|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, 29 Edengrove Park, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AZ, Northern Ireland Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net Quick Links - Home - Assorted Articles - Audio/Video - Ministry Newsletters - Words of Wisdom |
Responding
to articles (mostly pro Roman Catholic) sent anonymously to me and received
14th June 2011:
(2):
‘Is Robert Sungenis right on “being saved”?’
This article is my
second response to the package of articles sent anonymously to me and received
by me on 14th June 2011. My first response that dealt with the
question –
‘Does
Christ’s sacrifice continue?’
Is located on http://www.takeheed.net/Take_Heed_2011/Current_Concerns/June_2011/Respon1.htm
Responding
now to Article 2
This second response
relates to an article sent to me, that was written by Mr Robert Sungenis, and
is titled ‘Wondering what one’s response
(as
a Roman Catholic) ought to be to the question: “Have you
been saved”?’
It
is located on http://www.americancatholiclawyers.org/questions.htm and currently is the second question
listed. Herewith is the text of the answer given -
I assume this question
is asked because of the way evangelistic Protestants commonly approach
Catholics about the matter of salvation. Protestants of the Calvinistic and Fundmentalist variety have been
taught that once someone receives salvation by "accepting Jesus into your
heart," that individual can never lose his salvation, regardless of
whether he falls into sin. If he falls into deep sin, the Calvinist
apologetic is that the person was never "really" saved originally, so
he has no salvation to lose. If the person sins but not seriously, he is said
to "fall out of fellowship" with Christ, but he maintains his salvation.
Thus, when these
individuals approach a Catholic and ask: "have you been saved?" or
"if you died tonight, do you have the assurance that you will go to
heaven?" or "have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and
Savior?" behind the question is the above theology concerning eternal
security.
Since most of
Protestantism (except for Lutherans and Anglicans) believe that salvation is
received through one's "acceptance by faith of Jesus Christ as Lord and
Savior," they will automatically discount one's appeal to sacraments as
providing the means of salvation. Thus, anyone who has not followed the regimen
of the above "profession" wherein one "believes in his heart and
confesses with his mouth" (cf., Romans 10:9), then the Protestant will not
consider that person "saved." The salvation experience for the Protestant is based primarily on
the subjective disposition of the heart and subsequently on a personal confession of that faith in public.
Unfortunately for them,
the Protestants have misconstrued the biblical teaching on how one receives
salvation. To the
question "Have you been saved," the Catholic who has received the
sacrament of Baptism can answer: "Yes, I have been saved. I received my
salvation when I was Baptized by water and the spirit, as Jesus taught in John
3:5. Jesus says that without receiving the water one cannot see the
kingdom of heaven, and thus we see that Baptism is an absolute requirement for
salvation. This comes not only from the Bible, but from the authority of
the Church who has made this teaching into dogma (Council of Orange in 529;
Council of Trent in 1563), and among all the Fathers of the Church who gave
their unanimous consent to this teaching, without one deviation."
The Catholic can further
answer: "Baptism gives me an objective means of knowing that I am saved,
as opposed to dependence on one's mere subjective disposition of faith taught
in Protestant churches. In fact, when you ask me 'have you been saved?' I can
tell you the exact time and place that I received salvation, since God promised
that he would justify me when I, by faith, received the sacrament of Baptism.
You, on the other hand, must depend on your subjective feelings of faith,
feelings that may or may not be real, and feelings that do not have an
objective counterpart. In
Catholicism, we have the objective means of salvation (Baptism) coinciding with
the subjective disposition of the individual (an act of faith and profession of
that faith during the Baptismal act). Both are required for the procurement of
salvation. I as a Catholic have done both, and therefore I am saved."
The Catholic can add the following: "Having been saved,
however, does not mean that I am guaranteed to go to heaven, since the same
Bible that taught me about Baptism in John 3:5 is the same one that teaches me
I can lose my salvation if I sin seriously without repentance
(e.g., Luke 8:13; John 15:6; Romans 8:12-13; 1Cor 6:8-9; Gal 5:19-21; 2Tim
2:12; Hebrews 2:1; 3:1,6, 12-14; 4:1, 11-14; 6:4-6, 11-12; 10:26-27, 35-38;
12:1,3, 14-17, 25, 29; James 2:13-14; 4:4; 2Pet 2:20-22, et al). Hence, if I
see you in serious sin without repentance, I should ask you: 'have you received
salvation?'"
Of course, the above
truth about losing one's salvation cuts both ways. Since the average Catholic
is nominal and often living in sin against the edicts of the Church, and hasn't
been practicing the faith or receiving the sacraments, the question "have
you been saved?" is quite appropriate. Many "Catholics" have, indeed, lost their salvation, and
thus the answer to the above question, if answered honestly, would have to be
"I received it when I was Baptized but have since lost it due to my own
sin."
