Mr. Sungenis,

I apologize.  Apparently I missed the 'comment' space on the Paypal screen.

I just ran across your BTF site.  A great deal of very interesting reading.

My one question: is it accurate/best to refer to the Old/Mosaic Covenant as revoked?  Wouldn't it best be described as fulfilled in Christ, even transformed?  Isn't that the heart of supersessionism: that the New Covenant is the Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ and extended universally?

I fear that the term 'revoke' might incline some to think that God 'turned his back on' the Jews and repudiated them...and fuel anti-semitism and a resistance among Jews to hearing the Gospel...when in fact God radically transformed the Old Covenant, offered true and eternal salvation both to the Jews and to the entire world.  That's Good News!

God bless,

Michael

R. Sungenis: Michael, we need to be clear about these things and we need to use the right language in order to do so.

When we say that the Old Covenant is "revoked" we are referring to its legal status. If, for example, your driver's license was revoked in California it means that you can no longer drive on California's roads. It doesn't mean that you no longer know how to drive, but just that you can't drive legally in California.

Analogously, the Old Covenant was legally revoked but it doesn't mean that the Old Covenant loses all its influence. We draw many good things from the Old Covenant, even though it has no legal force today. In the same way, we draw many good things from the Magna Carta even though it has no legal force over us, since we are under the US Constitution. 

When we say the Old Covenant is "fulfilled" in the New Covenant we are saying that all the things the Old Covenant wanted to accomplish have now been accomplished, or will be accomplished, by the New Covenant, and for the simple reason that the Old Covenant was not able to fulfill them in itself.

But in order for the New Covenant to fulfill the Old Covenant, the Old Covenant had to be revoked. If the Old Covenant was not revoked, then the New Covenant would not have been able to fulfill the Old Covenant. Analogously, if you want to get a driver's license in Texas after having moved their from California, then you must get your driver's license in California nullified or revoked so that you can get a new one in Texas, and in doing so you "fulfill" your desire to drive legally in Texas.

In other words, "fulfillment" and "revocation" of the Old Covenant must work together. Thus, the New Testament is clear that the Old Covenant has been legally revoked (cf. 2Corinthians 3:3-14; Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; Colossians 2:14-15; Ephesians 2:15), but at the same time the Old Covenant is "fulfilled" by the New Covenant (cf., Hebrews 10:16-18; John 19:30; Romans 9:25-26).

One more thing. In revoking the Old Covenant, God didn't "turn his back on the Jews." Precisely the opposite. The Old Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, could never save the Jew, thus it needed to be revoked. God replaced the Old Covenant with the only covenant that can save man -- the New Covenant. This covenant was already started in the time of Abraham, and it was then called the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 12-22; Galatians 3:6-8; Romans 4:1-26). It was meant for the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, as the only means of salvation. The Old Covenant was only a tutor to bring us to the New Covenant (Galatians 4), but it had no power to save. That is why it needed to be "fulfilled" by the New Covenant.

Dear Friends,

A messianic friend from Israel wrote to me the following question, which I would like to submit to you for an answer, if you are able to help us out.

Sincerely,

Michael Korn

Question:

Is it true that in Roman Catholicism, that you are never certain of eternal life with JESUS. I heard someone say this - that you have acts of penitence etc but that you can never be certain of entering the kingdom of heaven?

R. Sungenis: Michael, that depends on what one means by "certainty." If by that term one is referring to infallible and incontestable knowledge, then, no, no one has that kind of certainty, not even Protestants who claim to have it because they made a "profession of faith." In order to have that kind of certainty one would have to be infallible and omniscient, which no human being, save Christ, had.

On the other hand, we can have reasonable certainty that we will go to heaven in respect of all the revelation God has given us and theological knowledge we obtain by reason. Hence, if I walk out of the confessional box after having sincerely confessed all my sins, I can have a reasonable certainty that I am going to heaven. If when I go to Mass I confess my sins and know that I have no mortal sins to confess either because I don't have any mortal sins or I have already confessed them, then I can have reasonable certainty I will go to heaven. I can even have reasonable certainty that I will not go to Purgatory if I have diligently followed all the Church's prescriptions for Indulgences.

