Justification by Faith - White vs Fastigi

Welcome, my name is Mark Gunning and I am the moderator for today's debate. I think you will find this exchange to be very interesting and very important, for it touches upon the vital issue of how man is made right before God.

The thesis for today's debate is the Protestant doctrine of justification, sola fide, by faith alone, can be sustained by the biblical data.

Defending this position will be James White. Denying this position will be Dr. Robert Fustigi. Allow me to briefly introduce our speakers.

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.

James holds a bachelor's degree in Bible and a minor in Koine Greek from Grand Canyon University, and a master's degree in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary.

He is the author of seven books, including works on Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the translation and text of the

Bible, and Christian theology. He has had the privilege of serving as professor of church history and an instructor in biblical

Greek. He is an ordained Baptist minister and has engaged in scholarly debates with Roman Catholic apologists all across the

United States. Dr. Robert Fustigi holds a PhD in theology from Fordham University in New York.

He is an associate professor of religious studies at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas, where he has taught since 1985.

Dr. Fustigi and his wife, Kathy, have two children and are expecting their third. Our debate today will be strictly timed and organized so as to ensure fairness.

Both speakers will give 15 -minute opening statements, Mr. White going first, as he is defending the thesis.

After the 15 -minute statements, we will have five -minute rebuttals. Then we will have a period of question and answer, again, timed and controlled, which will be followed by five -minute closing statements.

I hope you will listen closely, as both of our participants have spent much time preparing to provide you with the best their position has to offer.

With that, let us begin. Mr. White, your 15 -minute opening statement, please. Thank you very much. Martin Luther once said, if any man ascribe ought of his salvation even the least part to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace and has not learned

Jesus Christ. I believe Luther understood something that, by God's grace, I will explain more fully during this debate.

That what separates those who follow the scripture's presentation of the gospel from everyone else, no matter what label they may wear, is just this.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. God saves people perfectly, completely, and without dependence upon the additions, works, or merit of men.

The issue truly is, can God justify men by his grace alone, or is he dependent upon man to complete the process?

The thesis of our debate today is the Protestant doctrine of justification, sola fide, by faith alone, can be sustained by the biblical data.

To understand why two men would engage in a debate over such a topic, we must begin first by defying the issues that give form to the debate.

Roman Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, said the following concerning the idea of achieving justification, quote, the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation, nobody can, with certainty of faith, know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification, end quote.

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

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

Christ did as their perfect substitute? That is the issue before us. The Protestant, and I believe the biblical doctrine of justification, differs from the

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

Secondly, we differ on the meaning of the term impute or imputation. Thirdly, we differ on the instrument by which justification has taken place.

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

Let us begin with some definitions. Allow me to provide the Protestant position taken from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which agrees in every way with that of the

Westminster Confession of Faith. Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous.

Not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone. Not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing

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

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness is the alone instrument of justification.

Yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith, but worth it by love.

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

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

End quote. And the Westminster Shorter Catechism summed it up well by stating this question, what is justification?

Answer, justification is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.

Note the following terms. Justification is said to be an act of God wherein he declares the believer righteous.

Justification, therefore, is a legal forensic declaration on the part of God concerning the believer.

Justification is undertaken by God and is not based upon anything done in or done by the believer.

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

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

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

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

Justification, while distinct from sanctification, cannot possibly be separated from it.

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

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

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

We look back upon our justification, as Paul said in Romans 5 .1. Now, are we justified only after being baptized?

And is justification something that can be undone by human evil? Are we required to go through a sacrament of confession involving contrition, confession, doing works of satisfaction?

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

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

I wish to emphasize something that will be very, very important to our debate today. The Bible teaches that salvation is based upon God's grace.

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

The Bible tells us that we are justified by grace in Titus 3, 5 through 7, where we read, he saved us not on the basis of deeds, which we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration, the renewing by the

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

We are also told that we are justified as a gift by his grace in Romans 3, 24. But aside from being justified by free grace, we are also said to be justified by the blood of Jesus Christ in Romans 5, 9, where we read, quote, much more than having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him.

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

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

Lord Jesus Christ. Justified by grace, justified by the blood of Christ, justified by faith.

Are these three different things or three aspects of one thing? Clearly, Paul is describing the great truth of justification by God's free grace.

His grace is unmerited, we cannot earn it. The blood of Christ shed in behalf of his people was unmerited and free.

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

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

We assert that man is justified by this kind of saving faith, divine saving faith, a gift given to the elect in regeneration and not by any other means.

This is exactly what Paul said when he faced Peter in Antioch. Peter had seriously compromised the gospel by withdrawing from fellowship with the

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

Galatians 2 .16. He made the same point in Romans chapter 4, one of the clearest, most obvious arguments for justification by faith alone.

Having concluded the first section of the book by saying in the 28th verse of the 3rd chapter, therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of law.

He went on to assert, now to the one who works, the wage is not reckoned as a gift, but as what is due, but to the one who does not work, but rather believes upon the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Note well what is said. Paul contrasts the concepts of working and believing.

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

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

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

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

Prior to this, Paul had said in Romans 3 .21 -25, but now apart from the law, a righteousness from God has been revealed, being witnessed to by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ to all the ones believing.

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

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

Paul asserts that justification is by grace here in Romans 3 .24 and in Titus 3 .7, which we already heard.

Now is Paul contradicting himself by saying that we are justified by grace and we are justified by faith? Not at all.

As we asserted before, justification is by faith, so that it might be in concert with grace.

Just as Paul said in Romans 4 .16, for this reason it is by faith that it might be in accordance with grace.

Faith, true saving faith, abandons all effort at work or merit and realizes man's complete dependence upon God, not just for the provision of a way of salvation, but for the entire action of salvation itself.

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

Grace, by definition, excludes the entire concept of human works or merit.

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

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

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

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through law, then

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

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

-11 he writes, For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written,

Cursed are all those who do not abide in all the things written in the book of law to do them. But that no one shall be justified before God by law is evident, for the just shall live by faith.

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

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

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

As Paul taught the Ephesians, For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which

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

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

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

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

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

Paul said in summing up his argument in Galatians 5, verse 2. Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision,

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

Paul made it crystal clear. It is either Christ alone as the perfect Savior, or it is the works of law, no matter what law one might wish to choose.

Christ will not share his Saviorhood with anyone. Sola Fide, faith alone, that is saving faith, resting solely in the perfection of the worth of the

Lord Jesus Christ in my stead. That is my hope. That is the Christian gospel. Not justification by baptism, then re -justification after committing a mortal sin by sacramental forgiveness, penances, and satisfaction.

No merit from good works done in the state of grace so as to receive eternal life. No, justification is by faith alone so that it can be by grace alone.

That is the gospel, and hence the debate thesis is defended. Justification by saving faith alone is the teaching of the

Scripture. Well, thank you very much.

And I want to let you know that it is my honor to be here. And I'm grateful for the materials that were sent to me by my opponent.

