Justification by Faith (White vs Pacwa)

We'll begin with Mr. White, and he will have 25 minutes for an opening statement.

Then, Father Pacwa will have 25 minutes for an opening statement. Following that, we will alternate back and forth.

Mr. White will then have 12 minutes to either complete his statement or and rebut

Father Pacwa. Then, Father Pacwa will have 12 minutes to either complete and or rebut

Reverend White. Then, there will be a second rebuttal of 7 minutes from Mr.

White and 7 minutes from Father Pacwa. Then, we will take a 15 -minute break. Following the break, we will have a third rebuttal of 7 minutes for each participant.

Then, we will get into, after the break, a question and answer period. During that question and answer period, again, we will alternate.

Reverend White will ask Father Pacwa a question. Back and forth, each will have an opportunity to ask the other two questions.

Then, we will ask the questions that you pose from the audience. We hope to get through more than two each, but we may be limited in terms of time because we do want to get you out of here at a particular time.

This is a very important topic, and I think it's fundamental for each and every one of us to determine, you know, how are we saved, if you will, and putting it down into the vernacular.

How are we saved? This is an opportunity for us to, if you will, an exercise in ecumenism.

If we each will have an open mind and listen to both sides. You may not agree with Reverend White.

You may not agree with Father Pacwa. But if you leave here with a good, solid understanding of each side's position, then we can consider the evening a success.

Whether you can say there was a winner and a loser, I don't think that's important. I think we can all win if we all listen, and we have an opportunity to grow as Christians and grow as a

Christian family. I would ask you to be disciplined, that if you agree or disagree,

I would prefer, to put it simply, we came here to listen to them, not to listen to you.

So please keep your comments, even though this may be a very volatile, a very personal subject.

I would ask you to keep comments to yourself. If at the end of the time that a speaker, when he finishes speaking, you would like to express your appreciation with applause, please do so.

But please, no comments. All right? I'd like to begin right now by inviting

Mr. White for 25 minutes for his opening statement.

I thank all of you for being here this evening and for braving the weather to be with us tonight to discuss a very important topic.

Dr. Paco, I'm honored that you're here this evening, sir. We are dealing, as has been said, with a very large and difficult subject.

Yet we are dealing with what I believe is the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I want to invite all who are present this evening to pay close attention to all that is said.

It is my desire that all that are here this evening would have a clear knowledge of both sides of this debate question when they leave this evening.

To allow for a full understanding of the Protestant position, I will have to at least give a brief outline of the

Roman Catholic position. I'm sure Dr. Paco will do a fine job in stating even more clearly the

Roman Catholic position during the time that is allotted to him. However, for purposes of contrast,

I need to provide you with some of that information. The Protestant, and I believe the biblical doctrine of justification, differs from the

Roman Catholic view in four very important and I believe foundational aspects.

First of all, we differ on the meaning and the extent of the term justification.

Secondly, we differ on the meaning and the extent and the purpose of the term impute or imputation.

What does it mean that righteousness is imputed? Thirdly, we differ on the instrument by which justification takes place.

Is it faith alone or faith plus works? And that goes back to the meaning of justification itself as well.

And finally, and I believe most importantly, I believe that we differ on the grounds or the basis upon which sinful men are justified.

I shall deal with these four areas as being most important in my thinking this evening.

Now, in defining the Roman Catholic perspective on this subject, I would like to turn to the

Council of Trent, which defined justification as follows. Justification is a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God, the second

Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation, however, cannot, since the promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through the labor of regeneration or its desire, end quote.

That is, by baptism, which Trent said, without which no man was ever justified finally.

Therefore, the initial means of justification is baptism, according to the Roman Catholic position. The Council of Trent then went on to assert that God gives to men predisposing grace so that they, quote, may be disposed through his quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the

Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in his sight.

The Catholic position asserts that, quote, faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification.

We are therefore said to be justified gratuitously because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification, end quote.

Notice what is said here. According to Trent, we can say that we are justified by grace or gratuitously solely because those things that precede justification, faith and works, are prompted and aided by God's grace.

The process of justification is based upon God's grace, but from our perspective, it is not completely of God's grace, and it cannot be said that God's grace alone, without human activity and human merit, is sufficient to bring about complete and full justification.

The justified person is told that, quote, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the

Church, faith, cooperating with good works, increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified, end quote.

It seems clear then, from the Protestant perspective, that the justice that is received is not, as Protestants understand it, that is the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, for how could the righteousness of Christ be increased or a person grow in that?

Faith alone is explicitly denied as being the sole instrument of justification, for Trent says, quote, wherefore no one ought to flatter himself with faith alone, thinking that by faith alone he has made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, end quote.

Roman Catholicism teaches that the grace of justification can be gained and lost. Gained and lost,

Trent said, quote, 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.

Hence, it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism and that it includes not only a determination to avoid sins and a hatred of them, but also the sacramental confession of those sins, at least in desire to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life.

Not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishments, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted as is done in baptism.

Justification in Roman Catholic theology involves an infusion of grace, the grace of justification, into the individual.

This involves a subjective change in the person. Because of the subjective change in the person, he is enabled, through the power of grace, to do good works.

And these works are, according to the Council of Trent, meritorious in God's sight.

We read, quote, 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 Jesus Christ, and as a reward promised by God Himself to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.

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.

It must be emphasized this evening that eternal life is merited by the good works performed by the person in the state of grace.

The basis, then, of one's final salvation is not solely the work of Christ. Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote,

By his good works, the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God, end quote.

And Matthias Prem also wrote, quote, Man, for his part, in order to arrive at full sanctification, must cooperate with the grace of the

Holy Spirit through faith, hope, love of God and neighbor, and prayer, but he must also perform other works.

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.

We have shown that according to the Holy Scripture, the Christian can actually merit heaven for himself by his good works.

Therefore, we see that justification, the Roman Catholic understanding, encompasses the entire concept of forgiveness as well as sanctification, for it involves a subjective inward change in the individual.

Justification is not solely a process of imputation, but a process of infusion of grace into the individual.

Finally, the grounds of justification is not solely the work of Jesus Christ. While Christ's passion merits the grace of justification, this grace then produces good works which form part of the basis of final salvation of the individual.

It might be added that the Council of Trent provided numerous anathemas or condemnations for those who would knowingly disagree with its teachings.

Now, in contrast to the Roman position, allow me to provide the Protestant position, taken this evening from the 1689

Baptist Confession of Faith, which agrees word for word with the Westminster Confession of Faith in defining justification.

May I ask you please to listen closely to what is said. Quote, Those whom God effectually calleth, 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 act of 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 of the 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 in 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. The Westminster Shorter Catechism summed it up well by stating in question 33,

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

Now I'd ask you to note the following items. Justification is said to be an act of God as judge 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 it is not based upon anything done in or done by the believer.

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

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

Holy Spirit of God. Justification, while distinct from sanctification, cannot possibly be separated from it.

God changes man in regeneration and in 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 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 or sins of man.

We look back upon our justification just as Paul wrote in Romans 5 .1, Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. Now, in the time remaining, we must look to God's word to reveal to us which perspective is true.

For, as Jesus said to the Father, Your word is truth. That which does not accord with the

Bible cannot possibly call for the allegiance of the heart of the Christian. 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? I shall use what seems to have been a favorite passage of the

Apostle Paul, Genesis chapter 15, verse 6, to help give order and cohesiveness to my presentation of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith.

Genesis 15 .6, as many of you know, says, And, speaking of Abram, he believed in Yahweh, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

The first concept to examine is that of faith. Abram believed in God. We assert that man is justified by this kind of faith and not by any other actions.

This is exactly what Paul said when he faced Peter in Antioch. Remember what happened in Galatians chapter 2. Peter had seriously compromised the gospel by withdrawing from table fellowship with the

Gentiles. In rebuking him, Paul said in the 16th verse of the 2nd chapter, 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.

He took our central passage this evening, Genesis 15 .6, and made the same point in Romans chapter 4, one of the clearest and,

I believe, most obvious arguments for justification by faith. Having concluded the first section of the book of Romans in the 28th verse of the 3rd chapter by saying,

Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of law, he wanted to cite our passage in verse 3 of chapter 4, and immediately upon citing the justification of Abram, Paul asserted this,

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. They are two roads that go 180 degrees from one another and it's impossible to walk down this road and that road at the same time.

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, verses 21 -25, But now, apart from the law, a righteousness from God has been revealed, being witness 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 he says the same thing in Titus 3 .7.

Is Paul contradicting himself by saying that we are justified by grace and that we are justified by faith?

Not at all. As Paul explains in Romans 4 .16, justification is by faith alone so that it would be in concert with grace.

Faith, that Paul is talking about, abandons all efforts at work or merit and realizes man's complete dependence upon God, not just for the provision of a way of salvation, a plan of salvation, but for the entire action of salvation itself.

We are saved by grace. We are kept by grace throughout eternity. For salvation to be of grace, it cannot possibly be of works.

As Paul said in Romans 11 .6, it is either on the basis of works or is on the basis 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.

Listen to 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, as Paul said in Galatians 2 .21.

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 works of 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 the law to do them.

But that no one shall be justified before God by law is evident, for the just shall live by faith.

Now, the impossibility in my opinion of the Roman position is clearly seen. Faith plus works nullifies grace.

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

Are there not many passages that say this? Well, of course there are. But the only one who can do good works is the one who has already been justified.

As Paul taught the Ephesians, Ephesians 2, 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 hath 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. But salvation is not of man or by man.

It is of and by God and God alone. 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. Now, the next term we need to examine in Genesis chapter 15, verse 6, in the few minutes we have left, is the term translated reckoned or imputed.

The Hebrew term kashav has some very interesting uses in the Old Testament. We need to discover the background of Paul's use of the term, as it is found relative to the imputation of righteousness, for example, in Romans 4.

A few examples in Genesis chapter 31, verse 15, Rachel and Leah, Jacob's wives, speak of their father and the treatment they have received at his hand.

They say, do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father's house? Are we not reckoned or imputed by him as foreigners?

Of course, Rachel and Leah were not actually foreigners, but they were reckoned as such, treated as such, by their father.

Another example of this usage is Leviticus 17 .4. Hear any man who did not bring an animal he had slaughtered to the door of the tabernacle as an offering to the

Lord, as the scripture says, quote, blood guiltiness is to be reckoned to that man, end quote.

Surely this guilt is not infused into the man, but he is legally declared guilty of blood for his trespass.

One other quick example. In Leviticus chapter 25, verse 31, the law concerning redemption rights is presented.

We read, quote, the houses of the villages, however, which have no surrounding walls, shall be considered, reckoned, imputed as open fields.

They have redemption rights and revert in the Jubilee, end quote. The houses in unwalled villages were to be treated as if they were open fields.

They were not, of course, open fields, ask anyone who lived in one, but legally they were treated as if they were.

All the examples that I have provided to you of this use of the Hebrew term are translated in the

Greek Septuagint by the very same term Paul uses in Romans chapter 4 when he speaks of the imputation or reckoning of righteousness to the believer, that being the

Greek term, legizimai. I suggest that it is the proper background for Paul's understanding of the term in Genesis 15, 6 as well.

To reckon something to someone's account does not involve a subjective change in that person.

This is especially clear in a legal context and that is what we have in Romans chapters 3 and 4.

As time is fleeting, I shall turn quickly to the next important term, that being the term righteousness. Abram believed

God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Christ became sin in our place that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

What do these terms mean? The Hebrew term tzedakah carries two main thoughts. It is often used of what we normally consider as moral righteousness or a brightness.

The New Testament uses the term in this way as well, for example, in describing Joseph as a righteous man in Matthew 1 .19

and Luke 1 .6 where Zechariah and Elizabeth are described as just. But the Hebrew tzedakah also carries a forensic or legal concept of being right in the eyes of law, right in relationship to the law.

This is often the case when the verb form is used, specifically, especially the hephel forms.

There are a number of examples of this usage in the Old Testament. They include Exodus 23 .7, Proverbs 17 .15,

but I shall use just one example, Deuteronomy 25 .1. If there is a dispute between men and they go to court and the judges decide their case and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.

Note the context. We are in a law court. To justify the righteous obviously means to give a legal, forensic declaration regarding his proper standing before the law.