What the Church means to say when she teaches that we cannot know with infallible certainty that we will go to heaven is that we do not know if, in the future, we will commit a mortal sin and not repent of it. No one can presume that they will be free from sin when they die simply because we cannot know the future.

Three things: Opinion on James White, conversions, apologetics/study Bible

Greetings Dr. Sungenis.  First, what is the matter with Dr. James White?  I went to his website and read some of his arguments to try and understand his thinking.  I think I succeeded in understanding his failure.  After reading for a couple of hours, the word "heresy" began ringing in my head so much that it gave me a headache.  Like G.K. Chesterton said, heresy comes about when you try and divide the whole truth into your own half-truth.  For example, one of White's debates with you about justification, he kept referring to your view, the "Roman" view, as "man-centered", and his supposed "Biblical" view as "God-centered".  I'm no theologian or scholar, but what rings true to me is that justification and salvation depend on both God and man, a "dynamic" relationship like you explain on Pg. 191 of Not by Bread Alone.  I believe that is the natural understanding a reasonable person would arrive at if reading John's Gospel and the New Testament in context (actually, the entire Bible).  In other words, it is the "whole" truth.  I'm not saying the Bible is always easy to understand, but to come away with the understanding "God has selected (no, created) me for heaven or hell, and there's nothing I can do about it" after reading the Scriptures just seems alien and superimposed.  Anyway, that's my "argument" from intuition.

White's problem is that he can't handle the whole truth.  He can't handle the idea that both God and man choose (not God or man), even though a consistent reading of Scripture requires this view.  I could go on and on (and I'm sure so could you) about the damage this half-truth does to other major beliefs such as the Incarnation and the Mystical Body of Christ (predestination without free will turns these beliefs into a mere charade cooked up by God).  Accepting a belief and understanding it are two separate matters.  Arius likely didn't understand the full truth of the Trinity, so he rejected it.  But not fully understanding it is not a reason for rejecting it.

Again and again, White "divides and conquers" the truth.  I watched the full debate you had with him on papal infallibility.  He divides the full truth into his own two realms: "sola ecclesia" and "sola scriptura".  In the end, White's errors are due to false logic: a false application of the Law of Excluded Middle ("either this or that"); this illogic permeates his work; you see a predictable pattern, and his errors end up only amplifying the real truth when you take a step back and realize it. (Actually, you do realize White's error in logic yourself in the last line of the note on Pg. 190 of NBBA: "Consistent logic demands that both the Lord's Supper and Calvary are anticipated by John 6, but neither is negated.").  I think if you have the opportunity in future debates with Dr. White, you should stress Dr. White's overall error in thinking to the audience, in addition to the particular misinterpretations of the text.

Next, do you have an opinion on Dr. Francis Beckwith joining the Catholic Church?  Maybe other successful Protestant apologists like William Lane Craig will follow suit.  Perhaps even major intellects like N.T. Wright and J.P. Moreland?  Ok, that may be a stretch.  But what do all these names have in common?  They all reject Calvinism.  James White should pay better attention.

R. Sungenis: Brenden, what White fails to see is that the Catholic Church had already dealt with these issues many centuries ago. It condemned both “man-centered” views of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It also dealt with the predestinarian extremes of Lucidus, of Gottschalk, of Wycliffe, of Luther and Calvin. The truth is somewhere in the middle and nobody has quite figured out what that middle is. We know what we can’t say, but we are not quite sure all that we can say. White, and men of his generation, think they have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to theology, failing to see that many men before them have struggled with these issues. The fact remains that the Church is the final authority on this topic, and it has chosen to say that it is beyond our comprehension. White, however, because he has separated himself from the Church, thinks he, as an individual man in the street, has the answer. When this happens, all kinds of extremes will result, and one of those extremes is the position that God predestines men to heaven and hell and that man’s free will does not influence that choice. This position seems logical to White because he can’t figure out how God’s predestination can fit with man’s free will, so he thinks he only has one option – get rid of free will. Other Protestants, however, attempt to solve the problem by getting rid of predestination. The Catholic Church says they are both wrong, and rightly so.

