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.

The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone

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 scriptures' 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 worketh 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.".

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. Are we justified only after being baptized? Is justification something that can be undone by human evil? Are we required to go through a sacrament of confession involving contrition, confession, doing works of satisfaction?

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

Before engaging the specific scriptural passages that teach justification by faith alone, I wish to emphasize something that 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 -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,.

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, quote, knowing that a man is not justified by works of law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, for no flesh shall be justified by works of law, 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 third chapter, quote, therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of law, end quote, he went on to assert, quote, now to the one who works, the wage is not reckoned as a gift but as what is due, but to the one who does not work but rather believes upon the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

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 the 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? 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 chapter 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 a 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.

Thank you very much. I want to let you know that it is my honor to be here, and I am 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 is 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 inherence 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 1 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. If the Westminster Confession of Faith tells us in chapter 11, section 2, I'm sorry, in chapter 1, section 9, 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 2, 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 that James does not understand faith in the same way as Paul.

But this is refuted by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13, 2. 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 ten 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 -21, and in Romans 6, 11 -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 words sedica 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, 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 believer's 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.

Second 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. 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. In 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 saved.

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.

Well, 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 had nothing to do with justification as I presented it, and hence the 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 a 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 with a number of other canons, Canon 24, Canon 32, which present the same position in regards to the Church of Rome. Now, Dr. Ficici 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 some place where we're not discussing that particular issue, but immediately Dr. Ficici went ahead and did that.