1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FCFC Rebuttal #3:

You seem to be confused Mr. Sungenis. Should the Feasts be interpreted literally or spiritually, or part literally and part spiritually? You asked FCFC if we literally went to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast, revealing your lack of understanding in this matter. The key to understanding the question of the feasts of God is the cross of Jesus and His finished work in relation to the Old Covenant. When Christ came, He fulfilled in Himself historically, personally and antitypically all that was SHADOWED FORTH historically, typically and symbolically under the Old Covenant.

Jesus fulfilled, and by fulfillment abolished the temporal, literal and symbolic things used in these Feasts and brought in that which is spiritual and eternal. (Heb.9:8-15) Therefore there is no need to go to Jerusalem or anywhere else including the Catholic church to worship God. For Christ Himself answered the woman from Samaria who said, "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." (Jn.4:20) "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: We know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit [compare Jn.6:63] and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (Vs. 21-24)

Proper Biblical exegesis would state that the three Feasts before the Cross found their historical and literal fulfillment in natural Israel under the Old Covenant, while they found their historical and personal fulfillment in Jesus at the cross under the New Covenant. And again, they find spiritual and experiential fulfillment after the Cross in the Church, spiritual Israel. (Rom.4:13-16; 9:6-9; Gal.3:22; Eph.2:12-14)

In the first paragraph you say "The literal application of OT religious laws, whether they be of circumcision, diet, or festal, were discontinued in the NT as Paul states clearly in Col.2:16". Let's read Col.2:16 AND 17:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME; but the body is of Christ." (Emphasis mine)

This proves our point, that the OT ceremonial laws and feasts are but a shadow of the true! Hence our interpretation of the Passover as a SHADOW of Christ and that the lamb of Exodus 12 was but a SHADOW of the TRUE LAMB is correct.

The prominent truth that God endeavored to teach Israel was that of blood atonement. The approach to God can only be upon the foundation of blood, sacrificial blood. So, the "unbloody" sacrifice of the Eucharist has no theological leg to stand on. There can be no Feasting with the Lord or His people except on the basis of bloodshed, blood atonement. The principle of Exodus 12:13 is applicable here:

"And the blood shall be to you a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you..."

The OT ceremonial law agrees with this doctrine when it states CLEARLY:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for you souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood."

God has nothing to say to man apart from the blood of Jesus Christ. All of God's communications in festal relationship to the believer is upon the foundation of the sacrificial blood of Jesus as clearly stated in I Cor.5:7:

"For even Christ OUR PASSOVER is sacrificed for us: THEREFORE LET US KEEP THE FEAST, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Sungenis, for you to say that the feasts were discontinued is against the Scriptures!!! We still celebrate the Passover, only now we celebrate it in spirit and in truth. Jesus has brought in the spiritual and eternal! The same with circumcision! It was not discontinued, for now we are circumcised in the heart as Romans 2:28-29 says:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; AND CIRCUMCISION IS THAT OF THE HEART, IN THE SPIRIT, AND NOT IN THE LETTER; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Emphasis mine)

The bottom line is that the blood of Jesus is the perfect once-for-all sacrifice in the NT times which God accepts. It fulfills prophecy and abolishes in itself all the untold millions of animal sacrifices and oblations of the OT. His sacrifice is NEVER to be repeated. Christ died once. (Heb.9:25-28; 7:27) Stated again in Rom.6:9-10:

"Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE; death hath no more dominion over him. for in that he died, HE DIED UNTO SIN ONCE: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." (Emphasis mine)

Since he can never die again, there can be no more sacrifice...hence the "sacrifice" of the mass can be no more than a remembrance of a sacrifice and not a true "sacrifice" since a true sacrifice demands a victim.

We know that Calvary is a fulfillment of the Passover (in a one-to-one correspondence). If the mass is supposed to be a re-presentation of Calvary, then the mass must be identical to the Passover, which it is NOT! Therefore we maintain that the Catholic mass is nothing more than a gross counterfeit and not the true Feast that we are to keep in sincerity and truth!

