The Real Issue About Roman Catholicism

Galatians 5 and the Danger of Adding Works to the Gospel

For freedom, Christ set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look, I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace. Galatians chapter 5, verses 1 through 4, a very important text, in light of the fact that the book of Galatians begins, the epistle to the churches in Galatia begins with Paul's warning in verses 6 through 8 about those who would present a false gospel, which is not another gospel.

It is instead a perversion of the true gospel that brings condemnation upon those who proclaim this false gospel. Now, in the book of Galatians, we find no evidence that the apostle faults his opponents for their view of the Godhead, their view of Jesus Christ, their view of the deity of Christ, their view of the Trinity, or anything else.

His focus is very much upon the mere addition of a single act to the gospel of Jesus Christ, specifically to the means by which a person is made right before God, and that is faith. And he says to those individuals in verse 3, I testify again to every man who is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

And verse 4 says, you have been severed from Christ, and then it's hoitines en namo dikai usthe, that is, whoever is seeking to be justified by means of law. All those by law to be justified, those who are seeking to use the instrumentality of obedience to external regulations as the mechanism by which justification comes about.

Those individuals are cut off from Christ, and they have fallen from grace. Now, those are very strong words, but they have nothing to do with a person's view of the deity of Christ or anything else. Just yesterday, I made a video, it's up on the blog, where I responded to Muslim by choice.

And he made an interesting error in attempting to say that the apostle Paul had differences in his view of the person of Jesus. He quoted from Galatians chapter 1. I had to correct him that he was misunderstanding the categories of what was being said there, that the apostle was dealing with the gospel in Galatians, and that there's nothing in the book that indicates that these individuals held another view of who Jesus Christ was.

And I asserted, believe you me, if they had, Paul would have said something about it. And so, to individuals who are doing nothing more, certainly in the language of today, nothing more than having a slightly different view of the gospel, Paul says, you are severed from Christ.

He doesn't say you have a slightly less acceptable relationship with Christ. He doesn't say, I'm just not going to have fellowship with you. He says, you are severed from Christ. You have fallen away from the very sphere of the operation of grace.

There's no way around the fact that what Paul was saying was, you add even something directly out of the Old Testament to the message of the gospel. You add one thing to faith, and you have fallen away from the sphere of grace.

You can walk that road, but there's no grace on that road. You can go in that direction, but don't expect Christ to be there. Strong words, very strong words, but they're there. They're right there in the pages of inspired scripture.

Roman Catholicism, Debates, and the Problem of Nominalism

Now, over the years, I have spent a great deal of time studying studying the teachings of and dialoguing with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. I have done more debates against Roman Catholics than any other single group.

I'm catching up slowly but surely in the number of debates I've done against Muslims. And if we had been able to do the debate tonight, which has been called off because my opponent disappeared and is, I guess, had to travel somewhere suddenly, and that happens, you know, I mean, I could have had to cancel it in light of certain things going on.

But anyways, we're going to try to reschedule for April. But if I had had that debate, then we would have gotten a little bit closer. But most of my public debates, especially due to the Great Debate Series on Long Island starting back in the mid -1990s, I have been with Roman Catholics, 13 debates with Gerry Manitics, five debates, no, no, eight debates with Robert St. Genes, Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, including debates that Tim Staples doesn't want anyone to know ever happened.

In fact, pretty much every debate I've done with Tim Staples didn't happen as far as Catholic Answers is concerned anyways. Lots of interaction, five debates with Mitchell Pacwa, which I think were probably the best encounters we had, Festigi, and just so many others.

And in all of that, I have been forced to listen carefully to what Roman Catholicism teaches. Now, I'll be the first one to admit that Rome has become somewhat of a chameleon over the past number of decades, and that a large number of Rome's priests today don't even believe what historic Roman Catholicism has always taught.

There's no question about that. Of course, they've become more, not more biblical, but less biblical in what they believe, moving toward an inclusivism and universalism. But I think I do have some background from which to speak on the subject of Roman Catholicism.

And so, when I saw an article posted by C. Michael Patton, I took the time to read it. I don't always read everything on this website, Credo House Ministries, the parchment pen blog, but I do subscribe to it, and so it came up in my RSS feeds.

And when I saw the title, Are Roman Catholics Saved?, I thought it was something I needed to read. Let's listen to what Mr. Patton has to say. Are Roman Catholics saved? Short answer, I don't know. However, don't read too much into that.