This is clearly seen by the term that is paralleled with the act of justifying, that is to condemn. Neither involves a subjective change of the individual.

The righteous man was righteous inwardly even before the declaration of his righteousness, just as the guilty man was guilty before the proclamation of his guilt and condemnation.

Now in the time that I have after Dr. Pacwa's opening statements, I will continue at this point dealing with the meaning of the term righteousness as it is used by Paul, but my time has escaped me.

Dr. Pacwa, the podium is yours, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. White.

I appreciate your comments. I appreciate also that you used the documents and used the sources that we're dealing with, namely those of Trent and the

Protestant statements of faith as well. I approach this as somebody, like all of us who exist, that needs justification myself.

I approach this as someone who takes a look at the scriptures and looks to them as the inerrant word of God, that which is the norm for our faith, as the

Catholic Church teaches and has taught from its beginning. And I want to understand this issue of justification, especially as the scriptures teach it.

And as it turns out, I believe that that teaching is found in its fullness in the

Catholic Church. Now, I also would like to begin with a contrast by looking at the doctrine of justification as taught by the

Reformers. We see that this idea of justification by faith alone is not a doctrine that's early in the

Church. It appears with the Protestant Reformation. The strongest advocate of the doctrine of justification by faith alone was

Martin Luther, even more strong and clear on that than John Calvin or Zwingli or the other

Reformers. He looked to St. Paul to find this doctrine, a doctrine of justification that originally had frightened

Martin Luther. He was afraid of God's justice because he saw it as the justice that would condemn him.

But as he studied Romans as a professor of scripture, he found another sense of justification, one in which he believed it to be a gift he received from God.

And that understanding of justification as a gift from God imputed to him, given to him freely by grace without any merit on his part, gave him peace of mind.

And he taught that doctrine. However, Dr. Martin Luther also realized that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not a doctrine that is found in the text of scripture explicitly.

He recognized that by the fact that when he translated Romans 3, twice he added the word only as a modifier to faith, and once he added the word alone.

Glauba alaina and nur glauba. And therefore, if we see that Luther himself admits, and he did this in correspondence with Dr.

Link, that he had to add these words, then we see that it's not an explicit biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, but Martin Luther's interpretation of the text.

And the question for Catholics that is posed to the

Protestant interpretation is does the text bear, reading into it, faith alone?

We think not. I personally think not. First of all, we see that because it is something implicit,

Protestants themselves have disagreed about the role of faith alone. Luther insisted that it is a faith that apprehends

Christ's merit, as Mr. White has so clearly stated, and that it is not the faith itself that redeems the

Christian. It is Christ who is apprehended or grasped by that faith that redeems the

Christian. And that faith, which is a gift, is not itself saving. It is Jesus Christ that is the one who saves.

And it's very important for us to understand about the Protestant approach, to be fair to them.

But there's a problem with the parable in Matthew chapter 18, verse 23 and following.

The parable is of a servant who cannot pay a debt to his master.

And he throws himself upon the mercy of the master, and the master imputes to him the debt.

He accounts the debt as being paid. And there's that absolute confidence in what the servant cannot do but the master can do

That is a perfect parable for what it means to have the kind of faith Dr. Luther talked about, a faith that came by faith alone.

However, as we know from the rest of the parable, that servant did not remain faithful because he would not forgive a servant who owed him a much smaller amount.

And for that reason, the master said to him, Now, this shows part of the problem of faith alone.

And some of the other Reformers began to see the criticism. Faith alone did not keep that servant in a proper relationship with the master.

And so some of the Reformers, Melanchthon, Gerhard, and Calvin himself, added that it must be a lively faith and it must be a faith that works itself out in love.

So that they had to add another quality to their faith, namely the quality of love within the faith so that it can apprehend

Christ who gives them the redemption. And they would also say very clearly that the faith and that love is itself a gift from God too.

So there's already difference of interpretation about this faith that apprehends or grasps

Christ, even among the Reformers. And we have to ask, why should we accept this interpretation and which one of these

Reformers should we accept? Faith alone or faith that works itself out in love in order to grasp

Christ? That's one problem. And then we look at the texts that Martin Luther and Mr.

White have focused on, namely Romans and Galatians and also Philippians.

Letters by St. Paul that certainly do present the way to righteousness or justification through faith in Jesus Christ as the propitiation, that is, as the offering for our sins.

But what Luther did not grasp clearly enough is that these epistles are dealing with specific problems, and St.

Paul addresses specific issues in this question of justification by faith, namely that of Judaizers.

The problem began in Galatia, he takes it up again in Romans, and then it reappears in Philippians.

Certain Jewish Christians tried to insist that the Gentile Christians had to undergo circumcision, and because they had to undergo circumcision would take on all of the ritual law of the

Jews. And so therefore St. Paul sets up an opposition between the law and faith, but it's the law, as referring to the

Jewish ceremonial law, as most specifically represented by the experience of circumcision, which made someone a member of the old covenant.

Circumcision was how the Hebrew male child was made a member of the covenant and how the convert became a part of the covenant, the old covenant, the covenant given to Abraham.

And St. Paul clearly and correctly saw that this is inappropriate for entering into the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

And where do we see texts supporting this? First of all,

Galatians chapter 5 verse 6. Paul brings out the point clearly saying neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything in Christ Jesus.

But faith working through love. So here we see that he talks about faith working through love, a text that Calvin and others quote right out of Paul, and we certainly agree with it.

Works itself out in love rather than circumcision or uncircumcision. Then in Galatians 6 verse 15.

For neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

And this gets us into another problem with the Protestant approach towards justification. As we'll see in a minute.

Namely that it is an interior change. Christ came to make us new creations.

Not only taught here in Galatians, but taught earlier by Paul in 2 Corinthians chapter 5.

Because we need to be recreated from the inside. It's not merely imputation, but it's a new creation.

And then the third text. Also dealing with this problem of circumcision. 1 Corinthians 7 verse 19.

Circumcision is nothing, uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is something.

That's what he implies. So that for Paul the issue is not of any law or all law versus faith or all good works versus faith.

But the issue is rather Judaizers cannot make us undergo the ritual ceremony of circumcision which was meant to make us part of the covenant with Abraham.

But rather we are to be part of this new covenant in Christ by our faith.

But we are to be made into new creations by this Jesus Christ, by his grace.

And we are to keep the commandments of God as part of that new covenant.

And that this is something that is necessary. Now, not only did

Luther misunderstand what Saint Paul meant by the works of the law when he talked about it.

And not only did he overlook these texts from Galatians and 1

Corinthians but there are other passages as well that he overlooked. As a matter of fact,

Luther was so strong in overlooking them he wanted them removed from the Bible. For instance, we see the letter of Saint James.

A letter that Luther considered a letter of straw written by some

Jew, he himself said. So was the rest of the

New Testament. But Saint James says about faith in chapter 2 verse 17

So indeed, faith, if it does not have works, is dead by itself.

Now that's what the scripture says about faith. That it has to have works in order to be alive.

And in one sense, this is perhaps why Calvin and Gerhard and Melanchthon had to say that faith which works itself out in love is the only kind of faith that can apprehend

Christ. Because any faith without love, any faith without good works as Saint James says here, is a dead faith.

In chapter 2 verse 20 of the same epistle by James. But are you willing to know,

O vain man, that faith without works is barren? So not only is it dead, but it is barren.

Notice the difference. It's not something that is just dead out there. But faith without works cannot give birth to something new.

It cannot give birth to the new creation that Christ wants to bring about in us. He also quotes the section in Genesis chapter 15 verse 6.

When James says in chapter 2 verse 21, Was not Abraham our father in faith justified by works, offering up Isaac his son on the altar?

So he sees that this action of offering up Isaac was a work that justified

Abraham. It goes on in verse 22.

You see, that faith worked with his works, and by the works the faith was perfected.

So Saint James is here teaching us that faith without works is not yet perfect, not yet adequate, not able to give birth, and is in itself dead.

He goes on quoting from the Old Testament. Scripture also says,

And Abraham believed, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and that this was fulfilled. And therefore he was called the friend of God.

But it was fulfilled as he did works, and also because he had done works, good works, prior to this chapter 15 verse 6.

You also see that by works a man is justified. And here is the only passage in the

Bible that actually says by faith alone. In James chapter 2 verse 24 it says,

You see that by works a man is justified, not by faith only.

Saint James explicitly says, We are not saved by faith only.

Now Paul does not say that we are saved by faith alone. James does say explicitly we are not saved by faith only.

Now why does the Catholic Church insist that we have to do these works?

Because the Scripture does. Is it only James? Absolutely not. Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the

Sermon on the Mount, first of all in the Beatitudes says that everyone who hungers and thirsts for dikaiosune, for righteousness or justification, as Mr.

White himself very well points out in his own books, that the same word in Greek, dikaiosune, means righteousness or justification.

Same word exactly. And if you hunger and thirst for it, you will not simply have it imputed to you in some legal fiction, even though you are unjust on the inside, but you will have it.

You will be satisfied, because it will be a real righteousness that Christ gives to you, who hunger and thirst for it.

But Christ goes on to say more about this righteousness. In the same chapter 5 verse 20,

He says, unless your righteousness, your dikaiosune, exceeds that of the scribes and the

Pharisees, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. And does

He leave it at that? No, He goes on to define it in the rest of the chapter, all the way through verse 48.

What does it mean to have righteousness greater than the Pharisees? In the old law, the Pharisees say, you shall not kill.

I say, don't even be angry. The old law says, don't commit adultery.

I say, don't even look with lust. The old law says, don't swear falsely. I say, don't swear.

Don't even get divorces. All of these things that Christ teaches in that section of the

Sermon of the Mount are the righteousness, moral righteousness, that is meant to be interior as Christ elevates the law of Moses.

Because the law of Moses by itself cannot give us justification. It's the elevation of that law, and then as the

Catholic Church clearly understands, and we'll see from Scripture too, that Christ gives us the grace to be able to live out what

He commands. And that this is justification. This is righteousness.

It's a false dichotomy or opposition that the Protestant camp has set between sanctification and justification.

Christ also goes on in chapter 6, verse 1, the beginning of the next section of the Sermon on the

Mount. He says, be careful that you do not do your righteousness in front of other human beings, but rather do it only so your

Father can see it, and He can give you a reward. Listen to what the

Lord is saying there. Righteousness is something that we must do. Do before the

Heavenly Father, not before other human beings. And what does He mean by that?

He goes on to define it in the next section as being the actions of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.

That is piety. So that we must do this righteousness and exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees by having it something inside, internal.

And that this is required of us in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, not merely as sanctification that is beyond our justification, beyond some sort of imputation that is a forensic or legal declaration, but rather we must truly be righteous on the inside, interiorly, with pious acts and moral acts.

St. John in his first epistle, chapter 3, verse 7, teaches the same thing when he says,

Little children, let no one lead you astray. And this is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church was so strong in reacting against the

Reformation. We're commanded not to let anybody be led astray, in this point especially.

The one who does righteousness, the same word that St. Paul uses for justification that was translated in some translations, the same word, dikaiosune, the one who does righteousness is righteous.

As that one, namely Christ, is righteous. That we are to be righteous as Jesus Christ is righteous.

He's the norm. Just as He also taught in the Sermon on the Mount. That you must be perfect as your

Heavenly Father is perfect. That's the norm for the righteousness. God, we must become what He is. And we look forward to seeing

Him so that we can become what He is. This is what He wants to give us. That's the grace, not merely an imputation.

And to get across this idea more clearly, we take a look at an image that Martin Luther used.

He was a good German. I lived in Bavaria for a while myself, and I saw one of the ways that German farmers brag about themselves.

They have great big piles of manure in front of their homes. That shows double wealth.

First of all, they have lots of cows to make the manure. Second of all, they have big fields to be fertilized.

So that's great wealth to have manure. And so this is an act of pride. And he used that prideful boasting of the

German farmer with his great big pile of cow manure as a great image for us and our boastfulness and our human pride and arrogance.

So that's who we are. Every one of us is a big pile of cow manure. Christ's imputation, according to Luther, of righteousness, by faith, is when

Christ covers us over. This imputation that they're speaking of is simply a covering over with snow.

Underneath, you're still the manure. That's not the Catholic understanding.

