Episode 140: 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
In today’s episode, we focus on details from all three readings for this upcoming 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. The first detail is more of a theme that runs throughout the first reading, which is taken from Genesis 18:20-32 and the Gospel reading, which is taken from Luke 11:11-13. The theme is intercessory prayer, and, in particular, whether our intercessory prayer can change God’s mind. The second detail that we will focus on is found in the second reading, which is taken from Colossians 2:11-12. The related apologetical topic is infant baptism. Finally, the last detail comes from the Gospel reading, and it relates to the doctrine that some Christians embrace—namely, that once we’re saved, all our future sins are already forgiven.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
17th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In today’s episode, we’re going to focus on details from all three readings for this upcoming 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. The first detail is more of a theme that runs throughout the first reading, which is taken from Genesis 18:20-32 and the Gospel reading, which is taken from Luke 11:11-13. The theme is intercessory prayer, and, in particular, whether our intercessory prayer can change God’s mind. The second detail that we will focus on is found in the second reading, which is taken from Colossians 2:11-12. The related apologetical topic is infant baptism. Finally, the last detail comes from the Gospel reading, and it relates to the doctrine that some Christians embrace—namely, that once we’re saved, all our future sins are already forgiven.
Let’s get started with the theme of intercessory prayer. Again, the theme runs throughout the first reading and the Gospel reading. The first reading tells the story of Abraham petitioning God to spare Sodom for 50 innocent people, then 45, 40, 30, 20, and finally 10.
The theme of petitionary prayer is also at the heart of the Gospel reading, which tells the story of the persistent neighbor who asks for bread in the middle of the night. Initially, the one petitioned says no. But after much persistence, he gives in and gives the petitioner what he’s asking for. Jesus then extracts the lesson of the story in verses 9-10:
And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Now, for our apologetical purposes, this theme of petitionary prayer raises the question, “Do our prayers change God’s mind? And if the answer is no, then why would we pray in the first place?”
These are really good questions. What I share here in part comes from my article “Pointless Prayer or Gracious God?” For more details, check out the article.
We can start by simply answering the first question, “No, our prayer requests cannot change God’s mind.” Prayer doesn’t move God to say, “Oh, I didn’t plan on doing this, but now that Karlo has prayed for it, I’ll do it.”
We know this is true because God, who is pure act (no potency), is infinitely perfect. There is no perfection he can acquire or lose, which would have to be the case if God “changed his mind.” This is why God says in Malachi 3:6, “For I the LORD do not change.”
But if the Lord can’t change, then what is the point of praying?
Perhaps we can shed some light on the dilemma by understanding that God’s providence involves not only willing certain effects to take place but also the causes from which those effects will be brought about—that is to say, God wills a pattern of cause-effect relationships.
Now, the eternal decree that determines which causes will bring about which effects includes human acts. These actions do not change God’s plan, but they are an essential part of it. In the words of Aquinas, “[They] achieve certain effects according to the order of the divine disposition” (Summa Theologiae, II-II:83:2).
Consider an example. God decreed from all eternity that I would have a fried egg for breakfast this morning. However, this eternal decree also involved the egg being produced in the usual way—namely, my wife cracking the egg (she’s so sweet), putting it into the frying pan, and heating the frying pan on the gas stove. My wife’s actions did not change God’s eternal plan but were willed by God to be a part of the cause-effect pattern.
The same is true with prayer, whether it’s for a miracle or for something as simple as a beautiful day. Prayer is simply one human action among many (e.g., my wife cooking the egg) that God wills to be a cause of certain effects in his divine plan.
Prayer doesn’t change God’s mind but requests from him that which he has willed from eternity to be bestowed by our prayer. As Brian Davies explains, “God may will from eternity that things should come about as things prayed for by us” (Thinking About God, 319).
In other words, it’s possible that God wills some events to occur only as a result of our prayer. For example, God may have eternally decreed to heal the cancer of a loved one, but only on condition persistent requests for a miracle are made. God may even have willed a beautiful day in Tulsa, OK on condition I make the request.
Whether we know the effect is conditioned by the request or not doesn’t matter. The point is, it’s possible, so we make the request hoping that God wills our prayer to be a cause of the effect. If it turns out he did not will it so, then we trust God has good reasons for his choice. This is why Christians pray “Thy will be done.”
But if God wills our prayer request to be the cause of the desired effect, then it would be true to say our prayer makes a real difference. It would not have made a difference by changing God’s mind but by being an essential part of the cause-effect pattern God has eternally decreed.
The real causal power that our prayers have in God’s eternal plan is no different than the real causal power my wife’s actions had in producing a fried egg this morning. Her actions were essential for the fried egg, because that is how God arranged it to be from all eternity. God has created a world in which fried eggs come to be in a specific way.
Similarly, with regard to prayer, some events will occur only as a result of prayer, because that is the specific way God has arranged it. God has created a world in such a way that our actions, including prayer, serve as real game changers in the history of the world.
The bottom line is this: there is nothing in the act of prayer that is incompatible with God’s changeless and eternal decree. Our petitions are arranged by God to be part and parcel of his divine plan—a great honor God bestows upon human beings.
There’s one last thing to say here. God wills that we make requests for certain effects to come about, even if he doesn’t will those effects to come about, because it affects us in a positive way. It’s a sort of Divine pedagogy.
