works from justification. To that new question, the answer is simple. If you examine Romans 3:28 in light of its context (which includes Romans 4:3-4) Paul is excluding works that attempt to obligate God to pay man a wage, but he is not excluding works in which payment is not sought but only a gracious reward is sought. The reward is salvation, which is given by grace, and thus any work we do to obtain salvation cannot be a payment but only a reward.

This distinction is crucial because if it is not made, then Paul would certainly have contradicted himself in Romans 2:13 when he said a man is “justified by works,” and contradicted James 2:24 when James says “a man is justified by works not by faith alone.”

The same is true of faith. Just because we have faith doesn’t mean we are guaranteed salvation, as if God now owed us salvation because we believed in him. We receive justification by faith because God is being gracious to us. There were a lot of Jews who believed in God, but that didn’t guarantee them salvation, for though they believed they would also continue to sin and not repent. This is why James 2:19 says that the devils also believe, but do not have salvation.

So, in order to solve the problem of a “faith alone” that cannot justify and “works of the law” that cannot justify, we must have faith and works working together and never separately, yet a faith and works that does not seek to obligate God for payment, but faith and works that seeks to be justified from God’s grace.

The Bible illustrates the working together of faith and works in the life of Abraham. In each section of his life (Genesis 12-14; Genesis 15-20; Genesis 21-23; compare Hebrews 11:8-19) faith and works were working together, never separately, for his justification.

When you interpret Romans 3:28 as saying “faith is sufficient to gain us a right standing before God” you are claiming that faith is alone in justification, but that is not what the text says. The text does not say “a man is justified by faith alone,” The only one who uses the word “alone” is James, and he does so in order to warn us not to misinterpret Romans 3:28. The context of Romans 3-4 is concerned about one thing only, that is, that the Jews dispel from their minds the notion that they can put God under obligation to pay them with salvation simply because they are Jews and do the works of Jews.

Cliff: This is because all works, even those done God's initiative and with pure motives, seem to ultimately be a work of love for God or for neighbor, both of which are prescribed by the Mosaic Law.

R. Sungenis: It is not because works are prescribed by the Mosaic law which makes them non-salvific. Faith in God was also prescribed by the Mosaic law, so by your criteria faith should also be non-salvific. It is only because the Jews had turned the works of the Mosaic law into a means to force God to bless them simply because they were Jews and did the works of Jews.

Cliff: So I'm tending to think that in order to gain an initial right standing in the sight of God, no works of any kind are required. 

R. Sungenis: But the Bible never says that particular statement.

Cliff: However, I do believe that once a person is justified, God does change his heart and will produce good works in his life.  Therefore, the final judgment will be a judgment according to works as Matt 25 and Rom 2 make clear.  Those who have done good will receive eternal life and those who have done evil will receive eternal punishment (John 5:28-29).  (I even the Westminster Confession seems to agree to this.)

R. Sungenis: Yes, I believe this to be the case, but if you believe it to be the case, then you’ve contradicted yourself. For if faith alone justifies without any works of any kind, then there shouldn’t be a judgment of works on the last day that determines whether I will receive eternal life or eternal punishment. You can’t have it both ways, Cliff. The dilemma of being judged by works is precisely why some Protestant groups relegate the judgment of bad works to the time when each Christian, already justified by faith, will receive an extra reward for his works, but never be damned for those same bad works. The problem with this view, of course, is that the Bible never distinguishes between bad works and sins.

Cliff: I'm writing to see if there is something that I might not be catching and to seek after the truth.  I am willing to change my views if the evidence should warrant it.

I'm eager to hear your response and genuinely hope that it can help me to clarify some of these issues.

Take care and God bless,

Cliff

R. Sungenis: I hope I have made the necessary clarifications. If you need to discuss it more, let me know. God be with you.

Dr. Sungenis,

I hope this note finds you well.  

I'm writing because lately I've been wrestling with the Bible's teaching on justification.  I'm coming from a Protestant background, but I am calling into question some beliefs that I've been taught and examining in detail many New Testament texts that speak to this issue.

I recently listened to your debate with James White and found many of your points to be worth looking into.

However, one thing that I'd like to discuss with you is your interpretation of the phrase "the works of the law" found, for instance, in Romans 3:28.  It seems that you take that to mean works in which someone tries to obligate God to give him eternal life. 

While that may be an aspect, it seems to me that "works of the law" as used in Rom 3:28 refers to all the works that are prescribed in the Mosaic Law.  This would include ceremonial laws such as circumcision but also moral laws like loving your neighbor.  In fact, Paul seems to have both in mind since in Romans 2 he talks about the law telling us not to steal, not to commit adultery, and to abhor idols.

In fact, I might guess that any good work we can do would be a "work of the law" since any good work can be traced back to love for God or for neighbor, both of which are prescribed in the law.

This broader understanding is making me more inclined towards the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith apart from any good works whatsoever.

I wanted to give you an opportunity to present your case or to refer to me something to read if you feel that my view is incorrect.

Thank you very much for your time in reading this e-mail.  I know you're probably a busy man and so it means a lot to me.