If we use the same image of the cow manure, we can go on to say instead, the

Catholic understanding is that Christ really insists that we become righteous. That is, he takes that manure, puts it in the ground, and has new seed, the seed of his word and the gift of his grace, given into us so that it transforms the manure into roses.

And that's the kind of transformation that Christ wants to work within each of us. He also insists that this is the way that we're going to be judged in the book of Revelation.

Another book Martin Luther tried to take out of the New Testament. Not successfully, but he did try to take it out.

In Revelation 22, verses 11 -12, it says, Christ is speaking,

Let the one who acts unrighteously continue to act unrighteously still. Let the filthy one still act filthily.

And let the righteous one do righteousness still. So we see consistent doctrine from Christ, here in the book of Revelation as well, that righteousness is something that we must do.

Yes, we have to believe in order to gain his righteousness, to have all our past sins forgiven. But we must also do righteousness by his grace.

For he says in verse 12, Behold, I am coming quickly and my reward is with me to render to each one according to their own work.

According to our work, he will reward us or punish if a person does not do what is righteous.

So we see scripture say over and over again that righteousness is something that we humans must do in order to be allowed to enter into heaven and to be saved.

In Philippians, St. Paul says in chapter 2, verse 12, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is

God who works in you both to will and to do his good pleasure. Now this is an important text for the

Catholic position, that we have to work out our own salvation.

There is work, there is an effort on our part, our own will is involved, but the key thing is that it is

God who is working in us. Does that therefore make it clear for us? Yes. That this righteousness is something that we must do, we must be transformed, we must become new creations, but it is going to be

God who is working it within us. It is by his grace that we will be made righteous into something that we are not on our own and that we cannot become on our own, but something that God insists that we become in order for us to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Because we see these texts in scripture, because we see this definition of righteousness and these commands to do righteousness, and because we do not see scripture ever say that you are justified by faith alone, but rather that you are not justified by faith alone, according to scripture, the

Catholic Church has to say to the Protestant position to repent and come back to the fullness of the biblical message about justification.

Thank you. Two very powerful speakers

At this time, Mr. White will have a 12 -minute period in which to either, as I mentioned before, and or complete his opening statement and rebut

Fr. Pacwa, and then Fr. Pacwa will have an additional 12 minutes, and then we will go into an additional 7 minutes on both sides.

Could that be adjusted up about 2 minutes? As I mentioned in my opening statement,

I was unable in the time allotted to complete the presentation of my material, and with your, no pun intended, indulgence,

I would like to continue on with that for a moment. As I was saying toward the end of my presentation,

I was discussing the meaning of righteousness itself, what it means to be righteous or to be justified, and we had looked at the

Old Testament passage, Deuteronomy 25 .1, and had looked at the Old Testament context of what it means to be declared righteous, and I was asserting that there is clearly in the

Old Testament a stream of meaning in that Hebrew term tzedakah that is forensic or legal in nature.

And then I asserted to you that this is the source of Paul's understanding of justification in the

New Testament. Paul's use of the terms demands that this be so. The conjunction of the two terms, impute and to justify, in Paul's teachings, clearly shows that the

Protestant understanding of God's declaration of the righteousness of the believer is the biblical one. I shall demonstrate this briefly by two passages from the

New Testament. First, with reference to the imputation, which Dr. Pacwa, during his presentation, also used the term legal fiction of the

Protestant understanding of imputation. I obviously disagree strongly. Romans 4, again, "...just

as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man to whom the

Lord will not impute sin." Notice he did not simply say apart from works of law or Judaism.

He said, blessed is the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

Note the parallels that Paul presents. The imputation of righteousness and the non -imputation of sin is likened to the forgiveness of those sins and to their covering.

Where is the subjective change in this passage? It is nowhere. The imputation of righteousness is a legal transaction, not a fiction, for when

God, the Eternal Judge, makes a declaration, that can hardly be called a fiction. It is a legal transaction based upon the authority of God as Judge.

God can impute righteousness to those who are of faith because of the full, complete, substitutionary, and real satisfaction that has been made on their behalf by Jesus Christ at Calvary.

My second passage, this one relevant to the forensic or legal character of justification, is

Romans 8 .33. Here we read, Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies.

Who is the one who condemns? Note the exact same contrast of the terms to justify and to condemn that is found in the

Old Testament. God justifies His elect. Therefore, who can bring a charge against them?

Note the legal language that is used here again. Who can condemn those who have been justified?

That is, who has been declared righteous by the Eternal Judge Himself? The answer is, no one.

Therefore, we see that the Protestant concept of justification is the biblical one. It accords with the central passages in the

New Testament that actually address how one is made righteous, how one is justified.

But there remains one more, and I believe it is a tremendously vital issue. What is the basis of justification?

How can God declare someone who is unjust, just? How can God declare sinners, saints?

I believe that the primary and most basic element of the difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine and the

Protestant doctrine is simply this. The righteousness by which we stand before God, according to the

Protestant, is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The righteousness of Christ is the actual and real possession of the believer.

This is the righteousness He pleads before the judgment bar of God. Christ is our substitute.

Our sins are imputed to Him. His righteousness is imputed to us. Christ does not simply merit for us grace so that we can then do good works to earn the way to Heaven.

By God's grace, Christ's righteousness is ours. We have eternal life because of Christ's righteousness, not because of our own righteousness.

There are far too many passages that teach this central truth to even begin to address all of them, but a few representative samples must be presented.

Paul taught the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 5 .21, He who knew no sin became sin in our behalf, in our place, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

Not our righteousness, the righteousness of God in Christ. Is this not what

Isaiah said long ago? Remember Isaiah 53. Surely our griefs He Himself bore and our sorrows

He carried, yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions.

He was crushed for our iniquities. The chasing for our well -being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.

Later he writes, By His knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.

Yet He Himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors. Roman Catholicism speaks of our doing works in a state of grace, no one denies that, that makes satisfaction or atonement for sin.

But why? Christ bore all of our sins, and since He did so, the Father can declare us righteous.

This is truly the central difference between us. My justification is based completely and solely upon the finished work of Christ.

Roman Catholicism does not have in my opinion, and Dr. Paco and I will be debating this at another time, a truly completed and finished work of Christ upon which to base its doctrine of justification.

Christ's merits are the Christians' merits by virtue of the union of the elect with their head

Jesus Christ. And that union is solely the result of God's merciful election in eternity past.

From beginning to end, salvation is of God. May we all join

Paul when he stated, that I may gain Christ and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.

Philippians 3 .9 This is the only righteousness that will avail for us. True Christian justification does not result in a life filled with fear at falling from God's grace, or in a continual cycle of justification, fall, justification, fall.

Instead, Paul, after presenting Abraham as the example of justification by faith, proclaimed these words.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we exalt in the hope of the glory of God.

We have been justified. Eris participle there, Dr. Pacwa. It is a past action, and we have been justified through what instrumentality?

That is the instrumentality of faith. And what is the result of having been, as a past action, justified by faith?

We have peace with God through Jesus Christ. Now, this is not a temporary ceasefire in a war that could erupt again at any moment at the whim of the will of man.

It is a perfect peace because it is in Christ Jesus.

This, Dr. Pacwa, is true shalom. Now, no one would believe that over in the

Mideast this evening, shalom exists. That's not shalom. No one is shooting at each other, yet.

But at any second, that could erupt. And the Hebrew would never call that shalom.

Because shalom does not simply mean a cessation of hostilities for a moment. It is wellness.

It is completeness. It is peace. This, of course, is the background of Paul's use of Irenaeus here in Romans 5 .1.

This is the peace that we have by faith having been justified. And if that situation could deteriorate by my commission of one mortal sin right now, then that is not shalom.

That is not peace. It is true peace because it is based, my friends, not on my merits.

It is not on good works that I perform in a state of grace. This peace is based upon the completed and finished work of Christ.

And that is why it is perfect. That is why it is true peace. Now, in the brief couple seconds

I have left to me, allow me to start to deal with some of the things that Dr. Paquette had said.

It was alleged that the doctrine of justification by faith is read into the text.

I would say it is explicit in the text because of the impossibility of the concept of human merit given the fact that salvation is solely by God's grace and the meaning of the

Greek term charis and what that term entails and the fact that all of salvation is based solely upon the merit and work of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I believe it is most definitely explicitly stated there. Now, when it was stated that Calvin added to the faith that Luther talked about, the concept that it is a lively faith, it is a live faith,

I don't believe that that is correct at all. Obviously, Dr. Paquette said that justification by faith alone starts the

Reformation. I believe it starts with Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles, of course. But, in reference to the concept of faith of which we spoke, remember that I earlier said that faith is the gift of God, the work of the

Holy Spirit in the believer's heart. This being the work of the Holy Spirit is a supernatural faith.

It is a faith that is joined with love of God. It is not a dead or empty faith.

In 1 Timothy chapter 1 verse 14, Paul talked about this faith that was poured out upon him along with love for God.

So, we are not adding something to the biblical concept of faith. We are dealing with what the

Bible itself says about faith. Faith is the work of the Holy Spirit. Faith, since it is a part of God's entire work in our life.

Since God is the one who is bringing about salvation in us. It is God who works in us both to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

Since this is what God is doing then this type of faith, this type of love will be supernatural, abiding and will accomplish that which it is intended to do.

Now, very, very quickly. I don't think I'm going to have time to do all of this, but we will pick it up again in a few minutes.

Dr. Paquette alleged, I believe, that Paul's discussion in Romans and Galatians must be limited to an understanding of the

Judaizing tendencies in some of the churches, especially in Galatia. I disagree strongly with that, and when

I have an opportunity to explain to you why I disagree strongly with that in my next rebuttal period, I will do so.

But I will direct your attention to the book of Galatians to answer that charge. My assertion is that Paul, though he is dealing with a specific subject, no one disagrees with that, the principles that he lays down must be applied to what is being said tonight, that we, by actions we commit in a state of grace can merit eternal life.

I believe that the principles he lays down in regards to Judaizing tendencies applies equally to that which is being presented tonight from the

Roman Catholic perspective. Thank you. Applause Thank you.

First of all, I want to make one little correction about something you alleged that I alleged, namely that I did not say that justification by faith is only implied in the

Bible. I said justification by faith alone is merely implied. The word alone is not in the text.

And so I'm not denying, nor does the Catholic Church deny what St. Paul teaches in Romans chapter 3 and 4, or in Galatians.

We certainly assert, as a matter of fact, it is found in the Council of Trent document on justification that they quote in chapter 6 on, they quote

Romans chapter 3 verse 24 in chapter 6 of the document, the declaration on justification.

And we do believe what St. Paul says. So we have to keep this very clear in mind for ourselves.

The Catholics are not saying you have to do this by works alone.

By any means, we don't say that at all. And we are opposed to what St. Paul is saying, or we are rejecting what

St. Paul is saying, not at all. Our position is to be able to include the full biblical doctrine that we find in St.

Paul, but in all of St. Paul so that we do believe that we are justified by faith.

And yes, there is that aorist, that tense that means it happened once, that's it for certain.

And we certainly accept that as something that Christ has done by our baptism in the aorist.

He did it once and for all. And all of my sins are forgiven me including original sin, the sin that I have as a son or daughters of Adam and Eve.

That we have that lack of grace, we have original sin in our soul, and Christ by His merit, and by His merit only, eliminates that.

And that He washes that away, to be sure. So we accept what

Romans teaches. But what we're saying is, the New Testament teaches a lot more about justification or righteousness, this term, decae sine, and that we must keep all of it.

And those are the passages that I included in my statement. That yes, we have to have faith, that this is the way that we have, and that the faith itself is a gift.

And in that faith, we receive Christ's merit, that is what

Christ earned for us on the cross, to wash away our sins, to forgive us. And are we just pulling together passages to make that statement that it's by baptism?

Not at all. What does St. Paul say in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse 11?

But you were washed, also aorist, and clearly referring to baptism, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God. That clearly our baptism is also how

Christ, this is how Christ gives us his justification, by this washing, and by this making us sanctified, which you notice comes first, and being justified.

And we see that this is meant to be a process of recreation. What else does

St. Paul teach us about baptism? In Ephesians chapter 5, he tells us that we, he washes his church to remove every spot and wrinkle from her.

And he does this by the wash, the washing, the lather, along with his word.

