Eric Svendsen - The Covenant According to Rome

He holds an M .A. in New Testament Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He also holds a doctorate in Theological Studies from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, also has recently completed his dissertation for a Ph .D. in the Greenwich School of Theology.

He since that dissertation has been accepted, it's been approved, he does have his doctorate. Even before he attended school there, we both have the distinct common background of having attended the same Bible college.

I think that both of us have sufficiently recovered from the experience. But beyond those things I mentioned, I have other reasons for appreciating our next speaker. It's not just because of what he's achieved academically, but where he stands theologically and pastorally with respect to these issues.

Some years back, I guess it was around 1995 or 1996, I had encountered on the internet some Roman Catholic apologist. And I could not believe, this was the first time I'd ever encountered people like this, and I could not believe some of the claims that they were making and some of the sophistry that was employed with some of their arguments.

And I became a member of a certain list called the Old Solar List. And on that list there were two individuals that struck me, and that in particular, and that was Dr. James White, and the other one is our next speaker, Dr. Eric Svensson.

And the thing that struck me is that here were two men who were responding intelligently to the sophistry of Roman Catholics. The thing that impressed me about Eric was how he could, the ability to size up an argument, immediately see its weaknesses and then address it as it needed to be addressed.

It's that kind of clear-headed thinking that has always impressed me about Eric and has always given me the desire to read him and to follow what he has to say, because he offers such clear, level-headed thinking on these matters.

And I'm going to ask Eric to come. He's also pastor of a church that meets in his home. He's a wonderful brother. Here a while back, I found myself in the midst of a country with some charges being trumped up by a Roman Catholic apologist, and he was being warned all along that the things he was charging me with were untrue.

And one of the brethren who really stood behind me through all of that was Eric and just gave me a fresh appreciation for Eric all over again. Eric, if you would, come speak.

The Hour Limit and the Need to Stay Focused

I have to do the obligatory check-check. Is this on? Okay, very good. Thank you. One of the first things that Michael Fallon told all the speakers when he asked us to speak, he said, guys, this is very, very, extremely important.

If you forget everything else, don't forget this. You have an hour. And we said, sure, okay, Mike, then no problem. So I've got now less than an hour, and so does James. James probably has fewer minutes than I do.

And so I'm going to try to get through this presentation. This was originally about an hour long, but I think we can cut it down a little bit. I appreciate David King and his presentation this morning.

The reason I do is because David is unafraid to stand up. David is a Presbyterian pastor, and he is unafraid to stand up here shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of Baptists, number one, and number two, opposing an error of some men that are, for lack of a better term, his theological countrymen.

And he does that unafraid. Last night, if you were here, you saw a debate about that issue. And the debate centers around a movement that is sometimes called Auburnism, sometimes called Reformed Catholicism, sometimes called other things.

Last night, you saw a very mild form of it. Most of the rest of us have seen the ugly side of that movement, and would that Doug Wilson's disciples would be as congenial as he is. Nevertheless, the question that needs to be asked here is one that I haven't yet heard asked about this movement.

And that is this. Let's suppose for the moment that the Auburnists, the Reformed Catholics have won the day. Let's just suppose for the moment that they have been successful in convincing all of us that we should include confessing Roman Catholics in the fold.

We should include those who are devoted to and actually even defend the Roman Catholic gospel in the covenant and regard them as covenant brothers and sisters. The question that has to be asked is, what then?

What happens at that point? Where do we go from there and what have we really gained by doing that? Especially in light of the fact that Rome has her own idea of who's in the covenant. Rome has her own idea of who is really a Roman Catholic.

And so we have to take that in consideration. I think we can't avoid that question as we're going forward before we jump into this thing. Let's think through it a little bit and find out what are we really getting ourselves into.

Rome's Historic Teaching on Extra Ecclesium Nullus Solus

And so what we want to take a look at is a teaching that has been around the church for a long while. It is what we call EANS, E-N-S, or Extra Ecclesium Nullus Solus. Extra Ecclesium Nullus Solus simply means outside the church, no salvation.

This has been a long standing doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church since its inception. In fact, we can take it even back further than the Great Schism. We're going to start with the Great Schism because that's officially when the East and the West broke away from each other.