The same can be said of the Sabbath. It found its historical and literal fulfillment in natural Israel under the Old Covenant. Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, was "...made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law", thus fulfilling and abolishing the external and bringing in the spiritual and eternal. The Sabbath rest spoke of man ceasing from his own works and entering into and enjoying the work of God. We are called to cease from our own works, works of the flesh (Gal.5:19-21) and works of the law (Rom.3:27-28, 9:30-32) and find rest in Jesus Christ. As Jesus says in Matt.11:28: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Hebrews 4:3, 4 and 10 expound on this:

"For we which have believed do enter into rest...although THE WORKS WERE FINISHED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works...For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." (Emphasis mine)

Just what works were "finished from the foundation of the world"? Rev.13:8 tells us it was "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Jesus confirms this interpretation in John 4:34, "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and TO FINISH HIS WORK." Perhaps this will help clear up the interpretation of Jn.19:30 where Jesus says, "IT IS FINISHED", since you seem to be in confusion over what the word "it" refers to. John and Hebrews both speak of the finished work, so I fail to see why you are so puzzled!

Another point that should be made is that the Catholic church, due to her lack of spiritual understanding of the Feast days and the Sabbath, has further burdened her people. Mr. Sungenis claims that the ceremonial laws are discontinued, which includes the Sabbath. Yet, "...every Catholic is bound to assist at Mass once on every Sunday and holiday of obligation" (Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, 312). This is putting man back under the law, the very thing Mr. Sungenis said is discontinued. If a Catholic deliberately and willfully misses Mass (perhaps too lazy to attend church that day) he/she has committed a mortal sin and if "...unrepented [before death] it brings eternal death" (Catechism of The Catholic Church, 1874). Yet Gal.5:4 says, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosover of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." So why would a Catholic be justified if he/she went to mass? Remember grace is "unmerited favor".

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." (Rom.11:6) "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal.3:3)

If the Catholic church justifies a man who keeps the sabbath law and condemns another man who breaks the sabbath law, then she has without doubt put man back under the law.

"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise...And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." (Gal.3:18-29)

Before we move on to any other subjects, we feel that the subject of the mass and Eucharist have not been totally analyzed under the light of Scriptures. We also feel you have failed to prove that the Catholic really "eats" Jesus literally. You admitted that Jesus enters "whole and entire" and leaves "whole and entire", meaning that you did not truly "eat" him since he was not assimilated nor annihilated into nothingness. At most you only chewed him, much like one chews tobacco or bubble gum (a non- nourishing act). Chewing used to be forbidden by the Catholic church, but now is allowed. We also feel you have not adequately explained why the early church stressed the importance of receiving both elements (the bread and the wine), in order to receive the sacrament in it's entirety. Why was it necessary for newborns to receive communion for salvation in the early church, but it is not necessary now?

You used Gal.5:21 to prove we can "lose" our "inheritance". "...They which do such things" were the unsaved, not the saved. You can know them by their fruits. The same for I Cor.6:9, Eph.5:5, Heb. 6:46; 10:26-29, you seem to be confusing the saved with the unsaved. I Peter 1:4 tells us that our inheritance is:

"...incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you. Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Concerning the "church fathers", Jaroslav Pelikan, in his book The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), 68-69, makes an interesting observation:

"History is usually dictated by the victors. As the principal sources of information about the development of Christian doctrine are the writings of orthodox theologians, so most of what has been known about these heresies-at least until the twentieth century-has come from the works of those who combated them."

