By Faith Alone? (White vs Matatics)

I'd like to welcome you all to Boston College for the first of two debates, which I think will prove intriguing and very interesting.

The debate tomorrow evening, at this time and in this room, will be on the topic, is the

Catholic Old Testament canon correct? The debate for this evening is on the question, will faith alone get you to heaven?

Arguing for the affirmative is James White, and for the negative is

Jerry Matitix. Let me explain to you the format of this evening's debate. Mr.

White will begin with a 25 -minute opening sentence statement that will be answered by a 25 -minute statement by Mr.

Matitix. Then each speaker in that order will have a five -minute rebuttal. Then each speaker, again in that order, will have a second five -minute rebuttal.

At this point, there will be an opportunity for each speaker to ask the other a question, and there will be two minutes allotted for response.

Then finally, Mr. White will begin with a closing statement of 15 minutes, and Mr.

Matitix will have the opportunity of closing the debate with a 15 -minute closing statement, at which point we will open up to questions from the floor.

Before I introduce our speakers, let me point out to you that there are books and, I believe, tapes on sale in a room behind the stage.

They will be available after the debate. Let me introduce our second speaker first.

Jerry Matitix is a former ordained minister and theologian in the

Presbyterian Church in America, who, together with his wife and children, entered the

Catholic Church in Easter of 1986. Mr. Matitix was graduated

Phi Beta Kappa from the University of New Hampshire with a BA in classical New Testament and patristic

Greek. He received a Master of Divinity from Gordon -Conwell Theological Seminary in 1981.

He completed his work for a PhD in biblical studies at the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

Mr. Matitix has taught on the faculties of Westminster Theological Seminary, St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, the

University of San Diego, Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee, and Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia.

He founded and directs Biblical Foundations, a nonprofit apologetics organization that seeks to educate the public in the biblical basis of the

Catholic faith. He and his wife have six children. James White holds a bachelor's degree in Bible from Grand Canyon University and a master's degree in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary.

He is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and the author of six books, including

Letters to a Mormon Elder, The Fatal Flaw, Answers to Catholic Claims, and Justification by Faith.

He has served as adjunct professor of church history at Grand Canyon and is coming to us having just completed missions work amongst the

Mormons during the previous weeks in Utah and Arizona. James is married to Kelly and has two children,

Joshua and Summer. I am the moderator. My name is Michael Pekalik.

I teach philosophy at Clark University in Worcester. So I now cede the podium to our first speaker, who is arguing for the affirmative in response to the question, will faith alone get you to heaven,

Reverend James White. Good evening.

Roman Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma said the following concerning the state of grace.

Quote, the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation, nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.

The debate this evening is well served by the statement from Dr. Ott. Must we all fulfill conditions which are necessary, according to Roman Catholicism, for achieving justification?

Or are men made right with God by his free and merciful grace, not on the basis of what they do in a state of grace, but upon the basis of what

Christ did as their perfect substitute? That is the issue before us this evening. To allow for a full understanding of the

Protestant position, I will have to at least give a brief outline of the Roman Catholic position. The Protestant, and I, of course, believe biblical doctrine of justification differs from the

Roman Catholic view in four very important foundational aspects. First, we differ on the meaning and extent of the term justification.

Secondly, we differ on the meaning and the extent of the term impute or imputation. Thirdly, we differ on the instrument by which justification takes place.

Is it faith alone or faith plus works? And finally, and I believe most importantly, we differ on the grounds or basis upon which sinful men can be justified.

I shall deal, hopefully, in the brief time we have with all four of these areas this evening. Let us begin with some definitions.

The Council of Trent defined justification as follows, quote, a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God to the second

Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation, however, cannot, since the promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through the labor of regeneration or its desire, that is, by baptism, quote, without which no man was ever justified finally, end quote.

Therefore, the initial means of justification is baptism. The Catholic position asserts that, quote, faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification.

We are therefore said to be justified gratuitously because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification, end quote.

Notice what is said here. According to Trent, we can say that we are justified by grace or gratuitously solely because those things that precede justification, faith and works, are prompted and aided by God's grace.

The process of justification is based upon God's grace, but it is not completely of God's grace, and it cannot be said,

I feel, that God's grace alone is sufficient without human works to bring about full and complete justification.

Faith alone is explicitly denied as being the sole instrument of justification, for Trent says, quote, wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself with faith alone, thinking that by faith alone he has made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, end quote.

Roman Catholicism teaches that the grace of justification can be gained and lost, gained and lost.

Trent said, quote, those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery by the merits of Christ of the grace lost.

Justification, Roman Catholic theology, involves an infusion of grace, the grace of justification, into the individual.

This involves a subjective change in the person. Because of the subjective change in the person, he is enabled through the power of grace to do good works.

These works are, according to the counsel of Trent, meritorious in God's sight, I quote again. Hence, to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward promised by God himself to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.

We must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its due time, provided they depart this life in grace, end quote.

It must be emphasized that eternal life is merited by the good works performed by the person in the state of grace.

The basis, then, of one's final salvation is not solely the work of Christ. Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote, quote, by his good works, the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God, end quote.

And Matthias Prem added, man, for his part, in order to arrive at full sanctification, must cooperate with the grace of the

Holy Spirit through faith, hope, love of God and neighbor, and prayer. But he must also perform other works.

It is a universally accepted dogma of the Catholic Church that man, in union with the grace of the

Holy Spirit, must merit heaven by his good works. These works are meritorious only when they are performed in the state of grace and with a good intention.

We have shown that according to the Holy Scripture, the Christian can actually merit heaven for himself by his good works, end quote.

Therefore, we see that justification in the Roman Catholic understanding encompasses the entire concept of forgiveness, as well as sanctification, for it involves a subjective inward change in the individual.

Justification is not solely a process of imputation, but a process of infusion of grace into the individual.

Finally, the grounds of justification is not solely the work of Jesus Christ. While Christ's passion merits the grace of justification, this grace then produces good works, which form part of the basis of the final salvation of the individual.

Now, in contrast, the Roman position allowed me to provide the Protestant position taken from the 1689

Baptist Confession of Faith, quote, those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing

Christ's act of obedience under the whole law and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness is the alone instrument of justification, yet it is not alone the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified and did by the sacrificing of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in their behalf.

Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and right grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

And the Westminster Shorter Catechism summed it up well by stating, question, what is justification? Answer, justification is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.

And please note the following items. Justification is said to be an act of God as judge wherein he declares the believer righteous.

Justification, therefore, is a legal forensic declaration on the part of God concerning the believer. Justification is undertaken by God and is not based upon anything done in or done by the believer.

It is an act of sovereign grace. Justification is based solely and completely upon the merits of another,

Jesus Christ. Justification involves the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, both his perfect life as well as his perfect all -sufficient atoning sacrifice to the believer upon which basis the believer is called righteous.

Justification is by grace through faith. Faith is the instrument or means of appropriating justification.

This faith is a true saving faith. It is not an empty faith, but it is the work of God in the believer's heart.

It is a gift of God. Justification, while distinct from sanctification, cannot possibly be separated from it.

God changes man in regeneration and sanctification. God declares man righteous in justification.

Any man who is justified will be sanctified. It is impossible to separate justification and sanctification, but it is absolutely necessary to distinguish them.

Justification is a once -for -all action. Since it is based upon the completed work of Christ, it cannot be undone or destroyed by the actions of man.

We look back upon our justification, as Paul said in Romans chapter five, verse one, that we'll be looking at a little later.

We will now look to God's word to reveal to us which perspective is true. For as Jesus said to the

Father, your word is truth. That which does not accord with the Bible cannot possibly call for the allegiance of the

Christian heart. Are we justified only after being baptized? And is justification something that can be undone by human evil?

Are we required to go through a sacrament of confession involving contrition, confession, doing works of satisfaction?

Is God working in us so that we ourselves can make satisfaction for our sins? Or did Christ make full and complete satisfaction in our place on Calvary so that now

God is working in us to conform us to the image of Christ? Before engaging the specific scriptural passages that teach justification by faith alone,

I wish to emphasize something that is absolutely foundational to our debate this evening. The Bible teaches that salvation is based upon God's grace.

Grace is not simply an aid that helps men to do things. Grace is free, absolutely free, completely based upon the will and mercy of God, not upon any action of man.

The Bible tells us that we are justified by grace in Titus chapter three, verses five through seven, where we quote, he saved us not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the

Holy Spirit, whom he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

We are also told that we are justified as a gift by his grace in Romans 3 .24.

But aside from being justified by free grace, we are also said to be justified by the blood of Jesus Christ in Romans 5 .9,

where we quote, much more than having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him.

So we see that the Bible speaks of our justification by grace, our justification by the blood of Christ, and further, the

Bible speaks of our justification by faith, as in Romans 5 .1. Therefore, having been justified, past tense, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. Justification by grace, justified by the blood of Christ, justified by faith, are these three different things or three aspects of one thing?

Clearly, Paul is describing the great truth of justification by God's free grace. His grace is unmerited, we cannot earn it.

The blood of Christ shed on behalf of his people was unmerited and free, we did not earn it.

And the faith that justifies true, saving faith is the gift of God's grace as well.

So the real issue is this. Is God's grace sufficient to bring about justification or must human merit be added to the grace of God?

Now in the past, I've used that single passage, Genesis chapter 15, verse six, to help give order and cohesiveness to my presentation of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith.

I'd like to direct your attention to Genesis 15, six in the few moments I have left to me.

Genesis 15, six says, and he believed in Yahweh and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

The first concept to examine this evening is that of faith. Abram believed in God.

We assert that man is justified by this kind of faith and not by any other actions. This is exactly what

Paul said when he faced Peter in Antioch. Peter had seriously compromised the truth of the gospel by withdrawing from table fellowship with the

Gentiles. In rebuking him, Paul said, quote, knowing that a man is not justified by works of law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, for no flesh shall be justified by works of law, end quote,

Galatians 2, 16. Now, Paul took our central passage this evening, Genesis 15, six, and made the same point in Romans chapter four, one of the clearest, most obvious arguments for justification by faith.

Having concluded the first section of the book by saying in the 28th verse of the third chapter, quote, therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of law, end quote.

He went on to cite our passage in verse three of chapter four and immediately upon citing the justification of Abram, Paul said, quote, now to the one who works, the wage is not reckoned as a gift, but as what is due, but to the one who does not work, but rather believes upon the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, end quote.

Know well what is said here by Paul. Paul contrasts the concepts of working, and notice nothing said here about doing just Jewish law.

Many people try to say, well, Paul's just talking about the Jewish law. No, Paul is talking simply here about working, the idea of working to gain something.

Paul contrasts the concept of working and believing. This is a common concept in the New Testament. There is a strong antithesis between belief and work when it comes to being right with God.

One must either work at doing deeds or one must believe in Christ. One simply cannot meld the two together.

Paul asserts that those who do not work, but in opposition to this believe are the ones who received righteousness.

The antithesis between faith and works is found to be essential to all of Paul's discussion of how a man is made right with God.

Notice I am not in any way, shape, or form denying the role of good works in the Christian life. I want to emphasize, we're talking about how a man is made right with God.

Prior to this, Paul had said in Romans chapter three, verses 21 through 25, but now apart from the law, a righteousness from God has been revealed, being witnessed to by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ to all the ones believing.

For there is no difference for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified how? Freely by his grace through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus, whom

God set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood, end quote. Men are justified freely and by grace.

Paul asserts that justification is by grace here in Romans 3 .24 and again in Titus 3 .7 as we saw.

Faith, the faith that we're talking about, abandons all efforts at work or merit and realizes man's complete dependence upon God, not just for the provision of a way of salvation, but for the entire action of salvation.

For salvation to be of grace, it cannot possibly be of works. As Paul said in Romans 11 .6, either is on the basis of works or of grace.

It cannot be both. Grace by definition excludes the entire concept of human works or merits.

Grace cannot be merited and cannot coexist with merit on the part of the one to whom it is given in regards to justification.

The contrast of faith and works as mutually exclusive concepts is continued in Paul's strong letter to the

Galatians. He asserts that one simply cannot combine works of law with faith in Christ. Note his strong words in Galatians 2 .21,

quote, I do not nullify or set apart or do away with the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through law, then

Christ died needlessly. And when you hear an inspired apostle say something about Christ dying needlessly, you need to listen closely to what he's talking about.

If one asserts that righteousness is the result of God's grace and human action, then one is nullifying the work of Christ completely.

No synergism is possible. It is either all of grace or not of grace at all. Finally, Paul provides a clear antithesis when in Galatians 3 .10

-11, he writes, quote, for as many as are of the works of law are under the curse, for it is written, cursed are all those who do not abide in all the things written in the book of the law to do them, but that no one shall be justified before God by law is evident, for the just shall live by faith.

The impossibility of the Roman Catholic position is clearly seen. Faith plus works nullifies grace.

Grace plus works is dead. But does not the Bible say that Christians are to do good works, you may say?

Well, of course it does. But the only one who can do good works is the one who has already been justified, as Paul taught the

Ephesians, Ephesians 2. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast, for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, what?

Unto good works, which God before ordained that we should walk in them. Salvation is the gift of God, not just the bare plan of God, or even just the bare grace of God that prompts us somehow to move toward God, but all of salvation is of God.

Were this not the case, we would most certainly boast. But salvation is not of man or by man, but it is of and by God alone.

The purpose of God is clearly presented. We have been created in Christ Jesus unto good works, not by good works, not with the help of good works, but that we might perform good works.

First comes full salvation from God, then as a result, the works prompted by the Holy Spirit of God.