And it was at that point that we find the first real evidence that what Rome means by Extra Ecclesium Nullus Solus is that if you're outside of Rome, there's no salvation. So we want to take a look at not only what Rome used to believe about it, but what she currently believes about it, because the game plan changed right around 1960s.

And we want to take a look at what the implications of that are for the justification debate. The pre-Vatican II understanding of Extra Ecclesium Nullus Solus. First of all, I think one of the most important texts to go to is one by Innocent III.

This was a pope who created a confession of faith for the Waldenses. The Waldenses were a group that were actually Roman Catholic that eventually broke away from Roman Catholicism under the Inquisition.

But before they did, they were charged with illegal proclamation, illegal preaching basically. And they weren't heretics per se. There's nothing, no charge against them that would indicate that they believed aberrant teachings.

And it really wasn't until after the Inquisition that they came out and started believing a lot of the things that we currently believe today as Protestants. And so they were more of a mild form of Protestant, if you want to put it that way.

Innocent III came out with a statement, a confession of faith, that they needed to sign, they needed to believe before they could be accepted and fully embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. And so that they were not in danger anymore of actually being excommunicated.

Here's what he said. We believe, quote, we believe in our heart and confess in our mouth that there is one church, notice, not of heretics. Heretics being the Waldenses, or the Waldensians sometimes called.

Not of heretics, but of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. I just paused there for a second to put it in a side there. We didn't make up the word Roman Catholic. The word Roman Catholic was used in the ancient church.

It's used by the scholars of Roman Catholicism even today. And so when you hear a Roman Catholic apologist telling you, we don't want to be called Roman Catholics, we're not Roman Catholics. That's a right within the Catholic Church, but it's not what we are.

We're Catholics, period. This is what the Roman Church itself called herself back then. We believe in our hearts and confess in our mouth that there is one church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, notice, outside of which we believe no one is saved.

That means of the Waldenses, if you go outside the church, if you fail to do what we want you to do, if you fail to submit to the Pope, and we excommunicate you, there's no salvation out there for you.

Keep in mind, it's not based on belief so much, because they weren't heretical in their beliefs. Instead, it's based on just being outside of Rome. A little bit later, in fact, just after the turn of the century, in 1215, we come to the fourth letter in council.

It's the same Pope, Innocent III, presiding over this council. And he adopts some of the language that he used earlier for this confession of faith for the Waldenses, and he says this, quote, there is but one universal church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.

Now, just whom does this address? Is this talking about how it's normally explained today that, well, we're all really within the Roman Catholic Church in some way, and it's only those who are obstinate about it, or who know in their heart that Rome is the true church and refuse to believe in it, those are the people that are outside the church.

Here he says, we condemn all heretics. Now, keep in mind, this is after the Waldenses had separated from the church. The Cathari is on the scene at this time. There are a lot of other groups that are on the scene as well.

And by the way, this is less than a century after the Great Schism. And so it's hard to avoid the fact that even the Eastern Orthodox were in mind here. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under.

It doesn't matter. They have different faces indeed, but their tails are tied together in as much as they are alike in their pride. And so we have a statement here. One of the most explicit, the first most explicit statements that you have to be in the bosom of Rome in order to be saved.

This becomes even more explicit just about another century later, just under a century later, with Boniface VIII. Boniface VIII in probably the most cited document of all time for this issue on extra-ecclesium nullus solus, Unum Sanctum.

Unum Sanctum was a document that was partly composed by Boniface VIII, and he says this, quote, urged by faith, we are obliged to believe, and he goes on in his names, we're obliged to believe in the one holy Roman Catholic apostolic church, but that's not all we're obliged to believe.

We're also obliged to believe that outside of this church, after he defines just who this church is, it's not just anybody who claims to be a church, it's Rome. After he defines who this church is, he says that outside of this church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins.

Furthermore, it's not done, furthermore, we declare, state, define, and pronounce. Now that is technical language in Roman Catholic parlance. Why? Because it's the same type of language that is used in infallible papal infallible documents, such as the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

You're going to find the same type of statements. Here is a situation where a pope is sitting on the chair of Peter and pronouncing a dogma, and he says this, furthermore, we declare, state, define, and pronounce, that it is altogether necessary to what?

Salvation for every human creature to be, not just to be in the church, to be subject to the Roman pontiff. So Boniface VIII has taken it a step further. He's gone, not just that you have to be in the church in some quasi way, you have to actually be in submission to the Roman pontiff, and if you're not in submission to the pope, you're not in the church, and there is no salvation.

Now a century later, Eugene IV at the Council of Florence adopts the same kind of language and reiterates the same idea. He says this, quote, the most holy Roman church firmly believes, professes, and preaches.

Notice how similar that is to what Boniface just said. That we declare, state, define, and pronounce. Here the language is, we believe, profess, and preach that none of those existing outside of the Catholic Church, none of those existing outside of the Catholic Church, well who does he mean?

Well he doesn't, he's not ambiguous about it. Not only pagans, that is those who don't believe in the true God, and here he probably has in mind the Muslims who were running around during that day. In fact, these documents specifically address Jews and Muslims, and tell them how to dress, they tell them how to behave in a Christian society.

He says not only of pagans, but also Jews, that is those who believe in the true God, but don't accept the Messiah. So we've got Muslims or pagans, we've got Jews, and heretics, the Waldensians, were still being persecuted.

In fact, they were persecuted for several centuries, so they're still running around. These are the heretics probably that's being referred to here, and schismatics, and it's hard to miss a reference to the Eastern Orthodox here.

None of these can have a share in life eternal. Now, if that were not clear enough, he's not finished. He goes on, no one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may be, no one, even if he pour out his blood in the name of Christ, can be saved unless he do what?

He remains within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. In other words, you cannot be outside of the visible Church. You cannot be outside of the authority of the Pope and be saved. That is the teaching of the Church during that time.

There's one more I want to take a look at because it's a more recent document. In fact, it comes just about 150 years ago by Pius IX. Pius IX in 1863 said this, quote, God in his supreme goodness and clemency by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.

He's answering the question, what do you do about those who've never heard of the gospel and try to live a good life? And he's trying to answer that. God's not going to punish him with eternal punishments through no fault of his own, as though we have good people running around the world seeking God on their own.

But he goes on, but it is also a Catholic dogma that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved and that those who are, note, rebellious against the authority of that same church and who are obstinately separated from the unity of this church and, note, also from the Roman pontiff, successor of Peter to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.

This has brought a full circle. He's taken Unum Sanctum, he's taken Cantante Domino, he's taken a lot of the other documents and he's pulled them all together and saying, look, you have to be in the church and you have to be subject to the pope.

If you're not either one, there's no salvation for you. That was the teaching of Extra Ecclesium Nola Solis up until about 1960 or so when there was a change in plans. We want to take a look at just what change occurred there because the church, the Roman church, at that point did attempt to bring in that language.

We're going to see that in just a minute. But at Vatican II, the understanding of Extra Ecclesium Nola Solis came up again. We had to explain that because it's such a long-standing tradition. It's been going on for a long time.

You can't just throw away those documents. You have to do something with them. And so here's how Lumen Gentium, Lumen Gentium is the document on the church at Vatican II. And specifically in chapter 2 of Lumen Gentium, the chapter called On the People of God, it says this.

It just kind of starts out by saying, quote, all men are called to be part of this Catholic unity of the people of God, which in promoting universal peace predicts it. I want you to notice right off the bat the difference in tone.

Beforehand, we're talking about exclusion language. Afterwards, we're talking about inclusive language. Things that we can bring people in rather than things that can exclude people from the church. Well, who does this impact?

Well, it says all men are part of this Catholic unity. In what way? Well, it says they belong to it or are related to it in various ways. In other words, we're all really part of the church in some way, to varying degrees.

We're either in it, or we're beside it, or we're going to be grabbed by it in some way. And then it lists three groups. I put in the numbers here in brackets just so you don't think that's part of the original document, but it does identify three groups here.

First of all, the Catholic faithful. That's obvious. The Catholic faithful are going to be in the church. There's no question about it. But also, all who believe in Christ. Well, who does that include?

It's distinguished from the Catholic faithful. So all who believe in Christ now are Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and number three, the whole of mankind. Well, it hasn't really left anybody out here.

Why not just use three? For all men are called by the grace of God to salvation. The reason it uses three categories is because we're related in various ways. And so it's going to explicitly now tell us what those ways are.

At least that's what we are led to expect. The very next verse begins by talking about this longstanding tradition of extra-ecclesiam nobis salus and saying, look, this is a doctrine of the church. This tradition teaches that the church now sojourning on earth as an exile is necessary for salvation.

So they're reaffirming the old language. It's necessary for salvation. Well, how so? How is it necessary? Well, Christ present to us in his body, which is the church, is the one mediator and the unique way of salvation.

In other words, Christ is the one mediator between man and God and men have to come to him to be saved. And it just so happens that the church is Christ's body. And so as Christ's body, men come to Christ through the church as through a door.

It goes on to say this in explicit terms, he himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism for through baptism as through a door, men enter the church. Now that's the general statement. He is now going to, or it is now going to begin to delineate just who is included and who is not included.

It's going to start with the bad news first. Here's the bad news. Whoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ and would refuse to enter or to remain in it could not be saved.

In other words, there's a category of people running around that know fully in their heart that Christ has established Rome as the church, as the one true church. They believe with all their heart that the Pope is the Holy Father.

They believe with all their heart that this church is infallible. And they believe it so strongly, they become Protestants. I don't know anybody in that category. All the people that I know that have done that have become contributors to the next edition of Surprise by Truth.

They haven't gone into Protestantism. And so that's the bad news. If you want to say it's bad news, there is a category that is not allowed in the church, but this category has exactly zero people in it.

What about the rest of them? Well, in relation to Protestants, Anglicans, and the Eastern Orthodox, here's what it says. Quote, the church recognizes that in many ways... I want you to notice the vagueness of the language that's used here.

She's linked to them. What in the world does that mean? The church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who being baptized are honored with the name of Christian. That's Protestants, those are Eastern Orthodox, anyone who names the name of Christ and has been baptized.

Notice, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety, and note well, they do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. What were we told before? What were we told prior to Vatican II?

Weren't we told that no one can be saved unless he maintains unity in the church and unless he remains in the bosom of the Roman Catholic pontiff? Now we're being told something different. We're being told it's okay, you can be in your own churches.

In fact, Protestant churches are a means of salvation, according to the Catechism. They are consecrated by baptism in which they are united with Christ. That doesn't sound like unum sanctum to me. Likewise, we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too he gives his gifts and graces, whereby he is operative among them with his sanctifying power.

We're okay, you're okay. We don't need to quibble over evangelizing each other. You're a means of salvation too. So he's taking care of the Protestants, he's taking care of the Catholic faithful. Who else is left?

Oh yes, Jews and Muslims. Finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related. There's that vagueness again. In various ways to the people of God. In the first place, we must recall the people to whom the Testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.

That's the Jews. What are we supposed to do with them? We're supposed to recall them. I have no idea what that means. But I think we're going to get a hint about it in just a few minutes. But the plan of salvation, in other words, it includes these Protestants who are following the name of a Christian.

It also includes the Jews who worship the God of the Old Testament, the one true God, though they don't acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Whom else does it include? But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.

So if you happen to believe in a God, you're in. What does it mean, the plan of salvation includes? Does that mean they can be saved if we give them the gospel? Like the way that we would interpret that?

Or does it mean that they are already saved? It would be no problem if all that's being said here is, they can be saved if we take the gospel to them. They can also be numbered among the elect. So we need to get the gospel there.

There's no argument there. But we're going to see that that evangelism aspect is saved for the final group. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these are the Mohammedans, that is the Muslims, who professing to hold the faith of Abraham, notice this, along with us adore the one and merciful God.

Yahweh has just been equated with Baal. The last I heard, Muslims don't worship a trinity. The last I heard, they deny the trinity. The last I heard, they deny the deity of Christ. And the last I heard, Roman Catholics still worship the trinity.

Not quite finished though. We still have a couple more groups to fit in this plan of salvation in relation to the pagans and the atheists. Quote, nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God.

So we're no longer talking about just your average run-of-the-mill Muslim. We're talking about those who may be worshiping other kinds of gods. You know, the kind that the Israelites were guilty of idolatry if they worshiped them in the Old Testament.

So the pagans, those also can attain to salvation, notice this, who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by His grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

If you just leave them alone and you just let the ones who really live a good life go, they're fine. They don't need to know Jesus Christ. There's no compelling reason to take the gospel to them. They're okay.

They're in the plan of salvation. We now are starting to see what it means to be included in the plan of salvation. Obviously if those who do not even know the one true God can be saved, the Jews can be saved and the Muslims can be saved too because they, according to Roman Catholic theology, at least worship the one true God.

Notice this, nor does divine providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to whom? To those who without blame on their part have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God. The atheists, those who just have for some reason, it's just eluded them, that there's all kinds of stuff around that they can't explain.

There are supposedly people running around that have never even conceived that there might be something called a God. These can be saved too. How? With His grace they strive to live a good life. Christ is not needed.

Faith is not needed. Those are important aspects to reformed Catholicism. Finally, here's the group that really needs help. Those that worship cows and sticks need some help. And so, "...but often men deceived by the evil one have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.".

Okay, so we have, I'm not sure how that would differ from those who are serving an unknown God or serving the Muslim God. But somehow it does. Or some there are who living and dying in this world without God are exposed to final despair.

Wherefore? Here's the only group that gets the Gospel. Wherefore, "...to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, preach the Gospel to every creature, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.".

These people need the Gospel. The rest of them, they're included in the plan of salvation already. This is a far cry from extra-ecclesium nullus solus taught before Vatican II. Now, what are the explanations that are offered here?

Just very briefly, some Roman Catholic apologists have suggested that Roman Catholicism believed in the principles of Vatican II even before Vatican II happened. They start citing some works around the turn of the 19th century and saying, see, here it is.

Look, we always believed this. It wasn't at Vatican II we came up with this. Well, of course not. Vatican II as a movement, Doug Wilson said something last night, very insightful. As a movement, Vatican II came to be because of liberalism that infiltrated in the Church at about the turn of the century.

Catholics were not immune to that. They too had liberalism in their Church. And so it's no surprise that we're going to be finding that kind of sentiment. It's not as though we got to 1963 and suddenly poof, somebody had this idea that, hey, maybe somebody else is saved besides us.

That's not what happened. There was a movement toward it and it took a while. Another explanation, unum sanctum was written only to Catholics, not to non-Catholics, which is why Boniface VIII says every living creature must be subject to the Roman pontiff.

Even if we didn't have that explicit language, here's what we do have. Aside from the Roman Catholic apologetic attempts at this, Roman Catholic scholars interpret this in a remarkably different way. They correct the apologists.

Here's what, for instance, William Most, Father Most says in his article called, Is There Salvation Outside the Church? where he's addressing this notion of extra-ecclesium nobis salus. He says this at the very front of his article, quote, before going ahead, we need to notice one principle of interpretation.

It is this, the only things guaranteed in statements of the magisterium and protected in lesser ways in the works of the fathers are the things explicitly set down on paper. Now why is that important?

Because the Roman Catholic apologists are telling us, hey, we've got to keep unum sanctum in context, in its historical context. There were French Catholics that were rebelling against the Pope and they had to be put down.

What is Father Most telling us here? We may indeed know historically that certain thoughts, more extensive, were in the minds of the writers, yet divine providence has committed itself to protect only the explicitly written texts, not what is merely in the mind and unexpressed.

So that when unum sanctum says every human creature must be subject to the Roman pontiff to be saved, we don't take into consideration the historical context. This is an infallible document, not a document, but infallible teaching, supposedly.

And so William Most goes on to talk about some quote unquote new possibilities of solving the vexing and long-standing problem. It doesn't seem to be a vexing and long-standing problem to Roman Catholic apologists who think there's no problem here, but it certainly is a long-standing and vexing problem to the Roman Catholic scholar.

They recognize at least there's a difference here between what Rome used to teach and what Rome teaches today. He goes on, quote, one group of statements speaks very strongly and almost stringently about the need of membership.

Those are the pre-Vatican II documents. The other group softens this position by taking a remarkably broad view of what membership consists in. That's an understatement. Membership in the Roman Catholic Church now consists in you're related to the church or linked to it in various ways.

And you're okay as long as you're living a good life. And you don't have to know God. You don't have to worship the Christian God as long as you're doing it well. One more scholar, John Hardin, says this, quote, it would be inaccurate to look upon these two traditions, the pre versus the post-Vatican II understanding of enes.

It would be inaccurate to look upon these two traditions as in opposition. They represent, notice the catch-all phrase here, they represent a single mystery. You know what that means? It means we have no idea how these two things fit together.