I don't know if Protestants are Christian. I don't know if many who go to my evangelical church are Christian. By Christian, I mean someone who has truly been regenerated by God and is, as a result, a genuine disciple of Christ.

Of course, a better question that people are getting at is this. Do I believe that someone who is a committed member of the Roman Catholic Church can be a true Christian? To this, I answer yes. Now, to be fair, the majority of Roman Catholics with whom I have come in contact, I do not feel are true believers.

But to be fairer, the majority of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, that matter, with whom I have come in contact, I don't believe are true believers. It is a simple problem of nominalism. Simply professing to be a part of any Christian tradition does not mean that one truly embraces the ideals of that tradition.

Christians are those who truly believe in who Christ is and do their best to follow Him. I'm going to be going back and commenting on this in case you're wondering why I'm not stopping. I'm actually going to read it first.

Who Do You Say That I Am? and the Deity of Christ

I think the most important question that has ever been asked in the history of the world is this. Who do you say that I am? Matthew 16, 15. The confession of Roman Catholicism, along with that of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, has been united considering this for 2 ,000 years.

Jesus Christ, the God-man who died for our sins and rose from the grave. That's exactly what it says in Matthew 16, but we get the summary concept. Getting that right is no small thing. In fact, I would say that to have a true belief in such a creed requires the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

Roman Catholicism is to be commended, in my opinion, for being an ardent defender of the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, and necessity of belief and such. Though there are many passages I could turn to, I think that 1 John 4, 2 says more than we often give it credit.

In fact, I would say that this is one of the most neglected passages defending the deity of Christ. Notice 1 John 4, 2. By this you know the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come to flesh is from God.

Without getting too much into this, as it deserves its own blog post, this passage teaches that a true belief that Christ is man and God is an indication that someone is from God. You may say that it only talks about his humanity in the flesh and not his deity, but I believe that implied within this is an assumption of Christ's deity.

Why? Because there would be no reason to deny that Christ has come to flesh were it not assumed that he was God. I mean, how hard is it to deny that someone has come to flesh if they were only thought of as being human?

It is a foregone conclusion that they have come to flesh. This passage makes no sense unless it is assumed that a person believes that Christ is God. But the point that I want to make right now is that it is a big deal to believe in the humanity and deity of Christ.

Think about how rare this really is outside of Christianity. Obviously, atheists do not confess this. What about Islam, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, and agnostics? They do not have it as an essential core of their confession, to say the least, that Christ is a God-man.

The best of Catholics do. The best of Protestants do. The best of Eastern Orthodox do. It is because of this I do not easily dismiss Roman Catholic status before God. They get the who-do-you-say-that-I-am question right.

Not only this, but Catholics believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. They believe that we are sinners in need of grace. Even though they lean toward inclusivism since Vatican II, they still believe that there is no by which we must be saved.

Again, this is significant stuff which, if truly believed, I do not see how an unregenerate person can confess without salvific impunity. All of this can be said about Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Having said all of this, I am sure that many of my Protestant brothers and sisters are getting hot under the collar right now.

I understand many of you are saying, what about their worship of Mary? What about their acceptance of purgatory? What about the Apocrypha? What about the Pope? And most importantly, what about their denial of justification by faith alone?

By the way, um, I'll get back to this, but those are not the right questions. I just need to say about that, but we'll get to it. Just need to sort of say it to keep the pressure, you know. All of these are good and significant questions and differences, some more so than others.

I don't want to undermine the importance of doctrine by saying the Roman Catholics can be saved. I hope you don't see me doing this, though some will inevitably think that I am. I am simply saying that the most central question in Christianity is, who do you say that I am, and they get this right?

So, the question becomes, how can someone believe and confess that their works contributed to their salvation and be saved as Roman Catholics do? The answer is this, perfect doctrine does not save anyone.

Sufficient doctrine is indication that someone is saved. I believe deeply justification is by faith alone, sola fide. However, I don't think that justification comes through a belief in justification by faith alone.

Put it this way, heaven will not be inhabited by anyone who contributed to their justification. Some will get to heaven and they will find out how radical grace really was. In fact, I think all Christians will be overwhelmed by grace.

The sanctification process in some ways can be summed up as this, the progressive realization that grace, undeserved and unmerited favor is our only hope. I don't think any of us really grasped this. Therefore, both Protestants and Roman Catholics will stand before God with a greater realization and confidence that our works had nothing to do with our present state of eternal blessedness.