CAI Rebuttal #3:

Since FCFC has not answered my challenge concerning the alleged forgeries of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist, let me preface my rebuttal with a comment on Bill Jackson's assertion on page 3 of "Feedback" that the Catholic Church "substituted false documents and tampered with genuine ones" concerning the Church fathers. I challenge you, Dr. Jackson, as I did FCFC, to find me one reputable Protestant scholar who claims and has proof that the writings of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist were forgeries. Your demagogic attempts to cast a shadow on the early fathers by citing the fact that there were some forgeries in the Middle Ages indicates to me once again the totally biased view of history Protestants maintain despite the evidence before them. As for your reference to Donnel Jackson that studying the early Church fathers is like "entering another world," then tell us why Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110), who writes that he knew the apostle John, believed and wrote about baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist? Are we to believe, as you are suggesting, that he just dreamed this up on his own? Ignatius also writes frequently of being faithful to the tradition handed down to him. Where did this tradition come from Dr. Jackson if it did not come from John and the other apostles, considering the fact that Ignatius is in the same generation as John the apostle? I suppose you are going to tell us that Ignatius' writings were forgeries, right? You find us one reputable scholar who claims and has proof that they were forgeries and I'll become a Protestant again. FCFC wasn't able to find any proof I doubt if you will either. And now that you have made the assertion, I suggest you stay out of the debate until you find us the proof. Now to FCFC. I will assume, ladies, that since you didn't rebutt the matter concerning the real meaning of "trogo" (to chew, masticate, munch) in John 6:54-58, nor answered the fact that "amamnesis" in Leviticus 2:2 referred to the sacrifice itself not merely a remembrance of a sacrifice, nor answered the fact that the Church fathers had the same Spirit you claim to have, nor answered the fact that the NT teaches "infused" grace, that you have conceded these points. If not, then I expect rebuttals in your next installment.

Regarding your statement that the OT feasts were shadows of NT truths, you won't find me giving you an argument. What I will argue against, however, is your one-sided hermeneutic that seeks to limit the Old and New Testament directives to the spiritual realm. You would make a good Gnostic or Docetist (for those in Rio Linda and Greentown, those are heresies in the early centuries that claimed there were no physical realities to Christianity, just spiritual). Granted, there is plenty of spiritual truth in the New Testament. The Catholic Church has a whole history of allegorical and anagogical interpretation of Old and New Testament types. But this does not mean, contrary to what you are suggesting, that these types don't have their own physical counterpart. For example, though it is true that the New Testament speaks of a"spiritual circumcision" (Col. 2: Il), and that physical circumcision has been abolished (Gal 5:2-3), it transposes this Old Testament sign into a New Testament physical counterpart, namely, baptism. As a matter of fact, after Colossians 2:11 refers to spiritual circumcision, it follows immediately in Colossians 2: 12 with the physical reality of baptism that has replaced circumcision. So you see, ladies, its not just a "spiritual" application of Old Testament shadows but a physical application as well. Likewise, though the physical reality of Passover was fulfilled in the spiritual reality of salvation, nevertheless, the physical counterpart that was established in place of Passover was the Eucharist.

I might also mention that your analysis of the Sabbath is equally aschew [sic]. Granted, the literal Sabbath law, which fell under ceremonial law, became the typological shadow of the fact that we do not work for salvation, nevertheless, the NT church substituted a physical counterpart in its place, the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). In addition, contrary to your assertion that one is not required to attend worship on the Lord's day, as the Catholic Church requires, Hebrews 10:25 makes it clear that one is required to attend. Moreover, when the Church requires such practice of its people under pain of sin, this is no different than what was true in Acts 15 when the Council of Jerusalem, along with the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), required all Christians to abstain from certain kinds of meats. If a Christian disobeyed this ordinance when it was imposed and valid, he would have been in sin. That the Church had the power to convict of sin was already established (Acts 5: 1-16). However, the Council of Jerusalem was no more "going back to the law" of the Old Testament anymore than the Catholic Church is when it requires attendance at Sunday Mass nor requires cessation from unnecessary work. Though the NT discontinues the ceremonial dimensions of the Third Commandment, it continues its moral obligations. In short, the Church extracted what was good from the OT and discarded what was obsolete.

Ironically, with all your talk of "spiritual" realities fulfilling the shadows of the OT, on what basis, then, do you insist on a literal fulfillment or application of the OT law of not eating blood in the New Testament? Laying aside the Eucharist for the moment, are you trying to tell us that it would be sin for someone today to consume blood? I hope in light of Col. 2: 16 and 1 Tim.4:3 you are not saying such. The only ones who teach that absurd doctrine are Seventh Day Adventists. Are you one of them? If not, then I suggest you stop the forcing of this OT law onto the NT, whether it be concerning comestible items or the Eucharist.