I have studied them carefully. I have studied the Westminster Confession of Faith. But I must make my own confession that after studying these documents,

I have become even more convinced of the Catholic position than ever before. The position defended by my opponent,

I contend, is unscriptural, it is illogical, and it is antiquated, especially in terms of modern biblical scholars, most of them

Protestant, people like Kristin Stendhal, Dr. Richard Hayes, and James D .G.

Dunn. It's very interesting that my opponent has the confidence to say that his position is the biblical position.

In his monumental study on the history of the doctrine of justification, Justitia Dei, by Professor Alistair McGrath of Oxford University, he notes that this

Protestant distinction between justification and regeneration, which gives rise to the notion of an imputed justification, is, quote, a fundamental discontinuity with the

Western theological tradition. And so we have now a theological novum, a new doctrine which had never been there before.

My opponent also claims that he has studied carefully the Catholic position. Well, perhaps he has done so, but he has misunderstood it in many different ways.

The Catholic position is that we are justified totally by grace. I'll read to you from chapter 8 of the

Council of Trent's decree on justification. We are said to be justified gratuitously because nothing that precedes justification, neither faith nor works, merits the grace of justification.

For if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise, as the same apostle says, grace would no longer be grace,

Romans 11, 6. Now, the accusation that the Catholic Church teaches that our good works are in some way the basis for our justification is simply a false accusation.

As chapter 16 of Trent's decree points out, for the justice which is said to be ours because we become just by its adherence in us is that of God himself, since it is infused in us by God through the merit of Christ.

And as the new catechism of the Catholic Church points out, the charity of Christ is the source of all our merits before God.

And in preface one of the Sanctus of the Roman Missal, we read, you are glorified in the assembly of your holy ones, for in crowning their merits, you are crowning your own gifts.

Or Cardinal Cajetan put it very well. He said, just as Paul in Galatians says, I live, not

I, but Christ lives in me. He could have also said, I now merit, not I, but Christ merits in me.

The Catholic teaching is clear. The basis of our justification is the total free and unmerited gift of sanctifying or justifying grace.

It is not something merited on our own. Any attempt to say this is simply a straw man.

Now, I'm more concerned though about the Bible in this debate because that is what we're looking at.

Is the position of my opponent defended by the Bible? I say not because I have noted at least seven major contradictions between his position and what the holy word of God says.

First of all, the phrase faith alone. Now let's take a little admonition from the

Westminster Confession of Faith. The Westminster Confession of Faith tells us in chapter 11, section two, that, oh,

I'm sorry, in chapter one, section nine, it says we should judge those scriptures that do not speak clearly by those that speak more clearly.

Well, let's follow this then. What scriptures speak most clearly regarding the phrase faith alone?

Well, in point of fact, that phrase is only found once in the New Testament, in the letter of St. James, chapter two, verse 24.

And it says, you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Now, Martin Luther was quite aware that this contradicted his position. That's why he referred to the letter of James as an epistle full of straw.

Now, I wonder why Luther, who relied so heavily upon the Bible, would want to blaspheme a

God -breathed book of the Holy Bible. Now, some Protestants try to get around James by saying

James does not understand faith in the same way as Paul. But this is refuted by Paul himself in 1

Corinthians 13 too. He says, if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love,

I am nothing. Now, in terms of this, there are a number of other passages

I could show you that demonstrate very clearly we are not justified by faith alone.

But let's go on to the other problem of Mr. White's position. This is the notion that justification is something imputed.

It is forensic or extrinsic. It is an alien righteousness. It is the righteousness of Christ that covers over the sinfulness of the man who is justified.

Now, here I think we need to turn first to the Gospels, because the Gospels have always had the priority in terms of the

New Testament, not denying that the other books of the New Testament and the Old Testament are also divinely inspired.

But in terms of how the word dikaiosune is used in the four

Gospels, first of all, it occurs only 10 times. And as Dr. John Royman, professor of New Testament Greek at Luther Theological Seminary in Philadelphia notes, it is always used in reference to a way of life.

But what about Paul? Does he always use dikaiosune in a forensic sense?

No, says Dr. E .C. Blackman of the University of Toronto. He says that in Paul's usage, there are actually three senses, the forensic, the ethical, and the theological.

And it's not always clear how Paul is using it, even in the same writing.

And he points out that in Romans, it could speak of real moral achievement in terms of Romans 5, 15 through 21.

And in Romans 6, 11 through 19, he could use it in another sense where, quote, justification is tending to be identified with sanctification or Dr.

Richard Hayes of Yale Divinity School points out that this whole notion of forensic justification needs to be reformulated.

Righteousness, says Dr. Hayes, refers to God's covenant faithfulness, which declares persons full participants in the community of God's people.

Now, there might be a quasi -legal dimension. But as Dr. Hayes notes, there is no question of a legal fiction whereby

God judges his heavenly account books and pretends not to notice human sin.

Now, even if the biblical word Sedeqa in the Old Testament and Dikaiosune in the New Testament refer to something forensic, we must make a distinction between the notion of forensic legal language and this notion of extrinsic righteousness.

The two just don't follow. Peter Blazer, a biblical scholar, notes that in regard to Judaism, a righteousness or justification refers to, quote, acknowledging a reality which is already there.

And so logically, you could declare a person just because the person is just. So the forensic language does not equal imputation.

Now, I could say much more about this, but I'd like to turn to the next major, very serious contradiction between what the

Bible says and what my opponent is saying. Mr. White, in his book on justification, says that, quote, justification is a once and for all action on the part of God.

One who is justified cannot become unjustified, for all of the believers' sins have been forgiven on the basis of the work of Christ.

So then he goes on to say this remission of all sins is not limited to the past sins only, but to all sins past, present, and future.

Let me give you a couple of quick scriptures to show that this is not at all the teaching of the

Bible. 2 Corinthians 6, 1. Paul says, working together with him, there's a nice synergy, working together with him, then we beg you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

Well, how could you receive the grace of God in vain if you've already received the grace and it's once for all?

And in 1 Corinthians 9, 27, he says, I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others,

I myself should be disqualified. And then I think the strongest reputation of this position of once justified, always justified, is 1

Corinthians 4, 4. Paul says, I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand justified.

Yedidikaiomai, perfect, passive. And he says, the one who judges me is the Lord. So do not pronounce judgment before the

Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of the heart.

Philippians 2, 12, work out your salvation in fear and trembling. 1 Corinthians 10, 12, whoever thinks he is standing tall, take heed lest he fall.

There's so many other passages, but I'd like to give one more. 1 Corinthians 6, 9, Paul gives a solemn warning.

Do not deceive yourselves. No fornicators, idolaters or adulterers, no sodomites, thieves, misers or drunkards, no slanderers or robbers will inherit

God's kingdom. And then in 1 Corinthians 6, 18, he says, shun fornication.

Now, why would he give this exhortation unless there was the possibility of committing fornication and thereby being deprived of God's kingdom?

Now, maybe Mr. White would say, well, he's speaking to those who are not already justified.

Well, look at who the letter is written to. 1 Corinthians 2, 2. It is written to the church of God, which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our

Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and our Lord. Or even stronger, 2

Peter 2, 22, Peter writes, for it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, then after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandments handed to them, what is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them.

The dog returns to its own vomit. A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire.

Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew chapter 10, whoever endures till the end will be safe.

Now, this whole idea of Romans 5, 1, first of all, there's a manuscript question as to whether or not it is really saying, now that we have been justified by faith, we have peace or now that we have been justified by faith, let us have peace.

But the fact that it says we have peace, let's take that manuscript, doesn't mean we can't lose that peace.

It just doesn't follow. Now, another problem with my opponent's position is this idea that justification and sanctification are totally distinct.

He writes in his book that justification is a statement about a man, while sanctification is an action that changes man.

Now, in terms of this, my position, and it's backed up by many good Pauline scholars, is that Paul uses many different terms to express the transition from being a son or daughter of Adam to now an adopted son or daughter of God through Jesus Christ.

He uses images like filial adoption, expiation, reconciliation, transformation, new creation, darkness to light, death to life.

There's so many, and he's writing in a dynamic, charismatic way, a proclamatory way.

He's not writing systematic theology and making all these distinctions. And the proof of this also is in 1

Corinthians 6 .11, he reverses the order. He says, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God. And Paul also says that whoever is in Christ is a new creation, is a new creation.

Now, he says this a number of different times. Whoever is in Christ is a new creation.

Now, how can you be justified and not be in Christ? You see, if you're in Christ, then

Paul says you are a new creation. Look at 2 Corinthians 5 .17 or Galatians 6 .15.

Now, in terms of this, another problem, scriptural problem, is this idea that grace is irresistible.

I've already read 2 Corinthians 6 .11, do not receive the grace of God in vain. But even stronger is

Acts 7, verse 51, where Stephen is speaking. And he says, you stiff -necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the

Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can be opposed. Another problem, though he didn't bring it out in his talk, is this notion of limited atonement.

This is directly contradicted by many scriptures. 1 John 2 .2, he is an expiation for our sins and not only for our sins, but for those of the whole world.

2 Corinthians 5 .15, he indeed died for all, not just for the elect.

And then the other problem is this notion of the predestination of the damned. This is contradicted by 1

Timothy 2 .4, God desires all people to be saved and come to know the truth.

Or Luke 15 .7, that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous people who have no need of repentance.

If they were already predestined to be saved, then we wonder why there would be all this rejoicing in heaven.

Now, in any case, there are some logical problems with this. For example, he says that if one is justified, one can never become unjustified.

But then in the Westminster Confession of Faith, it mentions that those who have been justified can never lose their justification, but they can fall under God's, quote, fatherly displeasure.

This is in chapter 11, section 5. Now, how can you fall if you already have all your sins forgiven?

First of all, why are you worrying about other sins forgiven, to be forgiven? And then it says that they will not have the light of his countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith in repentance.

Well, does that sound like someone who's at peace? So in short, there's so many scriptural contradictions, so many points of illogic in this position.

Thank you. Mr. Boyd? Thank you very much. I did attempt to provide to Dr.

Vestigi as much information as I possibly could. I am saddened, however, that he continues to utterly miss the position that I have presented in my books.

Almost everything that Dr. Vestigi just presented has nothing to do with my position. All the things at the end about limited atonement, predestination of evil people, irresistible grace.

I'll be glad to debate with Dr. Vestigi on the Reformed perspective sometime, but it had nothing to do with justification as I presented it, and hence a red herrings.

Now, Dr. Vestigi said that this is a theological novum, and he quotes, of course, in regards to justification, that this is a distinction from Western theological tradition.

Well, the Western theological tradition also contains such things as selling of indulgences, and now, if you want a real example of a theological novum, try papal infallibility sometime if you want something that's really, really new.

The issue before us today is, does the Bible teach these issues? And, of course, it does. Now, my opponent said that I somehow misrepresented the

Roman Catholic position. I would simply refer you specifically to the words of Trent in its sixth session, chapter 16.

Let me just read a few statements to you. Hence, to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus and as reward promised by God himself to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.

For since Christ Jesus himself is the head and the members and the vine and the branches continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies, and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its due time provided they depart this life in grace.

I haven't misrepresented anything. I could provide you a number of other canons, a Canon 24, Canon 32, which present the same position in regards to the

Church of Rome. Now, Dr. Vestigi says you need to go to those passages that most clearly expound a particular issue, and most definitely we should.

Hence, if we want to talk about justification, we need to go to those entire chapters that are dedicated to the subject of justification in Paul's writings, not after the

Gospels, not after someplace where we're not discussing that particular issue, but immediately Dr. Vestigi went ahead and did that.

For example, he jumped to James Chapter 2. James is a book written to Christians. It's not discussing how a man is made right before God.

I need to stress the fact that when we speak of faith alone, we are speaking of saving faith. Dr. Vestigi did not make that distinction in his comments.

Saving faith is a gift of God given to his elect. It is differentiated in scripture from non -saving or dead faith.

Indeed, a passage that is often used is James Chapter 2, where the apostle attacks not the doctrine of justification by faith, so plainly taught by Paul, but the idea that a dead, empty faith can save a man.

It is clearly brought out by James himself in verse 14, where he says, What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works?

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

Yet, as we have seen, this is not a saving faith. And when Protestants speak of sola fide, faith alone, we are speaking of a saving faith alone, not a dead faith alone.

And the materials that Dr. Vestigi has available to him would certainly make that very clear. Now, he then brought up a number of passages.

2 Corinthians 6, 1, Do not receive the grace of God in vain. How is this passage discussing justification? What is the context here?

Dr. Vestigi himself says, Well, Paul uses justification in other ways. And he quoted a number of scholars who say, He has this type of use and he has that type of use.

That's very true. So why isn't that the case here as well? Glowing example, 1 Corinthians 4, 4.

When you look at 1 Corinthians 4, 4, the passage that he said is so plain in this, I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted.

I am not by this justified. Here is a perfect example of a use of decaio in a context other than discussing how man is made right before God.

Because what's he doing? He's defending his apostleship. He's talking about the justification of his position, not justification before God.

This is a classic example of using a context, using a passage out of its context completely. He quotes

Philippians 2, 12. Without quoting verse 13, which tells you why you are to in fear, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

For it is God who is at work within you, both do and do will according to his good pleasure. Again, has nothing to do with this at all.

Dr. Vestigi says, well, Romans 5, 1, it doesn't mean that we can't lose that peace. The peace of God that is ours is ours because of the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Hence, that peace has the character of Jesus Christ. Can the peace that is provided by the perfect work of Jesus Christ be lost?

Can mere sinful human beings undo the work that Jesus Christ himself did upon the cross of Calvary?

I say to you, friend, in no way, shape or form is that the case. We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is a perfect and lasting peace.

Thank you. Well, it seems that my opponent believes that he has correctly misunderstood

Trent. You have to read all of Trent. So regarding this notion of merit and justice and so on, he kept in his first presentation, kept using the word human work, human merit.

It's very clear in Trent, if he continued reading that chapter, that neither is our justice considered as coming from us, nor is

God's justice disregarded or denied. For the justice which is said to be ours because we become just by its inheritance in us is that of God himself, since it is infused in us by God through the merit of Jesus Christ.