What the Catholic needs to do at this point, of course, is make his
way back into the Church and receive the sacrament of Confession in order to
restore the graces he once had received at Baptism.
Unfortunately, it is exactly at this point that the average Catholic becomes
fodder for the Protestant, since the latter will try to convince the former
that he need not confess his sins to a priest because priest's have no power to
forgive sins (in direct violation of John 20:23 and Matt 16:18-19). He will
then convince the Catholic that the reception of salvation is much simpler than
going to a priest. The "rugged individualism" he inherited from his
Protestant forefathers will force him to say, "Why not go to God directly
and make a confession with your mouth and receive Jesus into your heart?"
This, of course, gets
right back to the problem we introduced concerning the objective versus
subjective nature of salvation. If the
Catholic really wants to obey God, then he will use the means God has ordained
to have his sins forgiven. If they are serious sins, the God-ordained means is
the sacrament of confession. Anything else is an affront to God and a device of
the devil (who disguises himself as an angel of light - 2 Cor 11:14-15).
Robert
A. Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D. (cd)
President
of Catholic Apologetics Intl.
Author
of: Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of
Justification (Queenship Publishing, 1997, 774 pages)
08-19-05
First of all – who is
Robert Sungenis? Well, he is someone that I have actually met ‘in the flesh’.
Way back, in my September 1998 News from the Front newsletter, I stated ‘I have been invited to take part in a
2-evening debate in Fresno, California on the subjects of 'Sola Scriptura' and
'The Papacy' and I will (DV) be partnering Rob Zins against 2 Roman Catholic
apologists’. Well, the 2 Roman Catholic apologists were Scott Butler and
Robert Sungenis.
Both
Scott Butler and Robert Sungenis were two of a number of supposed
‘Evangelicals’ who in the 1990’s converted to, or as in the case of Sungenis,
returned to Roman Catholicism. Interesting biographical information about Mr
Sungenis can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis and as you will read he certainly has
some ‘strange’ and very controversial opinions.
In
My December 1998 News from the Front newsletter I gave a brief report on those
debates under the heading ‘Few at
Fresno’ – that report is located on http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/news8.htm
When
the debates were over both Mr Butler and Mr Sungenis gave me copies of books
they had had published. In the case of Scott Butler it was a book that he had
co-authored with others called ‘Jesus,
Peter & The Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy’. For anyone interested there is a critique of
this book by Evangelical apologist, James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries
located on http://vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html
In
the case of Mr Sungenis the books were ‘Not
by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of
Justification’ and ‘Not by Scripture
Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura’.
It
is often helpful in trying to gauge where an author stands ‘doctrinally’ by
looking at those who are willing to associate themselves with his writings
either by way of an endorsement or by perhaps writing a foreword for the book
in question.
In
the case of Scott Butler’s book ‘Jesus,
Peter & The Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy’ – the foreword
is by ‘Father’ Mitchell Pacwa and there is an endorsement on the back cover by
Scott Hahn. ‘Father’ Pacwa is in fact an ‘SJ’ – a Jesuit – and many years ago he
was a welcome contributor to the magazine issued by the Christian Research
Institute founded by the late Dr Walter Martin. Whilst Dr Martin may have
produced many helpful materials on readily identifiable cults he strangely
shied away from the doctrinal problems associated with Roman Catholicism as did
his successor Hank Hanegraaff.
There
is a very helpful article on this located on http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/cri.htm and as you will read Scott Hahn also
gets a mention. My wife Margaret and I did go to hear Scott Hahn when he
visited Northern Ireland back in August 1996 and my report of that meeting
under the heading ‘Scott Hahn – a
dangerous man’ is located on http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/news1.htm - the article is towards the end of
the newsletter found on that link.
In
the case of ‘Not by Faith Alone: The
Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification’ by Mr
Sungenis, the foreword is by Scott Hahn and when it comes to his book ‘Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic
Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola
Scriptura’ the foreword is by Peter Kreeft.
I
have already given links to items on Mr Hahn but what about Peter Kreeft? Peter
Kreeft, another supposed Evangelical who converted to Rome, in 1996 wrote and
published a book called ‘Ecumenical
Jihad’. It had an endorsement on the back cover by Chuck Colson that read ‘Peter Kreeft is one of the premier
apologists in America today…/ Kreeft is one of our most valiant intellectual
warriors’. Also on the back cover were these words from J I Packer ‘With entertaining insight Kreeft looks into
the attitudes, alliances and strategies that today’s state of affairs requires
of believers. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike need to ponder Kreeft’s
vision of things – preferably in discussion together’.
These
are just a few quotes from Kreeft’s book – ‘When
I think how much my Protestant brothers ands sisters are missing in not having
Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist… I at first feel a terrible gap between
myslf and them. What a tremendous thing they are missing! ... We worship the
Eucharist because it is Christ… The
power that will reunite the Church and win the world is Eucharistic adoration’.