Take care,

Cliff Nelson

R. Sungenis: Cliff, let me see if I can help. First, if you want a thorough treatment of this topic, you should get my book, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, published in 1997 with 775 pages.

Second, you and I are saying the same thing. When I say that “works of law” is used to show that someone is trying to obligate God to pay him with eternal life, I’m also saying that “works of law” refers to ANY work we do to accomplish that goal, and thus I am referring to any work we do to obligate God to pay us.

“Works of law” is contractual. If I work, I must be paid. It is the total opposite of grace wherein if I work I could possibly be rewarded by a benefactor from his good graces, but he is not obligated to pay me, since I have no contract with him.

So, whatever one wants to fill in to define “works of law” it really makes little difference, since it is the system, the contract/payment system as opposed to the grace/reward system, which is the only concern.

The only reason the ceremonial law took prominence in St. Paul’s polemic against the Jews is that the Mosaic ceremonies were the easiest and chief way in which the Jews attempted to do work in order to obligate God to bless and save them. In other words, not many Jews were attempting to “love thy neighbor as thyself” in order to obligate God, but there were a lot of them who were doing religious rituals to obligate God.

In reality, any law of the Mosaic law, or any law made by man, could never be used to obligate God. God’s blessing and salvation can never be bought or earned. It can only be given by gratuity, something not earned. This is why the very first canon of Session 6 of the Council of Trent said the following:

“If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.”

The only thing we need to add here is that, even though St. Paul is clear in Romans 4:3-4 that God does not owe salvation to man for his work, it is still true that because God promises to reward us for our faith and work we can then say, in this sense only, that God obligate himself to reward us, for He is a just and gracious God who will always reward for work we have done in good faith and love toward Him (compare Hebrews 6:10 and Hebrews 6:13-18).

But here the reward we receive is not based on a contract which requires God to pay us regardless of our disposition toward him; rather, the reward is based on the nature of the benefactor to reward all those who work for him with a good disposition (namely, a disposition of faith and love). This principle is why the Catholic Church also insists that doing good works, in addition to having faith, justifies a man, since God rewards both faith and works from his nature as a gracious God, not from contractual obligation.

Let me know if that helps.

Robert,

From where do you draw this insistence on the revocation of the Old Covenant (i.e. what Magisterial teachings)? Obviously, the Old Covenant/Law is no longer legally binding, for it has been superseded by Christ's sacrifice and the New Covenant. I suppose I simply balk at your insistence on the term "revoke" since it carries a sense of rebuke and disownership...as if God has repudiated the Jews (which I don't think is correct; in fact, he has breathed new life into the Covenant and extended it to all and made it truly efficacious). Your 'legality' metaphor is not working for me and I fear would not help others understand what you truly mean. Well, Hebrews uses the term "annulled" and "obsolete" - perhaps less pointed but no less effective than "revoked." There is definitely a sense of the old being swept away by the perfection of the new.

IMHO, I do think the word choice of "revoke" is overly negative...always best to stick with the Biblical terms.

God bless,

Michael

R. Sungenis: Michael, I don't see any difference between the biblical term "annulled" and the word "revoke." They are both legal terms stating that a certain agreement has been taken away; it has no legal force any longer. "Revoke" means: to take back; repeal, cancel; withdraw. "Annul" means: "to do away; destroy the force of; make void; cancel." I think you are just reading into the word "revoke" a more negative connotation.

As for the "legality" metaphor, this is where most people get confused because they don't understand the legal dimension of things, but the difference is crucial. Using the driving license metaphor again, I may be A. J. Foyt and know how to drive better than anyone in the world, but if I don't have a driver's license, then according to the law I don't know how to drive.

Or let's use the analogy of marriage. I may love Susie with all my heart, but if I don't obtain a marriage license and then make my love for her official in a legal marriage ceremony, I'll never be able to live with her and bear children. By the same token, if the marriage with Susie is legally annulled, then it means she is no longer my wife and we cannot enjoy the privileges of marriage any longer. I may still love Susie in my heart, but legally speaking, it doesn't matter. As far as the law is concerned, we have no relationship. We may have a practical and human relationship, but not a legal one. As far as the law is concerned, we are strangers to each other, and, in fact, are adversaries.

Also, your insistence that the revoke or annulling of the Old Covenant had nothing to do with "rebuke" or "disownership" is incorrect. Whether we use "revoke," "annul," "set aside," "take away," "cancel" or any other similar term, the fact remains that the legal or covenantal commission that God had originally given to the Jewish nation was revoked, and in the process of the revocation, the Jews were, indeed, "rebuked" for their sins and they were also severed from "ownership" of the Mosaic law. No longer could the Jews have a relationship with God based on the Mosaic law, legally speaking. No longer would the Jews be the "chosen people" or "the people of the covenant" in opposition to everyone else in the world. As a national or ethnic entity, God, indeed, has "repudiated" the Jews. All you need to do to prove this is read the plethora of Scripture passages in which God says that he has judged them for their sins and in the process took away the Old Covenant from them. I already gave you some of them in my previous answer, but there are many more.