And the new catechism makes this very clear that with regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.

Between God and us, there is an immeasurable inequality for we have received everything from him, our creator.

The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace.

So in other words, God doesn't owe us anything, but he has chosen to make us his co -workers, his synergoi, as Paul says in 1

Corinthians 3 .9. Now, in terms of this notion of saving grace, I think that this is a case of illogic on the part of the

Westminster Confession of Faith. I'll read to you right from here where my opponent had referred to before.

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification.

Yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with other saving graces and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

The reference here is to Galatians 5 .6. Well, I'd like to ask you logically, are these other saving graces essential to having saving faith?

If they are essential, then you cannot say faith alone. You refuted your own position because these other saving graces are essential.

If they're not essential, then it's superfluous and you have no right to say that it is ever accompanied by these other saving graces.

It's a logical inconsistency here. And then I find my opponent very guilty of simply begging the question.

In other words, he's made up his mind that Paul understands dikeiosune as something forensic.

And therefore, any other usage of that word in Paul's writings or any other part of the

New Testament can't be speaking about justification as he understands it because it doesn't conform with his already unchallenged premise.

So this is very simply a case of begging the question. Now I gave him the passage of 1 Corinthians 4 .4.

You, Mr. White, are taking that out of context. Paul undertakes the defense of his apostleship in chapter nine of 1

Corinthians, not chapter three and four. I defy anyone to go and read chapters three and four and see if Paul is there defending his apostleship.

He's talking about factionalism and how some people have linked themselves with Apollos. Some people have linked themselves with Christ.

And he's really talking about his humility. How can he be sure that Paul is not using this word in the same way?

It's because he was going around in a circle. My understanding of Paul is correct. Therefore, any other passage which challenges that must be incorrect.

Now, in terms of so many other things, I don't think I presented a red herring at all.

All of these doctrines that I mentioned connected with the Protestant position or his

Protestant position of justification all linked together. But what he didn't challenge at all was the notion, all of those scriptures

I read, where it talks about how one could fall out of favor with God. Now, he mentions

Romans 5 .1. I'd like him to go to Romans 11, where Paul also warns the Gentiles that if they become boastful and arrogant because they feel they've been given this grace, that they could also lose that favor.

If they do not remain in God's kindness. You see, there's just so many other passages. You just can't simply just ignore these and go back to your unchallenged premise that justification is a once and for all given and that once one is justified, one can never be unjustified.

The New Testament does not teach that. Now, regarding James, well, I believe that that's a

God -breathed book and I believe that it's there providentially to warn us specifically about the type of position that Mr.

White has taken to make sure that we do not simply say faith alone because that could be abused, you see?

And so part of the problem is that he sees justification as simply a once and for all imputation.

But if he understands justification correctly as the Council of Trent does, you first receive the grace of justification, then, all right, we'll get back to this later, okay?

Mr. White, your first question? Dr. Vestigi, the Council of Trent said in Canon 24, if anyone says the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Now, Dr. Vestigi, I am anathematized by Trent because I believe that the righteousness which is mine is the righteousness of Christ and him alone.

How can, Dr. Vestigi, the righteousness of Christ be preserved and increased by good works when it is that is the righteousness of Christ is already obviously perfect?

Well, here again, Mr. White, you hold onto that position because you're simply holding onto your notion of a forensic imputed righteousness or justification and you don't understand that righteousness or justification is something dynamic.

It is a process and it can be increased. You know, I could give you a number of passages here in terms of growth in grace and justification, but a very strong one is given at the end of the book of Revelation 22, verse 11, where the writer says, let the righteous still do right.

And then 2 Peter 3, 18, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

So one can grow in grace. And then Ephesians 4, 23 through 24, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds and put on the new nature created after the likeness of God in true righteousness.

So it's only because you're operating in a way that you do not challenge your definition of righteousness that you cannot see that righteousness or justification is something that we could grow in.

And because you've made a distinction, a sharp distinction between justification, regeneration, and sanctification, that you do not understand that Paul is using all these words in a dynamic way to talk about that transition from being a son or daughter of Adam to being now a son or daughter of God.

This is what Richard Hayes says. This is only one of many metaphors that Paul uses. And yet you simply do not challenge your understanding.

And so basically what you're doing is operating in a circle. You say, well, this is what justification means. Any other passage that doesn't refer to that simply cannot be justification.

Well, this is just simply a circular reason. Well, in response, first of all, all the passages cited,

Dr. Vestigi, only demonstrate to me, and I hope you take this in a proper way, that you have absolutely no idea what

Protestants believe about justification. And even though I've sent you the books and you've read Westminster, Westminster discusses those passages.

Westminster talks about how we are to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. But that doesn't even begin to address the issue of what our position actually is.

And I'm really hoping that maybe sometime we'll have an opportunity of actually hearing what your response is to the Protestant position rather than this straw man that you've erected and that you keep attempting to knock down.

There is nothing contradictory, Dr. Vestigi, between growing in grace and saying the righteousness, which is mine forensically before God, is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

It is perfect and pure and spotless. And my good works cannot be added to it. I'm not sure how clearly

I can attempt to explain to you that you're not addressing the position that you're attempting to debate against.

None of the passages, when you say, let the righteous still do right, all through the New Testament, we have this exhortation for us to do right.

How is that in the least bit contradictory to saying that when I stand before God, I stand before God clothed only in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, not in my righteousness, not in the righteousness of Mary, not in the righteousness of saints or anything else.

I stand solely before God clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ and him alone. As I read to you,

Canon 24, the Council of Trent, it talks about this righteousness being increased and preserved.

But the righteousness that I was asking you about is the righteousness that I have in Jesus Christ. As Paul said in 1

Corinthians 1, verses 30 to 31, but by his doing, you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification, redemption that just as written, let him who boasts, boast in the

Lord. The only boasting that I can have before God, Dr. Vestigi, is in the righteousness of Jesus Christ and in him alone.

That's the righteousness that I was asking you. How can that be increased? That's not the same as growing in grace in any way, shape or form.

Well, I have a little bit of time to respond. Here again, he simply just keeps on repeating his notion of righteousness, which

I do not think is the biblical notion of righteousness. And so he says, whenever it is talking about growing in grace and so forth, that it cannot possibly be talking about justification.

He's simply getting back to his unchallenged premise that righteousness is an imputation once for all.

I'm suggesting that if you really read the New Testament, those who have received the grace of justification can lose it.

Because Paul is writing these letters. For example, you didn't respond to 1 Corinthians 6, 9. Now where he's talking, he's giving these people who have at the beginning, it says that they were the church, they have been sanctified.

But yet he's giving them a solemn warning that if they behave this way, they can, they will not be able to enter the kingdom of God.

Are those who are justified going to enter the kingdom of God? Well, I would hope so. So here again, you're just simply repeating it.

And also to talk about misrepresentation. Three seconds. To talk about misrepresentation.

Sorry. That's all right. All right. Our first question, please. Well, my first question is trying to pursue this matter of whether or not one could lose one's salvation or one's justification.