No human merit, even that supposedly produced by human works performed in a state of grace will ever stand before the judgment bar of God.

Only the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, will avail. Unless you think my words to be too strong, please remember what

Paul said in summing up his argument in Galatians chapter five, verse two. Listen closely. Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision,

Christ will be of no benefit to you. The Judaizers in Galatia were asserting that one act of obedience, circumcision, was absolutely necessary for justification.

Paul made it crystal clear. It is either Christ alone as the perfect savior or it is the works of law.

No matter what law one might wanna call it, no matter what law one might choose, Christ will not share his saviorhood with anyone, including you.

Before moving on to the meaning of the next term in Genesis 15, six, that being imputation,

I need to stress the fact that when we speak of faith alone, we are speaking of saving faith. Saving faith is the gift of God given to his elect people.

It is differentiated in scripture from non -saving or dead faith. Indeed, a passage that is often used by those who deny

God's free grace and justification by faith is James chapter two, where the apostle attacks not

Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, but the idea that a dead, empty faith can save. First, let us note the context of James chapter two.

James is addressing believers about living the Christian life. He is not discussing how men enter into a relationship with God. Then we must note what

James said in the first chapter. Quote, in the exercise of his will, he brought us forth. We'll pick up the quotation in a moment.

Can I stop my watch? Let's know what

James said, first of all, in James chapter one. In the exercise of his will, he brought us forth by the word of truth so that we might be as it were the first fruits among his creatures.

This, you know, my beloved brethren, let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger, for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.

Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all the remains of wickedness in humility, receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.

Note some important things in James's words. First, he is addressing Christians, where he speaks as us being the first fruits of God.

Secondly, he believes, just as Paul, that salvation is the work of God, not man, for he says that we were brought forth by the word of truth, just as Paul said in 1

Thessalonians 2 .13. And for this reason, we also constantly thank God that when you receive from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of man, but what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Part and parcel, the recognition of the fact that God saves us by his wonderful word is the fact that God's work of salvation will result in a changed life.

Often we hear Ephesians 2 .8 -9 quote it, but not that 10th verse that I quoted to you before in regards to being his workmanship in Christ Jesus.

The exhortation to holy living that is found in James is perfectly in line with Paul's words to Titus, as well in Titus 3 .5

-7, as I've quoted to you previously. The doing of the good deeds, however, always comes after justification.

It is never a prerequisite, never a means. Next, as we approach the second half of James 2, we note that James tells us what kind of faith he is decrying.

We read in verse 14, what use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works?

Can that faith save him? End quote. The kind of faith that James is attacking is a faith that does not result in works.

Yet, as we have seen, this is not saving faith. The faith Paul spoke of in Ephesians 2 and in Titus 3 always resulted in good works.

So James and Paul are not using the word faith in the same way. For Paul, faith is saving faith, the very gift of the sovereign

God given in regeneration. James, on the other hand, is talking about faith that is, as he said, dead, faith that does not result in works.

The fact that James and Paul are going to use the same terms with different meanings will become very important in a moment.

In verse 17, James states that such a kind of faith is dead, being alone. We agree that saving faith will not be alone, and hence we are not asserting that salvation can come by such dead faith.

Then, verse 18, we find a vital key to understanding this passage. James speaks of demonstrating one's faith by one's works.

We are to show our faith by the way we act. So later, when James talks about Abram being justified by his works, he does so in the context of demonstrating his faith before other men.

The justification of which James speaks, then, is in a completely different context than Paul's discussion in Romans or Galatians.

Paul says that no man shall be justified in the sight of God by works. James says that the only way a man can be justified in the sight of men is by those works because we can't see the inner man of the heart.

We are then given the example of Abraham. He asks if Abraham was not justified by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar.

Yet we know that Genesis 15 .6 tells us that Abraham was justified in God's sight many years before the offering of Isaac upon the altar, and that by faith without works.

So the justification of which James speaks here is not the same justification as Paul's spoken of, so there's no contradiction between the two.

Here, Abraham is being justified with reference to his faith, not his sins, as in Genesis 15 .6. The faith he showed to God in Genesis 15 .6

is being shown to be true faith, real saving faith. His works, as James said, perfected faith, showed faith, and most importantly, sprung from his faith.

Now, in about the one minute I have left, I'd like to turn your attention to Genesis 15 .6 again and the idea of imputation.

The usage of this term in the Old Testament indicates that to impute something to someone does not involve a subjective change in the person.

One example of that is to be found, for example, in Leviticus 17 .4. Here, any man who did not bring an animal he had slaughtered to the door of the tabernacle is an offering to the

Lord. As the scripture says, blood guiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. Surely this guilt is not infused into the man, but he is legally declared guilty of the blood.

I would suggest to you that this is the proper background, the proper context for understanding

Paul's use of the term imputation as found in the New Testament. I will close at that point and turn the podium over to Mr.

Matics. Thank you. I would like to begin my time this evening with a word of prayer.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Heavenly Father, we thank you that salvation comes to us through your eternal

Son, Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, our King. We thank you that in Him we have all of our righteousness.

We thank you that He saves us by His grace alone. We thank you that we are saved by faith in Him, a faith, as St.

Paul says, that works in love. We thank you for the gift of salvation, which we have done nothing in our own weakness and sinfulness to deserve to turn your heart towards us.

But only in your great mercy and grace have you had mercy upon a sinful and erring human family.

We thank you that you sent your Son, that He died upon the cross for our sins and offered up an infinite and perfect sacrifice to you, that He rose from the dead on that first Easter, which we have just celebrated, which we celebrate every day of our lives, and especially every

Sunday. We ask that His Holy Spirit would be at work in our lives now, shedding His light, the light of His truth into our minds and into our hearts.

Help us to submit our minds, not to the theology of any fallible man, but to the words of our

Lord Jesus Christ and His inspired apostles. Help us to be willing to listen carefully to the words of sacred scripture, and to understand that perhaps it is possible in our sincerity and in our intelligence that nonetheless we have misinterpreted words in scripture.

And help us to be willing to allow our opinions, as fallible as they are, to be revised and amended by the work of your

Holy Spirit, speaking through your inspired, inerrant word. We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ, our

Lord and Savior, in whom alone we trust for salvation. Amen. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

James has done, Mr. White has done, I call him James because we're pretty much friends by now. We've debated so many times.

I think he's done a very masterful job of expounding for you the classical, reformed

Calvinistic understanding of justification by faith alone. I feel that I'm somewhat competent to say that he's done an extremely competent job because it was a view that I held myself for many years when

I was an evangelical Protestant and an ordained minister and theologian in the Presbyterian Church in America.

Studied at a seminary in this area, in the Boston area, Gordon -Conwell Theological Seminary, and are some very outstanding reformed professors.

And had the great privilege of going to kind of the bastion of Calvinistic thought at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia to do the coursework towards a

PhD in biblical studies. So I'm very familiar with his arguments, his understanding of scripture.

And I have no need to question his intelligence or his integrity or his sincerity because I know that I, by the grace of God, sought to be an intelligent and sincere understander of scripture when

I held those views as well. Nonetheless, I came to the conclusion, totally against my expectations, that this view of the

Bible is tragically misinformed at a couple of crucial points and produces a distortion, unfortunately, that separates those that name the name of Jesus Christ from one another, and I believe, from the true message of scripture.

The reason I began my time with prayer is because I believe that what we are talking about tonight is the single most important issue that we could conceivably discuss before you.

There is no way that Mr. White and I could better make use of our time than to discuss this issue of how we get to heaven.

And this is true because human beings were made, not just for earthly life, but for a supernatural life and end and destiny with God forever and ever in heaven.

To fail to achieve that is to fail to be truly human, to fail to be what

God designed you and me to be. We cannot attain this supernatural end without the supernatural assistance or the grace of Almighty God.

And this is made all the more imperative because of the fall, because of the fact that our forefather,

Adam, sinned against God. And as a result, has bequeathed to us a fallen human nature that is incapable on its own of turning towards God, desiring

God's salvation, or doing anything to attract God's attention, to merit or to obligate

God to put himself in our debt so that he has to save us. Christianity has consistently taught that apart from the grace of God, sinful human beings can do absolutely nothing to get to heaven.

Salvation is solely by the grace of God, sola gratia, as they put it in an age when

Latin was the universal language of Christians. And the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, no less than the

Protestant reformers, to out of courtesy give them that title, reaffirmed this in the strongest possible terms, that salvation is by grace alone.

And Mr. White, I think, will affirm that, student that he is of the doctrines and the decrees of the

Council of Trent. They taught that salvation is sola gratia. Now, he might wanna argue that they are inconsistent with that and other statements they make, but they did agree that the apostolic successors of the church had always taught that salvation is by grace alone, that the

Protestant reformers were not in disagreement with them on that issue. But this is the watershed that separates

Protestants from Christ's one holy Catholic apostolic church, and that is, how does one receive this grace apart from which one cannot be saved?

Martin Luther taught that we receive it by faith alone. His Latin motto for this was sola fide, by faith alone.

That's one aspect of the issue, but not the only one, as Mr. White has very competently pointed out. Because Luther also taught that justification is not a process that begins when we become a

Christian and culminates when we are perfectly, completely sanctified when we get to heaven.

But the justification is a once -for -all, instantaneous declaration of God whereby he looks at a sinful human being and declares him or her to be righteous in his sight, even though the person is intrinsically, that is, in their own character, still unrighteous.

God, in other words, credits to your account. He reckons you as righteous because he looks at the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, his son, and then imputes that or credits that to your account in a kind of divine bookkeeping.

And that righteousness that you and I have, according to the Protestant reformers, is the righteousness of Christ that we receive on the basis of.

It's external to us. It is extrinsic. It is not something that we possess ourselves or that there can be any increase or degrees of.

Now Luther had concocted this concept because of an exaggerated sense of, an overactive conscious and an exaggerated sense, an extremely

Augustinian view of the doctrine of the depravity of man so that he despaired of ever being able to do anything that was right in any sense of the word before a holy

God. Luther's psychological problems, which I think the church is right to warn us, is perhaps not the strongest foundation to build a new theology on.

And make no mistake, Luther's theology of justification is new. It was a theological novelty.

Even a Protestant evangelical theologian such as Alistair McGrath, who did his doctoral work on this at Oxford University in England, admits in his two -volume work,

Justitia Dei, the History of the Doctrine of Justification throughout the church, at the end of volume one on page 182 says this.

Luther nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the Western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that through justification, man is intrinsically sinful, yet extrinsically, that is outside of himself, righteous.

He goes on to say on page 184, the significance of this Protestant distinction between justification and regeneration is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the

Western theological tradition where none had existed before. The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification represents a theological novum, a new idea.

It is therefore of considerable importance to appreciate that the criteria employed in the 16th century to determine whether a particular doctrine of justification was

Protestant or otherwise, was whether justification was understood forensically, that is, in this legal declarative sense, as Mr.

White has said. That was new with Luther. He goes on to say on page 185, the medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, but the reformers departed from it.

He goes on to say, if the Catholicity of Protestant understandings of the nature of justification is to be defended, it is therefore necessary to investigate the possible existence of forerunners of the

Reformation doctrines of justification. And he goes on to say that although there may be forerunners of some of their areas of theology, such as sacramental and ecclesiological theology, it fails in relation to the specific question of the nature of justification and justifying righteousness.

That is, that what Luther said was our justifying righteousness is a completely new concept with him. He concludes his volume on page 186 by saying that a fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the

Western theological tradition where none had ever existed or even been contemplated before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification as opposed to its mode must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.

Now, this distorted view of Martin Luther, that he could do no thing to receive any sort of approval or acceptance before God, even infused by the justification of Christ within him, caused him to go to two passages in Paul and to completely misconstrue what they taught.

And Mr. White actually drew our attention to those two passages. I'd like you, if you have your Bibles, to turn very quickly to them.

There are two rather similar statements. One is found in Paul's letter to the Romans in chapter three, verse 28.

In Romans three, verse 28, Paul says this. We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law or without works of the law.

The other passage is in Galatians chapter two, verse 16. In Paul's letter to the

Galatians in chapter two, verse 16, Paul says this. Knowing that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ, we also believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law, no one will be justified.

Now, Luther's interpretation of these two passages is erroneous because he fundamentally misconstrues the meaning of the two key terms, faith and works.

He sees faith as this acquiescence of the mind, this acceptance by the intellect of the proposition that Jesus is

God in the flesh, that he has died for our sins, and that if we accept this action of Christ upon the cross, then we are justified by believing in it alone.

He doesn't see that faith is a larger and a more multidimensional concept in the thought of St.

Paul that involves a whole response of the whole man, one that entails obedience, as St.

Paul refers to it in Romans 16, 26, the obedience of faith, a wholehearted response of the intellect and the will, a submission to Christ as Lord of one's life, not just a mental belief that he died on the cross for my sins.

He also misconstrues, he blows to an absolute degree, the word works to mean, or works of the law to mean any good thing that we do, as Mr.

White himself did. And in fact, that is not what Paul is referring to, as we'll see in a moment.

Because Luther saw that faith was something that we do not do, but simply a trusting in what

Jesus did, and if we're justified by faith apart from works of the law, then works of the law must be everything that is not like faith, everything active on our part rather than passive.

So works of the law for Luther mean anything that we would do, whether we're baptized, or we obey the 10 commandments, or we join

Christ's church, anything like that, Paul says that has no place in our justification. Because of this, because in Luther's mind, there's either faith or works in the sense in which

Paul condemns him, and there's nothing in between, he added the word alone to his translation of Galatians chapter two, verse 16, and Romans 3, 28.

