Sungenis: "I’m afraid that the attempt by Mitch and Hahn to deal with the “works of the law” issue is symptomatic of a basic misunderstanding of the whole issue of justification, as well as a misunderstanding of how the Old Covenant relates to the New Covenant."
Sungenis: "So, the long and short of it is this: we need to stop going to the Protestants for our understanding of Justification, whether it’s Joseph Fitzmyer’s attempt to say that justification is “forensic” in his New Jerome Biblical Commentary, or Scott Hahn’s attempt to say that “works of the law” refers only to the ceremonial law or that works are only required in “final justification.” These divergences arise because of a basic misunderstanding of how the Old Covenant relates to the New, which is the same problem we are having today when Catholic prelates deny supersessionism and teach that the Old Covenant is still valid for the Jews today. One small error can send us off in a hundred different, but erroneous, directions."
[Source]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
To help James Swan out with his attempt to start a controversy, I think that the real issue, from a Catholic standpoint, is that Robert referred to Fr. Mitch Pacwa as Mitch. This is something that Catholics do not do; it is insulting; it is irreverent, it is un-Catholic; and it is reprehensible. You do not call a Catholic priest by his first name, even if he is your brother; even if he is your son, and even if he is your colleague or childhood friend. This behavior suggests something deeper than the justification issue. In addition, both Fr. Pacwa and Dr. Scott Hahn have earned doctoral degrees and in any professional communication, they ought to be addressed in a respectable way.
I'm only pointing out (once again), how "unified" Rome's apologists are. What they disagree on is only secondary, though interesting.
I believe Mr. Sungenis is speaking of Curtis Mitch. I had read through the article quickly when I originally posted it, and incorrectly mentioned Father Pacwa. My apologies. I corrected my error not long after I posted this blog entry, and it was corrected previous to you posting your comment (in fact,probably 15 hours before your comment).
I realize Mr. Sungenis has lost a lot of love from Catholics, His book Not By Faith Alone, was at one time popularly held to be one of the best books on the subject. I do find it interesting how many are ready to throw him under the bus...
"I corrected my error not long after I posted this blog entry, and it was corrected previous to you posting your comment (in fact, probably 15 hours before your comment)."
My apologies too. I read your initial blog entry perhaps last or early this morning. I delayed commenting until after coming home from work this evening. I did not re-read the post before posting. I am however glad that the Mitch in your post referred to someone else other than Fr. Pacwa.
"I realize Mr. Sungenis has lost a lot of love from Catholics, His book Not By Faith Alone, was at one time popularly held to be one of the best books on the subject. I do find it interesting how many are ready to throw him under the bus"
To the contrary, I believe that Robert Sungenis is possibly the best Catholic apologist in America, if not beyond. This is why James White avoids him like a plague. Sungenis knows his stuff and is not driven by raw emotion - he has substance; he is heavy hitting, just the way Protestants deserve it.
Dozie,
I don't know if that's why Dr. White doean't debate Sungenis anymore. I think there are other reasons actually.
White discusses that whole Sungenis and debate thing on his most recent Dividing Line, the first 20 minutes.
Post a Comment