When
you read these few quotes and then consider the favourable endorsement by
Messrs Colson and Packer it’s no wonder I made reference to these endorsements
when writing about both of them in my article ‘Who are the “ravening wolves” of
Matthew 7:15?’ located on http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/news10.htm
On
this link http://www.cwrc-rz.org/zins/theological/101-a-review-of-peter-kreefts-ecumenical-jihad.html you can also read a review by Rob
Zins of ‘Ecumenical Jihad’.
Returning
now to the article sent to me, I want to comment upon the portions that I have
highlighted in red and to address the relevant portion of the heading to my
article namely ‘Is Robert Sungenis right
on “being saved?”’
I believe
that in the first two portions that I have highlighted Mr Sungenis has created
what I would call ‘a straw man’. He has basically put forward what he believes
is the accepted Evangelical position on ‘being saved’ and he then proceeds to
demolish it in the light of Roman Catholic ‘truth’. He wrote - Protestants of the Calvinistic and Fundmentalist variety have been
taught that… someone receives salvation by "accepting Jesus into your
heart,"… The salvation experience for the Protestant is based primarily on
the subjective disposition of the heart and
subsequently on a personal confession of that faith in public.
Before I
deal with his counter argument to what he has stated let me say that he is
wrong in his assessment of what he refers to as the ‘Calvinistic and
Fundamentalist’ view of ‘salvation’. Within the Evangelical groupings he has
referred to there are differing positions on the subject of ‘salvation’ – some
do subscribe to the line encouraging people to ‘exercise faith’ by “accepting
Jesus into your heart” position but others, like myself, reject that position.
In an
article on http://www.takeheed.net/Assorted_Articles/Ecumenism/Sowing_and_sleeping.htm I wrote about a ‘crusade’ that was held in Belfast
in April 2008 by Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham. Franklin Graham, like
his father before him, would certainly be found in the camp of those who
subscribe to the ‘exercising faith’ and “accepting Jesus into your heart”
position. In the article I quoted from a little booklet called ‘Decisional Regeneration’ by James E
Adams – this is part of what I quoted from the booklet –
‘In the nineteenth century few controversies were so heated
as the one over Baptismal Regeneration…Baptismal Regeneration teaches that the
“new birth” is conveyed by the waters of baptism. The sacrament is performed by
man and is in his control. But the twentieth [and now 21st] century Church has in “DECISIONAL
REGENERATION” a more subtle falsehood to combat. “Decisional Regeneration”
differs from Baptismal Regeneration only in the fact that it attaches the
certainty of the “new birth” to a different act. This doctrine, just as
Baptismal Regeneration, sees the “new birth” as the result of a mechanical
process that can be performed by man…”Decisional Regeneration”… prescribes a
counselling procedure…There are many variations of this type of counselling,
but they all have in common a mechanical element such as the repeating of a
prayer or signing of a card upon the performance of which the individual is
assured of his/her salvation…
This Evangelical practice or
methodology was labelled by Mr Adams as being the equivalent of ‘Decisional
Regeneration’ and I myself refer to it later in this article as being like an ‘Evangelical
Sacrament of Decisionism’.
In a
totally unrelated article that I wrote on C S Lewis and that is located on http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/DECEMBER2003.htm I also wrote the following portion that, as it
turns out, is relevant to this matter of someone being exhorted to ‘exercise
faith’ etc in order to ‘be saved’ –
I often hear unregenerate people being urged to ‘exercise
faith’ – but what is ‘faith’? Well, we find the answer in Hebrews
11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen”. This is something a “natural [unregenerate] man” [1 Corinthians
Lazarus could not ‘exercise faith’ to
initiate his ‘coming forth’ from the tomb [see John 11:17-44] –
he first had to be ‘quickened’ [regenerated’] by the voice of God [‘Lazarus’ – see John 11:43] and when the Lord called him by
name he was ‘reborn’ and so could “come forth” but He FIRST had
to be brought to life by God and it is exactly the same in the matter of ‘spiritual
regeneration’ [“for
the glory of God” John 11:4]. Let me at this point say that if
anyone promotes teaching on REGENERATION that is in conflict with what
has already been biblically shown, in the earlier part of this article, to be
the truth on this matter of REGENERATION, if they accommodate in their
thinking the necessity for some input by sinful man, such as in the form of a
conscious decision coupled with religious ritual, then I believe they are
promoting a ‘false gospel’ and such a ‘gospel’ was anathematised
by Paul in Galatians chapter 1. There, Paul, under inspiration,
rejected the false teaching of a human decision to submit to ‘ritualistic’
circumcision as being necessary for salvation - “And certain men which came
down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after
the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” [Acts 15:1].
