Robert Sungenis responds

Robert
The following is quoted from a recent (April 05) review of "Not by faith alone" on the Amazon.Com web site.

I grant that this may not be the forum for it, but if you are able I'd be most interested in your response.

Thanks
Peter

R. Sungenis: Peter, I will be happy to answer the Amazon critic.

Amazon critic: theologicalresearcher "theologicalresearcher"
(Canada) - See all my reviews

This is a good introduction to the Roman Catholic view of justification. Though I would seriously disagree with almost all of Sungenis' conclusions and interpretations, he does present the Roman Catholic view clearly and lucidly. However, there are certain doctrines that the author is clearly wrong on. Sungenis' view that justification is a process and/or a transformation (chapters 4-6) does not do justice to the ancient Hebrew (or OT) concept that justification is primarily legal and judicial. Sungenis fails to discuss this and he basically buries his own argument.

R. Sungenis: Either the critic hasn’t read Not By Faith Alone carefully, or he didn’t understand it when he was reading it. I go to great lengths showing that it is a fallacy to hold that the OT taught that justification was legal and juridical. On pages 324-336 I have an extensive critique of Charles Hodge’s and James White’s attempt to prove that the OT had a juridical concept of justification. In addition, I have a whole appendix (Appendix 2) that deals strictly with Alister McGrath’s contention that Augustine’s use of iustificare was incorrect because it failed to see the forensic meaning of Old and New Testament passages dealing with justification. To date, no one has answered either my Hodge and White critique or the critique on Alister McGrath.

Amazon critic: His arguments that Paul (chapter 1), James (chapter 2), and Jesus (chapter 3) did not teach justification by faith ALONE are equally inconvincing [sic]

R. Sungenis: Hard to reply when the critic lists no specific objections other than his own general opinion. Many other Protestants have found the material quite “convincing,” since I receive about a letter a week telling me so. We even have one posted on our website from an earlier Amazon review in which the Protestant states: “5 out of 5 stars: Impressive... Sungenis's works have done the trick; I cannot accept any part of the Protestant Reformation as being for the good...this Study Bible is indispensable.”

Amazon critic: (Sungenis' argument that the "works of the Law" refer to legalism is unsupportable. Many Protestant exegetes like A. A. Das, Douglas Moo, and Stephen Westerholm have disproven this theory).

R. Sungenis: First of all, I address Douglas Moo’s arguments in Not By Faith Alone, and he is representative of the scholars who hold such a view. I can safely tell you that Moo and company haven’t “proven” anything, except that they can write an alternative to the traditional understanding. But again, I can’t reply to the Amazon critic because he gives no specifics to his contention.

Amazon critic: Sungenis resorts to proof-texting and clever deductive arguments to make the reader think he has the reasons why the Protestant understanding of justification is wrong without going into more detailed exegesis and Greek-Hebrew word study.

R. Sungenis: “Clever deductive arguments”? Like what? Sounds to me like the critic merely wants to give an impression rather than put substance into his critique. These kind of remarks usually come from people who can’t answer the “clever deductive arguments,” but have chosen not to accept them in any case, since they come to the discussion entrenched in their own intractable views. Take, for example, my “cleverly deductive argument” that St. Paul chose David as his primary example of justification in Romans 4:4-8 because it was David whom God justified after he confessed his sins of murder and adultery. A “deductive argument” would then provide us with the fact that David, as Catholic doctrine teaches, was justified after he had committed mortal sin (murder and adultery). We can also “deduce” that David was a justified man previous to his committing of mortal sin, otherwise St. Paul could not use him as an example of someone who was justified in Romans 4:4-8 after his sins of murder and adultery. To my knowledge, Not By Faith Alone is the first time in Catholic history that such arguments have been put forward regarding David in Romans 4:4-8. But has there been a modern Protestant answer to them? No, except to claim that it is merely a “clever deductive argument.” Until if and when this Amazon critic, or anyone else, can provide a logical and convincing refutation to this “clever deductive argument,” then we Catholics will just go on putting our faith in Catholic doctrine, since there is no reason to change.

Amazon critic: His chapter on predestination, free will, and justification (chapter 7) clearly shows his semi-pelegian [sic] bent. He tries to cover this up by going into logical absurdities ("If we are faithful to Scripture, however, we must conclude that it teaches both predestination and free will" [pp. 472-3]). Wrong! The Bible teaches us that God is sovereign and man is RESPONSIBLE (not free).

R. Sungenis: I specifically deny “semi-pelagianism” in Not By Faith Alone, as did the Catholic Church at the Council of Orange and Trent. In addition, I show the constant and vociferous battles on the subject of Predestination and Free Will not only among the original Reformers themselves (the German versus the Swiss Reformers), but also the opposition coming from the Remonstrants and the Anabaptists during the same time period. Calvin’s extreme views on Predestination were hardly coming from a monolithic consensus. Moreover, I go to great lengths to point out the utter contradictions in Calvin’s own view, since it ends up making God, “the sinless author of sin,” as Zwingli put it. As for the Amazon critic’s contention that predestination and free will cannot both be true because “God is sovereign and man is responsible,” shows how people of his persuasion seek to sidetrack the issue into one of “sovereignty” so as to accuse those with a more open view that they are denying God’s sovereignty. Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is any Church which upholds God’s sovereignty it is the Catholic Church. It takes a great God to put in force both His exclusive right to predestine the elect and at the same time give man an uncoerced and free will. It’s the impotent God of Calvinism that has to deny man free will since otherwise that same God would lose control over the world He created.