He added the word in his German translation alone when he said, we maintain that man is justified by faith alone.

And when people protested this, even Protestants saying, wait a minute, where are you? Where do you get off adding words to the

Bible? Luther was quite, in my opinion, arrogant in saying, if people protest the insertion of this word, tell them that Dr.

Martin says that it must be there to make clear what in fact Paul is saying. He's not clarifying

Paul's doctrine, unfortunately, but obscuring it. Luther, as I say, is misunderstanding it.

And he's misunderstanding it because for Paul, the works of the law that are excluded from justification are these mosaic ceremonial observances.

Although Mr. White disagreed that Paul is contending against in his letter to Romans and to the

Galatians and in other letters as well. The proof of this is in the context. If you read

Paul's letter to the Galatians over and over again, you see that what he's attacking is not the Catholic idea that we need to be in sacramental union with Christ.

He says nothing about that. Not the idea that we must live lives of obedience to Christ as our

Lord. He says nothing in opposition to that. He says nothing in opposition to baptism.

Mr. White has to put words in Paul's mouth when he says, as I heard him say and I wrote down,

Paul says, we're not justified by the works of any law, no matter what law, old or new. Paul doesn't say that.

What Paul critiques is reliance upon the works of the law. And the law that he is contending against here is the mosaic law that the

Judaizers insist is still in full force and must be imposed even upon Gentiles.

So the Gentiles who are not circumcised and do not abide by the mosaic dietary laws cannot be

Christians, cannot be saved. Even Protestants will admit this.

I would refer you to an article by Joseph B. Tyson, a Methodist teaching at Southern Methodist University. His very brilliant article in the

Journal of Biblical Literature entitled Works of Law in Galatians. And I'd be happy to make a copy and send a copy of this to any of you that might be interested in it.

He shows that what Paul is arguing against is the idea of these works of these mosaic ceremonies.

The proof of this is found in the statements that Paul makes throughout his letter. I'll just mention two of them.

Galatians chapter five, verse six. Paul says this. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters.

What the only thing that matters is faith working through love. Notice that faith works and it works through love.

Now what is love according to Jesus? Not an ooey -gooey feeling, not a sentiment. If a person loves me, Jesus says he will what?

Keep my commandments. There's a similar statement in the next chapter in Galatians chapter six, verse 15, where Paul says this.

He says neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything. What matters is a new creation.

This is true as in 2

Corinthians chapter five. Paul makes the third parallel statement about it's not circumcision or uncircumcision that matters anymore in its most powerful form in 1

Corinthians chapter seven, verse 19. Listen carefully, please, to what

Paul is attacking. He's not attacking any of works in the positive Christian sense of obedience to God's law, but these mosaic ceremonies.

Listen to 1 Corinthians 7, 19. It's not what Jerry Maticek says that matters. It's not what

James White says that matters. It's what the inspired Word of God here says that matters.

And listen and submit your theology, whether you're Protestant or Catholic, to this inspired statement from God Almighty Himself.

1 Corinthians 7, 19. Saint Paul says this. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.

Keeping the commandments of God is what counts.

Now you cannot read that passage and say, oh, the works of the law that Paul is excluding is obedience to God's law.

Not at all. That's what counts, he says. It's circumcision that counts. It's ceremonial observances that don't count.

Theology is found in the Bible, where the word alone was not added by the Protestant translator, but was written by the inspired author himself.

Do you know where it is? It's in the letter of James. Here the concept of justification by faith alone is discussed, but it is condemned as a religious error, as a heresy, as a false doctrine that will lead to spiritual disaster.

In James 2, verse 24, you see that a person, James says, is justified by works and not by faith alone, not sola fide.

What was Luther's response to this? Not the dodge that Mr. White uses, where he says, oh,

James is talking about being justified before men. Paul talking about justification before God.

What I find so interesting about Protestant theology is that it has to put words in the mouths of the biblical writers to make everything work out nice and smooth.

James says nothing about justification before men. He doesn't make that qualification, nor does

Paul make the qualification before God. And I would ask Mr. White to substantiate that completely gratuitous addition to the words of God and remind him that the word of God warns us against adding to or subtracting from its teaching.

Luther was, I think, more honest than many Protestant expositors. He simply said, yeah, James teaches something in conflict with Paul, and therefore what do

I do? Cut James out of the canon. It's an epistle of straw. That kind of arrogance for a man to take his theological understanding or misunderstanding, in this case, of one part of scripture and use it to exclude other parts of scripture from the canon is absolutely outrageous in my mind.

There is no conflict between James and Paul, but between the teaching of James and Luther's misunderstanding of Paul, which produced a twisted translation which has seeped into the collective consciousness of Protestants until they are so positive that the

Bible teaches justification by faith alone that they are shocked to learn that the phrase never occurs in the teaching of Paul.

And we could multiply texts from Paul endlessly. I would ask you to look at Romans chapter two, verse six, for example, where Paul says the following.

He says, talking about salvation, justification, he says in Romans chapter two, verse six,

God will requite to each man according to his works, to the ones on the one hand who by endurance in every good work seek glory, honor, and incorruption.

He will give eternal life. In contrast to those who are self -seeking and disobedient to the truth and obey unrighteousness, he will give wrath and anger.

We can look at Romans 6, 16, Romans eight, verse four, Romans 16, 26, we could go on and on.

We could also, however, I think use our time well to go to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because after all,

Paul is an apostle of Christ, preaching the same gospel that Christ preached. Christ came to proclaim good news, that he came to save, but does he save us by our having a faith alone?

That doctrine is nowhere found on the lips of our Lord. And I find it very suspicious that Protestantism doesn't begin with Christ's teaching, but goes to a couple of selective texts in Paul, misinterprets them, and actually ignores what

Paul, what our Lord says virtually altogether in expounding its doctrine of justification.

When Protestants attempt to talk about the gospel according to Jesus, as John MacArthur did in a very controversial evangelical work, he's an evangelical

Protestant, he's accused of being a crypto -Catholic because he emphasizes what in fact Jesus says.

In Matthew 7, 22, Jesus says, not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one practicing the will of my

Father who is in heaven. Jesus says in Matthew five, verse six, blessed are the ones hungering and thirsting, present participles, penantes caedipcentes, for dikaiosune, for righteousness.

Notice it's an ongoing attitude, which makes no sense if the moment I become a Christian, I already have all the righteousness

I need and there's nothing more to hunger or thirst after. Jesus says that this is an ongoing process in the life of the

Christian. Jesus says that blessed are you when you're persecuted because of your righteousness. And again, the context is not talking about some imputed righteousness, but your living in obedience to Jesus Christ.

They may see your good works, he says in verse 16. It is possible to do good works, which bring glory to God.

And that is the righteous Christ is speaking of. Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, he says in verse 20, don't practice your righteousness.

Same word, dikaiosune, in chapter six, verse one, in front of men with a view to be seen by them. Otherwise you'll have no reward, but do it in secret and your

Father will reward you. He says that everyone who hears his words and puts them into practice in Matthew seven, 24, is like a wise man who builds his house on the rock.

In Matthew 11, 19, Jesus speaks of wisdom, providing a model or a paradigm for us.

If we're to be wise people, wisdom is justified, same verb, dikaio, by her works.

That is Jesus's theology of justification. Matthew 12, 36, you will have to give an account, he says in the day of judgment, for every careless word you've spoken, for by your words you will be justified.

By your words you will be condemned. Whoever practices the will of my Father in heaven, that one is my brother, sister, or mother, he says in Matthew 12, 50.

The Son of Man is gonna come in his Father's glory with his angels, in Matthew 16, 27. And then he will reward his person according to what he has done, literally according to his conduct, practice.

I'm reading from the New National Version, a Protestant translation, by the way. In his parable of the unforgiving servant,

Matthew 18, 21, verses 21 through 35, in his various other parables, which

I don't have time to get to now, over and over again, Jesus makes it clear that we are justified by a faith that works, and that the works are an essential component to the equation that results in our ultimately entering into heaven.

Luther's teaching has no basis in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. It has no basis in the teaching of Paul.

It certainly has no basis in the teaching of James, as he himself admitted, or in the teaching of any of the apostles. Now, Protestants misunderstand this

Catholic concept, this biblical concept, that our works are a partition, because they think that we mean by that that we save ourselves.

God does work, and then we, because God's work is, after all, imperfect and incomplete, they think, believe, we have to add to it by own works.

Ignore the fact that we teach very clearly that all the works that we are are the work of Jesus Christ, us. Philippians 10, 12,

Mr. White, but didn't stop to think about the implications of. It is the work in us. John 15, verses 1 to 7,

Jesus Christ says that it is from him we can do nothing. All of our good works are the work of Christ in us, and as a result, the work of Christ, we are saved by Christ, saved by his grace alone, and we get to have an all honor and glory.

We'll go to Jesus Christ, vote for what he did on the cross, and when he does, thank you very much. I'm glad I'm not a

Lutheran, for the infallibility of Lutheranism. First of all,

I would like to point out the primary, most basic difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine and the Protestant doctrine is simply this.

The righteousness by which we stand before God in Protestantism is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The righteousness of Christ is the actual and real possession of the believer, contrary to what the antics said.

The righteousness he pleads with the judgment bar of God. Christ is our substitute. Our sins are imputed to his righteousness, imputed to us.

It's not simply merit, grace, so we can do good works to earn our way to heaven. What's grace? Christ's righteousness is we have eternal life because of Christ's righteousness, not because of our.

There are far too many passages that teach this central truth. We begin to address, but a few representative samples must be presented.

Paul taught Corinthians, quote, he who knew no sin became sin on our behalf, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Second Corinthians 521, notice where we are made, the righteousness of God is in Christ. Is this not what Isaiah had long ago in Isaiah 53?

Surely our grace he himself bore and our sorrows he carried, yet we esteemed him stricken, so God inflicted. He was pierced through our transgressions, he was for our iniquities.

The chastening of our well -being fell upon him and by his searching we are healed. By his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will justify them as he will bear their iniquity.

Roman Catholicism speaks of our doing, we're a state of grace. I was accused of ignoring that. I didn't. I repeated it many, many times.

In a state of grace that makes faction or atonement for sin, why? Christ bore our sins and since he did so, the father can declare us righteous.

This is central difference between us. My justification is based completely and solely upon the finished work of Christ.

Roman Catholicism does not have a truly finished work of Christ upon which to base justification.

That goes back to the issue of the mass that Jerry and I have debated before. Christ's merits are the Christian's merits by virtue of the union of the elect with their head,

Jesus Christ. And that union is solely the result of God's merciful election in eternity past.

From beginning to end, salvation is of God. May we all join Paul when he stated, that I may gain

Christ and may be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from law, but that which is through faith in Christ.

The righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, Philippians 3 .9. This is the only righteousness that will avail for us.

True Christian righteousness does not result in a life filled with fear, falling from God's grace or in a continual cycle of justification fall.

Instead, Paul, after presenting Abraham as the example of justification by faith proclaimed, therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand and we exalt in the hope of the glory of God.

We have been justified and because of this, we have peace with Christ. This is not, my friends, a temporary ceasefire in a war that could erupt again at any moment by the whim or the will of man.

This is a permanent peace, true shalom. And it can be true peace because it is based not on our merits, not on the good works we produce while in a state of grace, but upon the finished and completed work of Jesus Christ, our

Lord and Savior. Now it was said that Paul in Romans chapter, well actually all through Romans and Galatians, is dealing only with particular elements of the ceremonial law.

I would like to turn your attention again to Romans chapter four, verses four through five. Romans four, four through five.

Now to the one working, and since Jerry wants to bring out the tenses here, we have a participle, to the one working.

Nothing said about law. Where is law here? I don't see law. How could it be? Because this is talking about Abraham and it's prior to the giving of the law.

To the one working, the reward. What is the misthos, Jerry? The misthos, is that what you receive from doing a work?

Not just a work of law, but when you go to work and you get your paycheck. That's what is being talked about here.

To the one working, which is exactly what Dr. Ott was talking about when he said fulfilling conditions that are necessary to obtain justification.

And I would submit to you it's the same kind of works that one does when one feels that one's justification can only be regained by doing works of satisfaction, confession, contrition, satisfaction.

That's the works Paul's talking about. To the one working, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but as what is owed.

But please listen to verse five. But to the one not working, but believing, a contrast between the two, to that one, to that individual, comes righteousness.

The righteousness of God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ. Thank you. Mr. White said he'll buy me one that doesn't beat, but I appreciate that gift of his love.

We just got this this afternoon. There's really only one problem with Mr. White's exposition of righteousness, or dikaiosune, or the people being called a dikaios.

That is, his contention that it's only the applied righteousness of Jesus Christ. There's just too much

Bible against you, Mr. White. You're a very capable debater. You're a very well -read man. You're a very aggressive debater, too, very articulate.

But there are verses in the Bible which speak of righteousness as an indication of our faithfulness to God's covenant obligations, or our obedience to him.

Let me just give you some examples. First of all, he talks about Abraham being righteous. And it's interesting that he quotes the book of Romans, of course,

Paul saying that Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

But the fact is that this is not the beginning of Abraham's walk with God. He's already for years now been obedient to God.

He left his slant. He went to the land that God showed him. By the time we get to Genesis chapter 15 years later,

Abraham is a man who's walking with God. You have a similar passage in the Old Testament in the story in Numbers 35 of Phinehas.

Remember Phinehas? When the Midianites were seducing the Israelites into idolatry and their orgiastic worship, and Phinehas takes a javelin and impales an

Israelite man and this Midianite woman with him, and the plague is checked. He atones, Numbers 35 says, for the sin of Israel.