So I gave all of these passages where Paul, for example, 1

Corinthians 9, 27, I drive my body and train it for fear that having preached to others,

I myself should be disqualified. You see? And then Paul says, I do not thereby stand justified.

The one who judges me is the Lord. Well, you say the judgment has already taken place. Then these warnings.

Whoever thinks he is standing tall, take heed lest he fall. Now, there are all these passages that I've given.

Would you kindly respond to them and tell me why these passages are there? If one who is justified cannot lose his justification.

Well, Dr. Vestigi, you keep saying that my belief in justification is unchallenged. You are, of course, incorrect in that statement.

I have simply provided the many passages from the Bible where it said that the righteousness which is ours is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

And I'm glad that this is coming out because it demonstrates very clearly. Roman Catholicism doesn't understand the righteousness of Christ.

The Roman Catholic does not have the righteousness of Christ. He has a mixture of righteousness of Christ and Mary and saints himself.

And I'm very glad that it's coming out because I hope that the listening audience is able to recognize the vast difference between us on that particular point.

Now, I'd also like to say that I would be more than happy, as I have done in the past, to debate you on the topic of eternal security.

I'd be glad to lay that foundation, so on and so forth, and address every single passage you want to bring out.

But in the very brief amount of time that I have, you've brought up, for example, you just said 1 Corinthians 6, 9, or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

Well, again, if you understood what Protestants believe, as I have attempted to explain to you more times than I can count now, you would recognize when it says that neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers, go down to verse 11, sir.

And such were, past tense, sir, some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. The passage is tremendously plain in saying, that's what you were, this is what you are, not because of being baptized, not because of going through this sacrament or that sacrament.

You were made new. You were justified, how? Solely and completely by Jesus Christ in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. You have been justified in Christ. You've been renewed by the Holy Spirit of God.

You brought up 2 Corinthians 5, 17 passages that Protestants are constantly referring to.

And the fact that we are made new creatures in Jesus Christ. So when you bring up these passages, I can only assume that you're attempting to say, well, look, from my perspective, since the righteousness

I have is this mixed type of righteousness, of course that could be undone. But see, Dr.

Fastigi, if you recognize what the scriptures say in Romans chapter five, for example, that we have been justified by his blood, that we have been justified by the grace of God, then you recognize what kind of righteousness it is that we, in looking at the

Bible, are talking about. The Bible talks about a righteousness that is perfect, a righteousness that is without flaw, without spot.

Why? Because it is not dependent upon my doing good works in a state of grace to cause it to grow or to persevere.

It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And so you say, let's talk about eternal security. Dr. Fastigi, you have an open and public challenge for me right now to debate eternal security.

I'd be glad to do that. I've done it before. But the issue today is, what is righteousness? And since the thesis is that the

Protestant doctrine of sola fide is supported by the Bible, we need to focus in upon the scriptural passages.

You keep saying you've given me all these passages. Sir, I gave you many passages in my opening statement that you haven't even begun to address, which you have to address if you're going to say that you in any way, shape or form have responded in this debate.

The question of eternal security is directly linked to your notion of justification as a once and for all forensic act.

This is not a separate issue. It's very germane to the central issue. Now you keep repeating

Romans 5, 1. Well, look to Romans 11, verse 22,

Paul says, see then the kindness and severity of God, severity towards those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off.

Now, how can you be cut off from God's kindness and not lose righteousness?

So I just find you going around in a circle and you're saying, well, okay, he's writing to in 1

Corinthians 6, 9, he's saying, well, such were some of you, but then why is he giving them a warning? He's recalling the fact that they were baptized and now they're behaving in a way that is unchristian.

So he's calling them back. If some of them that he's writing to have fallen away from the grace, he's calling them back to renewal.

That's the Catholic understanding. And that fits perfectly well with the text. Your understanding has to strain the

Bible in order to understand. You see what I mean? So this is the problem.

I find my position, I find the position of the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. It's also the position in many ways of the

Eastern Orthodox and many other Protestants. I find this position far more supported and can make far more sense of the biblical text than yours.

Now, in regard to merit and are being mixing together our righteousness with the righteousness of God, that's a total canard.

That, sir, is untrue. That is a misrepresentation. You simply do not pay attention to what

I read to you. And it says here, again, in the new catechism, the merit of man before God in the

Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace, but it's his grace.

No. One minute. Thank you very much.

First of all, in regards to 1 Corinthians 6, verse 11, you say I'm straining the

Bible. I would just simply point out to the audience, if you look at the Bible, if you look at the text itself, Dr. Vestigio, to have that right before me, it says, and such were some of you.

Your position ignores the distinction that the apostle makes, because it has to, because it's an unbiblical position. Also, you cite

Romans chapter 11, another glowing example of how Rome takes things out of context. You want to compare that with Romans 5 .1.

The context of Romans 5 .1 is Romans 3, 4, and 5. The subject, how a man is justified before God.

What is the context of Romans 11? Jews as a nation, Gentiles as a nation. Completely different context.

Mixing context, you have to do it because it's the only way that you can substantiate your position. And again, you say this is the natural outcome of my view of justification.

Of course. Salvation is of God, therefore it's eternal. It is definitely a good subject. However, as I said,

I'd be glad to debate you on it, but not in three minutes. Let's stick to the topic of this debate. Dr.

Vestigio, Matthias Prim, in his work, Dogmatic Theology for the Laid, he said, quote, it is a universally accepted dogma of the

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

In the next page, he says, we have shown that according to the Holy Scripture, the Christian can actually merit heaven for himself by his good works.

Could you please explain what is wrong with this statement and why a Roman Catholic theologian would make such a statement?

Yes, I don't think it's carefully worded. You know, I think he has to drive home the point, and perhaps he does in other parts, that our good works are not our own.

And that our good works are what we call our good works done in grace are the works of Christ.

See, this is how Kajitan puts it, I think, very well. He says, just as Paul can say, I live now, not

I, Christ lives in me. Paul could also say, I merit now, not

I, Christ merits in me. Now, the reason why we speak of merit is because the

New Testament itself talks about reward and talks about recompense. So we just simply can't ignore all of these passages.

You know, in Matthew 5, 12, Jesus says, be glad and rejoice for your reward in heaven is great.

Or even more strong is Matthew 25, verse 34 through 35. Jesus says, come, blessed by my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

And then he goes on to say, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty. So in other words, and so he says, and so therefore, at the end of that, that description, he says, then the, the wicked will go off to everlasting punishment and the righteous will go on to everlasting life.

Not a word in that passage, Mr. White, about faith. It's totally a description of works.

And then what do they receive in compensation for their deeds of mercy? They receive eternal life.

Now that is coming from the mouth of our savior, our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, of course, we cannot say then that they're human work.

We'd have to read the rest of the Bible and say, well, all right, we can only do works of righteousness, saving works of righteousness through the grace of Jesus Christ.

But here is where I think Catholicism is quite correct. Quite correct to point out the fact that God has chosen to freely associate himself with our work of redemption.

And synergy is not a bad word, certainly not for Eastern Orthodoxy, certainly not for Catholicism, because it's biblical.

Second Corinthians six, one working together with him. Sinner Guntets, first Corinthians three, nine.