This cave-in to a ‘false gospel’ by the
Judaisers was mirrored in a similar ‘sell-out’ committed by
so-called ‘Evangelicals’ back in 1994 when they signed their
agreement to the ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together Agreement’
– an agreement that in effect sanctioned 2 ways in which people could become
Christians. One was the biblical and true way as outlined in Vines’
Expository Dictionary –
[‘Palingenesia
“new birth” (palin – “again”; genesis – “birth”) is used of
“spiritual regeneration” [Titus 3:5]
involving the communication of A NEW LIFE, the two operating powers to produce
which are “The Word of Truth” [James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23] and “The Holy Spirit” [John 3:5-6]…The NEW BIRTH and REGENERATION do not
represent successive stages in spiritual experience, they refer to the same
event but view it in different aspects. The NEW BIRTH stresses the
communication of spiritual life in contrast to the antecedent spiritual death; [see Ephesians 2:1] REGENERATION stresses the inception of a new state of
things in contrast with the old’ [see 2
Corinthians 5:17].]
but the second was the false ‘ritualistic’ way as
captured by these words from the agreement – ‘Those converted, whether understood…as having experienced the
reawakening of the new birth originally bestowed in the sacrament of baptism’
– this was a statement that Charles
Colson, Bill Bright, J I
Packer and other ‘Evangelicals’ had no difficulty in
publicly endorsing – what a betrayal of divine truth!
Returning now to Mr Sungenis and
to his counter to the ‘exercising faith’ by “accepting Jesus into your heart”
position he wrote - To the question "Have you been saved," the Catholic who
has received the sacrament of Baptism can answer: "Yes, I have been saved.
I received my salvation when I was Baptized by water and the spirit, as Jesus
taught in John 3:5… In Catholicism, we have the
objective means of salvation (Baptism) coinciding with the subjective
disposition of the individual (an act of faith and profession of that faith
during the Baptismal act). Both are required for the procurement of salvation.
I as a Catholic have done both, and therefore I am saved. In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraphs 1253-1255 address this matter of ‘Faith and Baptism’.
Here Mr
Sungenis advocates the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Baptism coupled with ‘faith’
to produce regeneration and claims this is the truth where salvation is
concerned rather than the error of what he has basically outlined as an ‘Evangelical
Sacrament of Decisionism’ coupled with ‘faith’ to produce regeneration – both
are equally soul-damningly wrong.
The
following extract from a short article located on http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7285 and published on the very day I started to write
this article outlines the harrowing results of such methodology in just one
large Evangelical denomination –
“We've got ten million southern Baptists who walked somebody's
aisle, and prayed somebody's prayer and checked somebody's card and raised
their hand....we've got ten million of them that do not come to church. And
when they face Jesus one day, at the Judgement bar, they're going to quote some
preacher.....'Well, Pastor said if I'd come to the front...I did that. Pastor
said if I prayed that prayer....I did that.' Do you not realize that if you
give the flesh a hoop to jump, the flesh will do it every time? But one thing
the flesh cannot do is cause your spirit to be born again." - Jeff Noblit,
The Spirit of God at Work in God's Church
On this link http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7283
you can also see and hear Pastor Noblit say these words in his sermon of 5th
June 2011 – if you watch from 41 minutes onward to at least 59 minutes [but
it’s worth persevering further even to the end at around 79 minutes]
you will hear some very honest and necessary
preaching for today’s professing church.
Is ‘baptism’ carried out ‘in faith’
really the door to ‘being saved’ FOR THE FIRST TIME (as you will have read, according to Mr
Sungenis, ‘many Catholics have lost the salvation “that was ‘procured” through
being baptised’) as Robert Sungenis claims? When I read
this article by Mr Sungenis it reminded me very much of a response I wrote some
years ago to an article penned by ‘Father’ Patrick McCafferty called “Catholic
and Christian” in which he claimed that as Catholics they, like many
Evangelicals, can say – ‘I have been saved’, ‘I am being saved’ and ‘I will be
saved’.
Like Robert Sungenis, Patrick pointed
to the various Roman Catholic Sacraments, like those of Baptism and one that is
variously labelled in the Catholic Catechism as Conversion/Penance/Confession/Forgiveness/Reconciliation,
as the grounds for a Catholic saying ‘I have been saved’ and ‘I am being saved’.
In response to his baptismal claims, in my article on http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/news26.htm
I wrote the following
The answer
to the question posed by the title of Patrick McCafferty’s feature ‘Catholic and Christian’? is a
resounding ‘No’! To understand why, we need go no further than to simply examine
Patrick’s answer when he was asked if he understood the reasons for opposition
to the Catholic Church - Patrick answered –
“A lot of it is they don’t understand the Catholic faith.
When people begin to talk there’s a realization that the differences are not as
deep as they thought. Our own approach is that we have
been saved by Jesus’ death on the Cross, we are being saved by living the Christian
life and we will be saved in the future”’.
