The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 12

Romans 4 and the Doctrine of Justification

Chapter 4 of Romans, and even while summarizing what's going on in chapter 4 of Romans, don't top your head. This isn't like a quiz you can start with. Anyway, remember where chapter, where Paul is in his argumentation when you get to chapter 4 of Romans?

No. It's Abraham, and it's justified by faith, and it's justified by faith before the law was given. Therefore, our, excuse me, Abraham believed God, Genesis 15, 6, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and that's quoted all throughout the New Testament.

It is like the paradigm of our faith. Romans 4 is that argument. Just to him, he said, in brief. He's talking about Abraham justified by faith, not by his works. So, starting at 422, this is why his faith was counted him as righteousness, but the words it was counted to him were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also.

It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised the dead man, Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Now, the next verse, beginning verse of the next chapter, which is the one that Martin Luther understood and God used to set the world on fire, therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, this morning, we're going to be going through chapter 9 of the Roman Catholic controversy, justified before God, Romans 4, but we will start with Psalm, hymn number 584, by grace I am an heir of heaven.

You probably already realized why I picked that.

Hymn off. So, when you have that, let's stand. What number again? 584. By grace I am an heir of heaven. Why doubt this, oh my trembling heart, if what the scriptures promised clearly, salvation is so.

What we have is we'll join together and look to your word to understand what you would have for us this day. Be with us at Sunday school, be with us at Sunday school as we're going on for youth and children and bless this entire day of worship that Jesus Christ will receive all the glory.

You know, like I said, everything I have is on Google slides. I just couldn't get it going on time. Dunderhead forgot his briefcase and just got here. Can't get this thing to boot up and recognize things.

So, I said we're done and all the notes are here. You can see that you don't have to revise everything. The set of neighbor who advised that he could see a phonograph or a record player going by, the little ones that they used to have back in his day, going in seven eighths speed, and he could read everything on the label while it was going down.

Who's got eyes like that? Justification, by faith, by works, or by book. Now, this is the question. We're going through the Roman Catholic controversy. What controversy there is, we kind of come to the nub of the question here today.

How are we justified? How do we come before God? What is it that we present to God? What is it that we need to do? Now, in this class, we're informed, we're well taught, we have a standard, we have a confession.

When we would ask that question amongst ourselves, we would say nothing. We add how much to the salvation, the justification that we've inherited? Nothing. We know that. But this is really the question, and this is one of the things that Father Martin Luther, back in the 16th century, more than any other, that he was against the indulgences, he was against the practices, but it was justification of faith, and faith alone that really ignited the whole Reformation.

So, as we've been going through, as Brian's been taking us through, the Roman Catholic controversy, here's a way I get chapter 9, justification by faith, by works, or by book. I'm going to ask a picture here of Dr. James White, he's the first to meet our author.

I just have a picture here of him. Has anybody ever met him or seen him live? Fierce debater, very uh, excellent pathologist for the faith. So justification, again, what I have here, it's kind of an animal, a cartoon picture of the judge, not silly or anything like that.

I'm ready to bring down the gavel, and he's staring over his bench at you, and the question is, are you ready to meet this judge? Because he has a lot to uphold, he's going to uphold the law, he has no choice.

No matter what his opinion is, a good judge doesn't judge by opinion, not by his politics, or who knows what, but what the law says. One of the questions of justification is, are you ready to meet this judge?

And on what basis would you, what do you think the result of this is going to be? Where's your defense, where's your advocacy, and how are we going to escape that problem, you know, alive, really? You can see that the big problem with the Roman view of justification is that for them, justification is what?

How does Rome view justification? Anybody give it to me in a word or two? It's works, right? Sorry? Works. It's works, yeah. Ongoing. Ongoing, that's kind of what it's for. Works, ongoing, it's a process.

The big problem with the Roman view is that for them, justification is a process that we engage upon salvation. You begin to be justified. You're justified, and we'll see, I'm kind of jumping ahead again, but your justification is, we would say, in what they're saying, we would say what they're saying is that your justification is not made, that Jesus made justification, and that is really the big problem.

This is the nub of the question. Justification has to do with the nature of salvation of Christ, and justification, we've heard it said before, many of us have heard this, just as if I never said it. Would somebody have a different way they want to define justification for us, your understanding of it?

Maybe have something, how do you understand justification? Being right before God, that's right. Declared not guilty before God. Are we guilty of sin? Are we guilty of having broken the law? So where's justification come from?

Christ. And how much of our justification comes from Christ? All of it. All of it, 100%. This is really the dividing line. Okay, the indulgences, and the money raising, all that stuff back in the Reformation, those were terribly, terribly important, and there were awful practices back in the day, still really the official position of the church, but it's justification where we really are going to divide.

This is the sword of ruin. So justification, quote, that action in the law court whereby a judge upholds the case of the party in dispute before the court. One is justified. You think in a civil matter, you have a plaintiff and a defendant, okay, one's suing the other, the judge is going to decide who's right, who filed the contract, who didn't file the contract, who needs to pay.

In a legal matter, in a criminal matter, it goes to a jury, et cetera, the judge is the final arbiter that things were done properly, that the law was upheld, and that he gives sense according to the law.

So justification, that action in the law court whereby a judge upholds the case of the party in dispute before the court. Now, if we think in terms of courtrooms, we know that in Scripture, that's one of the most common motifs that we have, right, that God assembles a courtroom and we went through this in Micah, chapter six, one through eight, a few weeks ago, we've been active in preaching.

It's a courtroom scene. God calls witnesses, and God is the judge, he takes all those parts on himself, but the courtroom scene is very common, justifications that justify meaning, that justify the importance of the law.

That's from theological terms, that the judge is God, and the party in dispute with him is who. So, in Roman Catholic theology, as we see in chapter nine of the book, the judge has said, essentially, you can now become not guilty.

We'll see how you've done when you stand before me. The idea in Roman Catholic theology with your doctrinal justification is, again, Christ made it possible, he accomplished justification, now you go and earn it.

Now, if you're in chapter nine, I want to ask, very objectively, for those who read chapter nine, am I being fair to how white presents Roman Catholic theology? That idea of a cross, that idea of a judge saying, you're declared not guilty, now go out and earn it.

Is that a fair way to, do you think so?

Yeah, because they explained it like, you know, that Christ had made possible this reservoir of, like, you know, righteousness, and that we can't attain it, we have to, like, by words, or by, you know, their sacraments, or baptism, all that stuff.

Good, thank you. So, this is really the Roman Catholic view. When I was in seminary, I took the comparative religions. We had an imam, you know, Islamic, I guess you'd just call them imams, like a pastor, the one who runs a temple, or a mosque.

And as we discussed salvation, he said something really interesting. Many of you have heard this from me before, and I never forgot it. It's all about salvation. I said, how do you know? If you won't do right, and you're earning something, and it doesn't have the standards, it's like, okay, when you get to this level, now you've got it.

Like in school, you know, you need to do an attempt to get the A, the B, the C, and so forth. Nothing like that. It's just, you find out when you get there. So, I had a lot of other questions, but his answer was really interesting.

I never forgot this. He said, it is presumption to assume that all will save you. It's wickedness compared to our security in Christ. That's just, that's been a lie. But it's very similar to what the Roman Catholics have with this idea of a process, whereby Christ did it.

He said, the reservoir. There's a reservoir he made available, and as we drink from it, we become more and more justified. And eventually, we're going to die. One out of one dies. See God, and it's as if God's going to take this goblet or whatever we're filling it with, and say, uh, that's enough, okay, we'll take you, or not enough, and you're going to go to purgatory.

It's an entire subject, even on its own. So, justification has to do with a lot of different aspects of theology, our doctrines, and things that we believe. The nature of sin, this is right on page 125, the basic concept of sin, the rebellion against God, and God's law, is not disputed in Roman Catholic teaching.

Neither is, neither is it contested that sin separates man from God, but the extent of the separation, and the results for the quote-unquote natural or lost, is an issue of disagreement. The important issue here, and I'm quoting Dr. White here, however, revolves around the kinds of sin, and the penalties of sin, along with how sin is forgiven.

And here we're going to get into the whole venial and mortal sin identity. Anybody familiar with that? Learned, learned about it when you read the book? The idea of menial versus mortal sin. It's really interesting, because it's very consistent with their idea that you're going to earn your justification as you go.

And in order to say you're going to earn it as you go, will Christ make it possible that you drink from that reservoir of potentiality, in order to have that, it seems logical. I don't agree with it, but it's a logical step to say we need out, now need to sort out the sins.

What are these types of sins that we have? So, venial, right, venial, on offense again, this is quote, this is taken from the Roman Catholic, Roman Catholicism, quote, on offense against God, which does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace.

It is called venial because the soul still has the vital principle that allows a cure from within, similar to the healing of a sick or diseased body, whose source of animation, correct, the soul is still present to restore the ailing body to health.

What do you think of that? Convoluted. Convoluted, whoa, I think that's generous. Yeah, what's interesting, this is something that, but he, he, he showed how when Roman Catholic doctrine went into scripture, did they hear, and this is, this was a quote from the, from their own Catechism.

They say, okay, so this won't kill you, you still have spiritual animation, and rather than showing us a scripture, which I don't know which one they would possibly twist to justify that, but rather than going to a scripture, they go to the illustration, which is, as a quick aside for you, as you study other books, and you're looking to edify yourself by reading new materials, watch out for those that make a statement like that, and rather than analyzing the scripture for you, jump to examples and illustrations.

Not always wrong, but it's, it's a bit of a warning sign, be a little circumspect when you see exactly that kind of thing. Okay, so that's a venial sin. A mortal sin. You want me to read the definition of a mortal sin?

No, I've got, I've got it here, thank you. Okay, so mortal sin, an actual sin that destroys sanctifying grace and causes the supernatural death of the soul. Mortal sin is a turning away from God because of a seriously inordinate adherence to creature that causes grave injury to a person's rational nature and to the social order, and deprives the sinner of the right to heaven.

Now, what's wrong with that definition? That's one really good question. Let's think in terms of logic. What's, what's wrong with that question, that, that definition? It treats grace like it's some.

Thing that's living inside of you that can get killed, which is not what, grace is, you know, unmerited favor. It's, it's a kindness. I can't, I cannot kill a work of God by my own humanly work. Okay.

But it's treating it like there's like a bunny rabbit or whatever, and if I'm mean enough, bunny rabbit, guys. That's a good one.

I have it here. This is going to be a lot easier. Thank you so much. Venial, I'm almost back to where I was on the phone. Second, mortal. Okay, so it sounds almost as if there's a sin against God, a venial sin, that, can we say without being silly that God kind of wants to have it?

And then there's mortal sin, and that sin is going to kill you. Well, you've taken yourself out. You've apostatized. This, this is the end. You, you did the mortal sin, and we don't have enough ailments for you, or something like that.

They're quite explained, if you can recover from it. But I think it's scripturally, we answer that. That's, I'm going to fall short of it. Oh, that's Romans 3 23. Thank you very much. Now, thank you. Does it say?

And that's from James, right? Yeah. Okay, so those are all true, obviously, because you guys quote scripture correctly. But the waste of sin is death, but the gift of God's eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Memorize that when you're really young in faith. That does not say the wages of some sin. And if you break the really big ones, then you've broken the whole wall. But here's some smaller ones. Yeah, you know, you're okay.

You still have that vital print. Millions and millions of people believe this. But, so these are, obviously, the subject is huge. We spent a lot of time, but this is just the thumbnail sketch of the problem, the breaking off point with this idea of justification.

And you see how justification, not justification on its own, it's not just that poor woman's sin. It has to do with the nature of sin in their doctrine. He goes on, he being James White, to show how the role of sacraments in Roman Catholic theology over that church.

On page 128, quote, Roman Catholic church is inherently sacramental. They teach that salvation is mediated through the sacraments of the church. Roman Catholic theologian finds a sacrament as, that's on page 129, sacraments then are channels of grace, the means by which the grace of God is applied to individuals.

According to modern Roman Catholic teaching, the sacraments number seven, we have baptism, confession, holy Eucharist, confirmation of holy orders, matrimony, and extreme function. To our Roman Catholic theologian, he says, a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace.

A sacrament, outward sign of inward grace. I just read there's seven sacraments, we hold the two. We have baptism, we have the Lord's table. Can we say that baptism, obeying Jesus Christ, and being baptized is an outward sign of inward grace?

Can we say that? Yes. When we take the Lord's table, it's a means of grace in the church, as we understand it. Our faithful taking of the bread and the wine, is that a, would that fit this definition of an outward sign of the inward grace?

Yeah, it would. So we don't disagree with that. We disagree with what part of their definition of a sacrament. That it merits. It increases grace, is part of your growing in the justification, and when they say that grace is mediated, they're talking about the grace of salvation itself, through us, through Jesus Christ, but to us, through us, when we obey Jesus in baptism, and in the Lord's supper at the church.

We believe that those are means of grace. We don't believe that we're saved by them. We don't believe that if somebody takes the Lord's table wrong, that's a moral sin, and they're out of the church. Now, something to repent of is a serious matter, but this idea of how grace is mediated through it is another big dividing line.

Any questions on that? Does it make sense the way I've explained that? Yeah. Now, obviously I'm relying a lot on Dr. White, who's a very credible scholar, so if he's fair to what the Roman Catholic tracts are saying, then I'm being fair.

If he's not, I'm worried about the other skelter, but I believe he has been. He has a lot of quotes, taking them in their own words. The Council of Trent. Trent was in 1645 to 1663. It was an 18-year council, if you will, in that time, in the city of Trent in Italy, to answer the Reformation.

Council of Trent says, quote, faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all type of justification. Do we believe that faith is the beginning of human salvation? So, by grace, we can save a few faith.

Faith is the beginning, in a sense. We could say that if we're allowed to nuance it, okay? Because faith is the beginning of salvation. Salvation puts us into that process of sanctification, which we believe to be a process, but faith is a once for all act of God given to us.

When we exercise faith, it's something foreign to us. He gave it to us. By grace, we can say that in the Greek, is in the Aristotelian, the definite act that took place. By grace, you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing.

It is the gift of God. Grace is God's nature. The faith, he gives us because of his nature of grace. The faith is the gift. Again, it goes on with the Roman Catholic scholar, John O 'Brien, after he says that faith is the beginning, and again, if we're allowed to nuance it, we can say, kind of guardedly, okay.

He says, quote, 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. Did you ever read that before you came here, when you studied chapter 9 so carefully?

I'd love some help with this, okay. I like John's word before, convoluted. So, what's he saying? We're said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.

So, he's saying, in Roman Catholicism, we don't merit justification. We agree with that. He says, what's wrong with that? Isn't there a mirror pointing to the guy you met earlier? He might know. That's James White.

So, we're going to go on in his book and try and unravel that statement. On page 133, he says, quote, notice what is said here. According to Trent, still official Roman Catholic doctrine, according to Trent, we can say we're justified by grace or gratuitously, solely because those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, are prompted and aided by God's grace.

The process of justification is based on God's grace, but it is not completely of God's grace in Roman Catholicism. Not completely of God's grace, and it cannot be said that God's grace alone is sufficient without human works to bring about full and complete justification.

Emphases, and I gave that, were original in the book. Did you understand that statement a little better than the previous one? Did that make more sense? Yeah. Okay. So, they're saying explicitly and unabashedly and unembarrassedly that it's a process.

It's something that Christ begins. Now, dear brother, actually, those things should've supposed to pick on a whole group that believes something like that. This idea of a process, this idea of us exercising our faith, that you choose God.

You gotta volunteer. We can't choose God. We don't have it in us. We have to be touched by the Holy Spirit first. And we're dead. What? We're dead. We're dead, and dead people don't reach out of the grave.

Arminianism leads to that. Arminianism is really demonstrated in the Church of the Nazareth. It believes that you can go in and out of salvation without having any of the mortal sins. That you can step in and out.

You can be saved one day and then repent, or do something wrong, and you're not saved. And you exercise your faith. And so you go through this process that is growing in, though they wouldn't admit it, salvation.

Very much like the Roman Catholic. So, I would argue that Arminianism has a lot to do with this idea of anything having to do with our efforts, our works, we add something to it. Any questions about the statement from the Catholic, Catechism, and how White explains it?

We're all on the same page here? Yeah, we're doing good. One thing I don't understand, and if I was much more scholarly, I probably would have a better idea of this, but I do not understand how Roman Catholic theology would look at something like Romans 5, which is where we started in the scripture.

It says, therefore, having been justified by faith, that having been justified, that word speaks again of a definite act, something that happened, a one-time act, that has a continuing effect upon us.

Okay, but it's not something that you know, it's something that happened. We were justified, past tense, and it continues. I don't understand, maybe I've read more about it or understand Roman Catholic doctrine better than me.

I'd love to have a quick discussion about how could they do that, to that word? How could they turn that word that any first-year student in Greek would know that that is that definitive act, that one-time act, and turn it into a process?

It seems to me like the struggle between theology, it's like walking a razor's edge. One side, you tend to gravitate toward all the scriptures that say, this is what you are supposed to do, and this is how you will get it, and the other side says, this is what God has done, and this is how you will get it, kind of in a sense.

So, there's this dichotomy, a lot of it in some scriptures, some people would call them epitomes, the idea that God says, come unto me, all you who labor, and I will give you rest, it's a command, come unto me, and then you read later in the Gospel, Jesus says, no man can come unto me, unless the Father brought him.

So, you have the responsibility, but you can't. So, that, reconciling that is the problem. We've talked about antinomies before, and antinomies is two equally true statements that seem to be in conflict with each other.

And John's spot on, that all men, everywhere, are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel, said the Apostle Paul at the Herodotus, that's an example of what John was speaking of there, and yet, Paul knew better than anybody, that unless Jesus whacks you in the head and knocks you off the horse on the way to Damascus, and shows himself to you, you can't repent, it's impossible.

Ezekiel 36 -24, the new heart, you have a heart of stone, and you cannot repent, it's impossible, but what does Jesus say about things that are impossible? He says, nothing shall be impossible with this person, nothing shall be impossible with God.

But again, it's always interesting, I wish I had a better grip on history and the development of that doctrine, and how they can take that real simple-to-understand Greek phrase, which has a very distinct meaning.

James? Yeah, I think the Roman Catholics believe, from the time that you were baptized, if you are an infant being baptized, then that means that's conversion. Now, if you are baptized just because you got converted from another religion, it's the same thing.

So if you're not part of the Roman Catholic, and not baptized by the Roman Catholic, then you're not clean. But baptism for them is being clean. So now, if you are baptized at any age, then you are, should we say, perfect.

Now, if you lied, that's binyal sin. Now, if you disobey your parents, that's mortal sin. So those are the things that are basic to Roman Catholicism.

Right, and we're going to get to that, I believe, with baptism.

So the Arminianism is going through that, and so that's why they have Carnal Christianity.

Interesting example. You said it's a video? Yeah. Yeah, I was trying to put it together like that. Thank you, sir.

They had great power because everything was in Latin, and it was kept from the common people. And the people in power were often corrupt. Very good point. There was just a lot of power going on. So I'm not talking about the Declaration in the 1600s, but just within the Catholic tradition.

They kept it from the common people.

Sorry, the word overman. I can do all things through a verse that's taken out of context. Times.

Oh, we're talking about control. It's written by an investigative reporter who's really quite good named John Krakow. It's for mature audiences. It's not salacious or anything like that. But it's tracing the doctrines of Latter-day Saints and how it led to certain notorious crimes back in the 80s.

And it's very likely we just talked about that once you convince somebody that I have the word, and I tell you what it means. And as my wife just said, in medieval times, they had that control because it was in Latin.

And you could be burned at the stake for trying to translate it with Griffin, Tyndale, and people like that. Suffered horribly for trying to put the Bible into language that people would understand themselves.

It gives you a tremendous amount of control. The point of it is, it defines a cult. And why can we, not with pride, and it's all by God's grace, but why can we say we are definitely not a cult? Because we teach in our language.

The pastors don't have the word of God themselves exclusively. We have a confession that we provide to everybody's where. Those sorts of things. And so, yeah, it's kind of an aside from the role of justification.

Just the control, what a sinful man can do with that. I like what Albert said, I can do all things. How did you say that?

I can do all things through a verse taken out of context. All things through the verse taken out of context. Okay. So, what would he say?

And I have this nice picture of Mark Luther. What would Mark Luther say about all this? I don't want to make this historical review. But Mark Luther obviously had a lot to say about the Roman view of justification.

Mark Luther would say, By grace you have been saved through faith, therefore have you been justified. By faith we have peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. And that's where he landed. Staked out the difference.

Again, by grace we have been saved. So, James White's book, chapter 9, page 135. He goes to this sub-chapter. Grace, is it necessary or sufficient? Is grace necessary for salvation or justification? Or is it sufficient?

Now, what's the difference between those two words? That's it. Does everybody hear what he said? It's a little bit louder because you've got to get it. Sufficient means that it's enough. Is it necessary?

You've got to have it. If there's other things you might have, sufficient means that's it. That's all you need. So on page 135, Dr. White says,. The issue never has been and probably never would be the necessity of Catholicism and Rome.

All Baptists believe grace is necessary. Unless Rome changes its views, the matter will always be the sufficiency of grace. In fact, that's what Emmanuel was saying. Both sides agree on the necessity.

The issue is whether grace is sufficient in and of itself to accomplish the salvation of God's people. Or if something else must be added to complete that salvation. There's a very succinct statement.

And as I said, this is the nub of the whole issue. Justification. How do we see it? How do they see it? What's the problem with the way they see it? This idea of a process. In a process, you're adding to it.

In a process, you're finding out if, you know, did you consider all of the wicked? And I can use that in Roman Catholic theology. You see God. He sees Christ. You're justified. Not quite enough. Off to purgatory.

I hope your family has enough money for the indulgences to pray you out of it. All that terrible stuff happens after that. What Christ did on the cross is all there. Christ has crossed his salvation. He has finished 100%.

I don't like to say 1 ,000%. 100 means everything. It's all there. And this is the issue. Barnabas, I believe, is a sinful man who just needs to maintain control of the traditions of men. Those sorts of things.

And also, it's hard not to be more selfless. Go to the foot of the cross. And say, I absolutely need to be saved. And I can do absolutely nothing to save myself. It's all of God's grace. And God, when he does this, does it completely in the particularity of the tome we're in right now.

The Roman Catholic New Catechism says it this way. Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor. The free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God.

Adopt as sons. Partake of it by nature. And return alive. Now that last part of it sounds wonderful. There's a lot we can grab onto there. And most of us can already think of the verses that say, we become children of God.

We know that by Christ, by his salvation, by his bringing us to himself, we become children of God. He's not ashamed to call us brethren. That's good. Adopt as sons. We all know that from the book of Galatians.

Adopted by faith. Not like Abraham, but like Isaac. The children of promise. We can find all kinds of things like that. Partake of it by nature. Where's that from? Is that 1st or 2nd Catechism? First people.

By faith. Eternal life. Obviously salvation. That's all great. What was the problem with the new Catechism as I just read it? The word help? Help. God needs help. We need to add. And help sounds, and the Catholics would never agree that they are Armenian in any way.

But it is the same idea. That we cooperate with God. We often talk about let God. And we use that here sometimes. We don't mean it in a total way. Who's familiar with Keset? The Keset theology. Keset was a big part of this back in the 17th century.

They still have Keset conventions. And their motto is still the same as it was way back then when it started. Keset is just the name of the place where it started. Anybody know what their motto is? What's their motto?

To this day. I'm just guessing from what you just said. Let God.

Let go and let God. Let go and let God. A loud guy. They had this. So I can give you a quick anecdote. When the church that I got saved in. I believe it was saved. They had something that started on a particular Sunday.

When I walked down there. It was called Holy Spirit footstep. I'll probably talk to a number of you about it. But it was announced this way. The pastor got up and said, today is a special day. Today is Holy Spirit footstep.

Today we're going to let the Holy Spirit have his way with us. And he's going to be in charge of the service. I was in the seminary. I didn't have a theological account. This is the idea here. Where we help God along.

In justifying us. We help God along. In bringing about that which Christ his beloved son died. To accomplish it. So this is really the dividing line. That we have. Formed view. Reformed Baptist view. And the Catholic view.

Justification that there was a process. Something that Christ made possible. Similar in idea to. We have this moment to take an excursus on it. The limitation of atonement. The L stands for limitation.

And what do we mean by that? That God is stingy and doesn't want to pass out salvation? No. It means that Christ. Or that God knew. Or knows. And through all time has known. Who he put in Christ. To be saved by his death.

We're just saying God knew what he was doing. Jesus knew who he died for. He knew all through time who his people are. That's what we mean by it. The other way to see this. Since Arminian is rather Catholic.

Is put your faith in him. Okay. So I'm looking at this by myself. And I'll find my faith. And when I find that faith. It's all grace. The faith that he gave us. This is the dividing line. This is the big deal of justification.

Is justification. A definitive act of God. Where because Christ paid the penalty. God being just must be paid. Must have satisfaction for our sins. Because his law demands it. His justice demands it. His holiness demands it.

All the nature of God demands it. We come to him on our basis. To present our sins and our works. And the distinction is really clear. Were you trying to jump in? Yeah. Sorry. In one sense. That idea is kind of like the end of the book.

The last chapter. Then there's the book. And all the chapters in between. And you can almost see how. Well you can see how people would gravitate. To Catholics or others. To the idea of the process. Being involved.

They don't go straight to the end of the book. They see other scriptures that say. That have complications. And I'll give you one instance. In Colossians chapter one. Chapter one. Verse 21. And you who once were alienated.

And hostile in mind. Doing evil deeds. He has now reconciled in his body. A flesh by his death. In order to present you holy. Blameless and above you. Before him. If indeed you continue in the faith. Stable and steadfast.

Not shifting from the whole of the gospel. That you heard. Which has been proclaimed. In all creation under heaven. Et cetera. So there seems to be a qualification. If. What does that begin with? In a sense a process.