We are co -workers of God, sin air going. I mean, after all, second

Peter one, four tells us that we are to share the divine nature. This is what I find wrong with the

Protestant position, or at least your Protestant position is that there's no sense of this being now made new in Christ in the sense that now we in working are doing really the works of Christ because we are his body, you see.

So as Paul says, we are, as it were, ambassadors of Christ, God working through us.

That's right. I want everyone to focus in upon the statement of my opponent. Our good works are not our own.

No one in this debate has denied that Roman Catholicism says that grace is necessary for salvation and that the good works that we do are not those that are done in the state of grace.

Everyone agrees that's what Rome teaches. However, with reference to justification, a council of Trent said, those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification can again be justified when moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery by the merits of Christ of the grace lost.

So you have this grace idea of it being a substance, of it being infused into people and here it's something that is lost.

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such merit the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him justified or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

This is what I have been talking about. I have not in any way, shape or form misrepresented Roman Catholicism at all. The passages that he brings up in regards to reward have nothing to do with the concept of merit as we're talking about here in regards to merit, in regards to sin, merits and eternal life.

These are rewards. He says we have synergy in the Bible. Again, context means nothing to the

Roman Catholic position. 2 Corinthians 6, 1 has been cited twice now by my opponent. Here is synergy. They're working together with God in regards to what?

In regards to increasing their justification, in regards to merit and eternal life. No. The context has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the application being made by my opponent.

I hope that people will take the time to look up every one of these passages and examine the context for themselves and see for themselves that in this situation, every time that a passage has been presented by my opponent, when we look at the context, it's either irrelevant to the position

I've presented or it's not in the context that it was initially presented in the Bible. Mr.

White, I defy you to show anywhere in the Council of Trent where grace is spoken of as a substance.

In fact, that is a, that in terms of the language of substance and accident, grace would have to be understood as an accident.

In terms of the catechism of the Council of Trent, sanctifying grace or justifying grace, because we understand them as one and the same is defined as a divine quality that inheres in the soul.

And in the new catechism, it is defined as participation in the intimate life of God.

Now, regarding this notion of synergy and so on, again, you have misrepresented our position.

I'll quote again from the new catechism. It says the merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. Then it quotes

St. Augustine, grace has gone before us. Now we are given what is due. Our merits are

God's gifts. And then to go even beyond this in terms of this, when we receive, when

God gives rewards for merits, he's giving rewards to Christ who's operating through us.

Your next question. Well, I just wonder how you can still continue to use that phrase, that hallowed phrase, sola fide, by faith alone, when the one time it is used in the

New Testament is to deny it. Where James says very clearly, how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

But even stronger than that, if you turn to the Sermon on the Mount, chapter five, Jesus says, if you do not forgive others, their sins against you, neither will your heavenly father forgive you.

You say, now there's a warning. Something else is needed besides faith. You have to forgive.

And then in chapter 18 of the Gospel of Matthew, there's the parable of the unmerciful servant.

And he has that faith. He puts his faith, he puts that mercy in what his master can do.

So his debt is totally forgiven. But when then someone else owes him money, oh, he doesn't forgive.

And so then he's sent to the torturers. Again, we see the vast difference between the

Gospel, the Scriptures and the Gospel of Rome. Christians know that, as Paul said to the

Colossians, forgive one another. Why? How? On what basis? Because Christ has forgiven you.

You see, now we're starting to hear all these other things that Rome wants to add to the finished work of Christ. Taking a passage where the

Lord Jesus is talking about our moral encounters with other men and applying it to, again, something completely different, missing the fact that the

Scripture says that men are dead in sin, that men have no capacity to forgive others outside of their having experienced forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

He keeps asking me, how can you use this phrase when the only time it's used in the Bible is in James 2?

Well, you who are listening heard me explain that what James is discussing in James 2 is a dead faith.

You heard me say from the beginning of my presentation that what Protestants believe is in a saving faith, saving faith which is the gift of God given to his people in regeneration and in sanctification.

I can only conclude that Dr. Vestigi cannot deal with the Protestant position and has to continue to misrepresent it, continue to attack a straw man because the fact that James 2 is irrelevant to my position, because the fact that James is talking about a dead faith.

And the Westminster Confession which he has cited himself over and over again says the faith that we say saves alone is not dead faith, it is the supernatural gift of God to his people.

I said that in my opening statements, the Westminster Confession says that, my book says that, that he quoted from, and hence to not deal with that issue and not deal with the reality of saving faith is simply to attack a straw man, is to engage in misrepresentation.

The scriptures teach us in Galatians chapter 2, nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of law, but through faith in Christ Jesus.

This is the faith we are talking about. He does not say that a man is justified by baptism, that he is re -justified by sacraments, that his justification is increased by going to mass or by having merits or indulgences or any of the rest of these things.

That's foreign to the New Testament, utterly outside of anything that the New Testament writers ever thought or ever believed.

Paul said that we are justified not by the works of law, but through faith in Christ Jesus. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ.

That is how a person is justified, by faith in Christ. A dead faith, as James says? No. The faith that Paul said,

Ephesians 2, 8 -9, for we have been saved not from things that we have done, but by his grace.

Why? How? Unto good works they flow from the work of God in our heart.

It must be this way. He talks about synergy. He talks about co -laborers.

What we're hearing now is that Christ needs co -saviors. Christ needs people to engage in the work of saving us.

And I say to you, the Bible, the New Testament, says there is one Savior, and it's Jesus Christ. He shares his glory with none other.

Well, I would think that 1 Corinthians 13, 2 utterly destroys this response, because this is

Paul himself speaking, using the word faith, and talking not about a dead faith, but a faith that's strong enough to move mountains.

And he says, but if I have faith great enough to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

How can you be nothing and stand in the righteousness of God? Now, I want to point out here that our

Lord is talking about people who are not going to go to heaven. You have to answer me this.

If someone is justified, can that person not enter heaven? And he's mentioning here that those who do not forgive will not be forgiven.

Now, you have added something now to faith. Your position really is in faith alone, because you say it must be a saving faith.

Well, that's what I pointed out before. The Westminster Confession is dealing with illogic. You say it can never, it's the alone instrument, but it's not alone.

Well, either it's alone or it's not alone. If it's not alone. All right. Congratulations. You've come over to the true biblical teaching that faith alone is not, does not justify us.

But you cannot have it both ways. You're playing language games. You're playing word games. I'm reading the

New Testament. Jesus is giving warnings about people who will not be forgiven because they have not, they have not forgiven others.

And also, Mr. White, to repeat, we believe in the grace of Jesus Christ and we believe that we cannot forgive without the grace of Jesus Christ.

Do not refer to these actions as coming from the natural man. The Catholic Church is quite clear that true increase in justification can only come about through those who have received the total unmerited gift of sanctifying grace.

Now, you brought up about baptism and concession and so on. Those are not human works, Mr. White.

Those are the works of Jesus Christ. Dr. Fastigi says the

First Corinthians 13, 2 utterly destroys my response. I again invite everyone who has a Bible to turn there and discover that yet again, context means nothing to Dr.

Fastigi's argument. The passage that is alluded to there is that when Paul talks about the need of having love.

Well, of course, if Dr. Fastigi had read the Westminster Confession of Faith or any of the materials that were provided to him, he would know what the position is, as I stated again in my opening statement, that when

God justifies a person, he does not simply declare him righteous and then walk off. He regenerates him and makes him a new person.

He sanctifies him. He gives him the gifts of faith, repentance. And what does a new nature created in Christ Jesus naturally do?

But love God. Again, Dr. Fastigi says, oh, the Westminster Confession of Faith is illogical because it, what, defines its own terms?

Because it starts from the premise, which Dr. Fastigi does not share with me, that all of salvation is solely, solely the work of God.

There is no synergy. That's not illogical. Dr. Fastigi is being illogical in his criticism.

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

Could you please show us a single passage of scripture, Dr. Fastigi, that presents the idea that eternal life is given to us on the basis of our having merited it by doing good works in a state of grace?

Hebrews 6 .10, for God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated.

And then 1 Corinthians 15 .48, just as we have borne the image of the earthly one, we also bear the image of the heavenly one.

So in other words, when we receive a reward, as the

New Catechism points out very well, it's really God rewarding what

Christ has done in us. It says here in the New Catechism, man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God for his good actions precede in Christ from the predispositions and assistance given by the

Holy Spirit. Filial adoption and making us partakers by grace in the divine nature can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice.

Now, I cited Matthew 25. No one could do those works of mercy and have it be meritorious in terms of the gift of eternal life without the grace of Jesus Christ.

But this is where Jesus Christ does not make us merely passive. He wants us to be mature.

He says, I come no longer to call you servants, but to call us friends. And I think he takes delight when we freely cooperate with his grace so he can create us anew, so he could look upon us and see how his grace has brought us into that state where we are doing the works of mercy that he wants to be done to his children.

And then he could say, come blessed of my father. Here is the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of time.

See, now we'd have to raise the question of free will. And you mentioned Luther at the very beginning of your opening remarks.

Luther doesn't care a thing about scripture. Erasmus keeps repeating scripture after scripture that implies free will.

And Luther just brushes them aside as entirely irrelevant. Well, I'd invite anyone to read

Luther's response to Erasmus and find out that that's obviously not the case. However, I asked you a question to give us one passage.

And I guess since you didn't give us a passage, that means you can't. Hebrews 6, 10, for God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward his name in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.

The question I asked you, could you please show us a single passage of scripture that presents the idea that eternal life is given to us on the basis of our having merited it by doing good works in a state of grace?

You showed us nothing. None of the passages had anything whatsoever to do with state of grace, eternal life, merit, or anything of the kind.

So I can only assume that that means that there are no such passages as has been my position all along.

I'd love to address some of the other things that you brought up there, but I don't want to go off on other topics. All right.

Well, I will raise another question here. Why was it that Luther called the letter of James an epistle of straw if he did not realize that it contradicted his position?

A biographer of Luther, Herbert Rick, points out that Luther hated to read 1

Corinthians 13. He couldn't stand to read the gospel of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount, and he could not stand the passage which

I cited to you, which does support the idea that God does reward the righteous, you see, and those who go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Why? Because they have done deeds of mercy through the power of grace. You just ignore these passages.

But I would like to know how you could say that the letter of James does not challenge the Protestant position when the original

Protestant realized that it did. Well, the original Protestant was the Apostle Paul, and hence, obviously, that's not the case at all.

I do not believe in the inerrancy of Martin Luther. Martin Luther didn't believe in his own inerrancy, so I'm not going to attempt to defend it.

I disagree with his view on James. I have exegeted James. I have demonstrated that James is talking about a dead faith. The materials you have in front of you demonstrate that that is the position that we take, and hence, to attack somebody else's position is not relevant.

But in your question, you did bring up extraneous issues such as Matthew chapter 25. And you said, well, this does show that good works done in a state of grace are rewarded with eternal life.

The question we have to ask about Matthew 25, laying aside the issue of the fact that this is the judgment of nations and not even getting into the whole discussion of what that particularly means.

The issue we have to ask is, is Matthew chapter 25 to be taken in isolation from all the rest of Scripture and said, well, what this means is that if you do these good works, you're going to heaven.

And if you don't do these good works, you're not going to go to heaven. Do we throw Romans out? Do we throw Galatians out? Do we throw these things out and say, well, they're not relevant.

We don't introduce these things. No. The problem we're facing with here, of course, is the question is, is Matthew chapter 25 telling us this is how a person gets into heaven?

Or is it telling us that those who are going to go into heaven act in this way? Is it prescriptive?

This is how you do it because if it is, we're all lost. Or is it descriptive? As Paul said in Ephesians 2, 8 through 9 and verse 10, those who receive salvation from God alone are those who are created in Christ Jesus unto good works.

And hence, Jesus is describing those who have come to have salvation in Jesus Christ.

Which is it? There's only one that is consistent with all of Scripture. I'd like to point out to you that many of the things that my opponent are reading are not

Scripture. They are Roman Catholic documents that force him to take certain understandings of Scripture.

He says, I'm running in circles. I'd like to submit to you that since Dr. Fastigi is the one who believes in an infallible interpreter, he can't deal with these

Scripture passages in an honest way. He has to deal with them as Rome tells him to deal with them. Do I have one minute response?

2 Timothy 4, 8 tells us from now on the crown of righteousness awaits me, Paul says, which the

Lord, the just judge will award me on that day. Well, what is the crown of righteousness but eternal life?

And he's giving it to him as a reward. But regarding this whole, this whole idea of skirting the issue and so on, you have skirted the issue because I mentioned

Matthew 25, oh, well, it's dealing with the judgment of the nations and so on. The point is, our

Lord is saying that people who do not do deeds of mercy will not go to heaven.

And so something else is needed besides faith. That's the issue today. We're not discussing grace alone.

The Catholic church is totally in agreement with you that it is by grace and grace alone.

But what we're saying here is if you look at the scriptures, something more is required than just faith.

And then you just beg the question when you say it's a saving faith. Hey, it's a saving faith.

Well, then to make it a saving faith, it must have something other than faith. Your closing statement.

So we're down to that point. All right. Thank you very much. I believe I have five minutes.

Yes, you do. Thank you very much. The biblical data has already been presented to you.

Those of you who have listened to this recognize that my opening statement has gone about 90 percent unresponded to.

When one takes the Protestant position for what it actually says and not for what one might wish it to say or what one's church says it must say, the thesis statement has been plainly supported.

When one remembers the divinely defined relationship of faith and works expressed by Paul in Ephesians 2, 8 through 10, and I just want to pause just briefly enough to point out in Ephesians chapter two and Paul talks about and that not of yourselves is a gift of God.

He uses a Greek construction that wraps up everything that came before, which includes faith. Dr. Pestigi says the

Westminster Confession of Faith is adding something we say saving faith. Well, I just want you to think about what it really means to say, well, if you distinguish living faith from dead faith, then you're violating sola scriptura sola fide.