When Patrick refers
to Roman Catholics claiming ‘we have been saved by Jesus’ death on the
cross’ Patrick has in mind what Rome teaches to be the effects of their
sacrament of baptism. In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church we
read the following in paragraph 1213 ‘Through baptism we are freed
from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are
incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission’. Later in
paragraph
1992 we read the following ‘Justification has been merited for us by
the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross…Justification
is conferred in baptism, the sacrament of faith’.
So, when Patrick
speaks of Roman Catholics ‘having been saved’ he is referring
to their baptism when they were for the first time ‘justified’.
Rome does not believe that the ungodly are ‘justified’
through faith alone. Because of this, ‘justification’ in
‘If anyone saith that man is truly
absolved from his sins and justified because that he assuredly believes himself
absolved and justified, or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes
himself justified: and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification
are effected, let him be anathema’ [Council of Trent; Session 6 -
Justification; Canon XIV].
In a more recent Roman Catholic publication, Roman Catholic
professor of theology, Alan Schreck [Franciscan University of
Steubenville, Ohio] in his book ‘Catholic and Christian’
wrote on page 33 –
‘The Catholic Church has always
taught that no one can know with absolute certainty in this life whether he or
she will be saved…It [The
Catholic Church] maintains that we should not presume
to know ahead of time that we will persevere in faith until the end’.
So,
when Patrick states that Roman Catholics
‘have been saved by Jesus’ death on the cross’ Patrick has in mind their initial
baptismal ‘justification’.
How then can we answer Patrick’s
claims for ‘baptismal regeneration’ that mirror the claims made by Mr Sungenis?
Let me direct you to a number of helpful articles that reveal the truth of
God’s Word on this matter.
Firstly there is an article by my
close friend, Rob Zins, called ‘Real
Baptism’ located on
http://www.cwrc-rz.org/zins/apologetic-zone/real-baptism.html
A further helpful article by Rob,
looking at the Roman Sacraments in general, is located on
http://www.cwrc-rz.org/zins/theological/97-sacramentum-absurdum.html
Finally, another article that may
prove helpful is by Matt Slick of CARM and is located on
http://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation
Turning now
to the ‘I am being saved’ issue Mr Sungenis wrote - The Catholic
can add the following: "Having been saved, however, does not mean that I
am guaranteed to go to heaven, since the same Bible that taught me about
Baptism in John 3:5 is the same one that teaches me I can lose my salvation… Many
"Catholics" have, indeed, lost their salvation… What the Catholic
needs to do at this point, of course, is make his way back into the Church and
receive the sacrament of Confession in order to restore the graces he once had
received at Baptism… If the Catholic really wants to obey God, then he will use
the means God has ordained to have his sins forgiven. If they are serious sins,
the God-ordained means is the sacrament of confession. Anything else is an
affront to God and a device of the devil”
Shortly I
will turn my attention to the matters of ‘Priestly absolution’ and then ‘losing
salvation’ but at this point I want to quote from my response article to Patrick
McCafferty on the issue of ‘I am being saved’. In my article responding to
Patrick’s claims I wrote the following –
Then when Patrick says of
Roman Catholics - ‘we are being saved by living the
Christian life’ - what he has in mind is this idea of being ‘justified’ over and over
again – the series of
‘justifications’ that I referred to earlier. This is achieved through adherence to the
Roman sacramental system.
‘Justification’ is a fragile condition that, according to
‘Christ
instituted the sacrament of penance for all sinful
members of his Church, above all for those who, since baptism, have fallen into
grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial
communion. It is to them that the sacrament of penance offers a new possibility
to convert and to recover the grace of justification’.
Roman Catholics who
recover their ‘justification’ can, according to
‘If
anyone saith that the justice received is not preserved and also increased
before God through good works, but that the said works are merely the fruits
and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof,
let him be anathema’ [Council of Trent; Session 6 - Justification; Canon XXIV].
So, when Patrick speaks
of Roman Catholics ‘being saved by living the Christian life’
what he has in mind is their co-operation with God through adherence to the
Roman Catholic sacramental system [the perseverance ‘in faith’ referred to by Alan
Schreck
that I quoted earlier] coupled with what Rome refers to as ‘good works’.
Turning
now to ‘Priestly absolution’ Mr Sungenis wrote - If the
Catholic really wants to obey God, then he will use the means God has ordained
to have his sins forgiven. If they are serious sins, the God-ordained means is
the sacrament of confession. Anything else is an affront to God and a device of
the devil
The first
thing to notice is that Mr Sungenis, in line with Catholic teaching, classifies
sins as being ‘serious’ and, although not mentioned, there must therefore be in
consequence a category of ‘not so serious’.