The only question remaining is, if the Jewish nation has been rejected by God, what about individual Jewish people? The answer to that is found in Romans 11:1-11. Whereas God rejected the nation and blinded the majority of the nation because of their continual sins, he set aside a remnant of Jews that will be saved, in the Old Testament and in the New. In that sense, in the sense of still being offered salvation, individual Jews have not been rejected. But in regards to national or ethnic aspects, the Jews have, indeed, been rejected. God no longer deals with or has a relationship to the Jews based on their Jewishness or their national origin. God will only relate to the Jews as he relates to everyone else in the world -- accept Jesus Christ for the salvation of your souls or perish. This salvation is only provided by the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, a covenant that began under Abraham in Genesis 12-15 when Abraham was saved, and from which he became the father of all who believe in Christ (cf. Rom 4:1-11; Galatians 3:6-29).

Click here Bob:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GO-BoG49Kg

God Bless your work!

Tim Francis

1-866-696-9519

Mind Your Business LLC

R. Sungenis: Tim, speak of the devil, we did challenge him, about three years ago, to a public debate. But he wanted us to pay for his plane fare, hotel and other expenses, and wouldn't compromise. He also didn't want to debate at a Catholic Church. I guess we had too many cutties.

Dear Dr. Bob,

I've read your commentary on the The First Epistle to the Corinthians. I greatly appreciate the work you have done and I really believe that the essays in the volume are excellent.

I have a question regarding Paul's letter. In 1Co 1: 14-17 Paul clearly says he was not sent to baptize the Corinthians. His mission was rather to evangelize them. Then in 1Co 4:15 he admonishes the Corinthians defending his right to do so by declaring that he was their father in Christ, being he who gave them birth in Christ through the gospel.

Isn't this a strong support for the Protestant position that claims that we are born again through faith in the gospel and not through Baptism as we Catholics believe?

Thank you very much for all your help. Your ministry is always in my prayers.

Daniel

R. Sungenis: Daniel, the answer to your question is no. Unless Scripture said that baptism does not make us born again and that only a profession of faith does, then we certainly can't make the conclusion you are suggesting. The Bible is clear that Baptism does make us born again (John 3:5; Titus 3:5-7; 1Peter 3:21) and that faith is also needed (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38-39). This requires us to understand Paul's words in 1 Cor 1:14-17 as referring to the fact that he himself would not baptize them but that someone else did or would do it, and that the time difference between their coming to faith in Christ and their baptism has nothing to do with deciding whether only faith is required to be born again and baptism is not, but everything to do with the fact that Paul left the actual baptism in the hands of others so that he could concentrate on evangelization. Baptism was a laborious process. Paul simply did not have the time to do it. He left that to the people he placed in charge at the churches he established.

Hello Dr. Sungenis, I recently engaged in a dialogue with a protestant on the issue of prayers for the dead and he posed a question to me that I did not know how to answer. So I was wondering if you could help me out here. He said that Catholics usually point to 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 in order to prove that prayers for the dead is acceptable. The verse says "for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death." However, he pointed out that in verse 40 the dead men had under their tunics "amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear." He said that since people who die in a state of mortal sin go to hell, and since these dead men committed the mortal sin of idolatry, then we cannot use this passage to support the view of prayers for the dead, since our prayers would be useless. He also pointed out that it was common knowledge among the Jews that idolatry is a sin, since the Torah prohibits it, so Catholics can't say "the dead people didn't know idolatry was a mortal sin." I did not have an answer for him and I said that I would get back to him. So I was wondering if you knew how to respond to his question. I look forward to your answer. In Christ, Frank

R. Sungenis: Frank, we can answer this in two ways. First, regardless of whether mortal sin was committed, the passage establishes that praying and sacrificing for the dead was a common and historical practice in Israel based upon the idea that the dead would be raised and go into eternity. Otherwise, Judas would not have offered sacrifices and prayers for the soldiers after they had already died if he had not been taught to do so by the Hebrew religion. Hence, we establish prayers for the dead more on why Judas felt compelled to do so, not that he actually did so. He felt compelled to do so because of what he was taught previously about the future of the dead and what effect prayers had on them. Hence, we can be certain that there were times in the past in which someone who died had committed only a venial sin, and thus prayers and sacrifices for them would have been appropriate and applicable.

Second, Judas is not the one who determines whether the soldiers committed a mortal sin, since he is not a priest or a prophet. This is important since the Old Covenant made a distinction between sinning without full knowledge and sinning with full knowledge (Numbers 15:27-31). In order to know whether the taking of the amulets was a mortal sin such that full knowledge of the gravity of the sin was in the consciousness of the soldiers, one would need an infallible means of determining it. In the case of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, even Moses himself could not determine whether the man had done so with full knowledge, hence, they took the matter to God, and He alone made the judgment (Number 15:32-36). We can surmise the same in the case of the soldiers in 2 Maccabees. Only God could determine for certain whether a mortal sin had been committed. As such, Judas was well within his prerogatives to pray and sacrifice for them, hoping that no mortal sin was committed.