As for his contention that man is "responsible" not free, this is just another attempt to diffuse the contradictions in their theology by a word-play. Calvinism claims that man has no choice but to sin, thus man can't be free, yet Calvinism holds man "responsible" for his sin. So we have a God who gives man no other choice but to sin and yet this same God holds him responsible for his sin. This is precisely why Calvinism is an abhorent theology utterly rejected by Trent. It's so-called "rigorous logic" turns God into a sinner himself, not to mention giving no hope to mankind who are not arbitrarily chosen for salvation.

Amazon critic: His chapter (8) on the final justification is no surprise. However, one must point out Sungenis' highly flawed "exegesis" of 1 Cor 3:10-15 as supporting purgatory. Nowhere in Scripture is this doctrine taught (except in one place in the uninspired Apocrypha). The correct view is that the worker whose works are burned up at the Judgment WILL be saved as through the flames (NOT will be saved after being punished in purgatory).

R. Sungenis: Again, mere assertions cannot be addressed. Unless the critic makes specific charges as to what in 1 Cor 3:15 is a “flawed exegesis,” rather than merely espousing his own anti-Catholic opinions against Purgatory, then it is not worth a reply. I would suggest, however, that the Amazon critic show us how the Greek word "zemioo," which from its original meaning in the LXX is “punishment,” cannot possibly be the meaning St. Paul intends in 1 Cor 3:15. If not, then what is “flawed” is the Protestant contention that they have addressed 1 Cor 3:15 in any sufficient manner, not to mention that the entire history of the Church prior to the Protestant revolt saw 1 Cor 3:15 the same way as I have exegeted it.

Amazon critic: This also shows that Sungenis (and Roman Catholics in general) do not believe that Christ paid the FULL penalty for our sins (I wonder what our Lord meant when he said in John 19:30 "It is finished!"?).

R. Sungenis: Another misconception Protestants have been under since the time of Luther. The Bible never says Christ “paid the full penalty for our sins.” This subject is covered at length in my other book, Not By Bread Alone and also in Not By Faith Alone. If Christ “paid the full penalty for our sins” then obviously God could not send anyone to Hell, since it would be unjust for Him to send someone to Hell whose sins have already been paid for. This is a major contradiction in Protestant thought. Luther and Calvin were smart enough to see the contradiction, which is why they said that God only paid for the sins of the elect, and refused to pay for the sins of the rest of the world. Of course, that conclusion runs right smack into a contradiction with 1 John 2:1-2 which says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The only way to reconcile all these different issues is to understand, as the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, that Christ paid the price to appease the Father’s wrath in order to, once again, open up the possibility of eternal life to mankind that was taken away when Adam sinned. Christ did not pay for anyone’s sins. He suffered to seek the Father’s mercy so that the Father would accept the repentance of sinners. When Jesus said “It is finished,” this mercy was now available.

Amazon critic: However, one of the interesting discussions in the book is chapter 9 ("Will 'Faith Alone' Be All Alone?"). Sungenis is right when he states that "it seemed obvious to [Norman] Shepherd, and his growing supporters, that the works of an individual play an integral part in his justification and in determining whether God will save or damn him on judgment day" (p. 593). I believe Sungenis clears up the air on this issue: Norman Shepherd denies justification by faith alone (and the Gospel according to the Bible).

R. Sungenis: The critic has only a gratuitous agreement with me here because I point out the opposition of Norman Shepherd to his Calvinism. The fact is, however, that Norman Shepherd is a true blue-blooded Dutch theologian brought up in the Calvinist fare all his life. For him to suddenly make a shift toward the Catholic way of solving the problems inherent in the ‘faith alone’ theology of the Reformation shows once again the insurmountable cracks in the very foundation of Reformed theology.

Amazon critic: In regards to James D. G. Dunn's (and other New Perspective scholars') view of justification, Sungenis calls it "a challange to classic and modern Protestant thinking" (p. 604). This clearly puts scholars like N. T. Wright and Hendrikus Boers outside of Protestant orthodoxy (and rightly so!).

R. Sungenis: I don’t know precisely what the Amazon critic’s point is here, but suffice it to say that, if he is against James Dunn and N. T. Wright then he must also be against the view that holds “works of the Law” as a mere identity marker for Jews rather than a condemnation of legalism. But in his first paragraph above, he sided with the view that “works of the Law” was not referring to legalism. Hard to tell where this critic rests his theology, except that he seems to be against everybody who doesn’t hold the line according to his version of Reformed theology.

Amazon critic: This book is a good introduction to the Roman Catholic view of justification. However, the polemical and triumphalistic tone may turn many people off (Sungenis often assumes he is right and Protestants wrong). Having said that, it is easy to read and understand for the layperson.

R. Sungenis: “Polemical and triumphalistic”? Isn’t that what this Amazon critic has just displayed in his critique of Not By Faith Alone? The only difference between he and I is that I base my “triumphalism” on the 2000-year old authority of the Catholic Church, complete with conciliar, patristic and catechetical citations for every chapter I write.

Top