As for Beckwith and company, we will continue to see an influx of Protestants coming to the Catholic Church for theological reasons, and we will continue to see a lot of people leave the Catholic Church because of the heresies that are being taught by many Catholic leaders who ignore the truths they have received from the historic Catholic Church. But there is one thing that keeps people like Beckwith inside the Church – they’ve been through all the muck and confusion of Protestantism, and they will never go back. At least in the Catholic Church we know that the truth exists, we just have to find it above all the heretics in the Church who try to hide it from us.

Dr. Sungenis,

I had a question that I am hopping you can help me with. I was brought up in a sedevacantist traditionalist sect. My parents, my wife, and I came into full communion with the Church last year. I actually talked with you on the phone before I made the decision and made my general confession. You helped me a great deal to see that Vatican II did not teach heresy and the Post Vatican II popes were not heretics. This I thank you for. My question is the following: I was surfing the internet and came across an article stating that the Catholic Church approved of the Anaphora of Addai & Mari of the Assyrian Church of the East to be valid albeit there are no words of institution. Does this not contradict the teachings of the Council of Trent regarding the from of the Holy Eucharist? I don't believe it does, because I don't think the Church can error when making declarations like these. But I have been tempted on the matter. Satan is good for temptation. My biggest temptation since coming into the Church has been reverting to that state of hopelessness of sedevacantism. I don't want issues like this be a reason for me to lose my faith. Any help is appreciated.

Yours in Christ,

Aaron French

R. Sungenis: Aaron, first, please forgive the delay in answering your question. Second, I'm very glad to see you are back in the Church. Although the post-conciliar Church certainly has its problems and certain popes have said and done things that are suspect and may be uncomfortable for us, sedevacantism is not the answer. As for the anaphora of Addai and Mari, neither you nor I are in authority on that issue in order to make a judgment. Even if the anaphora proves to be illegitimate, this is hardly an indication that the rest of the Church will follow suit, and thus the alarm created over it by certain people (and I know who they are) is exaggerated. It is an isolated case that the Church will have to deal with. Once it is brought to the attention of the pope he can easily rectify the situation. In the meantime, it is no cause for you or anyone to use this as a black mark against the Church. Let the Church deal with it. They are responsible before God for it and they will be judged accordingly. Be happy that you don't have to take such responsibility or make such decisions.

This is too easy:

JS: Moses is the traditional, but not the actual author. For one thing, he recounts his own funeral,

R. Sungenis: Deut 34 does not say Moses recounts his own funeral. Joshua would be the one to do so, especially since Joshua is the next author in sequence. The last record of Moses speaking in the first person is in Deut 33. In Deut 34, Moses is addressed in the third person.

JS: and for another, the composition spans several centuries at least.

So there were two authors, not one. This would seem to concede the point. But why stop at two?

R. Sungenis2: Concede what point? You only arrived at your “point” by begging the question. You claim “Moses is…not the actual author.” The Pentateuch says Moses is the author, as do other books in Scripture, and the Pentateuch doesn’t claim to have four anonymous authors spread out over centuries. (e.g., the JEPD theory). It only claims to have one, barring Joshua’s epitaph of Moses (which is only natural since Joshua then wrote “Joshua” after Moses died). Hence, the burden is on you to prove your “point.” You arrive at your point by claiming there is “inconsistency” and “repetition,” hardly something that would stand up in court unless you could prove your claim.

R. Sungenis: Says who and on what basis? The JEPD theorists who claim that Genesis 2 was written earlier than Genesis 1

Well, it really doesn't matter which was written first, they are contradictory accounts. They certainly weren't written together, or by the same other, unless he was seriously confused. The truth of the accounts (and they are both true) does not come from their "historical" truth, but for there different accounts of the different aspects of our relationship with God and each other.

R. Sungenis2: Says who? The same JEPD theorists that are looking for contradictions because they are prone to exaggerating textual difficulties into a denial of single authorship?? I and many other scholars have gone through Genesis 1 and 2 with a fine-toothed comb and can safely say there are no “contradictions.” If you claim otherwise, give us your best example of a “contradiction” that cannot be resolved. Incidentally, the idea that “different account give different aspects of our relationship with God and each other” is true regardless. There is always a deeper level to the history. The important thing is that you don’t deny or obscure the history because you think you have arrived at some higher spiritual truth. They don’t compete, they complement each other.