Roman Catholics will have a bigger learning curve than Protestants, in my opinion, but both of us will be overwhelmed by how grace is really grace. Most Roman Catholics will have a sudden realization that it truly was their faith in Christ alone that justified Ephesians 2, 8 through 9.

So, where does that leave us? Does this mean the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not important? Most definitely not. Paul exhorted the Galatians who were justified yet were replacing grace, the burden of law and works, not to get saved but to live out the benefits of their salvation.

Please note that. Please note that. I'm going to repeat that just so you catch it. Paul exhorted the Galatians who were justified yet were replacing grace, the burden of law and works, not to get saved but to live out the benefits of their salvation.

I'll get to this, but that's not what he said. He said, you are cut off from Christ. You have fallen from grace. He didn't say, I think you just need to do better. This is straight out of N .T. Wright, folks.

Straight out. I can show you the page in N .T. Wright's book where he said the exact same thing and missed the exact same point. It's just amazing. Anyway, to the degree that we are preaching justification without works is the degree to which we are preaching the grace of God.

So, we continue, as Paul did, to encourage people to take the burden off their backs that it's not ours to carry. I encourage Roman Catholics to do the same, realize how crazy, insane, radical, and beyond belief grace really is.

Protestantism is not perfect by any means. I believe that we have a fuller gospel understanding than Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, otherwise I would not be a Protestant. But this does not mean that we have a perfect understanding of the gospel.

However, we need to continue to spread the message of the gospel that grace is only realized once we see that it is completely undeserved. Romans 11, 6, but it is by grace, is no longer the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

The Real Question: Does Rome's Gospel Save?

So, there's the article. I've already started my response because I just couldn't help it, but let's do it a little bit more carefully here. I agree that there is a tremendous amount of nominalism, and I agree that the majority of self-professing Christians in the world today, especially if people can say that some, you know, 50 or whatever it is of people in the United States claim to be Christian or something, clearly these are not true believers.

If you can live your life, you can go through the entire week without everyone's thinking about God, Christ, Trinity, or anything else. Obviously, that's nominalism. But then it says, of course, a better question that people are getting at is this, do I believe that someone who is a committed member of the Roman Catholic Church can be a true Christian?

This I answer, yes. The question, this is the wrong question. Unfortunately, the article never touched on the real question. The real question is, does the gospel of the Roman Catholic Church save? Yes or no?

The answer has to be no. That was the answer of the Reformation. And if you don't say no to that, then you're really not a part of the Reformation. You're out swimming around the Tiber River someplace, but you have abandoned the Reformation.

And the question is, it does Rome's gospel save? That's the question. I have said many times, people said, are you saying every single Roman Catholic is going to hell? No. I think that there might be a few who do not understand Rome's teaching.

That, for example, Jesus is being, his one sacrifice is being represented as a perpetuatory sacrifice on the altar that never saves anyone. It does not perfect anyone. It gives a modicum of grace, but it perfects no one.

They don't know that that's what Rome's teaching. They don't view that priest as an alter Christus. They're not trusting in the sacramental forgiveness that is doled out through the sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church, the dependences, and they don't believe that their suffering in undergoing satispassio and purgatory is going to somehow eventually finish the purification process, that's something that Christ's sacrifice can't do.

They don't believe any of that stuff. They are simple folks who believe that Jesus is who he said he was, and they believe he's a Savior, and they look only to him, and I believe they can be saved. But they are saved in spite of the church, not because of the church, and the way that this article presents it is, these are committed members of the Roman Catholic Church.

The only way I can understand that is they understand Rome's gospel, and it seems that C. Michael Patton is saying, you can be saved by that gospel. And I say to you, get rid of Galatians if you're really going to believe that, because you don't believe what Paul said there.

And you're not alone. You're not alone. This is this mere Christianity stuff that has infected a large portion of the evangelical church. The gospel is no longer considered to be a definitional element.

It's just, well, you know, they get the answer right on the theology part, and that's all you need. All this gospel stuff, there's just too many divisions. We just don't know. This is happening up in Wheaton, all over the place.

We've talked about this. We see this in the ecumenical movement, and I just go, oh, Galatians is still there, isn't it? Is it, you know, and I see as part of this the infection of a real degradation of confidence in the clarity of the teaching of the scriptures on the nature of the gospel.

And a lot of it's related to postmodernism and things like that. Anyway, he goes on to say, the majority of Roman Catholics whom I have come in contact, I do not believe, I feel are true believers. To be fair, the majority of Protestants whom I have come in contact, I don't believe are true believers.