Whenever you have a Roman Catholic mystery, that's what it means. Which the church's magisterium has explained in such a way that what seems to be a contradiction is really just a paradox. Here's what Hardin can glean from this.

Here's what he can conclude safely. What both of those traditions tell us is this, whoever is saved owes a salvation to the church. That's the only thing we can conclude. We can't conclude anything else.

But if you look at the documents, you can conclude a lot more, can't you? You can conclude that there's a contradiction. I almost drank Steve Camp's water. I wouldn't have washed that cup for a while.

The Shift in Vatican II and the New Language of Inclusion

Summary thoughts on contradictions. First of all, it strikes me that the clarity of the pre-Vatican II documents is so evident while the vagueness of the post-Vatican documents is so evident as well.

What are the post-Vatican II documents supposed to be doing? They're supposed to be clarifying the pre-Vatican II documents. And all they've done is muddied the water. There was no mistaking what Rome meant before Vatican II.

Pre-Vatican II means excludes those who do not maintain unity with Rome and the Pope, whereas Vatican II means includes all those who do not maintain unity with Rome and the Pope. The issue of justification.

I realize justification is a narrower concept than salvation. Salvation is the umbrella term under which a lot of things fall. Justification, sanctification, regeneration, all those things. But whatever can be said here of Rome's view of salvation automatically applies to who is justified.

Because you can't be saved unless you're first justified. Justification in pre-Vatican II Rome occurs only to those who pledge allegiance to the Roman Church and to the Roman Pope. That's the only way you can get in.

Whereas justification in post-Vatican II Rome occurs, notice, in spite of religious affiliation. You don't even have to be a part of the Church. You can be a Jew or a Muslim or a pagan or an atheist in spite of belief in the Trinity and in spite of whether or not baptism has occurred.

That is significant. There are some implications for this. First of all, Rome's understanding of just who may be saved and by extension justified has changed. That's obvious. It now includes a lot of people it didn't include before.

No one can deny that. Muslims, Jews, pagans, atheists, all these groups deny the Trinity. All of them are unbelievers. All of them have failed to be baptized. Salvation, by extension justification, the Roman Catholic Church can and in fact probably most often is attained apart from the sacrament of baptism and apart from belief in the Trinity.

Think of all the millions of people that just have not heard the gospel that are included in this. Now, how does that apply to the justification debate? Well, the Reformed Catholics, remember, believe that it is Trinitarian baptism that places one in the covenant.

That is why they're going after a covenant relationship with Rome. The question is, with what are the Reformed Catholics seeking brotherhood? Because once they get to Rome what do they find? They find a church that consists largely, by and large, of unbaptized unbelievers who deny the Trinity.

Those are Catholics, according to the Roman Catholic Church. They are part of their denomination. So, while the Reformed Catholics are working toward a return to unity with Rome based on the common Trinitarian baptism, at the same time Rome is working to undermine that goal by continually including even more groups who deny the Trinity and are unbaptized.

There's a they're in a pickle here. Once the Reformed Catholics achieve their goal of covenant unity with Rome based on Trinitarian baptism, what they now find, to their chagrin, is that they are now covenant brothers with Muslims.

And so to reach the Reformed Catholic goal is, in fact, to subvert the Reformed Catholic goal. What have we gained? What have we achieved? To reach the goal is to subvert it, but it's to subvert something even more important.

It is to subvert the gospel of Jesus Christ that Steve Camp did a beautiful job enunciating just a few minutes ago. Paul says this, I am amazed, I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel.

A different gospel. He's talking about justification by faith in Christ alone. And whatever perverts that is a different gospel. Which is really not another, it's no good news at all. Only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, we all know it, even if we or an angel from heaven should preach another gospel, a gospel contrary to what we preach to you, he is to be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed.

This has ramifications for the gospel of Jesus Christ. It subverts it. May God spare us from pursuing any relationship, any covenant brotherhood with any group who would be subverting the gospel of Christ to the extent that Roman Catholicism is today.

Let's pray. Lord, Father, we praise you that you have kept us from such foolishness. We pray by your grace that you continue to do that and that you would, by your mercy, keep us from those kinds of errors.

Lord, we pray that you would make us instruments to call those back who are in that error. In Jesus name. Amen. Thank you folks.