It humbles us, recognizing that we are entirely reliant on God’s will for whatever blessings that comes about in our lives. That in turn helps break the illusion that we’re ultimately in control of things.
Also, the requests that we make of God at their core can be acts of worship and thereby acts of love, which contributes to our growth in holiness, which in turn contributes to our high degree of experience of the beatific vision if we persevere unto the end.
So, there is no reason to think that our petitionary prayers made of God are incompatible with his immutability.
Let’s now turn to the second reading, taken from Colossians 2:11-12. Paul writes,
You were buried with him in baptism,
in which you were also raised with him
through faith in the power of God,
who raised him from the dead.
And even when you were dead
in transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
he brought you to life along with him,
having forgiven us all our transgressions;
obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims,
which was opposed to us,
he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross.
I submit that this passage is apologetically relevant for defending infant baptism. Let me explain!
By the way what I say here comes from my book Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs. And note that there is more on infant baptism in the chapter from which this material comes. Be sure to check it out.
It’s important to note here that the Greek word for and (kai) is not present in the original text. It literally reads, “You were circumcised with…the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.[i] Meaning, baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” Martin Luther acknowledged as much: “We now have baptism instead of circumcision.”[ii]
Now, according to Genesis 17:10-12, every male child was to be circumcised at eight days old. Children were made members of God’s covenant not by the use of their reason but based on the faith of their parents.
Given that baptism is the new circumcision—the gateway into the New Covenant—to say that children under the age of reason can’t be baptized is to say that children under the age of reason could be incorporated into the Old Covenant but not the New. That would make the New Covenant less inclusive than the Old, which doesn’t fit with the general theme of inclusivity that marks the New Covenant (see Matt. 28:19-20; Gal. 3:8). The New Covenant is open to every nation and people on earth—but not to little children? That doesn’t make sense!
Okay, let’s finally turn to the Gospel reading, again, taken from Luke 11:1-13. I’m only going to read the relevant portion that I want to focus on here. Luke records,
Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he had finished,
one of his disciples said to him,
“Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples.”
He said to them, “When you pray, say:
Father, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread
and forgive us our sins
for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us,
and do not subject us to the final test.”
The detail that I want to focus on specifically is the part of prayer where we ask God to “forgive us of our sins.”
Some Christians believe that once we’re saved, then all future sins are forgiven. Protestant apologist James White is representative of this view. In his book The God Who Justifies, he writes this:
[I]f justification is a onetime declaration by God, intimately connected with the forgiveness of sins through the work of Christ, then it follows that all of the believer’s sins have been forgiven him for Christ’s sake. This remission of all sins is not limited to past sins only, but to all sins—past, present, and future. If it were not so, then justification would have to be repeated over and over again, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ would be little more than a fiction, lowered to the level of the animal sacrifices of “the old covenant, which had to be offered over and over again as a symbol of the continued presence of sin. Instead of this, all our transgressions were laid upon Christ and were, therefore, nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:13–14).” (pg. 98)
If White’s view were true, then there would be no need for us to ask God to forgive us for those sins committed after we’re initially saved. Yet, according to the Our Father, Jesus wills that we make this request for such sins. Surely, Jesus doesn’t intend us to pray this prayer only before our initial salvation. I think it’s reasonable to assume that he intends us to pray it even after we’re initially saved. And that, of course, means that he intends us to ask God to forgive us for the sins committed at that time.
But why would he command us to ask God to forgive us for sins that he’s already forgiven? That doesn’t make sense.
Now, White has a ready response to this sort of argument. He writes, “[I]t seems far more difficult to understand how Christ’s death is insufficient to bring about full pardon of all sins, but has to be “re-applied” repeatedly.”
First, an appeal to difficulty isn’t an argument in favor of his view. We’re dealing with mysteries here. So, we should expect some difficulty in understanding things.
Second, he assumes that our view entails that Christ’s death would be insufficient, requiring his death to be “re-applied” repeatedly. But why would re-application entail that his death is insufficient?
The restoration back to Christ would be solely due to the death of Jesus on the cross. That act of love would still be the sufficient cause of restoration.
Moreover, the re-application wouldn’t be due to a lack of power in Christ’s death. Rather, it would be due to the metaphysical reality of someone falling outside of relation with Christ, thereby requiring a re-application of the merits of Jesus’ death, just like it was initially when the person was an unbeliever. So, the re-application of the merits of Jesus’s death on the cross no more implies the insufficiency of Jesus’ death than the first application does.
“Ah,” so White might say, “but you assume that you can fall out of relation with Christ.” My response? Yes, and I submit this is the real issue at hand. If God has willed an order of providence where a born-again Christian can lose his salvation, then there would be a need for a re-application of Christ’s merits. Again, not on account of the insufficiency of Jesus’ death, but because of the metaphysical reality of the person being outside of Christ, like he was before was initially saved.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all I have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C do not sell us short when it comes to apologetical details.
- The first reading and Gospel reading provide us an opportunity to reflection on the relation between our petitionary prayer and God’s immutability.
- The second reading provides us information for making a biblical case for infant baptism, and
- The Gospel reading provides us with material to refute the belief that once we’re saved, all our future sins are already forgiven.
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.
[i] The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition, ed. Michael W. Holmes; Electronic edition.
[ii] Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity.