What Does a Christian Know About Roman Catholicism? Session 1

Roman Catholicism, Reformation History, and Why the Debate Still Matters

We are in the flight path, aren't we? Well, it is Excellent to be back here. I was a little surprised when Michael reminded me that it's been three years Since we were here last. But my how time flies and I do recall that the last time I was here in that conference, I was joined by a young fellow by a name of Jeff Durbin and Little did we know at that time what was gonna be happening in the future.

How many of you have already seen the antifreeze debate? Yes, very good. Someone told me yesterday that my entire career is going to be known as BA and AA before antifreeze and after antifreeze. I could tell you some funny stories in the background of that, but we don't have time for that this morning.

There's there's lots of funny things there. But anyway, we do have some very important things to discuss this morning in the first session. Dealing with a subject that is definitely designed to keep your ministry very small and unpopular.

And that is to deal with the subject of Roman Catholicism. We live in a day, of course where Even those who trace themselves back to the Protestant Reformation Do so almost with apologies and with some embarrassment at The excesses of that time and and certainly as we look at the at the wars that were fought over religion in in Europe we can we can certainly recognize that there were Excesses and that in fact the the the connection of the political realm to religion in those days created all sorts of Difficulties and Problems.

If any of you have ever seen it's a little it's only five minutes long. I did a little five minute video Two years ago right about now when we were in Germany for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation and we visited the site where Fritz Erba Was imprisoned in the Vartburg Castle the same castle where Luther translated the New Testament into German and hid from the Emperor Charles for a period of time in 1521 and This pit into which this What we'd call today an Anabaptist was thrown and somehow survived for seven years before his death.

We we talked about the reality of how sacralism the relationship of church and state At that time was so vitally important to an understanding of how that could happen. Luther knew he was there. He did not lift a finger to see him freed.

Did he see? The tension that we see in that there's all sorts of issues like that that we can get to and Because of that because we can properly talk about those things many people feel that when it comes to our day Maybe we should reanalyze all those anathemas.

I mean does anyone really believe that kindly old fellow in Rome? Really wants to anathematize all of us. Well to be perfectly honest with you I think there's a pretty good reason to question where that kindly old fellow in Rome is even a Trinitarian let alone as there's really good reason believe he is a universalist.

That he believes everyone's going to be saved. He doesn't believe the large number of things that his predecessors did believe which is one of the Complicating factors that we have to consider as we talk about our relationship with Roman Catholicism today.

What is it? You could define it much more clearly and much more specifically in 1950 than you can today and it's ironic. There is a big Conference going on here in Sydney today with the Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples I think is probably speaking right now as I am speaking here. And Tim and I have debated a few times. We tried to get them to debate and at first they said yes, and then they said no and so here we are and One of my first suggestions was let's let's debate Pope Francis.

It's not a good day to be a Roman Catholic apologist. Every day you have to you have to wake up and and you guys there's that gnawing fear. What has he said now? And to whom did he say it and how am I going to spin this?

I'm absolutely serious I I've been doing this for a long time. I mean my my first debate Was in August of 1990 in Long Beach, California against a man by name of Jerry Matitix, I think I've debated him 13 times and He was a celebrity convert to Roman Catholicism.

He was John Gerstner's Student assistant. He was all but dissertation at Westminster Seminary graduate of Gordon Conwell the first PCA Presbyterian Church of America ordained minister to become a Roman Catholic, so he was sort of a Celebrity.

Today he is more Roman Catholic than the Pope which isn't difficult to do actually Given this Pope, but he is a what's called a set a vacancies. I don't even know where he is right now at the last time.

I saw Jerry. Honestly, he was on Jeopardy. He was on Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. I'm serious Game show very famous there in United States. He lost but he was that's last time I saw him. I don't know what he believes anymore.

But back then he was he was the big dog and when when we first began those debates you You could have an understanding of where Roman Catholicism was coming from it's tough today. It is really really tough today to define it.

I can tell you what ancient Orthodoxy was and if you're at if the question is going to anyone's mind, well, when do you think Roman Catholicism started? That's actually a very important and good question.

I suppose we should define that first, huh? Because a lot of people have the idea that Roman Catholicism Starts with Peter. Maybe it was the Council of Nicaea Constantine. No, as I've pointed out If you look at the at the official dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.

That you have to believe to be a Roman Catholic today. No one at the Council of Nicaea believed what you have to believe to be a Roman Catholic today. But Some of those dogmas were not even heard of in the first 500 years of church history.

I Mean you simply can't point me to an Orthodox believing Roman Catholic. Orthodox believing Christian in the first 500 years that believed in the bodily assumption of Mary as a dogma of the faith. It just it just isn't anybody there.

I mean people later tried to they created fake pseudepigraphal writings Forgeries to try to make that but it just doesn't happen in the actual writings of the early church. So where do I think? Roman Catholicism really begins.

Well, it's the problem is if you ever see a tract or a book that has a list of dates. Be very skeptical. Because nothing just comes into existence overnight. You don't have people going to bed one night believing one thing and then they wake up the next morning.

Ah purgatory. Yes. No. There has to be in there has to be lots of development. There has to be all these sub beliefs that start coming together to to form these things over time. And that's exactly what you do see in church history.

So for me personally, I think the most I think the best Date that I can use for the origin of what would be modern Roman Catholicism Would be the fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD. Why. Because when you look at Roman Catholic worship even to this day except in the most liberalized forms of it the central act of worship has remained the same for a pretty much a solid 800 years and that is the concept of the mass and Once you start having the reservation of the host.

Now how many former Roman Catholics do we have here? Okay, so, you know what the reservation host is. You know that if you're walking into Roman Catholic Church back in the back There would have been a little thing with some holy water in it.

You're supposed to cross yourself and genuflect. Why? Because normally someplace up here some over normally over on that side. There is a Tabernacle some other words for the containers pics suborium monstrance.

There would be a place where one of the hosts from the mass that have been Transubstantiated they have been turned in the body soul blood and divinity of Jesus Christ are kept and so because of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Then you believe that God is physically present in the church building and you are bowing to God. That's why that's why you genuflect. That's why you do what you do. That dogma was unknown in the first thousand years.

Well, there was definitely a belief that Christ is spiritually present with his people in the supper. If you've ever read both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith on the Lord's Supper.

It says the same thing. Not in the Roman Catholic sense and in fact very strongly differentiating itself from Roman Catholic idea. But a spiritual presence of Christ with his people when they are obeying his own command to do this remembrance of him is one thing physical presence through the Transmutation of Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance was something that was developed long after The time of the Apostles and in fact comes into vogue about a thousand years after Christ after his birth.

So that concept is made dogma at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. So for me, you have a strong functioning papacy by that time. You have a strong functioning papacy in the Middle Ages, too. But you have a papacy you have transubstantiation.

The the priesthood of course began to develop in the third century. That has become part and parcel of the entire concept and so modern Roman Catholicism in that sense now. Someone might argue. Yeah, but Mary is so central to the modern Roman Catholic Conception and the Marian dogmas.

The the two the two last Marian dogmas do not come about for those six hundred six hundred years after that 1854 1951 you don't. Yeah, but that's that's way too late there. Obviously was a Roman Catholic Church against which the Reformers reacted.

We do recognize there's been change in Rome and the change has always been for the negative and Even today as many Roman Catholics are moving away from Many of the things that we have objected to. They're doing so for the wrong reasons.

It's not because there is a Reformation based upon biblical authority saying, you know, we shouldn't really believe in in the Bodily assumption of Mary, I mean it was obviously designed to parallel Jesus and it's actually based upon preceding errors about Mary and You know, it's it's a part of this whole exaltation of Mary.

There's there's even another Marian dogma that many Roman Catholics do believe and are pushing to have defined and There was a possibility back in late 1900 1900s 1990s that John Paul might have Established this particular dogma and it's the idea that Mary is co-redemptrix co-mediatrix for the people of God.

So co-redeemer co-mediator with Jesus for the people of God. Popes have taught since the 1800s that No grace flows to anyone except through Mary. Mary is the head. Mary is the neck that turns the head that is God's grace.

So it all flows through Mary. This centrality of Mary is is very much a part of the experience of Certain strands of Roman Catholicism today, but I also recognize that there are Roman Catholics who have almost no connection to Mary at all.

That just tells you how much wider The expression of Roman Catholicism is today than it was only a few decades ago. I mean in my dad's day There wouldn't have been any Discussion of of these things. What Rome believed was pretty straightforward what the Pope's taught was pretty straightforward.

Yes, I would agree that there were there were undercurrents taking place within Rome and within the Curia but no one I think could have guessed just how far those things were going to go and I would say the the modern Church of Rome faces a tremendous Challenge.

The Pope himself has used the word schism of late. There are powerful forces and That's all to say that I understand why there is a another conference going on someplace else in Sydney today and Those speaking there though.

We have debated in the past aren't debating me today. Especially on that topic because if I were them I wouldn't want to either. The fact is they don't know where he's gonna go and they don't know what's gonna happen.

And it's a tough day to be a Roman Catholic apologist. There's no question about it. That doesn't change our duties. Why well? Let's let's transfer the subject of discussion to here in a place where there is a very large Anglican influence now as you all know Sydney Anglicans are a breed and to themselves and we are very thankful for this.

The first few times I came here I was brought over here by David Old and the the Sydney Anglicans and I was asked to speak on subjects like an errancy and justification by faith and and all these wonderful things like that and There are such Anglicans around the world.

I did a debate only last year in Belfast Northern Ireland with a Roman Catholic. Can you believe that we had a public debate with a Roman Catholic in Belfast last year. For those of you old enough you're sitting there going.

Wow I if you remember the 1970s. Then you know that that was a pretty amazing and historic thing to be able to actually have that kind of debate but we debated indulgences with Peter Williams there and he's a He's a believing Roman Catholic old style Roman Catholic and he's not afraid to say hey.

This is what Rome has always taught even though he knows that's not really what's going on today in the Curia but that church was a an Anglican Church a GAFCON Anglican Church there in in Belfast, so.

But you know once you leave the Sydney area that elsewhere in Australia. Not all of the Anglicans are nearly as conservative as they are in Sydney and Anglicanism as a whole has always because of its history.

Had to deal with the the inborn Desire for the via media the middle way. That's what that's what started the church. That's what started in the Church of England and that's still very much a part of the thought process.

How far you can take that I do not know. Given what's going on today? Given movements within Many Protestant denominations today just yesterday a friend of mine in South Africa sent me a Statement from the Reformed Churches of South Africa collapsing on the subject of marriage.

Given that this is happening here as well. Eventually there has to be a line that cannot be crossed you just you just can't keep scooting a little bit farther away and a little bit farther away to try to make room and when it comes to Roman Catholicism.

The real question for all of us if you know the history of the city of Rome, you know that her Western border is formed by what's called the Tiber River and So, you know that has been a phraseology that has been used for a long time.

To convert to Roman Catholicism is to swim the Tiber to cross that that boundary into into Rome and I have said for a very long time that That's a good illustration. And the problem is we have many many many Non Roman Catholics, they are not in submission to the Pope.

They do not practice the sacramental system of Rome they would not identify a priest as Well every priest even to this day when he is ordained in the Roman Catholic system. One of the phrases that is used of him is he is an alter Christus.

Alter Christus a LTER Latin phrase alter Christus when I debated Mitch Pacwa on the priesthood back in the 90s. And I still my debates with Mitch are in my opinion the best on Roman Catholicism that I've done.

Because Mitch just doesn't play games. He he's honest. He's straightforward. He doesn't he doesn't try to Get cheap debating tricks, which I could name a number of other Roman Catholic apologists of which that is not true.

And he was straightforward. He he said yes, I am another Christ. That's what alter Christus means. I am another Christ. I minister in the place of Christ and I'm another Christ. That you know there there are Many who will say and you know, I just won't go there.

But when it comes to certain fundamental issues that were part and parcel of the Reformation many today are either on Rome's side or More to the point they're paddling around in the middle of the Tiber River.

They're not on the far side. Calling people out of Rome. They're paddling around in the middle in a position of compromise. They don't even know it and part of that's because most of us don't know much about the history of the church and we don't Really care where we stand when it comes to where our forefathers stood and how they were consistent in their practice and so That picture to me.

I'm often saying these people you need to you need to quit paddling around out there. Bring your boat to shore on this side break it up build an altar and call people out of Roman Catholicism. But that's just not that's just not how a lot of people want to do things today.

That seems too radical. This is some place where a lot of folks who otherwise will very much appreciate John Calvin or Ulrich's Wingly or their successors. Or a Martin Luther for that matter Will will appreciate what they said on certain things, but when it comes to this, well things have changed how things changed.

When it when it comes to Roman Catholicism Rome has only added to the number of errors That she teaches she has not corrected any of them. Some people say Oh Vatican 2 changed all that. Like what? The documents of Vatican 2 have more sections on indulgences than they have on justification.

Think about that for a second. Indulgences are still a completely valid concept within Roman Catholic theology and this Pope though. I don't think for a second I hate to call him Francis because he strikes him more as a Frankie, you know.

Pope Frankie. Pope Frankie the cool, you know, I think that's probably how he's could be remembered. Pope Frankie the cool still Gives out what are called plenary indulgences a full remission of all the temporal punishments of sins upon your soul.

For doing certain things now do I believe for a second that he really believes that that actually happens. That's actually necessary. No, I Don't even for the year of Jubilee that just happened recently where in the history of Roman Catholicism what you would do is.

You would there would be in certain cathedrals only in cathedrals the the seats of the archbishop. Only in certain cathedrals there would be certain doors that would be opened. Like this one. Okay, that really wouldn't be all that important, but They that are always closed.

And when you open these certain doors in the year of Jubilee by going through those certain doors, and of course there is you know, the The the requested donation to be allowed to do that, but by going through these certain doors you would receive indulgences.

This is long history within Roman Catholicism. Well Pope Francis along comes the year of Jubilee a couple years ago and nobody's showing up Worst attendance ever and so he just expands on it and and and Gives the right to other people to assign certain doors just to try to get more people to try to come through.

And it's just obvious that that the historical basis of what that was based on the idea of a literal purgatory and and a literal transfer of merit and the whole idea that Eventually you stand before God robed in a garment of righteousness.

It's made up of Jesus's righteousness Mary's righteousness every saint has ever lived and your own. That's what the official dogma of the church is. I don't think Francis believes any of that because if he can sit there and tell that little kid.

That his atheist daddy is gonna go to heaven because his atheist daddy Allowed his kids to be baptized. That's not somebody who believes in the doctrine of purgatory in any meaningful fashion. In fact, it's not somebody who believes in the Nessus and in the wrath of God in any meaningful fashion.

So I don't think he believes any of that stuff, but he still utilizes the the forms. I mean, that's what liberalism does and the man is a liberation theologian. He's a he's a as liberal as they come and what they do is they use old terminology and old forms.

But they fill them with new meaning and in the process that eventually destroy them. It's gonna be fascinating to see who comes after Francis. It really is gonna be fascinating to see who comes after Francis.

I have no predictions. All I can tell you is right now. There is tremendous confusion and there is the possibility strong possibility of schism there's tremendous corruption in the Vatican and everybody knows it and We've even got the freaky situation of having two contradicting Popes right now not officially.

But Ratzinger Pope Benedict the 16th is old time not old time as in 1800s but Far more historically Orthodox as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned the Francis. They're both alive at the same time and everybody knows that they're at loggerheads with one another everybody knows.

It was only a few months ago that Ratzinger actually put out a statement Contradicting the current Pope. This is a weird day in which we live. Last time stuff like that happened was in the. Well, they needed to call the Council of Constance in 1414 to get rid of three different Popes.

And establish one that's where they also burned Jan Hus. And so that's about the last time we had a situation like this. So it is fascinating the world's media could really care less. They don't really care too much in Italy they do because it's like local corrupt politics but it is a it is a a day that is very challenging for those who are seeking to defend Roman Catholicism and I I've noticed a major major decrease in the number of debates that Roman Catholic apologists are doing major decrease.

We've had something to do with that, but I think much more than that the whole situation. They're they're more concerned about keeping their own people in right now. The boat has sprung some leaks and they're trying to patch those things up.

So anyways. For people who are paddling around in the middle of the Tiber River. Let me remind folks of what I think the issues really are back in the 1996 I think I Wrote a book called the Roman Catholic controversy.

I'm thankful that Bethany house has kept that in print all these years and Nothing's really changed since then and the the argument that I made in that book is that all the other issues we can deal with papacy.

Certainly the foundational issue of solo scriptura scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church. All these things are all Subservient to and a part of what it takes to get to. The discussion of what the gospel itself is.

It would be obviously very advantageous for us if we could simply redefine Christianity. The way that many people are redefining Christianity as mere Christianity now. I don't think CS Lewis went this far.