Okay, this is a person looking at the outward. The only way to answer this question is to ask about the gospel itself. The only way to answer this question is to deal with what these groups have as the gospel.

You'll never come to a meaningful answer if you just look on the outward appearance as seemingly is going on here. Then he goes on to say, I think the most important question that's ever been asked in the history of the world is, who do you say that I am?

Okay. The confession of Roman Catholicism, long without of Protestant Eastern Orthodoxy, has been united concerning this for 2 ,000 years. Jesus Christ, the God-man who died for our sins and rose from the grave.

Okay, again, I think that's going a little bit beyond. But anyways, getting that right is no small thing. All right. In fact, I would say that to have a true belief in such a creed requires the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

If it requires the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit to have a true faith in the triune nature of God, why can't that regenerating power of the Holy Spirit also give you a knowledge of the true gospel of Jesus Christ?

Why does it work for the one but not for the other? I think I stand at least with the Reformation here in saying these two go together. Maybe I'm just out in the woods someplace, but I see stronger language in the New Testament about an abandonment of the gospel than I do anything about the Godhead.

So, how come? Well, if you have the work of the Spirit, then you're going to believe this. I agree. I don't think any unbeliever truly adores the one true God. It requires the work of the Holy Spirit.

But why can't that same Holy Spirit reveal the gospel? If that same Holy Spirit has revealed who Jesus Christ is, how can a person who truly knows the nature of the God-man then stand there and receive this wafer, believing in the doctrine of transubstantiation and in fear of going to purgatory and undergoing satispatio?

Sorry. I started preaching. In fact, I would say that Roman Catholicism is to be commended, in my opinion, for being an ardent defender of the Trinity. I don't think so. And I'll tell you why. Because the average Roman Catholic today...

See, I just don't think C. Michael Patton knows much about Roman Catholic apologetics and apologists. I just don't think if he had heard all those apologists, if he had heard Jimmy Akin and Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid and Tim Staples and all these big names constantly saying, you know what?

If we didn't have the church, we would not know about the Trinity. We would not know about the personality of the Holy Spirit. We would not know about the... If you just go to the Bible, you wouldn't know these things.

The reason that the believing Roman Catholic believes in these things is because he was told to by a church that he thinks is infallible. And that's not why I believe in the Trinity. And I hope it's not why C. Michael Patton believes in the Trinity.

I believe in the Trinity because I believe in all the Bible. I'm a biblical Trinitarian. Am I thankful for Nicaea? Am I thankful for... Yes, I am. But I recognize that the reason I believe this is because the Bible teaches monotheism and the Bible introduces me to three divine persons and the Bible tells me those three divine persons are co-equal and co-eternal.

So, I've had a lot of Roman Catholics who follow my work in these other areas. You know why? Because they can tell I give a passionate defense to the Trinity, not a defense of, well, this is what we've been taught by the church.

That's a completely different way of doing things, isn't it? So, I don't think that Rome has any reason to be commended today for its defense of the Trinity, when in fact, it undercuts the true grounding of the Trinity by its own claims to self-authority, infallible authority of the Pope, etc., etc.

Then he goes to 1 John 4 -2. And by this, you know, the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ to come to the flesh is from God. Yeah, I do think this text does bear on the deity of Christ.

Of course, I think he might have helped himself out by talking about the fact there are people who believe that Jesus was a pre-existent spirit and things like that and dealing with a lot of Aryans and so on and so forth, they would have responses to what he says here.

But be as it may, he says, think about how rare this really is outside of Christianity. Sure, atheists don't confess it, the Muslims deny it, Mormons, a little different denial, Jehovah's Witnesses, good Aryans, Hindus, etc., etc.

They don't have as an essential core to their confession, to say the least, that Christ is a God-man. The best of Catholics do. Well, I would say you're not a Roman Catholic if you deny that. I mean, not that Rome's going to kick you out these days.

But obviously, that is a part of what we share is the affirmation of these things. Again, the why part is different. What forces you to believe that is different. But then it says, not only this, but Catholics believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

We would hope so. They believe that we are sinners in need of grace. Yeah, but man, again, it just absolutely gives me hives when again, I hear people going, look, look, Rome requires grace. Isn't it great?

Isn't it wonderful? Folks, they've always said that. Trent identified with the anathema. Anyone says you can save without grace. That was not what the reformers were arguing about. The issue at the Reformation and the issue to this day is not the necessity of grace.