On this
link http://www.takeheed.net/Assorted_Articles/Ecumenism/tltbdnp.htm you will see details of some letter exchanges that
I had via the Belfast Telegraph with ‘Father’ Patrick McCafferty and another
Catholic man called John Morgan and this question of the forgiveness of sins is
looked at – for the sake of brevity in this article I will just quote some
extracts that are relevant to the sacrament of confession mentioned by Mr Sungenis –
Extract from letter by Cecil published 11 August 2001
When it comes,
according to Roman Catholic teaching, to the more serious category of sin
namely 'mortal sin' [there
is no biblical basis for categorising sins as either 'venial' or 'mortal' -
God's Word declares that any sin is 'mortal' - see Romans 6:23]
prayer for forgiveness is not permitted to be made 'looking at God
face-to-face and engaging with Him heart-to-heart'. Instead the Roman
Catholic seeking forgiveness must ask an ordained Roman Catholic priest for
such forgiveness. The 1994 Catholic Catechism in paragraphs 1456 & 1448
states - 'Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of
Penance. All mortal sins...must be recounted by them in confession. The
Church…through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus
Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction'. This teaching of
'satisfaction' is a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's work alone at Calvary
to obtain full forgiveness for His people.
Extract
from letter by ‘Father’ McCafferty published 18 August 2001
Mr Andrews says there is no
biblical basis for categorising sins as venial and mortal. He is wrong. "Every
kind of wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly (mortal)"- read 1 John
5:16-17. The priest, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is the minister of
Christ’s forgiveness. It is Jesus who forgives sin and not the priest. Jesus
alone has authority to do so, as He told the scribes when He cured the
paralytic. (Mark 2:6-12). His Father gave Him that authority and Jesus, when He
was about to return to the Father, said to His apostles: "as the Father
sent Me so am I sending you…those whose sins you forgive they are
forgiven" (John 20:21-23). Therefore, Jesus, our great High Priest,
shares His saving ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation with those whom He
chooses and calls.
Extract
from letter by Cecil that was not published
Patrick’s reference to 1 John
5:15-16 must be taken in its full context by going back to verse 12 where John
identifies believers [brothers] as those who
have the Son and life [eternal]. A believing
brother sadly can sin even to the point where the human punishment for his sin
is the death penalty - a ‘sin unto death’. A lesser sin committed by a
believing brother may not qualify for capital punishment - this is a ‘sin not
unto death’.
John instructs believers how to
pray in such cases [verses 14-16]. Rome’s teaching that the ‘sin unto death’ [mortal] relates to
God’s eternal punishment of such in hell and that the ‘sin not unto death’ [venial] qualifies for
a lesser punishment [a
time of cleansing in purgatory] is not found in these verses and contradicts
God’s clear teaching on sin and its divine punishment. God’s judgment upon sin
is 'death' - see Ezekiel 18:4 & Romans 6:23 and any sin [whether great
or small in human understanding] brings down that same judgment- see
James 2:10.
All people when born are
spiritually 'dead' - see Ephesians 2:1 and will in due time suffer physical
'death' which involves separation of the body from the spirit/soul. Why are
people spiritually 'dead' and subject to physical death? - because of 'sin' -
see Romans 5:12 and everyone is subject to it because of Adam's sin. A second
‘death’ [following
resurrection]
involves eternal separation from the blessing of God and will be visited on the
Day of Judgment [Hebrews 9:27 & Revelation 20:11-15] upon all those not
truly 'born again' who have in consequence died 'in their sins' irrespective of
any categorisation [John 8:21].
God's forgiveness of sin can
only be given by God - see Psalm 32:5 & Mark 2:7. The Christian church and
its members can preach that such forgiveness is available from God through
faith alone in Christ alone - see Acts 13:38-39. The Church and its members
have no authority to actually dispense God's forgiveness so Patrick's claims
for such power as cited in paragraphs 1448 and 1495 of the 1994 Catechism of
the Roman Catholic Church are without scriptural foundation.
In
my article http://www.takeheed.net/Assorted_Articles/Ecumenism/PaulSymondsJesuit.htm where I examine the
teachings of Jesuit-trained Priest, Paul Symonds I look at various segments of
video in which he speaks. In my analysis of Segments 3 & 4 I wrote –
Paul Symonds likened the Roman Catholic priestly call
to those who were called to the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood. That
priesthood was made forever redundant by the finished work of Christ on the
cross. We read in Hebrews 10:11-12 & 14 “And every [Aaronic] priest standeth daily ministering and offering the
same sacrifices [just like Roman Catholic priests do today by offering
daily ‘The Sacrifice of The Mass’] which can never take away sins; But this man [Christ] after he had offered one sacrifice for sins [on the cross] for
ever, sat down on the right hand of God…For by one offering he hath perfected [given a perfect
standing before God to] them that are sanctified’ [those truly
converted and now set apart for God –all
true believers].
In speaking of the Roman priesthood’s claim to forgive
sins Paul Symonds spoke of their ‘power
and responsibility to release people from their sins’ and of course that
supposedly happens during ‘confession’.
Former Roman Catholic, Jim McCarthy in his book ‘The Gospel According to Rome’
has some helpful comments on this claim. He wrote on pages 80-81 –
‘When
King David repented of his adultery, he confessed his sin directly to God.