No, not in any way, shape or form. That's not illogical. That's just being rational. When one remembers the relationship that is established by Ephesians 2, 8 through 10, the objections based upon the oft repeated exhortations to good works are seen to fall to the ground when faced with the plain teaching of the supremacy of God's free grace in Jesus Christ.

I would like to assert, however, the Roman Catholic denial of the thesis is not a fully honest one.

Dr. Pestigi has to believe the thesis to be incorrect, not because the biblical data forces him to do so, but because Rome has told him he must believe that way.

Rome has taken the place of scripture in holding the highest authority in Roman theology itself. And hence, when

Rome says the Protestant position is unsupportable, things like grammar, syntax, context, backgrounds, or what

Protestants themselves say they believe becomes utterly irrelevant. Indeed, the creed of Pius IV requires all who subscribe to it to promise this, quote,

I admit holy scripture according to that sense which has been and is held by Holy Mother Church, whose province it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of scripture, end quote.

Rome has based many of her infallible teachings on the most tortured interpretation of biblical passages in the past.

For example, the Second Nicene Council defended the use of images in worship by citing from the

Psalms the statement of David, Show me thy face. And the Council of Trent, which we have cited from many times, interpreted

James 5, verse 14 in this way, by which words, as the Church has learned from apostolic tradition, the apostle teaches the matter, form, the proper minister, and the effect of the sacrament.

For the Church has understood that the matter is oil blessed by the bishop, that the form is those words per istum unctionum, et cetera, end quote, and so on.

These interpretations are binding upon the Roman Catholic, even though they are utterly unsustainable by any kind of logical interpretation of the words themselves.

Hence, the circularity of the position as seen by Dr. George Salmon in these words, if that Church condescends to offer proofs of her doctrine, she claims to be the sole judge whether what she offers are proofs or not.

If she presents a scripture proof, she claims to be the sole interpreter of scripture, and she requires you to believe on her word, not only that the doctrine in question is true, but also that it is taught in the passage of scripture, which she alleges in support of it, end quote.

Hence, the Roman insistence that the scriptures teach her position is a circular one. I invite the

Roman Catholics who hear this debate to consider well the biblical citations and exegesis provided, remembering that I, as a reformed theologian, am under the ultimate authority of scripture.

My beliefs must constantly be reformed by the word of God. I claim no infallible authority, but instead bow to the speaking of God in scripture.

As the early Christians had to say to the Jews who were Pharisees or Sadducees, step aside from the traditions you've been taught and examine them in the light of scripture.

As I have to say to Mormon people, step aside from your faith in Joseph Smith, so I have to say to Roman Catholic people, step aside from your allegiance to the papacy and to an infallible teaching authority and let those things stand in the light of scripture, what

God has revealed. And when we do that, we see that a man is justified by faith apart from deeds of law, apart from sacraments, apart from meritorious actions done in a state of grace.

We see that a man is justified freely by grace. Why? Why did Paul say? So it might be in accordance with the freeness of God's grace.

By faith, so it might be in accordance with grace. Grace cannot allow the coexistence of merit along with it.

And this is plainly what Romans taught us. They may say, well, but that merit is just what God has done in us. That doesn't change anything.

Jesus Christ needs no co -saviors. He needs no co -workers. He is able to save completely because we are justified not by actions that we undergo in a state of grace.

We are justified, as Paul said, by the shed blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from all sins.

That's the gospel. That's the thesis. Sola Fide. So it may be by grace alone. Thank you.

I have never heard five minutes of so many misrepresentations of Catholic belief in my life.

You know, bringing up the Second Council of Nicaea and so on. That forbade worship of images.

It allowed for the rightful veneration of them. And then he says, Rome has put its own authority above that of the

Bible. No. Read Dei Verbum of Vatican II, Mr. White. It says that the magisterium of the church is not above the word of God, but is its servant.

I'm going to recall the basic resolution for today's debate, that the

Protestant doctrine of justification, sola fide, by faith alone, can be sustained on the part of the biblical data.

I pointed out to you the one time, the only time the Bible uses that phrase, faith alone is to reject it.

And Luther was quite aware of this, and he tried to insert it there in his German translation of Romans 328, which shows how dishonest he really was.

All right. Well, our man is not a Lutheran, but that whole distorted notion of this extrinsic justification comes from the movement that Luther started.

We wonder, how can it be that so many of these great saints, these great theological schools, miss the meaning of scripture?

And then these people come out of 16th century Wittenberg and Geneva, and they have the truth.

I would ask you, Mr. White, to be much more humble. You have not defended the thesis, because I have shown you that it is not by faith alone on the basis of scripture.

First Corinthians 13, 2, Paul makes the distinction between faith and love, that you can have faith without love.

Otherwise, he wouldn't have said that. And he gives the warning. If I have faith great enough to move mountains, which sounds to me like very strong faith, but have not love,

I am nothing. Galatians 5, 6, neither circumcision or the lack of it accounts for anything, but faith working through love.

Now you say, well, that's saving, that's saving faith. Yes, it is saving faith because it's not faith alone.

It's saving faith because it's completed by love. So your resolution has been defeated. You simply go back to your uncontested premises.

And so you do not seem to appreciate all the logic. You say faith alone, but it's not alone because to be made saving, it has to work through love.

That disproves your own contention, Mr. White. There's so many other things I could say, but I want to invite the people to read the

Bible and see where Jesus is calling us to new life. And we could only have this new life through his grace, but that grace must grow.

And the more we turn to Christ, as Jesus says in the gospel of John, turn to me and I will turn to you.

I'd like to ask, Mr. White, whose faith is his? Is God doing the believing for you?

Isn't that synergy? Isn't it Mr. White's faith? So this position that he defends, again,

I'll return to my litany at the beginning. It is unscriptural because it's directly contradicted by the one passage in scripture that uses that phrase.

And you just can't brush it aside while he's talking about another kind of faith. Paul himself tells us that you could have faith and not have love.

And if you have that kind of faith, it's not sufficient. And then he says, oh, well, if you have saving faith, you will have love.

Well, then you've just gone around in a circle and you've refuted your own position because then it's not by faith alone.

But you can have faith without love. And you say that's dead faith. Well, these distinctions then are so qualified the position of faith alone as the alone instrument.

Then you've added all these other things. And it seems like you cannot admit what the Bible says.

In a way, indirectly, you're saying it, but you're doing a two -step. You're being dishonest and you're not looking at the basic text of the scripture.

James is quite clear. Two, twenty, four. See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

And he gives the example of Abraham. Now, Mr. White might say, well, Abraham had already been justified.

Yeah. So he goes back to his own notion that justification is a once and for all event. The fact that he was also being justified with his works, which were really graces from God, accompanying his faith through circumcision was a sign that justification is something ongoing.

So James itself refutes his whole position. And I have shown scripture after scripture about how one could lose one's justification.

And he simply just brushes this all aside. First Corinthians 4, 4. I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand justified.

Now, why is he not justified? Was Paul lacking in faith? Paul had great faith, but he was not claiming to be justified on the basis of faith alone.

Thank you, Dr. Fastigi. Thank you, Mr. White. We hope you've enjoyed our debate today. This is the first in a series of four debates with these gentlemen.