It is the sufficiency of grace. How many times have I said that over the past 20 years? I don't know. I don't know. More than 20 years. The issue is not the necessity of grace. Even the Mormons say you have to have grace.

The issue is the sufficiency of grace. That always has been the issue. It remains the issue to this day. And so when they say, well, they believe that we are sinners in need of grace. Well, yes, so do the Mormons.

Even though they lean toward inclusivism since Vatican II, yeah, in fact, I would probably say if you took a poll of all Roman Catholic priests worldwide, I'd say the majority would be universalists. They still believe there's no other name by which we must be saved.

Well, the universalists wouldn't. Again, this is significant stuff, which if truly believe, I don't see how an unregenerate person can confess without salvific impunity. I don't know what salvific impunity means.

It sounds like he's suggesting this needs regeneration. You need to be regenerated to believe these things, to truly believe these things. And again, once I just have to say, and why doesn't that include the gospel?

Why doesn't that include the finished work of Jesus Christ? Why doesn't that include so many other things, which ironically don't come up? In fact, here's the next paragraph. And this is what really, really concerned me.

I just get the feeling, maybe I'm wrong. I don't think C. Michael Patton has ever debated a Roman Catholic, at least not one that's busily attempting to convert people to Roman Catholicism, such as the folks at Catholic Answers, big guys like that.

Having said all of this, I am sure that there are many of my Protestant brothers and sisters, I think a who got lost here, who are getting hot under the collar right now. I understand. Many of you are saying, what about their worship of Mary?

What about their acceptance of purgatory? What about the Apocrypha? What about the Pope? And most importantly, what about their denial of justification by faith alone? All of those things are important things, but those are not the right questions.

The question, brother Patton, is does Rome possess the gospel? And you touch upon it with justification by faith alone, but folks, if you, this is what, what is so horrific. There are so many leaders in quote, unquote evangelicalism today, who are so disconnected from the Reformation and so disconnected from actually dealing with Roman Catholicism and dealing with believing Roman Catholics, that they don't realize that Rome presents a whole view, a sacramental view of salvation that is.

If you can figure out how that viewpoint can be made consistent with the teaching of the book of Hebrews on the one time, Ephipox, Hoppox, one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ, please explain that to me.

I've listened to Scott Hahn and I've listened to Jimmy Akin and the others try to explain how it works and they fail miserably. So maybe the Protestants can explain this, but you have to, you can't just look at, oh, well, what about their worship of Mary?

Sure, it's idolatry, but there's a reason why they worship Mary. And they won't say they worship Mary. Of course we adore Mary. No, we don't adore, hyperdulia, all the silliness that has been developed over the years, try to get around that.

We've debated that before, debated with Patrick Madrid. We've gone over these things a thousand times before, but the issue is the gospel. And what is the gospel of Roman Catholicism? It's a treadmill.

It's a get baptized, get justified, and then get on the sacramental treadmill. Find yourself a priest who claims to be an alter Christus, another Christ, because that's in their ordination, every single one of them and start on the treadmill.

Start doing the penances, start making the confessions, get ready for purgatory. That's what it is. And if you meet Roman Catholic, just embracing grace, they're not a Roman Catholic anymore. They're rejecting their own church's teachings.

So the real question is, does Rome's gospel save? That's the question that was missed in this entire article. All these are good and significant questions and differences some more than others. I don't want to undermine the importance of doctrine by saying that Roman Catholics can be saved.

I hope you don't see me doing this. Though some will inevitably think I am. Yeah, but it's not because you've addressed the question. It's because you haven't thought through what the real question needs to be.

I am simply saying that the most central question in Christianity is, who do you say that I am? And they get this right. Jesus actually said, anyone who is ashamed of me, there's the who do men say they am question, and my gospel, I will be ashamed of them before my father.

You see, today we cut off the last part. We want the least common denominator. Mere Christianity. Too many gospel differences. But Jesus said, anyone who is ashamed of me and my gospel, I will be ashamed of him.

So the question becomes, I'm reading again, how can someone believe and confess that their works contribute to their salvation and be saved as Roman Catholics do? That's not even a good representation of Rome's view.

The question again, notice how the way the whole article is presented is, well, what I see in others, or what others see in themselves, or what a person does this, no objective gospel issues here. No objective question, is Rome's gospel the gospel of Jesus Christ, despite its additions or subtractions?