Psalm 106 has this inspired commentary on it. Listen, Phinehas stood up and intervened,

Psalm 106 verse 30 says, and the plague was checked. This was credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come.

Here is an action. Here is something that Phinehas did in obedience to the law of God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

When Paul uses that language, he's not excluding the idea of obedience or faithfulness to God. As a matter of fact,

Paul's great key text in Romans 117, that just will live by faith, is a quotation from an

Old Testament book. There's no conflict between what the Old Testament teaches about our relationship with God as being one built upon faith and loving

God and responding to God's love and his grace by an obedience that is necessary if we are to remain in an actual authentic relationship as sons and daughters of the living

God. The New Testament is loaded with passages which say the very thing that Mr. White insists is not taught in the

New Testament. Let me give you some other examples. In Matthew chapter 119, we read that Joseph being a righteous man, not talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ, but a man who was willing to do what the law required, thinking his wife, before he's alerted otherwise by the angel, has been unfaithful to him and their betrothal period is minded to dismiss her quietly.

In Luke chapter one, verse six, we read this about the parents of John the baptizer.

In Luke chapter one, verse six, I'm reading from the New International Version. Both of them, Elizabeth and Zechariah, were righteous in the sight of God.

Why? Because they observed all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

These were obedient, faithful people. By the grace of God, absolutely, because without it, they couldn't do it. But how are they righteous?

This is not some imputed righteousness alone. As Luther would teach, as Mr. White would teach, it is their obedience to God by the grace of God, no doubt about it.

I already referred to the fact that Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew five, verse six, that we must hunger and thirst after righteousness if we are to receive his blessing.

It's an ongoing attitude. This is not something that, if it's really, if dikaiosune, righteousness only means that which is credited to our account, then what is there to hunger and thirst for?

I've already got it, according to Mr. White, and he's already got it. But no, it is something that God is freshly endowing us with.

It's a dynamic relationship. Jesus talks about your righteousness in Matthew five, verse 20.

Don't practice your righteousness in Matthew six, verse one. Now, it's Christ's. It comes from Christ.

But it differs from one believer to another. Otherwise, the whole argument in James chapter five, encouraging us to follow after holy living so that our prayers are effective, the prayers of a righteous man accomplish much are meaningless.

If we're all equally and infinitely righteous, then it doesn't matter how we live. God has to answer all of our prayers instantaneously, and our own experience tells us otherwise, even if our mistaken theology does not.

Now, the Bible shows us that our obedience to God is a factor in God's dealings with us, but that obedience comes from the grace of God, and therefore, does not provide any grounds for Catholics boasting in some sort of self -salvation, as Mr.

White attests or claims. Thank you. I did not have the opportunity, due to the shortened format, to get into the meaning of the term righteousness.

The Hebrew term tzedakah carries two main thoughts. It is often used what we normally consider as moral righteousness or uprightness.

In fact, I don't know if Jerry has heard my debate with Dr. Mitchell Pacwa on this, but in that debate, I pointed out the New Testament uses the term in this way as well.

For example, in describing Joseph as a righteous man in Matthew 119, and Luke 1 .6, where Zechariah and Elizabeth are described as just, as a standard part of any cross and treatment of the term tzedakah.

But the Hebrew term tzedakah also carries a forensic or legal concept of being right in the eyes of law.

That is, of being in the proper relationship to the law. This is often the case in the verb form is used, specifically Jerry the

Hefeel. There are a number of examples of this usage in the Old Testament. For example, Exodus 23 .7,

Proverbs 17 .5, and I'll give you just one, Deuteronomy 25 .1. Quote, if there is a dispute between men and they go to court and the judges decide their case and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.

Note the context, we are in a law court. To justify the righteous obviously means to give a legal forensic declaration regarding his proper standing before the law.

This is clearly seen by the term that is paralleled with the act of justifying here, to condemn. Neither involves a subjective change in the individual.

The righteous man was righteous inwardly before the declaration of his righteousness, just as the guilty man was guilty before the proclamation of his guilt and condemnation.

This is the source of Paul's understanding of justification in the New Testament. Paul's use of the term demands this be so.

The conjunction of the two terms, impute and to justify, in Paul's teachings clearly shows the

Protestant understanding of God's declaration of the righteousness of the believer is the biblical one. I shall demonstrate this briefly by two passages from the

New Testament. First, with reference to the imputation, we note again Paul's words in Romans 4. Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom

God imputes righteousness apart from works. Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Note the parallels that Paul presents, the imputation of righteousness and the non -imputation of sin.

It is likened to forgiveness of those sins and to their covering. Where is the subjective change? It is nowhere.

The imputation of righteousness is a legal transaction based upon the authority of God as judge.

The same is to be found in Romans 8 .33. Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies.

Who is the one who condemns? Note the exact same contrast, the terms to justify and to condemn that is found in the

Old Testament. God justifies his elect people. I agree in regards to justification with a man that's a

Jerry, I believe, believes one of the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church, Clement in writing to the Corinthians said, they all therefore were glorified and magnified not through themselves, their own works, the righteous doing which they wrought, but through his will.

And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith whereby the

Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning to whom be the glory forever and ever.

The same contrast between the working and faith is found there as well. Now, a couple other things,

Jerry faulted me for not supposedly citing the Lord Jesus. Obviously, one can go through the book of John and Matthew and elsewhere and find citation after citation after citation where the

Lord Jesus talks about being saved by faith in him. For example, John 5 .24,

where it says, he who hears my words and believes on him who sent me has eternal life. Jerry, quote the passage from Matthew, where it is said, well, the one who does the will of the

Father in heaven, he is the one who will enter into my presence. Well, that's very true, but what is the will of the Father in heaven? When the

Jews came and asked Jesus, what is it that we might work? The works of God, what was Jesus' response?

Believe on him whom he has sent. That is the will of God. The only ones who will truly do the will of God from their heart are those who have been regenerated, those who have been changed.

Now, it has been said in many passages recited, it talks about how we are to do good works and that God is working our lives.

We believe all of those things. They are not relevant to what we're talking about here. We are talking about the righteousness by which we stand before the judgment bar of God.

And what righteousness is that? Is it a righteousness that I gained by baptism? Is it a righteousness that I can grow in by my works?

Is it a righteousness that can be lost by commission of a mortal sin? And hence, I'm lost once again, unless I go through a sacrament where I make satisfaction for my sins.

Is that the righteousness? No, Paul says, He who knew no sin, Jesus Christ, was made sin on our behalf that what?

That I might be made the righteousness of God in him. That is the Christian gospel. That is the

Christian message, that the righteousness in which we stand is not a righteousness that is derived from ourselves, but is a righteousness that is given to us solely by the grace of Jesus Christ.

That is the difference between the two of us. It is not a matter that we should not want to do the law of God.

We should want to do the law of God, but the only one who wants to do the law of God is he who has been changed by the

Holy Spirit of God. Thank you. How are we on?

Do you need to change a tape? Would this be a good time to do it? You got plenty? I really believe, and I think those that are looking very carefully and trying to judge impartially are noticing that some things are slipping out in the citation of the scripture.

Let me give you some examples. Mr. White cited Deuteronomy 25 verse one as proof that we should have a theology of justifying justification that is purely juridical,

God declaring a legal sentence. And he speaks of the judge justifying the one man and condemning the other.

And he said, this is with reference to people who were already righteous and already unrighteous.

That is exactly the Catholic church's point that God does not engage in illegal fiction.

He does not look at someone who is not righteous and say, well, I'll pretend that you are righteous.

God actually, when God speaks his omnipotent word makes things happen.

Genesis chapter one, verse three, God said, let there be light. And he didn't look at the darkness and pretend it was light.

There was light. When God declares at our baptism, this is my beloved son, this is my beloved daughter in whom

I'm well pleased. You are born again by water in the spirit, as Jesus said, that is regenerated.

You are justified. You are sanctified. But this is a process that now continues.

It is not God making a legal declaration that has no basis in fact. There is nothing in the

New Testament, including Romans chapter four, that would say that. Romans four does talk about God not imputing sins and God imputing righteousness, but it is not anywhere in the passage said that God does this while leaving the believer still actually in his sinful condition.

That is what Luther read into the passage, what Mr. White reads into the passage. Trent does not deny that there is a legal declarative force justification, but it says that does not stand alone as the justification that will get us into heaven.

There must be this inward renovation or transformation. Again, selective citations from scripture.

Mr. White quoted John 5, 24. Whoever believes has eternal life. Does Jesus say that this faith is all that is necessary?

It is a mere act of faith alone? He says, what is the work of God that you believe in the one that he sent?

This is the will of God. That's one will of God, absolutely, that we believe in Christ.

The Catechist admits that, but is that the only sense which we could talk about the will of God? No, you could look at First Thessalonians chapter four, verse three, where Paul says, this is the will of God, namely your sanctification.

What must we do to do the will of God? Believe in Christ, absolutely. Jesus must be listened to on that point, but so must the

Apostle Paul. We must be sanctified. Follow after holiness, Hebrews 12, 14 says, without which no one will see the

Lord. Is this the holiness that we have just credited to our bank account in heaven? No, because it's something we must follow after.

It is something that we must pursue by the grace of God in our Christian life. Without it, what does the

Bible say? You will not see God. He says, is this a righteousness that we can have and then lose?

Absolutely. Ezekiel chapter three tells us that a righteous man, in verse 20, can turn from his righteousness and do evil, and he may die.

And the righteousness that he did before will not be to any avail. Look at Ezekiel chapter three, verses 20 through 21.

And Calvin is, of course, very good about pointing out the continuity of salvation under both Old and New Testament.

Jesus teaches the same thing. Look at the parable of the unforgiving servant, which I told you, which I alluded to before, where Jesus says in Matthew 18, you know this story, that there was the man who forgave the debt of one of his servants, a huge, enormous debt, and the man was not able to pay.

The king freely forgave him and sent him away. And then the man goes out and finds a guy that owns him a few bucks and says, pay me what you owe me, throttles him by the throat.

And the man says, give me time and I'll pay, exactly echoing the first man's words, but he is unmerciful. When the king hears about it, he brings the man back and he says, hey,

I canceled that huge debt of yours and you refuse to do the same for your servant. And then Jesus says this, this is how my heavenly father will treat each of you, unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

I could be forgiven by God, but if I then go and have an unforgiving heart towards you and I don't forgive you sins that you sin against me,

God will take me and say, you wicked and unmerciful servant, you wicked servant,

I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to, you should have done the same. And that debt is reinstated.

The person is put in prison until he has to actually pay the debt off. So Clement of Rome, by the way, in the very passage that Mr.

White, I'll have to finish the rest of that quote later. Mr. White, you will now have 30 seconds to frame a question to which

Mr. Matitix will have two minutes to respond. I'll try to get it in 30 seconds.

It may take 45, I'll do my best. I'll give you 45. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was this,

Jerry, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Obviously breaking the greatest commandment would constitute a mortal sin.

Would it not, yet any honest man or woman here tonight knows in their heart of hearts, they do not love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength every minute of the hour, every hour of the day.

Therefore, we must have necessity to be continually falling from grace and losing our justification. Indeed, you've heard the quotation from Dr. Ott, the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation, nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.

In light of this, how can it possibly be said without making a mockery of the term Irenae and the underlying Hebrew concept of Shalom, that is peace, that having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ on the basis of his righteousness, when this temporary ceasefire could break down any second.

Thank you. I'll just use this one. I'm getting used to it now. I think again, this question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what in fact the

Catholic Church is teaching. And this is what I find so tragic. There seems to, see this is not just an academic exercise here.

There's something spiritual going on here. All of us are potentially capable of misinterpreting the

Bible. Peter warns us about that in 2 Peter 3 .16. He says, there are things in Paul's epistles that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction.

That's something I've got to humbly consider the possibility of as I read the Bible. And Mr. White, and without an infallible church, a church that's the pillar and foundation of the truth, as Paul says it is,

I will, I will. I'm just sort of getting warmed up. My, my, my answer would be that, that let me see exactly the first phrase to use again, that we have to, we have to love

God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength to get to heaven. I don't do it perfectly now. And so perhaps I'm not, I'm not ready for heaven if I were to die right now.

But that condition must be arrived at before we can enter heaven. How could you find heaven to be heaven if you didn't love

God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength? There's a process of sanctification, which I'm undergoing, which any true believer is undergoing.

And when you get to the point where you do indeed love God supremely, so that you are fulfilling the law, as Jesus said, and you love your neighbor as yourself, then you are in a state of perfection, as Jesus said, you must be.

You must be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. Heaven is a perfect place for perfect people. There will not be people up in heaven with a bumper sticker on their rear end saying,

I'm not perfect, just forgiven. Heaven is a place for people who know how to love

God completely. And our sanctification is that process by which God engages in that.

If I were to die before that process was completed, Catholics therefore believe that that sanctification must be continuing in that process of purgation, which the scriptures speak of.

I don't know. Mr. Malditakes, you now have 30 seconds to frame a question. He has two minutes to respond to his response.

I see, okay, this was not put on my schedule. Very good. I don't think that the real point of my question was addressed there, and that is the

Bible says that those who have been justified have peace with God. And I honestly do not believe,

I honestly do not believe that if you can in sincerity believe that you might go out and commit a mortal sin tonight and hence lose the grace of justification, be an enemy of God, and if you die right after doing so, be separated from God forever, that you can call that peace.

The Hebrew term shalom, the Greek term Irenia that is used there is not simply a cessation of hostilities.