Regarding your contention that "finished" refers to the "work" of Christ, you won’t get an argument from me. What I will contend with, however, is your application of John 19:30 to prohibit the continuing work of Christ with his Church after his Asension [sic]. Granted, the most likely interpretation of "it is finished" in John 19:30 is to Christ's death on the cross. He finished that part of his work. But how does this prove, as you suggests it does, that his work does not continue in another mode? Does not Jesus have more work to do for the Father? Yes he does. Jesus needs to come again and put all things under the Father's rule (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Thus, his work is not finished.

Incidentally, your use of Rev. 13:8 ("finished from the foundation of the world...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world") is not going to help you for it simply proves too much for your case. If the work was "finished," in the strict sense of the word, before the world was created, then there was no need for Christ to come to earth and die. Consequently, your discovery of the word "finished" in Rev. 13:8 only proves how ambiguous and general this word is, and thus shows that it can be applied in many different ways and therefore does not exclude Christ coming to us presently as a re-presented sacrifice in the Eucharist. I have also pointed out the same anachronistic use of the word "finished" in John 17:4 to which you did not respond.

This brings up another point that may help in understanding how Christ's work can be "finished" in one sense and yet "not finished" in another sense. The NT speaks of Christ "coming." Normally, we associate this with either his first or second coming. His first coming is considered a "finished" work and his second coming will be the ultimate "finishing. " However, the NT also speaks of Christ "coming" before or in between these two events. For example, in Matt. 16:27-28 Christ tells the apostles that the kingdom would come before any of them died. This is fulfilled in the Transfiguration of Matt. 17:l. Hence, the Transfiguration was a "coming" of Jesus in his kingdom long before the Second Coming at the end of time. Similarly, Acts 2:20 speaks of the "coming" in relation to Pentecost. In Acts 7:55, Stephen sees a "coming" of Jesus. In Acts 9:4-5 and 22:17-2 1 and 23: 1 1, Paul experiences a "coming" of Jesus. Peter experiences something similar in Acts 10: 13-14 and John in Rev. 1-3. Hence, Jesus' coming to us is not confined to the first or second coming, rather, he has much work to do for the Father throughout the Church age. Similarly, though Jesus "finished" the first phase of his work for the Father, (i.e., his actual death and resurrection), this does not exclude his continuing work. This is why I stressed in my last installment that the context of Hebrews 7-9 only contrasts the one sacrifice of Christ over against the multitudinous sacrifices of the OT priests; it does not contrast Christ's one sacrifice over against Christ's continuing work as a priest for the Father. That continuing work is shown in his "coming" to us at each Mass and making his abode with us as he promised. That work (i.e., his perpetual priesthood, cf. Heb. 7:25) is not "finished" and will not be until he comes at the end of time.

Regarding your question concerning Jesus coming and leaving "whole and entire," I have already explained this mystery by an analogous work of God when he comes into a physical entity with his Spirit "whole and entire," as Romans 8:9 teaches. The Spirit can also leave a physical entity "whole and entire" as well (1 Sam. 16:14, et al). Christ can come into a rock (l Cor. 10:4), a donkey (Num 22:28), and just about anything he feels is necessary. In addition, his resurrected body was not subject to the same time and space limitations that we are as is proven by his suddenly appearing to the disciples in a room in which the doors were locked (John 20: 19,26). There are many mysteries to the hypostatic union we will never comprehend. Thus, though your question is intriguing, it does not disprove anything about the Eucharist.

Regarding the practice of taking both elements and giving the Eucharist to children I will answer in my next installment. Also, your assertion that Gal. 5:21, I Cor. 6:9, Eph. 5:5 et al, are speaking about the unsaved is totally absurd. The context of the passages will not allow such an interpretation. But I will save that for a future debate.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7