But there are people who use the title of his book and they will say look I just defend mere Christianity. Which is what which is the Trinity? The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ period.

It's not an inspired and inerrant revelation from God. It is not the gospel. The gospel. Let's just be honest, even though scripture promises the truth of the gospel would abide with us. Even though Paul talked about the truth of the gospel I did not we did not put up with them for even a moment.

So the truth of the gospel would remain with you. The fact the matter is in 97 98 of theological education. That has some type of Christian attached to the name around the world. The confidence that we can actually have that we actually possess a clear enough revelation from God to know This is the gospel and that isn't is no longer believed.

It's no longer believed. Most of the people coming out of our seminaries Have been so compromised when it comes to their bibliology. Their belief that God has spoken in his word that their theology Is much more of a guess ology.

Sort of guess this I sort of guess that really don't know. I'm not sure. My church history professor years and years ago. You've heard me say before how to had a saying What is a mist in the pulpit is a fog in the pew.

And so if the one I'm up front Doesn't have a clear view of what the truth is the people in the pew are gonna have a less clear view than even he has of that issue of truth and. So when it comes to how you define Christianity today It would be a whole lot easier if I went with the mere Christianity view because we could get a real You know, we could still put together a decent number of people if you just didn't have to worry about that gospel thing now for me, I'm like Yeah, well, what good does it do to have the triune God death brow resurrection of Jesus if you can't explain what that means?

So you got an empty tomb. What does that mean? You can't can't talk about that that gets into the gospel thing. What good is that? How is there? How does that accomplish anything if the power of God the only power given to the church is the gospel?

Then then saying we're really not really sure how to answer a bunch of really tough definitional questions on that. How does that help anything? It seems extremely debilitating to me and so of Everything I mean, it's pretty obvious that if you worship the wrong God Then you're separated from what would be called the Christian faith.

But of all the things that come after that It seems to me the gospel is the most central in the Apostles thinking at least as I read Galatians chapter 1. Which is why so many people consider Paul to have just gone off the rails there.

He was getting a little over the top. That was a little over the top was the terminology of Barry Lynn used in a debate against me in 2001. When we were talking about about that He was ordained minister in the United Church of Christ which left the gospel about 80 years ago.

But he felt Paul was a little over-the-top. Of course, he believed he could receive revelation just as Paul did too. So maybe that's canonical revelation a little over-the-top. I don't know. That's what happens.

They're getting personal revelation, but bit as it may the real issue that I pointed to in the Roman Catholic controversy is the gospel and If you understand Rome's teaching on the nature of the mass.

The nature of the priesthood and the nature of forgiveness and the sacraments. Then you must come to conclusion that if Paul was right to anathematize the Judaizers for adding one requirement by saying To get into the new covenant.

You've got to get into the old covenant first before you can then get into the new covenant. So you've got to be circumcised before you can become a follower of Jesus. They added one thing. You've got it.

You got to follow the same path. The rest of us have followed. If Paul was right to say that is anathema that is not even Christian. You are separated from the faith by your action of doing that. Then logically when you look at all of the additions That Rome has added to the gospel.

Then Rome's gospel likewise must be considered to be under the anathema of Paul otherwise, you just simply have to throw out Paul's authority just. Or you have to say well, you know back then an apostle could do that.

We can't do that today. We can't tell what a true gospel is today even though we have their example even though we have page after page after page of of New Testament writings that illustrate these things.

No. We just it's not coherent enough. It's not consistent enough the too many contradictions. That's what you'll be taught in many seminaries and Bible colleges too many contradictions. We just can't know so we just need to sort of get along with everybody as long as they say Jesus everything's good.

When you understand that there is no finished work of Christ within Roman Catholicism. There isn't. There is no finished work that priest right now in services Roman Catholic churches around the world.

There are priests who believe that they are Representing not not a not a they believe it is a representation of the same sacrifice of Calvary but in an unbloody manner, they're representing the one sacrifice of Christ and That it is a propitiatory atonement, it's a propitiatory act.

Once you understand that then you you think through that what that means is in Roman Catholicism you can come to the cross over and over and over and over again and Still die impure and have to go to purgatory or still die impure.