Anyone who knows the Old Testament backgrounds knows that that is a term of wellness, a term of wholeness, a term of peace, okay?

So I do not believe that if you are in danger of engaging in an adversary relationship with God by the commission of a mortal sin at any point, that that means you can actually say that you have true and full peace with God.

And that is what I offered the Roman Catholic people when I speak with them, is a peace that is lasting. Why? Well, Mr.

Mattox talked about, well, I may not love God completely yet, I may not love God fully yet, so maybe I need to go through purgatory.

And he didn't say this, but ergo satis passio, a suffering of atonement on my own, whereby my suffering atones for the temporal punishments of my sins.

My friends, that's one of the things I said in my presentation. That's one of the things I said right off the bat. From my perspective, what

I'm saying to you is that what the New Testament teaches is that the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ is mine.

Jesus Christ has loved the Father perfectly. And that is why it is not my suffering in purgatory that will eventually gain me entrance into heaven.

It is the perfect work of Jesus Christ, which is mine and mine solely by faith and not by the works that I do.

That is the difference between us. And that is why I can have peace. Not a peace that causes me to sit back and just go, oh, wait,

I don't care. It is a peace that recognizes the perfection of Jesus's work in my place and calls my heart to love him because of what he's done for me.

Mr. Matitix, you now have the opportunity to frame a question within 30 seconds.

And there will be a pair of two -minute responses or a response to then your response to the response.

Mr. White, I was going to ask you another question which I've asked you before and you haven't really satisfactorily answered. And that is, if in fact we are justified so that there is no penalty in any sense accruing to us, even temporal punishment, then why do

Christians die since death is the wages of sin? But I'm going to ask you a different question based on what you just said.

And the question is simply this. Can a Protestant, an individual Protestant, you, for example, or anyone else in the audience, have an infallible certitude in this life that they are indeed redeemed by Jesus Christ, that they are one of the elect and that they therefore cannot fall away, according to your theology?

Can someone know infallibly that they are of the elect? Can they ever be deceived? Can they deceive other people?

In response to that, I would say that I, as a sinful human being and hence a fallible human being, because of sin, cannot have a certainty as you speak, myself personally.

However, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. The uncertainty is solely due to the -

We need to pause for a moment. Sorry. Collect your thoughts. In answer to the question that you asked,

Mr. Matitix, I would say that any uncertainty exists on my part is due to the sinfulness of my heart, to the remaining sin that abides within me, and not in any way, shape, or form due to any type of uncertainty on the part of God, any type of uncertainty on the part of the work that Jesus Christ has done in my behalf.

I know people who have deceived themselves, and that's why the scripture gives us many warnings to examine ourselves, to see whether we are in the faith, et cetera, et cetera.

But it is not, it is not, it is not because that you can be in the faith and that Jesus Christ can have justified you, you can have the perfect, total righteousness of Jesus Christ, and yet my, by doing something, some mortal sin, that I somehow destroy that grace,

I'm now lost, I'm an enemy of God, and even though at one time Jesus knew me, remember Jesus, you said we haven't talked about Jesus, remember

Jesus' words in John? He says, I know my sheep and my sheep know me, and yet what does he say to those he sends away from him?

I never knew you. The position you're presenting is, well, you can know him once, then not know him, then maybe get to know him again, then not know him, and eventually

Jesus is gonna have to say, well, I knew you three or four times, but you died in mortal sin, you didn't die in the state of grace, and therefore depart from me, you who work lawlessness.

No, Jesus Christ is the one who knows his sheep, and the righteousness that is mine is mine solely on the basis of what he himself does.

There is no uncertainty, there is no uncertainty in what Jesus Christ has done for his people.

It is not something to where he's done the best he can, and now it's just all up to us. That is not the perfect savior.

The perfect savior saves his people perfectly. Well, I agree, of course, that the perfect savior saves his people perfectly.

The question is, how does he do that? He does that through his work in our lives, and that is a work that the scriptures make clear can be something that is begun and that is thrown away.

There are two issues here at work. There are two points of disagreement on us. The first one is whether, in fact, someone who is truly a

Christian can end up falling away. Now, that's actually a separate debate, but since you've brought it into the discussion, we have to address it.

Jesus is talking to believers when he gives us the Lord's Prayer, and says, it's interesting, in the six petitions of the

Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6, verses 9 through following, there's only one that he adds a divine footnote to. He goes back over again.

He says, if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive men their sins, your

Father will not forgive your sins. Your Father is talking to believers. Children of God.

Matthew 18 says the same thing. Paul says the same thing. So do the other apostles. Look at 1 Corinthians 9.

Paul says that he could preach the gospel to others, and he himself could be a castaway in 1 Corinthians 9, 27.

Goes on to say, brothers, remember that they were all baptized through the Red Sea. They all ate the prototype of the

Eucharist, the manna from heaven, and drank from the rock. Nevertheless, God struck down most of them. Those things happened as examples to us, he says.

It is possible that it is to start out the Christian life and to not make it to the promised land. And so he says, if you think you are standing, watch out lest you fall.

Now, this is not incompatible with peace. We can have peace through our Lord Jesus Christ as our peace is predicated upon our being, knowing that Christ loves us because we love him in response, that we are his sheep day by day.

If I cease to obey him, if I cease to love him, then that peace rightfully departs. And Mr. White has admitted, therefore, that the

Protestant, it's a straw man. The Protestant has no more shalom than the Catholic since he might think he's saved, but actually end up being deceived and having deceived other people.

There's no difference from the Protestant and Catholic view. It's not stopped.

Put it on the floor down here, Jerry. I'll take just a step on it. Right, yes.

Well, I think this has been an immensely fruitful exchange so far. We're coming into the final stretch. Take a deep breath.

Have we reached the finish line? Take a deep breath.

It's late at night. It's been a long day, perhaps. Let's all concentrate now through to the end and profit from this exchange as much as we can.

I'd like to take a part of my closing statement, which I believe is 15 minutes, I'm hoping, to just tie up a few loose ends.

Mr. Mattox, early on, accused me of making a gratuitous addition in regards to justification, the sight of God and before men, and asked me to cite a passage, just would direct his attention,

Romans 3 .20, where, again, the phrase, in opion al tu, before him, no flesh shall be justified by works of law.

Before him is definitely found there. It's not a gratuitous addition on my part. Second, the quotation of Phineas was found from the

Psalms, and I'm certainly aware of the passage. I just don't know of any place in the New Testament where justification is being spoken of where it's ever cited, and hence,

I don't know that it's something that we need to bring into the conversation since the inspired apostles did not believe that it was something we should bring in.

Next, Ezekiel 3 was cited, the righteousness that the man has done. I definitely agree, any righteousness that man has done, but again, the righteousness of the

Christian is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is perfect and complete. And finally, the fourth thing was the unforgiving servant, the servant who is forgiven a great debt, and then he goes out and finds someone who owes him a small debt, and so on and so forth.

You know, it's very interesting. I think this is one that very classically captures the difference between the Protestant and Catholic view because the

Catholic seems to be saying to me, that unless you forgive perfectly, you're lost. Can I see the hands of those who forgive perfectly in here?

I didn't think so. Well, we're in a lot of trouble unless we take all of what scripture says and we go over to the book of Colossians and we hear

Paul say, forgive one another what? As Christ has forgiven you.

What's the foundation upon which we can forgive others? The fact that we have been forgiven by Jesus Christ.

That is, I think, elemental to the Christian faith. It's elemental to what it is to know to forgive someone else. We can't forgive others unless we ourselves have experienced forgiveness, and what

Jesus is saying is, if you don't forgive others, you've never experienced that forgiveness, have you? No, you definitely haven't.

You know, I've used the example many times. If you want to know something about the headlights in your car, you look in the manual under headlights.

Well, today we had a problem in our car and we had a problem with the clock, and some dear friends of mine have troubles with clocks, and so I've been helping them to set all the clocks in their house while I've been here, and it's interesting, when you want to know something about the clock in a car and you look in the manual, where are you gonna look?

Well, you might look under the dashboard and you might look under the electrical system, but if you really want to know about clocks, you know where I looked?

I looked under clock. And you might say, what does that have to do with anything? I've been faulted for, you know, well, you just center on these few passages.

My friends, the books of Romans and Galatians are the central passages in the New Testament where how it is that sinful men are made right with God are addressed.

And if I want to know how to fix the clock, I look where clock is. If I want to know how to be made right with God, I go to where the

Bible specifically spends chapters talking about it. Now, I may learn something by looking at the electrical system in the car manual.

It may mention something about the clock, but I better not build my whole theology on that. I better not build my whole understanding of how the clock works on the basis of that one little mention there.

And that's, I think, what we have here. That's what I'd like to invite you to do tonight. I'd like to invite you to look at the books of Galatians and the book of Romans.

I'd like you to really honestly think about what Paul is saying and ask, who really presented Paul's position this evening?

Who really dealt with it? In fact, I'd like to ask you right now and in the time that I have to look at just a couple of those passages, just in reiteration, no new material,

I just want to reiterate some points that were made. The book of Galatians chapter two. This is a passage that, again,

Luther really took it on the nose tonight, but I'm not a Lutheran, so I'm really not too concerned about that, but Luther supposedly based something on Galatians 2 .16.

I want us to look at that, and I hope you're looking at it, Jerry. I know you have your interlinear text there in Galatians 2 .16. Knowing that a man is not justified by works of law, and then there's two little phrases there, two little words, eon mei, except by what?

By faith in Jesus Christ, and Jerry did his undergraduate degree in Greek. I did my minor in the same subject, and he knows what that phrase means.

What does it mean? You can actually take that whole thing there about the works of law out for a second and just simply listen to what

Paul is saying. A man is justified in one way. There's only one way of justification.

By faith in Jesus Christ. Now, remember who he's dealing with.

He's dealing with people who certainly would have said, faith is important. The Judaizers would have said, oh, yes, you must have

Jesus Christ. From all we can tell in the book of Galatians, they were orthodox on the nature of God, on the deity of Christ, on the authority of scripture, all those other things.

They were orthodox. But what did they do? They said, faith in Christ is the first thing, but there's something else you gotta do.

You see, Peter had exemplified that. What happened when the men came from James? Peter withdrew from table fellowship with the

Gentiles. What was he saying by doing that? Paul said they were not walking according to truth of the gospel. Why?

Because Paul by his actions was saying, faith ain't enough, friends. You Gentiles, you need to do a little something more.

You need to add something to that faith. What do you need to add to that? Well, you need to add this next thing of the law.

You need to be circumcised. You need to enter into that covenant relationship. And Paul's whole point is, there's one way of faith and there's another way of works.

And you can't walk very far down two roads to go 180 degrees apart from one another. The idea that man can, by their works, merit something.

Works committed in a state of grace, whatever you wanna call it. The idea of merit and grace, the

Greek term charis. What does Paul say in Romans 11, six? If it's on the basis of grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise what?

Grace is no longer grace. Paul knew what that meant. Human merit and God's grace are two contradictory concepts.

You add merit to the concept of grace and say, well, God's grace is only gonna work if you do this.

If you, as Dr. Ott said, fulfill those conditions, which are what? Necessary for achieving justification.

Friends, that's not God's grace. That's not the grace of the New Testament. And that's not what Paul said here. That is why he could say in Galatians 2, 21,

I do not set aside, nullify the grace of God. For if righteousness can be derived from law, and what is the law to Paul?

Is it something that's way down here someplace? Nope. What does Paul say the law is in Galatians 3?

It is our schoolmaster. It is our tutor. What does it do? It points us to the

Savior. It shows us our sin and shows us the impossibility of our bringing about our own salvation.

It points us to the need for Jesus Christ. That's what the law does. I do not set aside the grace of God for if righteousness come by law,

Christ died needlessly. Those are strong words. But those aren't the strongest words.

Those of you who have studied Galatians know Paul gets downright nasty in this book. Why? Because the issue that's at hand,

Jerry has said it quite rightly, it's the most important issue we can discuss. And that's how men can be right with God. And can they only be right with God through such things as baptism or the desire thereof?

And then if they commit a mortal sin through sacramental forgiveness by confession, contrition, and then works of penance or satisfaction, where is that in Paul's theology?

It is nowhere in there. You don't find sacraments of forgiveness in Paul's theology. What does he say in Galatians 5 .1?

It was for freedom that Christ set you free. Therefore, stand firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you are circumcised, if you take the first step down that road, and this isn't me speaking, this is

Paul. What does Paul say? Christ will be of no benefit to you.

Can you imagine the offense of the Galatian teachers who heard that? How dare you say that,

Paul? We're good men, we're religious men. We've given our lives to the ministry, Paul.

We just have a different understanding than you do. We think that people of God do a little more than you do. Paul said,

Christ will be of no benefit to you. But I believe in Jesus Christ. I use his name every single day.

I worship him every single day. Christ will be of no benefit to you. I didn't say it,

Paul did. And it would have been a lot easier for me. It would have been a lot easier for Paul, I'm sure, if he hadn't had to say it.

But Paul knew that the very nature of the gospel itself was at stake. And therefore, he offended.

It's offensive. But he offended because he loved. And that's what's brought me from Phoenix to Boston this evening.

Romans chapters three and four. I hope you'll read them. Three, four, and five, I hope you'll read them.

I hope you'll look at Romans chapter two. Jerry talked about it. Romans chapter two, look at what he's saying.

And see if what he's saying there in any way, shape, or form has any impact upon what I've said. See if he's really saying, well, you do these works, and boy,

I'll tell you, you're gonna get this type of reward, and that's how you're done. Is that really what it's gonna say? Look at it in context. Listen to what he's saying, and then listen to his discussion in Romans three, where he says, yes, indeed,

God will reward according to man's works. But what are man's works? Read Romans chapter three, verses 10 and following.