JS: If there was one author, why was he so repetitive and inconsistent?

R. Sungenis: Are the four gospels repetitive because they record the same event four times?

Exactly! Gospels: four accounts, four authors. Pentateuch: many accounts, many authors.

R. Sungenis2: No, the four Gospels have four authors because they claim to have four authors, and tradition backs it up. The Pentateuch doesn’t claim to have four authors and neither does tradition. You merely read into the Pentateuch what your theory of “inconsistency” and “repetition” demands, and you do so with a Johnny-come-lately theory that was devised 1800 years after Scripture and Tradition were established, and then by a theory that sees no difference between the Bible and the lliad, since they are both said to be written by merely human authors. The Bible was inspired, the Illiad wasn’t, but Wellhausen said no.

JS: As a traditionalist- -that is, as a Catholic--I have no problem with the divine message being spread over many different authors and ages, even if we know few of the authors and little of the ages.

R. Sungenis: As a "traditionalist Catholic" you should accept God's testimony through Jesus that Moses was the only author of the Pentateuch, including Deuteronomy (John 5:46; Matt 19:1-8)

I would accept it, if that was his testimony. But since he is just following the traditional attribution, we do not need to push it further than that. Now, if he had "Some have said to thee that Moses is not the single author of the Pentateuch, but I say unto thee..." that would be a different matter. But he didn't.

R. Sungenis2: First, I’ll use your own logic against you. The Pentateuch doesn’t say: “Moses is not the single author of the Pentateuch; there were multiple authors spanning many centuries,” yet you claim there had to be multiple authors.

Second, you are merely begging the question again. If the argument for multiple authorship didn’t exist in Jesus’ time, he would have no reason to say “Some have said to thee that Moses is not the single author of the Pentateuch, but I say unto thee...” Since the Jews have always held that Moses wrote it, Jesus would have no reason to question it. You can’t use as proof something that was never said to be in contention in the first place.

Third, neither Jesus, Stephen (Acts 7), Paul, Peter nor any other New Testament writer who comments on the Pentateuch says that anyone other than Moses wrote the Pentateuch. So again, the burden of proof is on you, not us. If “inconsistencies” and “repetitions” have a reasonable answer, then you really don’t have any substantial evidence to support the Documentary Hypothesis. If you think this is “too easy” and have such an “inconsistency” that cannot be answered and thus proves multiple authorship, be my guest. I’d like to see it.

Allen wrote:

Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, but who's to say he didn't have Divine help?

JS: Moses is the traditional, but not the actual author. For one thing, he recounts his own funeral,

R. Sungenis: Deut 34 does not say Moses recounts his own funeral. Joshua would be the one to do so, especially since Joshua is the next author in sequence. The last record of Moses speaking in the first person is in Deut 33. In Deut 34, Moses is addressed in the third person.

JS: and for another, the composition spans several centuries at least.

R. Sungenis: Says who and on what basis? The JEPD theorists who claim that Genesis 2 was written earlier than Genesis 1 by claiming that Genesis 1 was written after the Babylonian captivity in 500 BC so as to invigorate Israel after having been held captive for 70 years (actually, the JEPD theorists believe Israel was in Babylon for only 50 years, despite the fact that Scripture is clear it was 70 years)? I guess if you think Genesis 2 was written in 1500 BC and Genesis 1 was written in 500 BC, one would be predisposed to claim that  there were "several centuries" in the Pentateuch. The fact is, there is not a shred of proof for this. The JEPD theory is dead. Please read my commentary The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-11 under subtitle: The JEPD Documentary Hypothesis, pages 364-371.

JS: If there was one author, why was he so repetitive and inconsistent?

R. Sungenis: Are the four gospels repetitive because they record the same event four times? No. The repetition serves a purpose. As for "inconsistent" I don't know of any. The same kinds of accusations from historical critical scholars are made of the four Gospels, but none of them have been proven.

JS: As a traditionalist- -that is, as a Catholic--I have no problem with the divine message being spread over many different authors and ages, even if we know few of the authors and little of the ages.

R. Sungenis: As a "traditionalist Catholic" you should accept God's testimony through Jesus that Moses was the only author of the Pentateuch, including Deuteronomy (John 5:46; Matt 19:1-8)