But then this next part comes straight, I should have brought it in here. I don't think I have it in here. I know where it is on my bookshelf near the room. Maybe, you know what I'll do, we'll take a break at the bottom of the hour, and I'll go get it, and I'll go read this.

This is, okay, I'm not going to say that he borrowed this from N .T. Wright, but N .T. Wright said the exact same thing. And in fact, I could actually, you know what? I just realized something. I have this in keynote on this computer.

That's the wonderful thing about using your old computers, is I have this quote in keynote, and those things just don't go away. So, I'll see if I can track it down during the break or something like that, or maybe it'll pop up and I can do multiple things all at the same time, or maybe not, because that will probably end up resulting in something like what happened last time, which we don't want to happen ever, ever again.

Anyway, but here is this assertion. My answer is, perfect doctrine does not save anyone. Notice, I think, the problem immediately. The question is, do they have the gospel, not do they have perfect doctrine.

No one's talking about perfection of doctrine. Well, the hyper-Calvinists do, which is why I'm not a hyper-Calvinist, if you say I'm your liar. The hyper-Calvinists do. You've got to cross every T and dot every I, and I've always opposed that.

That's not what we're talking about. Sufficient doctrine is an indication that someone is saved. It's important, but I've known a lot of apostates who had a good knowledge of what Christianity taught, and even played the game.

They were once of us. However, I don't think the justification comes through a belief in justification by faith alone. How many times have you heard that? No one, no one is saying you're saved by faith in justification alone.

We're not saying faith in Sola Fide. What we're saying is, Paul said to the Judaizers in Galatia, who clearly claimed to follow Christ, they added one thing. I say to you who receive circumcision, you who would be justified, who are seeking to be justified by law, severed from Christ, fallen from grace.

Paul said that. This isn't a matter of putting faith in Sola Fide. No one is even suggesting such a thing. That is a canard. Put it this way, heaven will not be inhabited by anyone who contributed to their justification.

What if they thought they were? I mean, that's exactly what an inclusivist will say. Well, you get there, you're going to find out you didn't add anything to it. But what if you thought you were? What if you weren't trusting solely in Christ?

Isn't that exactly the people Paul's speaking to? I wish it weren't that way. My life would be easier. More people would like me. But isn't that exactly what we've got in Galatians 5? In fact, I think all Christians will be overwhelmed by grace.

The sanctification process in some ways could be summed up as this, the progressive realization that grace, undeserved and unmerited favor, actually it's not only undeserved, it's demerited, is our only hope.

I don't think any of us really grasped this. Therefore, both Protestants, Roman Catholics, stand before God with a greater realization and confidence that our works had nothing to do with our present state of eternal blessedness.

What if you think that by what you're doing, you are going to receive something from God? By your going to confession, by your crawling up the steps on your knees, and kissing every step, and lighting candles, and praying before a statue, and seeking the intercession of saints, and going through satispasio impergator.

What if you think that that's part of what makes you have a proper standing before God? What then? Is that what the Judaizers are thinking? What is the difference, Mr. Patton, between the Judaizers and the Roman Catholic?

As far as I can tell, the difference is the Judaizers only thought of one thing to add, and Rome has thought of dozens. Am I wrong? Where am I? What's, what's, where, where is that in error? That's, that's why you need to know.

Because if that is, in fact, the case, then Rome makes the Judaizers, well, look like amateurs. They have added so many things to the gospel of Jesus Christ. There's a book. I didn't have to go to my, um, my office to get it.

I managed to multitask. What St. Paul really said, what Paul of Tarsus, was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity by N .T. Wright. N .T. Wright. And, um, he says here, quote, second, I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by the gospel.

It is implied by the gospel when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith, and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But the gospel is not an account of how people get saved. It's a proclamation of lordship of Jesus Christ.

If we can only get that clear in current debates, a lot of other false antitheses, not least in thinking about the mission of the church would quietly unravel before our eyes. Let us be quite clear. The gospel is the announcement of Jesus's lordship, which works with power to bring people in the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him.

Justification is a doctrine that insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family on this basis and no other. Then he says on page 159, one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith.

One is justified by faith by believing in Jesus. It follows quite clearly that a great many people are justified by faith who don't know they are justified by faith. The Galatian Christians were in fact justified by faith, though they didn't realize it and thought they had to be circumcised as well.

Page 159 of Wright's book. The Galatian Christians were in fact justified by faith, though they didn't realize it and thought they had to be circumcised as well. So you who would be justified by law, you are severed from Christ, but still a Christian.