In fact having committed a mortal sin losing the grace of justification and going to hell even though you went to the cross literally thousands of times in your life and Central to that is the idea of the necessity of the Roman Catholic priest who because of his sacerdotal authority is able to call Jesus down from his throne and Render him present upon the altar of the church over and over and over again.

That's their terminology not mine. That's their language you have to have that that's why there is one true church and You have to accept the sacerdotal authority of the Roman hierarchy so that you can have that one true church.

The sacramental system becomes the means by which the church controls the grace of God and therefore the people of God. And If you remember anything about the Reformation at all You should remember at least the material and the formal principles the material principle of the Reformation one of the five solas Sola Fide it was the substance that was preached justification by faith alone.

Not justification by faith. Plus this act plus that act plus the continuation in this plus that Hoping that someday you can grow in enough justification to be able to make it no Justification by faith alone because of the nature of that saving faith and because the nature of the grace that makes it possible.

That was the material principle of the Reformation the formal principle the Sola Scriptura Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith of the church because the only way to actually substantiate a denial of Sola Fide is to add the authority of traditions and you get to choose which traditions there are.

Because when you look at the early church When you look at the the history of the church, there's all sorts of traditions you can draw from if you want to To build yourself a system of theology. Those were the the bywords of the Reformation not that they Purposefully knew what the five solas were.

Luther or Calvin would wonder what you were talking about. If you ask them about the five solas if you ask them, maybe they had a five solas t-shirt or something like that. They would they would look at you like are you a witch doth thou need to be burned?

Because the five solas are us looking backwards at what they taught and Identifying what separated them and what defined their teaching they're accurate. But they're a later formulation based upon looking back upon where the Reformers are coming from.

But they identified very very very important realities and those realities remain central to this day, how is a person made right before God and The fact that there has become so much that there's so much confusion now and so much hesitancy on the part of Bible-believing Evangelicals who hold to the Pauline gospel in the sense of the emphasis Paul had to deal With the reality that when you preach the grace of God The natural result of man is to react like a Pelagian.

Now that's anachronistic. I know Pelagius is very angry that we use his his name in that way. That's fine. He's dead. So it doesn't matter. But there is an inherent Pelagianism in the heart of man an inherent belief that I am good and God owes me something.

And I am able I am capable. One of the tracks who wrote long ago for the Mormons because they are by as Pelagian as you can get. I mean if Adam fell upward you're a Pelagian. If you think you can become a god by your own freedom you're a Pelagian.

I Wrote a track for them called. No man is able. No man is able just let's just get right to the point and let's start there. No man is able. That's biblical language by the well, by the way, no man is able to come to me unless father sent me draws him.

That's Jesus own words but when grace and The sovereignty of grace is proclaimed Man's natural response is to Create systems to control the grace of God and that control Fundamentally is to allow man's will to be sovereign over God's will.

That's the essence of human religion. I Don't care which religion it is. You break it on down. That's what it's meant to do and so Paul Once that gospel is now proclaimed the gospel of the risen Jesus He has to deal with the reaction to that.

Especially as it's seen amongst the people who think that because of their genetics they are in right with God in the first place. And that's what you get in Romans and Galatians and other places as well.

But especially an extended format in Romans and Galatians to illustrate the reality That it is to the one who does not work But believes on him who justifies the ungodly. His faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Romans chapter 4 That is destructive of all human boasting and that's why it's so unpopular and will always be unpopular until the day Jesus returns. Amongst worldly people it will always be unpopular to destroy any ground of arrogant boasting and pride on man's part it takes the control out of our hands and So there are many today who trace themselves back to Protestants but don't believe what the early Protestants believed on that very issue and So they're the ones in the middle of the Tiber and they just don't know that they're there we need to be very clear on this because if What Galatians 1 says is true if what Galatians 2 says is true if the anathematizing of the Judaizers? Is correct and if the statement in Galatians chapter 2 we did not put up with them for even an hour.

So that the truth of the gospel might remain with you and Paul identifies them as pseudo Delphi false Brethren, that means they look like us. They talk like us. They use our language. But they're false brethren if that is true.

Then I would say to anyone who says now you're overreacting Give me some Explanation as to how you can make the Roman Catholic gospel fit with Paul's teaching of justification show me and The very fact that most of my debates Roman Catholics has been on Sola Scriptura, that's the one topic you've done more than any other.