That it's Christ's word that makes the baptism effective, and what

Christ says happens. And so that we have our sins forgiven us, and that we are justified, as Paul says in 1

Corinthians 6, 11, by this baptism. And that this is meant to be a continuous process by which

Christ himself will give us the grace to wash away everything. See the problem is still that according to the notion of imputation, that it's

Christ that's given us, but underneath we are still sinners. We are still that pile of dung as Luther described it.

And I have a problem with that biblically. For instance, you mentioned a number of times the use of righteousness in the

Old Testament, and tzedekah is something, tzedekah is the Hebrew word for righteousness, along with tzedek, that these are words that mean righteousness.

And that they have their root in the forensic situation in the courtroom, according to what you said.

Now that's not the case. Yes, there are uses of the verb to describe making somebody innocent.

In Hebrew, it is the case that sometimes, in some passages, it's clear that the person who is innocent in court is called righteous, and the person who is guilty is called wicked.

And that, as we have guilty or not guilty, they use wicked or righteous. That was one of the declarations.

But at the same time, we have to see that in a text that was referred to but not quoted,

Exodus chapter 23, verse 7, the Lord himself says, I will not make righteous the one who is wicked.

I will not make righteous the one who is wicked. And one of the characteristics of Hebrew that's also helpful to understand,

Mr. White mentioned that this was in the Hithfield. This is a way that the Hebrews had. They didn't care about time.

They didn't talk about time. They cared about relationship of subject to object. And this is a way to say that I cause you to be righteous.

God cannot cause the wicked to be righteous, according to that passage in the

Old Testament. And yes, Christ, when he quotes from the prophet Isaiah chapter 53, yes,

Christ, the servant of God, will make us sinners righteous. But it's going to be making us righteous by having us transformed into new creations, not merely as part of our sanctification as something separate from justification, as the

Protestant position has, but rather this continuous process of justification, this continuous process of getting righteousness and doing righteousness that the

New Testament picks up on. That the prophets promised to have a righteousness that is going to be integral to our hearts, something that is on the inside, something that truly is inside of us and belongs to us, but it will be by God's grace and by what

God does. We see this prophesied, for instance, in Jeremiah chapter 31, verse 32, where the

Lord says, I will make a covenant with them after those days, a new covenant, and I will write it on their hearts.

Now this is a promise that is picked up by St. Paul a number of times in the New Testament, that the

Lord will write this covenant inside our hearts, not on tablets of stone. So St. Paul says in 2

Corinthians chapter 3, that you are this, writing this letter of Christ, and it's written not on tablets of stone, not with ink, but rather on your hearts of flesh.

And that this old covenant was a covenant of condemnation, he calls in the same passage, but in verse 9 says, but we are ministers of a covenant of righteousness.

He's therefore saying explicitly that the covenant of righteousness, mentioned in 2

Corinthians 3, verse 9, is the new covenant written in our hearts.

It is something that really belongs to us, a true transformation that Christ has worked inside of us.

And it's a transformation that comes about that enables us to do what is righteous.

He enables us to do what is just. It is only Christ's grace, one for us that makes it possible for us to do what is right.

But we also must do what is right, not merely as a sanctification that is added on.

The Protestants distinguish sanctification from righteousness or justification. They distinguish it too strongly and make it too separate.

Whereas Christ Jesus goes on to say that it is these acts of morality and piety that are necessary for us to get into heaven.

They are not extra. God will not allow anything impure to enter into heaven.

He won't allow it. And that He will give us the grace through Christ Jesus to make us into what

Christ Jesus is. To make us as perfect as the Father is. And it is this that the

Catholic Church says we must hold along with the belief that it is by our faith that we receive

Christ's righteousness and our forgiveness of all our past sins. And it is by our baptism that we were justified when we were washed, we were sanctified, and we were justified.

And yet there is still a righteousness that we must continue to grow in through the rest of our lives until we stand before the judgment seat of God.

Now, he's correct. I don't look to committing a mortal sin and coming out of mortal sin as a life of peace.

That is a life of anxiety and that's not what the Catholic Church encourages. The Catholic doctrine is not trying to say you should have that anxiety because you commit a mortal sin and then come back out.

And you go back and forth. No, we're supposed to be faithful to Christ as He's faithful to us.

But if somebody does commit mortal sin, if somebody does do unrighteousness and offend

God, then God has given us the means to receive

His righteousness, to receive forgiveness for our past deeds again through Christ and that He will continue to give us the grace we need to be able to do what is morally righteous and piously righteous.

So, I disagree with the understanding of the legal or forensic understanding of righteousness as being the key to the

Old Testament. As a matter of fact, I went through every single occurrence of the terms for righteousness in Hebrew and in the

Greek sections of the Old Testament. And there's seven books that have been taken out of the Protestant canon but have been in the

Catholic canon from the beginning. And in all of those books, there's 640 occurrences approximately of righteousness terms.

Verbs, adjectives, nouns. And as I went through those and analyzed them by looking at what they're paralleled to and looking at the context, not looking at roots as a way to get at the understanding of, but looking at the context and see how it is actually used.

The vast majority of texts, the vast majority, into the 85 to 90 percentile of the text refers to righteousness as something that is moral.

Not as something that is forensic. Not as something that is from a law court. Not as something that is declared to us under the law, but as rather something that is real and belongs to us.

And therefore, that is what the Catholic Church is trying to present as the scriptural understanding. That it's this real righteousness that God wants inside our hearts for us to do and live out.

Applause Once again, we will have Reverend White, who will have a 7 minute rebuttal to Father Pacwa.

And then again, Father Pacwa will have 7 minutes to rebut Reverend White. And then at that time, just we will be taking a 15 minute break.

There are obviously a number of items that need to be addressed, but since it was the last thing that was mentioned,

I shall mention it myself now. In regards to tzedakah and the roots,

Dr. Pacwa, you will recall in my opening statement that I clearly said that there is a moral use of the term in the

Old Testament. I did not begin to deny that, but I would be surprised anyways and would not want to spend the whole evening discussing hefeel roots with you, but things like that.

If you did not agree with me, that numerous of the passages where the hefeel is used are used in the legal and forensic sense, and I would assert to you that the putting together of imputation and righteousness by the writer of Genesis, in Genesis 15 .6,

and then Paul's usage of those terms in the New Testament, supports the position that I was enunciating to begin with.

Now, going back to some of the original things that you said, Dr. Pacwa, in regards to the

Judaizers in Romans and Galatians, if you'll turn with me to the book of Galatians, and I hope some of you have your

Bibles with you this evening, Galatians chapter 2, verse 16,

Galatians 2 .16. Remember what Dr. Pacwa's assertion was, that Paul is dealing with a specific subject, the

Judaizing tendencies, the Judaizers who were seeking to place people back under the law as part of their justification.

I agree. That is exactly what Paul is dealing with. But I do not agree that you can then say, now if someone else comes along and says, well now there's these other things you need to do, it's not circumcision, it's not the works of law, but there are these other things that you must need do.

In our example this evening, you must need go through a sacrament, and you must have contrition, and you must confess to a priest, and you must make works of penance that bring about absolution.

I believe the exact same foundational principles that are laid down by the Apostle Paul in dealing with the

Judaizers must be applied to what is being presented to us tonight in regards to how a person is justified.

Verse 16, knowing that no man is justified by works of law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Now that passage, Dr. Pacwa, I see you're looking at it in the Greek there, is very explicit in contradistincting,

I guess is the word, contrasting the works of law, except, no man is justified except by faith in Jesus Christ.

It is not just simply saying, well it's not just works of law, but he is simply saying that no man will be justified, and then you can take out the whole exergon namu there, except by faith in Jesus Christ.

Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order that we might be justified. How? By faith of Christ, and not by works of law, for by works of law shall no flesh be justified.

His point, again, is human merit cannot enter into this. Yes, he's dealing with a specific situation here.

Yes, he's dealing with Judaizers, but the principle applies throughout his argument. For example, in Galatians chapter 3, verse 3, he argues and it says, are you so foolish having begun by the spirit, are you now being completed by the flesh?

He doesn't make specific mention here to the Jewish law only. He's talking about fleshly works, human merit, human achievement in that passage in verses 10 -11 of chapter 3 that I already cited to you.

He contrasts those who are of works over against those who are of faith, as two separate groups, and then in verse 21 of the same passage, he makes the statement that it would be an impossibility that any law could have been given that could give life.

There is no system of works, whether we call them sacraments or anything else, that can give life.

Does justification take place, and that is the exact point he makes in Romans chapter 4, verses 4 -5, when he contrasts the one who does not work over against the one who works.

One simply receives the reward of his own works, which, since all of us are sinners, is not eternal life.

The other receives righteousness by faith, Romans chapter 4, verses 4 -5. Now, secondly, the next thing that I need to address in the brief minutes that are left to me is

James chapter 2. James, the second chapter, and what James is discussing here.

First of all, I would point out to you that the book of James itself is a certain kind of literature.

It is wisdom literature. It is written to Christians about how Christians should live the Christian life.

Now, good old Dr. Luther, as Dr. Pacwa has pointed out, likened the epistle of James to an epistle of straw, but he said that in comparison to the writings of Paul and John.

He said that they did not bear witness, that the book of James did not bear witness to Christ as clearly and strongly as did

Paul and John. But what is James talking about in James chapter 2? Is James saying that a man is made right before God by works and not by faith only?

I do not believe that is what he is saying at all. First of all, he points out that the faith that he is talking about, for example, in verse 20, but will you know, oh vain man, that faith that works is dead.

Faith that works is useless. It is futile, as he has said all through the second chapter of this book.

What kind of faith is he talking about? Is that the faith that I defined for you in my opening statements? Is this the faith that is implanted in the heart of the

Christian by the Holy Spirit of God? Of course not. We agree with James that a faith that is not a part of all the saving work of God in a person's life does not bring about justification.

We recognize that. But then he gives the example of Abram. How was Abram justified by works in James 2 .24?

Well, in the offering of his son Isaac. But when did this happen? This took place in Genesis the 22nd chapter.

Genesis the 22nd chapter and beyond, you have the birth of Isaac, all these other things.

Why do I bring this out? He cites Genesis 15 .6. In Genesis 15 .6,

Abram believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Was this before or after the offering of Isaac?

Obviously, it was many years before the offering of Isaac upon the altar. Therefore, Abram was made right before God, was justified before God by faith in God's sight long before he offered

Isaac his son upon the altar. Well, how is it then said that Abram is justified by this action? Does he not say, therefore we see in verse 24 that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?

It was a demonstration of his faith. The justification spoken of by James is not the justification spoken of by Paul.

Thank you. Applause Applause Applause You're right.

I agree with you that what you're speaking of is not what's in James. That's the problem I have.

And I don't see in James in the text itself the distinctions you're making.

That's the problem. Yes, James talks about faith differently than you do.

Differently than Protestantism does. And the thing that I have to say though is that because James is scripture, yes, it's wisdom literature, yet it's nonetheless an inspired word of God.

And as such, I have to have it in for me. I can't remove it or eradicate it.

I can't water it down. But I have to accept what that passage says to me. And here we see clearly in James that we are justified not by faith alone, but also by our works.

We have to have them. And we see James bringing that out, I think, nicely in the way he quotes

Genesis. This is no contradiction. What he's saying is that he first of all quotes from Genesis 15 .6

or he mentions that and says that Abraham believed that it was a counter to him by righteousness.

And then he also mentions that later on Abraham offered up his son. Of course

James knew that Abraham offered his son later in his life, years later. Of course he knew it was something that happened after his act of faith in Genesis 15 .6.

But that gets at exactly the point we're talking about. That this is also justification.

He is justified by his works. Works that begin with his faith but continue with his actions.

And that is to be a model for us. Abraham is our model in faith too. And so yes, we have to make an act of faith in God.

And we have to have that come to us as righteousness. But we do not have to accept, first of all,

I'll get to this in a second, but we also have to see that it has to continue in the way that we act as God calls us to act righteously and be generous with the gifts he gives us, just like Abraham was generous with the gifts of his son that God had given him, so must we be.

Now, another question I have, and it's something I don't accept, is the forensic interpretation of tzedakah, of righteousness, in Genesis 15 .6.

That there's nothing in the text to say that this means legal justification in some way.

That righteousness in Hebrew has a sense of meaning also salvation.

This can also be accounted to him as salvation, rather than some legal aspect.

So that's something that we also have to keep open. The text itself is very difficult to interpret, as most

Protestant exegetes have recognized. The, um, as a matter of fact, one of the things that I brought up earlier about Paul dealing with the question of Judaizers when he talks about justification by faith alone.

Why do I want to make such a point of that? First of all, Protestant exegetes have made the point to me.

John Ruman, a Lutheran pastor and doctor of Scripture, New Testament professor, has written a book called

Righteousness in the New Testament, which I strongly recommend. And he's the one that sees this issue is limited to the question of Judaizing.

Elsewhere, Paul talks about righteousness, and he talks about becoming righteous, but he sees it as moral development and moral growth by grace.

And so we have to take the whole of Paul. This is especially true in Romans, the same epistle, chapter 8.

He had just been talking in Romans 7 about how there's a law in our flesh, and we experience this.

It's a passage that has made a big influence on me in my own life, for my own change and growth.

Namely that there's a law in my flesh that goes against God's law. And he ends up with this sense, is it hopeless?

Is it all lost? Am I lost? Of course not. Romans 8, verse 1. No, there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

For the law of the spirit of life in Christ freed you from the law of sin and death.

For it is impossible for the law, for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,

God send his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin he condemned sin in the flesh.

But here's the key verse in verse 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.

As I said before that there's an internal covenant that's written in our hearts and that that covenant is the presence of the

Holy Spirit. And it's because Christ won for us the gift of the Holy Spirit on the cross and he sets it in our hearts as a sign and seal of the new covenant and he gives it to us at our baptism, as Saint Paul says in 1

Corinthians chapter 12. So also does the spirit work in us, as Saint Paul says here, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.

That this is something to be done and that it is not extra but it's something that Jesus our

Lord says we have to do in order to get into heaven. And that's something that we can't ever neglect.

I think I know I have more time but I think that at this point I'll stop and call it quits at that.

My mind went blank. Applause Applause Enjoying it so far and this is just the warm up.

The next half when we get into the questions and answers, that's when they question each other and have the questions from the audience

I think will be very very lively. In the format it will be as follows.

To begin with Mr. White will ask Father Pacwa a question.

He will have one minute to phrase his question. Father Pacwa will have three minutes to respond.

Then Mr. White will have two minutes to rebut. And then Father Pacwa will have one minute to rebut the rebuttal.

Alright? So the entire sequence will be seven minutes. Then we will alternate and Father Pacwa will offer will ask

Mr. White a question and we will have two questions each. By that time we will have the questions available that you've submitted and we will go on from there.

So we still have about an hour's program to go. So at this point I will and the participants will remain seated otherwise they'd be up and down a couple of yo -yos here.

So Mr. White will begin with the first question to Father Pacwa. Dr. Pacwa Jesus said that the greatest commandment was this, to love the

Lord your God with all your heart soul, mind and strength. Obviously breaking the greatest commandment would seemingly logically constitute a mortal sin.

Yet any honest man or woman here tonight knows in their heart of hearts they do not love the Lord their

God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength every minute of the hour, every hour of the day. Therefore we must in necessity be continually falling from grace and losing our justification.

Indeed Dr. Ott said 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.

In light of this how can it possibly be said, without making a mockery of the term Irenae or peace, that having been justified by faith we have peace with God through Jesus Christ on the basis of his righteousness when this temporary ceasefire could break down at any second due to a mortal sin.

The question is an important one for the everyday life of the

Christian believer. In one sense it's as if you almost set up a false problem of one to take the one commandment.

It's not like that's a deed that if you don't do it perfectly then you've committed mortal sin.

This gets into some moral theology that we have to another subject actually that we could get another debate on.

But there are sins certainly that a person can commit and fall into mortal sin.

Does this mean that you lose peace? Yes, and you should lose peace for committing mortal sin.

If you gravely offend God, and what we understand by mortal sin, a term that's defined in the first letter of St.

John chapter 5 by the sin that kills is that which you knowingly and willingly do, something that you know is serious and go ahead and commit anyway.

If you do that you should lose a sense of peace in order to let

God stir in your heart to come back to you. Now, does that destroy the idea of peace?

Not really. In one sense it keeps us in a sense of balance in life that I should not have peace if I'm committing mortal sin.

Even if I've been justified that would be one of the last things I'd want is to be at peace. If I was justified

Christian and yet went ahead and committed murder or abortion or something else, that wouldn't be a false sense of peace.

So what we're in fact doing is preventing the Christian from a false kind of peace about the state of their soul by saying the truth, that you have to do those things which are righteous all your life, and you have to keep on seeking

God's grace to do so. Now in terms of even that commandment, God will give you the grace to be able to live that out, and that what we have to do as Christians is trust in God to listen to that grace, to accept that grace and act on it with the best

I can. Will I love more or less than some other people? Yes, of course. I'm not going to be measured by how

I live up to other people's norms, but that I can love God with my whole heart by the grace that he gives me to love with the capacity

I have is exactly what I can do by God's grace. So I don't think that that takes away from peace.

What it does is prevent us from having a false sense of peace. Dr. Pacwa, I ask the question in such a way that a sharp dichotomy can be formed between what the two of us believe about this.

What you have said, I believe, is in referring to a false peace, this is not a false peace that Paul is speaking of.

Paul can make the assurance as a Christian that because they have been justified, they have been declared righteous by the merits of Jesus Christ as a past tense action that they have peace with God.

I cannot imagine that a situation in which my standing with God can be compromised by my actions, my sins, which we believe were nailed to the cross of Calvary and forgiven in the blood of Jesus Christ already anyhow.

Colossians chapter 2 verses 13 and 14 Ephesians chapter 2 says the same thing.

How those actions which are under the blood of Christ could possibly result in a loss of the peace that we have with God.

If every day I woke up and said that there is clearly a possibility that I may commit a mortal sin today, then

I would not be at peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, I think we see the difference of the foundation of our justification is two -fold.

One that I'm emphasizing this evening is that the peace I have with God is through Jesus Christ, through him only, not simply because of the grace that he gives to me, because my standing with God is based solely upon the merits and righteousness of Christ.

But I think we also need to point out that very foundational to the differences between us is that I believe very strongly that Paul's words, for example, in Romans chapter 9 verse 16, where he emphasizes is the sovereignty of God so that it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

At the foundation of all this God is the one who determines and decrees to save the elect.

He is the one who gives them saving faith, and the reason we can have peace with God is because it is

God's work of salvation that we are experiencing. And in response to that,

I would hope that a Catholic would not wake up every day worrying that they're going to commit a mortal sin. That kind of scrupulosity is not healthy, and we don't teach that it's healthy.

We don't want our people to call anybody to that. But what we do see as a possibility is someone who has been justified by faith, perhaps entering the

Nazi party because of the social circumstances and being involved in the atrocities, and to be able to say that that person still is going to go to heaven after having been involved in atrocities would be to me an impossibility and make a mockery of the

Christian faith. That rather it's our faithfulness to Christ that we have to maintain in order to be able to get into heaven.

That is to have the righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees all the days of our lives in order to be able to get into heaven and not depend just on an act of faith

I've made earlier, but that continuous process of doing righteousness that Christ Jesus asks us to do.

The question I have is this. If your view of St. Paul is correct, why didn't other

Christians before Luther interpret Paul in this way? Who can you name prior to Luther?

Which are the fathers? Which are the theologians? Prior to the eve of the Reformation especially?

How would your interpretation of St. Paul? This is a problem that I have.

Please. Is that the end of the question? Well, there are a couple of things that have to be addressed in that.

First of all, I would say that on the theoretical level, even if I could not point to any particular individual, if that is what

Paul taught, then that is what Paul taught. Whether men accept truth down through history and make a great deal of it or not is not really the issue.

Truth remains truth whether men decide that it is truth or not. And certainly on this issue, justification by faith alone most definitely attacks our pride and our ego because it says you don't have a part in saving yourself.

It's totally of God. And so I will definitely and readily admit that A, the perspective that I am speaking of is not the majority position of many, many people today or many, many people in the past.

The truth of God's absolute sovereignty and salvation and man's total inability has been denied by many.

But I would assert, without having any church fathers laying in front of me at the moment, that one can find evidence that such individuals as Clement definitely believed in a state of justification.

Augustine, interestingly enough, if you are familiar with Dr. B .B. Warfield, he made a comment once that I agree with, and that is that the

Reformation viewed inwardly was just the ultimate victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church.

That is, Augustine, for example, asserted that one's baptism would accomplish nothing for one unless one was not of the elect.

Now, if that is the case, I would not for a second say that Augustine did not emphasize sacramental theology, but I would say that the foundation of his theology in regards to the total inability of man, the sovereignty of God, and predestination and election precludes us from interpreting him in the modern

Roman Catholic sense. And his concept of what it means to be in the elect and the work of Christ, I think, would be consonant with much of what

I have said this evening. But, again, the issue that I want to emphasize is that at the time of the

Reformation, you and I would both agree that there were tremendous abuses within the church.

The Council of Trent itself admitted in its discussion of indulgences that what had happened with indulgences prior to Trent was a terrible, horrible thing.

So there was clearly corruption within the church that people had called for reformation for a long time before that.

Before the Reformation, you have Wycliffe, you have Jan Hus, who, for his views, was burned at the

Council of Constance in 1415. And so you do have individuals like Wycliffe, like Hus, and who knows how many others that history did not record for us, who recognize that they knew that in their heart of hearts their works could never merit for them eternal salvation.

They had to hold solely and completely to the person of Jesus Christ for their righteousness. Which Clement did you mean, by the way?

Rome. Not Alexandria. Okay. No, no. St. Clement of Rome also taught very clearly that we're justified, in fact, and saved by our works.

So that he doesn't contradict the Catholic faith, being one of the infallible popes, but rather he continues to assert the same

Catholic doctrine that we hold. Augustine does not teach the Lutheran or Protestant view of justification.

The Catholic view at the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent get their doctrine from Augustine, that it is

Christ giving us love, and his emphasis on love, and our action, and our need for continuous justification that St.

Augustine teaches. You only have Hus and Wycliffe at the eve of the Reformation. Prior to them, no one taught this.

And this is a problem that we have with it. McGrath's book,

Justitia Dei, there's a history of justification in the history of the Church, and he admits in there, though Protestant himself, that this is an innovation of the

Reformation era, not something that was taught by the Church before this. So we have to say that you end up in the

Mormon position of there being a great apostasy in which the Church, perhaps, did not have anybody saved, because you have no evidence for people holding this doctrine of justification by faith alone in the

Church, and that therefore, perhaps, until Hus or Wycliffe, those individuals, Luther and the

Lutherans, that nobody was saved, because this doctrine is not taught at all, but rather the Catholic doctrine is taught consistently through all the fathers, and through the scholastics.

So that's another reason why we hold it, is not only is it the fullness of Scripture, but it's also the fullness of our history as a

Church, that the Church continued to teach the same view of justification throughout the centuries, because the

Church was being faithful to the full Word of God over and over again. Well, I would wonder specifically where Clement said that, but justification cannot be separated from all the rest of the theology of Augustine.

You cannot say Augustine taught the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification if Augustine did not teach, or Augustine taught something in regards to predestination and election that is contradicted by modern

Roman Catholic teaching. Now, you mentioned just on the eve of the Reformation, Wycliffe, of course, 150 years before the

Reformation, but you said it was taught consistently throughout the early Church fathers, but I have to wonder if you believe everything that is taught consistently throughout early

Church fathers. Of course, I don't believe that there is any one particular thing that is absolutely unanimous amongst all early Church fathers, other than maybe the fact there's one

God. But, for example, many of the early Church fathers believed that the Atonement was a ransom to Satan. I don't believe you believe that the

Atonement was a ransom to Satan. I don't believe you believe in the ransom to Satan theory. You know Anselm and Abelard came up with other theories.

There have been many theories of the Atonement that have been offered through Church history. How do we find out which one is right? We go to the

Word of God, not to the early Church fathers, for they weren't consistent with one another. In my first question,

Dr. Pacwa, I said a Dr. Ott statement that we cannot know with certainty that we have fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.

I am assuming that you agree with him on that. According to Roman Catholicism, good works performed in the state of grace are meritorious in God's sight and form the basis of our receiving eternal life.

But Paul is crystal clear in his statement in Romans 3 .24 that we are justified freely by His grace in Romans 4 .4

-5 in Romans 4 .4 -5 that justification is by faith to those who are not working but believing in Christ.

Given your knowledge of the Greek term charis, the term translated grace, how can you maintain that justification is a process that is based, even if only partially, on the works of man?

The reason that I have to believe it and have to believe that there is merit that we earn by our works is because Christ our

Lord told us so. In the Gospel of St. Matthew chapter 6 that He talks about our having a reward.

He contrasts the reward that we get from Him with the reward that we would get from trying to get approval of other people and what they try to say to us.

So He says, make sure that you do your righteousness not so that other people can see you or otherwise you have no reward from your

Father who is in heaven. The same goes on in the rest of the passage contrasting the reward you get from doing works in front of men versus doing it for the sake of the

Father. Now, does this contradict St. Paul? Impossible.

Also the passage that I quoted earlier from Revelation chapter 22 where Jesus says

I am waiting with my reward to reward you according to your works.

Now that's Christ's word speaking prophetically in the book of Revelation.

Therefore because Christ teaches it and Scripture teaches it, I must believe it. That there is a reward and merit that I get by my works.

But the reward is something that the Father has set up by His grace.

That this is something that graciously God has given to us as a possibility. And the ability to be able to fulfill that merit, the requirements that God sets by giving us a promise of reward is also by God's grace.

So that it doesn't contradict St. Paul at all. The Catholic doctrine has to keep those two things in tension.

And that's exactly what we're trying to do. Paul is right. We do this by grace. And that it is a gift of God.

As a matter of fact it's a gift of God Himself. God being poured into us in the

Holy Spirit. And that that is the gift that I depend on. And yet so that I can fulfill the merit that God promises to give me as a gift also.

So that word of God that Christ offers reward for our works is something I must accept because it's in the

Bible and it's the word of God. And the belief that this is a gift of grace that God gives me because this is what

God has said. So along with Paul I have to work out my salvation in fear and in trembling.

Perhaps it gets back at your other statement too. Perhaps that fear and trembling does not contradict

St. Paul's peace either. We have a sense that if he can say that you can work this out in fear and trembling, that fear and trembling cannot be inconsistent with the peace that he promises in Romans.

Certainly Paul would not be contradicting himself in the inspired word of God that he himself wrote in two different epistles.

First of all, the reward of which Jesus speaks in Matthew 6 and which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 is reward given to Christians.

It has nothing to do with providing the foundation of our justification and salvation.

That is provided solely and completely in the work of Jesus Christ. Secondly, you described it as a possibility that we might attain to this, but when

Paul speaks in Romans 5 .1, he says we have been justified. Indicative. Not simply a possibility that it may happen, it may not happen,

I'm not sure. We have been justified and therefore we have peace. But I can definitely see that foundational and I want to make sure that I made this in my opening statements,

I want to make sure we understand it again here. Foundational to the differences between us is the purpose of salvation itself.

Paul said in Ephesians chapter 1 that he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In love he predestined us to adoption as sons to Jesus Christ to himself according to the kind intention of his will for what?

To the praise of the glory of his grace which he freely bestowed on us in the beloved.

Grace is freely bestowed on us in the beloved. The purpose of our election and predestination is to bring glory and grace and glory and praise to God himself.

Now if it's possible for that whole process to be undone for us to have to go back through the human works of contrition and confession and penance if our works of righteousness is in any way part of our salvation then it is clear that A Paul didn't know what he was talking about in Ephesians 1 because it's not a certain thing that this is going to take place, we're going to be saved and B, God is not the only one who is going to receive praise and glory for you and I have done works that are meritorious in God's sight and by doing so we are adding to the finished work of Christ which the writer of Hebrews says perfects all those who are sanctified.

The issue that sanctification is a process of all works in which we cooperate with varying degrees of faithfulness which seems to be the

Protestant position that you have a sanctification process after justification and that we have to cooperate and sometimes we're more faithful sometimes we're less faithful in our sanctification.

And that doesn't compromise the fact that salvation is from God, then the work of sovereign and also the work of sovereign grace from start to finish, it doesn't compromise that God has given you the grace to be sanctified.

Then why does the view of justification involved in works of obedience necessarily compromise it?

I very much appreciate that question because I think it is not only very well phrased but very important for us to understand and give me a good opportunity to explain that.

Sanctification is seen by Protestants in a Biblical way. Taking from Hebrews chapter 10, in verse 10 the writer says that by this will we have been sanctified.

That's a paraphrastic construction there, a perfect paracycle with a finite verb. We have been sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

So there is a perfect completed state of sanctification. But then in verse 14 it says, for by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

A present participle is used there in the passage. So we see sanctification in regards to the forgiveness of sins, in regards to our standing before God as a state that we have that is completed and as a process that God is working out in our lives.

Now justification I solidly believe, Dr. Pogba, we are constrained by the

Biblical use by Paul to believe is judicial, forensic, legal.

It is a declaration. It is a past tense thing. It is done solely on the basis of faith. Romans 5 .1, Romans 4 .4

through 5. And since it is not described in the way that sanctification is described and since Paul himself,

I believe the passage is 1 Corinthians chapter 30 where Jesus Christ is described as what?

As our sanctification and our righteousness. Paul does not confuse the two terms.

But he says all of this comes from Jesus Christ. We are justified because of the merits of Jesus Christ.

We are sanctified because of the work of Jesus Christ. We are sanctified by his offering upon the cross as a completed action and the

Holy Spirit of God and over and over again I feel erroneously from my perspective almost contrasted the

Protestant position with the idea that God changes us. He does. You know that we believe that he does.

God changes us but he changes us not in justification but in regeneration which is the sovereign work of God whereby in the

Holy Spirit he makes us alive and in the process of sanctification where we experience in our lives the working of the

Holy Spirit in conforming us to the image of Christ and all of that again is solely to the praise of God the

Father. But all of it is based solely upon the work of Christ not anything meritorious in and of myself.

We strongly believe doctor that to say that any of my works can in any way be viewed as meritorious is to seriously detract from the sufficiency of the work of Christ.

I realize that's our next debate topic next Wednesday but that is really foundational to where we're coming from there.

Okay. The two problems that I have here.

First of all is the separation that you make and we mentioned this before between sanctification and justification.

As you know in Hebrew throughout the Old Testament typically terms are set as parallel to each other as a way to define each other.

And in Paul himself sanctification is not always placed as a process after justification.

Again the passage in 611 places sanctification before justification in the aorist.

Something once completed. And yet obviously something also that must go on.

It must continue too as you would admit that sanctification in the aorist there is also something that must continue.

So here that distinction that you're making is two separate and the biblical texts don't support that especially when

Christ describes justification and other passages as something that's moral.

Our sense the Catholic belief in the scriptural because what we see in scripture is that justification and sanctification are getting at the same process not two separate and opposed processes.

So that's one difficulty. The other difficulty is the radical separation that you're making between what

God does and what humans do. It's almost as if you're taking especially not you so much as your forebears took some of St.

Augustine's Manichaeism, the separation of the human from God, of the material from the spiritual and have blown that part of Augustine out of proportion and are seeing that the role of the human being is nothing at all when that's not what

Christ is saying. From what we see in terms of the use of Christ commanding us to do righteousness saying that it's necessary, saying that it's the basis of merit.

First of all I point out that I directly admitted that we believe and present a two -fold understanding of sanctification.

One that it is a state accomplished by the work of Christ. The other is a process and so therefore Paul's use of the aorist in 1

Corinthians 6 .11 would not in any way be inconsistent with that understanding that comes out of, for example,

Hebrews 10 .10. I don't believe we make a radical separation or distinction. I emphasize in my opening statements that he who is justified will be sanctified.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 6 .11 I strongly disagree with you that A. the context is baptism or that this is how a person is made righteous before God in any way, shape or form.

You mention 1 John 3 in your other statements that he who does righteousness is righteous. I would point out to you it is not by the doing of righteousness that one becomes righteous.

He who is righteous will do that which his nature demands, and that is righteousness. But how do we become righteous?

We don't become righteous by doing righteousnesses. We become righteous by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Then, since we're changed, we do righteousness.

Thank you, gentlemen. Next section of our presentation, we will have two questions.

I will ask a question first of Mr. White. He will have two minutes to address that question, and then

Father Pacwa will have two minutes to address the same question, and also at the same time refute if he wishes

Mr. White. Then, I will ask Father Pacwa a question. He will have two minutes in which to answer, and Mr.

White will have two minutes and will do that, two questions each individual. After that, we will have two fifteen -minute periods for closing remarks, beginning with Father Pacwa, ending with Mr.

White. The first question is for Mr. White, and I will read the question twice.

Alright? Then you will have two minutes in which to answer the question. How do you reconcile the apparent contradiction in James 2 24, where we are told, we are justified by works, and that of Romans 4,

Galatians 3, and Romans 3, where we find man is justified by faith apart from works of law?

First of all, in addressing this earlier, I pointed out that in the Old Testament, Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15, 6.

The action of offering Isaac upon the altar, which is what James is referring to, here in James chapter 2, took place many years later.

So I assert the following things. First of all, this justification that is spoken of by James is not the identical justification that is spoken of by Paul.

James is talking to Christians about living the Christian life. The justification here is a justification of his faith, not a justification of himself before God, and a making of him righteous and accounting of him as righteous before God.

Now, this can be seen from a number of ways. First of all, James himself admits that salvation is solely the work of God by the

Word of God in James 1, 17, and 18. So he is not contradicting that. Secondly, he is talking about the demonstration of true living faith over against dead faith.

That is the context of the remarks and that must be remembered. Next, according to Paul, justification, forensically, before God is a one -time, past -tense action.

Again, Romans 5, verse 1, clearly states that is the case.

Therefore, it is impossible that James, as Dr. Pacwa said, the inspired

Word of God in the epistle of James, and I certainly accept it as such, and do not denigrate it in any way, shape, or form, it is impossible that James, in speaking to Christians, not about how they are made

Christians, but about how they should live now that they are, would contradict the clear teaching of Scripture that justification is solely on the basis of the work of Christ, that justification is a past -tense action undertaken by God as judge, and it is solely on the basis of faith,

Romans chapter 5, verse 1. I don't have much problem with the text.

Of course, as I said before, that we have to deal with the fact that James is showing that this is a process of justification that takes place, that this faith is distinguishing living faith from dead faith, but it's dead faith that is made living only by good works.

I don't see St. James saying here that he's justifying his faith. I don't see him mention that he's talking about justifying his faith.

That's reading into the text, something that's not there. And it's trying to interpret the text through other passages to make it say that, but even these editions don't make it say that.

Another thing, another point I wanted to make, something I first sort of stopped a minute, was referring to Galatians chapter 3, verse 10 through 12.

You mentioned that that is just talking about works, and not works of the law, but that's not the case. It's the works of the law that are mentioned three times in that passage in Galatians 3.

And that what St. Paul is talking about is saying that the works of the law of the Old Testament and its ritual and its circumcision do not justify, but our faith does.

But as St. James says, that faith would be the beginning, and that it has to be completed by our good works.

And that unless we have good works, not only is our faith dead, but we are not justified. That our justification comes by our works, along with our faith.

So that the two have to be together. And that's the Catholic position. It's able to make better sense of the text as it's written, and keep both texts intact in their own places.

And as far as it being something that justification is something that's done by faith in the past tense once and for all, we also have to remember that in Romans chapter 3, verse 24, before that passage, that a present participle is used.

That you are being justified freely by him, by his grace, through the redemption in Christ.

So that it's a present action that's going on in St. Paul. With all your technical discussion,

I would like to know if it is possible for a Roman Catholic to know emphasis on know he is righteous before God, or is he always left wondering if he has ever become righteous enough for eternal salvation?

Good question. There are a couple possibilities of knowing.

First of all, if you have a direct revelation from God that you are justified, then you can believe that.

And you can have certitude from that. And that's mentioned in some of the texts that Mr.

White has brought up. You can have moral certitude that you are justified.

That is, given what you understand of yourself, that you can have moral certitude that I'm justified.

But, we also have to realize that St. Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 admits that even though I have nothing on my conscience, that does not mean that I am justified.

And that's what St. Paul says. He was not himself positive. Now some Protestants try to interpret that differently and say, well, that means he's not justified by his own actions.

That's not the plain sense of the text. St. Paul explicitly states that even though I don't have anything on my conscience, that does not mean that I am justified.

So he doesn't have absolute certainty. And in 1 Corinthians 9, he speaks of the same thing.

He has to keep on struggling in the faith. And so there's a sense that, do

I have absolute certitude? No, I do not, barring any revelation from God directly.

But I can have moral certitude. Yeah, I'm doing as best I understand, and I'm at peace with that, and most

Catholics I know are at peace with that. Is it possible to become scrupulous? Oh, sure. But that's something that we also try to deal with in talking to people.

And that's something that comes in pastoral care. But that's not the norm for Catholicism. The norm is to have moral certitude that I've been forgiven by Christ, and that his grace is operative in me, and that even if I do sin,

I don't have to depend just on my own anxiety to become free of it, but Christ will stir my heart with the

Holy Spirit to bring me back to him so that I can depend on that. Dr.

Parker began by saying, if you have a direct revelation from God, I do.

It's called the Word of God, and the Word of God says, therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. So we have a direct revelation from God. I believe that the Roman Catholic cannot have true certainty.

Dr. Ott, as I had said earlier, the reason, he says, I'm quoting, the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation, nobody can know with certainty of faith whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.

Dr. Parker, the reason that I can have a certainty of justification is not a subjective thing, but you see the difference between you and I, between the

Protestant and the Roman Catholic, Dr., is that your uncertainty comes from your inability of knowing whether you yourself have fulfilled all the prerequisites, all the conditions necessary for your justification.

I don't believe there are any prerequisites necessary for my justification, because Jesus Christ, my substitute, died in my place,

I have his righteousness, and therefore he who is the second person of the Trinity, the perfect son of God, it is his righteousness

I have, he stands in my place, and there can be no uncertainty that that righteousness will avail before the judgment seat of Christ.

And therefore, I can have certainty that justification is finished in the work of Jesus Christ.

Now in regards to 1 Corinthians 4, I think you said 1 Corinthians 3, I thought, it's 1 Corinthians 4, 4,

Paul is talking about, he's talking to people who are opposing his apostleship divisions in the church, and he says,

I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not by this justified or acquitted. God, the

Lord is the one who is judging me. He's obviously not talking in that context about how a man is made right before God.

He's talking about the ministry. Okay. This is question, second question for Mr.

White. Can justification mean something more, or other, than imputation?

For instance, can it not mean vindication, such as Matthew 11, 19, where wisdom is, quote, justified of her children, end quote, and is this the way that James refers to justification in contrast to Paul's legal declaration?

Well, definitely. I agree. In fact, in my opening statements, I pointed out that the term dikaiosune, the verb form dikaio, righteousness, or declare righteous, is used in different ways, but I have attempted to center my attention upon the actual use by Paul, for Paul is specifically discussing how it is that unjust men can be made just, how they can be made righteous.

Now, the question asked, can it mean something other than imputation? I don't believe that justification means imputation.

I believe that righteousness is imputed by the declaration of God to those who have faith in Christ Jesus.

But yes, it can mean vindication, and yes, I believe that's exactly what I just said in regards to James chapter 2, but that is what

James is talking about, and I believe James is pulling from some of those passages from the

Old Testament that Dr. Hockwell, where the roots that we have discussed before are used in that way.

In fact, some of the hephel forms are used in the sense of vindicating the widow, or the orphan, or something along those lines.

But what I want to emphasize is that in Roman Catholic theology, this justification, aside from not being merely forensic, as it is normally said, merely a legal declaration, involves a subjective change of the individual.

And I do not believe that that understanding can bear up to the examination of Paul's doctrine of justification where he specifically speaks of this.

In wisdom literature about Christians having their faith vindicated, fine. When you talk about wisdom itself being vindicated in Matthew, that's fine.

But when we're talking specifically where the Scripture addresses how we who are unjust and know it in our hearts can be considered righteous in God's sight, that usage of the term is strictly and clearly defined as being the declaration by the eternal judge on the basis of the merits of Christ, who substituted for us our justification.

I too would agree, after having done a lot of work on the meaning, that it has a wide range of meanings.

It's, Hebrew has, and especially Hebrew, has just a few words compared to our language, and even compared to Greek.

And so as one rabbi said to me in grad studies, where there's confusion, there's possibility. Now, so we do agree on that entirely, that there's a wide range of meaning and that that's where we have to take a look at context and so on.

That's not the dispute. The issue is that can you take those wide range of meanings of justification and righteousness and fit them into a whole system that's consistent?

And that's what I don't see going on in the Protestant position. In the Protestant position, it's a focus on this juridical understanding, practically limiting itself to Paul.

As a matter of fact, in one of Mr. White's books, that's exactly what he says. He says, I unapologetically limit myself to Paul in this discussion and sees it all there.

While we see that Paul was dealing with one specific pastoral problem, namely that of Judaizing and of attempting to bring in circumcision to the

Christian way of life, and it does not include all the other aspects of righteousness that the

Scripture itself speaks of, including James, which I still disagree with Mr.

White's interpretation, that it is justification that St. James is speaking of and using the same passages referring to Abraham that Paul uses because he's bringing out another aspect of Christ.

Just like the different Gospels emphasize different aspects of the personality of Christ and different deeds,

John is different from the other Gospels, so also James helps to round out the

Gospel that Paul preaches and gives us new aspects of it that complete it by saying that our justification has to include works, works that God gives us the grace to do.

Final question for Father Pacwa. When you speak of a faith that works itself out in love, are you implying a salvation that produces works of love?

At what point does a person have that kind of faith? When you speak of a faith...

Well, the point at which a person has a faith that works itself out in love is clearly when one is giving one's whole self to the other.

First of all, we're talking about the Greek word for love, agape, which is a self -gift kind of love that God defines as his own personality.

We see in 1 John chapter 4 that God says, God is love. He says God is love.

That's God's nature to be love. When my... God's nature is to be self -giving, therefore when

I'm self -giving, then my faith is filled with love, and it's working itself out with love.

And I have to be self -giving, first of all, to God, giving Him all the praise and the glory, giving Him my whole self, that everything

I do should be for the greater praise and glory of God, that's the motto of my order, everything for the greater glory of God, and to my neighbor.

I have to show love to my neighbor, the one who is least, the person most in need, that these are the people

I have to show love to. Now that is the evidence of that love, of God and of neighbor, that I have to show in that love.

But I also want to emphasize that that is going to be true because God, who is love, gives me

Himself. He gives me His own Holy Spirit. In Romans chapter 5, it's the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit that makes it possible for us to love. And that because of God dwelling within me as His gift, something

I have not earned, I cannot earn the infinite presence of God inside my soul. I can't.

But because God gives me Himself, gives me His Holy Spirit, then I become capable of loving.

And that this is intrinsically part of my justification, as Christ teaches us.

And it's therefore something that is necessary for me to get into Heaven. Not something extra, but something absolutely necessary.

I know that Protestants believe, and not only believe that you have to be sanctified, Protestants become sanctified.

I see it in many holy Protestants that I've lived with, worked with, and studied with. A difficult question to address.

I would answer the question by stating again the very important presupposition that I am coming from.

And that is, as Jonah said long ago, salvation is of the Lord. Not simply the plan of salvation, but salvation.

We are saved by grace, we are kept by grace. All of grace, from beginning to end.

There is nothing I can do to save myself or keep myself saved. If the grace of God were not with me continually,

I would never ever, ever stand before God. When does this faith occur?

I believe that faith is the gift of God. Faith is given to us in regeneration.

We are regenerated. We are made alive spiritually. We are given the gifts of faith and repentance.

Since these are supernatural works, given in accordance with the sovereign plan of God, He will accomplish what

He has decided to do. And when He brings a person into a state of regeneration, He makes them alive. He gives them faith and repentance.

That faith will be a true saving faith that, as Paul says, works itself out in love.

So that we do love. So that we are being sanctified. That is part of what God is doing within us.

But I must again point out to you the difference from where Dr. Pacwa and I are coming from. Faith is the passive instrument of receiving justification according to Scripture.

That is how we are justifying. It is not a part of a process where we receive grace from God, whereby we can then do works that merit eternal salvation, that merit eternal life.

We cannot merit even our actions down in the state of grace cannot merit anything from God. Grace cannot be merited.

The Word doesn't allow for the meaning. Instead, the only merit that you and I can ever possibly have is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

That's all. Before we get into the final section, I'd like to remind each of you by having a 15 minute summation by Father Pacwa, and then we will have a 15 minute summation by Mr.

White. Thank you Mr. White for this opportunity.

And I think we've seen the difference between the Catholic and the Protestant position.

That the sense that the Protestant has of faith alone as the way to salvation, as the way to justification, as the way to appropriate what

Christ has done for us, and that this is given to us as His gift. And that the

Catholic point of view is definitely different from that. That it's not faith alone, but that it's also our works of the righteousness that we have to do.

That God gives us by grace alone. That makes it possible for us to be saved.

I still see some difficulties in Mr. White's position in these places.

First of all, Mr. White has, I think, not dealt fully with the problem that I brought up with Martin Luther's image.

Namely that of the dung covered by snow. And that Christ's merits just cover us in justification.

And even though he clearly does speak about the importance of sanctification, and I'm sure,

I have no doubt, he, like so many other Protestants, most Protestants live out sanctification.

Nonetheless, he ignores the problem of his position. Namely that underneath, in your justification, you are still, this pile of dung, you're still the sinner.

As Luther said, that you are simu iustus epicate, you're still justified at the same time that you're a sinner.

And that it's just Christ covering us over that makes us justified. And this position,

I think, does not deal with the reality of what Christ is speaking of in the Gospels. That we have to become righteous.

And it's something that is intrinsic to us. And that this is something that is necessary for salvation, necessary for getting into heaven.

I don't think that Mr. White has addressed that question very clearly at all.

Presumably, if you follow the doctrine of most Protestants, that once you are justified, then you can go to heaven.

But Christ says, unless our justification, our righteousness exceeds that of the

Scribes and Pharisees, we can't. And I don't see that he has been able to address that. Another problem

I see from all that he has said so far is he still has not shown from Scripture that it's justification by faith alone.

Yes, justification by faith. And St. Paul says, you have been justified by faith, the errorous past tense happened once and that's it.

But there are other passages where it is still ongoing. And it's something that is still in the future too. When Christ tells us to let us keep on doing what is righteous.

In Revelation 22. Verse 11. So that, even though we agree that justification comes by faith, and that the justification we

Catholics understand that comes by faith, that is past, removes all our past sins.

To be sure, we agree on that. But what he has not shown is that it is justification by faith alone.

And he still has not satisfactorily answered the problem that James says, when he says that you are not saved or justified by faith alone.

Scripture explicitly denies that, and that denial is not refuted at this point.

And so, those are a couple of the problems that I have with Mr. White's presentation.

As has been the problem with the Protestant presentation of justification for the last 500 years.

I don't think that he deals seriously enough with the problem that this belief is something that was invented by the

Reformers. Wycliffe and Huss, Luther and the others. And that's it.

And that even among them, they could not agree. And he did mention that some of the fathers had this idea and that theory.

Nonetheless, what we see as uniformity of the teaching of the church on justification is that we are saved and justified in this whole process.

This is taught not only at Trent, but also taught at the Council of Orange, and by St.

Augustine, and prior to St. Augustine as well. And this is shown in the book,

Justitia Day, that I mentioned earlier. The Catholic position on justification is both most fitting to the whole of Scripture and most fitting to the whole of the history of Christianity.

It's not an innovation. It's not a late tradition started by human beings.

And that's the position that we take towards the Protestant Reformers. We see them not being able to include all of Scripture, not being consistent with the history of the church.

And what conclusion can we possibly come up with except to say that this is a tradition of men.

The kind of tradition that is not to be accepted, but rather a tradition that we have to put off to its side and look again at the

Scriptures to see the whole doctrine of the Word of God. That whole doctrine, as I've said repeatedly, invites us to a life of holiness.

Does it lead to a life of anxiety? I think that's a caricature. That's not my experience.