Dead in sin. Dead in sin. Luther didn't have an overactive conscience.

He was under the conviction of the Holy Spirit of God. And he knew in his heart of hearts that there was nothing that he could do.

Sacramental absolution had not calmed his conscience. Why? Because that is not how a person becomes right with God.

The peace of God is a lasting peace. Not because it is simply something that makes me go, oh, well,

I'm not concerned about my sin. No, it is a lasting peace because it's based upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ, a righteousness that is perfect and cannot admit of addition.

What are you going to add to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, my friend? What works can you do that would cause the righteousness of Jesus Christ to increase?

Think about what that says. Think about what that means. That is why

Paul can say in those signal passages in Romans three, therefore, by works of law shall no flesh be justified in his sight.

Why? Because the law just simply brings us a knowledge of sin. Do's and don'ts. Do this, do that.

What does that show us? Shows us we're sinful. It shows us we're sinful and it points us unto the

Savior, which is what Paul taught in the book of Galatians. And then when we come to that passage in Romans chapter four, it is so plain.

It is so plain. What about Abram, our forefather according to flesh? What did he know? Well, if Abraham was justified from works, ex ergo, he has something to boast of, but not before God.

For what did the scriptures say? Abram believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Now to the one not working. And I hope I made myself plain.

I hope you heard my quotation in Ephesians 2 .10. We are his workmanship, creating

Christ Jesus, what? Unto good works. Christians do good works, not because they have to remain saved, but because they love

God in their hearts. To the one who works, the wage, the paycheck, the reward.

That's not reckoned of grace. That's not grace. That's what is owed. You try going into work this week and have someone hand you your paycheck and go, here's a gift for you.

What are you gonna say? That ain't no gift, I earned that. Exactly right. To the one who works.

If you think that by going through acts of penance and satisfaction that you, in a state of grace, are earning merit before God and the

Council of Trent clearly talked about it, that's what this is talking about. That's not grace.

That's what's due. That's works. Verse five. But to the one not working but believing.

Hear that contrast? For Paul, there is a contrast between the idea of working to gain merit, working to fulfill conditions, which is what we started this whole debate out with, and believing, trusting in God.

To the one not working but believing upon who? The one who justifies the ungodly.

God is the one who justifies. I don't do works to fulfill conditions to attain righteousness.

God justifies the ungodly. His faith is reckoned as righteousness.

And that faith is not a faith that's saying, well, I'm gonna believe, but I'm also gonna hold on to this and this and this and this.

What did Paul say to people who did that? Galatians five, Christ is of no benefit to you.

It is either completely faith in Christ or it is not faith in Christ at all. It is a black and white issue on that point.

That's why Paul could say these things. Just as David spoke of the blessedness, the blessing upon the man to whom

God reckons righteousness without works. Without works.

And then that quotation from Psalm 31. Now, Jerry was right. There are spiritual things going on this evening.

It doesn't matter how good a speaker Jerry is, doesn't matter how good a speaker I am. On this issue, on this issue, only the

Holy Spirit of God can open your eyes to understand your absolute destitution.

Only the Holy Spirit of God can make you to understand that there is nothing you can do, even in a supposed state of grace, to merit eternal life.

Only God can do that. And that's why I do invite you to the scriptures. Not to some supposed sacred tradition that supposedly exists outside of scripture, but to the

Holy Spirit inspired scriptures. And listen with David, with Paul, with these men that we know in their lives the

Holy Spirit moved. And hear them as they realize there is nothing, there is nothing

I can do. Don't tell me that your grace just comes along and gives me aid and assistance to do something.

Don't tell me I've got to do good works in a state of grace, because if I do, I am lost. Listen, as they say, the righteousness of Jesus Christ by faith is the way of salvation.

Thank you. I did not come here this evening quite as far a distance as Mr.

White did, but I too came because of love. Because of love for my

Lord Jesus Christ and his church, which is spoken of as the body of Christ, the kingdom of God, according to St.

Paul, the pillar and foundation of the truth, the church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

Out of love for you who came, although I did not know you ahead of time. And actually, if I can say this without getting too sentimental, out of love for Mr.

White as well. I hope that you can see that despite our strong differences, and I believe that they are absolutely critical ones, that I at least

I know have a genuine affection for him and I believe that he does for me as well. I did something very unexpected this morning.

I alluded to it on the radio when we were on the radio show this afternoon. And that is, as I was sitting on my bed in the guest room at Haley House, I said to myself, did

I really come here to win a debate? Or did I come here to know and to articulate the truth?

That is what matters, even if it means losing the debate or realizing that I'm wrong, that I should always open myself up to the teaching of the word of God and the spirit of God.

And I prayed this morning, oh God, show me the truth. Don't let me like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus be found fighting against you.

Saul was an intelligent man, a man with great zeal for God. He encouraged

Christians to come out of the Christian faith and come back into Judaism where they, in his opinion, belonged.

And yet he was wrong. He was fighting against God. I believe it is possible for that to happen to very sincere and wonderful men.

I know that that was true in my case when I spent all the time, the energy that I did preaching against Catholicism.

And I believe that it's true in Mr. White's case too. And it's out of love for him that I'm willing to go on having these debates with him.

That perhaps something by the grace of God can penetrate and get through. I sat down in that guest room and I said,

I'm gonna read the gospels again. And I read through all four gospels this morning and I listened to what Jesus is saying about salvation and about justification.

And I challenged everyone in this room, including myself and Mr. White, to sit down and do that with no preconceived notions, to try to step out of your

Protestant Catholic skin and to be honest before God and say, Jesus, let me listen to you, my

Lord and my teacher. How does one get to heaven? Mr.

White had an obligation before you tonight as the one with the affirmative to prove the truth of the assertion that by faith alone, you can get to heaven.

The fact remains, despite all of the very impressive things that he has said, he is not able to cite one single solitary scripture from the words of Jesus, from the words of St.

Paul or from the words of anyone else in the Old Testament that state those very words, that by faith alone, you are justified.

And on that basis, justification alone can enter heaven. There is nothing like that in the scripture.

Now, I think there are three problems with Mr. White's presentation. The first is that, again, tragically, and I have to believe, giving him the judgment of charity, the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't intend to do this, perhaps it's just unfortunate, that there is a consistent and persistent caricaturing of the

Catholic position. When he says that the righteous of Christian is the righteous of Jesus Christ, the

Catholic church believes that. It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that we possess, that is in us, but that it works its way out through our life on a day -by -day basis.

Apart from me, he says, you can do nothing. Abide in me as the branch in the vine, and I will abide in you, and I will bear my fruit through you.

Catholics don't believe that we're saved by our own righteousness added to the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

As Mr. White said, it's not a question, he said, what does that mean? He asked you the question a few minutes ago.

What are you implying about the work of Christ if you say you have to add something to it? Let it be said, once and for all, we add nothing to the work of Christ.

We simply let Christ do his work on the cross and through our lives in our day -by -day fellowship with him.

Christ in you is the hope of glory, Paul says, and he doesn't think that he's detracting from the perfection of what

Jesus did on the cross outside of you. It's important to cite everything in scripture and not just part of it.

And that's the second problem I have with Mr. White's statement. And I don't mean to get worked up about this, but the word of God is our only lifeline to eternal life, and we must be careful that we handle it responsibly.

Romans chapters three and four and five were selectively cited. Look at the context.

He said about Abraham, what is Abraham an example of? To the one not working in his reckoning's righteousness.

But what is the work that St. Paul wants to exclude from the example of Abraham?

Is it the example of Abraham's obedience to God in, let's say, offering up Isaac?

No, James, as a matter of fact, gives that as an example of a work that justified Abraham in James chapter two. Is it

Abraham's obedience to God's command to come out of Ur of the Chaldees and go into an unknown land?

No. Paul doesn't say those things were wrong. Abraham ought not to have done those things.

What he is specifically attacking, the one who does not work, the work that he attacks in Romans four, there's only one work mentioned.

Look at it. Look at the context yourself. When you get home tonight, get on your knees, open your

Bible. What is the work that Abraham did not have to do to be justified before God? The work of circumcision.

It is very clear. It is named there for you. That is the work that Paul says is not necessary for circumcission, but Paul says nothing about other things.

Paul doesn't say, well, hey, don't be baptized because if you start down the road of being baptized, then you're falling from grace.

Paul never says not to be baptized. He never says not to engage in any kind of sacramental life.

He never says, don't obey the commandments of God because once you start down that road of something you have to do, then you're not trusting in Jesus anymore.

That is not the way Paul thinks. It's not the way Paul preaches. What does he say in 1 Corinthians 7, 19?

Keeping God's commandments is what counts by the grace of God, but you must do it. What does Hebrews chapter 12, verse 14 say?

Again, I mentioned it earlier. Follow after holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.

Can you get to heaven by faith alone according to Hebrews 12, 14? No. And anyone who tells you otherwise is doing you a serious disservice.

If you do not pursue holiness, not an imputed holiness, but one that you must pursue, then you will not see

God. That is the teaching of scripture. Paul, in Romans chapter two, verse six, a passage

I read already, says to the one who by, to those, excuse me, let me start in verse six.

God will render to each person according to his works.

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give the reward of eternal life.

There's that reward that you're talking about, Mr. White. It's a reward that we cannot earn in and of ourselves.

It's the grace of God that makes it possible. Mr. White used the analogy of going up to the paymaster to receive your paycheck at the end.

But suppose that you and I were thoroughly incapable of holding any job, and an employer in his mercy gave us one, and gave us the strength and the power to perform that job.

Would it then not be possible for you while receiving your reward or your wages at the end of the week to nonetheless say thank you?

If it weren't for you, this wouldn't even be possible. All the credit and the glory, Father, goes to you because you have made me a child of yours.

You've taken out my stony heart, and you've given me a heart of flesh, a heart in which the law of God is written so that I delight to do your will,

O Lord, as the psalmist says. That is what James says, that is what Paul says, excuse me, as well as James, is mandatory in the life of the

Christian to by persistence in doing good to seek glory, honor, and immortality.

Listen to Romans chapter six, verse 16. Again, listen very carefully. I'm reading from the New International Version, a

Protestant translation. Don't you know that when you offer yourself to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey, whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness, dikaiosune.

According to Mr. White's theology and according to Luther's theology, and he distanced himself from Luther, but the fact is he follows

Luther in his teaching on justification by faith. It's appropriate to bring Luther up. Yeah, he got some hard knocks today, but he deserves them, because he led people astray.

According to Mr. White's theology and Luther's, you already have righteousness the moment you become a Christian. You can't get it, you can't acquire what you already have, you're already full of it.

But according to the Bible, obedience leads to righteousness. That doesn't mean we don't have it when we start out, but it leads to more, it leads to increasing righteousness, holiness, justification, sanctification, regeneration.

These are all interchangeable terms that describe this process in which God makes us as perfect as himself.

How many of you forgive perfectly, Mr. White said? And no one raised their hand. I didn't raise my hand, he didn't raise his, because none of us perhaps in this room does right now.

But that is not the point. What does that prove? All that proves is that at this moment, we are not fit for heaven.

At this moment, we are not fit for heaven. If God were to sort of transport you, to beam you up, as the bumper sticker says, so that you wouldn't have it in your present condition, would you be ready to worship, serve, praise, and glorify

God morning and night, and to love him supremely? No. Obviously, if we get bored with our prayers after a while, our mind wanders, we don't love

God perfectly, we are not ready for heaven here and now. God has a work to do. He who begins a good work in us as we are faithful to God and respond to his grace, he will carry it to completion.

But the work is not complete yet. So the rhetorical question doesn't prove that Catholicism is wrong, it simply proves that we're not ready for heaven right here and now.

But we must become ready for heaven before we can enter it. We must forgive, as Mr.

White said, as Christ has forgiven us. He cited that as though that was a disapproval of the Catholic position that we must forgive perfectly.

How did Christ forgive us, Mr. White? Gee, I thought he forgave us perfectly. If we're gonna forgive as Christ forgave us, then we too have to forgive perfectly.

Romans chapter eight, verse four. Paul says this, that God has done his saving work, in verse four he says, in order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

How is the righteousness, which Jesus says, it is incumbent upon us to fulfill all righteousness, as he says in John the

Baptizer, Matthew 3 .16. How is it fulfilled in us? As we walk according to the spirit, not according to the flesh.

There is a righteousness that we embody and embrace in our daily lives. The last problem with Mr.

White's position, and indeed with Protestantism itself, is that you have heard his explanation and his exposition of scriptures, but Mr.

White has to admit, as he said about Luther himself, he said so much for the infallibility of Martin Luther.

Luther was a fallible man, so maybe he was wrong. That's what Mr. White said. Well, I think he was wrong.

And I think that Mr. White, insofar as he follows him, is also wrong. If you are willing to trust your eternal salvation tonight to the understanding of the scriptures that Mr.

White has, then you are trusting a fallible opinion. That's the problem with the Protestant position.

Every Protestant admits that he or she is fallible. Every Protestant denomination, every Protestant creed. They could be wrong, because there is no infallibility except in the written word of God's scriptures.

That is not what the Bible teaches. Jesus Christ was infallible. He gave the gift of infallibility to his apostles so that the spirit of truth, as he said in John 16, would speak through them.

So that whoever hears you, he said, hears me, the infallible teacher from God. It will not be you speaking, but the spirit of my father, he says in Matthew chapter 10, speaking through you.