No priest. No ritual. No sacrament. Just a broken man owning up to his sin
before His maker…Confession directly to God was also the experience of
Nehemiah [1:4-11], Daniel [9:3-19] and Ezra [9:5-10]. New Testament Christians
can also go directly to God with their sins …”If we confess our sins, He is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness” [1 John 1:9]. Jim also wrote on these pages that Christians
‘go not to a Judge but to their Father with Jesus at their side [for] “If
anyone sins we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” [1
John 2:1-2]’.
Paul Symonds quoted John 20:22-23 to substantiate this
claim that priests have the power to forgive sins in Christ’s name – “Receive ye the Holy
Spirit; Whosoever’s sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them and whosoever’s
sins ye retain, they are retained”. In understanding scripture it is always necessary to
consider all relevant verses on a particular topic and these verses must be
understood in the light of for instance Luke 24:45-47 “Then opened he [Christ] their understanding that they
might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written and
thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day; And
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem”.
In Antioch we read of Paul saying in Acts 13:38 “Be it known unto you
therefore men and brethren that through this man [Christ] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins”. Earlier I also quoted Paul when
he wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:21 “For it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching [not priestly-orchestrated sacramental observance] to save them that
believe”.
Returning to Jim McCarthy’s book ‘The Gospel According to
Rome’ we read on page 82
‘The disciples were to go forth and
proclaim the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ…This is the very thing we
find the disciples doing in the book of Acts. Peter for example proclaimed
Christ to Cornelius saying, “…whosoever believeth in him shall receive
remission of sins”…There were also occasions when the disciples found it
necessary to proclaim the sins of some retained. Simon the magician was one
such person. Simon heard the gospel said he believed and was baptised. Shortly
afterward he revealed his true motive. He thought he could obtain magical
powers from the apostles. Peter told Simon he was still in his sins [Acts
8:21-22]’.
Perhaps I could add to this by saying that Peter didn’t
then tell Simon to seek out some priest to whom he should confess his sins in
order to obtain God’s forgiveness. Peter said to Simon “Repent therefore of
this thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine
heart may be forgiven thee” [Acts 8:22].
One of the earliest joys in my Christian life was to meet
former Roman Catholic priest, Bart Brewer, at a conference in London – Bart
went to be with the Lord in 2005 and this link will take you to a short tribute
that I penned in memory of Bart http://www.takeheed.net/BartBrewertribute.htm
In his book ‘Pilgrimage from Rome, Bart wrote about his
experiences of ‘taking confession’ during his time as a Roman Catholic priest.
On page 55 he wrote
‘Although my first experience of taking
confession had been harsh and disturbing, I soon adjusted, although I never
liked the duty’.
Quoting then from the Council of Trent [Session
14: Chapter III], Bart
wrote
‘Canon VI: “If anyone denies that sacramental
confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says
that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic
Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at
variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance,
let him be anathema”’ [Cecil’s
comments – according to this if you don’t accept Rome’s teaching on confessing
sins to their priests you cannot be saved and you are under the curse of God!].
Bart continued,
‘This canon is a classic example of the
misuse of scripture. Confession to a priest, secretly or openly was not
commanded or ordained by Christ. Nowhere does the Bible say that such
confession is necessary for salvation. The confessional is a mere invention of
men…It is the privilege of every sinner, whoever he may be, to confess his sins
directly to God’.
This last truth was denied by the late Pope John Paul II
during one of his trips to America when according to this report in the Los
Angeles Times [12 December 1984] we read, ‘Rebutting a belief widely shared by Protestants and a growing number
of Roman Catholics, Pope John Paul II on Tuesday dismissed the “widespread idea
that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God” and exhorted Catholics to
confess more often to their priests’
This quote can be viewed on this rather lengthy link –
Summing up his views on the ‘confessional’ Bart Brewer
wrote [pages 56-57]
‘Why does the church hold to the
confessional as such an important part of its dogma? The chief reason is that
obligatory confession keeps Catholics in submission…The confessional, linked as
it is to penances and purgatory, is a yoke of bondage to Catholics, not only in
this life, but even beyond the grave, as masses and prayers for the dead are
said’.
The final words of that quotation from Bart Brewer will
bring me rather nicely to the subject of the next segment on the DVD but before
that let me direct your thoughts to the words of a former Jesuit priest called
Jose Rico.