That's not the experience of the most Catholics. It leads to a caricature that we're filled with anxiety and trembling and fear that we shouldn't have.

And it takes away our peace. I just don't buy that. That there is a peace that comes to us from the fact that God is acting inside of us.

God is giving us peace. And it is Christ's peace that comes to us as a free gift, not just because I'm doing everything

I have to be to justify, as if there's some list that I have to make sure I hit all the points. Christ is giving me peace as I'm along the way of justification, as I'm on this path of justification.

And there's peace in which he gives me his glory and his grace now, grace that comes to me through the sacraments, through the reconciliation and the sacrament of penance, through baptism and so on.

All the things that Mr. White has mentioned a number of times, and which we believe because we see them in Scripture as the way to receive

God's justice, God's justification. And that this peace takes us from one level of glory to another.

But at the same time, what he would posit as part of the sanctification process is called by Scripture justification.

Dikaiosune. And at this process of change inside of me so that I enter into the family of God and become truly an heir of what

Christ has won for me is something that we're all invited to do. What I urge

Catholics here is to become more Catholic, to experience life as a process, a whole series of conversions in which we have more and more faith, and we have more and more good works, more and more love, more and more righteousness.

Doing what St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians of going from one glory into another.

That Christ's action within us is like leaven. His word is like leaven.

Taking us, the loaf, taking us the lump of dough and making it much more than we could possibly be on our own.

Much more than we could possibly imagine. For those who are Protestants, what

I would say to you is be glad for the faith you have. That the faith you have is a gift of God as you recognize and as we recognize.

As you teach and as we teach. But also to realize that the faith that you have isn't complete.

That there's more for you. More that Christ asks of you. More that Christ speaks to your heart from the word of God.

Saying that if you want the reward that he has to offer you, the reward of eternal life, if you want to get into heaven, if you want to be in that kingdom, then live out the righteousness that Christ asks you to live out.

Being moral as he asks us to be moral. Not just as some separate process, but as integral.

Integral to the whole process of justification that was begun with your faith. But it needs to move along farther and farther deeper and deeper in.

This is the glory that God wants to give you. He wants you to experience the helps that he has to offer you.

And there are more of them. So accept those helps that God gives you.

Accept them. He's given them to his church. The church he founded. Not in 1600.

Not in 1518. But the church that he founded on the apostles.

The one that goes back to him consistently teaching the same doctrine of justification.

Then among the apostles and through the history of the church with the fathers and even to this day.

Work within that as we keep on building that body of Christ. It's Christ who makes me part of him, makes you part of him, as branches on the vine because he's truly within us and we are truly in him.

And that this process is not going to be some legal imputation but a real transformation.

Oh sure there will be times in which we'll be pruned. That's part of it. And there will be times in which when we sin or when we don't do enough

Christ will prune us. Well actually Christ teaches us in John 15 that the father will prune us.

That's to be expected. Does that mean that we have anxiety and that we're always in fear or trembling of losing our salvation?

No. Does it mean that there is no fear and trembling? That's not true either. Saint Paul tells us to have it and to keep a sense of balance.

But what we're inviting you to in the Catholic doctrine is to keep the sense of balance that scripture keeps.

The sense of balance that God wants you to have because he speaks of it himself. He directs us to it.

Peace? Yes. And fear and trembling as we work out our faith? Yes. Both of them.

Consistent. Part of what God asks us to do through Saint Paul his great apostle.

I have some more time I think that that's enough. For us to see what we've seen what scripture says and let's just give our hearts to it and let it form us and transform us into what

God wants. I believe in light of the phone conversations you and I had a number of months ago that we can say that this evening has been a success because we both agreed that our desire was that everyone present would be able to have an opportunity of understanding and clearly distinguishing between the two positions that we were presenting.

And I believe that in that light we have definitely accomplished that goal. Now, Dr. Pacwa has mentioned

Luther's example concerning the pile of dung and the snow and he's used the term that this snow just covers over this but we remain dung.

And whatever Luther's concept might have been I want to make sure that we understand that the

Protestant does not believe that a person can be justified without having been regenerated by the sovereign grace of God and that the promise of the word of God is that God by His Holy Spirit will continue that work.

He will sanctify that individual. He has been sanctified by the work of Christ and the

Holy Spirit will continue that process. We are truly transformed. It is not a choice between well either be transformed or just be considered to be transformed.

No, we are truly transformed. No one denies this but that's not justification. Romans 8 .33

Paul says who shall bring a charge against the elect of God? God is the one justifying.

Who is the one condemning? Christ Jesus the one who died yes rather the one who raised up and who is at the right hand of God and who intercedes for us.

God is the one justifying and that's a present tense usage as well Dr. Pacwa but it doesn't indicate that justification is ongoing action no more than Romans 3 .24

does. God is continually justifying believers. God is the one who justifies.

That doesn't mean that it's an action because Paul makes it very clear that in Romans 5 .1 it's an action that takes place in the past not one that's ongoing in the present.

Justification biblically speaking according to Romans 8 .33 and many other passages is a declaration upon the part of God he justifies the elect so that no charge can be brought against them.

But I want to remind you what Dr. Pacwa just said. This is not a matter of fear or we do have fear and trembling but we still have peace.

Let us remember that what Roman Catholicism is actually telling us. Roman Catholicism is telling us that the relationship that we have before God can be destroyed by the commission of immortal sin.

I asked Dr. Pacwa about not loving the Lord your God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. He said well it's not probably not an immortal sin but it's the greatest commandment.

How can it not be? That is the highest commandment God has given to us and all of us in here know that in and of ourselves we do not love the

Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. But let's say that it's not a mortal sin.

I can't believe how it couldn't be. The fact remains that the relationship that we have with God can be destroyed by an act of mortal sin.

And then what do you have to do? What are we being asked to believe that the New Testament actually teaches that we have to do to be justified?

Paul has said we have been justified by faith but the Roman Catholic Church tells us well if you fall from that grace then you have to be justified by the sacrament of penance.

What does that involve? Well it involves contrition. It involves confessing each one of your mortal sins in completeness to a priest who then gives you absolution from the eternal punishment and guilt but not necessarily from the temporal punishments of that sin and then assigns penances to you, works that you must do.

That is how you gain justification. That is what you are being asked to believe is what Paul meant when he said therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. But it's not there. Dr. Pacwa has said I've read things into the text.

If that isn't reading something into the text I don't know what is. That whole concept of doing works to merit something from God is nowhere in this book called the

Bible. We have peace with God because the relationship that we have with Him is perfect because it's based upon the finished and completed work of Jesus Christ.

That is why. That is why it is perfect. That is why we have true shalom. True peace is because we are in Christ Jesus.

Not because we have gone through this or that penance or sacrament.

Dr. Pacwa said, Jesus said, your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

And yes it must. And if that's the case my friends and if what that means is that my personal acts of righteousness must be greater than theirs then we are all in a great deal of trouble this evening.

What does Jesus mean? What does the whole counsel of God say? When I stand before God whose righteousness will

I plead? God has imputed righteousness to me apart from works.

Romans chapter 4 whose righteousness? Not mine. The righteousness of Jesus Christ.

And His righteousness my friends does exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

So we will have that righteousness. It is His. What is the basis in conclusion from the

Protestant perspective? What is the basis of the whole discussion this evening? While we have spent much time discussing works and how these are related we must remember that justification in Scripture salvation in Scripture is solely and completely the work of God in Jesus Christ.

To say that we by our works must merit eternal life in Heaven is to say that the work of Jesus Christ, the one that the angel said would save His people from their sins is insufficient to accomplish that which

God said it would accomplish. That is the biggest difference between us this evening. Salvation is of God's grace.

God didn't have to save anyone. Grace is unmerited favor. It can never be merited.

And that is why Dr. Pacwa said but Mr. White hasn't shown us where the phrase faith alone is used in Scripture.

But my friends, Paul said in Romans 4 .16 therefore it is on the basis of faith so it might be according to grace.

What does he mean? Because faith is not a work. Faith doesn't merit anything.

Faith is not an action on our part where we try to merit something from God. Faith recognizes we can't merit anything from God.

We are undone. We are filthy in our sin. There is none who seeks after God, Paul said in Romans 3 .11.

We are undone and the faith that God places into our heart is in perfect harmony with grace.

Because it gets rid of the struggle to attempt by what we're doing over and over again to gain justification.

We do what we do as Christians. We live the life we live as Christians. We do the works of righteousness that are ours.

We love one another. We love God. We do all these things we've talked about tonight not to gain something from God.

Not because God is working in us so that we can gain something from God. The Christian looks back at Calvary and the

Christian knows that that is where he was saved. I have been crucified with Christ, Paul said.

I was crucified with Christ. My sins were nailed to that cross. All of them. Including the temporal punishments.

Nailed to the cross of Calvary. And therefore I can have peace with God because there is no hindrance.

Roman Catholicism tells us you can be justified but still have temporal punishments for sins to be atoned for by satis passio in purgatory.

No. There is no hindrance between me and my God. Because in Jesus Christ I have been declared righteous not for anything done in me but for what

Jesus Christ did in my place. That is how I stand before God.

That is the sole basis of justification. The work of Christ is a complete and perfect work.

Remember what the writers of the Hebrews said? I cited it earlier this evening. Hebrews chapter 10, verse 10.

Listen to what the writer says. By this will he has sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.

We have been sanctified, I'm sorry, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. We have been sanctified how?

By the work of Christ. And verse 10, verse 14 the

Bible describes us as being perfected by the offering of Jesus Christ. There's nothing in there about my working out my salvation to gain it.

Yes, you cannot work something out until you have it. I have salvation. Christ is the one who has made me perfect.

Not perfect in the sense of being sinlessly perfect. I sin, but my sins were imputed to my

Lord Jesus Christ who died on the cross in my place and His righteousness is then imputed to me.

That is how you who are unjust can stand before God just. That is how you who feel that you can never through all the works that you do even attempting as best as you can to cooperate with grace you never come to that point where you really do have a certainty that God has accepted you.

And without some supernatural revelation you're told you can't. But if you're seeking freedom from that here's where it is.

Knowing and believing that God in Jesus Christ has provided full and complete salvation so that by His sacrifice

He perfects those for whom it is made. How are we saved?

By faith in Jesus Christ. By a faith that is given to us by God through the

Holy Spirit of God. I want to close with one particular passage this evening. It's one that we've mentioned a couple times in our discussion tonight but it's 1

Corinthians chapter 1 verse 30. And there's a little phrase at the beginning that I really think states for me anyways what some of the foundational differences between what

I believe the gospel is and what has been presented by Dr. Pacwa this evening what they are.

For by Him you are in Christ Jesus. By Him Dr.

you're the scholar I'd probably identify that as an ablative of agency. I think that's what it is.

That is by the work of God you are in Christ Jesus.

It is by Him you are in Christ Jesus. Not by anything that we can do. Not by our cooperation of grace.

We are in Christ Jesus because of the gracious decision of the

Father before eternity itself, Ephesians 1 tells us. And because we are in Him, because we are united with Christ by the

Father's decision then the death of Christ becomes our death.

Dr. Pacwa said, Romans 8 1, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

They cannot be condemned. They are in Christ Jesus and since they are in Him, then

Christ's death is their death. Christ's resurrection is their resurrection.

Most importantly to us tonight, Christ's righteousness is their righteousness.

We shall all stand before the judgment bar of Christ. Yes. We shall all stand before God.

Jesus said, John 5 24, as many as hear my voice and believe in Him who sent me they have eternal life and they shall not come into judgment but they have passed out of death into life.

That is the Christian's hope. But when we stand before God how shall we be judged?

I submit to you that the only righteousness that can avail before the

Holy God of Israel is perfect perfect spotless, blameless righteousness.

My friends, there is only one person who has that and that is

Jesus Christ. If you are not in Him and you are not pleading only His righteousness, you cannot be saved.

That is the only righteousness that can avail. I thank all of you this evening for your attentiveness.

I thank Dr. Pacwa for his presentation. I believe that we have been successful in doing that thing that we wanted to do.

You know the two sides. And now is my prayer that by the Holy Spirit you will look into the

Word of God. You will be in submission to the Word of God and to the Word of God only. That which is

God breathed revelation and that you will do what the Word of God instructs you to do.