This infallibility was essential so that people on the day of Pentecost saying, what must we do to be saved, could get a trustworthy answer.

Repent and be baptized. Ooh, Mr. White, there's that baptism that you say has no part in salvation. And you too will receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit, Peter said. Now could people say on that day, oh, Peter, that's your opinion, but I have my own theology.

I'm gonna start my own church. No, they had to believe what the apostles taught because the apostles were the apostles of Christ. The inspiration the apostles had died with them granted, but the infallibility, that is the trustworthiness of their teaching, could not die with them or subsequent generations would be simply people schlepping along, trusting our fallible approximations of the

Bible and hoping, just hoping that we, the Lutherans, are right against the Methodists or the Methodists are right against the

Baptists, the Baptists against the Pentecostals or the Pentecostals against the Roman Catholics and so on and so forth. That is not good enough, ladies and gentlemen.

The church that the New Testament describes is the pillar and foundation of the truth, 1 Timothy 3 .16.

And I want to read the word of God with my mind in submission to the teaching of Jesus Christ through his apostles and the successors of those apostles so that I can know, as the

Council of Trent said, that this is in fact what the Bible said. Yes, the Council of Trent said something strong.

They used that word anathema that Paul used because they inherit the apostolic authority of Paul himself.

What did they anathematize? Those who preach a false gospel that's said to people because the church loves people and wants everyone to go to heaven.

People were telling them, you don't have to be baptized. You don't have to live a life of Christian discipleship just by faith alone.

And the church, out of love for people, said, don't listen to this false gospel. We anathematize those who teach it.

Listen to what Jesus Christ has consistently taught for 2 ,000 years through his church. That's what I beg you and Mr.

White together tonight to do. Thank you very much. Well, I think we owe both of these speakers a debt of gratitude.

We can't walk away from here saying that one of the two different views wasn't well defended.

I think they're both stated very forcefully, very well. And now we have all the materials that we need to make up our own minds on this matter.

It's now time to take questions from the floor. Before I begin, let me just set a few ground rules for the question and answer session.

Of course, you may need to say a few things to set the context for your question. Excuse me. I think what we wanted to do for those that, because some people were saying they had a time commitment, was to sort of formally dismiss the people who need to leave

Kent. But we're willing to stay sort of an open -ended basis. So however long Mr. White wants to stay here,

I'm willing to stay indefinitely. And answer questions.

But we need to sort of formally close it. I think we need a time limit, because I'm staying in central

Massachusetts. So I've still got a trip to go. When would you like to end the presentation?

Well, let's let Mr. White decide, because he's got the long drive. I've got a long drive all the way down to near Attleboro too.

But when would you like to end? Let's do that. OK. But we should actually formally end so that people can up and leave.

Please pick up the literature that I think Mr. White's friends brought there on that table. I'm sure they'd want you to take that with you as you go.

There's also in this room, a little bit more remote, but nonetheless still accessible, there are some books back there that are available.

And if you're interested, maybe one person who's in charge of that could run back there and be able to help people out if anyone wants to go back there.

But those that need to leave now, please leave. Feel free to get up. Well, those that need to, feel free to, without seeming rude or what have you.

And then after maybe about 30 seconds of giving people a chance to do that, we'll take questions and answers.

I think you could have left at any time, but now you can leave without insulting anybody. Just during this 30 seconds, let me just make a couple of points about questions and answers.

Of course, don't make a speech when you ask a question. You can say a few things to set the context for your question.

Also, say to which speaker your question is principally addressed. And they have to alternate. It's one to Mr.

White, one to me. Oh, I don't think we should make that. Oh, really? That's me.

Both of you will have the opportunity. OK, that's fine, that's fine. OK, we'll begin this person in the far, by the side.

My studies of the whole problem of faith and justification has gone on for a number of years.

And it seems to me as though all informed Christians realize that if you want to look at the central factor that causes our salvation, it's the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Anyone who denies that, I delete as a heretic. The question seems to be the application to individuals.

I think, ultimately, in debates like this, the Protestants end up withdrawing most of their objections.

So I really don't see a heck of a lot of difference. Except I am troubled by the, it seems as though to them, an act of faith is a work, it seems to me.

It's something that they do, it seems, unless they deny free will. So that's one problem. But I'm more interested in imputation.

Christ, one of the severest attacks on the Pharisees were the ewe -white, like whitened sepulchres. And of course, whitened sepulchres were whitened on the outside to appear nice.

Inside, they were filled with dead men's bones. It seems to me as though the Reformation theology of imputation is that Christ came to make us whitened sepulchres.

On the outside, we appear to be by some sort of edict of God, justified. But inside, we are still unjustified.

So I'm wondering, first of all, are you at ease with that? And secondly, since God, Mr.

White, and secondly, Reverend White, excuse me, and since God made us, I assume you accept the original innocence, since God who created us originally innocent has all this power to do so, why doesn't he desire to, again, give us real justification rather than just an imputed external justification?

Why doesn't it really change us? And as the prophet said, why doesn't he give us a real heart and take away that stony heart rather than just impute a real heart?

Sir, I'd really like to encourage you to read some Protestant works on the topic because it is very evident from what you just said that I don't believe you ever have.

That may sound strong, but the simple fact of the matter is, as I said in my own presentation, the

Protestants are very, very plain in saying that God is the one who regenerates, that this is where we receive a new nature, we are made a new creature in Christ, that justification and sanctification, while distinct from one another by biblical usage, cannot be separated from one another.

He who is justified will be sanctified. The scripture does teach in regeneration, we have a new heart, that the stony heart is taken out and the heart of flesh is put in.

That is the sovereign work of God in regeneration. But the fact remains, so as to avoid the

Roman Catholic teaching, and it's a teaching that I have not heard denied whatsoever, that there are certain things, certain conditions that must be fulfilled, which are necessary for achieving justification.

Paul is very, very plain in pointing out that justification is an act of a sovereign

God, whereby he imputes the righteousness of Christ to us, not by leaving us in some condition of unregenerated, unjustified, unsanctified condition, but that the righteousness that is imputed to us is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

It is not a righteousness that we somehow create out of ourselves. And so I simply have to strongly disagree with you in what is simply a caricaturization of the

Protestant position, because it ignores the fact that we teach that we are regenerated by Christ, that we are sanctified by Christ, and that that is a work that he undertakes.

Oh, hold on a second. I get two minutes to respond. Are we doing this time? No, it's not timed.

Oh, it's not timed? Oh, okay. I didn't, but don't move. No, I'll just go. But I'll cut you off if you speak too long.

Yeah, no, I'll just go for two minutes. Maybe I won't. Okay. Thanks.

Shut off that beeper, please. I think that perhaps

Father did not express himself quite the way that you would have liked to. I'd be willing to perhaps agree with you on that, but I think that there's still an essential thrust to this question that is a very good one.

And that is that, you know, why would God, since he is omnipotent, simply impute righteousness to us rather than actually effecting a transformation?

When he certainly could do that. I have already shared with you a couple of passages that indicate that God does not impute it without any reference to our actual character or conduct.

I mentioned, you know, Mr. White is quoting this statement about Abraham. He believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.

I'm still insisting that he does not deal with the exactly identical phrase referring to Phineas.

That Phineas' deed of obedience to God was credited to him as righteousness. So imputation or crediting doesn't simply mean

God pretends you have something that you really don't. Now he's, his dodge, excuse me, let me finish. I've never said that,

I've never said that. His dodge was that, well, we don't have any reference to Phineas in the New Testament. But please,

Mr. White, I mean, there's thousands of things in the Old Testament that aren't commented upon in the New Testament. It doesn't mean that they're not relevant for constructing a

Christian theology. I think if you're going to use that criterion, then you have to exclude all kinds of things in the

Old Testament that are never reiterated in the New. I'm not a New Testament Christian. I'm a Bible -believing Christian. I accept both

Old and New Testaments. Now, Mr. White has a problem with any view of justification other than imputation of one because he says he doesn't like the idea of certain conditions being imposed for justification.

But Mr. White admits that there's at least one, the only one, he would say. You have to believe to be justified.

Isn't that a condition, Mr. White? Yes, it is, it's a conditio without belief. Is anyone justified?

No, according to Mr. White's theology. So that is a condition. It is something that you must do. You do it by the grace of God, but you do it.

The moment he opens the camel's tent, then, to that nose, the moment you said I didn't have to be done, the moment he says, well, you know, a condition does not necessarily, does not, a condition does not, in this case, does not necessarily make it no longer an act of God, then why not baptism?

Jesus says that baptism, it is essential, a condition for salvation in Matthew 28. That's how you enter the life of discipleship.

Mark 16, verse 16, whoever believes in his baptist will be saved, Acts 2, 38. Acts 9, rise up and wash away your sins, being baptized, calling upon his name.

So over and over again, we see that baptism fits right in there nicely with faith in the

Bible. And the last thing I would say, and this is actually sort of a question for Mr. White to comment on, if he wants to, he doesn't have to.

If, in his view, salvation is, justification is possible by faith alone, then what does he do with infants who die in infancy?

Could I ask something? We've had, Jerry and I have had this discussion before, and it was normally in the cross -examination period.

Could we limit our conversations solely to the questions asked so we can get enough of them in?

Because, first of all, a point of personal preference, personal if I could, Jerry, I try real hard, even though I strongly disagree with you,

I strongly disagree with your teaching, to respect you. I find the constant use of the term dodge out of another person's position to be very disrespectful.

I'd like to ask you to discontinue that if you could. Secondly, I think there have been a number of misrepresentations of my position, but I don't wanna take this question and answer time to go back over all the loose ends that I would like to have had tied up during the debate.

If this is everyone staying here to ask questions, could we sort of center in on what they're asking? I'd really appreciate it. Very good.

Would you like to say anything, though, in response? There were so many things were brought up there. I mean, we could now spend the rest of the night talking about baptism and what

Acts 238 and places like that have to say, but that is a very long topic. I would simply say that I do not believe that a single passage that he cited teaches that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is only a person's as long as they are going through some sort of ceremony.

Baptism, he totally misrepresented me in a closing statement saying that I said that baptism had nothing to do with Christian life, being a

Baptist, I take some pretty strong concerns to that. I didn't say that. Yes, you did. You may have just been getting excited, but you said that Mr.

White says that baptism has nothing to do with the Christian life. It's no part of the Christian life. We can roll the tape back if you wanna look at it, but obviously

I believe baptism is extremely important, but it is not the means by which the righteousness of Jesus Christ is made effective.

It is not a condition that I have to fulfill to make his death meaningful in my life. It is the representation, my picturing of my death, burial, and resurrection with Jesus Christ.

That's what it is. Okay, we'll - Just concerning baptism, there's several passages

I'm gonna mention and draw a conclusion. I'd like both of you to comment on. I want to, first off, in John chapter four,

I want you to recognize the fact that Jesus refused to baptize anyone. If salvation, if baptism is so much a part of our salvation, he refused to do it.

That's first. Second, Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter one, verse 17, that Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

We go over to 1 Peter, how are we born again? Peter, the first pope, if we accept that as true, said, being born again not of corruptible seed, but by incorruptible by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.

You see, I was formerly a Roman Catholic, and one of the conclusions I came to about baptism is that Catholics put the cat before the horse.

There is not one verse of scripture that can justify a child being baptized and then repenting.

It is always repentance first and baptism second. That's the way it is in the Bible, and you cannot change that.

One more thing about 1 Peter. In chapter three, if you want to use verses 18 to 20 and following, when they speak about Noah being saved by the water, he was not saved by the water, but out of the water by God, being forewarned.

I would like to know how the Catholics can justify the conclusion that a little innocent child that has no knowledge of sin can be baptized out of his sin he has no knowledge of before he can even have a chance to repent.

Okay, so we're going to have to pass over that question. It's not to the topic. No, I think it's somewhat to the, it's up to you.

What do you think? I have no objections to it. It was not, it was brought up.

No, I really think that we should pass over it because we can't attempt to answer. I'll allow you to rule on that, but it was brought up in the closing statements by Mr.

Manateeks in regards to baptism, Mark 16, stuff like that. Okay, something briefly then.

Harvey, we will not entertain any more questions on infant baptism or even the dispute between Catholics and Protestantism on baptism.

So what did we decide? Just something brief. A brief statement on each of your part. I understand the gentleman's concern.

However, it is a fact that Noah was saved by the water. The water was that effective separation of the righteous,

Noah, in the Ark, from the unrighteous. There was, it put that chasm between the godly and the ungodly.

And he does say that baptism now saves you. Now, the Catholic Church doesn't see that as incompatible with the statement in the very same letter that we're saved by the incorruptible seed of God, the word of God.

Paul, in Ephesians chapter five, refers to baptism, the ceremony of baptism, as the washing with water and the word.

Catholic theology sees the sacrament as having both a form, that is a certain formula of words as pronounced, including the word of God, and the matter, that which is applied, in this case, water.

There's no statement that Jesus refuses to baptize. In John chapter four, it simply says it was not

Jesus himself, but his disciples who baptized. He didn't refuse, but he did it through the instrumentality of his disciples.

This is one of the strongest proof texts, as a matter of fact, for the fact that the church, as the body of Christ, is the agency through which

Christ does his saving work. So whether it's the apostles baptizing or doing other things,

Paul, you know, didn't emphasize this, but he didn't need to baptize himself either. There could have been other people performing the baptisms there at Corinth, but obviously somebody did it.

And Paul never envisions people who are not baptized as being members of the church.

You don't have any unbaptized people, members of the church, by faith alone. And I do need to do one personal thing, and that is to apologize to you, because I realize that you took offense at my using the word dodge, and I think it's only the part of the

Christian that I ask your forgiveness, if, in fact, by using that word, I was implying some sort of real moral fault on your part.