Earlier in this section I quoted from Hebrews 10. The book
‘Far from Rome: Near to God’ chronicles the testimonies of 50 converted, former
Roman Catholic priests, and on pages 104-105, in the testimony of former
Jesuit, Jose Rico, we read this
‘When I finished studying the Epistle to
the Hebrews I felt that an invisible and omnipotent hand stripped me of my
vestments and my priestly character. The only priesthood found was that recorded
by St Peter “Ye also, as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an
holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ” [1Peter 2:5]. It is the same [priesthood] that is referred to in
Hebrews “By him therefore let us offer sacrifice of praise to God
continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” [Hebrews 13:15]…Christ became my “only” Saviour for none other had
died on the cross for me. He also became my “sufficient saviour” because His
blood is all-powerful to wash my sins from my soul. How miserably the rites and
ceremonies, the human traditions of Romanism, had failed to cleanse the soul
for God…From that moment I knew myself as a new creature in Christ Jesus [2 Corinthians 5:17]…Yes, I had “passed from death unto life” [John 5:24] …In this manner the curtain fell that put an
end to the tragedy that had existed throughout my nineteen long years [as a Jesuit] in the priesthood’.
Finally
I want to turn to the claims by Mr Sungenis about ‘losing salvation’ – he wrote
Protestants of the Calvinistic
and Fundmentalist variety have been taught that once someone receives salvation
by "accepting Jesus into your heart," that individual can never lose
his salvation, regardless of whether he falls into sin… The Catholic can add
the following: "Having been saved, however, does not mean that I am
guaranteed to go to heaven, since the same Bible that taught me about Baptism
in John 3:5 is the same one that teaches me I can lose my salvation
Can
someone who has been truly “born again” by the Spirit of God and not by the
application of any waters of baptism lose the salvation received at their
moment of true regeneration? My answer based upon what the Word of God teaches
is an emphatic and glorious ‘No’. Easy to say but can I justify it from the
Word of God?
On this link http://www.freechurch.org/resources/sermons/salvation.htm you can read a wonderful sermon preached by Scottish minister Rev Hugh Cartwright on John 6:37 - "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.''
Herewith are just a few brief extracts to ‘whet the appetite’
–
‘The entire Godhead is involved in the salvation of a soul…
That God gave His people to Christ to save them carries with it the guarantee
that they shall come to Him to be saved… Christ alone meets the need of the soul
because Christ alone meets the requirements of God… And it is in the Person and
Work of Christ that these requirements are met. In the sacrifice of "the
Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16), "mercy and truth
are met together: righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Ps.
85:10). In His life and death the law of God has received infinite obedience
and satisfaction… Only in Christ can this salvation be secured. As a man He had
the necessary relationship to us to be able to act for us, and He had the
capacity to suffer and to sympathize. His divinity gave infinite and eternal
value and efficacy to all He did as Mediator. And that He is the Christ--the
anointed, commissioned Servant of the Father--shows that all His work is in
accordance with His will and satisfies His requirements. Thus Christ, alone, is
able to save… Coming to Christ is the evidence of election…. If you have come
to Christ it is because the Father gave you to Christ in an everlasting
covenant, and by His Spirit persuaded and enabled you to embrace Jesus Christ,
freely offered in the Gospel… The harmony of the Godhead in salvation is the
guarantee that every poor soul who comes to Christ will be welcome. When He
says emphatically that He will in no wise cast him out He is showing the
certainty of the believing sinner's acceptance… on no account will those be
cast out who come in faith and penitence, as sinners to Christ… To be received
by Christ is to "be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation"
(Isaiah 45:17)’
These wonderful gospel
truths have been rejected by Robert Sungenis, Scott Butler, Scott Hahn and
Peter Kreeft and it is my firm conviction that they have thus shown themselves
to be unregenerate ‘blind leaders of the
blind’ who are currently on course to end up in a hellish ditch, taking
with them those who look to them for spiritual guidance [see Matthew 15:14]
In closing, I want to finish
with words written by Rob Zins that I quoted in my article – ‘Why Roman Catholicism is not Christian’ [Part2]
that is located on http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/news7.htm – words that shine the spotlight on the SAVING
GOSPEL of the Lord Jesus Christ – a GOSPEL that Rome does not understand and
declares belief in to be a passport to hell rather than heaven.
‘But the Gospel does
more than explain. It offers a promise based upon the explanations. It offers
eternal life based solely on the finished work of the atonement. It offers the
promise that all sins are and will be forgiven for the sake of Christ alone. It
offers the end of all personal sacrifices for personal sins. It offers the
promise of all guilt removed on the basis of Christ alone and that through
faith alone. It offers the security that all those in Christ will live
protected with Him forever and will not lose this standing with God.
Furthermore, the Gospel offers an end to all of man's vain attempts to do
enough to warrant salvation. The gospel explains that Jesus has paid it all and
that there is no “our share” or “our part” involved. The Gospel explains how
God gives us Christ and His righteousness for our right standing with God. The
gospel is the power of God for salvation because it holds the truth of all that
God has done for mankind.’
Robert Sungenis is
soul-damningly wrong in what he [and Rome] teach on ‘being saved’ as Rob Zins has
so clearly sets forth in these soul-stirring, biblically-based declarations –
“God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” [Galatians 6:14]
Cecil
Andrews – ‘Take Heed’ Ministries – 30th June 2011