I was not. I was using the word in the same sense in which you've been using words all night to refer to me as being, say, evading.

You used the words evading the issue or not really speaking to the issue. As far as I'm concerned,

Mr. White, I didn't mean to imply that you were doing any sin that you were not attributing to me.

I think we both use the same types of words. If I could, just very briefly, I think the gentleman was tempted to say that in 1

Corinthians chapter one, Paul makes a dichotomy between the preaching of the gospel and engaging in baptism.

And hence, if baptism is a part of the gospel, then his words are mighty strange. But in regards to young children and justification, if I can bring us back to justification, the

Bible, you have admitted, teaches that we are justified by faith. You just say that there are some other things along with there. And yet, it just seems very strange that the initial means of justification, according to Roman Catholicism, is this act of baptism.

I have a real hard time trying to fit that in with what the New Testament teaches in regards to the role of faith.

Even Martin Luther attempted to hold onto infant baptism, had to do some real mental gymnastics to try to come up with some way of attributing faith to a child.

I believe that faith involves a recognition of who Jesus Christ is.

And I think that's extremely important. That's how a person has peace. I think it's a shame to say to a young child, well, since you've been baptized, you have peace.

But infants aren't saved, you're saying. But infants aren't saved since they can't exercise faith. No, what

I'm saying is that an infant is not justified by baptism. So if an infant dies, an infant is not justified. Well, if a child dies in infancy, first of all, we both admit that the scriptures do not address the issue.

I like Zwingli's answer personally. I thought it was sort of a neat one. He said infants who die in infancy and the mentally incapacitated are part of the elect.

I can't prove it. You can't disprove it. We'll go from there. I leave it in the hands of a very merciful and just God. Okay? That's all

I'm gonna say. Okay, let's move on. The woman in the red sweater. You refer to God as being omnipotent, okay?

My understanding of the word omnipotent means that he's all powerful, okay?

If he's all powerful, he has the power. This is my thought, that he has the power to know all things, including the future.

But this is the crux of my question. Does God know ultimately who will be saved?

I think I'm gonna repeat that one because I think it wasn't quite as loud as some of the other ones. Would that be helpful?

The question was, if God is omnipotent and can do all things, does he know all things? And if he does, does he know who can be saved?

Both Mr. White and myself, and both the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions teach that God is omnipotent, is omniscient, and does therefore know those that will be saved.

But what I think is lurking behind the question in the phrases that we have used that distinguish our positions tonight,

Mr. White constantly refers to the fact that God is sovereign and says, hey, wait a minute, you see, if I could lose my righteousness, or if I could fall away, then

I'm somehow frustrating the sovereign will of God. And that couldn't be, if salvation is the sovereign work of God, God must always bring about his will.

I think Mr. White would agree that that is an important principle in his thinking. If you stop and think about it though,

Mr. White therefore has no explanation for the fact that he and I, as he admitted several times, and I hope you're not accusing me of impugning something to you that you haven't said yourself, that we both sin.

In other words, if Mr. White's theology says, because God is sovereign, therefore no one can ever fall away who's once a

Christian. By irresistible logic, we would have to say, hey, if God is sovereign, and if God's will is always performed, is it the will of God that I sin?

No, absolutely not. Why does God permit me, if the will of God is my sanctification, as 1

Thessalonians 4 verse 3 says, then why does any Christian ever sin? Why don't we always perfectly carry out obedience to God?

The fact is that we are capable of disobeying God, and that disobedience can be carried to a radical and extreme degree of falling away altogether.

I think Mr. White has a problem, in other words, in his own theology that he cannot escape. If you don't mind,

I'll escape it by a citation of scripture. Just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be what?

To be holy and blameless before him in love. He predestined us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, according to the praise of his glorious grace, which he graced us, literally, in the one he, in the beloved one, in the one he loves, that is in Jesus Christ.

And so I don't see any problem with that at all, because again, the simple fact of the matter is that I do believe, as what

I think lied behind the question, that God is sovereign in the matter of salvation, and that's why justification is by faith.

And as Paul said, so that it might be in accordance with grace. Grace and faith are melded together.

You cannot take the idea of the concept of merit and put together with God's grace and have a consistent whole.

That's Paul's teaching. That's the teaching that I hold to. It's very consistent with what Paul said in Ephesians chapter one.

Other question? Yes, ma 'am. A couple of quick questions, just two ways.

Unfortunately, I don't have the Bible with me, but I want you to refer to, I believe it's

Matthew 25, in the parable of the last judgment, where in the second half of the parable, it says that he talks about those who are condemned.

Sir, could you stand up, please? Do you want a Bible to help you? I won't. Could you ask just your best question also, since there are others who want to ask?

Yeah, that's it. He talks about those who are condemned, and those who are on his left say,

Lord, and to me that seems like they have faith, that he is Lord. Lord, when did we not eat you when you were hungry, or when did we not give you clothing when you were commuted or risen, et cetera?

And then he says, well, you didn't do it when you didn't do it to the least of my brethren. Therefore, you are recurrent to whatever it says, everlasting fire.

And it's interesting to me how at the beginning, they say, Lord, when didn't we do this, my Lord? And then

Jesus says, you didn't do it when you didn't work it out with my brothers, because whenever you do not do something to me, you don't do it to them, you don't do it to me.

Therefore, you have earned yourself hell. I guess

I just wanted to comment, if faith alone, if an intellectual faith alone does the trick.

Well, since I have denied from the beginning that intellectual faith alone is what I'm presenting, I must have done a very poor job in communicating.

Did anyone hear me deny over and over again that I'm talking about an intellectual faith alone?

Did anyone hear me deny that I'm talking about a faith that is not a gift of God? I am talking about a faith that is a gift of God, is a part of what

God does in a person's life at regeneration. Both faith and repentance are described in scripture as gifts of God given to the people of God.

And I've repeated that over and over again. Now, if you'll look at Matthew chapter 25, if you look at verse 46, then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

And so there is a clear distinction made between the two. When they say, Lord, I'm reminded of Matthew chapter seven, where you have many who stand before Jesus and say,

Lord, Lord, did we not do all sorts of things? And what does the Lord say to them?

Do you remember? Depart from me for what?

I never knew you. The only way that I can do these works,

I work as a hospital chaplain, and the only way that I can hold the hand of a dying man as I've had to do as a hospital chaplain is because I know

Jesus Christ. That's why. It's not a dead faith. It's not a mere intellectual sin.

It's not a tip of the hat toward God. It is a radical faith. It's so much a radical faith that it cannot include within it the idea of my merit, and it cannot include within it the idea of my holding onto this work or that work or this work as meritorious.

But if Jesus in this parable requires these works, and you somehow work it into your theology that he does by Jesus' faith that he gives to you, you're probably different from this radical faith.

Requires these works? They are the grounds of salvation? They are the conditions that must be fulfilled to achieve justification?

Or is this a description of what Christians are like? I would submit to you that the type of works that will stand in the judgment in 1

Corinthians chapter three, where our works are judged, are works that flow from a changed heart only, not the works that flow from the heart of someone who's attempting, as Paul said in Galatians chapter five, to drive their righteousness from any other source than faith in Jesus Christ.

So the question is, are these, are we talking about what makes a Christian or how a Christian acts?

Accepts his faith? I don't understand what the term accepts his faith. Mr. Matitix, would you like to respond? Yes, I - I have a question I would ask him.

Well, but you, I'm sorry, but don't. Let me just respond. Again, maybe we do need to sit down, two of us in an editing room, and roll these tapes back.

You just said, just a minute ago, if you can remember, that the works that Jesus is talking about are not the works flowing out of someone who's trying to do something, but the works that flow out of faith in Christ and the works of a changed life.

What works are you talking about? The works that he's just - No, no, no. You're misunderstanding. I'm talking about these people here in Matthew chapter 25, who say,

Lord did, you know, and then I went to Matthew seven, where they said, did we not do this, that? You're misunderstanding me.

What I'm saying is, you're saying the works that will pass the judgment, first Corinthians three, are works that flow out of a changed life, out of a heart of faith, not works that people are engaging in in some, you know, desperate attempt.

But the Catholic Church, when it commends good works to its people, does not fall under the condemnation that you set up as a straw man.

The Catholic Church insists that we have a heart of faith, that we do our works out of love for Jesus Christ.

It insists that it be the outflow of a changed life. The tree is good.

The tree is renovated, and so the fruit are good. But so again, you're condemning a Catholicism that no one is preaching.

No one is talking about works in view of a dynamic faith in Christ. That's my computer. I've got beeps you haven't even heard yet.

But I think this gentleman's question is that Jesus does say here that people who fail to do these types of things.

It's grandstanding. That's all I'm saying is the question. Let's be kind to one another.

If I could just very briefly, since you're directing it to me, and then we'll go to another question. You don't seem to bring up in your statement the concept that these works,

I'm talking to you, that these works that you're discussing are done in a state of grace and that they are, because they're done in a state of grace, meritorious, and that in fact, they merit eternal life.

And I have been saying all along that concept of merit, a kind of working to gain something.

That's what I'm talking about as being inconsistent with grace. I'm not, you know, when Dr. Popper and I debated this, there was one thing that he never said.

And that was that I was characterizing Roman Catholicism because I do not desire to do so. You may not desire to do so.

Okay, and I do not believe that I am either. So is the concept of merit that I'm talking about.

Okay, very good. One final question, the woman in blue over there. Talking about salvation.

The question is, can salvation that Jesus had warned us about be taken away from us if we have faith?

And I wanted to make some comment on Revelation 3 .5. Who's that addressed to?

Mr. Hedges? He should probably repeat that since I think it was a little faint. The statement as I heard it was can the salvation that Jesus won on the cross be taken away?

And could someone comment here on Revelation 3 .5? Was it Revelation you said?

I think it was Revelation 3 .5, was it not? No, Jerry. Please go ahead.

I think. No, she wanted to both of us. Right, but. Okay, you want me to go first?

Did you get a chance to look at Revelation 3 .5? I did not, I did not look at it yet.

Let me start with the last thing you said first. Revelation 3 .5 says, he who overcomes will like them be dressed in white.

And I will never blot out his name from the book of life. Now I assume that what is behind your question is your interpretation of this verse.

What you're thinking the verse says is that someone can never be in the book of life and not be blotted out.

Is that what you're saying? I think if you look at the verse in its context immediately and in the context of the whole book of Revelation, you will see that that verse is not saying that.

This verse is not a proof text. Even if I agreed with Mr. White, okay, that eternal security was taught by the

Bible, this would not be a good proof text of it. As a matter of fact, since I don't agree with him, it's even a stronger point because the very same book, the book of Revelation, says that those who, in the very end in Revelation 22, that those will have their names blotted out of the book of life.

You see, who add to or subtract from the word of God. So it is the book of life there is spoken of as something that is still in a sense in history in a state of flux.

What Jesus is saying is if we overcome, if we are a faithful Christian, we remain faithful, then we can know that we will be dressed in white, okay?

By the way, Revelation 19 speaks of the righteous deeds of the saints as being their fine white linen.

Verifying what I've been saying about the fact that righteousness is not exclusively spoken in the New Testament when it's talked about a clothing righteousness as being the imputed righteousness of Christ.

It is also the righteousnesses of the saints, the righteous actions of the saints as well. That's part of the thing because Jesus produces that as well.

But the point here is that we will get to the point when we get to heaven, that we will then be in this position where we cannot fall.

The Catholic agrees with the Protestant that once we get to heaven, there is no possibility of falling or then we could not have absolutely perfect peace if we were thinking maybe we might sin tomorrow.

At that point, we will know that we could never have our name blotted out of the book of life, but our name will be acknowledged before my father and his angels.

Jesus is talking about the judgment, the final day, not history. Well, if I might say in response to that, what

Jerry just said about the righteous deeds of the saints. Again, Jerry, coming from my background, having understood what

Protestantism teaches, knows that we do not deny that there is a righteousness of the saints.

What we deny is that without those works of righteousness, the righteousness of Christ avails nothing.

That's what we deny. We very strongly believe in the righteous works that Christ does through us, but those righteous works are the result of our justification and they do not form any part of the basis thereof.

But in regards to your question about, can it be taken away? I would respond again with Jesus's words, when he says, because I have come down from heaven, not in order that I might do my will, but the will of the one who sent me.

And this is the will of the one who sent me in order that everyone which has given to me, I lose none, but raise him up at the last day.

The will of the father for the son is that of all the father gives to the son, the son loses none.

That is my confidence, because I know that Jesus Christ will never ever fail to do the will of his father.

And the Catholic church agrees that the elect cannot fall away. That's something we've dealt with in another debate, but that doesn't answer your question.

And you said, did someone for whom Christ died on the cross, could he lose that or she lose that? And the answer would be yes, according to second

Peter chapter two, verse one, where it says that these false teachers deny the Lord that bought them.

They trample underfoot, Hebrews 10 says, the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified.

So not everyone that is redeemed by Christ's death on the cross, which is universal in its scope, will necessarily benefit from it if in fact they apostatize.

That would be the Catholic position. A brief response and then we're done, Mr. Lloyd. Well, the passage in Peter, talking about false teachers,

I'd encourage you to read it and see all the descriptions of these people as depraved, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Not a description of Christians.

In regards to this concept of there being Christians who are not called, I think John 6, 44 makes it very plain that there is no such person.

But they were bought by Christ. That's the point of the passage. Well, I think we must bring this to an end at this point. Please let us show our thanks again.